Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Tbone. How would you propose landing that sky guardian on a Canberra class. There is no arrestor wire on the ship. The drone I was referring to earlier than is caught using an array of multiple vertical rubber bands was the lockeed Martin mqm 105 Aquila. Obviously longer range, larger radar requires a larger drone than that.. the sky guardian might be too large to be captured in a net easily..
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
HMAS Vampire passes through Sydney Harbour for major conservation work (msn.com)
HMAS Vampire being moved around to the Dry Dock at Garden Island for its conversion to a Guided Missile Destroyer (just joking). No its for $3m worth of conservation work, I believe this happens about every 5 years.
Ironically a DDG conversion was on the cards in the 60s. There was even talk of converting the two Battle class destroyers as well.

Not enough money so it didn't happen.
 

OldNavy63

Active Member
HMAS Vampire passes through Sydney Harbour for major conservation work (msn.com)
HMAS Vampire being moved around to the Dry Dock at Garden Island for its conversion to a Guided Missile Destroyer (just joking). No its for $3m worth of conservation work, I believe this happens about every 5 years.
Must have confused the heck out of the imagery analysts in PLAN South Sea Fleet HQ, thinking the defence preparedness in Oz being so dire that the RAN is dusting off the “Fang” for recommissioning. They will quaking in their steaming boots when (107.5 feet of Fighting Fury!), HMAS Advance, P83, leads her SAG out of Cockle Bay to Roam and to Range on these Southern Seas.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Tbone. How would you propose landing that sky guardian on a Canberra class. There is no arrestor wire on the ship. The drone I was referring to earlier than is caught using an array of multiple vertical rubber bands was the lockeed Martin mqm 105 Aquila. Obviously longer range, larger radar requires a larger drone than that.. the sky guardian might be too large to be captured in a net easily..
He is referring to General Atomics proposal for a STOL kit for MQ-9B Sky and Sea Guardian UAS.


I’d suggest RAN is a long way off contemplating such…
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
OK understand,

I will try and be polite, do a little clarifying and be concise. Yes I am aware that Border Force uses Cape class, in my mind they are slightly modified Armidale class, I was just being a little lazy, my apologies for that

There is an ideal size for a ship, obviously you can go larger say Arafura class, or small Cape class, I am just suggesting that longer term, the ideal size might be around 1100t, which is about four times the displacement of what Border Force uses.

With regards to drones, I dont think I explained it fully. My thoughts were that technology progresses to such an extent, that once the drone sub is set, it operates independently without regards to communicating with home. Technology is progressing so fast that it should be possible for Artificial Intelligence to detect an enemy, determine what ship it is and sink it all without need to communicate. Obviously this requires a very strong and robust software package, so that once the sub is unleashed it torpedoes only the enemy and gets it right every time. Although some have their doubts as of now, in decades to come this is how things will work.
Once again please take the time to look at the discussion on autonomous undersea vessels and issues with persistence, communication and the ability to chase a target. Have a look at:
1. Where the main choke points are in the Australian context and the distance to get on station. Your ‘drone’ would need to be delivered the by another submarine or a surface vessel. If they are to be powered by battery alone they will have a short range.
2. You need to communicate with the submarine to provide it intelligence and tasking. The sensors on you drone (or even an SSK or SSN) have a limitation and you want to make sure the submarine is where it needs to be. I am sorry but you clearly have no clue about the sensors fitted. If you are hunting another submarine (or a quiet surface vessel like the T26) detection and identification will be challenging. Intel feeds from other sources are essential to ensure the vessel is in the right place and attacks the right target. They also need to be kept away from each other to avoid a blue on blue (tasked in a geographical box which may moved on an intended track).
3. How you charge the batteries (does the drone need to be picked up to be charged) ……. Combat and communication systems will still be required and are a power hogs.
4. How does a slow small unmanned vessels manoeuvre to get within firing range of the target. Most ‘drones’ have a slow speed of advance to save battery life.

