Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

it’s not only about total weight, it’s also about top weight. One tonne on top of the hanger causes big stability problems as they are unable to compensate lower in the hull. I don’t have any data but I’m assuming if you stick one tonne plus above the hanger you would need three or four tonnes down below to compensate and the ships simply don’t have that sort of displacement margin.

Thanks Assail

I would imagine that sort of maths makes sense.

However the challenge still stands with finding a response to threats with a weapon in between the 5 inch gun and the 50 cal.
The ANZAC's will serve for many, many years to come, and I have reservations about their ability to go the distance against the range of threats they may face in the coming years.
Regardless of what they were designed for and what we expected from them in the past, they are now "expected" to be a tier one combatant.
Certainly a challenge for a ship of such size and weight.
Either we bring the Hunters forward ( Ain't going to happen ) or we find an answer, compromise our ability to fight, or we stay in port.

Regards S

 

[alexsa]

it’s not only about total weight, it’s also about top weight. One tonne on top of the hanger causes big stability problems as they are unable to compensate lower in the hull. I don’t have any data but I’m assuming if you stick one tonne plus above the hanger you would need three or four tonnes down below to compensate and the ships simply don’t have that sort of displacement margin.

I think it relates to operational range. While 1 tonne is not a huge issue at full load, when fuel is consumed the in crease in CoG and the tank fire surface moments would become an issues. So to carry the one tonne you may need to cut your realistic operational range .... or tank more often.

I was CO of a 230m box boat and the difference between acceptable stability ... for the entire voyage could be measured in tonnes in tens.

 

[hairyman]

With Australia choosing the 40mm weapon for the new OPV ships, I thought we were going to go away from the phalanx.

 

[alexsa]

With Australia choosing the 40mm weapon for the new OPV ships, I thought we were going to go away from the phalanx.

..... Why ..... how does the main armament of and OPV impact on the choice of a close in weapons system. Certainly there are systems such as the Millennium 35mm that can fill the role but this is not just the gun but the supporting combat system and targeting arrangements. Since this does not currently appear to be part of any system build (accepted it may be in the future) why do you assume the Phalanx is on the way out.

To be honest if we wanted to improvise the Hail Mary defence then SeaRAM may be an option..... but ... again there is nothing to suggest this is being considered. We really need to wait and see.

 

[76mmGuns]

..... Why ..... how does the main armament of and OPV impact on the choice of a close in weapons system. Certainly there are systems such as the Millennium 35mm that can fill the role but this is not just the gun but the supporting combat system and targeting arrangements. Since this does not currently appear to be part of any system build (accepted it may be in the future) why do you assume the Phalanx is on the way out.

To be honest if we wanted to improvise the Hail Mary defence then SeaRAM may be an option..... but ... again there is nothing to suggest this is being considered. We really need to wait and see.

I thought the 40mm was also a ciws, so, for commonality and logistics, using the 40mm would be a good choice. Not to mention wider range of shell options and longer range than the 20mm phalanx.

I'm assuming that's along the lines of hairymans thinking.

 

[alexsa]

I thought the 40mm was also a ciws, so, for commonality and logistics, using the 40mm would be a good choice. Not to mention wider range of shell options and longer range than the 20mm phalanx.

I'm assuming that's along the lines of hairymans thinking.

The Italian navy use their 76mm units as a CIWS but that requires a particular mount, particular ammunition (along with fusing systems) and the Selex fire control system. Just because it is a 40mm mount does not make it a CIWS.

You could use the same cannon in the Millennium gun .... but without the supporting systems ... it is just a gun mount.

 

[StingrayOZ]

While the 40mm can have anti air mode it isn't its strong suite. The 40 mm isn't really what is replacing Phalanx, at least not on its lonesome on high end combatants. The 40mm on the OPV's isn't a particularly fast firing gun at 300 rounds per minute. But its a good choice for an OPV type ship as it offers a lot of mixed capability and useful range beyond the 25mm typhoon we normally pack on patrol boats.

