Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

PeterM

Active Member
The 30mm will match the Gun size for the Armys new IFVs, so that is probably why we are going with that size. The 25mm could possibly be replaced by the 30mm across the Fleet at a later date.
The F-35As use the GAU 22, which it uses the 25mm x 137 round which is the same as the M242 bushmaster.

I appreciate the desire to consolidate the logistics footprint where possible, however, the ADF will be using 25mm weapons for some time.

Of course the flip side is whether it is the right weapon going forward for the role required.

Personally I find the 40mm on the new OPV to be interesting. No doubt there will be reasons behind the selection.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The ADF as a whole appears happy to operate the best Gun choice for the Platform and not be to worried about size Consolidation. Mind you going from 25mm to 30mm on the Destroyers would be a touch easier to do than on the F-35. 40mm on the OPV more stopping power, don't forget its the major Weapon system on the OPV and more range could be useful.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Agree completely!! Anyway ........

Here's a page from the Navy website with some info:

Hunter Class FFG | Royal Australian Navy

And here's a two page PDF that goes into a fair bit of specification details:

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Hunter_Class_Fact_Sheet.pdf

And no, it doesn't specifically mention the number of VLS cells (or in fact the number of AShM either).

But it would appear from the various models and renderings of the Hunter class that the number of VLS is 32 per ship (models/graphics that I've seen appear to show 4 rows of 8). Let's not forget that the primary role of these 9 FFGs is ASW, but of course with a strong AAW capability too.


Doing the maths across the 12 DDGs and FFGs, the RAN will have 432 VLS across those 12 platforms (3 x 48 DDGs, 9 x 32 FFGs).

That gives Navy the ability to mix and match to it's hearts content (depending on the weapons available in the future).

As an example, if each of those 12 ships had 8 VLS cells (96 cells) dedicated to quad pack ESSM, that is 384 ESSM.

That leaves 336 VLS available for SM-2, future SM-6 and possibly SM-3. And of course there is the possibility for other VLS weapons such as LRASM, T-LAM, VLS-ASROC, for example.

As far as the 'Advanced AShM' mentioned, that would possibly be NSM (or JSM).

Personally I don't think it gets much better for the RAN at the moment, good decision!

Cheers,
Few days away and catching up on some reading, good choice and probably the superior choice, taken a lot by surprise that Gov is making some very good decisions of late, Land 400 etc.

John on the NSM/JSM you might be interested in the below links, the first is on the selection of the NSM by the USN for not only the LCS, but also the Future Frigate, interesting indeed with Lockmart dropping out of the running with the LRASM.

https://stories.kongsberg.com/content/us-navy-selects-nsm

This second link is on a VL-JSM, gives us plenty of options if it is looking likely that we will be onboard and getting the JSM for the JSF :)

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...tical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html

Cheers
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Few days away and catching up on some reading, good choice and probably the superior choice, taken a lot by surprise that Gov is making some very good decisions of late, Land 400 etc.

John on the NSM/JSM you might be interested in the below links, the first is on the selection of the NSM by the USN for not only the LCS, but also the Future Frigate, interesting indeed with Lockmart dropping out of the running with the LRASM.

US Navy selects NSM

This second link is on a VL-JSM, gives us plenty of options if it is looking likely that we will be onboard and getting the JSM for the JSF :)

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...tical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html

Cheers
Hi Mate, how are you? (have to have a chat via a PM soon!).

Yes certainly lots of good Govt decisions lately, and let's not forget the commitment to 6 Triton (and the option for a 7th), that announcement is news worthy on its own, but appears to have been lost in the 'fog' of the Frigate announcement!!

In regard to NSM/JSM, I'm leaning heavily to JSM (yes I know that they are related, closely related, but they are two different versions of the same animal!).

Before I go on to what I think about JSM its worth looking at the current AShM, eg, Harpoon in ADF service.

Harpoon has been/or is equipped to F-111C, AP-3C, Classic Hornet, Super Hornet (presumably that could potentially include Growler?), FFG, FFH and the Collins Subs (and is also for P-8A and the Hobart DDGs too), the AShM of choice for the ADF.

The question is, can JSM go on to do all of the above???

JSM can be carried internally and externally on F-35A, maybe it can eventually replace Harpoon on P-8A too?, there has been 'fitment' tests on Super Hornet (and again that may include Growler?), I've read that Kongsberg has also looked at a 'sub' launched version, the last piece of the puzzle would be the development of a 'box/canister' launched version too.

