Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks mate..... it is great to see this fantastic piece of infrastructure get built. Noting the block build intent .... Just a thought with all the talk on this site of our NZ brothers building cheap in Asia. This offers the ability to order mid stream to specification.... in other words .... if the external environment changes NZ can up spec .... or de spec as desired. Basically it offers the chance to spread the NZ frigate replacement over a longer period and allows the vessel configuration to be altered as needed by circumstance. This means NZ is not locked into a two of three ship build to a fixed specification. This is something the discussion has not considered.

All we need now is to not have the politicians stuff it up
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Thanks mate..... it is great to see this fantastic piece of infrastructure get built. Noting the block build intent .... Just a thought with all the talk on this site of our NZ brothers building cheap in Asia. This offers the ability to order mid stream to specification.... in other words .... if the external environment changes NZ can up spec .... or de spec as desired. Basically it offers the chance to spread the NZ frigate replacement over a longer period and allows the vessel configuration to be altered as needed by circumstance. This means NZ is not locked into a two of three ship build to a fixed specification. This is something the discussion has not considered.

All we need now is to not have the politicians stuff it up
On the subject of 'potential spare' capacity at the Osborne yard, it's worth revisiting what was said at the time of the Hunter class announcement in late June 2018:

Doorstop: Future Frigates Announcement: Osborne Shipyards, South Australia | Malcolm Turnbull

Specifically this quote:

The ASC Group is not precluded from pursuing future shipbuilding opportunities as well. The announcement today and the structural announcement we have made today is specific in relation to ASC Shipbuilding, which will be transferred as a subsidiary to BAE Systems, just for the period of the build.

Also this as well:

Sea 5000: Behind the BAE Systems win - Australian Defence Magazine

Specifically this quote:

Australian construction is predicated on batches of three, utilising the same digital manufacturing process installed in BAE Systems’ Glasgow yard for Type 26 production. The present Osborne schedule involves completion of a ship every two years but sufficient capacity at the upgraded and expanded facility was available to either accelerate construction or build other ships concurrently, Stewart said.


The two main takeaways from the above quotes are that ASC can still pursue other shipbuilding projects, it is not locked into being completely and wholly focused on the build of the nine Hunter class FFGs. And to support that possibility, the expanded and upgraded facilities (now controlled by Australian Naval Infrastructure) allows for both a 'speed up' of the drumbeat for the Hunter class and/or being able to build other ships concurrently.

And I can also imagine that, with ANI owning the site, other builders could potentially share the site too, eg, use the infrastructure that was used for the DDGs and now being used for the first two OPVs.

Cheers,

PS, here is a link to the ANI website:

News
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That will effectively be the situation from next year when BAE (acting through their part of ASC), as they stat to mobilise for the first construction activities, shares the site with another element of ASC who are working for Luerssen.......whether it would be achievable from a management and scheduling perspective once the Hunter build gets fully underway would probably only become evident at that time.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I see in the paper they have made official sounds of a submarine base on the east coast.
We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph

Small section quote
Defence has noted it is committed to keeping the current entire fleet of ageing Collins class submarines in Western Australia, many of which are currently being overhauled to extend their life.

But the placement of the incoming French-designed new subs was still being determined, particularly since they would effectively have to double the submariner force to cope with the new technology.

The department has specifically noted it was likely a person not yet born would be the potential new recruit for the new Barracuda-class submarines to come by 2030 and that recruitment would likely come from the east coast where 85 per cent of the population live. Recruitment and retention to effectively double the submariner, uniformed and support force, was deemed to be “critical”.

It is understood Newcastle and Port Kembla regions have been nominated as possible options for such a base.
I think an East Coast base is an absolutely requirement to getting more than 6 subs operational. This would go a long way to addressing crewing, retention, expansion, career progression, technical capability and profile of the submarines. It doesn't take anything away from WA. WA would logically transition to Attack classes as the Collins are replaced. This actually makes managing the mixed fleet a bit simpler and is likely to stop some of the infighting.

Locking up a suitable location in Newcastle/Port Kembla imo is a national priority. With excellent deep water access, commercial port facilities, more affordable cost of living, yet still within easy commutable distance to FBE and not that far from Jarvis Bay, would seem ideal.
 
Hi everyone

Just have a question regarding the hunter class. I can’t seem to find a definitive answer on the number of VLS cells that will be installed, apologies in advance if this has already been discussed.

Cheers
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I don't know that the VLS count has been finalised. Early number I heard was 32 but time shall tell. Personally I'd like to see it as high as possible - there's not much down side to having more magazine depth in our part of the world.
 

