Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The RAN has a program in place for a UAV to operate off Surface Ships. The only types currently available are Helicopters, no STOVL designs currently available.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
There do seem to be a number of projects looking into STOVL UAVs.
There is a growing list of nations operating, or building light carriers so there would be a huge potential market for this kind of aircraft. I am surprised that there isn't already an example being shopped around.
BTW I think in all the sea5000 anticipation some may have missed a great shot of Suffren looking almost finished.
From Submarine Matters: Launch of French Barracuda SSN delayed by Reactor
Plus much speculation about Korea's interests in a low enriched SSN. Which is apparently causing delay in the build.
From Submarine Matters: Launch of French Barracuda SSN delayed by Reactor
Plus much speculation about Korea's interests in a low enriched SSN. Which is apparently causing delay in the build.
The RAN has also trialled Scaneagle, however to call it STOVL might be a bit of a stretch - although it does have a (very) short take off, and it lands (in a fashio) vertically.
The helo presently being evaluated is of course the S-100 Camcopter
John Newman
The Bunker Group
If Navy is eventually looking for a 'large' future UAV, the one to keep an eye on will be the Bell V-247 Vigilant (a tilt rotor UAV design):
http://www.uasvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/V-247-Vigilant-Fact-Sheet.pdf
And this:
Bell V-247 Vigilant - Wikipedia
Not in production yet, still development and design phase, but it appears to tick all the boxes for a large long endurance UAV that has many options for the payload, either weapons or sensors. It's a large bird, has the footprint of a UH-1Y Venom.
Certainly would be handy on the LHDs, and is also capable of being operated of USN DDGs (and in RAN terms, I couldn't see a problem with them operating from the Hunter class FFGs either)
One to watch for the future!!
Cheers,
I keep wondering if the nine ships will be designated as a class by ‘batches’. The build process already alludes to an evolved design through the life of the build ..... much in the same way the RN had batches of its T42 and T22..... so perhaps the second and third trio will use a different naming convention.With the first new frigate being named the "Hunter' class then for our WA friends I suggest an appropriate name for their state would be "Dirk Hartog"
Just spit balling but it is an idea.
Except that they will be named after regions and although your suggestion may be an island it doesn’t meet the criteria. HoweverWith the first new frigate being named the "Hunter' class then for our WA friends I suggest an appropriate name for their state would be "Dirk Hartog"
i think that would be highly unusual as there are examples from the past which show the way.
The original 8 x River class were followed very quickly by the 4 Bays but those names remained as rivers (Condamine, Culgoa, Murchison and Shoalhaven).
So if they decide to stick with regions there are a number of names which have been used previously which could be applied, Derwent, Swan, Otway, Torrens, Shoalhaven and Barcoo for starters.
In many cases regions and river are synonymous so that helps.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The other thing that could happen is each batch has a seperate theme. Which would follow the Anzacs to a degree. First you had Anzac(both a previous name and to represent the 2 Countries). then the 2 Tribal names, then 2 Rivers and 3 City names to finish them off. With 2 Capital names available(Melbourne & Darwin) it may make sense and the possibility exists that future batches may be slightly less ASW centric.
Since I was the only one who correctly predicted choosing the Type 26, I'm going to make another prediction.
Between 2025-2030, there will be announcements of increases in both the number of vls cells per ship from 32 to between 56-88, and number of frigates built will increase from 9 to 15.
Go ahead, mock me........ again, hehe!
Between 2025-2030, there will be announcements of increases in both the number of vls cells per ship from 32 to between 56-88, and number of frigates built will increase from 9 to 15.
Go ahead, mock me........ again, hehe!
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Why would you want to get rid of the mission bay on the Hunter class FFGs? Why?
One of the things I particularly like on the Hunters is the flexibility that the mission bay offers.
Storage for an additional MH-60R, and/or a UAV or UAVs, extra RHIBs for a special forces operation (and their equipment), containers for HADR, containers for future UAVs, air, surface and underwater, lots of options for the future.
On the other side of the coin, if, and I say 'if', the Hunter class design was eventually evolved further as a replacement for the Hobart class DDGs, then yes the back half of the ship does appear to lend itself for significant changes.
As the design stands at the moment, there is the large flight deck (Chinook size capable), with the single hangar in front of it, followed by the mission bay.
Where I could see a potential future 'reconfiguration' of the hanger/mission bay (again specifically for the DDGs with a primary AAW focus), is to remove the ships RHIBs (which sit either side of the single hangar), increase the height either side where the 30mm guns sit, 'square' it off to make a true double side by side hangar, and then move the RHIBs to either side of the mission bay, then the 'guts' of the mission bay could potentially be used for a significant increase in Strike Length Mk41 VLS.
Anyway, I'm happy with the configuration of the Hunters in their FFG role, but maybe there is the potential for changes when it comes time to replace the DDGs.