If, and I say 'if' such developments where to happen, JSM could become the 'new' Harpoon in ADF service and be operational across the range of air, surface and sub-surface ADF assets.

And that's not to say that the option is still there to also procure longer ranging AShM such as LRASM and T-LAM too.

Cheers,
 

76mmGuns

Active Member
Was there any mention of an option to build more than 9 Hunter Class ships?

Eg we had an option to build an extra Hobart ( not exercised ).
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
JSM/NSM is a very flexible missile.

There are are F-35, VLS, Box, sub launch variants of this missile being developed. I would also assume a helicopter launched variant isn't out of the picture either. Most of the effort seems to be ensuring it fits into the F-35 A weapon bay. I wonder if the USN might consider putting the JSM on the P8.
Kongsbergs NSM/JSM Anti-Ship Strike Missile Attempts to Fit in Small F-35 Stealth Bay

I think the JSM/NSM is a great missile, would make a great addition, replacing harpoon, nearly everywhere. But it isn't a heavy hitter, LRASM would be ideal for longer range and greater payload against harder or larger targets.

Was there any mention of an option to build more than 9 Hunter Class ships?
Its a continuous build so I imagine we will replace the AWD/DDG with a new DDG based off most likely the Type 26 hull as a basis. So 9 ships but we will be building more after that.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
JSM/NSM is a very flexible missile.


Its a continuous build so I imagine we will replace the AWD/DDG with a new DDG based off most likely the Type 26 hull as a basis. So 9 ships but we will be building more after that.
The next DWP and IIP will be due towards the middle of the 2020s and the Hobart replacement should be in both, certainly BAE will be working towards a bid for Hulls 10-12 of the continuous build but will need to wait to see what the Navy wants first but don't forget before the Hobarts replacement the RN will need to replace the Darings so the RAN will definetly be watching that program with interest especially if they are based on the Type 26.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The next DWP and IIP will be due towards the middle of the 2020s and the Hobart replacement should be in both, certainly BAE will be working towards a bid for Hulls 10-12 of the continuous build but will need to wait to see what the Navy wants first but don't forget before the Hobarts replacement the RN will need to replace the Darings so the RAN will definetly be watching that program with interest especially if they are based on the Type 26.
Except for the governments statement made when announcing GCS-A that “Australia will have an indigeous warship design capability by the time the ninth frigate is in service” which is an encouraging sign for the future.
That does not rule out close copies of future,ships however, and maybe that’s the least risk option provided IP is respected.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Except for the governments statement made when announcing GCS-A that “Australia will have an indigeous warship design capability by the time the ninth frigate is in service” which is an encouraging sign for the future.
That does not rule out close copies of future,ships however, and maybe that’s the least risk option provided IP is respected.
I missed that, good news but they will need to have a design ready by the time the seventh Frigate is in service at the very latest.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
JSM/NSM is a very flexible missile.

There are are F-35, VLS, Box, sub launch variants of this missile being developed. I would also assume a helicopter launched variant isn't out of the picture either. Most of the effort seems to be ensuring it fits into the F-35 A weapon bay. I wonder if the USN might consider putting the JSM on the P8.
Kongsbergs NSM/JSM Anti-Ship Strike Missile Attempts to Fit in Small F-35 Stealth Bay

I think the JSM/NSM is a great missile, would make a great addition, replacing harpoon, nearly everywhere. But it isn't a heavy hitter, LRASM would be ideal for longer range and greater payload against harder or larger targets.
If the NSM/JSM replaces the Harpoon on the Hunter class, could/should the redundant Harpoon launcher boxes now in use on the Anzacs be reused to fit one 4 round box to each of the OPVs.
IIRC the Harpoon is already intergrated to the SAAB9L CMS to be used on the OPVs.
With remote targeting from P8 or Triton (Link 11 or 16 if fitted) this would allow the OPVs to control a much larger area of ocean.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If the NSM/JSM replaces the Harpoon on the Hunter class, could/should the redundant Harpoon launcher boxes now in use on the Anzacs be reused to fit one 4 round box to each of the OPVs.
IIRC the Harpoon is already intergrated to the SAAB9L CMS to be used on the OPVs.
With remote targeting from P8 or Triton (Link 11 or 16 if fitted) this would allow the OPVs to control a much larger area of ocean.
There are now RHIBS in the design spoce for ASMs.

