Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Allying ourselves with Japan might not be a good idea. In fact being an ally fo Japan would probably make us a good deal less secure.

If I were to look at alliances I would look closer to home. Indonesia and in fact most of SE Asia have more to fear from China than we do. We could use that as the basis for forming some sort of regional defence pact.

The only concern I have about that is that Indonesia may eventually develop into a bigger threat to Australia's security than China.

Australia's security during the later part of the 21st century will be fairly problematic with the US being a declining superpower and just about every nation in our region building up their own military.

Except that Japan is a major trading partner and our security concerns are similar to theirs. Added to that they are a capable regional power that have the ability to challenge China and a navy China would baulk at engaging. Indonesia has its own internal issues and could do little to assist Australia in the face of a surging China. Other countries we currently align with or are building ties with are Singapore and South Korea. Again both have a credible military capability.

Snubbing Japan in the hope China will behave would appear to be a retrograde step noting we are already aligned with Japan now.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think a US + Japan alliance is much stronger than a US only alliance.

Indonesia is a hell of a lot closer than China. They are expected to be our military peer in the next 15-20 years spending about the same as Australia on defence (but with a much lower manpower cost).

 

[alexsa]

I think a US + Japan alliance is much stronger than a US only alliance.

Indonesia is a hell of a lot closer than China. They are expected to be our military peer in the next 15-20 years spending about the same as Australia on defence (but with a much lower manpower cost).

Agree that per head their manpower costs are lower but the have a much larger military and paramilitary establishment and a proportion of this is inwardly focused noting there a simmering separatist movement in some parts of Indonesia. I agree their spending is problay going to increase to be on par with Australia but the Army is getting a significant part of this and the spending on Navy and Air Force assets appears a little sporadic with a mix of type. Certainly I don’t see them with a Aegis the DDG within the next decade unless they buy off the shelf from China. Mind you I am happy to be corrected on this one as it is simply my opinion.

 

[Stampede]

Agree that per head their manpower costs are lower but the have a much larger military and paramilitary establishment and a proportion of this is inwardly focused noting there a simmering separatist movement in some parts of Indonesia. I agree their spending is problay going to increase to be on par with Australia but the Army is getting a significant part of this and the spending on Navy and Air Force assets appears a little sporadic with a mix of type. Certainly I don’t see them with a Aegis the DDG within the next decade unless they buy off the shelf from China. Mind you I am happy to be corrected on this one as it is simply my opinion.

Certainly Indonesia's economy is expected to grow in the year's ahead providing much needed money to modernise their armed forces. Agree most will be directed to the army who are starting to look a much more modern force. Particularly their Strategic reserve which in size and inventory is starting to look much more than a force to just take on insurgents.
The Air force still looks a bit lost without a consistent direction and source of supply. Do we go Russia?, USA? someone else? or just keep playing everyone off against each other to our own detriment. I can't see a balanced formidable air force any time soon..
As to their navy it's a good mix for their budget. Not trying to be something they are not, they have rightfully put resources into what matters; namely patrol and amphibious lift whilst building up a submarine fleet to provide a deterrent.
The days of the hand me down East German navy vessels are coming to an end having being replaced with some very practical ships in the form of the Makassar class and Teluk Bintuniclass for amphibious lift for their army and marines. Their future Amphibious operations will be supported with new frigates and patrol craft but the scope and range of operation will still be confined to the Indonesian Archipelago.
There does not appear to be a true Indonesian blue water fleet on the horizon any time soon. However things can change quickly and this may be in the form of a future Indonesia as a host for foreign ships such as the PLAN.
At this stage a China / Indonesian alliance may seem an unusual relationship and may not come to pass but history shows strange twists of relationships over relatively short periods of time.
As China both modernises and expands it's already large navy this region will be forced to make choices.
Would Indonesia prefer to be allied with Australia or China?

Difficult questions for all without a answer.

Regards S

 

[hauritz]

Agree that per head their manpower costs are lower but the have a much larger military and paramilitary establishment and a proportion of this is inwardly focused noting there a simmering separatist movement in some parts of Indonesia. I agree their spending is problay going to increase to be on par with Australia but the Army is getting a significant part of this and the spending on Navy and Air Force assets appears a little sporadic with a mix of type. Certainly I don’t see them with a Aegis the DDG within the next decade unless they buy off the shelf from China. Mind you I am happy to be corrected on this one as it is simply my opinion.

