Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[toryu]

Space and weight and electrical provisions on the hangar roof for a Mk 56 VLS or a RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher, plus an ASuW warfare package including 4x SSM capability and short-range cannon / 12.7mm weapons and according to the specs....

All as growth options I am sure...

Hang on, I figured this was just sarcastic back and forth at first but then you guys go on with SeaRAM? Mk 56?

I really enjoy the discussion here. I love the idea of a 'gun fighter' corvette in the RAN, I really do.

I support the idea that the RAN probably needs 6-8 gunned up smaller vessels for a number of lower end roles that shouldn't tie up our 'frig-stroyer' backbone... But, I also think that considering the OPV spec the best we can realistically hope for is a full sized hangar and a 76mm up front with a couple of remote 12.7/20mm's on the sides. That's if we're lucky. Chuck in some small very lightly armed UAV's and that is a pretty good package. A 76mm SR with the right add-on's can be light shore fire support and close in defensive system in it's own right but that is already exceeding what is required.

I think we will be very lucky if we even see SeaRAM on our bigger vessels anytime soon.

Just thoughts!

Law

 

[Volkodav]

Hang on, I figured this was just sarcastic back and forth at first but then you guys go on with SeaRAM? Mk 56?

I really enjoy the discussion here. I love the idea of a 'gun fighter' corvette in the RAN, I really do.

I support the idea that the RAN probably needs 6-8 gunned up smaller vessels for a number of lower end roles that shouldn't tie up our 'frig-stroyer' backbone... But, I also think that considering the OPV spec the best we can realistically hope for is a full sized hangar and a 76mm up front with a couple of remote 12.7/20mm's on the sides. That's if we're lucky. Chuck in some small very lightly armed UAV's and that is a pretty good package. A 76mm SR with the right add-on's can be light shore fire support and close in defensive system in it's own right but that is already exceeding what is required.

I think we will be very lucky if we even see SeaRAM on our bigger vessels anytime soon.

Just thoughts!

Law

Officially they are looking at a bigger gun but this is more likely to be a 35 or 40mm not a 57or 76mm, with maybe a couple of Mini Typhoons with 50cal as well. There will be a combat system but likely a bare bones one, as there will be space for maybe a couple of ISO containers in a mission deck, but any interfaces and provision for expansion / upgrade will be as a result of MOTS/COTS design legacy, not ADF requirements. If the selected design has provision for Mk-56 or SeaRAM and the necessary consoles, sensor integration etc. these features may not be deleted.

 

[hauritz]

I can see a case for up gunning at least a few OPVs.

When the FFGs retire there will be a stockpile of 76mm guns and ammo. A couple of gun boats could be a useful alternative to deploying frigates for anti-terrorism and anti-piracy patrols.

I am also wondering whether or not a case can be made for fully upgrading at least one of them for use as a training, testing and proof of concept vessel.

 

[rand0m]

Does anybody have specifics as to what each of the three tenderers are offering? Too many variants floating about on the web. I suppose anything with an increased range/endurance, sea handling capabilities, help deck and hanger for MRH, slightly larger main gun will be a big win. Let's get that first before worrying about further combat systems

 

[ADMk2]

Hang on, I figured this was just sarcastic back and forth at first but then you guys go on with SeaRAM? Mk 56?

I really enjoy the discussion here. I love the idea of a 'gun fighter' corvette in the RAN, I really do.

I support the idea that the RAN probably needs 6-8 gunned up smaller vessels for a number of lower end roles that shouldn't tie up our 'frig-stroyer' backbone... But, I also think that considering the OPV spec the best we can realistically hope for is a full sized hangar and a 76mm up front with a couple of remote 12.7/20mm's on the sides. That's if we're lucky. Chuck in some small very lightly armed UAV's and that is a pretty good package. A 76mm SR with the right add-on's can be light shore fire support and close in defensive system in it's own right but that is already exceeding what is required.

I think we will be very lucky if we even see SeaRAM on our bigger vessels anytime soon.

Just thoughts!

Law

As stated, these are growth options that are catered for within the design of the OPV 90 from Damen. Whether they are of interest to RAN or within the funding envelope is a completely different issue.

 

[Volkodav]

Ironically, up gunned OPVs, using surplus equipment already owned by the commonwealth, could actually be cheaper to outfit than ships fitted with new intermediate calibre main guns. I am also curious as to what will happen to the surplus 25mm Typhoons if they are not to be reused on the OPVs.

