Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

If the lack of helo numbers became a problem for minor vessels, could a ASW mission module include an updated Ikara rather than torpedo tubes.

I Kara was a big cumbersome 1960's system and very good in its day when operating with a CVS in a Hunter/Killer role. The data link with the helos allowed the frigates to simply be a magazine for the rotary assets. Its main disadvantage was that once fired, the torpedo was running even if the contact became unviable during flight.

It has been replaced with more nimble ASROC type systems fired from common launchers such as VLS but even these are big bits of steel and unsuitable for OPV size ships.

If an OPV was prosecuting a submarine in the type of environment I suggested in my previous post and it was acting on its own sonar targeting info the ranges involved are small and surface launched tubes would be more than adequat. If it was acting on external info then in all likelihood a helo would be providing that info and capable of independent prosecution.

 

[hauritz]

Operating OPVs as ASW vessels would be a desperate act born of a desperate time. No doubt if Australia were involved in a total war every available hull would be pressed into action ... as happened in WW2.

But during peacetime trying to turn an OPV into an ASW vessel would be a complete waste of time and money. At best I would see them taking on the mine countermeasures and survey roles. Perhaps up gun them and use them in an anti-piracy role instead of frigates.

 

[alexsa]

Operating OPVs as ASW vessels would be a desperate act born of a desperate time. No doubt if Australia were involved in a total war every available hull would be pressed into action ... as happened in WW2.

But during peacetime trying to turn an OPV into an ASW vessel would be a complete waste of time and money. At best I would see them taking on the mine countermeasures and survey roles. Perhaps up gun them and use them in an anti-piracy role instead of frigates.

Sorry this is utter rubbish and ignores technology. With a combat system (now in the RFT) and a modular towed array the OPV would provide an additional area search asset. Add remotely operated (containerized) autonomous vessel (in development also using TA) you get and exponential increase in TA systems allow a broader search area.

For those with an eye to history ..... the T23 started life as a TA vessel with minimal systems.

 

[ASSAIL]

Operating OPVs as ASW vessels would be a desperate act born of a desperate time. No doubt if Australia were involved in a total war every available hull would be pressed into action ... as happened in WW2.

But during peacetime trying to turn an OPV into an ASW vessel would be a complete waste of time and money. At best I would see them taking on the mine countermeasures and survey roles. Perhaps up gun them and use them in an anti-piracy role instead of frigates.

I agree entirely but my comments were framed as an hyperthetical.

 

[gf0012-aust]

re OPV's it gets down to the eared and geared references made earlier

an OPV in its own right is not the best ASW solution, but any additional pressure they bring to bear by deploying TA' or UAS in support will magnify primary capability

its a variation of the virtual array concept

 

[Volkodav]

If the OPV has no ASW capability and is specifically designed and built to make the retrofit of such a capability difficult or not worth the effort, then the RANs sole ASW capability with be with its major combatants, twelve hulls, not all available at a given time, and 24 Romeos, some that could be shore based or operate from other platforms at a stretch. Having a modular ASW system, ideally one optimised for littoral missions, that can be deployed from the selected OPV if required, would be a good complementary capability to that provided by the majors. It could even be a training and reserve capability, normally shore based using UUVs and simulators, and able to be added to the OPVs for exercises and operationally if required.

 

[Massive]

Perhaps up gun them and use them in an anti-piracy role instead of frigates.

Assuming they have at least a stabilized 25mm I doubt they even need to be upgunned.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Volkodav]

Assuming they have at least a stabilized 25mm I doubt they even need to be upgunned.

Regards,

Massive

They are most likely to be fitted with a 35 or 40mm, perhaps with 57mm as an outside chance. 25mm is fine as a secondary but I believe the RAN wants/needs something that can literally make a bigger splash but also has a variety of advanced munitions available.

 

[pussertas]

Australian Navy Funding

In last nights budget speech $30 Billion was set aside for new equipment for the RAN.

However this cannot be taken at face value as it's over a 10 year period & other interests will certainly nibble away at this figure.

The Greens are already proposing by building only 11 submarines then the money saved would fund some of their favorite projects!

hitwall

 

[MickB]

I Kara was a big cumbersome 1960's system and very good in its day when operating with a CVS in a Hunter/Killer role. The data link with the helos allowed the frigates to simply be a magazine for the rotary assets. Its main disadvantage was that once fired, the torpedo was running even if the contact became unviable during flight.

