Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I can see a possible requirement to beef up the air defences of the LHDs, Choules and new tankers at least until the Hunters start entering service. Until that time we will rely heavily on the three Hobart class destroyers to provide fleet air defence.

When we talk about the Royal navy being short of escorts with its 19 destroyers and frigates protecting its two carriers we should be mindful that for the next decade we will only have ll escorts for our two LHDs.

I think you are seeking to sell the AD capability of the CEA II Anzacs short.
I’m assuming that ESSM Blk II will be obtained and fitted in due course to all the Anzacs and that gives them a potent AAW capability quite suited to escorting the LHDs in all but a major conflict where ABMD/SM3,6 is needed. Later versions of SM 2 have improved it immensely but ESSM Blk II compares very favourably with earlier versions.
In the comparison with the RN you included the 13 T23s as suitable CTG escorts however I doubt Aster 15 is a superior system to the updated Anzacs therefor your comparison should read, RN 19, RAN 11.

 

[Stampede]

I think you are seeking to sell the AD capability of the CEA II Anzacs short.
I’m assuming that ESSM Blk II will be obtained and fitted in due course to all the Anzacs and that gives them a potent AAW capability quite suited to escorting the LHDs in all but a major conflict where ABMD/SM3,6 is needed. Later versions of SM 2 have improved it immensely but ESSM Blk II compares very favourably with earlier versions.
In the comparison with the RN you included the 13 T23s as suitable CTG escorts however I doubt Aster 15 is a superior system to the updated Anzacs therefor your comparison should read, RN 19, RAN 11.

Hi Assail
Just a point of clarity.
Was it RN 19 minus 13T 23's for a total of 6 surface combatants, with the suggestion the ANZACs / Hobart's have collectively a better set of SAM systems with their collective total of eleven QUALITY ships?
Not trying to be argumentative just seeking clarity of your point of view.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Given the small size of the RAN, I believe the planning has always revolved around a deployed LHD only having an escort of a destroyer and a frigate, with the possibility of a surge deployment being able to add a second frigate to the TF. For that matter, there would likely be periods of time where there was only a single LHD available for deployment.

It would be nice if Australia could manage more, but that would require more than what the RAN has. Unless the ADF budget gets increased (at the expense of other AusGov programmes and/or higher taxes...) that will not happen to any significant degree beyond what projects are already underway. More and/or more capable vessels would need to be acquired, more/expanded facilities would be needed to support the associated increased number of ships and crews, more crew would need to be recruited and trained as well as additional training and promotions for existing personnel, and so on.

I feel the RAN is certainly moving from a small to medium sized navy in the sense of the type of ships it is acquiring.
Without going into fantasy fleets and just working with the ships in hand and the naval build programs scheduled, the RAN is a much more capable force to that of decade ago and will be even more capable force in a decades time.
Even without the new Hunter Class and new Submarines, the RAN has quality ships and these will be freed up by the new Arafura class to concentrate on the important higher end stuff.
The OPV's will be a wonderful asset on many levels
This will be a very balanced navy.

The IPE series points to a RAN willing and capable of deploying task groups at distance for extended periods of time.
This is a sovereign capability centred aroud our LHD's. This is new and exciting. This is a break from the past.
I would envisage that with our eleven ship destroyer / frigate force working in conjunction with our new five ship Amphibious / supply group that future task forces will grow in size from the four / Five ship force of today.
I can see the OPV's certainly joining the IPE series in the 2020's.

I would also like an increase in fleet numbers and systems, but I'm realistic it probably won,t happen; but what is happening with the RAN is very good and I'm sure many medium sized Navys would be envious of what the RAN is achieving.

Regards S

 

[MickB]

I’m wondering if there is any potential application for these on the OPVs or other RAN ships? Looks like they will weigh a bit so not sure if the stability effect but seems like a cost effective way to get cells on to ships.

This Bolt-On Launcher Can Give Nearly Any Ship The Same Weaponry As A U.S. Navy Destroyer

Apart from supply ships I don't think many navel ships have too much free deck space and even then it is probably used as container storage. To gain this system most would have to give up some other capability.

For example on the OPV or LCS the flight deck seems to the only area big enough to hold a launcher of this size. (Given that I don't know the exact size of this launcher) Will this preclude both Helo and drone operations or just Helo?

Would the LHDs have to give up a deck landing spot to operate this system?

In some circumstances this may be warranted.

Some of this article is a similar concept to the magazine ship I put forward (and was educated on) several posts above.

Given that it is not a fixed installation, this could form the basis of a very versatile shore based defence system that allows forward deployment.