Cheers,
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Sure, here goes.Since I was the only one who correctly predicted choosing the Type 26, I'm going to make another prediction.
Between 2025-2030, there will be announcements of increases in both the number of vls cells per ship from 32 to between 56-88, and number of frigates built will increase from 9 to 15.
Go ahead, mock me........ again, hehe!
1st WTF is the space for an additional 24 to 56 VLS cells going to come from? Are you advocating that a hull plug be installed to provide the additional space required for that many VLS cells per ship?
Additionally, to increase the VLS cell count to 56 per frigate (aside from being an uncommon multiple of 8 in terms of VLS) that would mean a total VLS cell count increase of 216 cells across the nine Hunter-class frigate build. If the number were to be on the highest end (88 VLS cells + six additional frigates) that would be an increase of 1,032 VLS cells across the RAN, beyond the 288 planned for VLS cells in the Hunter-class.
Unless something like WWIII appeared to be imminent, I just cannot see such a drastic increase in firepower for the RAN. Also, while I believe that there is a space/weight margin within the Hunter-class design which could potentially permit fitting additional VLS cells (likely only an extra 8 - 16 cells) as has already been noted within the thread modifying a design to fit more VLS cells is not a simple or easy matter even if the design left space set aside specifically to add extra VLS cells in the future.
In a similar vein, why would the RAN major surface combatant fleet see a 50% in numbers? Or would that increase actually be a replace for the Hobart-class DDG's? Keep in mind that construction of the 1st of class is planned to start in 2020 with an anticipated entry into service towards the end of the decade, and that the pace of construction is expected to be a new vessel every 24 months on average. This would suggest that the 9th Hunter-class frigate should commence construction around 2038 with the 10th through 15th vessels (in the unlikely event they were to be ordered) starting construction in 2040, 2042, 2044, 2046, 2048, and lastly 2050.
Even if the vessels are to be built in batches, I highly doubt that a hull design from 2018 would be particularly relevant or fit for service in ~2080, which would be when the 15th vessel would ordinarily be expected to serve until.
With the benefit of hindsight, there were a lot of clues that Australia was always going to opt for the F-26.Since I was the only one who correctly predicted choosing the Type 26, I'm going to make another prediction.
Between 2025-2030, there will be announcements of increases in both the number of vls cells per ship from 32 to between 56-88, and number of frigates built will increase from 9 to 15.
Go ahead, mock me........ again, hehe!
The first clue that the navy wasn't going to build any more Hobarts was when it opted to run a new competition for a ship to replace the Anzacs rather than simply continuing the Hobart production line. I guess it should be remembered that the Hobart was not the navy's first choice. They wanted the bigger more capable AB clone.
The second clue was when Australia started to cooperate with the British on the Type 26 design back in 2013. No doubt the navy presented BAE with a wish list of requirements and I have no doubt that BAE took these requests into account when they finalised the design on the new ship.
That theType 26 even made the final three was probably also a clue as the Type 26 was still well and truly a paper ship at that stage.
The months leading up to the selection of theType 26 seemed to feature regular meetings between Australian and British ministers. What some might not realise is that the British Prime Minister's husband works for BAE biggest shareholder ... so you can develop your own conspiracy theories about that. Anyway with everything from free trade agreements to improved defence relationships on the line it must have been obvious that the politicians would probably want to go with British design.
As a result the navy got what it wanted back in 2005. A 9000 ton Aegis equipped warship capable of operating two helicopters and with substantial growth margins. As for more VLS ... possibly ... although I think initially it will just have the 32 VLS. Looking at the graphics there does appear to be room for additional VLS in front of the current launchers.
Will Australia build more than 9?
Well the ongoing shipbuilding plan could see construction continue beyond the 9 ships already planned. It is too soon to say whether or not the Hobarts will be retired early or the navy will increase its number of escorts.
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
You want to be mocked? Ok, consider it done!Since I was the only one who correctly predicted choosing the Type 26, I'm going to make another prediction.
Between 2025-2030, there will be announcements of increases in both the number of vls cells per ship from 32 to between 56-88, and number of frigates built will increase from 9 to 15.
Go ahead, mock me........ again, hehe!
As the old saying goes, "be careful what you wish for, you might just get it".
So how do you know that you were the only one to correctly predict the T26? Do you have a crystal ball and can read others minds? (I think not).
Increase the VLS? Double it or more? Well if you go back a number of pages, Samoa (who was involved in the process), did state that the VLS count could increase, if required by Government. But then of course it still comes down to the need and also the funds to actually put something in all those extra VLS.
Increase the number of Hunters from 9 to 15? What the f...? So please explain the justification for that? 15 FFGs plus 3 DDGs, 18 MFUs.
What is the strategic requirement? Where does the budget come from? Where does the manpower come from? And all the extra costs for operating and infrastructure too, where???
