IIRC the Serbs did that to some of the small, slow NATO UAVs in 1999. Match course & speed, to give a door gunner an easy shot.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Gday,
The FFG-UP has included the MU90, the fire control panel was updated along with the sonar. From a couple of the briefings that I have heard, it is expected that MU90 will be the torpedo that is fielded with the AWD. Personally I would be surprised if any other torpedo is introduced into the surface fleet.
My understanding is that the MU90 will be cleared for the French NH90 which obviously helps in our case. As for the P8, I guess we would have to bear the cost of intergration, unless we can convince the Indians choose the MU90 for theirs
On a different tack, I wonder how much it would cost to intergrate the Penguin with the NH90?
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not too sure about what the Penguin would cost to integrate onto the NFH-90 (Naval variant), but the cost to integrate it onto the MRH-90 (Tactical Transport variant) would be enormous...Gday,
The FFG-UP has included the MU90, the fire control panel was updated along with the sonar. From a couple of the briefings that I have heard, it is expected that MU90 will be the torpedo that is fielded with the AWD. Personally I would be surprised if any other torpedo is introduced into the surface fleet.
My understanding is that the MU90 will be cleared for the French NH90 which obviously helps in our case. As for the P8, I guess we would have to bear the cost of intergration, unless we can convince the Indians choose the MU90 for theirs
On a different tack, I wonder how much it would cost to intergrate the Penguin with the NH90?
Cheers
From recollection we were intending to sell our Penguin missiles anyway. Greece I believe (a current user of the weapon) was identified as a likely customer...
A new air to surface missile system is intended to be acquired for the new maritime warfare helo so any integration efforts would have to be extremely cheap to pass the "cost factor" requirement considering a new weapon WILL be acquired irregardless.
The Penguin/Seahawk combination didn't pass the "cost factor" requirement despite the fact there were 3 quite separate methods ADF could have used to employ the weapon from our Seahawks, from quite straightforward integration methods using a standalone control system in the back of the Seahawk, through to an extremely complex "full" integration and airframe modification program.
As is now known, all 3 options were passed over in favour of simply waiting for the arrival of the next-gen helo system and it's inherent missile system...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Thanks for the correction. I sure wish I could remember where I read about the preference for the Mk 54.Gday,
The FFG-UP has included the MU90, the fire control panel was updated along with the sonar. From a couple of the briefings that I have heard, it is expected that MU90 will be the torpedo that is fielded with the AWD. Personally I would be surprised if any other torpedo is introduced into the surface fleet.
My understanding is that the MU90 will be cleared for the French NH90 which obviously helps in our case. As for the P8, I guess we would have to bear the cost of intergration, unless we can convince the Indians choose the MU90 for theirs
On a different tack, I wonder how much it would cost to intergrate the Penguin with the NH90?
Cheers
I do recall reading about the plans to drop the Penguin from inventory. While it does have a good-size warhead, it has fairly short legs, with a max range of ~35 km if fired from altitude if memory serves, there are some issues of use. Most of the military vessels large enough to be worth or need a 50 kg HE warhead are likely to possess sufficient air defences to engage a helicopter within 35 km. Or failing that, to be of high enough value to have an escort capable of doing so. Between that and the fact that a helicopter could likely carry a maximum of 2, being able to attack shipping does not seem (to me) to be the best use of such an asset. Now the use of Hellfires to allow attacks upon detected FAC swarms does seem sensible, as these vessels would likely be too small to have anything other than small arms and manpack air defences, if that.
I would still like to know why the author of the paper did not discuss the current naval helicopter inventory, or why a replacement was deemed a 'matter of urgency' with an accelerated acquisition schedule. On a related note, does anyone know why the AIR 9000 project is no longer on the DMO site?
I wanted to look at it again because from my recollection of it, the Seahawks were planned for replacement around ~2016. This would then make is seem that the author feels the RAN should keep with the original helicopter schedule. -Cheers
In regards to the pros and cons of MH-60R v NFH-90,does anyone have any information regarding what navy may want in regards to the new helis ASM range and perhaps warhead weight.?
