Royal Australian Naval Force Enhancements

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Is australia having any enemies i don't think.Does RAN Surface ships Participate in wars with USN.

RAN could get a better Missile for their future destroyers like Aster 30/15.
Isn't SM-2 getting older?

good grief, why would we want ASTER when it's a less capable system.

As I have just politely pointed out to a French poster on another forum.

sorry matey, I was being sarcastic. my point was that Aster is being promoted by the very country that doesn't have it fielded. and if we are expected to be in awe of it because a frontline combat effective fleet like the Saudis have it... then I rest my interim case.

and for those who continue to prattle on about SPY-1 - lets remember it's a 25 year old system and others have yet to field a contender of equivalency. OTOH, Aegis is already transiting to the next generation. The "contender" in the prev argument doesn't have deployment mass, doesn't have history, isn't placed on any vessels of any combat fleet that would be regarded as Tier 1 capability - and yet we are expected to faun over potential?

it doesn't work that way in my part of the woods. in industry we refer to such prodigious examples of commercial success as "orphans".

I have no doubt that Aster can deliver at a level that will be commensurate with expectations - but when it's compared against a deliberately misrepresented system for the sake of trying to puff up national pride - then sorry - no 1st prize from this little judge.

The fact that we're kitting out with ESSM + a raft of other "connects" means that we can merge and fire with any other Aegis BMS.

No offence, but I'm happy that the Saudis have got Aster - I'm even happier that we don't.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

In the future, the RAN WILL be getting a better missile than the SM-2 Block IIIA missiles (and ASTER by the by) it's currently purchasing. It will be acquiring the SM-6 ER SAM, which will be the first active guided 200nm+ range naval SAM. It will outclass any other Naval SAM in existence by a LONG shot...

Anyway who says SM-2 Block III is inferior to ASTER? The 15/30 designation refers to the missiles range 15 and 30k's respectively I believe. The SM-2 has a range of around 175k's +...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

In the future, the RAN WILL be getting a better missile than the SM-2 Block IIIA missiles (and ASTER by the by) it's currently purchasing. It will be acquiring the SM-6 ER SAM, which will be the first active guided 200nm+ range naval SAM. It will outclass any other Naval SAM in existence by a LONG shot...

Anyway who says SM-2 Block III is inferior to ASTER? The 15/30 designation refers to the missiles range 15 and 30k's respectively I believe. The SM-2 has a range of around 175k's +...

I had a depressing conversation with this Frenchman who doggedly and persistently failed to see that the engagement envelope of ASTER was decidely shorter than SM-2. He couldn't see how missile with a greater standoff capability would and could be used earlier to disrupt an incoming if not set up the kill for another system in the AEGIS grid.



I get so frustrated with people who quote platform capability and yet don't understand how "systems" work.

 

[nz enthusiast]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

So whats the plan for Australias missile frigates (not the anzac ones), arent some of them come up for retirement and what are they being replced by or upgraded with.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Australia currently has 6 FFG frigates in service and 6 ANZAC frigates commissioned, with the last 2 ANZACS due for delivery by June 2006.

2 of the FFG's are to be paid off after 2006, (ie: retired) with the remaining 4 being extensively upgraded and fitted with Harpoon II, SM-2 Block IIIA SAM's, Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles and MU-90 torpedo's. In addition the 4 FFG's are getting extensive radar, fire control, IRST/EW systems and "habitability" upgrades, (basically making things more comfortable on board for the sailors, ie: Internet/email access, air conditioning etc).

The ANZAC's are also to be upgraded with Harpoon II, additional Mk 41 VLS systems for Evolved Sea Sparrow, MU-90 Torpedo, 2 new close in self defence systems (probably SADRAL/Mistral SAM's) and appropriate radar, (2nd fire control channel) fire control upgrades, IRST/EW and new towed sonar, mine avoidance systems, torpedo self defence systems, plus full integration of Seasprite and the Penguin anti-ship missile...

In addition 3 new Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD's) are to be commissioned from 2013. These will be extremely capable surface combatants with capabilities roughly equivalent to current Arleigh Burke class destroyers (minus Tomahawk, to start with at least)...

These Destroyers may replace the FFG's, but I don't think that decision has been finalised as yet. A project to replace the ANZAC's and FFG's is still projected from about 2020 onwards so the FFG's might be around a bit longer yet...

All in all, things are looking pretty rosy for the RAN's surface combatants...