Millenium gun fires 35mm rounds at a burst mode of 100o rounds per minute, each round breaks up into 152 4 gram tungsten projectiles. However, it hasn't seen that much adoption or use by navies.
Goal keeper fires 30mm rounds at 4,200 rounds per minute, it is the gun off the A10, its massive at around 10 tons. Interesting the UK had this, and seems to be going back to Phalanx.
Phalanx fires 20mm rounds at 4,600 rounds per minute. ~5 tons.
SeaRAM is a missile based, system, but I think its unlikely to find a home on Type 26 style ships, for a variety of reasons.
The italians have a 40mm twin mount DARDO system, but that is very different to what is being fitted to the OPV.

Again its about layers, it looks like Phalanx will be the inner layer, CIWS for the for seeable future on RAN ships, backed by 20/25/30 mm ship guns. Ideally nothing gets into that inner layer. Its very proven system. Its ideal against, projectiles, like motars, smaller naval shells, older slower missiles, exocet etc. The Type 26 with two mounts, and overlapping coverage IMO offers a pretty nice level of inner protection. For other ships, like the AOR's, it is fine. With twin mounts, you get very wide coverage, huge capability to deal with multiple threats.

It would be nice to have it on a Anzac because it would provide that inner layer, instead, we have focused their capability on a better outer layer. Even if the ANZAC's has Phalanx, they aren't a tier 1 combatant. They were never intended to be one.

 

[Richo99]

A possible mid range option (between 50 cal and 5") for surface targets...a few years back the USN tested Spike LR mounted on a Mini Typhoon. Given we have Mini Typhoons already on the Anzacs, and Spike LR2 chosen for both Land 400 Ph 2 & 3, it would appear a relatively cheap, easy and lightweight solution to close in littoral threats.

US Navy Tests Rafael Spike Missiles on Unmanned vessels - Defense Update:[/QUOTE]

 

[Stampede]

A possible mid range option (between 50 cal and 5") for surface targets...a few years back the USN tested Spike LR mounted on a Mini Typhoon. Given we have Mini Typhoons already on the Anzacs, and Spike LR2 chosen for both Land 400 Ph 2 & 3, it would appear a relatively cheap, easy and lightweight solution to close in littoral threats.

US Navy Tests Rafael Spike Missiles on Unmanned vessels - Defense Update:

Open to any suggestions to add options for ships defence.

Currently the last of the ANZAC's, HMAS Perth is planned to retire in 2043.
Surely the ship will have to evolve to maintain relevancy over that long period of time.
Alexsa I appreciate the input, but I think we may have some big challenges with the ANZAC class providing realistic options to government in the decades ahead.
This challenge is made worst by the fact they are a big percentage of our destroyer / frigate fleet until the Hunters arrive.

Regards S

 

[76mmGuns]

This challenge is made worst by the fact they are a big percentage of our destroyer / frigate fleet until the Hunters arrive.

Regards S

My hope is that once the first Hunter is built, they then some to build 2 per year until 2040. So 2028-2040 = 25 Hunters.

( Yes I know it's unlikely,. . where's the crew coming from, who's going the build extra infrastructure, where's the money coming from etc etc.... See? I do read the comments from the defence pros on this forum )

 

[ASSAIL]

Open to any suggestions to add options for ships defence.

Currently the last of the ANZAC's, HMAS Perth is planned to retire in 2043.
Surely the ship will have to evolve to maintain relevancy over that long period of time.
Alexsa I appreciate the input, but I think we may have some big challenges with the ANZAC class providing realistic options to government in the decades ahead.
This challenge is made worst by the fact they are a big percentage of our destroyer / frigate fleet until the Hunters arrive.

Regards S

You’re underestimating the extent to which the Anzacs have already evolved.
They now have or will have a world class force AD system and with the Romeos they have a much enhanced ASW capability.
They will certainly remain and will continue to remain effective escorts for ADF CONOPS.

