Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

Now back to Defence related matters, nice little shopping list in this DSCA release

https://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-australia-surface-combatant-asc-program

A lot of stuff we already knew about and alluded too, for both the Hobart Class upgrades, and the Hunters.

Good to see confirmation of CEC for the Hunters, I know has been talked about for some time, but don't recall seeing it on paper anywhere ? could be wrong of course

This part took my interest though:

"Defence services for development and integration of a capability upgrade for the installed AEGIS Combat System on the Hobart Class Destroyer, including Integrated Air and Missile Defence capability and growth capability for Ballistic Missile Defence"

But only for the Hobart Class at this stage is the way I read that ? So potential SM-3 for Hobart's only ?

Would this see a different role/use for the Hobart Class once we start to see the Hunters enter service ?

Cheers

I feel the answer to that question is a long way into the future.
The Hunters are some way off with the first of class not due till the late 2020's
In their life span they will continue to evolve, so given the large size of these ships I'd suggest they have potential for the above.

Maybe the Hobart's can revert to their initial description of AIr Warfave Desroyers!

Regards S

 

[aussienscale]

The Hobarts currently have an older system to what the Hunters will have, so maybe it's part of the package for updating the Hobarts. Wouldn't the BMD capabilty be part of the AEGIS CLS that is now used regardless of platform? I was reading that the ABM capability is part of the AEGIS CLS in material posted on the RCN thread and that the RCN CSC will have the capability of SM-2 / 3 / 6 if so desired.

Ah ok was not aware of that, will have a look back through the RCN and do a little research, but makes sense thinking about it, the US has it, so why would you take it out so to speak for the Aus systems

Cheers

 

[protoplasm]

Maybe the Hobart's can revert to their initial description of AIr Warfave Desroyers!

Regards S

From a layman’s perspective I could definitely see this happening, where the Hobarts are acting as the BMD defender (maybe with SM3??) near to high value ship/s. With the Hunter’s further out they would also be freer to prosecute ASW rather than tied to Air Defence of other assets.

The AEGIS CSL may make it easy for any ship with an appropriate radar suite to undertake high end air and ballistic missile defence, but In the current RAN context I can see how the Hobarts could be developed into THE high end air defence asset.

 

[spoz]

The Hobarts currently have an older system to what the Hunters will have, so maybe it's part of the package for updating the Hobarts. Wouldn't the BMD capabilty be part of the AEGIS CLS that is now used regardless of platform? I was reading that the ABM capability is part of the AEGIS CLS in material posted on the RCN thread and that the RCN CSC will have the capability of SM-2 / 3 / 6 if so desired.

There are a number of different AEGIS specs current at present; you select in or select out the BMD functionality depending on preference; the determinant is the “baseline” you are installing to which defines the capabilities you actively incorporate.

 

[seaspear]

I dont want to go off the thread being as its a navy one but the Hobarts and Hunter class will also have the networking of the Wedgetail,s c.e.c and I understand the army,s missile defence program is also included in this , whether this means actually all the platforms carrying the sm-3 or sm-6 is for another day ,just having the ability to is very likely

 

[John Newman]

Climate change, blah, blah, blah, Nuclear power and Nuclear powered submarines, blah blah, blah....

A while ago I decided to have a little break from commenting on DT, especially the RAN thread, when all the above was trotted out, and here we are yet again.

Whilst we all have our views, pro and against on both subjects (I could say my personal view, but then I'll probably be shot down). I feel that history is repeating itself again, certain people put a view up and are hit for six over the fence, and other comments are allowed to go through to the keeper (sideways comments regarding the above).

Either we are talking about RAN matters (not fantasy), or not, or it's open slather and we can go for it un-moderated.

I'll check in again after I take a deep breath.

Cheers,

 

[toryu]

Here's some proper news:

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-australia-surface-combatant-asc-program

The Government of Australia has requested to buy long lead items, engineering development activities, and other defense services to support the Australian Surface Combatant Program, including the modernization of the three Hobart Class Destroyers, and construction of the first three (of nine total) Hunter Class Frigates which includes:

A very long list of very high end naval systems. Oh boy!

Includes 3 and 6 shipsets of gear for the first three Hunters and to bring the three Hobarts up to the same spec. Upgraded Hawklink, CEC and a great deal more.

This also confirms the two waist CIWS weapons stations (for the first three Hunters anyway) will be sourced from this buy, so most likely Phalanx.

