the road runner
Active Member
I have Uploaded a few pictures of Nu Ship Hobart when it was at FBE last week in the "Defence Talk ..picture section" Still waiting for them to be approved 
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Say what? NUSHIP Hobart shares the same number as HMAS Hobart (II), also a DDG. NUSHIP Brisbane shares the same number as HMAS Brisbane (II) which again was a DDG. The only one not taking a former DDG pennant will be NUSHIP Sydney, because the preceding DDG was HMAS Perth and the name is still taken by an ANZAC class.
On the naming of Choules, I wouldn't have been at all unhappy to see her christened Jervis Bay, but the name actually used is highly appropriate given her role, the ongoing historical anniversaries and the life and career of Claude Choules who served in both the RN and RAN (HMAS Choules in both RFA and RAN)
oldsig
Pennant Numbers - quoted from the RAN Semaphore from 2010.
"The RAN largely followed the RN system until 1964 and then adopted the USN qatyle numbers in 1969. The RAN draws these numbers from a block allocation made in Annex B of ACP 113, edition AH. These blocks of numbers are allocated by ship type and country. For example the Anzac Class are numbered Frigate hull numbers from 150 to 168 which are allocated to Australia as are 01 a 07, 20-23, 442-449 and 531-539. Similarly the three DDGs have been allocated numbers from within Australia's destroyer block 38-42
With the exception of the US and Canada, other navies which use the ACP 113 allocation include Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, UK, Greece, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, Neerlands, Norway, NZ, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey."
Allocations are also made for Amphibious vessels in the same publication.
The RANs discretion is only limited to within the band.
I have paraphrased some sections within the quotation so it's not an exact quote.
I
And just for reference
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/NATO_Symbols/ACP113AH.pdf
Agree with what has been said, probably the only problem I had was the numbering of the LHD's, having taken the same number as the FFG namesakes.
Normal protocol would be the block numbers as stated, but the first ship of Class normally has the lower number of the block, but I got over it, even as an ex Sig
So if I can I am sure everyone else can too !ACP 113 is updated on a regular basis, not sure where we are up to at the moment, but the basics don't change
Cheers
Pyne makes more noises regarding missile defence.
Missile defence flagged over Korea threats | SBS News
In the wake of the rogue nation's latest missile launch, Mr Pyne says Australia may modify the $1.3 billion defence system announced in June to be seaborne rather than land-borne.
"In the defence white paper, and the integrated investment plan, upgrades of the warfare destroyer capabilities have been already flagged," he told reporters in Adelaide on Wednesday.
It would seem that signs are pointing more to a SM-3 type capability. IMO that is a reasonable move. IMO SM-3 is a better fit for Australia, also I think if we were to go into THAAD, then wait for future versions (THAAD-ER? SM-3 type capability).
IMO SM-6 and SM-3 would seem to be a pretty extensive BMD capability for Australia.
Then the question comes down to how do we incorporate that. How long would it take to upgrade the AWD's? Or are we better at looking at new ships with that capability.
Missile defence flagged over Korea threats | SBS News
In the wake of the rogue nation's latest missile launch, Mr Pyne says Australia may modify the $1.3 billion defence system announced in June to be seaborne rather than land-borne.
"In the defence white paper, and the integrated investment plan, upgrades of the warfare destroyer capabilities have been already flagged," he told reporters in Adelaide on Wednesday.
It would seem that signs are pointing more to a SM-3 type capability. IMO that is a reasonable move. IMO SM-3 is a better fit for Australia, also I think if we were to go into THAAD, then wait for future versions (THAAD-ER? SM-3 type capability).
IMO SM-6 and SM-3 would seem to be a pretty extensive BMD capability for Australia.
Then the question comes down to how do we incorporate that. How long would it take to upgrade the AWD's? Or are we better at looking at new ships with that capability.
t68
Well-Known Member
I think it was AD who brought it up some time ago, if they move the BMD capabilty from land to ship bourne systems how do we have permenate coverage with only 3 ships and also provide escort or deployment oversea. Won't happenwith any meaningfull capabilty unless all future frigates become BMD capabile as well.
From my view it's awaits of time, least with a land capabilty they could I theroy have permeant capbilty rotating people in and out similer to US MCC
Australia does not have the budget to create a meaningful BMD capability based at various land stations across this vast continent.
What we do have is a Defence Capability Plan which signals a BMD capability (the upgrade of Aegis and the acquisition of SM3 or SM6 for the DDGs in the near future.
That plan requires relatively little disruption to current defence planning, manning levels and budgets, it's allowed for.
Further upgrading the ships is a flexible deterrent which can be applied anywhere at any time depending on the strategic circumstance.
The fact that there are only three ships so fitted is not ideal but is realistic and the only real option available.
the road runner
Active Member
With Pyne talking about missile defence and Kim Jong throwing missiles all over the place i am curious if this could be a call to build more AWD/Flight 2 AWD ?
I was always under the impression that 3 AWD was on the lite side !
