Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
re: potential drone attacks....if shipping containers full of black market cigarettes can make it on shore, I am positive that shipping containers full of drones could to.
This makes a land based drone attack against infrastructure a real possibility, and as has been pointed out, we dont have any real (publiclly released) anti drone capability. I hope there is some sort of EW answer to that problem?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
re: potential drone attacks....if shipping containers full of black market cigarettes can make it on shore, I am positive that shipping containers full of drones could to.
This makes a land based drone attack against infrastructure a real possibility, and as has been pointed out, we dont have any real (publiclly released) anti drone capability. I hope there is some sort of EW answer to that problem?
Of course there is.

We just haven’t bought any…
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Anduril Altius UAS launcher as fitted (and fired) from a Ghostshark.

As suspected the vessel has to all but surface to launch these. 22x per craft seemingly from twin 11x round launchers…

Taken from an Anduril vid of socials. Not of course from ADF…


IMG_6282.jpeg
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
Anduril Altius UAS launcher as fitted (and fired) from a Ghostshark.

As suspected the vessel has to all but surface to launch these. 22x per craft seemingly from twin 11x round launchers…

Taken from an Anduril vid of socials. Not of course from ADF…


View attachment 55847
Impressive. Someone is doing their job.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Anduril Altius UAS launcher as fitted (and fired) from a Ghostshark.

As suspected the vessel has to all but surface to launch these. 22x per craft seemingly from twin 11x round launchers…

Taken from an Anduril vid of socials. Not of course from ADF…


View attachment 55847
Short little video tells you a lot. A conventional submarine stays submerged to fire weapons. Clearly not an issue with UUVs. It surfaces, establishes satellite coms, gets its firing solution, fires it drones or weapons, dives as deep as 6000m to escape detection. Repeat as necessary.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Very little seems to have actually been released on Ghost Shark’s actual performance; what is around the net seems to be speculation. Whatever, it is not taking those UAV launchers to 5,000 metres - or anywhere near it.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Very little seems to have actually been released on Ghost Shark’s actual performance; what is around the net seems to be speculation. Whatever, it is not taking those UAV launchers to 5,000 metres - or anywhere near it.
I think that huge depth is a very theoretical number. IMO Andril sometimes seem a bit boastful.

Honestly this is probably something that is working in the 0-100m zone a lot. It can surface, sat com its data and readings when its a nice quite period in the middle of the night in the middle of an ocean or near clutter. Sensor, report, move etc.

The drone looks a little small. Does it have sat communications capability?

I am happy its doing its job, as we have a particular short fall in sub capabilities currently and going forward.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
I think that huge depth is a very theoretical number. IMO Andril sometimes seem a bit boastful.
They are still a quite young company with very low revenue for the number of area's they are playing in.

It will be interesting to see if they can actually deliver what they promise, and whether they manage to stay independent or get swallowed up by one of the established players.

They are still a very small company relative to BAe, LM, RTX, Boeing etc.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
A bit of a chat in the Australian Army thread re ships ,so I’ll follow on from Volks post 12370.
I guess in broad term we are talking about a hybrid Amphib / Frigate.
While I get the need for ships specialised in a particular field, I can also see merit in flexibility.
Mission bays are now a thing!
While some may suggest it’s a bastard of a solution I can see its application for many a navy.
Particularly those at the smaller end.

When an Amphib gets to the 8000t mark it clearly has some size and weight options for fit out.
I guess you could sacrifice some amphibious lift capability for weapons and sensors.

Suggest not having the later at the level of a Hunter or a Hobart but rather an ANZAC.

I’ve also liked the Absalon Class; however it’s more warship than Amphib.

My pitch would be more a weaponised Amphib.
Singapores Endurance Class LST ( really a LSD )
comes to mind
Two spot hanger and flight deck, well dock and accommodation for vehicles / helicopters and personnel.
76gun and a couple of bushmasters plus some Mistral SAM
Add an eight cell VLS plus, some NSM with appropriate sensors and you have a very tidy package .

If not for the ADF one for NZ to consider !!!

Cheers S
 

MARKMILES77

Well-Known Member
Anduril Altius UAS launcher as fitted (and fired) from a Ghostshark.

