Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Redlands18]

Interesting article in Defence Connect regarding a recent presentation from BAE Australia to the Fed Govt showcasing a new Air Warfare Destroyer design base on an evolved Hunter Class design, also apparently pitched to the Brits as their new Type 83 Air Warfare Destroyer, to replace the type 45.
128 Mark 41 Cells each!

I spy with my little eye: BAE presentation reveals interesting next-gen Destroyer concept

Australia isn't alone in facing questions about the amount of firepower available to our surface fleet and recognising this, it appears that BAE Systems have been quietly working away on an impressiv

www.defenceconnect.com.au

That is a very strange claim, apparently coming from a former RAN CN, to compare the missile load out of the Perth and Adelaide classes in 1995 to that of the Hobarts and Anzacs in 2020. The Perth's and Adelaide's each carried 1 Mk 13 launcher and a 40 round magazine capable of carrying Standard or Harpoon missiles, so the maximum missile load out in 1995 was 360. Today each Hobart could technically carry up to 192 ESSM(though of course a typical load would be 32-40 Standards and 32-64 ESSM), each Anzac can carry 32 ESSMs (only 8 less missiles than the DDGs/FFGs in 95). All 11 current ships can also carry 8 Harpoon missiles, so the correct comparison would be 360 v 600+. The Hobart VLS can also be fitted for SM-3, SM-6, VL-ASROC and Tomahawk LACMs.
So a realistic comparison of a RAN TF of 1 Destroyer and 2 Frigates
1995
120 MR missiles
SSMs only at the expense of SAMs
2020
32-40 MR-LR missiles
96-128 SR-MR missiles
24 SSMs
3 Helicopters carrying SR ASMs

I would say BAE are working on a number of options for the Type 26 to offer Australia if there is any change away from the current plan or as a follow-on class to replace the Hobarts in the 2040s.

 

[spoz]

David is banging his usual drum -“it was all better managed then”. He’s never really got over not being allowed to acquire the Kidds in the late 90s (which was never really a practical proposition),nor has he forgiven those involved.

 

[ADMk2]

Interesting article in Defence Connect regarding a recent presentation from BAE Australia to the Fed Govt showcasing a new Air Warfare Destroyer design base on an evolved Hunter Class design, also apparently pitched to the Brits as their new Type 83 Air Warfare Destroyer, to replace the type 45.
128 Mark 41 Cells each!

I spy with my little eye: BAE presentation reveals interesting next-gen Destroyer concept

Australia isn't alone in facing questions about the amount of firepower available to our surface fleet and recognising this, it appears that BAE Systems have been quietly working away on an impressiv

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Shackleton was being a bit disingenuous in those comments.The RAN didn’t have 368x missile cells. On the FFG’s for example it had 9x (With a 40x round magazine beneath the main launcher). With quad-packed ESSM and canister launched Harpoon, there is no contest between missile availability numbers (loaded with the assumption of course RAN weapon stocks actually allows for the filling of all available missile launch cells).

8x VLS for ESSM and a single arm Mk.13 GMLS for SM-2 and Harpoon, which could only fire 1 weapon at a time (up to 20 seconds between reload and firing) and RoF varried from missile to missile. They also obviously could not engage in simultaneous anti-air or anti-surface missile firings (until ESSM because available).

There is no contest between the rate of fire of a Mk.41 VLS and Mk.140/Mk.141 combination (Harpoon canister launchers) compared to the older Mk.13 / Mk.41 combination with the former being capable of employing ESSM, SM and Harpoon firings virtually simultaneously if required, which the latter is simply, technologically unable to do,

 

[seaspear]

Because the initial three unit Virginia Class buy is a stepping stone to the AUKUS class and these will be second hand. The extra two vessels discussed appears to be a fall back if the AUKUS class is delayed. The additional two may also be second hand as indicated in the Whitehouse fact sheet

FACT SHEET: Trilateral Australia-UK-US Partnership on Nuclear-Powered Submarines | The White House

• Sale of U.S. Virginia Class Submarines. Beginning in the early 2030s, pending approval from the U.S. Congress, the United States intends to sell Australia three Virginia class submarines, with the potential to sell up to two more if needed. This action is critical to continue growing Australia’s ability to own and operate a fleet of SSNs, and to provide Australia with a sovereign capability at the earliest possible date. It also ensures Australia sustains its undersea capabilities until SSN-AUKUS is ready, given the planned retirement of Australia’s current fleet of submarines.

