Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Frankly, I would sort of like to see one of the S. Korean Deathstar's in RAN service, 128 VLS cells if memory serves. With quad-packed ESSM or something similar, that sort of missile loadout would sort of scream, "we are SFA concerned about swarm missile attacks, bring it!"

There would also be plenty of space of land attack, long-ranged area air defence, or ASROC missiles, depending on area and needed mission load out.

Somehow though, I doubt the RAN would be allowed to get a replacement vessel with that many VLS.

 

[Milne Bay]

Frankly, I would sort of like to see one of the S. Korean Deathstar's in RAN service, 128 VLS cells if memory serves. With quad-packed ESSM or something similar, that sort of missile loadout would sort of scream, "we are SFA concerned about swarm missile attacks, bring it!"

There would also be plenty of space of land attack, long-ranged area air defence, or ASROC missiles, depending on area and needed mission load out.

Somehow though, I doubt the RAN would be allowed to get a replacement vessel with that many VLS.

It isn't just the logistics of a swarm attack. Most people only think of an attack as being just that - a single attack. Any aggressor who is serious is going to initiate more than one attack, and with each one, the defender's missiles are further depleted. After multiple attacks the VLS's are simply empty. There is no satisfactory means of "at sea replenishment" of missile cells so the vessel becomes a liability to the task group and another target that has to be defended by whatever missiles the group has left. To my mind 48 cells simply isn't enough.
MB

 

[t68]

Don't know if the timing would suit, but as the Kiwis have said they may have to go the cheaper route. Would selling the the AWD be benifical come time for the Anzac replacements, then hopefully fingers crossed have an additional run to replace the AWD. From memory they Kiwi Anzac will be replaced around 2030, could that be an option?

We got 15 years to get the US/Kiwis on side

 

[Todjaeger]

It isn't just the logistics of a swarm attack. Most people only think of an attack as being just that - a single attack. Any aggressor who is serious is going to initiate more than one attack, and with each one, the defender's missiles are further depleted. After multiple attacks the VLS's are simply empty. There is no satisfactory means of "at sea replenishment" of missile cells so the vessel becomes a liability to the task group and another target that has to be defended by whatever missiles the group has left. To my mind 48 cells simply isn't enough.
MB

Quite true. The logistical requirements would also be an impediment to the RAN quad-packing ESSM into one of the KDX-III DDG's. One (assuming all VLS could/are comparable to Mk-41 VLS) vessel would have a load of 512 ESSM, or twice the max load of all the ANZAC-class FFH's if they were at full loadout. Not sure the RAN even has that many in inventory.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Frankly, I would sort of like to see one of the S. Korean Deathstar's in RAN service, 128 VLS cells if memory serves. With quad-packed ESSM or something similar, that sort of missile loadout would sort of scream, "we are SFA concerned about swarm missile attacks, bring it!"

There would also be plenty of space of land attack, long-ranged area air defence, or ASROC missiles, depending on area and needed mission load out.

Somehow though, I doubt the RAN would be allowed to get a replacement vessel with that many VLS.

well, thats why the arsenal ship died.... kiss goodbye to force development, force balance and most of a tri-quad service budget



it keeps the Comi-Con crowd happy, but not the force planners

 

[StingrayOZ]

What makes you say that? The RN specced Type 26 is expected to have 48 CAMM launchers, but only 24 strike length VLS. In the Australian spec it is expected to be modified to have 48 Mk-41 cells, but certainly no more than that.

I can't imagine why the Type 26 would be designed to have 64 cells when neither the RN or any expected export customers (RAN) want that many.

Well as you pointed out, currently it has 72 vertical launchers, with only 24 being strike length Mk41's. Obviously for the RAN it would be 48 strike length. It will be interesting how 48 Mk 41 launchers would be accommodated (at the front?), if its possible (to me it would seem unlikely) to to put them up high and behind the bridge, and if there is any room for additional VLS (self defence? Quad pack ESSM with 16 VLS and replace the 24 CAMM launchers with these) or harpoons (nfi where these would go). Pure speculation of course.

