Yep 45. My bad.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I would agree.
Problem is towed array sonars are horrendously expensive. The Hunter will have the best in the world when operational. And as a result it will also have the most expensive towed array sonar in the world.
In 2023 we bought a SURTASSE towed sonar for the installation on a single survey ship, This cost $300 million.
This is the reason it was removed from the BAE proposed AAW Hunter, not for any technical requirement or limitation.
I would personally hope that an eventual AAW replacement (of whatever hull form is selected) comes fitted with a towed array sonar.
Well, naively perhaps they might be less niche by the time an AAW variant is settled upon, and cheaper by scale?
The RAN may like to think of itself as having an aspirational doctrine of task group deployments, with ships benefiting capability of others in the group, however the sheer expanse of area, limited ship numbers will mean that just like today those ships should be assumed to at times operate alone.
Not much point having an awesome platform if you’re not confident in its multi domain survival.
The RAN may like to think of itself as having an aspirational doctrine of task group deployments, with ships benefiting capability of others in the group, however the sheer expanse of area, limited ship numbers will mean that just like today those ships should be assumed to at times operate alone.
Not much point having an awesome platform if you’re not confident in its multi domain survival.
Will the Hunter AWD be able to add DEWs and Hypersonics also? I have my doubts.
If we stay with BAE my guess is they go the riskier option -will end up putting the same mast from Hunter ASW on a Type 83.(after 6 hulls)
Batch 1 Hunter ASW x3 >2034/36/38
Batch 2 Hunter ASW or AWD x3 >2040/42/44
Hunter AWD or Type 83 x3 >2046/48/50
If we stay with BAE my guess is they go the riskier option -will end up putting the same mast from Hunter ASW on a Type 83.(after 6 hulls)
Batch 1 Hunter ASW x3 >2034/36/38
Batch 2 Hunter ASW or AWD x3 >2040/42/44
Hunter AWD or Type 83 x3 >2046/48/50
Last edited:
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The schedule for new Hunters would be a lot better if they reduced the drumbeat to 18 months as that would possibly allow extra AWD’s to enter service before the Hobart replacements are built. The trouble with doing that of course is that it may not permit continuous ship building.
While I have been told that the hull being quiet is mostly about sensor performance, would it not also make it less of a target to the subs.
If so would it not also be an advantage to make your AWDs less of a target to any subs that might hunt them, by also having a quiet hull.
Impressive ship…huge! Japan's ASEV Super Destroyer: Fresh Details Unveiled - Naval News
Is there any problem in having a quiet AW destroyer? I can imagine someone getting the idea of using the hull but save the cost by removing some of the quiet stuff and then turning into an equally expensive loud hull.
We should be buying the design and appointing the builder that bids best to build it.
True. So far BAE hasn't exactly set the world alight with its management of the Hunter program. What could be crucial for any Japanese bid is how they manage the constuction of the Australian built version of the Mogami.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not quite accurate as I understand it from a friend who is an ex-USN dolphin. A modern sub with a decent crew is going to know where the surface vessels are. The hull quieting measures are taken not to improve sensor performance, but to reduce radiating noise from the ship itself which could cause false positive contacts, i.e. the ship's and/or embarked helicopter's sonar and sonobuoys could detect a noise generated by the ship, which might look like a hostile sub and therefore be a false positive contact. AFAIK hull quieting measures are not going to be sufficient to keep a sub's sonars from detecting a surface vessel in the area.
The problem is cost. The hull shape itself can help (or hurt) flow noise generated by the hull passing or cutting through the water. However, I believe most of the noise reduction efforts and improvements have to do with the machinery installed in the hull and where/how it is installed. The efforts taken to reduce or eliminate radiated noise and vibration by isolating machinery and installing dampers and noise/shock absorbing materials it both time consuming and expensive. Not sure exactly how expensive (and for that matter, not sure exactly what and how much needs to be done) but we are talking about a noticeable difference in per hull costs. For those with greater knowledge, it would be nice if a price range could be provided, like hull quieting might increase the hull cost by nnn % percent.
The Type 83 will surely be a stretched T26, I can't see it being a completely new design.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Besides
Is it possible for a stretched Type 26 hull to have a 96 VLS cell count and retain the towed array and the 127mm gun? I'm no expert at all on what can be retained as far as the quiet hull is concerned, but certainly now is the time to start looking into it. Even 5 years down the track is too late. We need to get into a program of evolving our existing building programs as Wombat000 has already mentioned. If the ongoing governments of both persuasions get this right instead of playing with our lives with petty politics we just might come out of a potential hot war in one piece.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Plus the Mogami design looks to be the future with endless possibilities for future technologies down the track.
downunderblue
Well-Known Member
The Brits for all their historical difficulties with air defence, seem to make/ have always had excellent ASW platforms, and the Type 26 GCS was meant to be continue that designing the best platform ASW ship in the world.