SteveR

Active Member
I don't know that the VLS count has been finalised. Early number I heard was 32 but time shall tell. Personally I'd like to see it as high as possible - there's not much down side to having more magazine depth in our part of the world.
I wish I could find the images, but the RN Type 26s have 3x8 cell = 24 Mk 41 VLS arranged athwart ship with Sea Ceptor cells forward in the superstructure forward of the bridge. I think the Canadian version also has 3x8 athwart. Because the RAN has not selected Sea Ceptor the Mk 41 VLS has been turned through 90 degrees to allow 4x8 cells to extend into the space occupied by the shallow Sea Ceptor. Of course the much greater depth of the Mk41 cells means something has to be re-arranged below decks on the RAN design.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
I don't know that the VLS count has been finalised. Early number I heard was 32 but time shall tell. Personally I'd like to see it as high as possible - there's not much down side to having more magazine depth in our part of the world.
If the RAN website is to be believed, it will be 32 cells (go to 0:38 in the video in the following link): Hunter Class FFG | Royal Australian Navy

These will be fantastic ships. Given you have your AWDs for the area defence role, 32 cells is probably adequate for the Hunters, though I agree more is always better.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
I think the Canadian version also has 3x8 athwart.
The GoC is still negotiating the final configuration with BAE/Irving, but the models seem to indicate 32 Mk 41 cells as well, but also 6 ExLS launchers between the SAT domes found aft of the funnel. It was announced at CANSEC 2019 that these cells will contain SeaCeptor for the close-in area defence role. It's not entirely clear at this point if the first 3 ships will have more Mk41s, given they are supposed to replace our now retired destroyer class.

You can see the Mk41 layout at 0:41 in the following video. 32 cells, though they are laid out differently than the Hunters, for some reason. Also, you can see the 6 ExLS launchers just aft of the funnel at 0:49 in the video:
 
Last edited:

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
The problem to me (admittedly as a layman) is persistence. When you consider the fact that you're probably going to shoot more than one missile at each incoming AShM and that the only way to reload is to return to port... 32 cells might not last long against that emerging superpower up north. (Nevermind space for ASROC, NSM etc).

Quad packing ESSM helps of course but being able to hit inbounds early & over the horizon NIFC-CA style using SM2 BlkIII/SM6 strikes me as the most survivable approach where possible.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Persistence is an issue and given the huge advances in offensive missile development the problem will only get worse. When you have lots of money and you are not really answerable to an electorate, a huge missile inventory is possible. These advantages don't apply to most navies with an "R" in their acronyms, especially true for the navy with the letters CN.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The GoC is still negotiating the final configuration with BAE/Irving, but the models seem to indicate 32 Mk 41 cells as well, but also 6 ExLS launchers between the SAT domes found aft of the funnel. It was announced at CANSEC 2019 that these cells will contain SeaCeptor for the close-in area defence role. It's not entirely clear at this point if the first 3 ships will have more Mk41s, given they are supposed to replace our now retired destroyer class.

You can see the Mk41 layout at 0:41 in the following video. 32 cells, though they are laid out differently than the Hunters, for some reason. Also, you can see the 6 ExLS launchers just aft of the funnel at 0:49 in the video:
It is puzzling to me that the Canadians are planning on using both CeaCeptor and ESSM while at the same time dispensing of conventional CIWS. The layout of the 32 VLS is also curious.

Does that mean it is possible to fit 2 rows of Strike length MK 41 or have the Canadians opted for a mix of strike and tactical length launchers?

When you think about it would you really need to have all strike length anyway? Unless you specifically need a strike length launcher you can save money, weight and space by fitting a mix of tactical and strike length VLS.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
It is puzzling to me that the Canadians are planning on using both CeaCeptor and ESSM while at the same time dispensing of conventional CIWS. The layout of the 32 VLS is also curious.

Does that mean it is possible to fit 2 rows of Strike length MK 41 or have the Canadians opted for a mix of strike and tactical length launchers?

When you think about it would you really need to have all strike length anyway? Unless you specifically need a strike length launcher you can save money, weight and space by fitting a mix of tactical and strike length VLS.
Originally, this was planned to be a batch build, with the first batch of 3 (possibly 4) ships being optimized for area air defence. These ships were to replace the since retired Iroquois class destroyers, which performed that role for Canada. It was thought those first ships would have 40+ Mk 41 cells. The remaining builds would be for a GP frigate. Other differences were the radar systems, which on the first ships were thought to be AMDR, with EASR on the remaining 12 ships. However, in the last year or so it would seem that the RCN has moved to build a single common configuration for all 15 ships with a powerful S-band LM radar (based on LRDR). If true, this means any ship could assume the area air defence role simply by having the appropriate missile load-out. In other words, for that role, the 32 cells would all be filled with SMx, and the close-in defence would be handled by the 24 Sea Ceptors in the 6 ExLS cells. For a ship in the "GP" role, there would still be a mix of SMx (presumably SM2) in some of the Mk41 cells (it has been speculated 16), with ESSM quad-packed in the remaining Mk41 cells, plus Sea Ceptor. However, this is pretty much speculation at this point, as the RCN is still in the Requirements definition phase of the project, so the final configuration could again be different from what is seen in the model in the video. It should be noted that over the past 3 years the T26 models for CSC have been quite different, with some having 24 Mk 41 cells, some 32, some with Sea RAM (but no ExLS), and some with Phalanx (also with no ExLS). There are pictures of all these variants on the Canadian thread, if anyone is interested.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Interesting if the CSC will be a common configuration. Has the LM radar been confirmed? A millenium 35 mm gun in lieu of the Phalanx works for me. Sea RAM, nice but more expensive missiles. Can these RIM-116 missiles be loaded into the launcher at sea?
 

