Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

There are a multitude of cheap anti drone capabilities being developed and produced; a lot of them in Ukraine but also across the wider Eastern Europe. According to the available literature, some of them cost in the very low thousands of dollars. One amongst many is ODIN: Ukrainian firm develops ODIN anti-drone interceptor. And here’s one from Estonia: Poland to establish anti-drone missile plant with Estonia's Frankenburg Technologies

Given the practical experience the Ukrainians have, I‘d tend to go with a licence built version of one of theirs. It would probably come with a proven upgrade path…..

 

[SammyC]

There are a multitude of cheap anti drone capabilities being developed and produced; a lot of them in Ukraine but also across the wider Eastern Europe. According to the available literature, some of them cost in the very low thousands of dollars. One amongst many is ODIN: Ukrainian firm develops ODIN anti-drone interceptor. And here’s one from Estonia: Poland to establish anti-drone missile plant with Estonia's Frankenburg Technologies

Given the practical experience the Ukrainians have, I‘d tend to go with a licence built version of one of theirs. It would probably come with a proven upgrade path…..

I'm thinking that our eventual selection for a shipboard drone interceptor will come from a Ukranian source. Something that can average a few thousand per shot, hold say 50-100 units within a compact upper deck cannister, with a range of 10-15km. Some of there systems are already capable of this.

 

[seaspear]

What capability should the home ports have to intercept these dones? I am not sure if crews would be manning their sensor suites and other stations when berthed

 

[iambuzzard]

What capability should the home ports have to intercept these dones? I am not sure if crews would be manning their sensor suites and other stations when berthed

Currently I don't believe we have any ability to defend our home ports from a potential drone attack launched from a container ship off the coast.
Look at the panic in the US about drones over Barksdale AFB.

 

[Bob53]

Currently I don't believe we have any ability to defend our home ports from a potential drone attack launched from a container ship off the coast.
Look at the panic in the US about drones over Barksdale AFB.

As far as I can see FBE …We don’t have ability to protect home ports from anything other than a gate forced entry. nothing to stop drones, nothing to stop water borne drones, nothing to stop even man launched weapons from land or boat.

 

[ADMk2]

I was looking at the clip where RADM Hughes discusses the Upgraded Mogami frigate and at the 4.50 mark he states the Searam is fitted "for". He doesn't say it will be fitted "with". He later goes on to say "we are leveraging off what Japan wants to do as a parent navy and what's compatible with us." Am I reading too much into this or does it seem that Searam will not be included initially. He states the no change mantra but at the same time he seems a little defensive, hedging his bets and choosing his words carefully.

He said “that will be a new capability for us”. Which he wouldn’t have said if we weren’t getting it?

 

[iambuzzard]

As far as I can see FBE …We don’t have ability to protect home ports from anything other than a gate forced entry. nothing to stop drones, nothing to stop water borne drones, nothing to stop even man launched weapons from land or boat.

The complacency about security around our military and other bases in Australia is bordering on criminal.
FBE is smack bang in the middle of Sydney Harbour and a drone attack launched from a civilian ship in international waters would cause massive damage and civilian casualties.
The FBI warned the Californian authorities about this potential and promptly got slapped down by the White House.
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. This is assymetrical warfare, something we haven't trained for.
We are asleep at the wheel!

 

[spoz]

Not quite sure what the FBI warning a US state about something has to do with Australia, but moving on.

Governments and Defence authorities address threats in terms of priorities, Those priorities are derived by assessing the impact of an event and the likelihood of it occurring. A drone attack on FBE, no matter how big the drone, would have a localised effect. It might be an expensive one, but Sydney, as a city, would not be significantly effected.

However, it is also an extremely low probability event. For it to happen, an enemy would need a motive and away of carrying it out; and would have to weigh the outcomes as it would effect them of an attack if successful. So. Who might do it? No state actor - not China, not Russia, and not North Korea. - it would be an act of war and would involve them in a major conflict, and we are not the prime opponent of those states. Not worth it from their perspective. And not any of our neighbours, we are on (deliberately) good terms with them.

