Joe Black
Active Member
Perhaps replace the existing AN/SPY-1D(V) radar with SPY-7 and integrate that with the newer AGEIS baseline 9/10?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
IMHO it would be wasting money now.
The last, mostly appropriate and successful naval acquisition program we had was the ANZAC. Ever since then everything we have ordered has been too few, too small, too limited in capability and growth.
However even ANZACs success is tempered by the fact that the role of the type was changed from ASW to Patrol / GP by the then Hawke government. So instead of a high end ASW platform with a significant GP capability, we got a high end Patrol frigates that evolved into adequate GP frigates.
This was fine so long as there was a sufficient number of other vessels with high end ASW, i.e. the six FFGs and three DDGs, instead were whittled down that force to three FFGs with limited ASW and called them destroyers.
So instead of having a less than optimal fleet, we wait and watch as our less than optimal fleet shinks?
Wasting money? We been doing that for decades, NH 90s, Tigers, Sea sprites, referendums, etc etc etc. We need ships in service asap. What will be floating in 2030 Volk?
Maybe 3 Hobart's and 5 Anzacs? 6 very tired Collins.
Wasting money? We been doing that for decades, NH 90s, Tigers, Sea sprites, referendums, etc etc etc. We need ships in service asap. What will be floating in 2030 Volk?
Maybe 3 Hobart's and 5 Anzacs? 6 very tired Collins.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One of the 'other' elephants in the room re: any new/more Navantia-built Hobart-class DDG's (ignoring that they would not be the same as the RAN's current DDG's) is that it would take time for the build to actually be completed, because the Aegis CMS systems and integrated radar arrays are not something in stock at the local Ye Olde Warship Shoppe. The CMS and arrays would need to be approved for sale, ordered, built, tested and then delivered for installation, with the whole process typically taking several years before the CMS and arrays would be delivered for installation.
It could easily be five to seven years before the Aegis CMS and radar arrays would be available for installation aboard vessels under construction for the RAN, which means hulls under construction in 2029 to 2031 and beyond.
Pretty much the only other potential option (assuming the RAN wanted/needed new Aegis kitted ships) would either purchase another country's Aegis CMS units along with whatever their respective local interface was, or divert Aegis components that Australia has already has in the pipeline for other RAN projects.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I agree with your timeline estimates and thus, the only way to proceed with a “fast” order for additional AWD’s, is to postpone the planned Hobart class upgrade and use the AEGIS & radars that have already been ordered in the new ships. You alluded to this in your last paragraph.
The Hobarts would have to soldier on with Baseline 7 AEGIS until additional orders arrive.
There are also AEGIS systems on order for the first 3 Hunter class so they could also have their timeline adjusted to assist in maximising capability.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given a choice between getting the lead Hunter-class frigates into service, or more Hobart-class destroyers, I would much rather go for the Hunter-class.
As for diverting some of the systems intended for to upgrade the existing Hobart-class DDG's, that might be possible, but I am not certain that what was being acquired for the upgrade would be sufficient to enable a complete CMS installation aboard a new/different vessel. Also, the upgrades are planned for a reason, namely that the existing vessel's systems are at this point needing to be upgraded.
As for diverting some of the systems intended for to upgrade the existing Hobart-class DDG's, that might be possible, but I am not certain that what was being acquired for the upgrade would be sufficient to enable a complete CMS installation aboard a new/different vessel. Also, the upgrades are planned for a reason, namely that the existing vessel's systems are at this point needing to be upgraded.
With concerns that the build capapacity for new Virginias might delay introduction into the RAN, could one of the soon to be retired Ohio class SSGN
be aquired "cheaply" to act as a training vessel to prepare aussie crew in the short term?
Or is the fact that this is an ex ballistic sub a step to far for our neibours.
be aquired "cheaply" to act as a training vessel to prepare aussie crew in the short term?
Or is the fact that this is an ex ballistic sub a step to far for our neibours.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
There is also the slight issue that they are over 40 years old.
I have doubts about how much commonality in systems they would have with a Virginia or Astute class. If you just want something for training, buy a PWR3 off RR or S9G from GE and set it up at a Naval Shore Establishment.
Basically this is the thinking behind the GP frigates. Newer, more capable ships in service without the AEGIS bottle neck.
Not perfect, but useful and reliable. Cheaper to operate, easier to crew.
I doubt there's a serious chance of getting an interim SSN before the first Virginia class, but if there is it'd be more likely to be a Los Angeles than an Ohio... Mostly younger (several retired or about to retire at about 30-35 years vs somewhere north of 40 years) and without the political issues of no ex-SSBN/now SSGN...
On a more positive note the first three Australian officers have been assigned to USN Virginias. Around 100 more are expected to join them over the coming year.
www.aumanufacturing.com.au
First three RAN officers assigned to serve on Virginia N-submarines - Australian Manufacturing Forum
Another step in the process of Australia acquiring, and eventually building, nuclear powered submarines has been taken with the first three Royal Australian Navy officers assigned to US Virginia class submarines based at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. The officers, Lieutenant Commander James Heydon...
www.aumanufacturing.com.au
AEGIS is a wonderful system, but isn't flawless. Some of its strengths are some of its weaknesses.
- Its expensive
- Its complicated to develop, upgrade and integrate
- Its continually developed, requiring constant upgrades often requiring hardware upgrades
- Its designed around USN concepts like large ships, large crews, large power, large growth margins etc.
- Its designed around USN weapons.
- Its designed around USN fleet operations. Many ships, mostly in things like carrier strike groups. All from the same Navy, all with the same compatible aegis setup and radar.
