Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

Personally I see more benefit in replacing Typhoon with a CIWS capable system, where possible, than I do for replacing an existing CIWS with a larger calibre one.

Also when we are talking RAN basically everything above an evolved Cape has 9LV CMS, and as such should be able to integrate the 21 round RAM as opposed to the 11 round SeaRAM.

RAM Block 2 offers an excellent response to all air threats and also many surface threats.
A great all rounder for its range and size.
I wonder if the 11 cell launcher could be utilized with out the phalanx self contained tracking and surveillance gear.
Like the 21 launcher the 11 cell would rely on the ships CMS.
The appeal would be a system with a much lighter weight.
RAM can also be reloaded at sea.

Cheers S

 

[protoplasm]

RAM Block 2 offers an excellent response to all air threats and also many surface threats.
A great all rounder for its range and size.
I wonder if the 11 cell launcher could be utilized with out the phalanx self contained tracking and surveillance gear.
Like the 21 launcher the 11 cell would rely on the ships CMS.
The appeal would be a system with a much lighter weight.
RAM can also be reloaded at sea.

Cheers S

Maybe, but I don't know how much weight you'd lose as a result. RAM is about 74kg, so only saving 740kg for the 10 missiles, and then there is the weight of a smaller launcher, but that is only the missile carrier, the rest of the mount would be the same, so maybe 500kg (random number based on guestimation only). So the weight saving from inventing a new 11 cell RAM mount using existing components is potentially only ~1240kg. Maybe that is enough saving to justify the effort, but I doubt it.

Other way to look at it, SeaRAM complete unit weighs a bit over 8,000kg, how much of that is the Radar, EO unit and processors? Probably only a bit over a tonne, is it worth the effort?

 

[ddxx]

Also when we are talking RAN basically everything above an evolved Cape has 9LV CMS, and as such should be able to integrate the 21 round RAM as opposed to the 11 round SeaRAM.

I've also been wondering about this. If you already have a suitable CMS, what's the benefit of going with SeaRAM with 11 rounds as opposed to the Mk 49 RAM launcher with 21 rounds?

Does the independent targeting and potential redundancy make up for just under half the capacity?

Hypothetically, Hunter fitted with two Mk 49s in place of two Phalanx would field 42 rounds - A pretty formidable self defence capability alongside ESSM.

However, use in this role detracts from their primary intended role

I've often struggled with the logic behind this argument as like any other equipment loaded onto the LHDs it's only embarked when required. If it isn't required, it isn't embarked. Thankfully, aviation assets by nature aren't welded to the flight deck.

 

[mickm]

I am a long time member and I have never been in the navy but I am a very interested in Australia's defence especially naval matters. I have been reading with awe the recent posts about what ships we should build, and what sensors/weapons etc they should come with. It seems to me that whatever we come up with it will be some time before we will see anything actually floating and operational. My question is instead of "What should we build?" is "What could we build if a shooting war starts or if our strategic position rapidly declines over a short period of time?" Do we have something like an emergency ship building programme such as that of WW2 when we built 50 odd Bathurst Class Corvettes/Minesweepers in various yards around the country. Could we do that again by reopening yards such as Williamstown, Cockatoo Dock, NQEA and Forgacs. What would we build and how long would it take in an emergency programme with yards working 24 hours a day. Would we have the work force to do it? Williamstown put an Anzac Frigate in the water about every two years, could that have been expedited under emergency wartime conditions. Or is the reality of the situation is that we are stuck with what we have got and have to make do.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Also when we are talking RAN basically everything above an evolved Cape has 9LV CMS, and as such should be able to integrate the 21 round RAM as opposed to the 11 round SeaRAM.

SeaRAM is great for things like AOR, LHD, even perhaps even smaller transport of patrol type ships. You can fit it to surface combatants as a completely redundant system.
The larger RAM is just for those larger ships with proper combat radars. Would a cape be able to engage targets with its current setup?

With current developments I think it is totally worth the RAN looking at RAM. IMO all large non-combatants should have it fitted. AOR/LHD/etc.

When it comes down to OPV and patrol ships. IMO it makes more sense to fit Phalanx or RAM to them than to fit anti-ship missiles. Although at this stage we will be lucky to get any sort of system larger than 20mm fitted to them.

 

[PeterM]

SeaRAM is great for things like AOR, LHD, even perhaps even smaller transport of patrol type ships. You can fit it to surface combatants as a completely redundant system.

I am no expert, but I am wary of blanket/ catch-all statements. If SeaRam is redundant for Surface combatants, why did the USN fit it to Burkes?