Frustratingly, no mention of the exact number of Mk41 cells. Just three 'shipsets'.

 

[ngatimozart]

Here's some proper news:

https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-australia-surface-combatant-asc-program



A very long list of very high end naval systems. Oh boy!

Includes 3 and 6 shipsets of gear for the first three Hunters and to bring the three Hobarts up to the same spec. Upgraded Hawklink, CEC and a great deal more.

This also confirms the two waist CIWS weapons stations (for thee first three Hunters anyway) will be sourced from this buy, so most likely Phalanx.

Frustratingly, no mention of the exact number of Mk41 cells. Just three 'shipsets'.

It's nice that you posted the link, but I think that this is the 2nd or 3rd time that it has been posted here. Just have a nose through to see that something like this hasn't been posted before, especially for something as major as this. Don't worry we all do it

There has been some discussion already about this in the preceding 2 - 3 pages from memory mixed up with sub and other stuff. Some posters on here must lurk permanently on the DSCA site LOL.

 

[toryu]

It's nice that you posted the link, but I think that this is the 2nd or 3rd time that it has been posted here. Just have a nose through to see that something like this hasn't been posted before, especially for something as major as this. Don't worry we all do it

There has been some discussion already about this in the preceding 2 - 3 pages from memory mixed up with sub and other stuff. Some posters on here must lurk permanently on the DSCA site LOL.

Damn, I did have a flick back a couple of pages but must have skimmed over it. Sincerest apologies!

Edit: Found it. Should have gone back one more page.

I'm unfortunately one of those weirdos that checks it every so often. Not often enough clearly.

 

[swerve]

Frances Barracuda reactor was delayed as they are trying to build a low enriched uranium reactor. A tricky endeavor never tried before. ....

Don't CANDU reactors use low enriched (even natural) uranium? They've been around since the 1960s.

I think what you mean may be that a low enriched uranium reactor suitable for powering a submarine hasn't been tried before.

 

[alexsa]

While not wanting to repeat the whole discussion the FMS sales in regards to equipment for the Hobart class DDG and the Hunter Class FFG there appears to be one very important point here. The fact that the order is limited to three shipsets for the Hunter Class appears to support the intention to order and supply equipment one batch at a time.

Noting what happened with the ANZAC, where much of the equipment was order upfront for the production run of 10 vessels, this will facilitate the evolution of the Hunter Class between batches. This removes the risk of obsolete systems being fitted to vessels toward the end of the production run. I hope I am correct this is a critical advantage of batch building.

 

[SteveR]

But with lithium batteries rapidly moving ahead as a technology, the may soon be no need for nuclear submarines as advanced battery tech will effectively close the gap on most mission profiles easily with in the next generation..

Just a reminder that Australian DST set up a test facility for submarine Lithium batteries some 3 years ago so RAN is being kept fully informed of their potential - and especially their safety:

Powering the future of submarine fleets

Why would DST undertake this unless there is an intent to move that way?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think what you mean may be that a low enriched uranium reactor suitable for powering a submarine hasn't been tried before.

The French Barracuda submarine uses a low enriched uranium, which has never been tried before on a submarine at least openly (China perhaps uses LEU, but has also had tremendous problems with its nuclear reactors). The US and others are actively looking at this as we wind down the stockpile created for the coldwar and efforts to reduce cost come into play.

Almost all commercial reactors are low enrichment uranium, the CANDU famously need no enrichment. However, no enrichment tends to mean they need to be massive and have larger construction costs. Lower levels of enrichment tends to mean you need a bigger reactor. A tremendous problem in a submarine.

Battle Lines Drawn Over Naval Reactor Fuel
https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/leu-naval.pdf
The Feasibility of Ending HEU Fuel Use in the U.S. Navy | Arms Control Association

Also modern nuclear submarines have very strict energy budgets now to ensure the core lasts the life of the sub. Also reactors like the french one, are being built with much tighter peak outputs, they are changing their conops as well. Much like you would have on a diesel submarine. The idea that a SSN can cruise everywhere at 30+kts and not surface, unlimited power and endurance are very dated. A sub that is deaf, dumb, noisey and blind is a not a very good sub.

So SSN's are much more likely to sit at speeds much less than <20kts, surface several times while on patrol, its starts to look and act possibly what an advanced conventional submarine would look like.

Why would DST undertake this unless there is an intent to move that way?

