1.I said vietnam because it is planning to get six improved kilos from russia
2. Trust me bringing India on your side is not that simple as you will find out in the future.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
2. Trust me bringing India on your side is not that simple as you will find out in the future.
@ Ananda
1. I said indonesia because of australias involvement in timor and also because of indonesias sub purchase that you already mentioned.
2. Yet another point is australia taking on china which is a fiasco in its own right.I can give several arguments but it will become very lengthy.More if time permits.
1. I said indonesia because of australias involvement in timor and also because of indonesias sub purchase that you already mentioned.
2. Yet another point is australia taking on china which is a fiasco in its own right.I can give several arguments but it will become very lengthy.More if time permits.
Agreed.Austra;lia could never take on china.Aus will allways be in a coalition in the event of a skirmish with china.
There are also Merwede designs which can be seen at their website:
NAVAL
There are also a few designs of the Falcon OPV/corvette around 2000 tons displacement. One has a very similar appearance as the LCS.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
So the ANZAC replacements will be 7000 ton frigates equipped with TACTOM. I'm assuming they will be built off the AWD hull, and i might also assume that they will have 6x Mk 41VLS??? I guess they will want to equip them with a home grown radar (ala AUSPAR) and SM-2/6? So might it be the case that we will have 3 or 4 AWD's and 8 de-facto AWD's with comparable armaments, the same radar and a home grown non AEGIS combat system? Talk about more capability!!!
The RAN of 2030 is going to make the current orbat look second rate!
The RAN of 2030 is going to make the current orbat look second rate!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Well, lets see it delivered as promised first. It's all well and good to promise it, but ADF has to find $2b a year in savings to make it happen...
The last time ADF had to find such savings (ie: early 90's), infantry units were running around the bush yelling "bang" at each other as a training exercise...
battlensign
New Member
I am just throwing this out there........but might that have something to do with the fact that the current RAN Orbat is "second rate" ?
(quite literally, given the origin of that term lol
)Brett.
Last edited by a moderator:
This was actually a result from the Submarine Sutainability review, not the white paper. It was intened to provide stability to the submariners postings, so when they get put to shore for two years they mean two years; unlike now where they get a phone call in 3 weeks time saying they are off to sea again. It will help dramatically to a submariners personal life, but was only one of many recommendations.
Already the tide is shifting in the RAN and they are really starting to focus on wowing new recruits towards subs (much better than the skimmers atm).
I am however surprised at 12 subs. I would have thought it more prudent to have slightly less subs and not have to find the "budget savings", however I am no politician
What are the likely options for these 6 new "heavy landing craft with improved ocean-going capabilities"
The improved ocean-going capabilities is interesting considering the RAN currently operates the LCH class (which has a range of 1,300 nautical miles with a payload of175 tonnes)
The LCU Mark 10 doesn't seen to offer these improved ocean going capabilties, what about the LCU (R) or even HLCAC? Are there other options?
Last edited:
Well if they want BMD they are going to need atleast 4x AEGIS AWD's and SM-3 or have AEGIS on the 7,000t frigates (intergrated with AUSPAR?! I doubt that is feasable). The devil is in the details. I still think 4 AWD is better than 3 AWD's regardless of what the ANZAC replacements are.
Exactly how realistic are these cost savings anyway. They could promise a CVN group if defence could cut $25 billion. Doesn't mean its going to happen.
I thought 8 subs was the magic number we wanted to build with Collins. I think if we could fully operate and build 8 reliable subs, that would still be a significant increase over what we have.
There is nothing in the White Paper about BMD. To defend the Australian homeland against WMDs there will be some more decontamination equipment... How nice...
As to BMD on an AWD it is very unlikely to be SM-3 because it is designed to be a mid course weapon amongst a suite of BMD systems. A far more likely choice for the RAN would be Sea Based MSE (improved PAC-3 missile) as it provides terminal defence and is much, much cheaper (each SM-3 costs well over $10-20 million).
battlensign
New Member
Abe, how would the Sea Based MSE work? Is that Mk 41 VLS capable or is there another system?