Navy Successfully Completes First Live Fire Test Of SeaRAM From Destroyer - USNI News

The Navy successfully launched the Raytheon SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System from an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer for the first time ever on March 4, a final step in rapidly fielding a self-defense capability on the Mediterranean-based USS Porter (DDG-78) through an...

news.usni.org

As I understand this was only a trial in 2016 with 4 DDGs, but surely there was some operational benefit making it worth the investment of exploring the concept despite the large numbers of VLSs.

In a RAN context, given a Hobart class has half the number of VLS compared to a Burke III, I could see an argument for replacing Phalanx with SeaRam; particularly if as mentioned above, it can be reloaded at sea.

 

[Volkodav]

I am no expert, but I am wary of blanket/ catch-all statements. If SeaRam is redundant for Surface combatants, why did the USN fit it to Burkes?

Navy Successfully Completes First Live Fire Test Of SeaRAM From Destroyer - USNI News

The Navy successfully launched the Raytheon SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System from an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer for the first time ever on March 4, a final step in rapidly fielding a self-defense capability on the Mediterranean-based USS Porter (DDG-78) through an...

news.usni.org

As I understand this was only a trial in 2016 with 4 DDGs, but surely there was some operational benefit making it worth the investment of exploring the concept despite the large numbers of VLSs.

In a RAN context, given a Hobart class has half the number of VLS compared to a Burke III, I could see an argument for replacing Phalanx with SeaRam; particularly if as mentioned above, it can be reloaded at sea.

As I recall this was a unique situation where these early block Burkes lost their air defence capability when configured for the ABM role and the SeaRAM was added so they would have some self defence capability. Later baseline configurations provided concurrent ABM and air defence capability, hence don't require the stand alone capability provided by SeaRAM.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I am no expert, but I am wary of blanket/ catch-all statements. If SeaRam is redundant for Surface combatants, why did the USN fit it to Burkes?

Redundant as in a separate and independent system. It has its own radar and and even even target and engage threats in a hands off autonomous mode. Even if a ship is mission killed and its bridge it taken out, SeaRAM if activated, could continue to engage threats. SeaRAM is redundant in many applications, RAM has no redundancy.

Not as redundant as in no longer required or superseded. Although it sometimes can be.

As volk said, earlier forms of aegis could do BMD or air defence, not both at the same time. Newer aegis systems can do both. Sitting there, beaming out maximum continuous radar and coms, with absolutely no self defence systems (and even minimal situational awareness) because your combat system is maxed out trying to get BMD to happen is freaking crazy.

Personally, modern applications, if you have ESSM then RAM seems to heavily overlap that role. Yes it may not have the very close engagement envelope of RAM, but ESSM is probably a better gadget, particularly blkII with its own seeker, and or the ships radar and illuminator.

But we can no longer assume our waters surrounding us are always completely benign and safe. You can no longer assume a threat won't be able to stealth its way into an inner layer and be able to fire on ships within the outer most layers.

 

[76mmGuns]

I am a long time member and I have never been in the navy but I am a very interested in Australia's defence especially naval matters. I have been reading with awe the recent posts about what ships we should build, and what sensors/weapons etc they should come with. It seems to me that whatever we come up with it will be some time before we will see anything actually floating and operational. My question is instead of "What should we build?" is "What could we build if a shooting war starts or if our strategic position rapidly declines over a short period of time?" Do we have something like an emergency ship building programme such as that of WW2 when we built 50 odd Bathurst Class Corvettes/Minesweepers in various yards around the country. Could we do that again by reopening yards such as Williamstown, Cockatoo Dock, NQEA and Forgacs. What would we build and how long would it take in an emergency programme with yards working 24 hours a day. Would we have the work force to do it? Williamstown put an Anzac Frigate in the water about every two years, could that have been expedited under emergency wartime conditions. Or is the reality of the situation is that we are stuck with what we have got and have to make do.

Good question.

@76mmGuns

You have been around a while and know better than this. So a good question .... and?

alexsa

 

[Gryphinator]

I am a long time member and I have never been in the navy but I am a very interested in Australia's defence especially naval matters. I have been reading with awe the recent posts about what ships we should build, and what sensors/weapons etc they should come with. It seems to me that whatever we come up with it will be some time before we will see anything actually floating and operational. My question is instead of "What should we build?" is "What could we build if a shooting war starts or if our strategic position rapidly declines over a short period of time?" Do we have something like an emergency ship building programme such as that of WW2 when we built 50 odd Bathurst Class Corvettes/Minesweepers in various yards around the country. Could we do that again by reopening yards such as Williamstown, Cockatoo Dock, NQEA and Forgacs. What would we build and how long would it take in an emergency programme with yards working 24 hours a day. Would we have the work force to do it? Williamstown put an Anzac Frigate in the water about every two years, could that have been expedited under emergency wartime conditions. Or is the reality of the situation is that we are stuck with what we have got and have to make do.