 

[ngatimozart]

Was watching a program in the TV here tonight, Abandoned Engineering*, and it had an item about the shipwreck HMVS (later HMAS) Cerebus. Apparently this was the first breastwork monitor warship and had some very impressive technology for the time. Quite a nice piece on very early Australian naval history.

More Info

*YouTube video.

 

[ADMk2]

Ironically, up gunned OPVs, using surplus equipment already owned by the commonwealth, could actually be cheaper to outfit than ships fitted with new intermediate calibre main guns. I am also curious as to what will happen to the surplus 25mm Typhoons if they are not to be reused on the OPVs.

Not to mention the (up to 6x) Typhoon 25mm guns that are likely to come off the LHD's when they put Phalanx Block IB onto those positions...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Ironically, up gunned OPVs, using surplus equipment already owned by the commonwealth, could actually be cheaper to outfit than ships fitted with new intermediate calibre main guns. I am also curious as to what will happen to the surplus 25mm Typhoons if they are not to be reused on the OPVs.

I would imagine they would go in storage. I personally think the 76mm would be a fair choice for the OPV, many other nations in our region use it, it also opens up a lot of options and pushes range out a considerable distance. However, not sure how it fits onto a ship of this size. Or if the existing 76mm are even suitable.

While the most recent DWP called for 12 OPV's, the original concept was some 20 or so. Its conceivable that a future WP might call for the remainder 8 to replace various other ships that aren't getting any younger. Those could be fitted with 25mm, or the 25mm could be fitted to some future vessel as a primary or secondary weapon.

I do see upgunning as a possibility. US strategy and alliance is at best, complicated. UK global leadership (and identity) is, confused? Australia trying to project power up into the gulf(s) and Indian ocean, South China Sea, the pacific and the southern ocean. Filling some of the vacuum created by traditional powers, while managing emerging powers and being capable enough to act as a buffer or medium for relations. The complete re-write of Australia's foreign policy, a new white paper that will no doubt influence others.

Having something that allows partner nations to operate more limited ships or less experienced/confident nations underneath an Australian umbrella would seem reasonable. Australia finds herself in a different situation we thought we would be in even 2 years ago.

I would be giving serious consideration to 9VL, a new 76mm, ESSM/CIWS capability to be fitted later.

Personally I quite like the 1800 Damen Sea axe option, being potentially faster than more suitable for rough seas and flexibility. But the lurrsen would seem to be bigger and able to take more demanding upgrades and great endurance. But I don't know if the larger 2400 variants are off the table, it was originally reported that Damen put the 2400 forward, and the 2600 would seem to be an easy upsell over the 2400.

Given the current state of things, I don't think we will be going with the lowest bid on the OPV's. I don't see the situation(s) getting better long term.

 

[alexsa]

I would imagine they would go in storage. I personally think the 76mm would be a fair choice for the OPV, many other nations in our region use it, it also opens up a lot of options and pushes range out a considerable distance. However, not sure how it fits onto a ship of this size. Or if the existing 76mm are even suitable.

While the most recent DWP called for 12 OPV's, the original concept was some 20 or so. Its conceivable that a future WP might call for the remainder 8 to replace various other ships that aren't getting any younger. Those could be fitted with 25mm, or the 25mm could be fitted to some future vessel as a primary or secondary weapon.

I do see upgunning as a possibility. US strategy and alliance is at best, complicated. UK global leadership (and identity) is, confused? Australia trying to project power up into the gulf(s) and Indian ocean, South China Sea, the pacific and the southern ocean. Filling some of the vacuum created by traditional powers, while managing emerging powers and being capable enough to act as a buffer or medium for relations. The complete re-write of Australia's foreign policy, a new white paper that will no doubt influence others.

Having something that allows partner nations to operate more limited ships or less experienced/confident nations underneath an Australian umbrella would seem reasonable. Australia finds herself in a different situation we thought we would be in even 2 years ago.

I would be giving serious consideration to 9VL, a new 76mm, ESSM/CIWS capability to be fitted later.

Personally I quite like the 1800 Damen Sea axe option, being potentially faster than more suitable for rough seas and flexibility. But the lurrsen would seem to be bigger and able to take more demanding upgrades and great endurance. But I don't know if the larger 2400 variants are off the table, it was originally reported that Damen put the 2400 forward, and the 2600 would seem to be an easy upsell over the 2400.

