Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Hawklink is up to 20Mbps (at up to 100 Nautical Miles). But I think the speed and reliability is dependent on the distance from the ship and at its lowest speed is 200kbps.

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=166

I imagine that is where a UAV would be ideal, as a general line of sight distance coverage (at least to the popup level). The manned platform would then look further afield and be scrambled to look at interesting contacts. The hawklink data can even be looked at on the same terminal that is used to control firescouts.

Like most things, UAV won't replace everything, they are much more useful to augment and support manned platforms. IMO.

Now that I have had more sleep and a chance to read through the link in detail, it sounds like Hawklink is a tactical datalink designed to function between an MH-60R and it's support surface vessel. As such, I would expect the information being transmitted over the datalink to already have been 'processed' by the workstations and system operator or co-pilot aboard the helicopter, and with the volume of data requiring transmission being lower therefore the bandwidth required would also be lower.

With a UAS the situation would be a bit different. Using a hypothetical radar system fitted to a UAS as an example, I will attempt to illustrate what I am concerned about. Aboard the UAS there would be the actual radar antennae as well as the transceiver, and then a communications link from the transceiver to a workstation aboard or at the asset controlling the UAS. That workstation would be where the processing of the radar signal returns occurs and where a systems operator would be to interpret and observe the results, and possibly changing focus. In order for the workstation to do this processing, the raw radar return information which normally just goes between the antennae, transceiver and onboard workstation would itself need to be transmitted to the control station. I would imagine that if the UAS were kitted out with sonobuoys and/or a dipping sonar, the issue would be even worse since acoustic processing is still much less automatic than radar, and a pair of listening human ears is often needed.

All of these sensor arrays would require two way connections, in addition to the two way connections needed just to fly the UAS.

In the future, I definitely see the potential for a UAS which is basically a high altitude, long endurance radar array to provide an organic AEW capability, since such a system could use either SATCOMM or just have a flight path at altitude to maintain a direct LOS to the host vessel. For a UAS which would be operating at a very low altitude (if using a dipping sonar) or dropping sonobuoys, it would be much harder to maintain a direct LOS, especially if operating in the middle zone which could be 30+ km from the host vessel. Also, there would likely only be a single high altitude AEW UAS operating with a task force at a time since one unit could cover hundreds of km's at once, while ASW ops would likely require several units (manned and UAS) operating together at the same time.

I should have additional thoughts in the coming months, once I get cleared to operate drones for a local agency.

 

[spoz]

The integration issues related to the 20 year crisis embeded in the aircraft not the weapon see anao

I made no judgement about why there was a problem, just stated there was. For four and a quarter years I had oversight of the project trying to integrate it, and for support of the FAA. I know the issues with both the torpedo and the aircraft well. And, for the S-70B-2 Seahawk, there was no “20 year crisis embedded in the aircraft”. There were, as there are with every platform, issues to deal with but that is part of managing a complex weapons system.

 

[Stampede]

Continuing the chat about Light Weight torpedos in service with the RAN.

Is there any substance that these can be used as a CIWS against incoming hostile torpedos.
In other words an anti torpedo / torpedo. ( A hard kill option for torpedo defence )
Appreciate some feed back as to current feasibility and / or future potential.


Regards S

 

[Hazdog]

Continuing the chat about Light Weight torpedos in service with the RAN.

Is there any substance that these can be used as a CIWS against incoming hostile torpedos.
In other words an anti torpedo / torpedo. ( A hard kill option for torpedo defence )
Appreciate some feed back as to current feasibility and / or future potential.


Regards S

This would generally depend on the tracking system that the attacking torpedo is using, being Passive or Active.

- For an active seeker, the reply from the Ships hull would influence it to hit the ships hull, not the smaller reply torpedo.
- In the case of a passive seeker, the torpedo would have to emit a louder noise that the entire hull of the ship, meaning either you need a really quiet hull or a loud torpedo, or even better, both.

But this idea would work in the latter case with both a loud torpedo and a quiet hull.

But the issue would also be the targeting time needed for the attacking torpedo and the combined reaction time of the decoy torpedo.