Arafura class is the short answer. Rationale? It's classified....

(Well not really, I just don't want a ban for a reasonable, informed response)

@Gryphinator

If you have a reasonable and informed response you would not get banned. Suggesting the OPV be equipped with any manner of gear essentially beyond its capability to support will.

So, by all means please provide your reasonable and informed response. Otherwise this is just a cheap shot at the Mods who are trying to keep this tread within the bounds of reality. Feel free to PM me.

alexsa

 

[Morgo]

Arafura class is the short answer. Rationale? It's classified....

(Well not really, I just don't want a ban for a reasonable, informed response)

I think this is a really, really important question.

I’ve said this before but the shipbuilding plan, good as it appears for maintaining ongoing shipbuilding capacity, doesn’t really account for this sort of scenario. Most notably there seems to be zero shipbuilding capacity in our three largest population (and industrial) centres which would be critical for any war time surge.

I would like to think that in an emergency (ie national mobilisation) Hunter construction could be split amongst these cities before final assembly in Adelaide. But this is probably wishful thinking and even ramping up OPV builds at short notice may be beyond us.

That said an OPV would fit quite nicely in the old dry docks on Cockatoo Island and Morts Bay….

 

[Mikeymike]

Not sure how they land the thing!
Cheers S

This article shows how they plan to operate with both the TB3 and other drones in development.

If Turkey can show that the concept is sound I think the RAN will be interested. Doubt they would buy Turkish, but I could see the benefit of Australia going along a similar development path as Loyal Wingman and designing our own drone.

 

[alexsa]

I think this is a really, really important question.

I’ve said this before but the shipbuilding plan, good as it appears for maintaining ongoing shipbuilding capacity, doesn’t really account for this sort of scenario. Most notably there seems to be zero shipbuilding capacity in our three largest population (and industrial) centres which would be critical for any war time surge.

I would like to think that in an emergency (ie national mobilisation) Hunter construction could be split amongst these cities before final assembly in Adelaide. But this is probably wishful thinking and even ramping up OPV builds at short notice may be beyond us.

That said an OPV would fit quite nicely in the old dry docks on Cockatoo Island and Morts Bay….

Cockatoo Island dockyard would require a lot of rebuilding and staffing to do anything. It is a pity this facility was lost as it had building ways and dry docks. However, it would take years to get it operational (and the local population are likely to object stridently) and then you have the issue of finding qualified workers (we have a shortage at the moment). Multiple build sites have the added detriment of duplication of administration and support functions. The new shipyards in Osbourne and Henderson allow construction undercover which is not an option and Cockatoo.

Morts Bay went into liquidation in 1966 and the dock filled in. Are you suggesting we dig this out?

https://www.visitsydneyaustralia.com.au/images/MortsDock_outline.jpg

 

[Morgo]

Cockatoo Island dockyard would require a lot of rebuilding and staffing to do anything. It is a pity this facility was lost as it had building ways and dry docks. However, it would take years to get it operational (and the local population are likely to object stridently) and then you have the issue of finding qualified workers (we have a shortage at the moment). Multiple build sites have the added detriment of duplication of administration and support functions.

Morts Bay went into liquidation in 1966 and the dock filled in. Are you suggesting we dig this out?

https://www.visitsydneyaustralia.com.au/images/MortsDock_outline.jpg

I know - Mort Bay is quite a nice park now. Plenty of dogs running around on top of the dry dock most of the time.

But in a wartime emergency, with a conflict that is dragging on, and if money and manpower weren’t an issue - maybe. Incredible things can happen when you have a blank cheque. The locals would have to suck it up in that case.

Obviously this is completely infeasible in all but the most extreme circumstances.

What may make more sense would be to leverage the site of the new east coast sub base (wherever that is) and add some redundant shipbuilding facilities there (nominally for maintenance) and/or allow space that can be repurposed quickly. No doubt this would illicit tremendous howls from WA and SA.

The problem remains that the sites proposed remain isolated from Sydney and Melbourne, and it’s not clear how we would mobilise their productive capacity in an emergency. Perhaps the hulls are built away from the capitals, but they’re fitted with systems and weapons (whatever we can produce) that are manufactured elsewhere in Australia.

Ideally the sovereign missile enterprise and CEA Technologies would have the capacity to scale up quickly in metropolitan areas if needed. I could be wrong but I doubt this is the case.

Edit: To be clear - the last paragraph wouldn’t be for the OPVs! No upgunning suggested!

 

[ngatimozart]

WRT CIWS, the South Koreans are in the process of selecting a new CIWS for the ROKN CIWS II Program and the LIG-Nex1 is looking like it will be the front runner. It's based on the GAU-8 30mm gun which is the same as in the Goalkeeper CIWS and the A-10 Warthog. It has an AESA radar and an optical targeting system. So it's a completely new modern system.