I think the FSC BMD comment was in relation to Patrick Walter's Leak about a week and a half ago that suggested the FSC might be tasked with such a role - seemed strange to me too....
Brett.
Sea Based MSE is VLS tactical and strike length compatible. You could probably quad pack them like an ESSM. MSE stands for Missile Segment Enhancement and is sometimes referred to as PAC-4. It is an improved version of the Patriot PAC-3 missile with better kinematics and seeking. The US Navy is developing it as a terminal phase BMD capability.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/PAC-3_Product-Card.pdf
Despite the name this is the Sea Based MSE brochure.
The SEA 5000 NGC could still be equipped with Sea based MSE for BMD but without AEGIS to target it. It is more than feasible that the Australian CEA-FAR and 9LV Mk 4 could be developed for a terminal phase BMD capability. Just stick another phased array radar face pointing upwards.
battlensign
New Member
A) What about your SDSS launch systems for the F-100 flightdeck (one on each side for 32 ESSM and 32 MSE[PAC-4])? Would leave 16 cells in the Mk 41 for TLAM and 32 for SM6. Would also still leave room for my 42 SeaRAM missiles! We'll get this thing more firepower than the DeathStar yet!
B) That would be really funny if they did add a panel pointing upwards and included MSE. I note the AAW role indicated on the pamplet. I am thinking an FSC with 32 ESSM, 64 MSE(PAC-4) and 24 TLAM on an evolved F-100 hull.........
...actually on that note it could have another 32 ESSM, 32 MSE(PAC-4) and 42 SeaRAM as well..........11 DeathStars! Would 64 ESSM, 96 MSE(PAC-4), 24 TLAM and 42 SeaRAM be overkill for a frigate? Oh, dear now I sound like a fanboy fanatic......
Brett.
Just reading that BAE systems will be given the chance to bid for the building of the collins replacement subs after the rudd government confirmed it would open the tender to competition.
According to the finacial review the rudd government has abandoned its 2007 election pledge to give the work to ASC.
My question is,is there a possibilty the subs could be constructed offshore?
(providing theres merit to the acticle)
Also it goes on to say the south aus governnment has developed a common user facility at port adelaide which could be used as a competitor to ASC.
Also BAE has a substantial ship building presence in its williamstown shipyards in vic and can draw on its parent submarine building workforce in the uk.
Could these subs be built in vic?
Or the uk?
????????
According to the finacial review the rudd government has abandoned its 2007 election pledge to give the work to ASC.
My question is,is there a possibilty the subs could be constructed offshore?
(providing theres merit to the acticle)
Also it goes on to say the south aus governnment has developed a common user facility at port adelaide which could be used as a competitor to ASC.
Also BAE has a substantial ship building presence in its williamstown shipyards in vic and can draw on its parent submarine building workforce in the uk.
Could these subs be built in vic?
Or the uk?
????????
A senior chinese military strategist has criticised prime minister rudd over the white paper being predicated on a potential conflict with china.
Rear admiral Yang Yi,who was involved in drafting chinas white paper,warned it was crazy for australia to spawn a new china threat thesis that risked inciting a regional arms race.
SBMSE is too long to fit into a SDSS VLS.A) What about your SDSS launch systems for the F-100 flightdeck (one on each side for 32 ESSM and 32 MSE[PAC-4])? Would leave 16 cells in the Mk 41 for TLAM and 32 for SM6. Would also still leave room for my 42 SeaRAM missiles! We'll get this thing more firepower than the DeathStar yet!
I don't think the RAN would be too keen to replace all SM-2s with SM-6. SM-6 gives you a great over the horizon capability (assuming you have some AEW around to target it) but reliance on active homing will increase your risk to being decoyed by high end strike fighters (equipped with Turds). Particularity in the middle 25-50km or so where the RAN is going to want to make sure it takes down everything that comes that close.