Anyway, you wanted to be mocked, you got it!
Cheers,
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Well 3-1 are pretty good odds.Since I was the only one who correctly predicted choosing the Type 26, I'm going to make another prediction.
Between 2025-2030, there will be announcements of increases in both the number of vls cells per ship from 32 to between 56-88, and number of frigates built will increase from 9 to 15.
Go ahead, mock me........ again, hehe!
Increase the MFU size to 18!!!! god i hope not that would mean some pretty serious S**t has gone down somewhere. Increase the AOR numbers to 4 would make more sense(they are a force multiplier)
t68
Well-Known Member
Its interesting you bring up the Strategic requirement, I remember some years ago GF on these forums when discussing the build up of a certain nation defence force that they expect them to be able to compete with the US in a peer/peer skirmish in the 2035/40 time frame was the most likely and earliest long term view.
But from my perspective this is the time that the a majority of the new kit within the ADF will come up to FOC, the way the ADF is increasing its capability over legacy kit seems to suggest their maybe an element of truth to GF's theorising from a strategic capability view
Certainly recent signals are pointing that things are worse and quicker.
'China will challenge US naval supremacy within a year'
Nocookies
We should have had Sea5000/Sea1000 already hitting the water (maybe IOC 2020), but that would have required and almost impossible set of circumstances and we just weren't that pessimistic enough then, we predicted things would generally happen at the same rate and there wouldn't be this increased tempo of events.
I think we have a good plan for the ship building aspect, but if we intend to bulk up by ship building it is now (mostly) too late. We should probably look at OTS purchases that can augment what we have and what we will have. Force multipliers, supporters and upgrades. I would be putting orders for things than can easily be accommodated. We can probably replace Harpoon with NSM in a short amount of time, increasing the range, the number and the effectiveness of that type of weapon very significantly. We can maybe keep harpoon long enough that there isn't a capability gap if we act now. Putting 12 NSM box launchers on all the surface units would be something we could announce now and be mid way though doing it in a year or two. No hole cutting required, there is still significant engineering, but it is more of the doable kind. Acquiring some seaRAM launchers I think would be in much the same category. If we started aggressively acquiring now we might get in before the rush.
We need to seal and strengthen the alliances of what we have. Batten the hatches. We have now pretty much selected most of the medium and long term build stuff. I wonder if there will be a rash of announcement for more immediate capability.
'China will challenge US naval supremacy within a year'
Personally I think it is too late. I also recall experienced members talking about 2020+ being the period where things are expected to be, different. I think we are nearly already there. By 2030 I would expect we would be out the other side and there would be a new world order of some sort. We also have to prepare for that too.
Nocookies
We should have had Sea5000/Sea1000 already hitting the water (maybe IOC 2020), but that would have required and almost impossible set of circumstances and we just weren't that pessimistic enough then, we predicted things would generally happen at the same rate and there wouldn't be this increased tempo of events.
I think we have a good plan for the ship building aspect, but if we intend to bulk up by ship building it is now (mostly) too late. We should probably look at OTS purchases that can augment what we have and what we will have. Force multipliers, supporters and upgrades. I would be putting orders for things than can easily be accommodated. We can probably replace Harpoon with NSM in a short amount of time, increasing the range, the number and the effectiveness of that type of weapon very significantly. We can maybe keep harpoon long enough that there isn't a capability gap if we act now. Putting 12 NSM box launchers on all the surface units would be something we could announce now and be mid way though doing it in a year or two. No hole cutting required, there is still significant engineering, but it is more of the doable kind. Acquiring some seaRAM launchers I think would be in much the same category. If we started aggressively acquiring now we might get in before the rush.
We need to seal and strengthen the alliances of what we have. Batten the hatches. We have now pretty much selected most of the medium and long term build stuff. I wonder if there will be a rash of announcement for more immediate capability.
I think there is a risk of over-stating the Chinese threat. At best, all the Chinese are capable of is securing the South China Sea - ie securing their own coastline. Their ability to penetrate outside the first island chain is minimal, and will for be a long time. While Chinese dominance of the South China Sea is not good to a western POV, it is far from the sort of existential threat, to anyone, that would require a crash rearmament program.
For those interested in strategy and it’s effects on the modern world, I recommend George Friedman’s ‘The Next 100 Years’. While it is already slightly dated, and the predictions past about 2030 are purely science fiction, its true value is not in predicting the future but explaining the present. I think it gives a good geopolitical overview of why China will not dominate the world the way a lot of commentators say they will.
For those interested in strategy and it’s effects on the modern world, I recommend George Friedman’s ‘The Next 100 Years’. While it is already slightly dated, and the predictions past about 2030 are purely science fiction, its true value is not in predicting the future but explaining the present. I think it gives a good geopolitical overview of why China will not dominate the world the way a lot of commentators say they will.
- Status