Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[south]

I've been thinking, and this is dangerous...

LBMS is almost at decision time.

The logistics nightmare of getting an LBMS missile battery + the required air and ground defence and sensors/comms, + the (I'm totally guessing) 250 minimum personel, into position, in a relevant littoral location, without being detected
vs
a couple of missile corvettes each with 50 crew, sensors/ comms, 8 NSM, RAM, no need for slow LSTs or fat C17s with fighter escort.

Hmmm, just thinkin'.

Maybe - but it’s a risk decision.

Why MUST a ground combat element have air defence and ground defence? Why must it have sensors?

Reducing footprint reduces signature, reduces logistics, and reduces the the value of an opponent targeting. Friendly use of Offboard targeting (which such a concept almost certainly needs because of radar horizon) reduces reliance on easily detectable EM emissions.

Despite the constant assertions, even China does not have unlimited magazine depth - small footprint, highly mobile, reduced signature could easily be more survivable than a small TG.

If think about the reciprocal - would you rather be looking for a 250+ person footprint with NASAMs, Radars, an infantry company etc… or a much smaller footprint with a few trucks? Which one are you more likely to employ some of your long range fires against?

 

[Richo99]

Maybe - but it’s a risk decision.

Why MUST a ground combat element have air defence and ground defence? Why must it have sensors?

Reducing footprint reduces signature, reduces logistics, and reduces the the value of an opponent targeting. Friendly use of Offboard targeting (which such a concept almost certainly needs because of radar horizon) reduces reliance on easily detectable EM emissions.

Despite the constant assertions, even China does not have unlimited magazine depth - small footprint, highly mobile, reduced signature could easily be more survivable than a small TG.

If think about the reciprocal - would you rather be looking for a 250+ person footprint with NASAMs, Radars, an infantry company etc… or a much smaller footprint with a few trucks? Which one are you more likely to employ some of your long range fires against?

It would be very interesting to understand the CONOPS for LBMS, and a reduction in footprint would have both upside and down for risk. But I can't help picturing a very isolated troop of Strikemasters left to fend for themselves. This may be better discussed in the army thread ??

 

[south]

It would be very interesting to understand the CONOPS for LBMS, and a reduction in footprint would have both upside and down for risk. But I can't help picturing a very isolated troop of Strikemasters left to fend for themselves. This may be better discussed in the army thread ??

happy if you want to move it there - some pointers for reading include the USMC Stand In Force concept and the tUS Army Multi-Domain Operations

 

[jeffb]

Logistically, the current structure of the RAN & RAAF would struggle to sustain a platoon deployed remotely within Australia let alone offshore. Reducing the LBMS footprint to a level that can be supported makes them irrelevant at least until the boaties get their new ships in the water. I think integral air defence for Army is 100% nessecary as ground forces cannot rely on either of the other services to stand and fight, they will protect their platforms before Army personnel.

The ship is more important than the individual right? Whenever the Army is forward of the Australian mainland there's a chance they will just get left hanging so the other forces can defend Australia.

Current LBMS concept looks to deny sea lanes or project forward, yeah you could deploy systems remotely in ambush which has its own pros & cons, but it also seems like a 75% solution. The concept could evolve to include anti-sub capabilities through drones, deployable sensors and shore-based ASROC which would then give the other services freedom to pursue other missions.

Maybe I'm a little jaded.

 

[hauritz]

I've been thinking, and this is dangerous...

LBMS is almost at decision time.

The logistics nightmare of getting an LBMS missile battery + the required air and ground defence and sensors/comms, + the (I'm totally guessing) 250 minimum personel, into position, in a relevant littoral location, without being detected
vs
a couple of missile corvettes each with 50 crew, sensors/ comms, 8 NSM, RAM, no need for slow LSTs or fat C17s with fighter escort.

Hmmm, just thinkin'.

Good point. The logistics tail can be expensive and vulnerable. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. Missile armed aircraft, ships or submarines can be deployed, and if necessary withdrawn, quickly.