As this is in the public domain and I suggest that such material should be considered when suggesting what the RAN should get. The pathway is also pretty clear from Australian DoD pages ....

AUKUS Nuclear-Powered Submarine Pathway | About | Defence

The Optimal Pathway | About | Defence

View attachment 50570

Once again, in respect of looking to the future any ambit recommendations consider material that is in the public domain. This will reduce the frustration of many and avoid being pinged for suggesting a fantasy fleet.

Cheers
alexsa

Should the RAN also be considering the upgrades to latter blocks of the Virginia class in their sensors
Navy New Virginia Block VI Virginia Attack Boat Will Inform SSN(X) - USNI News

 

[Stampede]

It always gives me a chuckle when someone refers back to the 2009 Rudd DWP as if it was God handing down the 10 Commandments to Moses.

It’s as if some people believe the 2009 DWP was a document set in stone, and the clock was supposed to start ticking from the day it was published, but it wasn’t, was it?

The 2009 Rudd DWP may well have ‘recommended’ 8 x Frigates (‘Future’ Frigates in fact), 12 x Submarines and 20 x OCVs, but not one was actually ordered, not one, true?

Roll the clock forward to the 2013 Gillard DWP, and still not one ship, or sub, from the 2009 Rudd DWP was on order, again, not even one.


The 2013 Gillard DWP also put the 20 x OCVs on the back burner and instead planned to replace the ACPBs with yet another class of PBs (would most likely have been Cape class PBs).

Late 2013 we then have a change of Government (from ALP to LNP), firstly led by Abbott, that Government starts the ball rolling on what would eventually become the 2016 Turnbull DWP.

The 2016 Turnbull DWP adds an additional Frigate (now 9), it reinstated the OCV project as an OPV project, initially 12 (subsequently to 20 at the 2020 ScoMo DSU).

The Hunter FFG design was selected in June 2018 (nine years after the 2009 Rudd DWP).

The Arafura OPV design was selected in November 2017 (eight years after the 2009 Rudd DWP).

The Attack SSG design was selected in April 2016 (seven years after the 2009 Rudd DWP).


So let’s roll the clock a bit further forward:

Attack class - cancelled by ScoMo in September 2021 - creation of AUKUS - early 2023 Albo confirms the decisions taken by ScoMo will proceed for a fleet of SSNs (Albo has no choice but to follow the path set out before him).

Arafura class - six OPVs currently under construction, yes there does appear to be delays, in addition, 10 Cape class PBs (ordered by the LNP) are either under construction or already in service to ensure the RANs patrol boat capability is maintained until sufficient OPVs enter service.

Hunter class - yes construction has been delayed - five prototype blocks to be made before construction starts - it was initially reported those five block would not be to production standard - more recently reported the last three blocks will be to production standard and used in actual real production - it was also reported that BAE Australia said that by the time Ship 03 is delivered the previous delays will have been caught up with.


So here we are now, the 2023 Albo DSR was delivered, but also kicked the can down the road with a separate review for the RAN, due late this year.


So yes we are 14 years down the road from the 2009 Rudd DWP (and 10 years down the road from the 2013 Gillard DWP), but not one ship or sub was ordered by Rudd/Gillard/Rudd during their time in Government (2007-2013).

It wasn’t until 2016 (subs), 2017 (OPVs) and 2018 (frigates) that ‘real’ designs selected and ‘real’ orders placed.

Maybe now people will stop using the 2009 Rudd DWP as some sort of starting point, it was a starting point that never ever happened.

All smoke and mirrors, all hot air too.

(PS, all documents referenced by me above are available online if anyone is bothered to check).

Don't disagree with the above and share some of the disappointment re lack of momentum on naval projects in that period.
Yes I voted for them.

Some context.
Labor in the wilderness for over a decade and wanting / needing to play social catch up after conservative rule.
Something was going to give......turned out to be Defence spending.

Remember the GFC which had a devastating impact around the world.
How did Australia fair compared to other nations?
Difficult times made worse by an administration with L plates.