Age on its own doesn’t govern whether a system/platform remains relevant (your term) but rather what has been improved over the life of such a system/platform. eg. You couldn’t argue that the USN CCGs are not “relevant” despite being almost geriatric.

you also must have regard to how they are used. The Anzacs have been and will continue to be ideal vessels for engagement with many of our allies in the Indo Pacific, engagements for which a larger and more complex platform would not be relevant.

Big is not always better, there is always a requirement for a range of capabilities within a Navy just as the ongoing debate Is playing out in the USN.

 

[Redlands18]

While the 40mm can have anti air mode it isn't its strong suite. The 40 mm isn't really what is replacing Phalanx, at least not on its lonesome on high end combatants. The 40mm on the OPV's isn't a particularly fast firing gun at 300 rounds per minute. But its a good choice for an OPV type ship as it offers a lot of mixed capability and useful range beyond the 25mm typhoon we normally pack on patrol boats.

Millenium gun fires 35mm rounds at a burst mode of 100o rounds per minute, each round breaks up into 152 4 gram tungsten projectiles. However, it hasn't seen that much adoption or use by navies.
Goal keeper fires 30mm rounds at 4,200 rounds per minute, it is the gun off the A10, its massive at around 10 tons. Interesting the UK had this, and seems to be going back to Phalanx.
Phalanx fires 20mm rounds at 4,600 rounds per minute. ~5 tons.
SeaRAM is a missile based, system, but I think its unlikely to find a home on Type 26 style ships, for a variety of reasons.
The italians have a 40mm twin mount DARDO system, but that is very different to what is being fitted to the OPV.

Again its about layers, it looks like Phalanx will be the inner layer, CIWS for the for seeable future on RAN ships, backed by 20/25/30 mm ship guns. Ideally nothing gets into that inner layer. Its very proven system. Its ideal against, projectiles, like motars, smaller naval shells, older slower missiles, exocet etc. The Type 26 with two mounts, and overlapping coverage IMO offers a pretty nice level of inner protection. For other ships, like the AOR's, it is fine. With twin mounts, you get very wide coverage, huge capability to deal with multiple threats.

It would be nice to have it on a Anzac because it would provide that inner layer, instead, we have focused their capability on a better outer layer. Even if the ANZAC's has Phalanx, they aren't a tier 1 combatant. They were never intended to be one.

The problem is at this moment we only effectively have one tier 1 Combatant(Hobart), 1 more working up(Brisbane) and 1 more about to Commission(Sydney) so the possibility(remote yes but still exists) we may have to use Anzacs as Tier 1 Combatants until at least the early 30s.
But as Assail says they are better then the Patrol Frigates they were originally meant to be, maybe now Tier 1- Combatants only real weakness now would be staying power in a Battle with only 32 SAMs and lacking a CIWS.

 

[ASSAIL]

The last of the RANs Adelaide (OHP) class FFGs, HMAS Melbourne decommissioned two days ago.
It seems just a very short time ago that the Directorate of Officer Postings in Canberra gave me the option of being the XO of HMAS Canberra, second of the class in late 1980 to entice me to stay in the service. I reluctantly declined.
These ships served the RAN well at a time when there was not a lot of govt support for things naval.
Like the CFA DDG’s there were many who predicted that these ships would not last, how wrong they were.
In particular it’s said that the two Williamstown ships were a built to a standard well above their Todd brothers so I can only hope they continue to serve for another decade, possibly as reported with Chile.
HMAS Melbourne decommissions, era of the FFG ends

 

[Hazdog]

G'day,

Could someone please indicate a reason or reasons as to why the RAN chose the Schiebel S-100 over other competitors?

One would think from public information, the RAN would look to the Northrop Grumman MQ-8 as it provides a greater mission capability in terms of payload and range. Plus the fact that its closest partner the USN operates the Fire Scout.