You will always struggle to validate what you end up hearing, but I heard the benefits of a low observable ship was an increased 'comfort'/ survivability operating closer to a subsurface threat (or HWT range).
I'm not sure if this is as relevant as in the past and how this holds up now with submarines operating antiship missiles, along with better sensors and airborne platforms (am sure ASW drones won't be far off) where the engagement range is moving further apart, but surely being 'low observable' would be of benefit (on top of as you suggested it likely improves sensor clarity/ performance).
A lot of this was discussed when the Type 26 was down selected. I thought at the time that the Navantia F101/104(?) would be the favourite but a lot of commentary highlighted how 'inferior' an ASW platform it was compared to the GCS. And here we now are.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My friend described the situation as being broken down into two types of sonar contacts for an SSN, the first one was hostile subs, the other were simply targets.
One also needs to remember that the potential effective range of sub-launched anti-ship weapons does tend to exceed the range of ship-launched ASW weapons. Looking at the potential ranges for a Mk 48 HWT, one potential range is ~40 km, vs. the ~9 km range of a Mk 54 LWT... If one them factors in the possible ranges of sub-launched AShM like the UGM-84 Harpoon II which is still in RAN inventory, we are now getting into 120+ km ranges. In other words, an ASW ship will be well within firing range of a sub's weapons long before it would be close enough to take a direct shot itself.
ASW ops themselves are conducted by multiple assets cooperating together in screening rings around a high value target, or else to sanitize an area like a natural chokepoint prior to high value targets transiting through an area. IIRC the third/outer screening ring ideally would be provided by fixed wing ASW aircraft operating 100 - 200 km ahead/away from the high value target.
As I understand it, the most likely reason for a sub targeting surface shipping to approach a screening ASW vessel is so that the sub can get a better track and targeting solution upon something of high value past the screening escort, and not because the sub was unaware of the ASW vessel.
While lowering possible detection ranges by a submarine is important, it is not the real concern with quieting in a service ship. Self noise has a major adverse effect on own ship sensor performance and that is the major driver.
Long range underwater detection is dependant on ducting. Submarines can put themselves between two layers to take advantage of it; surface ships have to rely on VDS. If you can get your sensor in the duct then environmental noise, including own ship self noise, becomes a limiting factor in detection ranges, together with sensor sensitivity.. A submarine will usually have less self noise and better sensitivity but not always. A surface ship will normally generate more flow noise because of interaction with the sea’s surface.
The “submarines or targets” meme is just that; although it is certainly has some truth with noisy surface targets.
Long range underwater detection is dependant on ducting. Submarines can put themselves between two layers to take advantage of it; surface ships have to rely on VDS. If you can get your sensor in the duct then environmental noise, including own ship self noise, becomes a limiting factor in detection ranges, together with sensor sensitivity.. A submarine will usually have less self noise and better sensitivity but not always. A surface ship will normally generate more flow noise because of interaction with the sea’s surface.
The “submarines or targets” meme is just that; although it is certainly has some truth with noisy surface targets.
downunderblue
Well-Known Member
One wonders with improvments in aerial, surface and subsurface drones that ASW may evolve, and a relatively cheap drone ship concept could flood the area with networked sensors.
I listened to a former submariner talking about ASW and how the intent of ASW was often to deny area and chase away a sub contact, to eliminate a threat through denial, not always by sinking it.
To do this largely required multiple aerial platforms, but given their number in a TF can be limited, as is the ability to consistently have them on station, you can't be everywhere at once nor can you place transmitting sonarbouys everywhere along your transit route.
With drones in general getting cheaper and greater in number, I wonder if this will start to evolve?
Anyway back to topic. I for one can't wait to see a Hunter in the water and trust that whilst $$$ (cheaper as we produce more) we hopefully have added a significant capability to the fleet and like many projects before them, after initial concerns we all end up very impressed and proud at their contribution.
I listened to a former submariner talking about ASW and how the intent of ASW was often to deny area and chase away a sub contact, to eliminate a threat through denial, not always by sinking it.
To do this largely required multiple aerial platforms, but given their number in a TF can be limited, as is the ability to consistently have them on station, you can't be everywhere at once nor can you place transmitting sonarbouys everywhere along your transit route.
