Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

There are a multitude of cheap anti drone capabilities being developed and produced; a lot of them in Ukraine but also across the wider Eastern Europe. According to the available literature, some of them cost in the very low thousands of dollars. One amongst many is ODIN: Ukrainian firm develops ODIN anti-drone interceptor. And here’s one from Estonia: Poland to establish anti-drone missile plant with Estonia's Frankenburg Technologies

Given the practical experience the Ukrainians have, I‘d tend to go with a licence built version of one of theirs. It would probably come with a proven upgrade path…..

 

[SammyC]

There are a multitude of cheap anti drone capabilities being developed and produced; a lot of them in Ukraine but also across the wider Eastern Europe. According to the available literature, some of them cost in the very low thousands of dollars. One amongst many is ODIN: Ukrainian firm develops ODIN anti-drone interceptor. And here’s one from Estonia: Poland to establish anti-drone missile plant with Estonia's Frankenburg Technologies

Given the practical experience the Ukrainians have, I‘d tend to go with a licence built version of one of theirs. It would probably come with a proven upgrade path…..

I'm thinking that our eventual selection for a shipboard drone interceptor will come from a Ukranian source. Something that can average a few thousand per shot, hold say 50-100 units within a compact upper deck cannister, with a range of 10-15km. Some of there systems are already capable of this.

 

[seaspear]

What capability should the home ports have to intercept these dones? I am not sure if crews would be manning their sensor suites and other stations when berthed

 

[iambuzzard]

What capability should the home ports have to intercept these dones? I am not sure if crews would be manning their sensor suites and other stations when berthed

Currently I don't believe we have any ability to defend our home ports from a potential drone attack launched from a container ship off the coast.
Look at the panic in the US about drones over Barksdale AFB.

 

[Bob53]

Currently I don't believe we have any ability to defend our home ports from a potential drone attack launched from a container ship off the coast.
Look at the panic in the US about drones over Barksdale AFB.

As far as I can see FBE …We don’t have ability to protect home ports from anything other than a gate forced entry. nothing to stop drones, nothing to stop water borne drones, nothing to stop even man launched weapons from land or boat.

 

[ADMk2]

I was looking at the clip where RADM Hughes discusses the Upgraded Mogami frigate and at the 4.50 mark he states the Searam is fitted "for". He doesn't say it will be fitted "with". He later goes on to say "we are leveraging off what Japan wants to do as a parent navy and what's compatible with us." Am I reading too much into this or does it seem that Searam will not be included initially. He states the no change mantra but at the same time he seems a little defensive, hedging his bets and choosing his words carefully.

He said “that will be a new capability for us”. Which he wouldn’t have said if we weren’t getting it?

 

[iambuzzard]

As far as I can see FBE …We don’t have ability to protect home ports from anything other than a gate forced entry. nothing to stop drones, nothing to stop water borne drones, nothing to stop even man launched weapons from land or boat.

The complacency about security around our military and other bases in Australia is bordering on criminal.
FBE is smack bang in the middle of Sydney Harbour and a drone attack launched from a civilian ship in international waters would cause massive damage and civilian casualties.
The FBI warned the Californian authorities about this potential and promptly got slapped down by the White House.
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. This is assymetrical warfare, something we haven't trained for.
We are asleep at the wheel!

 

[spoz]

Not quite sure what the FBI warning a US state about something has to do with Australia, but moving on.

Governments and Defence authorities address threats in terms of priorities, Those priorities are derived by assessing the impact of an event and the likelihood of it occurring. A drone attack on FBE, no matter how big the drone, would have a localised effect. It might be an expensive one, but Sydney, as a city, would not be significantly effected.

However, it is also an extremely low probability event. For it to happen, an enemy would need a motive and away of carrying it out; and would have to weigh the outcomes as it would effect them of an attack if successful. So. Who might do it? No state actor - not China, not Russia, and not North Korea. - it would be an act of war and would involve them in a major conflict, and we are not the prime opponent of those states. Not worth it from their perspective. And not any of our neighbours, we are on (deliberately) good terms with them.

So that leaves extra state actors, aka terrorists. OK, they might have the motivation - although we are neither the greater nor the lesser Satan - but still they might see us as an easy target, although given our distance from their bases of operations there are easier. To do it, they would have to obtain an ocean going ship capable of reaching Australia, convert it to launch and control drones - admittedly only a container- find a legitimate reason to send the ship to Australia, get it here (and we area long way from anywhere), get within drone range of FBE and launch an attack. And they would have to do all that without being detected by our rather good intelligence and surveillance assets, or those of our allies. Possible, but collectively, improbable.

