Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

Thanks for the second link
Certainly gives some clarity as to some of the loads the hangar and mission bay can be used for.
It appears that the Hunter Class can in fact carry two MH-60R or NH- 90 helicopters in tandem.
The option of two helicopters is pleasing.
What's most impressive is the range of options provide for in the mission bay.
Certainly a handy space for a range of contingencies and future proofs the ship for the decades to come.
A good choice.

Regards S

Would be interested to know if two CH-148s can also be accommodated by using the mission bay in our CSC version of the T26.

 

[hauritz]

Yep, I find it a little strange, considering they are being portrayed as the premier ASW platform, they are a big unit with plenty of space, does not make sense to me, not proclaiming to be an ASW expert, but from what I do know and learned over the years, it is certainly a strange omission.

Cheers

It might depend on how they are used operationally. If they are operating as part of a carrier task group there will be many options for killing submarines. You might have a dozen or more ASW helicopters at your disposal.

Operating independently or escorting non-aircraft carriers and things become a little more problematic.

Of course the UK hasn't really finalised the weapons fit for the type 26. It may well carry ASROC in which case it will have a better solution than the MU90 equipped Hunters. Also we don't really know how ASW operations will be conducted. A type 26 ... or Hunter for that matter ... might be escorted by its own mini-fleet of UUVs, USVs and UAVs with the helicopter just being used as a weapons delivery system once a submarine has been located.

Lots can happen between now and the late 20s.

 

[ASSAIL]

I’ve missed something here, can someone provide the link which says the RN has dumped shipborne torpedoes?

 

[oldsig127]

I’ve missed something here, can someone provide the link which says the RN has dumped shipborne torpedoes?

I think you'll find it's an assumption based on there being no obvious SLT fitted to the published T26 renderings, nor quoted as being part of their armament, plus the actual fact that the Darings are not fitted with them.

But nothing in writing from anyone who actually knows.

oldsig

 

[ASSAIL]

I think you'll find it's an assumption based on there being no obvious SLT fitted to the published T26 renderings, nor quoted as being part of their armament, plus the actual fact that the Darings are not fitted with them.

But nothing in writing from anyone who actually knows.

oldsig

SEA have been given £7m to upgrade the control systems and are providing 8 x upgraded mTLS sets rumoured for the 8 x T26s according to earlier links so I’d be surprised if they weren’t fitted.
ASW always needs a weapon of last resort, it’s like carrying a spare tyre.

 

[StingrayOZ]

ASROC would consume those valuable 24 VLS. Of which there seem to be more on the non-uk variants. Nothing is really stopping the RAN or the RCN from adopting rocket launched munitions. Or in Australia's case, we could adopt a rocket deck launched MU90 like the Italians have, actually I think having a few of these might be useful and you could equip with harpoon, NSM or torpedos as required from a pool. Given that you would have SM-6 and SM-2 with light anti-shipping capability (and most likely LRASM) and ship launched torpedo as well, being a bit more flexible in the possible fit out would be quite an advantage depending on the mission.

As for the RN, they would either need to introduce US torpedoes, or make a rocket launched sting ray. Although the RAF already uses the mk 54, maybe the RN is phasing out sting ray?

They are building the first type 26 now, so at least initially, it is assumed they won't have any VLS/tube torpedoes. Again, odd, as Aussiescale said, for a dedicated ASW platform. That of course could easily change, its not like its impossible for the platform.

 

[ASSAIL]

They are building the first type 26 now, so at least initially, it is assumed they won't have any VLS/tube torpedoes. Again, odd, as Aussiescale said, for a dedicated ASW platform. That of course could easily change, its not like its impossible for the platform.

But who is assuming that? They have orders placed with the first delivered next year. See my #26112 above.

 

[OldNavy63]

The 8 x newer Type 23s are optimised for ASW, fitted with Thales towed array Sonar 2087 for long range detection and prosecution by the embarked Merlin ASW helo. The 5 x older Type 23s being General Purpose frigates.

The current 7M GBP investment in the 8 x “ASW” Type 23s is the “technical refresh of the MTLS ( noted inRoyal Navy Eyes Magazine Torpedo Launch System Upgrade for Type 23 Frigates - Naval News ).