Somehow though, I doubt the RAN would be allowed to get a replacement vessel with that many VLS.

Well it would be a significant increase over what we currently have. However, I could certainly see the RAN fitting additional self defence VLS. 16 cell self defense quad packed would free up VLS for heavier missiles.

KDX-III has 80 Mk-41 VLS. They do have an additional 48 K-VLS setup that fires land attack and ascroc variants. Plus RAM, plus some additional antishipping missiles. Certainly more than 128 missiles.

The Atago has 96 Mk-41 Cells (plus 16 harpoon replacements).

IMO going with 48 VLS is not bringing enough weight either offensively or defensively. We really sit in a no where land. Not enough to approximately match similar (type 52D 64 VLS - quad packed capable) PLAN ships, but overkill for smaller or older ships. Certainly no room for future growth, decoys, ASROC, land attack, BMD etc.

Obviously the RAN wouldn't have to pack them all out. But having the cells gives easy and fast upgrades or the ability to meet the mission requirements.

 

[swerve]

they won't get sold off - the engineering deconstruction to meet ITARs obligations would be prohibitive

Because the navies that would be allowed to buy them without such deconstruction aren't in the market for second hand ships?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Because the navies that would be allowed to buy them without such deconstruction aren't in the market for second hand ships?

on the basis that unless those countries are already covered under the FMS development arrangements then it just becomes a nightmare stripping the ITARs/FMS tagged gear out of the hulls - and some of those comms systems are so embedded that the ship is almost like something out of Farscape

even countries covered under tech specific agreements have variations between them. eg the FMS arrangements for Spain, Japan, Australia for Aegis are all different, so there wouldn't be an easy way for even the three of us to have a cross transfer without rewriting the FMS/ITARs nation specific arrangements.

so a country thats not even covered under existing tech specific FMS arrangments for any of the systems (as its a tech specific issue, so numerous capabilities with individual constraints) - would just cause State and the USG some conniptions

Its easier to turn them into artificial reefs

complicated even further by the fact that the transfer constraints can vary within themselves

eg RAAF gets access to some tech through "sponsorship" and assistance from USN, whereas other countries with the same capability might have only been through a process negotiated by State Dept direct.

There's no simple solution on some of the tech transfer, tech destruction at end of life etc....

 

[alexsa]

The F-105 is an old design that will need to be completely revamped. When I think of re-purposing old designs my mind goes back to Australia's attempt to re-invent the Seasprite ... and we all know how that turned out.

Looking at all three ships I don't know which would be the riskiest ... but I think you have to look at the upside as well as the downside when considering which ship will be the best for Australia's requirements.

For that reason would tend to lean towards the Type 26 simply because I think that the potential benefits will outweigh the risks.

If Australia has had input into its design then it should be the ship that best meets our requirements.

Sorry but the Burke is an even older design but continues to be effective with updating so I don't buy that line.

The T26 is significant risk ....... Because the design is not finalised and you want construction to start in four years. Any delay in finalising the design and issues with it (noting the T45 is not exactly having a good run at the moment and that sort of thing can really wreak your schedule) add to the time risk.

The FREMM is in service in number. That reduces risk

We are building the hull for the F105 derivative which is an excellent risk reduction approach as we have already had to deal with the inevitable production problems that come with this process.

Noting the DWP suggests batch build wiht updates it may not be beyond the realms of possibility that a design change between batches could be considered.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Noting the DWP suggests batch build wiht updates it may not be beyond the realms of possibility that a design change between batches could be considered.

yep, I smell the soft hand of RAND and the USN here.... its a Block incremental development approach.

Its also the PLAN approach

 

[Bluey 006]

What makes you say that? The RN specced Type 26 is expected to have 48 CAMM launchers, but only 24 strike length VLS. In the Australian spec it is expected to be modified to have 48 Mk-41 cells, but certainly no more than that.

I can't imagine why the Type 26 would be designed to have 64 cells when neither the RN or any expected export customers (RAN) want that many.