Flexson

Active Member
What I keep hearing from work and elsewhere is;

RN = 24x Mk41 and 24x Sea Ceptor forward of the Bridge plus 24x Sea Ceptor aft of funnel.
RCN = 32x Mk41 forward of the Bridge plus 6x ExLS aft of funnel.
RAN = 32x Mk41 forward of the Bridge (spun 90 degrees compared to RN/RCN).

However word on the street at work is that the Type 26 design can accommodate up to 48x Strike Length Mk41 VLS forward of the Bridge and 24x shorter length launchers aft of the funnel.

Good picture of the RN version (source in pic).
 

Attachments

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
See to my mind it seems like a no brainer to fit the full ~72 cells from the outset. Even if it's too expensive to fill them all during peacetime you at least have the option of doing so in a crisis. Is there something I'm missing here?
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Is there something I'm missing here?
I'd say yes, the first thing that comes to mind is.... Dollars, lots and lots of dollars.

Putting aside the endless discussion regarding the number of VLS the Hunter class FFG will have (start of service life, potential growth, etc, etc), the Hunter class will be very well equipped from day one, not just weapons, but all the sensors, etc, too, they are very much 'fitted with' and not the old 'fitted for' as was the case with the Anzac class FFH.

It's worth revisiting the RAN spec sheet (specifically the bottom of page 2):

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

Let's not forget that the primary role of this class is ASW, but the AAW and AShW capabilities are pretty dammed impressive too.

Looking to the future RAN it's easy to imagine a task group of, say, an LHD or two, LPD, AOR, etc, being escorted by a DDG and a couple of FFGs.

Those three escorts will have a total of 112 strike length VLS cells (in any loadout combination the RAN sees fit), but lets say each of the three ships is using quad pack ESSM (probably Blk2), in 8 cells on each ship, that's a total of 96 ESSM available, that leaves 88 cells available for SM-2/-6, etc, plus of course separate canister launched AShM capability too.

And lets not forge the sensors and CMS, and especially CEC capability shared amongst those three escorts too.

Yes 'more' always sounds better, but at what cost? Add more VLS from day one and take away something else to fit within budget, what do you trade off?

Lets hope the program stays on an even keel (pun intended) and that all the goodies currently proposed are actually delivered with the ships from day one too.

Cheers,
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Here's some video from DSEI 2019 (day 2):


Some specific RAN highlights, model of Hunter class, showing the 32 Mk41 VLS (alongside models of the UK and Canadian T26), model of Supply class, and an interesting model by BMT showing their new design, Ellida, a Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS).

BMT announces ELLIDA ™, a new MRSS

The BMT model on display is the largest at 195m, but apparently will be a 'family' of ships to this concept design (appear to me they are trying to compete with the Damen Enforcer family of LPDs).

We could see some competition between BMT and Damen for the proposed Pacific ship and future Choules replacement.

And one last video from DSEI:


A selection of naval AShM on display, of possible particular interest to the RAN is of course NSM and also LRASM. (Interesting to note possibility of NSM being fitted and integrated to a naval helicopter).

Cheers,
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Here's some video from DSEI 2019 (day 2):

Some specific RAN highlights, model of Hunter class, showing the 32 Mk41 VLS (alongside models of the UK and Canadian T26), model of Supply class, and an interesting model by BMT showing their new design, Ellida, a Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS).

BMT announces ELLIDA ™, a new MRSS

The BMT model on display is the largest at 195m, but apparently will be a 'family' of ships to this concept design (appear to me they are trying to compete with the Damen Enforcer family of LPDs).

We could see some competition between BMT and Damen for the proposed Pacific ship and future Choules replacement.

And one last video from DSEI:

A selection of naval AShM on display, of possible particular interest to the RAN is of course NSM and also LRASM. (Interesting to note possibility of NSM being fitted and integrated to a naval helicopter).

Cheers,
The ELLIDA MRSS looks an interesting concept and well worth looking at. I quite like the concept myself and will be interesting to see how it progresses. If it was able to undertake basic refuelling at sea as well, it could be quite a desirable capability. Xaviers' interview with the BMT rep about it starts at 8:06 minutes.


The NSM weighs in at around 415 kg according to Wikipedia*, so it's not much heavier than the Penguin (at 385 kg). Could probably even launch 2 of them off our Sprites :D and be back aboard in time for tea, biscuits, gin, and medals.

NSM on helo.jpg

* Yes I know not a good source but about all there is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top