As suspected the vessel has to all but surface to launch these. 22x per craft seemingly from twin 11x round launchers…

Taken from an Anduril vid of socials. Not of course from ADF…


View attachment 55847
Probably could replace the twin Altius launchers with a pair of launchers for a couple of larger missiles.
Twin Naval Strike Missiles for example would likely fit and give Ghost Shark a significant Land attack and Anti-Ship missile capabilty.
The potential weapons options for Ghost Shark are going to make it one of the best capabilities the ADF has ever purchased.
 

Sideline

Member
RE:
Singapores Endurance Class LST for NZ
If ST Marine could as some smart automation to Singapores Endurance Class to reduce the crew size/load, it would be a good fit for NZ. It's ideally suited to south pacific outreach and disaster support making it politically palatable. the question would be how far south could it go safely
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
They are still a quite young company with very low revenue for the number of area's they are playing in.

It will be interesting to see if they can actually deliver what they promise, and whether they manage to stay independent or get swallowed up by one of the established players.

They are still a very small company relative to BAe, LM, RTX, Boeing etc.
There quoted numbers are often based around what they think a platform could possibly handle, not as configured operationally in the RAN. If the RAN wanted a very deep diving platform, they could probably configure that at reduced range, weapons etc. Which isn't that wierd, not one expect a Fighter jet fulled loaded with external weapons to reach maxium ferry range or maxium speed.

I think they will stay independant, their CEO is crazy and likes being CEO. He sold VR to meta, so is already worth heaps of money, so he has no interest in selling out. I think the USG likes a smaller, lower cost, more agile defence company.

They are trying different things and approaching things differently. Ghostshark is an example of what can happen quickly. Australia wanted a platform to happen yesterday, to help cover gaps from Sub programs, this does that, its a quick seeminly decent program, and its standing up capability before other platforms have even completed development.

In 2026 Australia knows what large UUV and large CCA look like because we are operating these platforms in numbers right now. We can test, train against, train with, start improvement programs, integrate systems and weapons, show allies, build CONOPs, strategies, operate them in the waters we want to gain real experience. That's very valuable even if in 5 years we acquire new platforms.

Hence why I think Germany delaying their program is such a mistake, you need to get out there now, change laws, come up with operational procedures, resolve real problems with these new weapons. For Germany it was a legal issue. Well get the platform and make the legal issue high priority, operate it outside of Germany until Germany fixes its laws. Gain the experience and knowledge across your force, from pilots, sailors, to generals and admirals to political leaders.
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
Probably could replace the twin Altius launchers with a pair of launchers for a couple of larger missiles.
Twin Naval Strike Missiles for example would likely fit and give Ghost Shark a significant Land attack and Anti-Ship missile capabilty.
The potential weapons options for Ghost Shark are going to make it one of the best capabilities the ADF has ever purchased.
Agreed. And if we get the numbers of Ghost Shark being thrown around they will be a massive force multiplier. Maybe the Defence Mandarins have got it right this time.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Probably could replace the twin Altius launchers with a pair of launchers for a couple of larger missiles.
Twin Naval Strike Missiles for example would likely fit and give Ghost Shark a significant Land attack and Anti-Ship missile capabilty.
The potential weapons options for Ghost Shark are going to make it one of the best capabilities the ADF has ever purchased.
The platform is also touted as being capable of carrying (and presumably launching) lightweight torpedoes or “a” heavy weight torpedo.

No further details on whether they are referring to in-service RAN torpedoes or some other system. If they are referring to a Mk.48 then they must have at least 5.8m of useable weapon-bay length, at least 21 inch width and a payload capacity of 1.6t.

Whether that could accommodate 2x NSM’s is uncertain, not to mention how they could be fired - a launcher would take up substantial space and weight, but there is certainly plenty of room for options according to these reports.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I think that huge depth is a very theoretical number. IMO Andril sometimes seem a bit boastful.

Honestly this is probably something that is working in the 0-100m zone a lot. It can surface, sat com its data and readings when its a nice quite period in the middle of the night in the middle of an ocean or near clutter. Sensor, report, move etc.

The drone looks a little small. Does it have sat communications capability?