 

[ASSAIL]

The 8 x newer Type 23s are optimised for ASW, fitted with Thales towed array Sonar 2087 for long range detection and prosecution by the embarked Merlin ASW helo. The 5 x older Type 23s being General Purpose frigates.

The current 7M GBP investment in the 8 x “ASW” Type 23s is the “technical refresh of the MTLS ( noted inRoyal Navy Eyes Magazine Torpedo Launch System Upgrade for Type 23 Frigates - Naval News ).

Thanks for clarifying that, the presumption remains.

 

[StingrayOZ]

But who is assuming that? They have orders placed with the first delivered next year. See my #26112 above.

It stemmed from the link
The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 1 – design and development
on which the second page
MTLS and ASROC – killing the submarine without a helicopter

The publicised specification for the Type 26 frigate does not include mTLS, although it was included in the design options under consideration as late as 2014. It is still possible mTLS may be fitted but it is unclear at this point.

However, given they are well under construction, normally by now something like this would be clearly indicated. I was also surprised that the type 45 wasn't fitted with any. The author also pointed out that our Hobarts are fitted with SLT (as are the original Spanish F-105) even though they are "air defence".

There was a broader discussion regarding the usefulness of being ship launched. While it may not be as wizz bang as a rocket launched or helicopter launched (would require two different types), it is complimentary and removing it or not fitting it, would seem to be a backward step. Particularly on a ASW ship.

Its not so much that anyone has said they aren't fitting it, its that no one has confirmed any system being fitted.

This also touches on why some navies seem to go looking beyond mk54 to mu90 or sting ray particularly for ship launches.

 

[oldsig127]

From "The Australian" this morning, and with the usual caveats regarding the unreliability of their Defence coverage :

Australia could face a capability gap in its vitally important submarine fleet following troubled negotiations with French shipbuilder Naval Group to build 12 next-generation submarines, opposition defence spokesman Richard Marles says.

With the polls all pointing to a likely Labor victory in May, Mr Marles has said running the ruler over the $50 billion contract with Naval is likely be one of the key challenges facing an incoming Shorten government.

He said although it was difficult to get an accurate read on the state of the project from opposition, the indicators were not good.

“I imagine that if I’m elected, the submarine contract will be one of the two or three critical things I’ll do,” Mr Marles told The Australian.

“Now I wouldn’t be saying that if I thought everything was going swimmingly.”

Mr Marles reiterated that Labor remained committed to the contract, which will see 12 new submarines take to the water from the mid-2030s.

The subs are to be built from scratch, based on Naval’s Shortfin Barracuda design.

They will replace the existing fleet of Collins-class vessels, which were constructed in the 1980s and launched in the 90s.

The Morrison government has steadfastly denied there was a problem, saying the subs will be delivered on time and on budget.

But three years after the Turnbull government first selected Naval to design the boats, the government has only just signed the Strategic Partnering Agreement, the head contract governing issues such as warranty lifespans and ownership of intellectual property.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Marcus Hellyer has said delays in progressing the build will almost certainly mean Defence will have to extend the life of some or all of the Collins subs.

“We are behind where we should have been,” Mr Hellyer said in October.

“The future submarine process should have started earlier. That’s not a problem with the future subs; it’s a broader problem with government and Defence planning. We should have started five years earlier.”

If elected, Mr Marles said a Labor government would briefly pause the project in order to assess its viability. He also acknowledged the possibility of a capability gap, which is considered a growing possibility among defence analysts.

Nocookies

I always said that the success of our shipbuilding policy will stand or fall on whether it survives changes of government (including changes within the governing party, like Rudd-Gillard-Rudd and Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison). It looks like we get an early chance to see just how that goes, even before the new Government inevitably commissions a new White Paper.

I am not confident. And if the Greens hold the balance of power...

oldsig

 

[ASSAIL]

It stemmed from the link
The Type 26 frigate mission bay. Part 1 – design and development
on which the second page
MTLS and ASROC – killing the submarine without a helicopter



However, given they are well under construction, normally by now something like this would be clearly indicated. I was also surprised that the type 45 wasn't fitted with any. The author also pointed out that our Hobarts are fitted with SLT (as are the original Spanish F-105) even though they are "air defence".