Its a technology that is irresistible for the applications for high performance military equipment. While not all technologies pan out as successful, Lithium is already operationally deployed.

However like the USS Albacore (AGSS-569) - Wikipedia, we have yet to optimize submarines for this new technology. It may turn out adapting a nuclear submarine to advanced conventional is easier than adapting a traditional submarine to advanced conventional. There is more overlap with nuclear submarines than with conventional.

 

[ngatimozart]

While not wanting to repeat the whole discussion the FMS sales in regards to equipment for the Hobart class DDG and the Hunter Class FFG there appears to be one very important point here. The fact that the order is limited to three shipsets for the Hunter Class appears to support the intention to order and supply equipment one batch at a time.

Noting what happened with the ANZAC, where much of the equipment was order upfront for the production run of 10 vessels, this will facilitate the evolution of the Hunter Class between batches. This removes the risk of obsolete systems being fitted to vessels toward the end of the production run. I hope I am correct this is a critical advantage of batch building.

I thought that was the intention, to batch build with incremental improvements with each new batch, negating expensive MLUs, so that would make sense.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I thought that was the intention, to batch build with incremental improvements with each new batch, negating expensive MLUs, so that would make sense.

Particularly with Aegis getting regular updates, the idea of a system being for the life of the ship seems to have been discontinued.

Seems a bit odd that we are ordering the replacement systems for HMAS Sydney before she is even commissioned though. Obviously its upgrade will effectively be immediate as the systems get delivered.

However it appears we are also very (very!) keen to upgrade to the next baseline of Aegis (9 for dual role, BMD/Sm6?) and to integrate the 9LV console as well. I assume 9 will be around longer than 7 was.

 

[alexsa]

I thought that was the intention, to batch build with incremental improvements with each new batch, negating expensive MLUs, so that would make sense.

It most certainly was but it is nice to see evidence they may be sticking to this approach. It is not just combat systems that are the issue but main units such as gen sets etc. I will be interested to see how these are ordered.

 

[aussienscale]

The French Barracuda submarine uses a low enriched uranium..........

Battle Lines Drawn Over Naval Reactor Fuel
https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/leu-naval.pdf
The Feasibility of Ending HEU Fuel Use in the U.S. Navy | Arms Control Association

Sorry deleted a lot of the quote for brevity and easier to read

I like FAS as well, good source of info, a few I have been reading over on the same subject which adds to the discussion:

https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Frances-Choice-for-Naval-Nuclear-Propulsion.pdf

Specifically on the French program, so really good info, and some that carries over to the Attack Class submarines too.

https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/leu-naval.pdf

Some hefty reading but well worth it if you are interested.

https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/media/Life-of-the-Ship-Reactors-and-Accelerated-Testing.pdf

A good read on life of ship reactors and some of the issues raised in testing, in particular with the UK's Astute's.

https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-FAS-UK-NNPP-HEU-final2.pdf

And finally a good read on the UK program and how the US have been involved since the start, but good info on using HEU

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

An article published by the ANI arguing for a large fast cat in RAN service similar to the role the INCAT fast cat was used during the East Timor OP and for HADR. Not sure myself.

Navy needs a large catamaran – The Australian Naval Institute

 

[ASSAIL]

An article published by the ANI arguing for a large fast cat in RAN service similar to the role the INCAT fast cat was used during the East Timor OP and for HADR. Not sure myself.

Navy needs a large catamaran – The Australian Naval Institute

My post #27486 on page 1375 covers this precisely.
I disagree on the detail here but the principal is sound.
One or two EFPs, as built by Austal, should be acquired as the “Pacific” support capability and manned by civilians. They would be just as successful as commissioned ships just as MV Sycamore has proven over the fire crisis.

 

[MickB]

An article published by the ANI arguing for a large fast cat in RAN service similar to the role the INCAT fast cat was used during the East Timor OP and for HADR. Not sure myself.

Navy needs a large catamaran – The Australian Naval Institute

While I can see and agree with many of Assail's points about the large cats usefulness as the Pacific ship, I have a few issues with this article.

I greatly dislike articles written with terms like "already obsolete submarine ", where they do not explain why they claim it is obsolete and/or offer a better alternative.

Also if the need was deemed to be severe enough I am sure the Choules could have taken more than a thousand people in each lift. To imply that a catamaran 1/3 of the tonnage has a greater lift capacity than Choules seems a bit dishonest.