Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
peterAustralia
Member
It has me at a complete loss as to why the navy does not have a small awacs aircraft.. by that i mean a drone.. launched from the Canberra class . Weight 1000 to 2000kg..turboprop propulsion.. retrieved by vertical rubber strips making a barrier on the stern..(like Aquila drone) I am sure that any of a dozen companies could build something quite good in 24 months.. the British navy had this capability via muluch higher cost, higher fuel burn helicopters 41 years ago... it is not that complicated.. join an air search radar .. a data link. Into a medium to small STOL. drone.... balls I even drew up the layout and put it online 15 yeas ago... my proposal was tandem wing due to smaller dimensions overall and much greater control when landing on a deck...
Another anecdote is how much the Paul dibb doctrine from the 1980s has proven to be pure bulldust.. surface ships nowadays at least twice to three times the size he was proposing
Another anecdote is how much the Paul dibb doctrine from the 1980s has proven to be pure bulldust.. surface ships nowadays at least twice to three times the size he was proposing
me too.
the F35B is also an airborne ISR data linked asset, and a forward ASMD that can be reloaded at sea, …… in the AO.
However, that force multiplier option is an ideological barrier we must dogmatically adhere to and cannot cross.
We will just have to deal without it.
sorry I mentioned it.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The only ships 2-3 times larger than the Dibb Tier 1 ship in that timeline would have been Burkes. Dibbs Tier 1 ships would have followed the Patrol Frigates, so YOD around 99-2000 with first ship laid down around 2004-05. I doubt Dibb was proposing 8 Burkes so what was he calling Tier 1? He also proposed Corvettes to replace the Fremantle's.
If Australia had started the Tier 1 project to replace the Adelaide's, and immediately follow the last Anzac (Perth) it would have started around 95-96 with YOD around 99-2000, the contenders would probably have been, the Sachsen, F-101 and the De Zeven Provincien, but they were all still in the design phase in 1996-97. The US, French and British had nothing to offer at that time, and the Italian de la Penne would have required a major re-design to replace the Mk 13 and Aspide launchers. By 2000 any ship with area AD as a primary role was minimum 140m and 6000t.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The biggest issue for operating a fixed wing aircraft off the Canberra's is going to be wingspan, at their widest they are only 32m, add the Island and it gets even narrower. People have talked about the MQ-9 off the Canberra's but with a 20m wingspan there is no way the RAN is going to allow that. Turkey is going to be the Guinea Pig for operating FW UAVs off the JC-1 design, with the Bayraktor TB2 at 700kg and a 12m wingspan. I suspect the RAN would put a max wingspan on any FW aircraft and I would not think it would be any more than 15m max.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Absolutely! Could this logic not be applied to the entire review/force structure change?
In the short term couldn’t we have asked the prime contractor to find some weight savings and added the 2 x Adaptable Deck Launchers to the Hunter Class, adding 4 x strike length cells or 8 x ESSMS (quad packed) if we urgently need more missile cells – continue with the nine (9) as planned (Giving it 40 cells) without a huge redesign. With each batch of three too receive incremental upgrades to systems, automation, radar and engines etc.
Note: Aware the Hunter class is facing weight issues, but it should! have the growth margins to accommodate the ADL
Bring forward the AWD replacement (possibly on the same hull as Hunter) - Batch 1 (3) follows on from the 9 Hunters while the Hobarts are still in service (late 2030s/early 2040s), to get that continuous shipbuilding we need for our defence industrial skill base and then batch 2 (3) possibly on an updated evolved hull for a total of six (6) AWD, giving us an upgrade in capability. Imagine there will probably be delays anyway based on past projects so looking mid-40s before they need to be crewed.
9 Frigates – 6 AWD Mix (means around 3 x AWD and 6 x Frigates available most of the time for training and operations)
Continue the build of the 12 Arafura class (with the final 3 being the MCM variant), and upgun the final six Arafura to the same standard as the Darussalam class they are based on (57mm gun and 4 x ASM). Remembering we have extra Evolved Cape class to account for loss of three (3) patrol variant Arafura's.
If we want to also add a “corvette” (in name only, preferably a light frigate) order three (3) hulls from the same builder overseas immediately (so they are constructed concurrently with Arafura’s) and then be fitted out in Australia at Henderson as a follow-on from the Arafura class, with a further three (3) to be built from scratch at Henderson once that is completed (as the Cape class are devested / Transferred to ABF) – supporting the continuous build strategy. During a distributed maritime conflict scenario these corvettes could fulfill many of the roles of the majors in the near region freeing up the frigates and destroyers for operations further afield, in peacetime they can contribute to patrol and presence.