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

"The (upgraded) Adelaide-class frigates, however, are a poignant and haunting reminder of what the United States Navy could have made with their Perry class frigates"
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20056613621.asp
No doubt the Taiwanese are looking very closely at the mods to the "Oliver Hazard Perry" frigates Australia processes, having 8 of their own.
The US did go through a phase of big underarmed ships for a while, eg the Spruance class.
What can be done on the OH Perry's displacement / size can be gained from looking at a Italian DDG destroyer of the era, the Audance class. Ok, they had different roles as planed, but...

Audace CountryITALY Displacement3,600 t / 4,554 t Length140.7 m Beam14.65 m Draft4.6 m Speed33 kts Crew380Propulsion4 boilers for one total power of 73,000 HPArmament1 TARTAR / SM-1MR missile launcher
1 ALBATROS missile launcher w/ 8 cells
1 127/54 milimeter OTO gun
4 76/62 milimeter OTO compact guns
2 light torpedo tubes MK 32 triple A/S for torpedo
1 arranges rocket launcher SCLAR
Helicopters2 AB-212 ShipsAudace
Ardito
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/audace.htm

As to the ANZACs, all units have space and weight for Phalanx CIWS, Harpoon SSM, 8 additional VLS cells, second fire control radar, improved ECM/ESM according to the Hazegray site and others I have seen.
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/asiapac/austral.htm
As the ESSM has a effective range close to the older SM-1, and the ANZAC can carry 32, or 64 in the 16 VLS upgrade, along with the other mods and upgrades planned, it is going to make a very good multirole platform and escort.
"ESSM uses an autopilot for mid-course guidance which is updateable via datalink from the launching ship, switching to semi-active homing in the terminal phase of the engagement. ESSM is a tail-controlled missile for 50g manueverability against anti-ship missiles maneuvering at up to 4g. ESSM has 2-4 times the energy of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile which, combined with its mid-course auto-pilot guidance, gives ESSM roughly twice the range of the Sea Sparrow missile. The autopilot allows several ESSM to time-share a single illuminator in much the same way as the SM-2."
Data for RIM-162A:ESSM
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html
Length3.66 m (144 in)Diameter0.254 m (10 in)Weight280 kg (620 lb)SpeedMach 4+Range50+ km (27+ nm)PropulsionMK 143 MOD 0 solid-fueled rocketWarhead39 kg (66 lb) blast-fragmentation
All very nice. As to using the Standard missile as a LAGM, I did read somewhere that one of the reasons was the flightspeed, in a time critical situation the Standard LAGM with its supersonic speed could provide a faster response compared to the subsonic Tomahawk, so for ranges of a few hundred kilometers, it is not a poor mans alternative.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/lasm.htm
Hey gf, this guy must have future sight or something, lol, his Aussie carrier looks a lot like what is currently being planned, hehe.
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Australian_Perth_Aircraft_Carrier.htm

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Hey gf, this guy must have future sight or something, lol, his Aussie carrier looks a lot like what is currently being planned, hehe.

Looks too British for me. I'm not a fan of the Ocean class type look alikes. But any carrier is better than a kick in the kopf.

 

[alexsa]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Has anybody seen any drawings/details of the original design for the Mistral LPD. There were three versions orignally considered and the one being built as Mistral is actually on of the smaller options (21000 tonnes) where the full size (original design) was about 25000 tonnes. I beleive the larger vessel is the one that is being considered seriously in the risk reduction study and is closer the the IZAR (NAVANTIA) product.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Has anybody seen any drawings/details of the original design for the Mistral LPD. There were three versions orignally considered and the one being built as Mistral is actually on of the smaller options (21000 tonnes) where the full size (original design) was about 25000 tonnes. I beleive the larger vessel is the one that is being considered seriously in the risk reduction study and is closer the the IZAR (NAVANTIA) product.

I have seen them, but I'd be betting on the larger vessel. the only one that the RAN ADM's were looking at in Singapore were the bigger babies.

I'd be betting on a 25k tonner

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I'm betting the RAN will get the biggest ships it possibly can. Ship steel is relatively cheap after all. Once we've got the ships we can fit more "stuff" into them later provided they're big enough... I think the Spanish IZAR design will win this one though...

 

[Supe]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I wonder what sort defensive armarments they'll be fitted out for...

Any recent pics of the Navantia LHD floating around?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I think they'll be equipped with Typhoon 25mm guns (4x) or similar variants, ESSM (probably 1 or 2x 8 Cell Mk 41 VLS) and 1 or 2 CIWS, plus the usual 0.50cal HMG's and small arms for the ships complement, pilots etc. The RAN has already sought funding to equip the majority of it's surface vessels with Typhoon to defend against USS Cole type attacks, though I can't provide a link for that.