Does that mean we should ignore the possibility? No. But it also means that we should not start panicking about it, or running around like headless chooks. There are many thousands of possible scenarios we need to be aware of and this is just one - and probably one of the less likely, and therefore a fairly low priority

 

[Bob53]

Not quite sure what the FBI warning a US state about something has to do with Australia, but moving on.

Governments and Defence authorities address threats in terms of priorities, Those priorities are derived by assessing the impact of an event and the likelihood of it occurring. A drone attack on FBE, no matter how big the drone, would have a localised effect. It might be an expensive one, but Sydney, as a city, would not be significantly effected.

However, it is also an extremely low probability event. For it to happen, an enemy would need a motive and away of carrying it out; and would have to weigh the outcomes as it would effect them of an attack if successful. So. Who might do it? No state actor - not China, not Russia, and not North Korea. - it would be an act of war and would involve them in a major conflict, and we are not the prime opponent of those states. Not worth it from their perspective. And not any of our neighbours, we are on (deliberately) good terms with them.

So that leaves extra state actors, aka terrorists. OK, they might have the motivation - although we are neither the greater nor the lesser Satan - but still they might see us as an easy target, although given our distance from their bases of operations there are easier. To do it, they would have to obtain an ocean going ship capable of reaching Australia, convert it to launch and control drones - admittedly only a container- find a legitimate reason to send the ship to Australia, get it here (and we area long way from anywhere), get within drone range of FBE and launch an attack. And they would have to do all that without being detected by our rather good intelligence and surveillance assets, or those of our allies. Possible, but collectively, improbable.

Does that mean we should ignore the possibility? No. But it also means that we should not start panicking about it, or running around like headless chooks. There are many thousands of possible scenarios we need to be aware of and this is just one - and probably one of the less likely, and therefore a fairly low priority

What you have said is correct. Except that if we end up in a war, either directly, or as a support base or as a potential participant…war doesn’t just work like …well they wouldn’t do that would they? yes it’s far fetched but not beyond the realms. Who would go to a festival and attack, kidnap and kill 1200? Who would fly planes into a building? Who would attack the USN in a home port? Who would drive an explosive laden boat up against a FFG?

your point is valid …the chances are low but the potential costs are high. Not suggesting they move FBE under a concrete dome…but just maybe some water barriers boats and water born drone , and some microwave or other defences against airborne risks.

 

[iambuzzard]

What you have said is correct. Except that if we end up in a war, either directly, or as a support base or as a potential participant…war doesn’t just work like …well they wouldn’t do that would they? yes it’s far fetched but not beyond the realms. Who would go to a festival and attack, kidnap and kill 1200? Who would fly planes into a building? Who would attack the USN in a home port? Who would drive an explosive laden boat up against a FFG?

your point is valid …the chances are low but the potential costs are high. Not suggesting they move FBE under a concrete dome…but just maybe some water barriers boats and water born drone , and some microwave or other defences against airborne risks.

I understand what Spoz was saying and I only used the FBI warning to highlight a potential risk. I'm not suggesting we have walls of Patriot batteries, RAM launchers, laser projectors and Phalanx. All I'm suggesting is we have an effective defence in case something happens.
As Bruce Willis said in the Last Boy Scout, "Be Prepared Son"!

 

[SammyC]

What you have said is correct. Except that if we end up in a war, either directly, or as a support base or as a potential participant…war doesn’t just work like …well they wouldn’t do that would they? yes it’s far fetched but not beyond the realms. Who would go to a festival and attack, kidnap and kill 1200? Who would fly planes into a building? Who would attack the USN in a home port? Who would drive an explosive laden boat up against a FFG?

your point is valid …the chances are low but the potential costs are high. Not suggesting they move FBE under a concrete dome…but just maybe some water barriers boats and water born drone , and some microwave or other defences against airborne risks.

To Volks point, the risk profile today, tomorrow and the next day is very low for this type of attack. But bob I agree that an attack can go from zero to 100 extremely quickly. I don't think even three months ago we would have envisaged the mess that is now the middle east.

In that context, if we needed to suddenly protect critical harbours, what would we do.

FBE may actually not be reasonably defendable, and the strategy might be to move all ships out to other harbours. Perhaps we abandon FBE in time of conflict, or just use the more distant wharves on the island.

FBW should be much more secure as it is isolated and a security screen could be put around it. Easy to establish an exclusion perimeter with basic police boats within 24 hours. Small drones are not going to make the distance from shore, large drones can be seen from a long way away, and an underwater monitoring system could be established easily. Any approaching ship, boat or submerged object can be screened from hundreds of kms away with the likes of P8s and Tritons, and probably soon with Ghost Sharks or Blue Bottles. Our own Collins are effective tools, even just one.

We have immediate remote weapons capability available on Hawkeis and Bushmasters with the EOS R400s that could be placed around the island for last line defence, also available within 24 hours. We also have stinger available within the SAS, also deployable immediately to the island.

I would expect any operational ships would immediately sail to provide a further screen, radar coverage and EW protection.

Arafuras can provide interdiction and boarding party support well offshore.

I'm thinking with our existing assets available in the Perth area we could secure a base like FBW within a short period of time. None of it requires major missile defence systems, all of it is about area denial.

Containerised drones on a cargo ship are a risk, however there are lots of logistics that complicate this. Firstly for a drone to be launched from a container, the container would need to be on top of the ship, or on top of the wharf container pile such that it can open without obstructions. It would require significant coordination to guarantee this. Any ship sailing from a hostile port would immediately flag and be redirected or escorted.

Question becomes, how many of our ports are like FBE and how many are like FBW.

 

[StevoJH]

FBE may actually not be reasonably defendable, and the strategy might be to move all ships out to other harbours. Perhaps we abandon FBE in time of conflict, or just use the more distant wharves on the island.

I guess it depends what threats you need to defend against.

An actual shooting war massively changes the dynamics with regards to the use of public and private real estate.

It might also bring other assets under the control of other government agencies into play. Aka. Everything under the control of the Harbour Trust.

 

[SammyC]

I guess it depends what threats you need to defend against.

An actual shooting war massively changes the dynamics with regards to the use of public and private real estate.

It might also bring other assets under the control of other government agencies into play. Aka. Everything under the control of the Harbour Trust.

Yes, if absolutely needed for instance the Woolloomooloo finger wharf could be cleared out of residents, the harbour shut down to all private vessels, and Mrs Macs chair put on security detail.

I will put on the record that Fort Dennison should be reactivated in this instance. Bring out the old cannons!!

 

[StingrayOZ]

I will put on the record that Fort Dennison should be reactivated in this instance. Bring out the old cannons!!

They should do something with it, its been closed for like 5 years now.

I don't think ships and FBE is the big problem. FBE is not in a terrible position really. Ships are surprisingly tough. A drone big enough to cause *significant* damage would have to be quite large and packed with explosives. They are an intelligence problem, they can cause minor damage. Such a large drone is likely to be noticed. Electronic defences are probably good enough to defend shipping in that environment, kinetic would be unacceptable human risk. While ships aren't as battle proof as they used to be, they are still pretty tough, highly compartmentalised, and while something could damage a radar dome, or antenna, or window, its probably not worth spending a billion dollars to try to prevent all possible situations particularly unlikely ones at FBE. Policing, surveillance, EW measures could net huge gains with minimal expense. Anti-drone drones could also be used.

Airports are more of an issue. Planes are made out of things like 2mm thick aluminium. Even a child's drone being ingested in the engine could destroy a billion dollar plane. heck Birds can take out even the largest planes we have. There are no harden shelters. Australia does have some pretty remote airbases.

I would expect in war time we would be even more strict, and Woolloomooloo would be compulsory acquired and put at the disposal of defence personnel. Traffic would be limited, and local residences would like be under significant monitoring and would be watching other residents.

 

[SammyC]

They should do something with it, its been closed for like 5 years now.

I don't think ships and FBE is the big problem. FBE is not in a terrible position really. Ships are surprisingly tough. A drone big enough to cause *significant* damage would have to be quite large and packed with explosives. They are an intelligence problem, they can cause minor damage. Such a large drone is likely to be noticed. Electronic defences are probably good enough to defend shipping in that environment, kinetic would be unacceptable human risk. While ships aren't as battle proof as they used to be, they are still pretty tough, highly compartmentalised, and while something could damage a radar dome, or antenna, or window, its probably not worth spending a billion dollars to try to prevent all possible situations particularly unlikely ones at FBE. Policing, surveillance, EW measures could net huge gains with minimal expense. Anti-drone drones could also be used.

Airports are more of an issue. Planes are made out of things like 2mm thick aluminium. Even a child's drone being ingested in the engine could destroy a billion dollar plane. heck Birds can take out even the largest planes we have. There are no harden shelters. Australia does have some pretty remote airbases.

I would expect in war time we would be even more strict, and Woolloomooloo would be compulsory acquired and put at the disposal of defence personnel. Traffic would be limited, and local residences would like be under significant monitoring and would be watching other residents.

Yea valid point regarding exposure. And you are right that it becomes more an intelligence task to prevent large foriegn drones/explosives being smuggled into the region.

The advantage with our airports is they mostly have space around them for defence systems to work. My younger brother stupidly took his drone too close to an airforce base once. He had the police at his house within 15 minutes.

I'm calling shot gun on the end penthouse on the pier if it gets compulsory acquired and convered into a barrack.