What do they have in their sites or want to have in their sites as the main prey for the new missile?
What do they have in their sites or want to have in their sites as the main prey for the new missile?
From an article by Nigrl Pittaway (Naval NF 90 for Australia) in the June 2009 Defence Today:
The NFH is capable of flying both ASW and ASuW missions concurrently........... is fitted with a 360 degree tactical radar... nose-mounted Galileo Avionica EOS...dipping sonar and sonobuoys.... has a EW suite which includes ESM and EWSP, Link11...Base line weapons suite include MBDA Marte Mk.2S anti-ship missiles and/or Eurotorp or Mk46 or stingray torpedoes.
Also goes to say that different weapons/electronics suite have been chosen by the various european buyers.
IMO the NF 90 on paper looks like a helocopter worth having and being able to tack onto the current MRH 90 assembley program has to be a plus for Australia.
Nomad
The NFH is capable of flying both ASW and ASuW missions concurrently........... is fitted with a 360 degree tactical radar... nose-mounted Galileo Avionica EOS...dipping sonar and sonobuoys.... has a EW suite which includes ESM and EWSP, Link11...Base line weapons suite include MBDA Marte Mk.2S anti-ship missiles and/or Eurotorp or Mk46 or stingray torpedoes.
Also goes to say that different weapons/electronics suite have been chosen by the various european buyers.
IMO the NF 90 on paper looks like a helocopter worth having and being able to tack onto the current MRH 90 assembley program has to be a plus for Australia.
Nomad
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Both the NFH-90 and the MH-60R are intended to be able to perform ASW and ASuW missions.
From an aircraft perspective, I feel that the NFH-90 is a better helicopter platform than the MH-60R. Being a newer design that makes extensive use of composites, the NFH-90 is a larger helicopter but does not also have a significant increase in weight. The in turn means that more weight is available for additional fuel and stores, as well as additional room to include mission systems and personnel as needed. Given that there is local production of the MRH-90, this means RAN NFH-90s could be at least partially assembled within Australia, as well as draw upon Australian support systems.
Unfortunately, IMO the platform here is less important than the mission systems. Given that this is to a large extent where the RAN encountered trouble with the Seasprite, I would think it better for the RAN to largely use a MOTS integrated sensor and mission system arrangement, and this is where there might be an issue, given the different sensor configurations different nations have chosen. Also differing configurations can make certification for service take longer, which might well be an issue given the limited number of naval helicopter in RAN service presently.
As for what would be desired for an ASuW by the RAN, that would be interesting to see. To my mind, an appropriate fitout would be with several small and light AGM or AShM. Between the sensors and SA, a naval helicopter would be appropriate for engaging numbers of FAC in high-clutter environments.
For those interested in a larger missile for use against larger vessels, would the NSM be a viable option? I do not believe that anyone has tried to integrate onto a helicopter yet. However, the missile is only a little heavier than the Penguin AShM, also by KDA and that has been fitted to helicopters. While the warhead might be a little light when compared with the larger Harpoon AShM, it would give a naval helicopter greater 'punch' at ranges sufficient to be safe from shipboard air defences.
-Cheers
From an aircraft perspective, I feel that the NFH-90 is a better helicopter platform than the MH-60R. Being a newer design that makes extensive use of composites, the NFH-90 is a larger helicopter but does not also have a significant increase in weight. The in turn means that more weight is available for additional fuel and stores, as well as additional room to include mission systems and personnel as needed. Given that there is local production of the MRH-90, this means RAN NFH-90s could be at least partially assembled within Australia, as well as draw upon Australian support systems.
Unfortunately, IMO the platform here is less important than the mission systems. Given that this is to a large extent where the RAN encountered trouble with the Seasprite, I would think it better for the RAN to largely use a MOTS integrated sensor and mission system arrangement, and this is where there might be an issue, given the different sensor configurations different nations have chosen. Also differing configurations can make certification for service take longer, which might well be an issue given the limited number of naval helicopter in RAN service presently.