Just looking back at WW2 it was immensely difficult supporting a small garrisoned island. The Japanese failed to defend any of them, either being obliterated, or simply bypassed, and left to wither on the vine.

I can see the benefit of landbased systems on the mainland, or on islands that are well protected from attack, but the idea of island hopping with a missile battery in tow sounds to be a huge drain on resources with very little upside.

 

[Stampede]

Logistically, the current structure of the RAN & RAAF would struggle to sustain a platoon deployed remotely within Australia let alone offshore. Reducing the LBMS footprint to a level that can be supported makes them irrelevant at least until the boaties get their new ships in the water. I think integral air defence for Army is 100% nessecary as ground forces cannot rely on either of the other services to stand and fight, they will protect their platforms before Army personnel.

The ship is more important than the individual right? Whenever the Army is forward of the Australian mainland there's a chance they will just get left hanging so the other forces can defend Australia.

Current LBMS concept looks to deny sea lanes or project forward, yeah you could deploy systems remotely in ambush which has its own pros & cons, but it also seems like a 75% solution. The concept could evolve to include anti-sub capabilities through drones, deployable sensors and shore-based ASROC which would then give the other services freedom to pursue other missions.

Maybe I'm a little jaded.

Not jaded just questioning change
LBMS appears to be something the ADF have embraced in a big way.
I’m sure defence have asked all the questions and played out scenarios for its employment.
Right or wrong it’s happening.
What it actually looks like time will tell.
Platoon , company , battalion size ?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Interesting times

Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Good point. The logistics tail can be expensive and vulnerable. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. Missile armed aircraft, ships or submarines can be deployed, and if necessary withdrawn, quickly.

Just looking back at WW2 it was immensely difficult supporting a small garrisoned island. The Japanese failed to defend any of them, either being obliterated, or simply bypassed, and left to wither on the vine.

I can see the benefit of landbased systems on the mainland, or on islands that are well protected from attack, but the idea of island hopping with a missile battery in tow sounds to be a huge drain on resources with very little upside.

Agree

Small anything looks problematic

cheers S

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

This is an interesting strategy that adds another layer to our defence - it is an evolution of the Army Lark, Sparrow, Gull and Black Force Brigades of World War Two. But they will be much harder to find and much more lethal, survivable and aware.

Years ago, this would have been fantasy but now a small agile approach could see a 2-4 launchers (maybe a mix of Bushmaster NSM and HIMARS PrSM) supported by a mobile headquarters/communications unit, a platoon of infantry (with land and air combat drones), ISR (Radar, Drones), Logistics/Resupply/Reload (OK, dare I say drones might help here as well). A small price if we could take out a number of enemy warships or support ships. To increase the value of such a unit, we could also

• add Ghost Bats and Ghost Sharks to harden the unit;
• add noisy dummy units to distract enemy;
• rely on overlapping coverage from any nearby LBMS units;
• pass targetting info to other ADF or Allied units, rather than attacking by itself or maybe vice-versa;
• attack when unexpected ... attack from the rear whilst other units are engaging them from the front. Or attack high value assets only. Or take out the supply ships or ....

A lot of questions. How many missiles would a unit have? Can we resupply, evacuate, move to other areas? Do we deploy to the islands or just mainland Australia? How many such units would we choose to deploy (upper limit is the number of launchers)? What are our opponents going to do to try and neutralize our efforts? Electronic monitoring, jamming, drone swarming, air, naval or submarine bombardment, marine or airborne landings of large numbers of troops, bypassing likely deployment areas, stealth aircraft and warships could take forces by surprise ...

 

[downunderblue]

I've been thinking, and this is dangerous...

LBMS is almost at decision time.

The logistics nightmare of getting an LBMS missile battery + the required air and ground defence and sensors/comms, + the (I'm totally guessing) 250 minimum personel, into position, in a relevant littoral location, without being detected
vs
a couple of missile corvettes each with 50 crew, sensors/ comms, 8 NSM, RAM, no need for slow LSTs or fat C17s with fighter escort.