Also, immediately look at enhancing another yard in Australia to support minor builds – further hydrographic survey ship, mine countermeasures and minehunters, future patrol etc. Depending on how quickly you can get this up and running, may be able to transfer the last of the Arafura build and/or its follow-on Corvette to this yard, and possibly look to build two hunters concurrently a year (One in SA and one in WA), or corvette in WA and last of Arafura's in new yard, or vice versa. Thus, getting hulls in the water faster, obviously this is not without its flaws, challenges or expense. But if the pending threat that warranted the entire review is deemed serious enough, then possible.
Workforce and crewing are the obvious challenges. Further delay, limbo, uncertainty for industry/workforce and loss of capability is arguably a bigger problem though.
Last edited:
MQ-9B Mojave has a 16m wingspan.
Only just had it’s first flight so a long way to go but potentially useful…
Mojave STOL
All-terrain takeoff and landing. Double the firepower. A bold new aircraft, Mojave, joins the Predator-series family of UAS, bringing forward a unique set of capabilities ideal for armed overwatch, attack, and armed reconnaissance missions.
www.ga-asi.com
It's interesting looking at the evolution of British cruisers, relevant because they are what the RAN bought generation after generation.
Until WWI the RNs cruisers were the evolution of the cruising sail ships, as opposed to the ships of the line. The cruising ships were used for trade protection and station assignment thought the empire. They were, from smallest to largest, corvettes, sloops and frigates.
The cruising ships became cruisers, and were divided into protected cruisers (of different rates), and larger armoured cruisers. The Town's, then Frobishers were the ultimate expression of protected cruisers, later light cruisers, while the armoured cruisers evolved into battlecruisers.
The ships of the line became battleships, but with the advent of the torpedo, and torpedo boats, something was needed to counter them. This was the torpedo boat destroyer, later just destroyer.
Destroyers themselves carried torpedos and became a threat to the battleships. This led to the development of destroyer killers, which were the fleet cruisers of the C, D and E classes. Small handy ships designed to work closely with the fleet.
The end of WWI plus the Washington Treaty basically killed battlecruisers, large cruisers and armoured cruisers going forward. Their roles, along with those of the light cruisers were absorbed by the treaty cruiser requirement, i.e. the County Class, max 10000 tons, max 8" guns.
The 8" cruisers, while excellent for independent operations, scouting, trade protection, station and presence work, were seen as too big and expensive for fleet work.
The RNs fleet cruisers were all war but and quite new, meaning replacements werent considered until the late 20s.
These became the Leander, Modified Leander and Arethusa Classes, smaller cheaper, handier for fleet work. Their 6" guns meant they were at a disadvantage against 8" gunned heavy cruisers so the UK sought to limit the numbers of 8" armed ships under the London treaty.
When the US and Japan responded by building 10000 ton light cruisers with 15 6" guns, the UK responded with the (new) Town class, with 12 6" guns.
At this time the RN was also investigating smaller cruiser designs for scouting, minelaying, anti aircraft etc. This resulted in the Dido class AA cruisers, the Tribal Class large destroyers and the Abdiel class fast mine layers.
How do you know how many VLS the Hunters are planned to have? As far as I know this isn’t publicly available information.
The easiest place to install ADL is on the flight deck you’d need to sacrifice helo operations which would detract from its main mission.
I have often wondered however whether you could install them facing out each side of the mission bay but I imagine there would be serious issues with exhaust gases.
Now if you were to put them on the OPVs however you might be on to something. But my view is that the OPVs should be left as is except for a proper main gun. Let them do what they’re designed for.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Obviously "Liz" and PoW have a significantly wider flight deck, but I'm sure a great deal of useful info will be gleamed from the upcoming RN trialsMQ-9B Mojave has a 16m wingspan.
Only just had it’s first flight so a long way to go but potentially useful…
Mojave STOL
All-terrain takeoff and landing. Double the firepower. A bold new aircraft, Mojave, joins the Predator-series family of UAS, bringing forward a unique set of capabilities ideal for armed overwatch, attack, and armed reconnaissance missions.www.ga-asi.com
Royal Navy plans carrier trial for Mojave STOL UAS - Naval News
from the accompanying article:
Once again the examples you give are as if Australia by itself was at war with China, not part of a coalition.
And even in context of Australia going it alone you neglect to mention any possible contribution to this senario by the RAN and RAAF other than transport.
What if for example these systems were deployed to Indon or Malaysia, do they not have their own military to assist?
Can they not also be part of bigger coalitions and also bring in more aid from other countries.
Not every country can match China system for system, sometimes it is about providing a niche capability to round out a group effort.
Nobody proposed sending them out unprotected, it is just that this protection might not come from the ADF alone.
Often some people make it sound like if we carn't match everything China has then don't bother trying at all.