The CIWS will probably be the same as that chosen for the AWD's and possibly the ANZAC upgrade program for efficiency and logistical reasons. Whether that will be Mistral/Sadram, Sea-RAM or Phalanx variants remains to be seen.

 

[alexsa]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

In regards to the proposed AWD there seems to be very little detail available about how the AB, F100 or F124 designs would be modified to meet the RAN requirements. After much web surfing I am none the wiser on the prososed modifictions. Has any information been posted anywhere? (the same goes for the proposed LHD).

 

[knightrider4]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

This is a pic of the sanish strategic projection ship which the RAN is looking at.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

In regards to the proposed AWD there seems to be very little detail available about how the AB, F100 or F124 designs would be modified to meet the RAN requirements. After much web surfing I am none the wiser on the prososed modifictions. Has any information been posted anywhere? (the same goes for the proposed LHD).

The reason that very little info on the modified designs is available is that it is a very specific condition of the Australian Government that those competing for the AWD contract do NOT talk at all about their proposals prior to the decision being announced.

This decision has not been explained, though the problems the Department of Defence have had with "Australianised" defence platforms in the past (the RAN's SH-2G Seasprites are one of the most notable examples) could go some way to explaining this decision.

The DoD is only just resolving the issues with the Seasprites and to some degree the Collins Class subs now and here it is, about to undertake yet another massive modification to an already in-service design. The media uproar will probably be deafening and the Government no doubt wants to keep a lid on this for as long as possible...

A decision on the winning AWD design is expected soon. I wouldn't be suprised to see it in the next week or 2... Cheers.

 

[Jason_kiwi]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

What upgrades did u do to the Anzacs...NZ's are due sometime soon...PP is underway as well(RNZN's 7+2 ships)

1 MRV
2 OPV/corvettes
4 IPV
2 LCM's

 

[alexsa]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Originally Posted by Jason_kiwi
What upgrades did u do to the Anzacs...NZ's are due sometime soon...PP is underway as well(RNZN's 7+2 ships)

1 MRV
2 OPV/corvettes
4 IPV
2 LCM's

Mate, this issue is being discussed at length under the Project Protector subject heading. This appears to be a bit of opinion splatter (i.e. all pages) in so far as I can see.

 

[Supe]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

How does the Navy determine the number of surface combatants required and is the RAN happy with current and future fleet numbers? I've said before that our surface fleet appears light given the amount of ocean/seas it has to cover but then I don't profess to be well informed as to what current RAN doctrine is.

After the last few weeks of reading various forums and articles, the idea that predominately prevails is that Australia seeks a 'qualitative' advantage in lieu of a quantitative one. That's all fine and dandy, but I feel there is also advantage in numbers (possible attrition), ability to project force in multiple areas and deterent value.

I've seen proposals from folks who think the RAN should have more 'hull's but fitted only with the bare minimum. The idea being that the money saved on weapons suites could be put into more ships. In case of hostilties they could be fitted out with the required weaponary. I suppose it is based on the assumption they'll be a period of time in which ships can be 'uparmed'. Some ships of the class would have the full fitout for training and acclimatisation purposes and crews would be rotated through them.

Edit: Unrelated to my post but relevant to thread.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1650/vastergotland121mc.jpg

Interesting scan of article featured on Asia Pacific Defence Reporter posted on other forum. Egads, Singapore is a mini-superpower.

 

[knightrider4]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

A ship fitted for but not with is simply a liability. I would like to see the ANZACS optioned up to fire SM-2 with the appropriate radar and FC facilities as per the original WIP. Naval warfare is by nature a rather high tech affair having substandard platforms simply keeps the undertakers happy.

 

[Supe]

Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

How is it a liability? I did mention in my post that some ships of the class could be fully fitted out with all the weapons/sensors and whatever else goes into making a first class warship. The savings could go to having more ships with a leaner fitout.

Fitting out a few ships with all the latest/greatest is great but not at the cost of having too few. It's highly unlikely that anyone in our region is going to 'Pearl Harbour' Australia and much more likely that there will be a series of events that signify intent, thus allowing time to 'uparm' those ships that were fitted for. Training isn't an issue since crews could be rotated through the ships (of that class) that were fully fitted out.

The result? Australia has more crews, more ships and if hostilites do eventuate, Australia can fit out those 'fitted for' ships. I presume the modularity of the newer Frigates will aid in this.