Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

The Arafura was ordered around the same time as the Hunter but will commission a full ten years before the first of the new frigates. I think it could be possible to build a simple, no frills, off the shelf missile corvette and have it in service before the 2030s. It just takes the will to do it.

 

[alexsa]

The Arafura was ordered around the same time as the Hunter but will commission a full ten years before the first of the new frigates. I think it could be possible to build a simple, no frills, off the shelf missile corvette and have it in service before the 2030s. It just takes the will to do it.

The will .... a design with the necessary range and .................. the budget. Both to build and man. A multi role corvette is not a simple beast and a lot of the expense is in the systems and for some systems there is a reasonable lead time required for delivery. Lets face it, at 3500 tonnes you are looking at something the size of the ANZAC.

 

[hauritz]

I am talking really simple. Basically a hull just capable of accepting StanFlex modules. Something akin to a stretched Arafura class. Really just the OCV that the navy was originally going to get.

 

[Todjaeger]

I am talking really simple. Basically a hull just capable of accepting StanFlex modules. Something akin to a stretched Arafura class. Really just the OCV that the navy was originally going to get.

That is something which, in order to be useful, will not be simple, inexpensive, or quick to bring into service.

I could be mistaken, but IIRC the cost of sensors, electronics and the combat management system used aboard modern warships tend to account for somewhere between a third and half the initial cost of a modern, reasonably advanced warship.

Further, while I do like the StanFlex module concept, to date only the Danes have adopted it, or produced modules for it. This means that either Australia would need to license StanFlex designs for production, or develop an indigenous equivalent. Further, Australia would also need to license the systems architecture which enables the modules to be 'plugged into' sockets to work with the CMS used by the Danes, or adapt the systems architecture to work with the CMS used by the RAN, which seems to have largely settled on 9LV. If that sort of work is not done, then one could load all the weapons one could want onto a ship, but with no tie-in between the sensors, computers, and weaponry, hostiles could not be engaged.

While I like the concept of the RAN having smaller vessels which can be rapidly 'upgunned' from a pool of flexible weapon modules, to date the RAN has not, to my knowledge, committed to doing so, or taken steps which would enable this to take place. At this point, while the RAN could embark upon such a development programme, it would likely take a number of years before units start to be built, never mind begin entering service. Also as others have pointed out, there would be problems due to budgeting and manpower, and likely available build space too.

 

[Gryphinator]

Its probably been discussed before here, but why not a paired system to build potency/deterrence? The ANZAC/Hobarts have the sensors etc, why not make a converted commercial vessel with VLS cells++ the shooter?

 

[oldsig127]

Its probably been discussed before here, but why not a paired system to build potency/deterrence? The ANZAC/Hobarts have the sensors etc, why not make a converted commercial vessel with VLS cells++ the shooter?

Look up "Arsenal ship" in these fora for extensive discussion and a pretty sound NO vote.

oldsig

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Its probably been discussed before here, but why not a paired system to build potency/deterrence? The ANZAC/Hobarts have the sensors etc, why not make a converted commercial vessel with VLS cells++ the shooter?

Look up "Arsenal ship" in these fora for extensive discussion and a pretty sound NO vote.

oldsig

It is essentially the plan for US Navy Large Unmanned Surface Vessel (LUSV), with various modular weapons load outs. While the MUSV (medium) will be fitted with modular ISR or EW packages.
Navy Large Unmanned Surface and Undersea Vehicles: Background and Issues for Congress - Jul 15, 2021 Congressional Research Service

 

[Gryphinator]

Look up "Arsenal ship" in these fora for extensive discussion and a pretty sound NO vote.

oldsig

Ive seen those posts previously and I disagree given our situation. And despite the resounding No here on DT, as Dirt Darts post says the US is actively researching them.

We need capacity as per the last few pages. This route could potentially give us that.

 

[spoz]

However, the US spec, while allowing a commercial design for the LUSV, requires improved DC protection. If their development process works then I’m sure we will have an interest; but let’s see how that goes first. Putting a lot of armed munitions in a unprotected, manned hull with poor DC capabilities (the average mer ship) and then sending it in harm’s way is asking for trouble.

 

[Gryphinator]

Depends on how you use it really, defensive or pre-positioned or part of a task group. Like I said it would be a paired system, so it's not by itself. Also it could indeed carry its own self protection suite, either RIM or whatever we're eventually going for. They'd be as vulnerable as our LHD's and logistics ships are.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

However, the US spec, while allowing a commercial design for the LUSV, requires improved DC protection. If their development process works then I’m sure we will have an interest; but let’s see how that goes first. Putting a lot of armed munitions in a unprotected, manned hull with poor DC capabilities (the average mer ship) and then sending it in harm’s way is asking for trouble.

I suspect the LUSV and MUSV will spend a great deal of time in an "optionally/minimal manned" mode. I just don't see "big" navy as being completely keen on a quarter billion dollars of of munitions and very expensive/highly classified networking/data sharing systems floating around on there own.

 

[Boagrius]

I suspect the LUSV and MUSV will spend a great deal of time in an "optionally/minimal manned" mode. I just don't see "big" navy as being completely keen on a quarter billion dollars of of munitions and very expensive/highly classified networking/data sharing systems floating around on there own.

If the primary purpose is to bump up VLS counts, perhaps you would always use it in close proximity to manned vessels. A maritime loyal wingman of sorts..?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

If the primary purpose is to bump up VLS counts, perhaps you would always use it in close proximity to manned vessels. A maritime loyal wingman of sorts..?

That's how I see the LUSV being deployed, but maybe with some additional dispersal. I would suspect the MUSV will travel generally with other ships, then peel off as electronic listen posts or tracking underwater contacts.