Would /should Labor or some other party have done it differently if tackling these issues back in the day; well with hindsight maybe.
Yes we deal with the legacy of apathy, but this can be shared be both party's indifference to defence over the decades.

The challenge is what choices we make today.
Certainly we can learn from the past if it assists with prudent choices going forward.


So Naval Review!

A cop out push back of procrastination; or a land mark document that sets up our maritime response for the future.

Time will tell.

Roll on decision in Oct 2023.



Cheers S

 

[Massive]

I took it ( having a USN Admiral) to mean we might get a more aggressive opinion on what we need… hoping that it is not a politics driven review. More this is what you need to meet your objectives without fear or favour. No yes Minister or Utopia decisions following the review.

For me, I am looking for a clear definition of what is meant by "localised sea control" followed by a clear explanation as to what capability is required to acheive it.

I feel that this will shape the future fleet.

Regards,

Massive

 

[John Newman]

Don't disagree with the above and share some of the disappointment re lack of momentum on naval projects in that period.
Yes I voted for them.

Some context.
Labor in the wilderness for over a decade and wanting / needing to play social catch up after conservative rule.
Something was going to give......turned out to be Defence spending.

Remember the GFC which had a devastating impact around the world.
How did Australia fair compared to other nations?
Difficult times made worse by an administration with L plates.

Would /should Labor or some other party have done it differently if tackling these issues back in the day; well with hindsight maybe.
Yes we deal with the legacy of apathy, but this can be shared be both party's indifference to defence over the decades.

The challenge is what choices we make today.
Certainly we can learn from the past if it assists with prudent choices going forward.


So Naval Review!

A cop out push back of procrastination; or a land mark document that sets up our maritime response for the future.

Time will tell.

Roll on decision in Oct 2023.



Cheers S

GFC and difficult times?

Yes of course I remember the GFC, and yes I remember that the ALP was at the helm of good ship Australia at that time too.

I clearly remember the School Halls program (a lot of schools didn’t want a new assembly hall), I remember the Pink Batts scheme (Hmmm), I remember the Digital Set-top Box scheme to assist pensioners with the transition to Digital TV (that was a good one).

I remember former Def Min Smith being at the Defence helm when Defence spending took a hit.

Yep, remember all of that,

I also remember more current times when Covid hit the whole world, pretty hard, and the economic effects too.

I also remember the LNP Government not going on a slash n burn with Defence spending.

The old ‘difficult times’ line doesn’t wash too well with me, both sides have dealt with difficult times (GFC and Covid), two different results though.

 

[alexsa]

Should the RAN also be considering the upgrades to latter blocks of the Virginia class in their sensors
Navy New Virginia Block VI Virginia Attack Boat Will Inform SSN(X) - USNI News

Sorry, what later blocks? The extra two are likely to be block 4's. I expect these will be kept current in the same manner as the USN boats but at the end ..... the expecation is that the SSN AUKUS will start construction at some stage in the latter part of 2020's.

In so far as upgrading to latter blocks, the Block V is a bigger boat compared to the block IV. Are you suggesting we plug the hull or the RAN second hand block IVs? If so, why? This is not a minor undertaking and will take a boat out of service for some time and cost a great deal of money. If the USN are not doing this to theirs why would the RAN.

 

[seaspear]

I was thinking of the difference between present block 111 and vi in the improvements in the sensors and "acoustic superiority technology" as per these articles ,I can understand that such technology and its capabilities are restricted in formation and that this is why I would suggest that if block vi,s are available they should be considered

Navy New Virginia Block VI Virginia Attack Boat Will Inform SSN(X) - USNI News
Admiral: Block VI Virginia SSN Leads to Next-Generation SSN - Seapower (seapowermagazine.org)

 

[Stampede]

GFC and difficult times?

Yes of course I remember the GFC, and yes I remember that the ALP was at the helm of good ship Australia at that time too.

I clearly remember the School Halls program (a lot of schools didn’t want a new assembly hall), I remember the Pink Batts scheme (Hmmm), I remember the Digital Set-top Box scheme to assist pensioners with the transition to Digital TV (that was a good one).

I remember former Def Min Smith being at the Defence helm when Defence spending took a hit.