As for what would be desired for an ASuW by the RAN, that would be interesting to see. To my mind, an appropriate fitout would be with several small and light AGM or AShM. Between the sensors and SA, a naval helicopter would be appropriate for engaging numbers of FAC in high-clutter environments.
For those interested in a larger missile for use against larger vessels, would the NSM be a viable option? I do not believe that anyone has tried to integrate onto a helicopter yet. However, the missile is only a little heavier than the Penguin AShM, also by KDA and that has been fitted to helicopters. While the warhead might be a little light when compared with the larger Harpoon AShM, it would give a naval helicopter greater 'punch' at ranges sufficient to be safe from shipboard air defences.
-Cheers
Isn't KDA putting forward the NSM as a successor to the Penguin in all areas?
NFH-90 has Marte Mk2S integrated so far, I think. That's a little lighter, at 324kg, similar to the MU90.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
AFAIK the NSM is the Penguin successor. Having said that though, I am uncertain whether or not KDA is expecting the NSM to be carried by helicopters. I have not come across any information on which AShM the Norweigan NFH-90s are to be armed with, if any. Those would be the helicopters most likely to be armed with NSM IMO.
To my mind at least, the role of a naval helicopter in an anti-shipping mission is to extend the sensor footprint available to the host ship, not actually taking warshots itself. Doing so can endanger the helicopter and/or reduce the flight and loiter time available for observing shipping.
-Cheers
In an ideal situation, certainly. Larger, ship launched missiles mean a greater punch over a longer range. However, the RAN are planning on ~20 helicopter capable Offshore Combatant Vessels, at least some of which will probably be fairly minimally armed.
Given the limited resources of the RAN, wouldn't a good helicopter launched anti-ship missile be a way to rapidly give those vessels greater capability if a need should arise?
Likewise, the Canberra class won't have the ability to take a shot itself. Obviously it should always be escorted by a ship that can, but the option for some kind of self-defence seems like a wise precaution.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There are a few problems that I forsee with the proposed situations.
As mentioned before in the policy paper from ASPI, the current integrated AShM, the Marte Mk 2, only has a range of ~25 km. That would put the firing helicopter within the engagement range of a vessel armed with ESSM and other similar missiles. Therefore, an AShM in the class of the Marte Mk 2 would only be fired against targets which are not protected by suffiently long-ranged air defences. IMO this would mean the AShM would only be used vs. comparatively low valued targets, or high value targets which lack air defences (like the currently planned Canberra-class) and are encountered without escorts within range.
The other suggestion, that of NFH-90s being embarked upon the proposed OCV, I do not think would be happening very often, if ever. With the a total of 24 Future Maritime Helicopters requested as a 'matter of urgency' that number was to ensure that 8 are available for operations at any one time. Given that there are to be 11-12 surface combatants, plus any which might be attached to either of the Canberras or the last as yet undecided sealift vessel, I do not think there would be many available to spare. Now, if a secondary order for additional naval helicopters were to be placed, that would be a different story. Currently though I expect that the OCVs will generally deploy without organic helicopter support.
As for naval helicopters operating from the Canberra needing to fire upon shipping, I would generally expect that to be upon FAC, not something needing quite so large a warhead as found on an AShM. My reasoning here is that in virtually all situations where the Canberra might be either firing on, or being fired upon by another vessel, the escort(s) should be there to prevent that from happening. The only armament currently planned for the Canberra-class is just some Typhoon mountings (2 each IIRC) with 24 mm Bushmasters. In other words, insufficient to protect against anything other than incoming smallcraft. In order to try and defend a Canberra from another ship, the helicopter would need to be able to close to within launch range, and fire so as to score enough strikes to achieve at least a mission kill. I do not see that happening with something like the Marte Mk 2.
Given the costs involved in acquiring stocks of the Marte, getting it fitted to RAN naval helicopters, getting RAN personnel trained in maintaining and employing them, when compared to what appear to be limited opportunities for their employment, to my mind it does not make sense. As I had mentioned above though, if it turns out that KDA is working on allowing the NSM to be fired from helicopters... That is entirely different, as that would give sufficient standoff range for a helicopter to fire outside the engagement umbrella of most naval vessel's air defences. That and it might lead to some being purchased for use from the internal bays of the F-35 when they enter service as well.