There was a broader discussion regarding the usefulness of being ship launched. While it may not be as wizz bang as a rocket launched or helicopter launched (would require two different types), it is complimentary and removing it or not fitting it, would seem to be a backward step. Particularly on a ASW ship.

Its not so much that anyone has said they aren't fitting it, its that no one has confirmed any system being fitted.

This also touches on why some navies seem to go looking beyond mk54 to mu90 or sting ray particularly for ship launches.

Even though the diagram in your first link reserves space for “possible space for TLS” aft of the boat space on the port side adjacent the hangar.?
The T26 is a large ship and space is certainly available to fit some tube system although I still feel a reloadable system is overkill.
As I have stated before you need a system of last resort, particularly in focal choke points which usually occur in the littoral where long range target acquisition is far more difficult due to noise and irregular bathy conditions.

 

[Stampede]

Exercise Ocean Explorer 2019

The LHD's doing more than just the amphibious stuff
Current Edition : Navy News Paper : Department of Defence

Just wondering is the RAN developing more of a small task force mentality than what existed in the past.
Certainly a positive if true.
We will always need to work with allies but developing some sovereign task force capability and having the confidence we can do it is certainly the way forward.
"More Romeos on the LHD's me thinks!"

Suggest the total fleet number of 24 will be revisited next decade before the their production line finishes.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I

Exercise Ocean Explorer 2019

The LHD's doing more than just the amphibious stuff
Current Edition : Navy News Paper : Department of Defence

Just adding to the ASW conversation.
Helicopters in meaningful numbers operating 24 /7 will be one of the keys to success in this area.
Our new ships aviation capabilities will be good but a LHD's aviation compliment will be the game changer.
I recall the RN Invincible class liked to have at least 9 sea kings to provide adequate coverage and this was in addition to the helicopters of accompanying escorts.
If these numbers still ring true then our current and future destroyer / Frigate force helicopter compliment will most likely come up short; so regardless of what tasking we may want our LHD's to do, they will out of necessity be carry some ASW helicopters to compliment the fleet.
The key is 24 / 7 operations - this is a very very big task.
Unmanned systems will play a part and the hard / soft kill inner circle we be necessary but taking the fight to the submarine will be paramount to survival.

Helicopter numbers and platforms to fly off will be the key.


Regards S

May need to look again at the potential, repeat potential, of the Arafura Class for ASW.

 

[steel jo]

Even though the diagram in your first link reserves space for “possible space for TLS” aft of the boat space on the port side adjacent the hangar.?
The T26 is a large ship and space is certainly available to fit some tube system although I still feel a reloadable system is overkill.
As I have stated before you need a system of last resort, particularly in focal choke points which usually occur in the littoral where long range target acquisition is far more difficult due to noise and irregular bathy conditions.

I think there are 2 main issues here namely:

1) should ships be fitted with surface launched LWT for ASW:

I think this is a no brainer given the marginal cost is very low given the weapon is already in service for a/c use and ship fitted equipments are typicaly low complexity and/or low cost. Last resort capability definately passes the value for money test in his case.

2) How should ship fit be implemented:

Assail touched on this but i dont agree for a few reasons.

My contention is that the cheapest and best way to implement Ship Launch is from tubes in a common use air/surface magazine.

This redues handling, improves safety, reduces maintenance (potentially signifiantly) and reduces top weight and provides a reload capabiity at nil cost vis a vis these other plusses. An SVTT system apart from being potentially one(6) shot due to bad location (looking at u ANZAC ship) offers nothing positive and has the inverse of the positive things above.

Now if u want to talk 400mm SLT and a 2 weapon system then we are talking a different ball game. But given a common 324mm weapon, magazine launch and consequential reloadable capability is the only game in town.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think there are 2 main issues here namely:

1) should ships be fitted with surface launched LWT for ASW:

I think this is a no brainer given the marginal cost is very low given the weapon is already in service for a/c use and ship fitted equipments are typicaly low complexity and/or low cost. Last resort capability definately passes the value for money test in his case.

2) How should ship fit be implemented:

Assail touched on this but i dont agree for a few reasons.