No problem, the S2G Trackers only had a 3mtr clearance between their starboard wing and the island superstructure on CV21 - HMAS Melbourne if they had a bolter or even if they caught 4 (or 1 - can’t remember how they were numbered) wire, the last one!MQ-9B Mojave has a 16m wingspan.
Only just had it’s first flight so a long way to go but potentially useful…
Mojave STOL
All-terrain takeoff and landing. Double the firepower. A bold new aircraft, Mojave, joins the Predator-series family of UAS, bringing forward a unique set of capabilities ideal for armed overwatch, attack, and armed reconnaissance missions.www.ga-asi.com
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC there have been a few ventures which have looked at developing alternate options for AEW, including drone AEW aircraft. To date however, none have entered service, never mind serial production. Similarly, developing an AEW variant of the V-22 Osprey has also been considered, but nothing completed and in service.
I had also once asked GF years ago about whether an ASW variant of the V-22 might be viable, something to take over the roles once fulfilled by the S-2 Tracker or S-3 Viking and was informed that others had apparently considered that, but found that the noise was too great to make it viable.
I have a few suspicions regarding why no one has brought a drone AEW aircraft into service, and I suspect the basic overall issue is that the engineering of it is more complicated than people initially suspect. I would guess the problematic areas being the amount of data bandwidth between the drone in flight and the control station, in order to process and make sense of any/all radar returns, and possibly related to the data bandwidth would be RF interference. An AEW drone is going to have RF transceivers in order to send updates to and receive commands from the control station. At the same time, it is going to have one or more radar T/R modules (depends on what type of radar is fitted and where, etc.) so there is potential for crosstalk in/on the drone itself, as well as for the various signals being emitted from the drone or received by it to interfere with each other.
As I understand most radar systems to operate, there is the radar T/R module array or transceiver which emits and receives the radar signals, and then there is electronics which processes the raw radar returns data. Once the radar returns have been processed, that data is what might get transmitted over datalinks to other assets and it is also that data that a radar operator would see when looking at their radar station. The other thing about that is that the radar operator could potentially make adjustments to what the radar is looking at, and particularly if the radar used is an AESA, could focus the radar on specific areas or contacts. Having a surveillance radar mounted in a drone would mean that the radar operator controlling the radar system itself would also need to be in the control station, and I suspect the electronics to process the raw radar returns would also be needed in the control station due to likely weight, power and cooling requirements. This in turn would mean that there would need to be enough bandwidth available between the drone and the control station for all the raw radar return data to be transmitted in essentially real-time. The other alternative would be if the electronics needed to sort through the raw returns and data processing could be fitted into the drone itself.
All in all, not tasks I would consider easy to develop into viable operational designs.
As a side note, it might very well become worthwhile for the RAN to consider developing an organic AEW capability, particularly for vessels which would operate together as part of a TF. The potential value in having a TF's sensor coverage and footprint expanded to the degree possible by having an airborne radar platform is enormous, since the radar horizon could be extended well beyond that of a ship-mounted radar.
This does seem like an obvious candidate for a common AUKUS solution for the RN and RAN.
If we are part of a larger coalition that capability won’t be needed. No one is going to be sailing south against the US Navy or Air Force. Better off putting the money to something more useful like ships or aircraft that can get the munitions to where they will be needed. Or spend it on the Army back in Australia. difference of opinion here. Wrong thread for this …
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I understand that the Hunter class flight deck is larger than other frigates & destroyers and is Chinook capable. As the ADL system is designed with a low profile, it could possibly be placed immediately aft of the hanger on each side. As Romeo helicopter operations would normally be conducted further aft, the presence of the ADL would not be restrictive, & if a Chinook was embarking, there may be sufficient safe clearance for the blades above the ADL. The ADL system has deflectors to direct the rocket exhaust up and outboard thus avoiding damage to the flight deck and equipment on it.
I’m sure that the designers are looking at all available options so it will be interesting when the final configuration is released.
The schematic is from this article.
Last edited:
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
I don't think you comprehend how large ADL units are. Tactical length units are 284 in. long (~24 ft), 152 in. wide (>12.5 ft) and 121 in. tall (10 ft) and weigh 18,100 lbs. Strike length are 318 in. long (26.5 ft) , 152 in. wide (>12.5 ft) and 133 in. tall (11 ft) and weigh 20,250 lbs. I seriously doubt anyone is going to be attempting to land helicopters on swaying decks with 10(+) ft obstacles on either side of it. No more likely than if you put 20 ft ISO containers (which are smaller) on it.
Last edited:
How could you skip over the clumsy but vital step of the torpedo gunboats!
On readback this is another person commenting on one of Bob53's scenarios, sounds very similar.