-Cheers
I think AU should make its helos as capable as possible. Now being able to carry a antiair/antishipping missile doesn't have to mean you carry it at all times, just that its possible.
I would like to see the hellfires avalible as I think they would be a very useful thing to have and we will already have them in service on the tigers.
With the LHD and the OCV being extremely lightly armed the helos could be very useful to provide some reach.
With the OCV I do expect additional helicopters to be purchased, perhaps UAV or a mix, its a bit far off but the whole idea of the OCV is that it can use its helicopter and the helicopter *IS* the platform to launch from being more agile, faster and have a major kinetic and situational advantage.NSM might be a good thing to arm the LHD and the OCV with as well. But as a second chance/quick response action.
I would like to see the hellfires avalible as I think they would be a very useful thing to have and we will already have them in service on the tigers.
With the LHD and the OCV being extremely lightly armed the helos could be very useful to provide some reach.
With the OCV I do expect additional helicopters to be purchased, perhaps UAV or a mix, its a bit far off but the whole idea of the OCV is that it can use its helicopter and the helicopter *IS* the platform to launch from being more agile, faster and have a major kinetic and situational advantage.NSM might be a good thing to arm the LHD and the OCV with as well. But as a second chance/quick response action.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Given a choice, I would rather the LHD be fitted with a Mk 41 VLS and quad-packed ESSM, or whatever systems end up replacing those systems. AFAIK the Spanish version does mount a VLS, and the Canberras are being fitted with the same shipboard computer system in use aboard the Anzac. While having something like NSM fitted would give it offensive capabilities, given the role the class would play, that of a command and landing ship, increasing its defensive capabilities would seem more appropriate.
As for the OCV... It is difficult to say, as it really depends on what sort of orientation the RAN and ADF has intended for them, given that they are intended to be multi-role. If the vessel is to be on the low end, with a stock configuration not unlike the RNZN OPVs, with a sensor and electronic suites to match, then having heli-bourne missiles would be a significant boost in capabilities. OTOH, if the stock configuration resembles that of the BMT Venator, or perhaps the systems of a Flyvefisken PB in an ocean-going hull, the situation then becomes quite different.
I do agree that the RAN should get naval helicopters that are as capable as possible. However this needs to be weighed against a budgetary limit, what is IMO a very real time limit on acquisition, as well as with an eye on just how useful some features would be.
-Cheers
I know that if I was on a Canberra class and we were having to defend ourselves against a FAC etc with our own embarked helicopters or guns, I would be rather unhappy with the ships that were meant to be escorting us
I suppose though, if it came to the crunch and we had some Tigers embarked, there could be potential to use them in the anti-shipping role with their Hellfires. I wouldn't envy the Army pilots in that role however.
Cheers
To All
The impression I get from reading the posts in this thread on the proposed OCV/OPV is that quite a number if not the majority of posters are advocating a vessel larger than the FCPB's but with about the same armament, maybe capable of supporting a helicopter/uav.
I am not fluent the language of Governmentese, maybe someone with more knowledge and experience in its translation may enlighten this poor soul.
But IMHO what is contained in the White Paper suggests to me and class of ship an order of magnitude larger is both size andarmament/combat power than the navy has in its current FCPB's is being advocated by Navy/Government.
Offshore Combatant Vessels
9.19 The Navy currently operates four relatively small fleets of vessels for important tasks such as offshore
resource protection, border security, hydrographic and oceanographic environmental assessments
and clearing sea mines. This significantly increases whole-of-life ownership costs and personnel
overheads. Smaller vessels also have less seagoing capacity and a reduced scope for installing more
capable sensor or weapons systems over time.
9.20 The Government has therefore decided that Defence will develop proposals to rationalise the Navy's
patrol boat, mine counter measures, hydrographic and oceanographic forces into a single modular
multirole class of around 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels combining four existing classes of vessels.