An SSN can remain on station as long as it has weapons to fire and the stores on board are sufficient. It can pursue a target after an initial engagement in order to make additional attacks. Large SSK’s have less capability in this regard (but are still formidable) due to the need to charge batteries For your drone to be effective it needs to be able to match this capability. Submarines are tasked based on information to ensure they get within sensor range.

Autonomous undersea vessels would likely be a great force multiplier in support of an SSN or large SSK for surveillance and intelligence collection. They may also be very useful as an attack weapon in themselves.

On a final point ….. The Capes are certainly not slightly modified Armidale. There are considerable difference in the internal and external arrangement. As you note Border force operate the original Capes while the RAN is operating evolved Capes which are different again (not as significantly different as the Armidale. What is the point of the arbitrary 1000 tonnes. Vessel should ideally be designed for a mission and that should determine size arrangements and fit out.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
My understanding is that the USN is looking at AUVs as potential mine layers. This is a little more realistic than having them fire torpedoes or missiles. It still makes them dangerous but still a long way off manned submarines in terms of capability.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Alexa we dont seem to agree, i am happy to discuss this off forum
I can confirm that what Alex has taken the time to post is correct. It is not guess work or opinion, it is a statement of fact from a former naval officer and one of the most senior and experienced maritime certification experts in the country.

I know this because I work in the same field and one-day hope to be as knowledgeable as him.

Specifically, having worked with both Armidales and Capes I can confirm they are very different internally even though having a common heritage and too many of the same design failings.

As for drones replacing capabilities the fact remains that the platform, be it a ship, sub or aircraft, is a life support and transportation system for the given capability. A big chunk of the personnel requirement is maintainers and specialist operators to ensure the stuff gets where it needs to be and works when it gets there.

We are getting to the point that we can use or modify existing platforms as motherships for unmanned capabilities. We can probably start designing platforms as motherships possibly incorporating deep maintenance and even manufacturing capabilities. We are still a long way off being able to deploy completely unmanned capabilities at long range.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I know she's old but she is still a great looking ship.
Served in her on FESR in 1969. Very different then, open bridge, huge old FPS 3 (Flyplane) and no LWO2 radar.
Great ship, I thought she was luxurious.
About 10 years ago I took my son for a tour on her at the AMM and was dumbfounded on how cramped and basic the mess decks (and the Gunroom) were, funny how time and age change one’s perceptions.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Served in her on FESR in 1969. Very different then, open bridge, huge old FPS 3 (Flyplane) and no LWO2 radar.
Great ship, I thought she was luxurious.
About 10 years ago I took my son for a tour on her at the AMM and was dumbfounded on how cramped and basic the mess decks (and the Gunroom) were, funny how time and age change one’s perceptions.
My dad was on Queenbough during the confrontation, they still had hammocks back then. One twin 4", a twin Bofors and two Squid was all they had, the Darings must have looked like battleships to them.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Served in her on FESR in 1969. Very different then, open bridge, huge old FPS 3 (Flyplane) and no LWO2 radar.
Great ship, I thought she was luxurious.
About 10 years ago I took my son for a tour on her at the AMM and was dumbfounded on how cramped and basic the mess decks (and the Gunroom) were, funny how time and age change one’s perceptions.
Yep the gun room was very tight. The one saving grace is you could crawl over the pipe work to snooze on the top of the after set of lockers. The bunks were ….. memorable.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Went from the Gunroom in Sydney to Derwent, and we thought we were quids in. Then to Supply, that was comparative luxury! Queen Bee wasn’t that bad, at least when compared to a Anzac or ‘Tina…..
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Went from the Gunroom in Sydney to Derwent, and we thought we were quids in. Then to Supply, that was comparative luxury! Queen Bee wasn’t that bad, at least when compared to a Anzac or ‘Tina…..
Dad was on Sydney first, I think he enjoyed Queenbough more, at least he got his overseas jollies. He would have made a career of it too if his dad hadn't refused to sign the paperwork for Creswell.
 
Top