Weapons that don't need a Mk 99 fire control system are likely to be carried in the NGC: SM-6, TLAM, VLA (if the ASW mantra gets some more sway) and SBMSE (which is an active homer). Because of AEGIS CEC these weapons can be used by the AWD as if they were onboard.
I just through that upwards pointing array in there almost as a joke. The arrays are a pretty cheap element of overall cost (why the ANZACs will have 28) but you could also just cant back at least two or more of the lateral facing arrays. Probably give better top coverage and redundancy.B) That would be really funny if they did add a panel pointing upwards and included MSE. I note the AAW role indicated on the pamplet. I am thinking an FSC with 32 ESSM, 64 MSE(PAC-4) and 24 TLAM on an evolved F-100 hull.........
I doubt we will see SeaRAM on RAN ships. Phalanx's role as a great swarm boat chopper upper has confirmed its future.
Of the AWD and NGC's 48 cells (assuming NGC is a F100 hull and keeps the full alotment) you would probably have each ship carrying 32 ESSM and 32 SBMSE. ESSM would be your standard 5-25km zone defence (it can go further). SBMSE's great kinematics provides a far more capable than RAM terminal zone defence (<5km) against cruise missiles (as well as BMD capability).
If each AWD has two NGCs then the AWD can carry 32 SM-2s for mid range assured defence (terminal illumination). The NGCs can carry another 32 SM-6s for barrier and over the horizon defence (you need a lot of these missiles if you are going to be shooting them at long range as a lot will be thrown away as the threats poke the defences). The remaining 32 cells (16 on each NGC) can be for TLAM or anything else that becomes desired (VLA for ASW or SLATACMS for amphibious landing support).
That would give your RAN Destoyer Flotilla of the Future (1 AWD, 2 NGC):
32 SM-6 (barrier air defence)
32 SM-2 (close enough to be a threat air defence)
96 ESSM (close air defence and short range surface strike)
96 SBMSE (terminal air defence and ballistic missile defence)
24 TLAM (long range surface strike)
24 Harpoon (anti ship and medium range surface strike)
8 Extras
PS Actual missile loadout is heavily classified so fanboy it up...
Every country has the right to protect its own territory.Australia is just trying to do that.Hey apart from china,if all these plans are implemented the aus sub force may even give indian navy sub force a good run for their money as India is weak in subs.The main strength of Indian navy in the near future will be from the surface combatants.
The French L-CAT would be an option. Also amphibious developments of the Australian fast catamarans.
The US Navy is starting the ball rolling on the T-Craft or Sea Base to Shore Connector (SSC) program for a big hovercraft. It would be ideal.
Capability List:
1. Un-refueled range, in a no cargo condition, of 2,500 nautical miles in a Fuel Efficient/ Good Sea Keeping Mode (20 knots, through Sea State 5)
2. Open ocean operations through Sea State 6 (through Sea State 4 in High Speed/Shallow Water Mode) and survivable in Sea State 8.
3. Maximum Speed, full load condition in High Speed, Shallow Water Mode = ~40 knots through top end of Sea State 4.
4. Amphibious capability, in Amphibious Mode, to traverse sand bars and mud flats thereby providing a “feet dry on the beach” capability.
5. Ability to convert between modes at-sea without any external assistance.
6. Maximum un-refueled range in High Speed/Shallow Water Mode = ~500-600 nautical miles (40 knots, through Sea State 4).
7. Ability to mitigate wave-induced motions in Sea State 4/5 to enable rapid vehicle transfer (loading/un-loading) between the T-CRAFT and a Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future)/Sealift ship.
8. To be used as an assault connector and a logistics connector.
battlensign
New Member
I like your style!
But in relation to missile loadout - we already know that FFHs carry 32 ESSM, FFGs will carry 32 ESSM and 40 SM2 and that the AWD will carry at least 32 ESSM and 24 SM2/6 - how classified could it be?
Brett.
P.S if the Govt goes ahead with TLAM for 11 SCs and 12Subs (each carrying min of 8) = min of 184 TLAMs in the fleet......
- Status