This has the potential to provide significant operational efficiencies and potential savings. The new
vessels will be larger than the current Armidale class patrol boats, with an anticipated displacement of
up to 2,000 tonnes.
9.21 This concept relies on the use of modular unmanned underwater systems for both mine countermeasures
and hydrographic tasks. These systems are envisaged to be containerised and portable modules
capable of being used in any port or loaded onto any of the Offshore Combatant Vessels or other
suitable vessels.
9.22 The future Offshore Combatant Vessel will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting
roles, border protection tasks, long-range counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, support
to special forces, and missions in support of security and stability in the immediate neighbourhood.
Defence will examine the potential for these new ships to embark a helicopter or UAV, to allow a surge
in surveillance and response capabilities without the need to deploy additional ships. This increased
capability will also ensure that major surface combatants are free for more demanding operations.
up to 2,000 tonnes: suggests to me a steel hull, I believe we are talking corvette or in some circles may be considered light frigate size, therfore armament/electronics, radars etc.
The future Offshore Combatant Vessel will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting:
suggests a main armament in the 57mm to 76mm range as a mininium, RAM/SEARAM as basic anti/air/missile defence, the ability to transport/launsh/recver a couple of RHIB's, 2-8 harpoons if required, MCM and ASW UUv's etc.
As Australia has not had or to my knowledge discussed having ships of this size/class for a number of years I find the topic interesting.
Nomad
The impression I get from reading the posts in this thread on the proposed OCV/OPV is that quite a number if not the majority of posters are advocating a vessel larger than the FCPB's but with about the same armament, maybe capable of supporting a helicopter/uav.
I am not fluent the language of Governmentese, maybe someone with more knowledge and experience in its translation may enlighten this poor soul.
But IMHO what is contained in the White Paper suggests to me and class of ship an order of magnitude larger is both size andarmament/combat power than the navy has in its current FCPB's is being advocated by Navy/Government.
Offshore Combatant Vessels
9.19 The Navy currently operates four relatively small fleets of vessels for important tasks such as offshore
resource protection, border security, hydrographic and oceanographic environmental assessments
and clearing sea mines. This significantly increases whole-of-life ownership costs and personnel
overheads. Smaller vessels also have less seagoing capacity and a reduced scope for installing more
capable sensor or weapons systems over time.
9.20 The Government has therefore decided that Defence will develop proposals to rationalise the Navy's
patrol boat, mine counter measures, hydrographic and oceanographic forces into a single modular
multirole class of around 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels combining four existing classes of vessels.
This has the potential to provide significant operational efficiencies and potential savings. The new
vessels will be larger than the current Armidale class patrol boats, with an anticipated displacement of
up to 2,000 tonnes.
9.21 This concept relies on the use of modular unmanned underwater systems for both mine countermeasures
and hydrographic tasks. These systems are envisaged to be containerised and portable modules
capable of being used in any port or loaded onto any of the Offshore Combatant Vessels or other
suitable vessels.
9.22 The future Offshore Combatant Vessel will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting
roles, border protection tasks, long-range counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, support
to special forces, and missions in support of security and stability in the immediate neighbourhood.
Defence will examine the potential for these new ships to embark a helicopter or UAV, to allow a surge
in surveillance and response capabilities without the need to deploy additional ships. This increased
capability will also ensure that major surface combatants are free for more demanding operations.
up to 2,000 tonnes: suggests to me a steel hull, I believe we are talking corvette or in some circles may be considered light frigate size, therfore armament/electronics, radars etc.
The future Offshore Combatant Vessel will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting:
suggests a main armament in the 57mm to 76mm range as a mininium, RAM/SEARAM as basic anti/air/missile defence, the ability to transport/launsh/recver a couple of RHIB's, 2-8 harpoons if required, MCM and ASW UUv's etc.
As Australia has not had or to my knowledge discussed having ships of this size/class for a number of years I find the topic interesting.