My contention is that the cheapest and best way to implement Ship Launch is from tubes in a common use air/surface magazine.

This redues handling, improves safety, reduces maintenance (potentially signifiantly) and reduces top weight and provides a reload capabiity at nil cost vis a vis these other plusses. An SVTT system apart from being potentially one(6) shot due to bad location (looking at u ANZAC ship) offers nothing positive and has the inverse of the positive things above.

Now if u want to talk 400mm SLT and a 2 weapon system then we are talking a different ball game. But given a common 324mm weapon, magazine launch and consequential reloadable capability is the only game in town.

I doubt that a common-use aircraft (helicopter) and ship magazine for LWT's would be an easy or more importantly practical design feature for a warship.

Any potential magazine to support helicopters would need to be accessible from either within the hangar, or the helipad.

Any magazine supporting a Mk 32 LWT launcher (or similar type launcher) would also need to be accessible from the Mk 32 launcher.

If the same magazine was supposed to support both helicopter-carried and Mk 32 LWT launchers, then that would likely require mounting the Mk 32's on the helipad, or next to/atop the hangar and passing the LWT's through the hangar to the Mk 32 launchers. From my perspective neither layout is appealing, since Mk 32 LWT launchers on the helipad would likely impact helicopter operations, while adjacent to/atop the hangar while passing LWT's through the hangar would likely negate much of the purpose behind having a magazine. Namely to safely store and contain warheads/explosives, while also having fire containment and prevention methods just in case.

 

[spoz]

I doubt that a common-use aircraft (helicopter) and ship magazine for LWT's would be an easy or more importantly practical design feature for a warship.

Any potential magazine to support helicopters would need to be accessible from either within the hangar, or the helipad.

Any magazine supporting a Mk 32 LWT launcher (or similar type launcher) would also need to be accessible from the Mk 32 launcher.

If the same magazine was supposed to support both helicopter-carried and Mk 32 LWT launchers, then that would likely require mounting the Mk 32's on the helipad, or next to/atop the hangar and passing the LWT's through the hangar to the Mk 32 launchers. From my perspective neither layout is appealing, since Mk 32 LWT launchers on the helipad would likely impact helicopter operations, while adjacent to/atop the hangar while passing LWT's through the hangar would likely negate much of the purpose behind having a magazine. Namely to safely store and contain warheads/explosives, while also having fire containment and prevention methods just in case.

Well, it may seem to have its challenges but that is exactly the situation with the F100 design, including the Hobart class. There are other tubes besides the standard upper deck mounted triple Mk 32s such as the Mod 9s, and they can be operated internally.

 

[beegee]

I doubt that a common-use aircraft (helicopter) and ship magazine for LWT's would be an easy or more importantly practical design feature for a warship.

Any potential magazine to support helicopters would need to be accessible from either within the hangar, or the helipad.

Any magazine supporting a Mk 32 LWT launcher (or similar type launcher) would also need to be accessible from the Mk 32 launcher.

If the same magazine was supposed to support both helicopter-carried and Mk 32 LWT launchers, then that would likely require mounting the Mk 32's on the helipad, or next to/atop the hangar and passing the LWT's through the hangar to the Mk 32 launchers. From my perspective neither layout is appealing, since Mk 32 LWT launchers on the helipad would likely impact helicopter operations, while adjacent to/atop the hangar while passing LWT's through the hangar would likely negate much of the purpose behind having a magazine. Namely to safely store and contain warheads/explosives, while also having fire containment and prevention methods just in case.

Several ships have common use magazines, so it can't be that much of a problem.

 

[ASSAIL]

Well, it may seem to have its challenges but that is exactly the situation with the F100 design, including the Hobart class. There are other tubes besides the standard upper deck mounted triple Mk 32s such as the Mod 9s, and they can be operated internally.

Hobart ha just docked at GI in part so Thales can upgrade her torpedo magazine so she can carry both LWTs

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=428823351196277

Sorry folks my mind is not working, I’m in hospital to redo a shoulder replacement that didn’t work and I can’t post the link from RAN fb from Mar 11

 

[spoz]

And to make the necessary mods so the ship can operate the 60R together with a routine docking.

Sorry to hear about the shoulder Chris.