 

[t68]

However, the US spec, while allowing a commercial design for the LUSV, requires improved DC protection. If their development process works then I’m sure we will have an interest; but let’s see how that goes first. Putting a lot of armed munitions in a unprotected, manned hull with poor DC capabilities (the average mer ship) and then sending it in harm’s way is asking for trouble.

I agree that it is better to have them built to a higher standard being able to sustain a higher degree of damage, but a lot of that comes down to the number of pers to the ship to mitigate the damage hence why US ships have a higher number of pers able to muster for DC

But using commercial should not be so easily discarded depending the role of the ship, PHM Atlântico’ formerly known as HMS Ocean was built to commercial specs and I am lead to believe JC1/CBR are built to a mix of commercial/military spec

The case for a new amphibious assault ship to replace HMS Ocean (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)

Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

It will certainly be interesting to see how the ADF responds once the RAN has been able to play with RAAF F35As for a decent period of time. The Lightnings's passive sensors alone seem game changing. Take EODAS for example - for now optimised for WVR targets, but what if future upgrades can...

www.defencetalk.com

Direct link to Navanita by SpazSinbad does not appear to work anymore

 

[Oldbeagle]

As a long term lurker and completely ignorant civilian the discussion over the capabilities of the ANZAC class fascinate me. The greatest weaknesses appear to be be the lack of a ciws to deal with asymmetric threats and a backup Missile /air defence capability.
Reading here and in other places, it seems that the simplest solution may be be to replace the current mark 45 main gun with 76mm gun with the stales system. The 76mm with its maximum rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute seems largely capable of addressing the asymmetric threats and while using the dart ammunition provides a backup to the ESSM air defence.
I appreciate that this does reduce the surface to surface capability of the vessel particularly in regard to range and weight of shot, but ASM seems to be the most important element in ship to ship engagements while the proliferation of shore based ASM largely appears to preclude ship to shore bombardment, except through long range precise missile strikes.
It may be that fitting a different main gun and changes to the magazine are far more complex than I can imagine which coupled with the cost of both hardware and ammunition is prohibitive, but I would appreciate the comments of those with
knowledge of the subject .

 

[cdxbow]

If the primary purpose is to bump up VLS counts, perhaps you would always use it in close proximity to manned vessels. A maritime loyal wingman of sorts..?

The most sensible solution to our lack of magazine depth in the RAN, In this case you can call it the 'The loyal seaman', same process as the RAAF loyal wingmen. No brainer to me. No further mutilation of those poor Anzacs, we have done too much to them. Cutting them up would be high risk, expensive and take each ship out of action for years. Much better idea is small, unmanned platform about 35-40 m, commercial build, remote controlled directly from an Anzac, carrying 12 strike length cells, using the BAE deck launcher. I've been reluctant to say anything about an arsenal ship because it gets up peoples noses here, however it would be a much better solution in so many ways.

 

[t68]

The most sensible solution to our lack of magazine depth in the RAN, In this case you can call it the 'The loyal seaman', same process as the RAAF loyal wingmen. No brainer to me. No further mutilation of those poor Anzacs, we have done too much to them. Cutting them up would be high risk, expensive and take each ship out of action for years. Much better idea is small, unmanned platform about 35-40 m, commercial build, remote controlled directly from an Anzac, carrying 12 strike length cells, using the BAE deck launcher. I've been reluctant to say anything about an arsenal ship because it gets up peoples noses here, however it would be a much better solution in so many ways.

Dont know if its doable or not, if the idea is something that is multi-role that gives the RAN additional lift capacity and when not needed a vessel that could temporarily host more VLS. The US tested a Mk.41 VLS module mounted to a semi- trailer or maybe a 3-cell EXLS Launcher

US Enters the Post-INF World With Ground Launch of Tomahawk Cruise Missile - Overt Defense

maybe go back to the future, put 2-4 trailer mounted VLS on something like a Frank S. Besson Class LSV with CEC do not know the implications when firing how the LSV would react but food for thought, could even put them on freighter ships as deck cargo if needed. The idea came from the old Landing craft Rocket

US Landing Craft Tank (Rocket) - D Day (combinedops.com)
Department of the Navy Research, Development & Acquisition (archive.org)

Frank S. Besson Class Logistics Support Vessel - PowerProjection (power-projection.com)

 

[hauritz]

Another compromise with the Anzacs could be to remove the harpoon missiles and replace them with an additional MK41 module or Mk-29 launchers. They are near obsolete anyway. That way you could go with the ANZACs strengths and more fully utilise the capability of the CEAFAR2-L. Extended-range munitions could help compensate for the loss of the Harpoons.

 

[ASSAIL]

Can we just leave the poor old ANZACs be, they’ve had more surgery than Kim Kardashian.
Let them serve out their lives as functional “moderate” escorts which contribute in a “moderate” way to any TG.
The RAN had them thrust upon us by a tight arsed government, they weren’t what the navy wanted but they’ve been improved to become a useful if not mediocre capability (despite having an excellent local AD capability spoiled by magazine paucity) and they’ve been employed within their limitations.
If only we had paid a bit more attention to ASW during the acquisition we could have had a more useful platform.

 

[spoz]

Remembering back to 1987 or thereabouts, the concept was to have 9 Tier 1 surface combatants (initially, the FFGs and DDGs) and 8 Tier 2 patrol frigates; the ANZACs. The lack of a program to replace initially the DDGs and then the FFGs as a result of the (now seen to be illusory) end of the Cold War dividend meant the ANZACs ended up being used for purposes for which they were never intended: and being upgraded in ways that nobody would have expected. With the Hobarts and Hunters we’re getting back to where we should have always have been, just 5 (now) tier 2 escorts short- which might be an argument for the light frigate/corvette some have advocated, if anybody is brave enough to advance it…