All of this goes to show just how precarious the later part of the 21st century will be for Australia. The threats won't just be from China.

Certainly, there will be problems for Australia and I do see a strong case for us eventually having to push our defence spending well above our current levels. The shrinking capability gap between the US and China means that other countries like Japan, South Korea and Australia will need to lift their games.

 

[vonnoobie]

While noting is set in stone there are some estimates the Australian GDP by 2030 could be above $3.5 trillion AUD or allove a 70 - 80c exhange rate $2.45 - $2.8 trillion USD with a population of 26 million. (Which I think needs to be adjusted as we are already at 25 million and climbing).

Indonesia is guestimated (all you can really do) to have a GDP of $9.3 trillion USD with a population north of 250 million.

At 1 - 2% there budget will be $93 - $186 billion USD. For Australia a 2%+ budget will be $49+ - $56+ billion. Best case Indonesia's budget will double ours, Worst case could be 300% larger.

Benefits for us is while covering a large region almost all and any threats are to the North - North/West while Indonesia will have to have forces covering every side and all the internals preventing them from massing an unbeatable force against us.

Not pretty but take in Indonesia's view on it all and they have to watch the North, West, South and all the internals. There future position will be richer and more powerful military however ours likely more advanced and in better defensive position.

 

[spoz]

And I don’t believe they see us a threat. A difficult and sometimes cantankerous neighbour, yes but while you might argue with them you’re not likely to fight them. I think they would perceive themselves as having other, more direct, threats to their perceived place in the world and, indeed, possibly to their sovereignty.

 

[BPFP]

A very helpful comparison on likely future relative GDP and defence spending. I agree with the logic of Indo forces being more stretched and multi-tasked, but salutory nonetheless. Political developments/preferences in the country as per capita GDP rises are harder to call - hopefully we will see a continuation of the current moderate leadership line.

I suspect Australian defence expenditure is likely to be closer to 2.5% of GDP than the current 2.0% - very high by historical standards, but with relative regional GDP dynamics moving against us (and our allies) over time, will probably be sellable electorally or even seen as an imperative. After all, who would have thought defence expenditure would be where it is now back in the 1980s or 1990s? The gradual buildup since John Howard decided to start taking defence seriously has been remarkable.

 

[ASSAIL]

These issues are interesting but more suited to the Geostrategic forum under the ADF General Discussion Thread

 

[ngatimozart]

This is the RAN thread, not a regional strategy thread. So please stay on topic. If you wish to discuss the regional situation with regard to Australia, either discuss it on the ADF thread or start a new thread in the geostrategic section.

 

[76mmGuns]

Back to RAN, does anyone know the current missile load of the Hobart DDGs?

And what's a good missile load for a 32 vls asw frigate with an anti air component? My thought would be:

x8 ASROC
x4 sm3/6
x80 ESSM

 

[ADMk2]

Back to RAN, does anyone know the current missile load of the Hobart DDGs?

I suspect 32x SM-2 and 32x ESSM is the ‘standard’ load.

And what's a good missile load for a 32 vls asw frigate with an anti air component? My thought would be:

x8 ASROC
x4 sm3/6
x80 ESSM

I’m not sure they are mandating that AEGIS and CEC be included on the Future Frigates only to carry 4 air warfare weapons...

 

[76mmGuns]

I suspect 32x SM-2 and 32x ESSM is the ‘standard’ load.



I’m not sure they are mandating that AEGIS and CEC be included on the Future Frigates only to carry 4 air warfare weapons...

That's the conundrum. On one hand, the emphasis is ASW, on the other, it's also to contribute to air defence. And on a third hand, they exclude ships with more vls.

Seriously... Just build one Sejong the Great, park it at Darwin. Move it to Brisbane and Perth now and again.

 

[Todjaeger]

I suspect 32x SM-2 and 32x ESSM is the ‘standard’ load.

Just wanted to point out that would still leave 8 VLS cells for 'something' else.

That's the conundrum. On one hand, the emphasis is ASW, on the other, it's also to contribute to air defence. And on a third hand, they exclude ships with more vls.

Seriously... Just build one Sejong the Great, park it at Darwin. Move it to Brisbane and Perth now and again.