I hope this helped and welcome any counter points.

 

[Pusser01]

Thanks Pusser01


Out of curiosity was Darwin on it's own and were you near land


Regards S

We relieved a Kiwi ship, can't remember which one. We were then on station for approx. 40 days until relieved by an LPA, might have been Manoora. We were within sight of land most of the time. We had a small SAS contingent onboard aswell as the 2x S70B's. This is case we had to evacuate Aust nationals during the problems there at the time. Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

This would generally depend on the tracking system that the attacking torpedo is using, being Passive or Active.

- For an active seeker, the reply from the Ships hull would influence it to hit the ships hull, not the smaller reply torpedo.
- In the case of a passive seeker, the torpedo would have to emit a louder noise that the entire hull of the ship, meaning either you need a really quiet hull or a loud torpedo, or even better, both.

But this idea would work in the latter case with both a loud torpedo and a quiet hull.

But the issue would also be the targeting time needed for the attacking torpedo and the combined reaction time of the decoy torpedo.

I hope this helped and welcome any counter points.

IMO it would make a difference whether the inbound torpedoe was a LWT or a heavyweight torpedoe, since some of the heavyweight's can also be wired guided.

Then there is also the issue of moving through the medium of water vs. air, which causes issues with rapid movement.

At present, I am unaware of any sort of anti-torpedoe hard-kill system, though there are a few decoy systems out there which are intended to either mask noise from a surface vessel, or spoof a vessel.

 

[spoz]

LWTs aren’t normally designed to be used against surface targets.

There are a number of active, hard kill, torpedo defence systems which are at least at the advanced development stage and some of these may have been fielded. Both the USN and RN have programs. Attempts to produce such a system go back a long way but it is a very difficult problem.

In addition, as mentioned, there are a number of offboard expendable spoofing systems which are quite widely deployed, as of course are towed decoy systems such as Nixie How effective any of these systems are is certainly not in the public arena!

 

[CB90]

Continuing the chat about Light Weight torpedos in service with the RAN.

Is there any substance that these can be used as a CIWS against incoming hostile torpedos.
In other words an anti torpedo / torpedo. ( A hard kill option for torpedo defence )
Appreciate some feed back as to current feasibility and / or future potential.


Regards S

An MU90 variant is advertised as having a hard kill torpedo defense option...but they have not yet claimed a successful operational test, though supposedly the theoretical capability is available. The challenge would be integrating it into the existing underwater system software (cueing the countermeasure to the detected torpedo in a way where you can get a reasonable chance of successful kill).

For the USN, there has been limited deployment of a hard kill option starting on CVNs. Not sure how much wider it's gotten.
It's not advertised as a LWT (ie not given an ASW or ASuW mission), but in form and deployment method, it's essentially a LWT.
Navy Develops Torpedo Killing Torpedo - USNI News

 

[Todjaeger]

LWTs aren’t normally designed to be used against surface targets.

There are a number of active, hard kill, torpedo defence systems which are at least at the advanced development stage and some of these may have been fielded. Both the USN and RN have programs. Attempts to produce such a system go back a long way but it is a very difficult problem.

In addition, as mentioned, there are a number of offboard expendable spoofing systems which are quite widely deployed, as of course are towed decoy systems such as Nixie How effective any of these systems are is certainly not in the public arena!

IIRC there has been a programme recently, perhaps a USN one, that was to modify LWT's to make it possible to use them in an ASuW role. Mostly vs. large patrol boats and corvettes I would imagine. Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me remember where I had heard about this, or who was running the programme.

 

[Stampede]

We relieved a Kiwi ship, can't remember which one. We were then on station for approx. 40 days until relieved by an LPA, might have been Manoora. We were within sight of land most of the time. We had a small SAS contingent onboard aswell as the 2x S70B's. This is case we had to evacuate Aust nationals during the problems there at the time. Cheers

Thanks for the reply

Sounds like more than just training.
So two helicopter in flight from the same ship is feasible when necessity requires.
I'm sure the crew earned a well deserved rest after 40 days at sea.

Thanks and regards S

 

[MickB]

Really ?