 

[spoz]

You need to have the appropriate sensors and CMS to control SAMs. None of the AORs, LHDs or OPVs, despite being fitted with a form of 9LV, have the capabilities required and you can’t just bolt them on, or at least not in a few days or probably weeks.

As for ANZAC vs T23, with CEA radars, Nulka and ESSM ANZAC is undoubtedly the better AA ship, particularly when Block 2 comes along. T23 wins hands down as an ASW platform. Sea Ceptor has improved the T23 and MH60R the ANZAC but the essentials aren’t changed.

 

[ASSAIL]

Hi Assail
Just a point of clarity.
Was it RN 19 minus 13T 23's for a total of 6 surface combatants, with the suggestion the ANZACs / Hobart's have collectively a better set of SAM systems with their collective total of eleven QUALITY ships?
Not trying to be argumentative just seeking clarity of your point of view.

Regards S

13 T23s fitted with Aster is a very competent AD capability albeit somewhat constrained by range. 8 Anzacs fitted with CEAFAR II and ESSM blkII is also a competent AD capability.
I’m simply saying that the force comparison put by Hauritz above failed to include the Anzacs.

 

[hauritz]

I feel the RAN is certainly moving from a small to medium sized navy in the sense of the type of ships it is acquiring.
Without going into fantasy fleets and just working with the ships in hand and the naval build programs scheduled, the RAN is a much more capable force to that of decade ago and will be even more capable force in a decades time.
Even without the new Hunter Class and new Submarines, the RAN has quality ships and these will be freed up by the new Arafura class to concentrate on the important higher end stuff.
The OPV's will be a wonderful asset on many levels
This will be a very balanced navy.

The IPE series points to a RAN willing and capable of deploying task groups at distance for extended periods of time.
This is a sovereign capability centred aroud our LHD's. This is new and exciting. This is a break from the past.
I would envisage that with our eleven ship destroyer / frigate force working in conjunction with our new five ship Amphibious / supply group that future task forces will grow in size from the four / Five ship force of today.
I can see the OPV's certainly joining the IPE series in the 2020's.

I would also like an increase in fleet numbers and systems, but I'm realistic it probably won,t happen; but what is happening with the RAN is very good and I'm sure many medium sized Navys would be envious of what the RAN is achieving.

Regards S

Actually I think the growth in fleet numbers and systems is almost inevitable over the coming decades mostly through the advent of remote vehicles.

No hands on deck: US and Australian progress in autonomous warfare at sea — United States Studies Centre

With Australia responsible for patrolling around 10% of the globe with very limited manpower and financial resources building swarms of inexpensive remote vessels has a certain appeal. We are already starting to see this with the airforce with its new Tritons and perhaps Loyal Wingman UAVs. The navy decision to scrap updating the Huon MCVs in favour of fast-tracking automated mine hunting systems might also be a sign of things to come. It is quite possible that a few more of these systems might be put in place before we see the first of our new submarines entering service.

 

[Stampede]

13 T23s fitted with Aster is a very competent AD capability albeit somewhat constrained by range. 8 Anzacs fitted with CEAFAR II and ESSM blkII is also a competent AD capability.
I’m simply saying that the force comparison put by Hauritz above failed to include the Anzacs.

Hi Assail

Thanks for the clarity

Regards S

 

[John Newman]

Actually I think the growth in fleet numbers and systems is almost inevitable over the coming decades mostly through the advent of remote vehicles.

I tend to agree with you, the more I've thought about it, the more I can see a significant growth in the use and deployment of remote vehicles for the RAN.

Yes of course a few more DDGs or FFGs wouldn't go astray, and both an additional AOR and LSD/LPD, rather than one or the other (as stated in the 2016 DWP), but unless there is extra funding and manpower (without robbing some other capability), I'm not going to hold my breath.

The secret for success, in my opinion, is to ensure that all the various classes of ships and subs to be in service for the decades ahead have the ability to allow for the carriage and growth in size, capability and variety of remote vehicles.

And it's not going to just be UAVs, but also USVs and UUVs too.

Looking at the ships in service, and to enter service, the OPVs are a good starting point, whilst they don't have a hangar, they have a large flight deck and container lifts to the mission deck below, initially we will probably see the regular use and deployment of S-100 Camcopters, and no doubt larger and more capable UAVs during their service life. And of course the potential for the use of a variety of future USV and UUV from the mission deck via the stern ramp.

More than likely we will see a growth in the OPV fleet with additional units to replace the mine warfare ships.