Putting all of Australia & the RAN's VLS cells/eggs in one basket would do SFA for protecting Australia. A single Sejong the Great-class or KD-III DDG has 16 less VLS cells than all three of the Hobart-class AWD's combined. A single instance of a system failure, damage, or requirement for maintenance would take that entire potential missile loadout out of service, along with the sensor platform.

Yes, I would like to see RAN vessels with larger VLS capacities so that they are individually more capable, as well as providing greater flexibility in terms of missile loadouts. However, if the choice is between more VLS aboard a smaller number of vessels, or a greater number of capable vessels with a smaller number of VLS, and the VLS total across the fleet is essentially the same either way, I would opt for more vessels. A single ship cannot be in three places at once (well, not without having been sunk and breaking up in the process) but three different vessels can.

Also with the movement towards a CEC and distributed lethality, the idea of going and concentrating the offensive capabilities into a single vessel seems diametrically opposite of such new capabilities.

 

[alexsa]

Just wanted to point out that would still leave 8 VLS cells for 'something' else.



Putting all of Australia & the RAN's VLS cells/eggs in one basket would do SFA for protecting Australia. A single Sejong the Great-class or KD-III DDG has 16 less VLS cells than all three of the Hobart-class AWD's combined. A single instance of a system failure, damage, or requirement for maintenance would take that entire potential missile loadout out of service, along with the sensor platform.

Yes, I would like to see RAN vessels with larger VLS capacities so that they are individually more capable, as well as providing greater flexibility in terms of missile loadouts. However, if the choice is between more VLS aboard a smaller number of vessels, or a greater number of capable vessels with a smaller number of VLS, and the VLS total across the fleet is essentially the same either way, I would opt for more vessels. A single ship cannot be in three places at once (well, not without having been sunk and breaking up in the process) but three different vessels can.

Also with the movement towards a CEC and distributed lethality, the idea of going and concentrating the offensive capabilities into a single vessel seems diametrically opposite of such new capabilities.

Thanks saved me noting the fact there are 48 cells on the DDG. Noting the suggestions above I doubt we are going stick 80 ESSM medium range missiles in the cells when the current issue is increased anti air and anti-ballistic missile. I think the SM2, SM6 (when we get it) and SM3 (if we get it) will take up the majority of the cells and the load out we be decided by the mission at hand. I also hope CEC is fitted across the MFUs and it seems this may happen.

I cannot see more than 32 ESSM being loaded. With box launched SSM this leave residual cells for the AA role for the DDG and ANZAC replacement. Since we have not bought the ASROC we really cannot consider this option unless an order is placed.

 

[John Newman]

Thanks saved me noting the fact there are 48 cells on the DDG. Noting the suggestions above I doubt we are going stick 80 ESSM medium range missiles in the cells when the current issue is increased anti air and anti-ballistic missile. I think the SM2, SM6 (when we get it) and SM3 (if we get it) will take up the majority of the cells and the load out we be decided by the mission at hand. I also hope CEC is fitted across the MFUs and it seems this may happen.

I cannot see more than 32 ESSM being loaded. With box launched SSM this leave residual cells for the AA role for the DDG and ANZAC replacement. Since we have not bought the ASROC we really cannot consider this option unless an order is placed.

Agree.

Looking at the DDGs 48 cells, I would imagine that the current max load out would probably be 8 x quad packed ESSM, 32 missiles, and 1 x SM-2 in the remaining 40 cells, giving a total of 72 missiles (plus of course 8 x box launched Harpoon). And when SM-6 is introduced, they would displace 'X' number of SM-2.

And of course if SM-3 is eventually procured (assuming the RAN maintains the 32 ESSM missile load out), the 40 'non' ESSM cells could be mixed and adjusted in endless combinations as necessary too.

Where the crystal ball gets really hazy is if at some point in the future a TLAM type capability is added, or a VLS version of JSM or LRASM is procured (though I would imagine that a future AShM that replaces Harpoon will end up as box launched, contenders could be NSM, JSM, LRASM).

The Future FFGs could be either 48 or 32 cells (depending on the winning design), and again the mix combination could be endless too, depending what future VLS launched missiles are procured above and beyond ESSM, SM-2/-6. A future ASW weapon for the FFGs could potentially include the VLS version of ASROC.

Then of course you add CEC fitted to the DDGs into the mix, and if CEC is also fitted to the FFG's, again the combinations of a mixed force of a DDG and a couple of FFGs working together in a task group is even more endless.

