Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
Well not on the LHDs currently, Maybe on Arafura or Choules. People keep complaining about the Arafura lack of firepower.. Imagine organically embarking a 155" Huntsman on the rear.. But we can always contract commercial shipping. Just like to move anything on rail the ADF doesn't operate its own diesel locomotives and rail network, it uses commercial services.

Typically the places rail wins is over trucks. Ships tend to win out over rail in cost. For Australia we just don't have enough heavy armour to justify it big on rail to move it specifically. The US with 10,000 tanks and 100,000 heavy vehicles and an existing rail network is different, same with Russia. They can use massive train capacity to move massive amounts. But that is very 1940-60s thinking. We have inland rail, and it is what it is.

More effective use of rail would be to improve manufacturing/farming/mining logistics. Now that coal is in decline we should base industry near these locations that can use these heavy rail links.

But we are in a RAN thread.. This is a lot of rail talk.
Click to expand...
Yep, there's another forum for gunzels.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
I'd toss the question, is that because we don't want to or can't.

I tend to think that our mindset on how to use these new technologies is behind what the technologies can actually do (or will be able to do in the not unreasonable future).

I feel that we are stuck in enforcing (and restricting thinking to) operator in the loop, when we could be preparing for operator on the loop and beyond.

I'm not talking about the here and now, but the technological iteration is so fast at the moment, that it's hard to forecast what a third or fourth gen ghost bat and ghost shark will be capable of doing.

It wasn't that long ago that I remember the government was stuck on the principle that the ghost bat would only be an ISR platform, and then boom we had an armed version released (in my view led by Boeing rather than the government that got dragged kicking and screaming to adopt it). What next, and why does it have to remain within the loyal wingman philosophy.

I know this is an RAN thread, but same mindset applies to the ghost shark, I can see that being substantially different in a couple of generations, with generations being released yearly. And the same applies to platfoms like MUSVs and future LUSVs.
Click to expand...
I think they're risk averse to something going wrong if they're fully autonomous. You only have to look at current court cases about the Middle East to know Defence and Government have themselves tied in knots over rules of engagement. It's a different ball game over there. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. How does an autonomous piece of equipment know the difference?
 
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
iambuzzard said:
I think they're risk averse to something going wrong if they're fully autonomous. You only have to look at current court cases about the Middle East to know Defence and Government have themselves tied in knots over rules of engagement. It's a different ball game over there. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. How does an autonomous piece of equipment know the difference?
Click to expand...
Yep. I get that. Crewed weapons systems have a demonstrated history of mucking this up as well.

Don't get me wrong, I view the combined arms model incorporating crewed and uncrewed systems is a model that will remain for my lifetime, just I see more leverage and a longer leash on the uncrewed component, and preference of mine that this is accelerated.

This comes from an opinion that autonomous systems are about the only asymetric lever we have to pull to ballance the ledger in any near/medium term conflict. There are absolute risks, but the need is essential.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
Yep. I get that. Crewed weapons systems have a demonstrated history of mucking this up as well.

Don't get me wrong, I view the combined arms model incorporating crewed and uncrewed systems is a model that will remain for my lifetime, just I see more leverage and a longer leash on the uncrewed component, and preference of mine that this is accelerated.

This comes from an opinion that autonomous systems are about the only asymetric lever we have to pull to ballance the ledger in any near/medium term conflict. There are absolute risks, but the need is essential.
Click to expand...
We have to follow the lead Ukraine have set for us. Any conflict we get into is going to be assymetric. We just have to even the odds like they have.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
RAN is seeking dedicated counter drone systems to be mounted on port and starboard stations for the Hunter Class frigates and potentially other RAN vessels…

Described as “very short ranged air and surface defence system” seeking specifically to address UAS and USV threats.

Naval Group Rampart, maybe? Modular system that can carry up to 80x guided rockets for C-UAS or mix and match with VSHRAD missiles with Mistral 3 and Polish Piorun VSHORAD integrated into it already…
 

Attachments

Last edited:
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Richo99 said:
Very interesting. Is this in addition to the traditional CIWS ie Phalanx/RAM ?
Click to expand...
Unsure of exactly how many port and starboard positions that could accommodate a 2.5t defensive weapon system there are on a Hunter?

I am guessing they are looking at options including, but not limited to Phalanx / RAM…

Someone may have jumped the gun, suggesting RAN “has” opted for RAM for the Hunters…
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
ADMk2 said:
Unsure of exactly how many port and starboard positions that could accommodate a 2.5t defensive weapon system there are on a Hunter?

I am guessing they are looking at options including, but not limited to Phalanx / RAM…

Someone may have jumped the gun, suggesting RAN “has” opted for RAM for the Hunters…
Click to expand...
Prudent acquisition.
I’m wondering is this an additional system that is complimentary to what is planned on the Hunter class or are we sacrificing something to accommodate this new system.
The Hunter class on Navy's defence department site under specifications does not list either SeaRam or a 30 mm gun as part of the ship’s armament.
Same for BAEs website.
This could be for a number of reasons however the one I’d go with is defence are just slow at updating their own website.

