Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[hauritz]

Possibly a suggestion to increase the amount of vls available to the RAN would be to assess the Virginia class submarines to be acquired to consider the Virginia Payload module ,,if Australia is to acquire a number of the Virginia class submarines perhaps selecting these would be more useful they could be expected to have a complementary role to the AUKUS type submarine ,this would be instead of further Hobart class destroyers
The Navy’s ‘New’ Block V Virginia-Class Submarine Has A Secret | The Runway (airforce.gov.au)

Australia might get one or more new builds as part of its submarine purchase and that would suggest either Block 5 or SSN(x). Certainly this would mean a significantly larger missile load out for the RAN. According to wiki Blk 5 can carry 28 more missiles than the the Blk 4.

The plan to accelerate production of Virginia class SSNs to cover those being acquired by the RAN suggests a new for old swap for the USN. Personally I would prefer we got the new subs and America kept the old ones.

 

[Redlands18]

Australia might get one or more new builds as part of its submarine purchase and that would suggest either Block 5 or SSN(x). Certainly this would mean a significantly larger missile load out for the RAN. According to wiki Blk 5 can carry 28 more missiles than the the Blk 4.

The plan to accelerate production of Virginia class SSNs to cover those being acquired by the RAN suggests a new for old swap for the USN. Personally I would prefer we got the new subs and America kept the old ones.

I very much doubt we will get Blk V and the Missile compartment comes as a complete module that is fitted between the forward and aft sections of a Virginia, there is no real reason to see why they can't build 2-3 standard Virginia's even after the last blk IV is delivered. Maybe designated as Blk VI without the VPM but some up to date tech that is being fitted to Blk V. We don't even know if Blk V would be released to Australia anyway.
Lets not forget that the SSN(X) program is 5-6 years behind the SSN AUKUS program, the RN wants them under construction by the late 20s, the USN not until the mid 30s, it is a possibility that the RAN could have a SSN AUKUS in service before the first SSN(X).

 

[seaspear]

I believe some of the advantages of later Virginia class submarines may include easier egress for diving teams and their vehicles, Im not sure if such capabilities for vehicles are being considered for the AUKUS submarines , I would suggest that having a wide range of capabilities across the submarine flotilla is desirable.

 

[hauritz]

A lot is dependant on progress with the AUKUS sub. Personally I think it is unwise to consider the Virginia a placeholder until the first of the new AUKUS submarines arrive. It is its own capability and really should be treated as such.

It may well be desirable to push the AUKUS program back a few more years to ensure we get it right, or even just to free up the workforce for other programs, particularly if we are looking at expanding the surface fleet.

An awful lot can happen between now and then.

 

[devo99]

Just curious because for years have tried to find capabilities of the CEAFAR radars but could never find squat, Is this based on something you read, personnel experience with the systems or an assumption? As an aussie I would love to think that our cheap little CEAFAR may outclass the big all powerful SPY radars but have yet to see any proof of this.

Personal research, background knowledge and knowing people who've worked both on and with CEAFAR and a couple on SPY-6 as well.
I understand that "I know people" isn't a satisfactory answer for most people but there's not exactly much published about these systems for me to cite, particularly in terms of exact numbers.

CEAFAR radars in the same class as SPY are neither cheap nor little. As well, in a ship installation they move quite a bit of weight fairly high by comparison. All such systems are compromises in one way or another, and most evolve over time; saying one is “better” than another without providing context is, quite frankly, nonsensical.

This is all true. Rather than "better" I should have said, stability margins permitting, I'd rather be on a ship fitted with current CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT than the same ship fitted with current SPY-6 and SPG-62. Although I wouldn't be particularly upset with either since both are highly capable systems that outclass just about everything else currently in use.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I ask a question for the knowledgeable. Ukraine recently reportedly shot down Russian Kinzhal “hypersonic” missiles with Patriot SAM batteries. I know the original Patriot has been upgraded but it is quite an old system by now.

so how do naval SAM radars and batteries compare? Does anyone know how the AEGIS/radar combinations existing or planned for the Hunters and Hobarts would compare to Patriot? I’m hoping they might actually be better, assuming they fire SM2, SM6 or ESSM?