Hmmm, just thinkin'.

I like the idea (am an ideas man, Daryl!) myself working in a similar way as a Marine Littoral Regiment, and forward deploying (likely Palawan) when getting close to shooting time.

You can sink a ship, yet an unsinkable intermediate range missile battery is attractive, and potentially more sustainable/ easier to rearm once established (easier and more survivable via a dirt airstrip than from any theatre naval supply tender).

Besides, and now I'm being cheeky, what do you expect the Army to actually do in a conflict over Taiwan??? They need something to do and I assume deploying to Taiwan is not politically likely.

 

[iambuzzard]

I like the idea (am an ideas man, Daryl!) myself working in a similar way as a Marine Littoral Regiment, and forward deploying (likely Palawan) when getting close to shooting time.

You can sink a ship, yet an unsinkable intermediate range missile battery is attractive, and potentially more sustainable/ easier to rearm once established (easier and more survivable via a dirt airstrip than from any theatre naval supply tender).

Besides, and now I'm being cheeky, what do you expect the Army to actually do in a conflict over Taiwan??? They need something to do and I assume deploying to Taiwan is not politically likely.

I get the feeling you know me, Blue!!!!

 

[ADMk2]

Logistically, the current structure of the RAN & RAAF would struggle to sustain a platoon deployed remotely within Australia let alone offshore. Reducing the LBMS footprint to a level that can be supported makes them irrelevant at least until the boaties get their new ships in the water. I think integral air defence for Army is 100% nessecary as ground forces cannot rely on either of the other services to stand and fight, they will protect their platforms before Army personnel.

The ship is more important than the individual right? Whenever the Army is forward of the Australian mainland there's a chance they will just get left hanging so the other forces can defend Australia.

Current LBMS concept looks to deny sea lanes or project forward, yeah you could deploy systems remotely in ambush which has its own pros & cons, but it also seems like a 75% solution. The concept could evolve to include anti-sub capabilities through drones, deployable sensors and shore-based ASROC which would then give the other services freedom to pursue other missions.

Maybe I'm a little jaded.

Didn’t we just run a brigade plus in Iraq / Afghanistan for 20+ years with a RAN / RAAF with more or less the same structure it has today?

Since when did that capability retreat all the way back to a platoon?

 

[SammyC]

linked is BAE's latest concept for an AWD. There have been a few articles already in the chat thread, but this is the first time I think an actual model has been on display.

BAE seem to be doubling down on using the T26 hull as the basis for an AWD. Interestingly in the voice over it talks of crews down below 100 to operate it, so very big change in automation.

BAE also released a model of their proposed "sensor-effector platform". They talk of a crew of 6, with radar (small artisan style), containerised towed array and a VLS, possible gun or multiple guns as well. Interestingly its on a 100m trimaran hull design.

Their model is 6-8 of the sensor-effectors with an AWD coordinator as a mini surface action group.

It is no suprise that BAE is going down this path, and I suspect the RN will end up with a modified T26 option for the T45 replacement. By extension it becomes a good solution for our own Navy and replacement of the Hobarts.

It's interesting that BAE have seriously considered automation, effectively halving the T26 crew for the AWD. I wonder if some of this could be brought across for the second batch of Hunters, perhaps some items added to the first batch during the first upgrade cycle.

In regards to the sensor-effector, I think BAE would need to be careful not to make this too expensive, and I would view that Mk70 or adaptable deck launchers are a better way forward to keep costs down. I do however like the inclusion of a mini Artisan sytle radar though.

I am personally of the view that the optionally crewed/low crewed concept will be leap frogged and is an obsolete technology. We seem happy to automate aircraft and allow drone submarines to travel by themselves for 1,000 kms, but not for surface vessels. Doesn't make sense to me. I personally have my money on Defiance style platforms winning the day here.