Yep, remember all of that,

I also remember more current times when Covid hit the whole world, pretty hard, and the economic effects too.

I also remember the LNP Government not going on a slash n burn with Defence spending.

The old ‘difficult times’ line doesn’t wash too well with me, both sides have dealt with difficult times (GFC and Covid), two different results though.

Thanks for the reply John

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

David is banging his usual drum -“it was all better managed then”. He’s never really got over not being allowed to acquire the Kidds in the late 90s (which was never really a practical proposition),nor has he forgiven those involved.

I'm personally of the view that the Kidd's would have been better value for money than FFGUP. By all means upgrade Melbourne and Newcastle but that's all.

The thing is, political attitudes at the time would likely have seen them used as an excuse to retire all six FFGs and defer the AWDs for a decade.

 

[Volkodav]

The elephant in the room in regards to VLS is the in coming hypersonic strike missiles and their need for a different configuration to the current Mk-41. If we are serious about future proofing the RAN we are going to need bigger ships.

 

[Todjaeger]

The elephant in the room in regards to VLS is the in coming hypersonic strike missiles and their need for a different configuration to the current Mk-41. If we are serious about future proofing the RAN we are going to need bigger ships.

I agree that the RAN will likely need larger (vs. size of the FFH) vessels in the future, both to afford space and weight/displacement to fit systems, but also to ensure sufficient power generation and cooling capacities to operate current and likely future shipboard computer, electronic and other systems and sensors. Larger sized VLS cells might not be needed though, since much would depend on if the RAN intends to implement a strike capability into future vessels and if so, how.

If the primary use of VLS cells by the RAN is to be for air defence missiles (ESSM, SM-2/3/6, etc.) then there might not be a need to step up the size of future VLS systems. By the same token, it might be worth considering what sort of payload, if any, is to be considered for either SSN(X) or the AUKUS sub. If it were me, and I was forced to make such a choice, I would much rather have the future SSN's be tasked with a strike role, as IMO such platforms would be more likely to be survivable to deliver their strikes.

 

[spoz]

The Kidds were nearly 20 years old when offered to us (last one completed 82) and they had been worked hard. The Mk 26 launchers were at best obsolescent and would have needed to be have been replaced with Mk 41; a project of effectively unknown scope. The sensors were efffectively the same generation as the FFGs. The ships company was 360 versus the FFG 200 and the Anzac (then) 163. The four GTs were gas guzzlers. In the RAN of the late 1990s they were unaffordable. And the Government of the day had no appetite for more second hand USN ships when the Bill and Ben refits were still not quite complete.

 

[Stampede]

The Kidds were nearly 20 years old when offered to us (last one completed 82) and they had been worked hard. The Mk 26 launchers were at best obsolescent and would have needed to be have been replaced with Mk 41; a project of effectively unknown scope. The sensors were efffectively the same generation as the FFGs. The ships company was 360 versus the FFG 200 and the Anzac (then) 163. In the RAN of the late 1990s they were unaffordable. And the Government of the day had no appetite for more second hand USN ships when the Bill and Ben refits were still not quite complete.

I think your correct for much of the above, but if I recall they had the advantage of One, being available ASAP and Two, providing a major leap in capability for the RAN.
Not necessarily a forever ship but rather a fleet of four give us time to design, build and transition to a new class whilst still having a significant major maritime asset.

If I recall the intended script!


Cheers S

 

[alexsa]

I was thinking of the difference between present block 111 and vi in the improvements in the sensors and "acoustic superiority technology" as per these articles ,I can understand that such technology and its capabilities are restricted in formation and that this is why I would suggest that if block vi,s are available they should be considered

Navy New Virginia Block VI Virginia Attack Boat Will Inform SSN(X) - USNI News
Admiral: Block VI Virginia SSN Leads to Next-Generation SSN - Seapower (seapowermagazine.org)

Except neither the block V or Block VI are being considered noting the announcments made by the White house and Australian government.

Looking ate the block V these were ordered in 2017 but the first hull was only laid down in December 2022 as there are about six block IV still under construction.

Looking at the article the admiral states that Block VI will focus on building upon the acoustic superiority advancements of 790 [USS South Dakota, SSN 790]. As this is a Block III vessel I would expect those enhancements will be in the block IV the RAN hope to get.