 

[seaspear]

Perhaps the missile to be discussed would be the Zircon that is being deployed on Russian ships for such attacks ,the range of the radars may only provide two plus minutes hardly time to overwhelm such an attack
The Zircon: How Much of a Threat Does Russia’s Hypersonic Missile Pose? | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

 

[spoz]

One wonders how maneuverable Zircon is; at Mach 8, even pulling around 15 or 20 g, the turn radius would be large. in addition, the plasma sheath would make acquisition of a target rather difficult; and, while it will also make it difficult to detect the actual missile by radar (but vague memories of the past suggest that the sheath itself is radar reflective), IR should have a field day. ESSM reaches well over Mach 4, and the Standard series something around Mach 3.5; and in any case against a head on target relative speed only means you need to adjust warhead initiation times, although threat identification and engagement time is also reduced. A 90 degree crossing target would certainly be more challenging, though.

 

[vonnoobie]

Its not also just a matter of "my missile is faster then yours" but ability to actually lock on and hit said target. This is why Nulka and the like exist, to tempt missiles away from their target. Its great to be able to knock out an inbound missile, Its better to get it to ignore your ship, No chance if shrapnel damage then.

 

[ASSAIL]

Today marked the 54th anniversary of the collision between HMAS Melbourne and USS FrankE Evans in the South China Sea where 74 USN members lost their lives.
I hope their memory is better remembered in the US than it was here in Australia.
There was no mention in the RAN fb site and no mention in any media outlet, very poor IMHO.
May those who were lost RIP.

 

[ngatimozart]

Today marked the 54th anniversary of the collision between HMAS Melbourne and USS FrankE Evans in the South China Sea where 74 USN members lost their lives.
I hope their memory is better remembered in the US than it was here in Australia.
There was no mention in the RAN fb site and no mention in any media outlet, very poor IMHO.
May those who were lost RIP.

There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar

E kore rātou e kaumātuatia
Pēnei i a tātou kua mahue nei
E kore hoki rātou e ngoikore
Ahakoa pehea i ngā āhuatanga o te wā
I te hekenga atu o te rā
Tae noa ki te aranga mai i te ata
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them
We will remember them.

 

[Bob53]

With the RAN major ship build I wonder is there the option to get some of the work done offshore and bring the hulls to Australia for fit out to increase the drum beat to get hulls in the water faster. Could hull work be outsourced to Sth Korean or Japanese yards? Attached link is suggesting the USN do something similar. Analysis: These may be the world's best warships. And they're not American — CNN

 

[spoz]

The drumbeat in Australia could be increased if there is a desire on the part of Government to do so. Not the Navy or Defence, the decision is not up to them; the politicians. However unless they committed to more hulls it would compromise the concept of continuous naval shipbuilding.

In the case of complex warships such as frigates and destroyers, building the hulls is by no means the part of a shipbuild which consumes the most time, although of course it can be variable depending on the amount of pre outfit of blocks that is done. But if you’re doing a lot of pre outfit you might just as well build the whole thing at that site. It’s systems installation, set to work and testing that is the most time consuming.

For a new design, getting to the production phase typically takes much more time than an actual shipbuild.

Offshore build for the USN will not occur; there is legislation which forbids it, and Congress is not going to change that.

 

[hauritz]

With the RAN major ship build I wonder is there the option to get some of the work done offshore and bring the hulls to Australia for fit out to increase the drum beat to get hulls in the water faster. Could hull work be outsourced to Sth Korean or Japanese yards? Attached link is suggesting the USN do something similar. Analysis: These may be the world's best warships. And they're not American — CNN

Everything I have read in the DSR would seem to indicate a strong desire to build in Australia. When you consider just how much money is involved it is understandable why they would want to keep as much of that in the country as possible. I admit there is a practical aspect of building overseas but whether any Australian government can be convinced of that remains to be seen.

Of course fitting out hulls is something we have already done before but as spoz pointed out preproduction stuff would still take an eternity.

In Australia’s case the best option would probably be to accelerate the programs we already have in place. Unfortunately those are hugely expensive and complex frigate submarine programs that are still a decade away from seeing fruition.

Even if the current navy review recommends a new second tier combatant I can’t see it entering service anytime soon.