Given the current state of things, I don't think we will be going with the lowest bid on the OPV's. I don't see the situation(s) getting better long term.

The Damen 2400 is 2400 tonnes in basic configuration and the Damen 2600 is 2600 tonnes. This is a significant increase of the about 80m and 2000 tonnes in the White paper.

Bigger would be nice (but extra length may be an issue in some small ports) but I suspect the limits were set for a reason.

 

[ASSAIL]

The Damen 2400 is 2400 tonnes in basic configuration and the Damen 2600 is 2600 tonnes. This is a significant increase of the about 80m and 2000 tonnes in the White paper.

Bigger would be nice (but extra length may be an issue in some small ports) but I suspect the limits were set for a reason.

Not forgetting that the DWP mandated no extra manpower than the current ACPB force, 21 or 22 crews at the time of the white paper

 

[ASSAIL]

As TC Debbie approaches the NQ coast and the ADF is put on standby, a scenario could develop which is equal or worse than Tracy but obviously less remote.

I lived through Tracy and saw the fantastic work done by all the services but by the RAN in particular through Op. Navy Help in the immediate aftermath.

So the question is that do the quite complex trade skills still remain in the navy. During Tracy electricians rebuilt power distribution systems, mechanics rebuilt and repaired power generators and fridges restored where needed all without the help of civilian counterparts many of whom had been evacuated with their families. Naturally many returned after that first 30 days where navy was supreme.
I ask because since the demise of the trade schools there seems a superficial dumbing down of technical skills and a reliance on contractors although I appreciate that this is being addressed to some extent.

Can the same support be given today?

 

[vonnoobie]

I'd say any growth in the OPV's/OPC's/OCV's would be over the long term. While Trump buggering everything up would undoubtedly be causing issues making some think we need to go a bit more independent again that what the 2016 white paper would allow I dont think they will be pushing for such massive changes with suhc a tight time frame.

We will get at the very least the first batch (3- 4 boats?) based on current plans, and if lucky slowly expand on that though if we are even luckier Trump by that time would be out of office, as well as Putin, Islamaphobia would have died down, ISIS would be gone and China would have cooled down.. But Im just dreaming

 

[weegee]

Missile defence

Morning Gents,

I came across this:Australian defence industry minister foreshadows decision on missile defence system | IHS Jane's 360
and didn't really know where to put it but seeing they mention upgrades to the Hobart Class thought it should go here to start with. Mods feel free to move it if in a inappropriate thread.

 

[ADMk2]

Morning Gents,

I came across this:Australian defence industry minister foreshadows decision on missile defence system | IHS Jane's 360
and didn't really know where to put it but seeing they mention upgrades to the Hobart Class thought it should go here to start with. Mods feel free to move it if in a inappropriate thread.

Murmurs have been made that the AWD's will be upgraded to the AEGIS baseline 9.1 system, and which will enable BMD capability against short and intermediate ranged ballistic missiles, in combination with SM-3 and SM-6 variants.

If AWD is to take on a BMD role through these means, one would have to imagine the Future Frigate would be pivoting to effectively duplicating the extant AWD capability with (likely) AEGIS, CEC and SM-2/6 capabilities.

I'm guessing there are a few big decisions coming up in / ahead of the May budget...

 

[Volkodav]

As TC Debbie approaches the NQ coast and the ADF is put on standby, a scenario could develop which is equal or worse than Tracy but obviously less remote.

I lived through Tracy and saw the fantastic work done by all the services but by the RAN in particular through Op. Navy Help in the immediate aftermath.

So the question is that do the quite complex trade skills still remain in the navy. During Tracy electricians rebuilt power distribution systems, mechanics rebuilt and repaired power generators and fridges restored where needed all without the help of civilian counterparts many of whom had been evacuated with their families. Naturally many returned after that first 30 days where navy was supreme.
I ask because since the demise of the trade schools there seems a superficial dumbing down of technical skills and a reliance on contractors although I appreciate that this is being addressed to some extent.

Can the same support be given today?