Same again for the FFGs, mission bay for USV and UUV and hangar space and flight deck for not only a Romeo, but larger UAVs such as Fire Scout and even up to Bell 247 tilt rotor size UAVs (which has the footprint of a UH-1Y). The DDGs have sort of missed the boat a bit (no pun intended!), no mission bay, single hangar, but depending on space potentially available in the existing hangar, smaller UAV are a potential.

The two new AORs, large dual hangar, I would imagine that they would generally operate with one manned MRH-90, but with the extra hangar space available, they will have the ability to operate Fire Scout or Bell 247 size UAV too.

The two LHDs and Choules, potential for large UAV (Bell 247 size), and also USV and UUV via the well dock too.

Not forgetting the Attack class subs either, UUV via the torpedo tubes, and if we also acquire the special forces dry deck shelter the French SSNs will use, the potential for UUV operations via that shelter too.

The real interesting part of the development and introduction of the various UAV, USV and UUV types, will be to ensure that they have the ability to 'speak' to not only their mother ship, but communicate more broadly with the rest of the ships in the fleet that may be on deployment either in small groups or a larger task force.

Interesting times ahead for the RAN!

Cheers,

 

[hauritz]

Agreed. The new OPVs could prove very effective at deploying and retrieving autonomous vessels. With their large flight deck, mission deck and stern ramp they probably represent a capability that the RAN wouldn't otherwise have until the Hunters start entering service in the late 20s and 30s.

Given that they would be a continual presence in Australia's northern approaches anyway they could surreptitiously deploy UUVs and USVs without attracting too much attention.

 

[Stampede]

Agreed. The new OPVs could prove very effective at deploying and retrieving autonomous vessels. With their large flight deck, mission deck and stern ramp they probably represent a capability that the RAN wouldn't otherwise have until the Hunters start entering service in the late 20s and 30s.

Given that they would be a continual presence in Australia's northern approaches anyway they could surreptitiously deploy UUVs and USVs without attracting too much attention.

Agree, the OPV's will be a great asset and workhorse for the RAN.

Looking short term, do we know what the destiny of HMAS Sirius is once both of the new Supply Class ships enter service?
I assume there is no intention to keep the ship, so is it still a sell able asset for another Navy, or unfortunately off to the breakers yards.
It's not even 16 years old from launch so it would seem a waste for it not to have some future somewhere..


Curious.

Regards S

 

[John Newman]

Agreed. The new OPVs could prove very effective at deploying and retrieving autonomous vessels. With their large flight deck, mission deck and stern ramp they probably represent a capability that the RAN wouldn't otherwise have until the Hunters start entering service in the late 20s and 30s.

Given that they would be a continual presence in Australia's northern approaches anyway they could surreptitiously deploy UUVs and USVs without attracting too much attention.

Moving beyond the OPVs and other RAN ships I mentioned above, lets not forget other possible ships that could deploy UAVs, USVs and UUVs.

Assuming that most, if not all, of the autonomous vehicles will be housed in standard ISO containers, then there is no reason, in times of need, that other ships such as Sycamore, Ocean Protector, Ocean Shield can't also be used to operate and deploy those systems.

There is also the SEA 1140 project ship that will replace Leeuwin and Melville, which I understand will be something like this:

Fincantieri | Hydrographic Survey Vessel

I don't think there will be a shortage of 'mothership' platforms available, probably likely to come down to how many autonomous systems are procured.

 

[John Newman]

Looking short term, do we know what the destiny of HMAS Sirius is once both of the new Supply Class ships enter service?
I assume there is no intention to keep the ship, so is it still a sell able asset for another Navy, or unfortunately off to the breakers yards.
It's not even 16 years old from launch so it would seem a waste for it not to have some future somewhere..

The question of what happens to Sirius is an interesting one for when both of the two new AORs commission, I suspect she will be sold off.

Yes on the one hand she is configured as an AO, not an AOR, but as a big fuel tanker, a relatively young tanker, she appears to be a handy asset

I've mentioned this before, on the 'pro' side, if the Government/RAN wanted to have three replenishment ships available sooner than later, it might be worthwhile keeping her in service (relatively young, known entity and a relatively small crew of around 60).

On the 'con' side, there is the operating costs and manpower overheads, limited capabilities compared to an AOR, and the other one is the big fat ship that our Kiwi cousins will commission in a few years, HMNZS Aotearoa, she may be available to operate alongside of the RAN in times of need.

Anyway, despite rising tensions in the seas just north of our part of the world, the Government may not be in a rush to keep her, just as there is no rush to keep the last two Adelaide class FFGs, even in a maintained reserve.