Clearly there is enough images of the vessel carrying both a CIWS above the hangar and two smaller 30mm guns either side of it.
Maybe the later are sacrificed for the new capability or most likely I’d suspect the new capability is mounted either side of the ship atop the mission bay.

What ever the outcome I trust it’s rolled out across the entire fleet.

Cheers S
 
O

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ADMk2 said:
RAN is seeking dedicated counter drone systems to be mounted on port and starboard stations for the Hunter Class frigates and potentially other RAN vessels…

Described as “very short ranged air and surface defence system” seeking specifically to address UAS and USV threats.

Naval Group Rampart, maybe? Modular system that can carry up to 80x guided rockets for C-UAS or mix and match with VSHRAD missiles with Mistral 3 and Polish Piorun VSHORAD integrated into it already…
Click to expand...
Some months ago, I made a post about this subject, that stated the Hunters would get 2 x MK 49 RAM, an extra 42 short range SAMs. This would free up the 32 MK41 Cells to take advantage of the CEAFAR/AGEIS combo with a mix of SM2 and 6, as well as ESSM. That in theory could end up as soething like, 32 ESSM,12 SM2 and 12 SM6 and 42 RAM. ( substitute some SMs for Tomahawks)
Of course the response was pretty sarcastic referencing the only link I had, which was produced by AI. The reason I was looking for a link in the 1st place was for confirmation on info I had been told. We still don't have any confirmation, but the "rumour" makes some sense.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Since largely the successful Ukrainian drone strikes against Russian ships have been when they have been tied up in harbour and not at sea and unlikely able to deploy ballistic counter measures without possible civilian casualties , should moored ships in harbour have use of electronic countermeasures , using a ciws when in Sydney harbour against an inbound drone will not go down well with property owners nearby
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
Well not on the LHDs currently, Maybe on Arafura or Choules. People keep complaining about the Arafura lack of firepower.. Imagine organically embarking a 155" Huntsman on the rear.. But we can always contract commercial shipping. Just like to move anything on rail the ADF doesn't operate its own diesel locomotives and rail network, it uses commercial services.

Typically the places rail wins is over trucks. Ships tend to win out over rail in cost. For Australia we just don't have enough heavy armour to justify it big on rail to move it specifically. The US with 10,000 tanks and 100,000 heavy vehicles and an existing rail network is different, same with Russia. They can use massive train capacity to move massive amounts. But that is very 1940-60s thinking. We have inland rail, and it is what it is.

More effective use of rail would be to improve manufacturing/farming/mining logistics. Now that coal is in decline we should base industry near these locations that can use these heavy rail links.

But we are in a RAN thread.. This is a lot of rail talk.
Click to expand...
I introduced rail as a logistics possibility for the A.D.F and its expansion not out of the A.D.F budget its use as supporting role when traditional assets are not available , Im not sure if factories producing munitions and other supplies are able to access rail or even it was a consideration in their citing
 
S

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
The render on the RAN site shows a Phalanx on either side of the Funnel in the same location where the RN has a CIWS on Type 45 and presumably where they are going on Type 26.

The render of Hunter on BAe’s website just shows empty deck in that location.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
old faithful said:
Some months ago, I made a post about this subject, that stated the Hunters would get 2 x MK 49 RAM, an extra 42 short range SAMs. This would free up the 32 MK41 Cells to take advantage of the CEAFAR/AGEIS combo with a mix of SM2 and 6, as well as ESSM. That in theory could end up as soething like, 32 ESSM,12 SM2 and 12 SM6 and 42 RAM. ( substitute some SMs for Tomahawks)
Of course the response was pretty sarcastic referencing the only link I had, which was produced by AI. The reason I was looking for a link in the 1st place was for confirmation on info I had been told. We still don't have any confirmation, but the "rumour" makes some sense.
Click to expand...
Old Faithful, that would make quite a significant load out, 98 rounds. Plus, the Mk.49 RAM can be reloaded at sea.
The Hunter class would have some teeth.
If they make sure there is a good mix of secondary guns with smart ammunition, say 30mm or 40mm, they will be a floating echidna!!!!
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
seaspear said:
Since largely the successful Ukrainian drone strikes against Russian ships have been when they have been tied up in harbour and not at sea and unlikely able to deploy ballistic counter measures without possible civilian casualties , should moored ships in harbour have use of electronic countermeasures , using a ciws when in Sydney harbour against an inbound drone will not go down well with property owners nearby
Click to expand...
Yes, through and through might not go down well on the North Shore or Potts Point. Mind you........
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This is actually an RFI - a request for information. It is a very preliminary step. It is not a real RFP, a request for proposal; that is what would indicate an intent to contract and in that the deliverables would include the items themselves. That may or may not come later but there is no commitment at this stage.
 
Last edited:
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
StevoJH said:
The render on the RAN site shows a Phalanx on either side of the Funnel in the same location where the RN has a CIWS on Type 45 and presumably where they are going on Type 26.

The render of Hunter on BAe’s website just shows empty deck in that location.
Click to expand...
Would it make sense to have Phalanx either side of the funnel and Mk.49 fore and aft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top