Finally the AUKUS SSN should have these enhancements in any case given the intent of sharing technology.

Once again can we please focus on what has been annouced rather that speculating.

 

[spoz]

I think your correct for much of the above, but if I recall they had the advantage of One, being available ASAP and Two, providing a major leap in capability for the RAN.
Not necessarily a forever ship but rather a fleet of four give us time to design, build and transition to a new class whilst still having a significant major maritime asset.

If I recall the intended script!


Cheers S

I can assure you it is. The suggested approach may have been what David intended, but it was not what had been required.

And also in the realm of speculation, had we done so the Hobarts might never have eventuated. Anyway, in those days of the “peace dividend”, we just couldn’t afford them. With the hindsight of knowing how much FFGUP was going to cost (and the original plan was to do all six) it might, possibly, have cost less in acquisition terms but the operating cost differential would still have been there, and with two less hulls available.

 

[John Fedup]

Apologises if this has been posted elsewhere but this link describes the pressures facing the USN's block V Virginia SSNs at the same time the Columbia SSBNs are also under construction. Just another example of the peace dividend (cancellation of Sea Wolf). Producing excess liberal arts, accountants, and lawyer degrees instead of tradespeople, engineers, and scientists doesn't help nor does cash starved Western universities eliminating domestic students in favour of cash rich Chinese candidates.Posting here as this may have implications for the RAN. Can certainly envision concern from the US Congress wrt subs for the RAN over the USN.

Block V Virginia-class attack subs delayed 2 years due to staffing problems: GAO - Breaking Defense

 

[hauritz]

A lot of these problems could be solved just with proper work sharing. I do realise that the US policy with ship building is that it must all be done domestically, but really the time has come to look at other options.

I note from the article that Austal USA is building two of the modules for their new submarines. Why not go further and simply allow Australian based companies to build components and modules?

Really such an exercise could benefit everyone. The whole idea of Australia having a sovereign submarine capability is farcical. We aren’t going to be building the reactor for example.

A lot of the government talk of building defence equipment in Australia has little to do with having a sovereign capability and more to do with just keeping money and work in Australia. The desire to do that is inherently wasteful.

Don’t get me wrong we do need some sovereign capability. Manufacturing our own munitions for example is an absolutely vital capability, but being able to build 50% of an SSN really doesn’t give Australia any real strategic capability.

I think as a nation we really need to pick and choose what capability we can realistically build domestically and what capability we should obtain from an overseas supplier.

As I mentioned earlier this could benefit everyone including the US. The US could get Australia building sections of the Virginia freeing up their own workforce to concentrate on the more complex parts. Forget building entire submarines in Australia and you would probably shave tens of billions of dollars off the submarine program.

You could then spend that money on improving the surface fleet which is work we could probably better handle in Australia.

 

[John Fedup]

A lot of these problems could be solved just with proper work sharing. I do realise that the US policy with ship building is that it must all be done domestically, but really the time has come to look at other options.

I note from the article that Austal USA is building two of the modules for their new submarines. Why not go further and simply allow Australian based companies to build components and modules?

Really such an exercise could benefit everyone. The whole idea of Australia having a sovereign submarine capability is farcical. We aren’t going to be building the reactor for example.

A lot of the government talk of building defence equipment in Australia has little to do with having a sovereign capability and more to do with just keeping money and work in Australia. The desire to do that is inherently wasteful.

Don’t get me wrong we do need some sovereign capability. Manufacturing our own munitions for example is an absolutely vital capability, but being able to build 50% of an SSN really doesn’t give Australia any real strategic capability.

I think as a nation we really need to pick and choose what capability we can realistically build domestically and what capability we should obtain from an overseas supplier.

As I mentioned earlier this could benefit everyone including the US. The US could get Australia building sections of the Virginia freeing up their own workforce to concentrate on the more complex parts. Forget building entire submarines in Australia and you would probably shave tens of billions of dollars off the submarine program.

You could then spend that money on improving the surface fleet which is work we could probably better handle in Australia.

It is important to note that Electric Boat and Newport News are the only two yards for nuclear vessels. Other domestic yards can supply modules.