I agree with this statement, as much as we'd all like 64 cells. Can't see it happening. 32-48 i'd expect.

From an engineering point of view, wouldn't they try to limit the changes? leave the 24 cell where it is in the british design and expand on it if possible and/alternatively find somewhere else for the additional cells?

 

[Raven22]

I still say build a batch of three F100 derivatives now, to buy time for the Type 26 to mature for the final six.

 

[ASSAIL]

All this chatter about multiple VLS fails to recognise the capability that our CONOPS defines. We are not about to storm the Formosa Str with the LHDs escorted by the RAN surface force. People have become fixated with this or that platform because it looks good or it's the biggest or it has more cells. Besides, if we doubled the armaments carried we couldn't pay for any other capability.

We need a ship which can provide force ASW defence in a low level independent operation such as ET. Further one that can contribute to ASW defence of a joint force in a high level conflict. Given the size parameters needed to fulfil that role, the platform selected will have enough reserve to contribute to air defence in either scenario. Whether the VLS contains ASW torpedoes, close defence weapons or area weapons, 48 cells would seem more than enough for the RAN surface ships to meet our operational doctrine.

 

[Punta74]

Seems an annoucement on the Subs is imminent, as early as next week (prior to budget).

http://http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/japan-stumbles-in-subs-race/news-story/29831cee128d802db5078e7e47952819

 

[Oberon]

Don't know if the timing would suit, but as the Kiwis have said they may have to go the cheaper route. Would selling the the AWD be benifical come time for the Anzac replacements, then hopefully fingers crossed have an additional run to replace the AWD. From memory they Kiwi Anzac will be replaced around 2030, could that be an option?

We got 15 years to get the US/Kiwis on side

Would the kiwis be interested in 15 year old ex-RAN air warfare destroyers even if US approval is fortcoming? They seem more interested in a GP frigate for patrol work.

 

[Milne Bay]

All this chatter about multiple VLS fails to recognise the capability that our CONOPS defines. We are not about to storm the Formosa Str with the LHDs escorted by the RAN surface force. People have become fixated with this or that platform because it looks good or it's the biggest or it has more cells. Besides, if we doubled the armaments carried we couldn't pay for any other capability.

We need a ship which can provide force ASW defence in a low level independent operation such as ET. Further one that can contribute to ASW defence of a joint force in a high level conflict. Given the size parameters needed to fulfil that role, the platform selected will have enough reserve to contribute to air defence in either scenario. Whether the VLS contains ASW torpedoes, close defence weapons or area weapons, 48 cells would seem more than enough for the RAN surface ships to meet our operational doctrine.

I have read this kind of response many times, and I will have to respectfully disagree. The kinds of requirements written into our CONOPS seem to be driven by economic rather than operational imperatives. When ships are needed in a shooting war, history shows us that under armed vessels have been sent into harm's way because they were all that was available at the time. The results were often heroic and predictably catastrophic. The whole rationale behind the investment in our national naval defence capability is premised upon the perceived need to be able to safely defend escorted naval assets and the escorting ship(s) (it/them)selves.
Building ships that are design limited from the outset is a recipe for disaster as far as I can see. If suitable capacity can be built into the design from day one then the ability to up-arm such vessels is not only desirable but prudent.
MB

 

[Oberon]

Seems an annoucement on the Subs is imminent, as early as next week (prior to budget).

http://http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/japan-stumbles-in-subs-race/news-story/29831cee128d802db5078e7e47952819

Thanks Punta 74. You were onto this quick. It seems the Aus gov't sees less risk with a paper design by a company experienced in overseas builds than a company with a proven design, but no experience with offshore building.

 

[Redlands18]

Seems an annoucement on the Subs is imminent, as early as next week (prior to budget).

http://http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/japan-stumbles-in-subs-race/news-story/29831cee128d802db5078e7e47952819

The ABC is also reporting this (StingrayOZ has provided a link on page 1231) they are saying that the announcement is next week and it will be European. The Australian could just be repeating the ABC news article.
Some of us don't have a subscription to the OZ, can you give us a quick overview of whats in the article please.