Apparently the side mounted RHIBs are using conventional cranes instead of davits. Understand from a weight and cost perspective, as well as the stern ramp providing better rough weather capability, but it is a step back from the Armidales being able to operate two RHIBs simultaneously in all but the roughest conditions.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
If the NSM/JSM replaces the Harpoon on the Hunter class, could/should the redundant Harpoon launcher boxes now in use on the Anzacs be reused to fit one 4 round box to each of the OPVs.
IIRC the Harpoon is already intergrated to the SAAB9L CMS to be used on the OPVs.
With remote targeting from P8 or Triton (Link 11 or 16 if fitted) this would allow the OPVs to control a much larger area of ocean.
No for starters the new AShM or possibly Missiles JSM/NSM and or LRASM would replace the Harpoon on all 12 major surface combatants. The Harpoon is getting towards the end of its development possibilities its fast approaching obsolesence. Secondly there is no plan to upgrade the OPVs Weapon systems. You need to remember the OPVs are Patrol vessels not true Combatants, just a much better Armidale with a number of new capabilities but doing the same job
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If the NSM/JSM replaces the Harpoon on the Hunter class, could/should the redundant Harpoon launcher boxes now in use on the Anzacs be reused to fit one 4 round box to each of the OPVs.
IIRC the Harpoon is already intergrated to the SAAB9L CMS to be used on the OPVs.
With remote targeting from P8 or Triton (Link 11 or 16 if fitted) this would allow the OPVs to control a much larger area of ocean.
Except for the fact your 8 SSMs then use up 8 cells out of the 32 available. I suspect if NSM/JSM is adopted it may still be in its very own box launcher.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Except for the fact your 8 SSMs then use up 8 cells out of the 32 available. I suspect if NSM/JSM is adopted it may still be in its very own box launcher.
And that is what the great advantage of having 90+cells as on the Burkes or that derivitives. flexibility. You can send a Burke to sea to cover every contingency with useful loads of LR SAMs, SR SAMs, BMD missiles, LACMs, ASW Weapons, LR & SR AShMs. even the Hobarts with 48 Cells, would at best have 16 Cells left for AShM, ASW, LACM.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
If the NSM/JSM replaces the Harpoon on the Hunter class, could/should the redundant Harpoon launcher boxes now in use on the Anzacs be reused to fit one 4 round box to each of the OPVs.
IIRC the Harpoon is already intergrated to the SAAB9L CMS to be used on the OPVs.
With remote targeting from P8 or Triton (Link 11 or 16 if fitted) this would allow the OPVs to control a much larger area of ocean.
Harpoon for the OPVs? I think the short answer is no, not unless the Government decides to change their role from OPV to OCV, can't see that happening.

But you also need to look at the timeline, so lets assume that JSM is selected by the ADF.

First cab of the rank will be the F-35A fleet, but that won't happen until the Block 4 software upgrade is done to integrate JSM (I think that is scheduled for sometime around 2023-24?).

As for JSM replacing Harpoon in the RAN, the first of the Hunter class FFGs is not going to commission for close to a decade (and if normal practices are followed, the first of the Anzac FFH, will decommission just prior to that).

As I understand it the 'drumbeat' for the Hunter class will be approximately somewhere between 18-24mths for each ship to enter service, the transition from Anzac to Hunter is a long process.

Basically the current stock of Harpoon will be another 10 years older, and things don't last forever, unless money is regularly poured into upgrading and maintaining the stock available.

And let's not forget that the stock of Harpoon still has to be available for other ADF assets such as the Anzac FFH as they slowly decommission, 3 DDGs and the P-8A fleet, etc.

I think the ADF would have a far higher priority to integrate/replace Harpoon with JSM on other more 'suitable' platforms long before it could even consider installing them on the OPVs (which I still think won't happen).

The transition will take a long time, won't happen overnight!!

Cheers,
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
It is easy to forget that the Perth is only 12 years old, barely run in and only just past the 1/3 mark of its life expectancy. The ANZACS will still need significant Refits down the track.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It is easy to forget that the Perth is only 12 years old, barely run in and only just past the 1/3 mark of its life expectancy. The ANZACS will still need significant Refits down the track.
I expect these will be refits for maintenacne rather than upgrades beyond what is currently in the pipe line. If there are to be any further upgrades I don't think they will be major changes, rather they will be the minimum to keep the vessel effective.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There seems to be a very blurry distinction made between destroyers, frigates, corvettes and even cruisers these days.