Arguably the F-5000 is a flight II+. If you were to put a Spy-1D(V) radar on it you have basically an upgraded and modern build AWD. I'm not really sure going the 1D would really be an upgrade to the F-5000 design over the quite capable Auspar.
Any Australian BMD capability was always about short and medium range missile threats to deployed forces. There is nothing available that Australia can afford that will stop an ICBM warhead in re-entry. SM- 3 or -6 is are for short and medium range ballistic missiles. I am afraid all the punters in Sydney and Melbourne will have to take their chances or fork out for some very expensive ground based interceptors (GBI).
Still not sure how a destroyer equipped with BMD will stop a two-meter long Ballistic missile warhead plunging near vertically at 7 to 9 times the speed of sound. A quick check of the map also tells me that these missiles will probably cross the Australian coastline around about Darwin. So odds are that they won't get much of a look at it before they shoot.
Even if these ships were based just off the Korean coast I would have my doubts about how effective they would be.
This also a long way off being a problem anyway. North Korea have still got a lot of work to do before they could be considered any sort of real threat.
They nuclear warheads would need to be miniaturised, the warheads would need to be able to survive reentry and then there is the accuracy issue.
Even if these ships were based just off the Korean coast I would have my doubts about how effective they would be.
This also a long way off being a problem anyway. North Korea have still got a lot of work to do before they could be considered any sort of real threat.
They nuclear warheads would need to be miniaturised, the warheads would need to be able to survive reentry and then there is the accuracy issue.
Ignoring the BMD part for now, Do we know how 1D and Auspar compare to one another? Advantages/Disadvantages between them? weights? Costs? Upgradability? Maintenance? etc.
Would be interesting to see.
Cheers.
Well Block IIA SM-3 will have a speed of Mach 15.25, with a range in excess of 2,500km. You also need to read and understand how the SM-3 is used.
I also have no doubt that Raytheon Australia would not have too many problems integrating it with CEA & SAAB, BMD is not reliant on Aegis, it is not exclusive.
With the speed and range, I think it is not over the top to achieve both ship borne and land based SM-3 BMD, with that range we could cover the top end pretty well I think, concentrating on the approach areas giving plenty of time and space to take down a threat. Good thing is we know where they will come from !
Happy to be corrected
Cheers
This article shows the thoughts of Mr Pyne and mostly what will be proposed. Missile defence flagged over Korea threats | SBS News.
SM-3 are very capable and are only going to increase in capability.
I'd say soon to be the standard carry of any Mk41 destroyer on operations.
Muar River
Member
Could the future frigates be fitted with Aegis/CEAFAR2? Bigger upfront costs but the benefits of commonality across the fleet, tapping into the US upgrades of Aegis (on the AWDs and perhaps future frigates) plus fleet standard training makes for a strong case for standardisation.
I'll allow someone else to answer your question on Aegis/CEAFAR2.
But I'd say that it would be essential to have the Aegis combat system, because after all, they are going to be destroyer sized ships that will be tasked with deployments that may need destroyer capabilities.
Aegis is the overall best and most upgradable system due to it's updated baselines and development teams behind it.
On another topic, the SM-6 has just proven it's use in BMD in a recent test:
US Navy shoots down ballistic missile in test.
There is apparently some room to add more VLS on the F-105 design, not sure how much there is on the F-5000 (or the other Sea5000) but I recall something about its margins being moved upwards.
Also the point is Australia isn't as an individual nation trying to stop North Korea, it will obviously be part of a coalition. North Korea isn't Australia's specific problem.
Australia being able to sustain one or two significant ships to the region would be a big help. You would be adding significantly to the US, Japan and Korean capability.
One lone ship isn't likely to be effective. ~20 Aegis ships, from a coalition of nations, just off the coast, supported by a network of land sea and air sensors and capabilities, is much more likely to be effective. Not 100%, but much more able to limit the damage from the threats.
Australia needs to be able to meaningfully contribute to such coalitions. It would put pressure on other western countries to contribute.
IMO I think we should go back to the original spirit of the 2009 white paper, all the frigates should be BMD capable. So in that I would include firing SM-3 (and SM-6) type capability in all of them. While perhaps only purchasing a small number of SM-3, having the ability to deploy them from a large number of ships is likely to be very valuable in a long term security deployment.
Trying to protect everyone with your weapons along a circumference of a circle with a radius of 8,000km is stupid and impossible. We are much better to place those defensive weapons right next to where they are being fired from, which in this case is a tiny little country that we have access to be very close to. They are going to be much more effective.
IMO Australia should speed up its announcement of sea5000. We should go high end, with the first batch of 3 x F-5000 frigates with Sm-3 capability. We should seek SM-3 approval, now. Perhaps look at 35mm millennium guns for fleet protection as well. NSM announcement would also be quite timely.
I agree with almost everything you just said, What I disagree with is your choice of antiship missile, the NSM, in the long run, will not be nearly as useful as the LRASM.
LRASM has longer range, a relative speed, bigger warhead and most likely an easier supply chain (because of US use).
You make good points otherwise.
- Status