 

[Oberon]

The ABC is also reporting this (StingrayOZ has provided a link on page 1231) they are saying that the announcement is next week and it will be European. The Australian could just be repeating the ABC news article.
Some of us don't have a subscription to the OZ, can you give us a quick overview of whats in the article please.

Japan has been virtually eliminated from a multibillion-dollar contest to supply Australia’s navy with new submarines, two people familiar with the matter said, with German or French competitors now favoured to win one of the world’s most lucrative current weapons deals.

Senior Australian security ministers met on Tuesday to consider offers to build 12 conventionally powered submarines in Australia, the people said. While the conservative government has yet to make a final decision, one of the people said the Japanese bid was viewed as having “considerable risk,” given Japanese inexperience building naval equipment overseas.

The government is expected to next week award the $50 billion ($US39.07bn) contract to either German shipbuilder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Australia, a subsidiary of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems GmbH set up to pursue the Australian contract, or French contender DCNS.

The German company — one of the world’s largest suppliers of conventionally powered submarines — was emerging as a frontrunner, having promised to transfer advanced manufacturing skills to an Australian hub where the submarines would be built, the people familiar with the matter said.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the lead company in the Japanese consortium, declined to comment on the group’s bid. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, the Japanese government’s top spokesman, also declined to comment, saying the selection process was continuing.

ThyssenKrupp is offering its new Type 216 submarine, designed to meet Australian requirements that include long-range capability and endurance to suit the country’s vast ocean territory. It is up against a conventional version of the 4,700-metric-ton Barracuda, built by DCNS, and Japan’s 4,000-ton Soryu, built by Mitsubishi Heavy and Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corp.

A DCNS spokesman said the French state-owned shipbuilder believed the government was still going through its selection process, with a final decision yet to be made.

ThyssenKrupp’s Australian chairman, John White, said the decision-making process had been tightly run, with no indications emerging of whether the company was likely to be successful.

Australia’s submarine replacement is being closely followed in Washington, given strategic jostling with China. The US has given assurances to Canberra that it won’t stand in the way of the installation of sensitive US Navy combat systems on Australian submarines if a European company wins the contract. US-based Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are both vying to supply Australia with systems similar to those used to control US nuclear vessels.

The contract decision also has become a political flashpoint in the lead-up to a general election, which Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull this week signalled will come in July.

Naval shipbuilding and manufacturing jobs have been a central issue, with Mr Turnbull promising $38 billion in surface-warship contracts for the state of South Australia, which has been hit hard by auto-industry manufacturing closures. The submarines are also likely to be built in the South Australian capital of Adelaide.

An unsuccessful Japanese bid would be a blow to the country’s hopes of becoming a major arms exporter for the first time since World War II. Japan had initially been favoured to win the contest given close ties between Australia’s former prime minister, Tony Abbott, and Japan’s Shinzo Abe, who in 2014 eased a ban on weapons exports.

The deal was seen by some strategic analysts as a test case for how Japan could reposition itself in the region as Mr Abe seeks to use military-hardware trade to help build ties with neighbours wary of China’s growing strength and muscle-flexing in the South China Sea.

Both the Germans and the Japanese stepped up advertising this week in hopes of adding momentum to their bids. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries also set up an Australian subsidiary in Sydney to support its bid.

Dow Jones newswires

 

[t68]

Would the kiwis be interested in 15 year old ex-RAN air warfare destroyers even if US approval is fortcoming? *They seem more interested in a GP frigate for patrol work.

I'm only looking to see if it's feasible or not more just thinking or in this manner typing out load.*

I guess it comes down to the capability the can afford new or the capability of the AWD at time of sale for which ever is the greater capability for the outlay at the time. That is if the US would approve of such a sale, would there be any reasons the US would block it?
*


The other thing to consider is the upgrade path for the Aegis combat system, hypothetically would the RAN upgrade the system at midlife or move to perhaps an improved Cea tech system's And if so would it be economically viable.