The trouble is no one has really invested in formal trade and technical training since the mid 90s, perhaps earlier and the minority of businesses and individuals who have made serious efforts in skill development have been hung out to dry by anti competitive practices by government and industry to support those who didn't make the effort. Companies who invested in training saw contracts go to cheaper bidders who head hunted or used 457 visas to bring in their technical people after winning the contract, while individuals who upskilled themselves were never adequately rewarded for the time and money they put in when the required certifications were dumbed down or changed making it possible for contractors to use less skilled, qualified and experienced people, driving down the wages of those who had done the right thing. Conversely, a handful of still certified skills and occupations were able to charge exorbitant rates for their labor because, again anti competitive practices, this time by some unions, as well as industry and government, locking out capable alternatives from competing.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The trouble is no one has really invested in formal trade and technical training since the mid 90s, perhaps earlier and the minority of businesses and individuals who have made serious efforts in skill development have been hung out to dry by anti competitive practices by government and industry to support those who didn't make the effort. Companies who invested in training saw contracts go to cheaper bidders who head hunted or used 457 visas to bring in their technical people after winning the contract, while individuals who upskilled themselves were never adequately rewarded for the time and money they put in when the required certifications were dumbed down or changed making it possible for contractors to use less skilled, qualified and experienced people, driving down the wages of those who had done the right thing. Conversely, a handful of still certified skills and occupations were able to charge exorbitant rates for their labor because, again anti competitive practices, this time by some unions, as well as industry and government, locking out capable alternatives from competing.

night and day when you look at USN seabees and what they maintain compared to RAN

 

[Raven22]

As TC Debbie approaches the NQ coast and the ADF is put on standby, a scenario could develop which is equal or worse than Tracy but obviously less remote.

I lived through Tracy and saw the fantastic work done by all the services but by the RAN in particular through Op. Navy Help in the immediate aftermath.

So the question is that do the quite complex trade skills still remain in the navy. During Tracy electricians rebuilt power distribution systems, mechanics rebuilt and repaired power generators and fridges restored where needed all without the help of civilian counterparts many of whom had been evacuated with their families. Naturally many returned after that first 30 days where navy was supreme.
I ask because since the demise of the trade schools there seems a superficial dumbing down of technical skills and a reliance on contractors although I appreciate that this is being addressed to some extent.

Can the same support be given today?

It's largely irrelevant - civilian agencies have more than enough capacity to deal with the issues identified. Time has moved on from 1974. Indeed, service personnel wouldn't be allowed to touch the infrastructure anyway - there is way too much legislation that would prevent it.

Aside from big transport assets like amphibious shipping, helicopters and C17, the ADF has very little that is needed these days as far as (domestic) disaster management is concerned. Most ADF support after disasters is purely a PR exercise - free labour doing work that civilians should be doing for themselves. It certainly pissed me off after Yasi clearing roads/yards of debris while (some of) the locals just watched on, as though we were there their personal servants. There is a lot of learned helplessness going on these days.

At least TC Debbie got me out of a field exercise early, and now it looks like I won't have to go back to work until Wednesday at the earliest. As long as I have enough ice to keep the beer cold, I'm sorted.

 

[ASSAIL]

It's largely irrelevant - civilian agencies have more than enough capacity to deal with the issues identified. Time has moved on from 1974. Indeed, service personnel wouldn't be allowed to touch the infrastructure anyway - there is way too much legislation that would prevent it.

Aside from big transport assets like amphibious shipping, helicopters and C17, the ADF has very little that is needed these days as far as (domestic) disaster management is concerned. Most ADF support after disasters is purely a PR exercise - free labour doing work that civilians should be doing for themselves. It certainly pissed me off after Yasi clearing roads/yards of debris while (some of) the locals just watched on, as though we were there their personal servants. There is a lot of learned helplessness going on these days.

At least TC Debbie got me out of a field exercise early, and now it looks like I won't have to go back to work until Wednesday at the earliest. As long as I have enough ice to keep the beer cold, I'm sorted.

Well populated coastal Qld could throw in agency personnel from within the state but in remote NW, places such as Broome and Derby may prove a little more problematic and may rely more heavily on the ADF.
Stay safe FNQ.

 

[rand0m]

Murmurs have been made that the AWD's will be upgraded to the AEGIS baseline 9.1 system, and which will enable BMD capability against short and intermediate ranged ballistic missiles, in combination with SM-3 and SM-6 variants.

If AWD is to take on a BMD role through these means, one would have to imagine the Future Frigate would be pivoting to effectively duplicating the extant AWD capability with (likely) AEGIS, CEC and SM-2/6 capabilities.

I'm guessing there are a few big decisions coming up in / ahead of the May budget...

I thought that was old news?
Missile defence could be on the way | news.com.au — Australia’s #1 news site