Truth is that we should have kept building Hobarts until the Hunters were ready and moved on replacing the Collins about a decade ago but that is all academic now.

 

[Stampede]

Everything I have read in the DSR would seem to indicate a strong desire to build in Australia. When you consider just how much money is involved it is understandable why they would want to keep as much of that in the country as possible. I admit there is a practical aspect of building overseas but whether any Australian government can be convinced of that remains to be seen.

Of course fitting out hulls is something we have already done before but as spoz pointed out preproduction stuff would still take an eternity.

In Australia’s case the best option would probably be to accelerate the programs we already have in place. Unfortunately those are hugely expensive and complex frigate submarine programs that are still a decade away from seeing fruition.

Even if the current navy review recommends a new second tier combatant I can’t see it entering service anytime soon.

Truth is that we should have kept building Hobarts until the Hunters were ready and moved on replacing the Collins about a decade ago but that is all academic now.

Don't disagree with the last sentence, but unfortunately we cannot turn back the clock.

Something to consider with all these Naval review "what if's" is budget!

Is there any money actually put aside for potential outcomes in the Naval Review for the immediate future.

I don't believe that is the case, but still happy to be proved wrong.

This suggests to myself, we either temper our expectations or acknowledge that potential capability upgrades in whatever form will be sometime down the track.

4 to 5 month's away we will get some feedback.


Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

We have a skills shortage in Australia, the reason we have it is because idiot politicians believe it is quicker, cheaper and more economical to do it overseas.

Then we try to run life extensions, upgrades etc. anything above basic sustainment, and low and behold, we hit obstacles related to an insufficient number of competent trade, technical, engineering and management people as well as small and medium companies, experienced in working on major complex problems.

This is the exact same problem the US and UK are currently experiencing.

The only way around this is to have a continuous build that trains, and develops a suitably sized, competent workforce. This should be a strategic aim on its own.

 

[ASSAIL]

We have a skills shortage in Australia, the reason we have it is because idiot politicians believe it is quicker, cheaper and more economical to do it overseas.

Then we try to run life extensions, upgrades etc. anything above basic sustainment, and low and behold, we hit obstacles related to an insufficient number of competent trade, technical, engineering and management people as well as small and medium companies, experienced in working on major complex problems.

This is the exact same problem the US and UK are currently experiencing.

The only way around this is to have a continuous build that trains, and develops a suitably sized, competent workforce. This should be a strategic aim on its own.

I know, Why don’t we build ADF Trade Schools!
Competent trades while in the service, experienced competent trades when they leave the service.
Hundreds joining the economy every year.

 

[ngatimozart]

I know, Why don’t we build ADF Trade Schools!
Competent trades while in the service, experienced competent trades when they leave the service.
Hundreds joining the economy every year.

EXACTLY.

 

[Bob53]

I know, Why don’t we build ADF Trade Schools!
Competent trades while in the service, experienced competent trades when they leave the service.
Hundreds joining the economy every year.

Why did they stop doing it? I Used to live at what was once Balcome Army Apprentice school at Mt Martha….

 

[knightrider4]

Don't disagree with the last sentence, but unfortunately we cannot turn back the clock.

Something to consider with all these Naval review "what if's" is budget!

Is there any money actually put aside for potential outcomes in the Naval Review for the immediate future.

I don't believe that is the case, but still happy to be proved wrong.

This suggests to myself, we either temper our expectations or acknowledge that potential capability upgrades in whatever form will be sometime down the track.

4 to 5 month's away we will get some feedback.


Cheers S

A bit of naval gazing here no pun intended, I would expect the Hunter build to be cut to six and the required fleet numbers made up of a far less capable frigate or corvette, no need to restate what I think about corvettes in the Australian context. Its all about a desire to not prioritize defence and with that mindset comes an overall drop in capability, which is no big deal if you have absolutely no intention if you have any control of the situation to use it. As for the 6 month review headed by an ex USN admiral that you should tell you everything you need to know about what is coming. I don't want to be the one to say I told you so. One obviously has to ask ones self why have Australian naval personnel been kept out of the review? I know of no other country and would be pleased to be corrected of any other country using a foreign naval officer to conclude what the make up of the surface fleet is. Negligent and boundlessly incompetent I'm afraid and just a tad embarrassing.