It has been replaced with more nimble ASROC type systems fired from common launchers such as VLS but even these are big bits of steel and unsuitable for OPV size ships.

If an OPV was prosecuting a submarine in the type of environment I suggested in my previous post and it was acting on its own sonar targeting info the ranges involved are small and surface launched tubes would be more than adequat. If it was acting on external info then in all likelihood a helo would be providing that info and capable of independent prosecution.

The original Ikara was fitted to Leander class frigates not all that much larger than the proposed OPVs. That said I would suggest that with all the advances in technology in the last 60 years a modern version of the Ikara would be smaller. lighter , faster, longer ranged and able to take targeting information from any number of different sources such as other ships, helos, P8s and Triton.

Its major advantages over ship mounted torpedo's,(long standoff range and drastically reduced reaction time for the sub), still apply.

Early helos (Wasp) did not have the payload to carry both the dipping sonar and torpedo's. So the helo would locate and the ship would then attack with Ikara.

The new ASW mission modules could go one step further and include a stanflex style Ikara launcher and Firescout equipped with dipping sonar to provide much greater reach in a minor warship.

Just having such a capability weather fitted or not will greatly increase the deterance value of our minor warships.

A combination of such a vessel teamed with the army's new missile capability (SAMs and Surface) would block any of the choke points up north without the need for a major fleet unit, freeing a limited and expensive resourse for other tasks.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If the OPV has no ASW capability and is specifically designed and built to make the retrofit of such a capability difficult or not worth the effort, then the RANs sole ASW capability with be with its major combatants, twelve hulls, not all available at a given time, and 24 Romeos, some that could be shore based or operate from other platforms at a stretch. Having a modular ASW system, ideally one optimised for littoral missions, that can be deployed from the selected OPV if required, would be a good complementary capability to that provided by the majors. It could even be a training and reserve capability, normally shore based using UUVs and simulators, and able to be added to the OPVs for exercises and operationally if required.

The Lurrsen OPV 90 and the Damen OPV 1800 would seem to have hangers, flex space and the ability to deploy towed something or UUV. The smaller sizes seem to give up things like hangers, which would be useful for more than just ASW. It doesn't seem that impossible.

You could then embark resources as needed. Hence the whole flexibility concept.

With 12 OPV's resources will be tight, but if a few more OPV's were to be built to replace other RAN ships, then you would have some more flexibility about swinging roles. As main surface ships are out in maintenance or upgrades, you could manage the overall capability better.

 

[Massive]

...Firescout equipped with dipping sonar to provide much greater reach in a minor warship.

Is this already a thing?

Regards,

Massive

 

[ASSAIL]

The original Ikara was fitted to Leander class frigates not all that much larger than the proposed OPVs. That said I would suggest that with all the advances in technology in the last 60 years a modern version of the Ikara would be smaller. lighter , faster, longer ranged and able to take targeting information from any number of different sources such as other ships, helos, P8s and Triton.

Its major advantages over ship mounted torpedo's,(long standoff range and drastically reduced reaction time for the sub), still apply.

Early helos (Wasp) did not have the payload to carry both the dipping sonar and torpedo's. So the helo would locate and the ship would then attack with Ikara.

The new ASW mission modules could go one step further and include a stanflex style Ikara launcher and Firescout equipped with dipping sonar to provide much greater reach in a minor warship.

Just having such a capability weather fitted or not will greatly increase the deterance value of our minor warships.

A combination of such a vessel teamed with the army's new missile capability (SAMs and Surface) would block any of the choke points up north without the need for a major fleet unit, freeing a limited and expensive resourse for other tasks.

The original Ikara was fitted to DEs Stuart and Derwent (F1 version) and the magazine was capable of holding about 30 pre assembled missile /Mk44 Torpedoes IIRC. The whole system was a big unit and was the primary weapon system for a 2,500 ton ship, much bigger than the projected OPVs.

The RN version of Ikara handling system was a clumsy and poorly functioning cluster and evolved because the RN decided they didn't want the Missile and torpedo pre assembled. it was he classic case of compromised procurement, originally for the Type 82 and then coddled together for the Flt 1 Leanders.

IF the OPVs are to be used in an ASW role it would be as a contributor to a total matrix and as others have said, TA sonar networked CMS and system modularity make this possible.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is this already a thing?

