By David Dunlop, 23 June 2024
The construction of Australia's future Hunter-class of frigates took a significant step forward today, when BAE Systems cut steel on the first of six vessels at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide, South Australia.The first of these 8,800 ton vessels is expected to be turned over to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) no later than 2032. Steel for Canada’s CSC Type 26 'frigates' will start to be cut by 2025 with a turnover date to the RCN by 2033….we hope. For more on the Hunter-class, see https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/06/australia-cuts-steel-on-its-first-hunter-class-frigate/
16 thoughts on “Australia Cuts First Steel for Hunter Class Frigate”
We’re not too far behind them. Pre-construction module is coming up and construction next year. Interesting that it looks like we are dumping the ExLs and CAMM and going with RAM.
Hi Wayne,
I have not really internalized the differences among these various missiles.
Do you have a view on their (relative) merits?
Ubique,
Les
Les,
The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) has been around for decades. The effector is based on the US AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile and uses infra-red imaging to home in on its target. It usually comes in a 21-round launcher. It is a point-defence weapon used against all manner of sub-sonic threats, albeit with better range than a multi-barrel gun. For this reason, Germany has employed it in preference to Phalanx or the Dutch Goalkeeper system. (Interestingly, a version called SeaRAM employs the Phalanx mounting an 11-round launcher.) The system is found on larger USN combatants and many allied/partner vessels.
Like other point defence systems, RAM is supposed to work semi-autonomously with its own detection/tracking hardware. According to the manufacturer the “sensor suite and internal combat management system reduces dependency on the ship’s combat system and enables a fast reaction to stressing anti-ship missiles.”
The Commons Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM) is more comparable to the Block 2 version of Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). It has much greater range than RAM, employing both passive and active radar guidance. There is a land-based version which is entering service with the British Army under Sky Sabre/Land Ceptor programme, which raises (or would have raised) some interesting prospects for the Canadian Army’s GBAD programme.
I was always mystified why the RCN would employ both ESSM and CAMM on the CSC (now known as the ‘River-class destroyer’). With both effectors having a range of >25km, the overlap in their capabilities makes one or the other tactically redundant. If there is a need for a truly last-ditch defence against manoeuvring targets, and the Sea Lion 30mm guns do not fill that role, RAM might makes more sense, although it’s worth noting that the RN’s Type 26 will sport a pair of Phalanxes.
I’m afraid that I can’t speak about the per-unit costs of CAM vice RAM, but if Wayne is correct perhaps RCN planners have made an assessment of the complete systems and decided on the latter. Still, I’d like to hear more about this ‘decision’, and what other surprises may be in store for the Rivers.
Hi Barnacle,
Thank you so much for helping an ex-army officer understand better what the various options entail and offer.
Ubique,
Les
Wayne, can you provide a source for that interesting tidbit of info?
Wondering what other surprises await the design…
The information can be found on the fact sheet associated with Canada’s new official web page on the River-class destroyer. I don’t know the reason for the change; but a search for “rolling airframe missile” brings up the RIM-116, made by Raytheon. Most of the other missiles listed (SM-2, Sea Sparrow, and Tomahawk) are also made by Raytheon. Perhaps Canada got a package deal?
https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer/fact-sheet.html
The source was the updated infographic released by the GOC https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/rcn-mrc/documents/ships/river-fact.pdf . It is unclear that this missile will be launched in the ExLs launchers or will be two separate launchers port and stbd where the CWIS would have been. If so, it would bring the total amount of Sea Ram to 42 missiles. This move to RAM is most likely to address the growing drone threat as seen in the Red Sea.
The VLS still remains at 24 in this flight of ships. The CRCN has challenged the designers to come up with options to increase future flights with 48 VLS. The move towards calling the class destroyers was a personal initiative from the CRCN.
Perhaps the ‘destroyer’ moniker is meant to distinguish the Rivers from the RN Type 26, which is intended mainly for ASW and comes without sufficient C2 or AAW capability to lead a task group?
The RCN seems to be expecting so much from the Canadianized design that it is viewed (unofficially, of course) as an analogue to the DDG-51 – a one-stop shop.
Hello Barnacle Bill. If you take another look at the River class “fact sheet” you will notice the Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) is gone as well (at least for the first Batch of CSC Frigates).
On the fact sheet, and at the bottom right of the pdf infographic, under the title, INTEGRATED UNDERWATER
WARFARE SYSTEM, is written:
• Towed Low Frequency Active & Passive Sonar – Ultra Electronics
Do you know if this is the Ultra Electronics product the fact sheet and infographic were referring to?
https://www.ultra.group/media/2523/sea-lancer-2nd-gen-datasheet_final.pdf
If yes, note that the title of the advert makes clear that this is an active/passive array. But under ‘Overview’, it says the Sea Lancer Mk2 “provides a Low Frequency Active (LFA) Variable Depth Sonar (VDS) in a reelable single tow.”
Hello Barnacle Bill. I was, and never will be, a qualified “Ping Boatswain” so please excuse my ignorance, but what are you saying with regard to the Sea Lancer (2nd Gen). Is it a dual purpose Active/Passive Towed Array that can emulate a VDS as well and therefore the original VDS will no longer be required so it is now gone? Am I getting this straight or am I still just as confused as before?
Hello Wayne. Yes, ExLS & CAMM appear to be gone “midships” for Batch I. I suppose RAM will be placed back on the “Lido” deck where it originally was. However Batch II and beyond may be quite different as far as weapon capacity and power go.
https://www.canada.ca/en/navy/corporate/fleet-units/surface/river-class-destroyer.html
Bill, Les, here’s the link. You might have to download the pdf to see the visualization.
Apparently RAM might save some weight, and possibly easier integration with Aegis.
There will be either 22 or 42 missiles depending on launcher.
Missiles are cheaper if less capable, but missiles can be reloaded at sea.
Hi wayne,
Thank you for the info and insights.
Ubique,
Les
Two MK 49 launchers port and stbd for a total of 42 missiles. Reloads can be done at sea. Nothing yet if the ExLS will be eliminated. My thinking is that they will to save weight.
I everyone, from what we can see on the latest graphics, the Exls launcher remain behind the funnel. I did some research ans it seems like the RAM Block II can be launch from it (see the link below)
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_Host_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
It is unclear haw many missile are caried per cell.