The Hobart is based on a Spanish frigate. The Japanese ASW helicopter carriers are called destroyers and as you said the US redesignated its Cruisers to frigates and then back again. Damens Sigma class can be either frigates or corvettes.

Australia seems to define destroyers as AAW vessels and frigates as ASW or GP ships.

It is all very confusing.
If you look back in history the first "cruisers" were actually frigates, corvettes and sloops, i.e. non ships of the line capable of independent cruising, trade protection, and gunboat diplomacy. Frigates were the largest and fastest, HMS Warrior the RNs first iron hulled battleship and the most powerful warship in the world when completed, was technically a frigate, or a large fast cruiser.

As technology evolved allowing sails to be deleted cruisers evolved into distinct battleships, armoured cruisers and protected cruisers of varying sizes. Torpedo boats also evolved at this time and their counter, the torpedo boat destroyer, was also developed. Torpedo boat destroyers became simply destroyers, cruisers evolved into Battlecruisers (effectively replacing armoured cruisers) an light cruisers of various sizes, ranging from the long range trade protection type such as the various Town classes (HMAS Adelaide I was the last of this type completed) through smaller fleet and scout cruisers, some were very much destroyer killers and destroyer flotilla leaders and others basically super destroyers.

The Washington Treaty of 1921 introduced the Heavy Cruiser with a maximum or 10000ton standard displacement (calculation of which was defined by the treaty) and a maximum gun calibre of 8". The prototype was basically the RN Frobisher Class, an enlarged evolution of the Town Class, by way of the "Atlantic Cruiser" design studies for a new trade protection as opposed to fleet cruiser type. Prior to the treaty the RNs vision for a suitable trade protection cruiser (and thus suitable for dominion navies) was 20000tons, 9.2" (if not 15") guns, torpedo boats on davits and hangar + catapults for scouting and torpedo attack float planes.

The 1930 London Naval Treaty introduced a cap on total cruiser tonnage for each signatory nation and a new maximum calibre of 6", mostly as a cost saving exercise. This is where the 8000 ton 6" gunned light cruiser came from, the type we most think of when someone says cruiser.

During the war cruisers again grew with the last US types displacing 20000tons, as much as the first Dreadnought Battleships. Frigates re-emerged as improved convoy escorts to supplement and replace the smaller, less capable corvettes. Sloops had been introduced in the treaty environment as slower general purpose ships not restricted as destroyers were and evolved into highly capable ASW and mine counter measure vessels. Interestingly the US called their frigates Destroyer Escorts (DE) a terminology Australia adopted for our River Class (modified Type 12) frigates.

Post war the RN retained the status quo in classifying frigates as specialist escorts good at one thing and mediocre at others, destroyers were general purpose ships that were good at everything, sloops were general purpose ships that were slower than destroyers and mediocre / good enough at everything. Cruisers had command facilities and could support themselves away from base, i.e. didn't require the support of a destroyer tender.

The US took another tack, continuing to use the DE terminology for what everyone else called frigates and reintroducing the term Frigate for their new generation of large destroyers or destroyer leaders. These frigates (DL for destroyer leader) evolved into guided missile frigates (DLG), with the large RN County Class guided missile destroyers often also being referred to as DLGs. In 1975 the USN brought their designation system inline with NATO reclassifying their larger, newer DLG and DLGN (nuclear powered) frigates as cruisers, the older smaller ones as DDGs and their various DE and DEG as FF and FFG.

Ironically current generations of frigates and destroyers have more in common with the cruisers of the past, in size, capability and role. So what is in a name?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
In fact, I think the T26 is markedly larger. As this has already been discussed over the last couple of pages I don't have much to add, except that the post WW2 role of a "Frigate" has - in RN and associated navies - been associated with a primary ASW role, and a destroyer with a primary surface and AAW role

oldsig
True and the 1970s / 80s RN pairing of Type 22 ASW frigates and Type 42 DDGs the Type 22 was the larger ship.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think we’re long past caring what the neighbours think. Considering all the capabilities Australia has recently bought, and will soon buy, I don’t think what we call a ship is going to raise any eyebrows. I think the new ships will be called frigates just because there is no reason to call them anything else. It is just a label after all.
With Chinas shadow growing I believe our neighbours may think its about time we stepped up and ensured we are able to be of actual help to them if things go pear shaped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top