While the US does make good kit. Sometimes, they get it wrong, or sometimes they end up with an average product, or a product that under delivers particularly for the cost, or has specific short comings, which aren't a problem for the US, but are for smaller navies.
The Hobart upgrade has some big issues.
Its takes the most capable, and newest ships out of the fleet. It has high risk. It has high costs. It upsets crewing and training and deployments for many years. With only 3 ships, there is no possibility of breaking up the project. If we had 4, then it may have been possible to just do 2 ships, leave and 12 month break, then do the last 2, learning lessons and then finishing it off. This would also give ~12 months of possible additional schedule contingency. Reduce risk, reduce costs. It also would mean we wouldn't need the entire fleet off line in various states of disassembly/reassembly.
My issue with it, is the cost effectiveness. The program soaks up the best yard, the best people, a lot of focus, a lot of cash (almost equal the cost of building the entire class!) and removes huge capability and breaks all sorts of staff/crew/deployment issues. For just 3 ships which already have limitations in radar and weapons.
What is really annoying is we should have built a 4th AWD with these more modern system built in, and then it would have de-risked the program for the existing ships and kept the yard going and the ship would be able to bridge capability while the others were upgraded. These are problems we should have avoided. Or if when we decided to not build the 4th AWD, costed out the cost of cancelling it, and made arrangements with the Spanish regarding de-risking the upgrade. The advantage of a in-service design, is that we could do that. Really it should have been written into the contract and part of the initial project.
Going forward, I wonder if we should consider batching ships in either 2 or 4 rather than 3.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
From what I have read the SSGN Ohios are considered some of the most useful subs in the USN. They are desperately trying to extend their lives until the Block V Virginias arrive to replace them. The USN won't be letting go of the Ohio SSGNs to anybody.
Also at 40 years old their reactor maintenance is a large task. We are nowhere near ready for that.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
We are going to have USN Virginia's and RN Astute's based in Fremantle from 2027, almost certainly with RAN personnel posted on board, this will provide far superior trg than tired old Ohio SSGNs or LAs being loaned to Australia ever could.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I understood that the suggestion was to acquire a decommissioned vessel to use as a Moored Training Ship, similar to what the USN is doing with the former USS La Jolla & USS San Francisco which were converted to MTS in 2020 & 2021 respectively. It would not make sense to spend large amounts of money to keep an old SSN in a seaworthy state for training purposes.
Brissy1982
Active Member
I agree with everything in this statement - AEGIS is great, but it's not the be-all and end-all.
Indeed, one area where our current Anzac-class frigates have an advantage over AEGIS-equipped ships is in detecting sea-skimming targets. This is because the CEAFAR radar is deliberately mounted as high up as possible and is optimised to detect sea-skimming threats - as a result, all things being equal it picks up such targets at a longer range and with better tracking data than AEGIS. The Anzac-class Saab 9LV CMS is also capable of conducting engagements against sea-skimming targets without any human input other than designating the target as hostile. This is a crucial capability when considering some of the PLA-N's high-speed anti-ship missiles - with a sea-skimming missile travelling at Mach 3+, even a few seconds extra warning time can mean the difference between a successful intercept or getting hit. The CEAFAR-9LV-ESSM combination is among the best, if not the best, available hard-kill options against high-speed sea-skimming missile threats. Add in Nulka as a soft-kill option, and Australia is producing some of the best short to medium range AShM defences in the world. Hopefully the Hunter-class and whatever becomes the future Tier 2 frigate will have the same capability in this area.
Seems like BMT is going for the LCH contract with their Caiman 200 design.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Austal has made a lot of progress with developing autonomous marine capability.
Austal Australia completes sea trials of future patrol boat autonomy trial Sentinel
Austal Australia Completes Sea Trials for RAN's Patrol Boat
Austal Australia completes sea trials of future patrol boat autonomy trial Sentinel
Austal Australia Completes Sea Trials for RAN's Patrol Boat
Actually, the Hobarts have the SPQ-9B horizon search radar, integrated into Aegis, mounted at the top of their foremasts for detection of sea skimming missiles. It is mounted considerably higher than the Anzac radars, and thus the detection range, and the resultant warning time, is therefore longer.
Brissy1982
Active Member
This is a good observation, however SPQ-9B is a 2-D radar that only provides range and bearing. It doesn't provide altitude data which is essential to an anti-missile engagement, even at sea-skimming level (5-20m above sea level).
It's also a dual-face rotating radar rather than a fixed array, which means its track quality isn't as good as a fixed active electronically scanned array (AESA) like CEAFAR, especially against high-speed threats.
SPQ-9B is useful for engaging surface targets, and in a more limited capacity low-speed aerial targets e.g. helos and drones, with gunfire.
However, it cannot be used for anti-missile engagement, except perhaps to let SPY-1 know with a few seconds warning in advance which direction the threat is coming from. SPY-1 will only pick up an inbound sea-skimming missile at a closer range (classified, can't say) than CEAFAR. Until SPY-1 can detect, track and classify the target as hostile, no anti-missile engagement can begin - this is at a considerably shorter range than an engagement based on CEAFAR track data (again, classified, can't say).
In an engagement against a sea-skimming missile travelling at Mach 3 to Mach 4.5+, there is in a best-case scenario somewhere between 19-31 seconds to detect, track, classify, engage and destroy the missile. This is where the CEAFAR-9LV-ESSM combination has the edge over a SPY-1-based AEGIS CMS even with SPQ-9B.
CEAFAR can detect, track, classify and engage a sea-skimmer several seconds sooner than SPY-1D-based AEGIS, even with the help of SPQ-9B, can do. When you're talking abount a 19-31 second envelope, those extra few seconds can the difference between surviving to fight on, or being dead.
Last edited: