Interesting & obscure RAN discussions (not related to current capabilities)

[Todjaeger]

Im commenting now, because a prev comment of mine was just referred to.
So this is last comment on the subject.

I accept the tirade of reasons why it wont work.
The missile in question is intended to merely be a 2nd tier SIMPLE air burst munition, that doesnt usurp anything but instead places a round in what would otherwise be an empty VLS cell.

Its basic, so if the target moves from initial tracked trajectory, it would miss, but then one could fire a second round.
Every feature of this envisioned missile round is common to other missiles used.

Being simple, it would be a basic foundation for industry to produce this defensive ships magazine filler. Perhaps something that more capable variants may evolve from?
Perhaps other classes of missile may expand australian industry further, originating from an idea to cheaply fill an empty VLS cell.

Thats it. If its not popular, or rubbish its dead. The hobby horse is dead.

Thanks for taking the time to engage in the notion.

The problem with the idea all along is that while the intention might have been for there to be a 'simple' missile which could be produced domestically if/when advanced air defence missiles like ESSM, Standard, etc. al. warstocks were depleted by a prolonged conflict, some of the capabilities credited or required for the 'simple' missile to function are in fact, not simple.

The above, coupled with likely requirements for a capability to be both relevant and useful, create something of an impossible situation.

For example, AFAIK current naval area air defence doctrine calls for launching two or more missiles to ensure a hostile inbound is successfully intercepted. That means launching two or more ESSM, with their SARH and CEA MOUNT illuminator at an inbound hostile to make sure that at least one ESSM either hits or detonates close enough to the inbound to shoot it down. Going back to the days of WWII and the AAA of the Allied air defences, prior to the adoption of the proximity fuze, it took on average ~2,500 AAA rounds fired to shoot down a single Axis aircraft. After the development and adoption of the proximity fuze, that number was dramatically cut, but still remained high requiring on average hundreds of rounds fired per aircraft shot down. It is also worth remembering that AA defences back then also utilized radar systems (including by proximity fuzes) as well as optical sighting systems and mechanical targeting computers. All to hit comparatively slow-moving targets at ranges of ~14 km or less. Even if a single hypothetical missile were to equal a half-dozen WWII-era AAA shells, it could easily require more missiles than the number which might be able to be quad-packed in a Hobart-class DDG to achieve a single successful interception/shoot down. Especially since a more modern aerial target could easily be moving at twice the speed and if one is talking about using the hypothetical missile at range, it would be more than the ~14 km range limit from WWII.

So to put this all together, so that this idea can really be put to bed...

In order for the 'simple' tier 2 missile to exist and function as described it would require;

1. A proximity fuze (certainly possible, but not a "simple" item to manufacture)
2. Steerable maneuvering (again, possible, but not "simple")
3. A guidance computer of some sort (electronic, mechanical, again possible but not simple) to permit a course correction/change after launch
4. A system to accept targeting data from the vessel, while the missile is enclosed within the VLS cell prior to launch

While the list above is by no means exhaustive, and it also leaves out ordinary rocket or missile requirements like motors, casing, etc. the four listed are all examples of complicated systems which would be required to make a missile useful. In order for Australia to domestically produce missiles, Australia would need either access to components providing the above capabilities, or the ability to manufacture said components domestically. If going for domestic component production, then Australia would also need to ensure access to the raw mats required to make the components. Now if these components require components themselves like resistors, IC's, transistors, PCB's, etc. Australia would again either need to have access to a supply, or be able to engage in domestic production, and so on.

At some point, Australia would almost certainly run into a problem with either requiring access to a raw material not available domestically in Australia, or requiring a component which is not required and/or profitable enough domestically to sustain the domestic production costs.

 

[Preceptor]

WOMBAT000 BANNED FOR 1 MONTH FOR NOT FOLLOWING MODERATORS DIRECTIONS ABOUT QUALITY OF POSTS. YOU JUST HAD TO CONTINUE TO PUSH IT.

THREAD ALSO LOCKED.
-Preceptor

 

[StingrayOZ]

Links 11, 16 and 22 already allow the transmission of sensor data in various forms from one platform to another; and I'm not sure how a radar would improve that, but then, I'm not involved with ANZACs. However, it's a comms issue not really a sensor issue

BTW, Rob Elliot is a Commodore, not a Commander - CMDR is the abbreviation for the latter.

Its not really just a radar anymore.. it can be a coms feature and an illuminator.

AMCAP also featured other warfare system improvements. The stand-alone IFF system was replaced with an IFF system designed by CEA and integrated into the CEAFAR2-L system – another world first for the company.

Sharing data can happen different ways and different rates, sharing data at tactically useful rates that enable remote targeting, direction improved accuracy is probably the future. Not just sharing known positions, but radar return data, that then can be analysed with other radar sensor data from multiple platforms.

Strategist has another piece calling for a more capable OPV.

Enhanced offshore patrol vessel fleet would be a force multiplier for Australia’s navy | The Strategist

Australia can acquire extra maritime capability quickly and affordably while promoting local industry and the government’s continuous naval shipbuilding plan. My new ASPI report, From concentrated vulnerability to distributed lethality—or how to get more maritime ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Mainly about fitting the CEAFAR radar to them. Which I think isn't a bad idea. Particularly if you want to operate them in the North and the wider Pacific and Indian oceans and given the changing situations. In an environment where threats have significant electronic warfare capability, and victory happens via presence and situational awareness rather than how many missiles you have.

 

[hauritz]

I agree that Ceafar could be useful but this is a fairly restrictive design. At best you could perhaps have a 57mm gun on the front. There is space for missiles midship but you would fry the RHIBs if you ever tried to launch anything. The flight deck is big enough for a SeaHawk but no hanger.

The strength of the design is that it does have a substantial mission bay area and landing deck. I imagine it would be a reasonably effective mothership for unmanned vehicles. It will be an excellent patrol vessel and useful in MCM and survey work. That it can operate three RHIBs and has substantial space above and below deck could make it useful for special forces and HADR operations.

But as a frontline combat vessel ... no.

I am not against the idea of a corvette sized warship down the track but I am not sure that this design would be the best option for that job.

 

[Stampede]

Hauritz well done again with the imagery.....Would of mounted 12 Phalanx myself for the full broadside effect! !!!!!!!

Agree 100% with the Strategist article that the Arafura Class has much potential, but are also mindful of expecting too much from the vessels existing size.
If we could turn back the clock I'd have an OPV that could both perform its constabulary role, but also have it future proofed in size to be upgraded to with additional systems to have a meaningful military role.
The Arafura Class appears a bit to small, but hopefully I'm wrong.

The Options of specialisation of ship in the Strategist article are very interesting and trust workable but again are concerned with the ships size for growth.

Maybe a more realistic approach is to build the ships in two classes.
One as is with no modifications and the other one of the other larger vessels in the Lurssen range.

The later with flight deck and hangar and increased space for additional weapons systems and crew.
More a Corvette come light frigate in the 95 m / 2300 k tonne range.

Will be interested if the article gets any traction.

A potential win for both local manufacturing and defence.


Regards S

 

[StingrayOZ]

I am talking more akin to an intelligence/electronic SIGINT ELINT defence patrol platform.
A ship whos coms and radar aren't easily disabled by counter measures. A much more powerful radar an sensor setup. But not a combat platform. No missiles or larger gun would be required.

The patrol mission can be enhanced by superior sensors. Detecting and monitoring state and non-state assets.

If we are going to build a Combat Patrol Vessel or a Corvette of types, then a different design would be more appropriate. Probably more in the 3,000t category with completely different speed and hull characteristics.

 

[Stampede]

I am talking more akin to an intelligence/electronic SIGINT ELINT defence patrol platform.
A ship whos coms and radar aren't easily disabled by counter measures. A much more powerful radar an sensor setup. But not a combat platform. No missiles or larger gun would be required.

The patrol mission can be enhanced by superior sensors. Detecting and monitoring state and non-state assets.

If we are going to build a Combat Patrol Vessel or a Corvette of types, then a different design would be more appropriate. Probably more in the 3,000t category with completely different speed and hull characteristics.

Maybe a second batch of the Lurssen Light frigate, or something of this size and capability.

Multirole Light Frigate - Lürssen Defence | Lürssen Shipyard - german quality-shipbuilding

The Multirole Light Frigate by Lürssen is specifically designed for worldwide deployment in high-intensity scenarios. It serves as primary platform in combined assignments.

www.luerssen-defence.com

Appreciate it's fantasy fleets until Government advise.
But suggest just as six additional Cape class appeared out of nowhere, there is a good chance some adjustments may be made to the build / schedule / numbers / Type / for the OPV's , mine / survey mix of ships.
This would be prudent to achieve some enhanced military options prior to the next generation of Destroyers / submarines enter service.
Rapidly changing would and all that.


Regards S

 

[Stampede]

View attachment 47409
I agree that Ceafar could be useful but this is a fairly restrictive design. At best you could perhaps have a 57mm gun on the front. There is space for missiles midship but you would fry the RHIBs if you ever tried to launch anything. The flight deck is big enough for a SeaHawk but no hanger.

The strength of the design is that it does have a substantial mission bay area and landing deck. I imagine it would be a reasonably effective mothership for unmanned vehicles. It will be an excellent patrol vessel and useful in MCM and survey work. That it can operate three RHIBs and has substantial space above and below deck could make it useful for special forces and HADR operations.

But as a frontline combat vessel ... no.

I am not against the idea of a corvette sized warship down the track but I am not sure that this design would be the best option for that job.

hautitz

Losing the "generous" armament above and returning to the original armament of 40mm / .50 cal.
Can you envisage if a Mk 56 vls would be feasible.
Suggest with the RAN requirements of RHIB's and associated large cranes the ASW launch location would be redundant.
Maybe behind the funnel between the cranes. The Mk 56 foot print is not that great and should hopefully not interfere with both flight deck doors for containers and the odd helicopter landing.

Maybe !!!!

Regards S

 

[OldTex]

View attachment 47409
I agree that Ceafar could be useful but this is a fairly restrictive design. At best you could perhaps have a 57mm gun on the front. There is space for missiles midship but you would fry the RHIBs if you ever tried to launch anything. The flight deck is big enough for a SeaHawk but no hanger.

The strength of the design is that it does have a substantial mission bay area and landing deck. I imagine it would be a reasonably effective mothership for unmanned vehicles. It will be an excellent patrol vessel and useful in MCM and survey work. That it can operate three RHIBs and has substantial space above and below deck could make it useful for special forces and HADR operations.

But as a frontline combat vessel ... no.

I am not against the idea of a corvette sized warship down the track but I am not sure that this design would be the best option for that job.

I would be more concerned about frying the Phalanx CIWS than the RHIB. The flight deck without a hanger could really only support a UAS (like the S-100 Camcopter) for an extended patrol. It would be near impossible to maintain anything larger and realistically why risk a platform like the MRH-90 or the MH-60R in such a situation. The flight deck might act as a lilypad for such helicopters, or civilian types being used in littoral areas for emergency recoveries.

 

[aussienscale]

Again getting into fantasy land territory here ! The OPV is a constabulary vessel with better sea keeping capability compared to the traditional patrol boats we have had. A lot of the tasking over the last couple of decades has very much been taken away from the RAN and over to Border Force, with the RAN still providing back up support, but allows the OPV to do the task's that are really required.

They Don't have a hangar because they are not even considered to be used for a permanent helo capability, CONOPS do not dictate it, that is why we are getting the S-100, so lets get a little grip ! Yes they can pad hop if that is what you want, but take a proper look at the intended use of the OPV's.

This talk is taking away from the intended purpose of the OPV, Government sets task, based on that task Defence develops CONOPS, from those CONOPS capability is determined and goes back and forth until the platform is selected.

Articles like this, apart from being fantasy fanboy land, are just plain stupid because it takes away from what the initial task is that has been set by Government. If the required task called for more then the solution "could" have been a Corvette, but lets be honest, all this talk of up gunning, missiles, Mk56 or whatever, you are talking about Frigates. It is akin to talk about B's on the LHD's, if you want that capability get something fit for purpose, not a half baked cookie that takes away the intended capability the platform was acquired for.

We have very capable Anzac's to be replaced by a major step up in the 26's, in both capability and numbers. Should we have a higher number of MFU's ? yep I do think so, and my personal opinion is we should be heading back towards the 15 mark. Lets not loose track of the step up the Hunters actually are when you look at not just the Anzac's but also the Perth Class DDG's.

So the discussion, if they are going to make a valid point, is not up gun a vessel not designed or procured for the purpose they talk about, but rather a solution to, or further units of a current program to fill that gap ! Don't waste time suggesting you take a knife to a gun fight !

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

BTW, Rob Elliot is a Commodore, not a Commander - CMDR is the abbreviation for the latter.

Well a now retired Captain we both know told me he had an official ID saying CMDE back when he was a CMDR, and it was months before anyone picked it up.

 

[Volkodav]

I would be more concerned about frying the Phalanx CIWS than the RHIB. The flight deck without a hanger could really only support a UAS (like the S-100 Camcopter) for an extended patrol. It would be near impossible to maintain anything larger and realistically why risk a platform like the MRH-90 or the MH-60R in such a situation. The flight deck might act as a lilypad for such helicopters, or civilian types being used in littoral areas for emergency recoveries.

Exactly what I was thinking, I wonder what temp 20mm cook off at. Doesn't really mater as the Phalanx would be slagged and useless well before the ammo cooked off.

 

[Volkodav]

The OPVs are a force multiplier, because they are infinitely more capable of conducting the required constabulary missions currently assigned to the glorified pleasure craft (that ironically lack the required fittings to be considered luxurious) we call patrol boats. This means that the major fleet units that currently have to conduct constabulary tasks to fill the capability gap created by the Armidales insufficient durability and seaworthiness, will no longer have to do so and will be available for more high end tasks.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Guys can we move away from the OPV up gunning stuff. The Lurrsen design is specifically not the platform to up gun, it is a OPV only. Speed, layout, space, hull, configuration, aviation capability, crew etc.

My original intention was more focused on a technical discussion around S band Ceafar on non-combatants as a superior more robust search + other feature radar.

If people want to discuss general real corvette designs then that should happen outside of the RAN thread.

 

[hauritz]

I have managed to track down Hellyers full report

https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2020-06/SR%20157%20Offshore%20patrol%20vessels_0.pdf?_AOwnw2b8mlaTyicF09zl2nMTUM81xhK

It is an interesting read.

In particular I like the idea of using the OPV as an Autonomous systems tender. It is a job that this vessel looks like it was designed for.

 

[buffy9]

Guys can we move away from the OPV up gunning stuff. The Lurrsen design is specifically not the platform to up gun, it is a OPV only. Speed, layout, space, hull, configuration, aviation capability, crew etc.

My original intention was more focused on a technical discussion around S band Ceafar on non-combatants as a superior more robust search + other feature radar.

If people want to discuss general real corvette designs then that should happen outside of the RAN thread.

Does the OPV have the power and weight requirements for such a sensor? If so, then can the forward mast itself handle the weight of the sensor (noting it appears to sit atop the bridge)?

I'm not a pro, but even with additional capabilities the main capability of CEAFAR2 is a radar system against air and missile threats. Unless the OPV are acting as dedicated piquets for a task group (putting them directly in harms way with no real defences) then the system would be utilised only for its secondary capabilities. Whilst this would perhaps be more effective, it would come at a premium when the same secondary capabilities can be achieved cheaper with other systems.

In regards to their constabulary role they are not the only sensors in a network. Aircraft (Poseidon, Triton, etc) with surface search radar can cover a much wider area more quickly. They also possess EO systems to identify the nature of the vessel and perhaps its crew. The OPV is both a sensor and an actor, able to more directly respond to detected vessels or to respond to incidents on the water.

In summary I believe the cost of fitting such a capable radar could have benefits, though they would not be economic when the OPVs are designed for constabulary/low-end operations as part of a network of sensors - with the vessels themselves as the primary at sea actors. The radars would hardly, if ever, exploit the major benefits of the sensor.

If the vessels had limited combatant capabilities (high-end CIWS and AShM) then I'd argue there may be a need due to being a potential threat in a conflict. This is not the case, unfortunately or fortunately.

Posted before hauritz linked publication*

 

[hauritz]

This ship has the potential to become the modern equivalent of the Bathurst class if the proverbial hits the fan. It can be built quickly across several yards, it has low manning requirements and it is relatively cheap to produce and operate. Its design does give it a degree of flexibility in regards to operating as a tender. It is possible we could see almost the entire class of Arafura's in the water before the first Hunter enters service and certainly before the Attack class is ready. That gives Australia an uncomfortable 10 to 20 years before these new vessels become available in any real numbers. Until that time Australia's options are somewhat limited to upgrading existing vessels and exploring relatively low-cost capabilities that can be deployed off existing units.

Australia has shown an increasing interest in the development of Autonomous systems and the Arafura class does seem to have the capability of hosting those systems.

 

[spoz]

Does the OPV have the power and weight requirements for such a sensor? If so, then can the forward mast itself handle the weight of the sensor (noting it appears to sit atop the bridge)?

I think the current as built would probably need a significant redesign to accommodate it, although I am no expert on CEAFAR requirements. But, as has been suggested, under the current CONOPS developed to satisfy the current Government directions there really seems to be no need. For those purposes, something like the S-100 would appear to be a much better way of extending the ship's surface search capabilities as is, it seems, planned..

 

[Todjaeger]

I think the current as built would probably need a significant redesign to accommodate it, although I am no expert on CEAFAR requirements. But, as has been suggested, under the current CONOPS developed to satisfy the current Government directions there really seems to be no need. For those purposes, something like the S-100 would appear to be a much better way of extending the ship's surface search capabilities as is, it seems, planned..

CEAFAR is scalable IIRC, with there being different options in terms of the size and power required for the array, so unless the power generation capabilities of the Arafura-class OPV are significantly less than would be found in a corvette, I think the power issue is minimal. Particularly when one recalls that the OPV is going to be operating the 9LV CMS, or at least elements of it.

I would expect some charges would be required to physically fit the array panels, as well as running the appropriate, and appropriately shielding conduits and cabling.

The real question I would have though is what advantage would there really be in fitting a phased array aboard an OPV? Such a capability could permit the OPV to rapidly refresh the scan area, but that is not such a benefit for surface shipping. The vessel itself would not be suitable for use as a radar picket because it possesses inadequate self-defense capabilities to operate so independently in threatened or contested waters.

 

[buffy9]

This ship has the potential to become the modern equivalent of the Bathurst class if the proverbial hits the fan. It can be built quickly across several yards, it has low manning requirements and it is relatively cheap to produce and operate. Its design does give it a degree of flexibility in regards to operating as a tender. It is possible we could see almost the entire class of Arafura's in the water before the first Hunter enters service and certainly before the Attack class is ready. That gives Australia an uncomfortable 10 to 20 years before these new vessels become available in any real numbers. Until that time Australia's options are somewhat limited to upgrading existing vessels and exploring relatively low-cost capabilities that can be deployed off existing units.

Australia has shown an increasing interest in the development of Autonomous systems and the Arafura class does seem to have the capability of hosting those systems.

I won't comment on increasing the numbers with regards to the OPV fleet until I've read the full report, though I remain skeptical the OPVs can achieve anything high-end such as ASW. I am interested also in the idea of them being an unmanned tender, as I am in them operating in other low-end auxiliary roles.

Perhaps the OPV could act as platform for the development of deploying/tendering/recovering unmanned systems from ships? The Hunter-class could benefit from any lessons learned with regards to its mission bay and employ these lessons as part of a task group. Obviously the OPVs can not deploy systems as large or complex, though CONOPs could still benefit.