Nomad
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Neither would I, if I were aboard...I know that if I was on a Canberra class and we were having to defend ourselves against a FAC etc with our own embarked helicopters or guns, I would be rather unhappy with the ships that were meant to be escorting us
I suppose though, if it came to the crunch and we had some Tigers embarked, there could be potential to use them in the anti-shipping role with their Hellfires. I wouldn't envy the Army pilots in that role however.
Cheers
However, what I was think more along the lines of, is situations like had been encountered in the Persian Gulf. Fast speedboats and the like coming in from Iran or suspect ships. A helicopter with the appropriate radar to detect and track them in such situations would be very handy. And I am certain that the weaponry of a Tiger would make short work of such a vessel. The Hellfires might need to be swapped for the Hellfire-M (I think), but that should be easy enough.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There does indeed seem to be a great deal of questions regarding what the thinking within Government is for the OCV. At present, there do not seem to be any real definitive answers.
With the displacement of 2,000 tons it does most likely mean a steel-hulled vessel. Similar naval vessels are usually in the 80 m - 100 m length, so pending on role and fitout, the proposed OCV could very well be a corvette. Incidentally, what defines a ship as a corvette is not just size, but fitout.
There are a few causes for the differing ideas on the OCV. For starters, the vessels they would be replacing are not really combatants, only armed with 25 mm - 30 mm guns and MGs, others are basically unarmed. Part of the push for a larger replacement vessel is to just improve seakeeping. With the current sizes and displacements, the existing vessels (aside from the large hydrographic surveyors) are essentially coastal vessels. Another desired feature which causes confusion is the design for modular capabilities aboard the OCV. At present, I am aware of 3 different modular ship systems/formats in service, allowing equipment to be rapidly swapped out. At the low end in terms of complexity and capability would be the three different MCM modules available for deployment aboard the Canadian Kingston-class MCDV. At the opposite end of modular spectrum is the Danish Stanflex format in service aboard the Flyvefisken-class patrol boat, a version of which was entered by then ADI for the competition which became the Armidale, and the Absalon-class command/support frigate. Then there are the modules used aboard the LCS to further confuse the issue.
Given that no statement by Government which I have come across has indicated just how high the desired capability of an OCV is to be, or any mention made of what per ship or total programme cost is to be, it is really quite difficult to tell.
The higher the level of capability, particularly in threat environments, the greater the costs. More advanced systems cost more, require more advanced sensors and electronics, etc. This is true even if modular weapons pods are chosen, since the sensors and electronics themselves are not modular.
What I would like to see, is a fairly austere ship, in terms of weapons systems, but with a number of pod 'sockets' where different pods can be installed on an as needed basis. The vessel would need to have a comprehensive sensor and electronics suite in order to accomodate changes in the pod configurations. I see this as an advantage as it is not necessary to use a vessel carrying VLS SAMs to carry out fishery and other EEZ patrols, but other times the OCV might need that level of air defence.
Unfortunately, the reality is that all that is really currently known about the desires for the OCV is what the ~ size of the replacement vessel (the OCV) is, and what the low end of capability is, namely a 25 mm gun forward of the bridge. All the rest is just speculation.
-Cheers
Sixteen ASW helicopters is a bit tight, but Australia is never going to have twelve ships deployed at any given time either. Maybe half that number will be deployed, not all. So when one figures sixteen ASW helicopters for eight ships it doesn't sound so drastically short....
Juan Carlos 1 has no VLS as currently being built. She may, or may not, get one in the future, or may get a non-VLS (e.g. RAM) missile system.
Juan Carlos 1
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
As I recall, the LHD's will be armed as follows:
4x Typhoon 25mm guns.
1x Phalanx 1B 20mm CIWS.
2x "Mini-typhoon" 12.7mm guns.
4x 12.7mm "flex" guns.
Exact same fitout as the LPA's are currently mounting, plus 2x extra Typhoon 25mm's.
The Phalanx's weren't in the original plans but will be taken from the LPA's when the LHD replaces them in-service. For any operational deployment, I'd bet my house on the LHD's having a Phalanx mount...
Cheers
AD
- Status