LIG Nex1 Likely To Seize ROKN CIWS-II Program - Naval News

The issue that I have with the SeaRAM system is the cost of the rockets. They won't be cheap and after a while the costs will mount up. Also the matter of reloading in the middle of a combat is problematic as well. You can't assume that you will always face less than 11 or 21 (depending on RAM fit) enemy missiles in one attack. The two enemy powers that you would most likely face, both have a policy of missile and rocket saturation of enemy targets. In my mind a CIWS gun of 30mm calibre is a better investment because the ammo is significantly cheaper, and far more can be carried both on the gun mount, in ready use lockers, and in ships magazines. It is also a calibre of ammo that will be manufactured in Australia, so doesn't require the set up of new facilities. The ammo logistics are just far simpler and that's one of the things that you have to think about.

 

[ngatimozart]

I know - Mort Bay is quite a nice park now. Plenty of dogs running around on top of the dry dock most of the time.

But in a wartime emergency, with a conflict that is dragging on, and if money and manpower weren’t an issue - maybe. Incredible things can happen when you have a blank cheque. The locals would have to suck it up in that case.

Obviously this is completely infeasible in all but the most extreme circumstances.

What may make more sense would be to leverage the site of the new east coast sub base (wherever that is) and add some redundant shipbuilding facilities there (nominally for maintenance) and/or allow space that can be repurposed quickly. No doubt this would illicit tremendous howls from WA and SA.

The problem remains that the sites proposed remain isolated from Sydney and Melbourne, and it’s not clear how we would mobilise their productive capacity in an emergency. Perhaps the hulls are built away from the capitals, but they’re fitted with systems and weapons (whatever we can produce) that are manufactured elsewhere in Australia.

Ideally the sovereign missile enterprise and CEA Technologies would have the capacity to scale up quickly in metropolitan areas if needed. I could be wrong but I doubt this is the case.

Edit: To be clear - the last paragraph wouldn’t be for the OPVs! No upgunning suggested!

Actually if you build the hulls and fit the machinery in one place that has the facilities for such, fitting out doesn't necessarily require a drydock and can be done alongside. Just as long as there is sufficient wharf space and and space for the necessary facilities.

 

[Stampede]

This article shows how they plan to operate with both the TB3 and other drones in development.

If Turkey can show that the concept is sound I think the RAN will be interested. Doubt they would buy Turkish, but I could see the benefit of Australia going along a similar development path as Loyal Wingman and designing our own drone.

It's an interesting area.

As a proof of concept, I'm sure other LHD / Aircraft carriers operators will take note of what Turkey can achieve with their UAV 's operating off the Anadolu.
Will watch with interest


Cheers S

 

[spoz]

While the OPV is a fairly simple ship, that does not mean that you can stick a slip on every piece of vacant water and start building. Apart from using a whole raft of specialist equipment with long lead times, a number of which can only be sourced from overseas, they need a specialist workforce which knows what it is doing, and a yard with the appropriate process and quality systems set up. None of that gets developed in a short period - and none of it is currently available outside Henderson and Osborne, the facilities in Williamstown and Newcastle having been effectively out of business since their last AWD block around 8 years ago.

All that could of course be dealt with - but we are talking about a period of many months if not years - and, at least as we look at it now, you are unlikely to have that much time. That’s without even considering that even working triple shifts you could not knock out an OPV in less than a year.

 

[Going Boeing]

I believe that, if the political situation deteriorates and things get serious, there would be a lot of ex military personnel make themselves available to assist where possible and I think that those who had shipbuilding experience from a previous career would also step up - the main problem would be whether their skills are still usable as the technology has been developing significantly.

 

[alexsa]

I believe that, if the political situation deteriorates and things get serious, there would be a lot of ex military personnel make themselves available to assist where possible and I think that those who had shipbuilding experience from a previous career would also step up - the main problem would be whether their skills are still usable as the technology has been developing significantly.

I don’t disagree that in a dire situation that ex-military folk could be called on. However, they would be best used in established production lines (with established training systems and logistic support) if things are needed in a hurry. Australia’s ship building capability used to be extensive but is now significantly reduced since the late 60s..

The only growth area is essentially the Naval building programme and that is still trying to rebuild the skill sets lost when the past ‘valley of death’ occurred. Trying to regenerate closed and inoperable dry docks is not going to help build ships and would use up resources. All the infrastructure in Cockatoo Dock would need to be rebuilt and that will take years.

The easiest to regenerate would be Williamstown but even that will be a long term effort and the yard is too small for the current generation of ships.