So that leaves extra state actors, aka terrorists. OK, they might have the motivation - although we are neither the greater nor the lesser Satan - but still they might see us as an easy target, although given our distance from their bases of operations there are easier. To do it, they would have to obtain an ocean going ship capable of reaching Australia, convert it to launch and control drones - admittedly only a container- find a legitimate reason to send the ship to Australia, get it here (and we area long way from anywhere), get within drone range of FBE and launch an attack. And they would have to do all that without being detected by our rather good intelligence and surveillance assets, or those of our allies. Possible, but collectively, improbable.

Does that mean we should ignore the possibility? No. But it also means that we should not start panicking about it, or running around like headless chooks. There are many thousands of possible scenarios we need to be aware of and this is just one - and probably one of the less likely, and therefore a fairly low priority

 

[Bob53]

Not quite sure what the FBI warning a US state about something has to do with Australia, but moving on.

Governments and Defence authorities address threats in terms of priorities, Those priorities are derived by assessing the impact of an event and the likelihood of it occurring. A drone attack on FBE, no matter how big the drone, would have a localised effect. It might be an expensive one, but Sydney, as a city, would not be significantly effected.

However, it is also an extremely low probability event. For it to happen, an enemy would need a motive and away of carrying it out; and would have to weigh the outcomes as it would effect them of an attack if successful. So. Who might do it? No state actor - not China, not Russia, and not North Korea. - it would be an act of war and would involve them in a major conflict, and we are not the prime opponent of those states. Not worth it from their perspective. And not any of our neighbours, we are on (deliberately) good terms with them.

So that leaves extra state actors, aka terrorists. OK, they might have the motivation - although we are neither the greater nor the lesser Satan - but still they might see us as an easy target, although given our distance from their bases of operations there are easier. To do it, they would have to obtain an ocean going ship capable of reaching Australia, convert it to launch and control drones - admittedly only a container- find a legitimate reason to send the ship to Australia, get it here (and we area long way from anywhere), get within drone range of FBE and launch an attack. And they would have to do all that without being detected by our rather good intelligence and surveillance assets, or those of our allies. Possible, but collectively, improbable.

Does that mean we should ignore the possibility? No. But it also means that we should not start panicking about it, or running around like headless chooks. There are many thousands of possible scenarios we need to be aware of and this is just one - and probably one of the less likely, and therefore a fairly low priority

What you have said is correct. Except that if we end up in a war, either directly, or as a support base or as a potential participant…war doesn’t just work like …well they wouldn’t do that would they? yes it’s far fetched but not beyond the realms. Who would go to a festival and attack, kidnap and kill 1200? Who would fly planes into a building? Who would attack the USN in a home port? Who would drive an explosive laden boat up against a FFG?

your point is valid …the chances are low but the potential costs are high. Not suggesting they move FBE under a concrete dome…but just maybe some water barriers boats and water born drone , and some microwave or other defences against airborne risks.

 

[iambuzzard]

What you have said is correct. Except that if we end up in a war, either directly, or as a support base or as a potential participant…war doesn’t just work like …well they wouldn’t do that would they? yes it’s far fetched but not beyond the realms. Who would go to a festival and attack, kidnap and kill 1200? Who would fly planes into a building? Who would attack the USN in a home port? Who would drive an explosive laden boat up against a FFG?

your point is valid …the chances are low but the potential costs are high. Not suggesting they move FBE under a concrete dome…but just maybe some water barriers boats and water born drone , and some microwave or other defences against airborne risks.

I understand what Spoz was saying and I only used the FBI warning to highlight a potential risk. I'm not suggesting we have walls of Patriot batteries, RAM launchers, laser projectors and Phalanx. All I'm suggesting is we have an effective defence in case something happens.
As Bruce Willis said in the Last Boy Scout, "Be Prepared Son"!