If the 9 Future FFGs have 48 cells each, plus the 48 cells on the DDGs, the RAN will have 576 VLS cells available for whatever combinations are deemed necessary (if the FFGs have 32 cells, then the total across the DDG/FFG fleet will be 432 VLS cells).

A total of 432 cells or 576 cells is certainly going to provide the RAN with endless options (depending on the stock and type of weapons available of course).

It really is a how long is a piece of string question.

 

[hairyman]

8 x 4 ESSM is the missile load for the Anzacs, plus 8 Harpoon.
I thought the missile load for the DDG's was 16 x 4 ESSM, 8 Harpoon, 32 S2 etc.

 

[hauritz]

That's the conundrum. On one hand, the emphasis is ASW, on the other, it's also to contribute to air defence. And on a third hand, they exclude ships with more vls.

Seriously... Just build one Sejong the Great, park it at Darwin. Move it to Brisbane and Perth now and again.

One of the big mindset problems I think people have is that if you build a ship capable of being fitted with 128 VLS then you must immediately fill it with 128 VLS. Personally I am good with the idea that Australia buys a ship the size of the Sejong the Great and just equipping it with 48 VLS. The old adage of steel being cheap and air being free is true enough ... so long as you leave those spaces full of air.

Having a ship that size will of course leave you with a lot more options in the future.

 

[Wombat000]

I can appreciate the value of VLS systems,
High rate of fire, likely convenient on the drawing board to have neat vertical boxes in your design.
But really, we have VLS because that's simply where the thinking is at the moment.
Whatever loadout we guess is loaded, in expected practice you would imagine that they should never ever intentionally all be used.
The ship needs to leave the AO, and dock in order to re-arm.
So for that return transit, to avoid being a lame duck, a (you would guess) reasonable percentage of munitions would need to retained.
Simply because, no one (as yet, that I'm aware of) can be bothered dreaming up a solution to reloading on the ship itself in the AO.
I think of the Mk13 launcher, it has a magazine of 40.
How much space does that take up?
What about a Mk13 fore AND aft? = magazine of 80 rounds, how much space does that dictate.
Perhaps, for munitions that will not require rapid rate of fire reactions we could use Mk 13s and leave the VLS dedicated for the quick stuff?
Thoughts?

 

[alexsa]

I can appreciate the value of VLS systems,
High rate of fire, likely convenient on the drawing board to have neat vertical boxes in your design.
But really, we have VLS because that's simply where the thinking is at the moment.
Whatever loadout we guess is loaded, in expected practice you would imagine that they should never ever intentionally all be used.
The ship needs to leave the AO, and dock in order to re-arm.
So for that return transit, to avoid being a lame duck, a (you would guess) reasonable percentage of munitions would need to retained.
Simply because, no one (as yet, that I'm aware of) can be bothered dreaming up a solution to reloading on the ship itself in the AO.
I think of the Mk13 launcher, it has a magazine of 40.
How much space does that take up?
What about a Mk13 fore AND aft? = magazine of 80 rounds, how much space does that dictate.
Perhaps, for munitions that will not require rapid rate of fire reactions we could use Mk 13s and leave the VLS dedicated for the quick stuff?
Thoughts?

There is a very good reason for the move from rail launch to VLS. Leaving the complexity of a rail launch system to one side the launcher itself is a single point of failure. If it is U/S who cares what is in the magazine. The other issue is the size of the weapon to be fired. A Mk 13 will not fire the bigger missiles and SM6 and SM3 are not designed to to be fired by it,

The Mk41 VLS can be used for all current US missiles and some others such as CAMM to boot.

So VLS is it at the moment. In so far as carrying a heap of ESSM, why .... 32 is a lot noting the SM6 and hit incoming aircraft and missiles are a longer range with midcourse guidance. Even at 16 cells and 64 missiles the DDG still has a decent capacity but if the mission is hit the aircraft before it fires then SM2/6 is going to be a better option. Again the load out willl depend on the mission.

I am a fan of 48 cells for the ANZAC replacement but only one hull appears (noting we have no clear idea of what has been offered) to be offering that.

Just to note, When Perth was firing to test the CEA/SAAB combination the normal volley per target was two ESSM, so that gives you 16 engagements..... per ship