I am happy its doing its job, as we have a particular short fall in sub capabilities currently and going forward.
When I think of Anduril I think of the old engineering adage. You can have it quick, you can have it cheap and you can have it good. Pick two.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
When I think of Anduril I think of the old engineering adage. You can have it quick, you can have it cheap and you can have it good. Pick two.
I think they have interesting products if you are after something in a fast moving space and want something to get some capability quickly. They probably do the move into new spaces, make something faster than the existing industrial complex. So Ghostshark fits into that space, but it isn't the only play we have in that space. Given our timeframe of 2028-29 to get ourselves in shape, we need real platforms now, not potentially much better platforms later.

If we can get 12-24 Ghostsharks operational by 2029 then that is good capability, fast. Not just for the capabilities of ghostshark, but also training our forces against such drones.

No further details on whether they are referring to in-service RAN torpedoes or some other system. If they are referring to a Mk.48 then they must have at least 5.8m of useable weapon-bay length, at least 21 inch width and a payload capacity of 1.6t.
Mk48 is pretty big, too big, I think on the UUVs they had it externally mounted on some platforms, on smaller platforms its makes up considerable mass so firing it changes the entire buoyancy of the platform significantly. NSM be too large for this platform. The type of drones these are launching at 4kg warhead class. Which is still useful to take out a command post, sensor, munitions dump, powerlines/powerstation, fuel stores etc. Launching 24 of them hitting 24 individual targets with precision then disappearing is what this would be good for. Big heavy munitions are better deployed from larger platforms. NSM was going to have a regular sub launched variant. Large munitions delivered by long range platform (LRASM, Tomahawk etc) are going to do the heavy lifting, but this platform can then also provide precision small target capabilities.


As a sensor platform, with mine laying and drone launching capability that is ideal and would help existing subs focus on their missions.
 

MARKMILES77

Well-Known Member
I think they have interesting products if you are after something in a fast moving space and want something to get some capability quickly. They probably do the move into new spaces, make something faster than the existing industrial complex. So Ghostshark fits into that space, but it isn't the only play we have in that space. Given our timeframe of 2028-29 to get ourselves in shape, we need real platforms now, not potentially much better platforms later.

If we can get 12-24 Ghostsharks operational by 2029 then that is good capability, fast. Not just for the capabilities of ghostshark, but also training our forces against such drones.


Mk48 is pretty big, too big, I think on the UUVs they had it externally mounted on some platforms, on smaller platforms its makes up considerable mass so firing it changes the entire buoyancy of the platform significantly. NSM be too large for this platform. The type of drones these are launching at 4kg warhead class. Which is still useful to take out a command post, sensor, munitions dump, powerlines/powerstation, fuel stores etc. Launching 24 of them hitting 24 individual targets with precision then disappearing is what this would be good for. Big heavy munitions are better deployed from larger platforms. NSM was going to have a regular sub launched variant. Large munitions delivered by long range platform (LRASM, Tomahawk etc) are going to do the heavy lifting, but this platform can then also provide precision small target capabilities.


As a sensor platform, with mine laying and drone launching capability that is ideal and would help existing subs focus on their missions.
NSM is 400kg.

Ghost Shark can carry 12 Asteria Sea Mines.
A single Sea Mine weighs more than a pair of Ghost Sharks.
So weight won't be an issue.
Screenshot 2026-10-23 at 13.18.32.pngScreenshot 2026-10-23 at 13.18.15.png

NSM with booster is less than 4 metres.
We know Ghost Shark can carry Copperhead 500 which is 4.14 metres.
So length won't be an issue.
Screenshot 2026-10-23 at 13.53.22.png
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
The platform is also touted as being capable of carrying (and presumably launching) lightweight torpedoes or “a” heavy weight torpedo.

No further details on whether they are referring to in-service RAN torpedoes or some other system. If they are referring to a Mk.48 then they must have at least 5.8m of useable weapon-bay length, at least 21 inch width and a payload capacity of 1.6t.

Whether that could accommodate 2x NSM’s is uncertain, not to mention how they could be fired - a launcher would take up substantial space and weight, but there is certainly plenty of room for options according to these reports.
Can a cradle be fitted for heavyweight torpedoes ?
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Perhaps some of the members here with some naval experience could provide an answer to the new frigates are stated as for escort roles ,but Mogami,s and Hunter class have different A.S.W more so that the Hunter being designed to be accoustically quiet even against waves so its sensors are not getting outside background noise when searching for submarines ,if in an escort role with the near by ships noise will this lessen the effectiveness of the Hunter class in this role . Would it be fair to suggest these two designs of ships will operate differently in the escort role
 
Top