Cheers,

 

[ngatimozart]

On the 'con' side, there is the operating costs and manpower overheads, limited capabilities compared to an AOR, and the other one is the big fat ship that our Kiwi cousins will commission in a few years, HMNZS Aotearoa, she may be available to operate alongside of the RAN in times of need.
Cheers,

@John Newman G'day cobber,

Aotearoa is to be named October 2019, delivered January 2020 and commissioned early 2020. She's 26,000 tonnes displacement.

RNZN - Aotearoa

 

[Milne Bay]

So what did happen to the last two Adelaide class FFGs?
Has Poland ended up with them, or someone else?
I think Poland wanted SM2's etc to go with them and that may have been a sticking point.
So what is the sate of play?
MB

 

[ASSAIL]

The question of what happens to Sirius is an interesting one for when both of the two new AORs commission, I suspect she will be sold off.

Yes on the one hand she is configured as an AO, not an AOR, but as a big fuel tanker, a relatively young tanker, she appears to be a handy asset

I've mentioned this before, on the 'pro' side, if the Government/RAN wanted to have three replenishment ships available sooner than later, it might be worthwhile keeping her in service (relatively young, known entity and a relatively small crew of around 60).

On the 'con' side, there is the operating costs and manpower overheads, limited capabilities compared to an AOR, and the other one is the big fat ship that our Kiwi cousins will commission in a few years, HMNZS Aotearoa, she may be available to operate alongside of the RAN in times of need.

Anyway, despite rising tensions in the seas just north of our part of the world, the Government may not be in a rush to keep her, just as there is no rush to keep the last two Adelaide class FFGs, even in a maintained reserve.

Cheers,

Sirius has some major shortcomings for a small navy like the RAN.
The flight deck is all but unusable, she is too slow and she can’t perform the the AOR role as is needed when Success is not available.
Strikingly, many of these shortcomings were also present in HMAS Westralia, ex RFA Appleleaf, her predecessor.
The benefits of cheap acquisition were therefore compromised by her operational limitations so I don’t think there is any chance of her being retained once the two new AORs are commissioned.

The linked 2008 piece from ADM explains further. Defence Business: Sirius supply stalwarts Success | ADM May 08 - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[John Newman]

@John Newman G'day cobber,

Aotearoa is to be named October 2019, delivered January 2020 and commissioned early 2020. She's 26,000 tonnes displacement.

RNZN - Aotearoa

Hi mate, thanks for the update, sooner that I'd thought.

I had remembered reading somewhere that she wouldn't be operational until 2021, which is maybe FOC rather than IOC?

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

Sirius has some major shortcomings for a small navy like the RAN.
The flight deck is all but unusable, she is too slow and she can’t perform the the AOR role as is needed when Success is not available.
Strikingly, many of these shortcomings were also present in HMAS Westralia, ex RFA Appleleaf, her predecessor.
The benefits of cheap acquisition were therefore compromised by her operational limitations so I don’t think there is any chance of her being retained once the two new AORs are commissioned.

The linked 2008 piece from ADM explains further. Defence Business: Sirius supply stalwarts Success | ADM May 08 - Australian Defence Magazine

Hi mate, yes aware of the shortcomings of Sirius and have read that ADM article before too.

I'm certainly not advocating that the RAN pass over the opportunity of a 3rd AOR and settle for an AO, with it's limitations too, but more of a potential opportunity for the RAN to have an interim capability of three replenishment ships available sooner than later, if circumstances warranted such a move.

Which then brings us back to the 2016 DWP, the potential of either a 3rd AOR or an additional Logistics Support Ship (eg, a Choules type LSD), but not both.

If the final decision is to go with a 3rd AOR, that is clearly the end of the line for Sirius, if on the other hand the final decision comes down to not procuring a 3rd AOR, but instead a 2nd Choules type ship, then the potential retainment of Sirius in service in some capacity, may have some merit.

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

So what did happen to the last two Adelaide class FFGs?
Has Poland ended up with them, or someone else?
I think Poland wanted SM2's etc to go with them and that may have been a sticking point.
So what is the sate of play?
MB

The saga continues.

Poland appears to have dropped out, then there were reports earlier this year that Greece was interested, they wanted the missiles included, but reportedly they would not be sold with the missiles (I had read a long time back that the missiles from the FFGs would be retained and find their way over to the Hobart DDGs).

And finally the last thing I read was that Chile was showing interest too.....

 

[justinterested]

The two new AORs seem like they will be more capable and versatile vessels. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what radar they will have. With a double hangar, I would assume it was, at the very least, the same as the new OPV's Scanter Terma 6002?