Regards,

Massive

Navy Matters: Unmanned Aerial ASW

 

[Volkodav]

The original Ikara was fitted to DEs Stuart and Derwent (F1 version) and the magazine was capable of holding about 30 pre assembled missile /Mk44 Torpedoes IIRC. The whole system was a big unit and was the primary weapon system for a 2,500 ton ship, much bigger than the projected OPVs.

The RN version of Ikara handling system was a clumsy and poorly functioning cluster and evolved because the RN decided they didn't want the Missile and torpedo pre assembled. it was he classic case of compromised procurement, originally for the Type 82 and then coddled together for the Flt 1 Leanders.

IF the OPVs are to be used in an ASW role it would be as a contributor to a total matrix and as others have said, TA sonar networked CMS and system modularity make this possible.

If memory serves me correctly the DE installation was specifically designed to slot into the space originally used for the Limbo and its magazine. The RN set up was weird as they, bizarrely for a guided weapon, required it to be able to aim precisely, meaning it had extremely complex (and apparently noisy) hydraulics, plus (although supposedly never embarked) facilities to stow and fit a nuclear depth charge in place of the torpedo.

Ikara could have quite easily have been retrofitted to the Battle and Daring class destroyers, while the replacement system, Super Ikara, was canister launched and could have been fitted pretty much to any suitable ship in the same fashion as Exocet, Harpoon etc. Super Ikara was a joint Australian Italian project and Italy's Milas system apparently has a fair bit of Super Ikara dna on the software side, while the rocket motor developed for it ended up in Nulka.

 

[alexsa]

If memory serves me correctly the DE installation was specifically designed to slot into the space originally used for the Limbo and its magazine. The RN set up was weird as they, bizarrely for a guided weapon, required it to be able to aim precisely, meaning it had extremely complex (and apparently noisy) hydraulics, plus (although supposedly never embarked) facilities to stow and fit a nuclear depth charge in place of the torpedo.

Ikara could have quite easily have been retrofitted to the Battle and Daring class destroyers, while the replacement system, Super Ikara, was canister launched and could have been fitted pretty much to any suitable ship in the same fashion as Exocet, Harpoon etc. Super Ikara was a joint Australian Italian project and Italy's Milas system apparently has a fair bit of Super Ikara dna on the software side, while the rocket motor developed for it ended up in Nulka.

Until they mid 80's Swan and Torrens had both Ikara and the 10" duck gun (Limbo). From 84 I think Limbo was removed and replaced with the Triple TT each side.

 

[Volkodav]

The Type 12s were designed with twin Limbo aft. Even the Leanders retained a single limbo aft of their heli deck, removed when the deck was extended for Lynx. Bristol also had Limbo aft, strange really as if they deleted it they could have had space for helicopter facilities or alternatively used the RAN Ikara installation aft and fitted something else forward, i.e. a second Seadart, Seawolf or Exocet.

 

[ASSAIL]

If memory serves me correctly the DE installation was specifically designed to slot into the space originally used for the Limbo and its magazine. The RN set up was weird as they, bizarrely for a guided weapon, required it to be able to aim precisely, meaning it had extremely complex (and apparently noisy) hydraulics, plus (although supposedly never embarked) facilities to stow and fit a nuclear depth charge in place of the torpedo.

Ikara could have quite easily have been retrofitted to the Battle and Daring class destroyers, while the replacement system, Super Ikara, was canister launched and could have been fitted pretty much to any suitable ship in the same fashion as Exocet, Harpoon etc. Super Ikara was a joint Australian Italian project and Italy's Milas system apparently has a fair bit of Super Ikara dna on the software side, while the rocket motor developed for it ended up in Nulka.

The last 4 DEs weren't ever fitted with double MMk10 mounts. Stuart and Derwent were retrofitted with Ikara which occupied the space previously used by VDS. Swan and Torrens were built with Ikara.
The linked image shows her still fitted with VDS
https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/4773178457

 

[Volkodav]

The last 4 DEs weren't ever fitted with double MMk10 mounts. Stuart and Derwent were retrofitted with Ikara which occupied the space previously used by VDS. Swan and Torrens were built with Ikara.
The linked image shows her still fitted with VDS
https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/4773178457

Cool, thanks.

Ive actually got a few of Paul Webbs prints and plans, met him in Melbourne when I was visiting my grandparents when I was still in school. Probably 1986 from memory.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Ikara development footage

For all you Ikara tragics out there.
You even get to see and hear an Ikara cook off!

https://d2bx93w6kas18u.cloudfront.net/titles/ikarathe/ikarathe1_pr.mp4

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1983/1983 - 0235.html

rb