I beg to differ on that opinion.

Going off the thread topic completely - the whole scenario of how things can be influenced can be summed up in two words

CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA

The allegations laid at the door of that company, from a major cyber influence (i.e. Facebook) & the continued implication that the Russians were 'involved' in attempting to effectively influence the outcome of the US elections can draw parallels to the content on many forums across the internet.

You may scoff, laugh or even call me an idiot, but there are people who are paid to produce Blogs / Vlogs & generally post 'good' comments advocating x1 company, while slamming a second in forums such as this.

Depending on the number of website hits (which can be rigged using simple algorithms), little sites can carry a lot of influence as policy makers & governments use hit data & content from search engines such as google to help create 'soundbites' for politicians to review & use, when discussing topics that they are not experts on.

So by putting content on an obscure forum, creating multiple hits & over-enthusing the content & conversations, people can be led astray.

As a Defence Pro, I often look at many forums to garner knowledge on equipment used in other parts of the world, to find out about new technology (not necessarily in military forums) and generally educate myself, so that when I am asked for an opinion, or if I'm aware of a particular equipment or system & the technology/engineering behind it, I can make comment.

Generally, I also do research by visiting company websites & asking for data downloads, or brochures, but looking at forums is generally my starting point.

I agree, you only need to look at disclosure laws enacted about talk back radio to see concerns of paid influence in media.

 

[seaspear]

Is the access of the boxer constrained accessing the Canberra class by the LCM-1E requiring modifications to pillar wall rear of ramp ?

 

[StingrayOZ]

MU90 has a hardkill mode/varient
WASS Flash Back
Heavyweights could probably do a hard kill.

There is a thread here on this.

 

[oldsig127]

Is the access of the boxer constrained accessing the Canberra class by the LCM-1E requiring modifications to pillar wall rear of ramp ?

Care to add a bit of background? I'm having difficulty understanding exactly what issues you're asking about.

oldsig

 

[seaspear]

I have read that there is very little headway for the Boxer on the LCM-1E accessing the ship

 

[oldsig127]

I have read that there is very little headway for the Boxer on the LCM-1E accessing the ship

Is the suggestion that the Boxer is too tall to be on/offloaded via the LCM-1E ? It's certainly tall, but I've not heard or read any discussion of that as an issue; just the usual discussion around possible LCM-1E replacements and changes to the divider to allow air cushion vehicles and larger landing craft access

oldsig

 

[t68]

Is the suggestion that the Boxer is too tall to be on/offloaded via the LCM-1E ? It's certainly tall, but I've not heard or read any discussion of that as an issue; just the usual discussion around possible LCM-1E replacements and changes to the divider to allow air cushion vehicles and larger landing craft access

oldsig

didn't they put both on the LHD during trials, that's when they would have found problems

 

[oldsig127]

didn't they put both on the LHD during trials, that's when they would have found problems

Yes, that's true. Might even be photos in this thread, but at the very least a read of this article on risk mitigation activities shows that these things ARE tested beforehand

Land 400: Risk Mitigation Activity update - Australian Defence Magazine

"The strategic lift is obviously an important part,” BRIG McGlone said explaining the various elements of the RMA so far. “So C-17 and the LHDs are the two strategic lifts that we’ve got to go through. To know that everything works, that we can get them on and off the LHDs, we can get them on and off the LLCs – all of those sorts of things are quite significant waypoints for us.”

oldsig

 

[seaspear]

The pictures I saw showed them loaded from side off the wharf the article raising this was in the Australian oct 6 2017

 

[oldsig127]

The pictures I saw showed them loaded from side off the wharf the article raising this was in the Australian oct 6 2017

I think you can discount about 50% of the stuff you read in The Australian vis a vis defence. They appear to have the most clueless "Defence Correspondents" in our media and an agenda to disrupt and denigrate the government of the day (especially if Labor or the more progressive side of Liberal) and by extension the Department of Defence.

In any case, the RMA included loading the two finalists on/off the LHD and LLC unless Brigadier McGlone is less authoritative than Uncle Rupert's writers

oldsig