With drones in general getting cheaper and greater in number, I wonder if this will start to evolve?
Anyway back to topic. I for one can't wait to see a Hunter in the water and trust that whilst $$$ (cheaper as we produce more) we hopefully have added a significant capability to the fleet and like many projects before them, after initial concerns we all end up very impressed and proud at their contribution.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I believe that AI will cause very significant changes to the way that we conduct ASW.
It has been reported that China is being proactive in disrupting existing SOSUS arrays which is achievable due to their fixed position and cables. The Seabed Sentry system designed by Anduril has AI powered processing and may become the new SOSUS system offering flexibility in deployment and having no cables. It would work well with the RAN’s Ghost Shark UUV which will be capable of deploying a number of these units at a time.
A few years ago, it was announced as part of the Federal Budget that funding was available for an Australian version of SOSUS, no details were given and I’ve seen no follow up reports about how the project is proceeding. Because of our ties with Anduril, it would not be a surprise if the Seabed Sentry system is being considered (or already purchased). There has been a report that the US has already deployed a number of these units.
Seabed Sentry
Anduril reinvents undersea surveillance with Seabed Sentry network
Anduril and Ultra Maritime Announce Partnership on Autonomous Ocean Sensing Capability - Naval News
It has been reported that China is being proactive in disrupting existing SOSUS arrays which is achievable due to their fixed position and cables. The Seabed Sentry system designed by Anduril has AI powered processing and may become the new SOSUS system offering flexibility in deployment and having no cables. It would work well with the RAN’s Ghost Shark UUV which will be capable of deploying a number of these units at a time.
A few years ago, it was announced as part of the Federal Budget that funding was available for an Australian version of SOSUS, no details were given and I’ve seen no follow up reports about how the project is proceeding. Because of our ties with Anduril, it would not be a surprise if the Seabed Sentry system is being considered (or already purchased). There has been a report that the US has already deployed a number of these units.
Seabed Sentry
Anduril reinvents undersea surveillance with Seabed Sentry network
Anduril and Ultra Maritime Announce Partnership on Autonomous Ocean Sensing Capability - Naval News
Last edited:
downunderblue
Well-Known Member
Interesting post. Forgot about AI.
There was a bit of a frustrating debate recently conducted by the Lowy Institute on basically whether Australian should reinforce a more forward and maritime focus or become an 'echidna' and focus on more a continental security focus. I messaged Jennifer Parker after the debate amazed how she kept her cool listening to the Lowy Institute’s Sam Roggeveen (former DIO and ONA) sprout so much rubbish. Politely she didn't comment but for me, to spend less on the RAN and diminish the threat of trade or supply interdiction just seemed complete madness (and reckless) to me.
As a maritime nation we have to secure or be in a position to secure our trade routes. Sam Roggeveen dismissed the capability of the PLA-N to mess with our trade, as well as the impact that would have in a time of conflict.
Thinking out allowed, I can't see a PLA-N surface vessel in the time conflict making it pass the first island chain given both their focus within that area and their vulnerability to a range of air and seaborne threats.
What is evident for me is the subsurface threat of the PLA-N to interdict our trade/supply is significant, hard to stop and during a conflict quite ever present. We can't be everywhere and their SS/SSG and SSN assets are considerable and expanding. It wouldn't take much for a few bulk carriers or tankers to be sank or severely damaged either in port (smart mine or HWT) or 2,000+km from the mainland for foreign insured vessels to run very very shy of taking any AU job, moreso the limitations we have substituting domestically flagged ships to compensate. Imagine how the political dynamic would be internally if we're all rationing petroleum resources. Those beautiful F-35's are useless without fuel and it wouldn't take much for us to feel really really insecure.
With that said and I would ask for a sense check but question why we aren't (maybe we are- we won't know I guess) investing more some SOSUS like network. Jindalee gives us an aspect of operational awareness in theatre but without a networked and triangulated subservice equivalent, which could also complement Jindalee at times, aren't we a bit exposed to a subsurface threat?
Naturally Aukus Tier 1 will help when those boats are in service but that's some time away. The rotation force will be important but initially quite limited.
I do note there seems to some ASW focus within Aukus Tier 2 so I hope they are thinking about that and other ways to efficiently limit our exposure.
Below is the Lowy debate if anyone is interested. Maybe Sam and Andrew Wilkie's were joint partners in crime but I'd expect more from a career with DIO and ONA. Whilst I welcome debate and different viewpoints, some of these views imo are unapologeticly misinformed, semi defeatest and ignore the political and military reality of how exposed we are without a maritime, forward and US aligned defence strategy.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com