 

[Reptilia]

linked is BAE's latest concept for an AWD. There have been a few articles already in the chat thread, but this is the first time I think an actual model has been on display.

BAE seem to be doubling down on using the T26 hull as the basis for an AWD. Interestingly in the voice over it talks of crews down below 100 to operate it, so very big change in automation.

BAE also released a model of their proposed "sensor-effector platform". They talk of a crew of 6, with radar (small artisan style), containerised towed array and a VLS, possible gun or multiple guns as well. Interestingly its on a 100m trimaran hull design.

Their model is 6-8 of the sensor-effectors with an AWD coordinator as a mini surface action group.

It is no suprise that BAE is going down this path, and I suspect the RN will end up with a modified T26 option for the T45 replacement. By extension it becomes a good solution for our own Navy and replacement of the Hobarts.

It's interesting that BAE have seriously considered automation, effectively halving the T26 crew for the AWD. I wonder if some of this could be brought across for the second batch of Hunters, perhaps some items added to the first batch during the first upgrade cycle.

In regards to the sensor-effector, I think BAE would need to be careful not to make this too expensive, and I would view that Mk70 or adaptable deck launchers are a better way forward to keep costs down. I do however like the inclusion of a mini Artisan sytle radar though.

I am personally of the view that the optionally crewed/low crewed concept will be leap frogged and is an obsolete technology. We seem happy to automate aircraft and allow drone submarines to travel by themselves for 1,000 kms, but not for surface vessels. Doesn't make sense to me. I personally have my money on Defiance style platforms winning the day here.

FADS with both new Gen artisan and ceafar.

 

[iambuzzard]

Just as an interest. This is what Spain are using as OPVs. A 76mm OTO Melara is up forward as well as it having two 25mm guns and multiple 12.7mm MGs. Fairly heavily armed for an OPV. I can't help thinking we should have gone part way down that track. They also have an enclosed helo hanger.

 

[Stampede]

Just as an interest. This is what Spain are using as OPVs. A 76mm OTO Melara is up forward as well as it having two 25mm guns and multiple 12.7mm MGs. Fairly heavily armed for an OPV. I can't help thinking we should have gone part way down that track. They also have an enclosed helo hanger.

Yes a handsome and useful ship

Spain are building 12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly the sort of size ,type and quantity of OPV we should have ordered.

Not surprisingly I’m not too excited about the ninth E Cape being delivered to defence the other day.

Each one is a reminder of what we could of / should of purchased.

Thanks for the post

Cheers S

 

[Reptilia]

The Japanese OPV is better in every way, a generation ahead, half the cost and also with a production run of 12 - scheduled to be built and delivered in half the time and with a core crew of only 30 compared to 46.

 

[iambuzzard]

Yes a handsome and useful ship

Spain are building 12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly the sort of size ,type and quantity of OPV we should have ordered.

Not surprisingly I’m not too excited about the ninth E Cape being delivered to defence the other day.

Each one is a reminder of what we could of / should of purchased.

Thanks for the post

Cheers S

You're welcome Stampede.

 

[Stampede]

The Japanese OPV is better in every way, a generation ahead, half the cost and also with a production run of 12 - scheduled to be built and delivered in half the time and with a core crew of only 30 compared to 46.

Thanks
Agnostic re exact design but for the advantages of being bigger than the 80 m OPV we selected.

True flight deck and hangar, mission bay , medium cal gun upfront and respectable CMS supported by a crew sized to operate such a vessel.

Many such designs of this size on the market

We missed the mark.

l’m guessing we were referencing our future OPV against our previous patrol boat generations which made a 80m vessel look big and impressive.
Problem was the size was not one thing or the other and we went full on compromise mode re armament and aviation.

End result the Arafura’s are just a big E Cape in reduced numbers.
A complete bastard of a project.

So be it Spain or Japan or someone else go shopping.

Unfortunately it will not happen; so let’s do justice to the Arafura’s and enhance their capabilities to the fullest and add to their numbers.

Again our future fleet that gets all the attention is a long way off.
The Arafua Class is now becoming a reality.

Cheers S

 

[Bluey 006]

The Japanese OPV is better in every way, a generation ahead, half the cost and also with a production run of 12 - scheduled to be built and delivered in half the time and with a core crew of only 30 compared to 46.

Better is subjective. Japan’s OPVs are much newer designs and likely feature more advanced technology. However, they are not yet in the water, and not much is known about their final configuration or capabilities.

While many are jumping on the “Japan bandwagon” at the moment, no contract for the Mogami-class has been signed, and numerous challenges remain. These include Australian build, weapons fit-out, systems integration, and cultural differences in negotiation and business practices, just to name a few.

The Japanese are known for their efficiency and pride in their work, so you would expect them to go above and beyond to make the GPF project a success, particularly since it represents a crucial test for their defence industry. However, there are still many unknowns. Japan has not worked with Australia on a major defence project before, and while things could go smoothly, there is a significant chance that unforeseen challenges may arise. It might not even be Japan’s fault. It is simply too early for an “all the way with the rising sun” approach.

Moreover, just seven years ago we had the opportunity to select an OPV with a hangar. The Fassmer design and the other option at the time, from Damen, both came with hangars. Yet the Arafura class beat both contenders and won the contract. So let us not get too carried away with the idea that we “need a new, better OPV” just yet.

While it is true that, as our fleet numbers dwindle over the next few years, twelve helicopter-equipped and better-armed OPVs could have proven useful as part of our ASW and A2AD network in our near approaches and the South Pacific — acting as a key node in the sensor-shooter kill chain — the Arafura class may still prove to be the right choice for the job. My understanding is that one of the key reasons it was selected was its growth potential.

Patience is key here, as we likely will not have a full understanding of real-world performance for some time.

OPVs will never be front-line combatants, they can be valuable force enablers to enhance our maritime domain awareness, ASW coverage, and operational flexibility in areas that matter most to us strategically. The Arafura is still yet to contribute to these roles but potentially through future upgrades, unmanned systems integration, or modular mission systems they will likely prove their worth.

If we do need something better, OPV designs with impressive capabilities have emerged from all corners of the globe and if we need another minor warship, it is best not to have our blinkers on and to remain open to a wider range of options.

 

[iambuzzard]

linked is BAE's latest concept for an AWD. There have been a few articles already in the chat thread, but this is the first time I think an actual model has been on display.

BAE seem to be doubling down on using the T26 hull as the basis for an AWD. Interestingly in the voice over it talks of crews down below 100 to operate it, so very big change in automation.

BAE also released a model of their proposed "sensor-effector platform". They talk of a crew of 6, with radar (small artisan style), containerised towed array and a VLS, possible gun or multiple guns as well. Interestingly its on a 100m trimaran hull design.

Their model is 6-8 of the sensor-effectors with an AWD coordinator as a mini surface action group.

It is no suprise that BAE is going down this path, and I suspect the RN will end up with a modified T26 option for the T45 replacement. By extension it becomes a good solution for our own Navy and replacement of the Hobarts.

It's interesting that BAE have seriously considered automation, effectively halving the T26 crew for the AWD. I wonder if some of this could be brought across for the second batch of Hunters, perhaps some items added to the first batch during the first upgrade cycle.

In regards to the sensor-effector, I think BAE would need to be careful not to make this too expensive, and I would view that Mk70 or adaptable deck launchers are a better way forward to keep costs down. I do however like the inclusion of a mini Artisan sytle radar though.

I am personally of the view that the optionally crewed/low crewed concept will be leap frogged and is an obsolete technology. We seem happy to automate aircraft and allow drone submarines to travel by themselves for 1,000 kms, but not for surface vessels. Doesn't make sense to me. I personally have my money on Defiance style platforms winning the day here.

I just don't like the pineapple mast.