 

[spoz]

The MQ-8 is a much bigger and more expensive bird. One, at least, of the S-100’s uses seems likely to be off the OPV, and for those missions the MQ-8 would seem to be overkill.

 

[hairyman]

Also this will be a learning time for the RAN. You would not expect them to go with the most expensive device to learn with. Hopefully in the future we may get the MQ- 8 for the bigger ships.

 

[oldsig127]

G'day,

Could someone please indicate a reason or reasons as to why the RAN chose the Schiebel S-100 over other competitors?

One would think from public information, the RAN would look to the Northrop Grumman MQ-8 as it provides a greater mission capability in terms of payload and range. Plus the fact that its closest partner the USN operates the Fire Scout.

As far back as 2017 this was discussed here. The Schiebel is small enough to be maintained and stored in a container which is pretty important if - as seems most likely - the RAN will be using them from the OPVs which don't have a hangar. In addition there is an element of experimentation here. These will be the first substantial UAVs to be deployed by the RAN and provide an opportunity to get familiar with operating them at sea and figure out for sure just what is required, and what in not.

oldsig

 

[aussienscale]

As far back as 2017 this was discussed here. The Schiebel is small enough to be maintained and stored in a container which is pretty important if - as seems most likely - the RAN will be using them from the OPVs which don't have a hangar. In addition there is an element of experimentation here. These will be the first substantial UAVs to be deployed by the RAN and provide an opportunity to get familiar with operating them at sea and figure out for sure just what is required, and what in not.

oldsig

And just to add to that, technically they are actually under "operational evaluation" so yes a learning curve, a new capability and we are working out how they can fit into the mix

Cheers

 

[Sideline]

Could someone please indicate a reason or reasons as to why the RAN chose the Schiebel S-100 over other competitors?

OK, Let's compare the Meerkats,

The Full Schiebel Camcopter S-100 system including two air vehicles, the control station, payload, ground equipment, training, and logistics package will cost around US$2+ million, (Wikipedia | NOTE the $2mil price is from 2005 so its wrong) It's engine can be interchangeably avgas or heavy-fuel (So It can use the ships fuel) and will require a crew of 3.
Rotor diameter: 3.4 m, Height: 1.12 m, Max takeoff weight: 200 kg, Endurance: 6 hours (extendable to over 10 hours with optional external AVGAS fuel tanks fitted) SEE PHOTOS & VIDEO

The Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout platform ALONE will cost US$14.6mil, (wikipedia) I can't find a price on the Control gear but it's designed to be compliant with ALL the Pentagon's standard UAS Control Segment (UCS) architecture (View link) , for all current and future U.S. military unmanned vehicles. (which makes me think a LOT of money and really big ships) Rotor diameter: 8.4 m, Height 2.9 m, Max takeoff weight: 1,430 kg Endurance: 8 hour with a 170 lb payload SEE PDF & VIDEO

TLDR

• Firstly one is the size of a 650cc motorcycle and the other is the size of a Toyota Prado
• The Schiebel $2-3mil per system (with two airships), and it fit's into a shipping Container
• The Fire Scout $20~30mil + (I cant fine a price on the control station, payload, ground equipment, training, and logistics package etc) but it will require a hanger

PS there is no hangers on the RAN OPV, but there is room for a few shipping Container under the helideck

LINKS ADDED

 

[ngatimozart]

OK, Let's compare the Meerkats,

The Full Schiebel Camcopter S-100 system including two air vehicles, the control station, payload, ground equipment, training, and logistics package will cost around US$2+ million, (wikipedia) It's engine can be interchangeably avgas or heavy-fuel (So It can use the ships fuel) and will require a crew of 3.
Rotor diameter: 3.4 m, Height: 1.12 m, Max takeoff weight: 200 kg, Endurance: 6 hours

The Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout platform ALONE will cost US$14.6mil, (wikipedia) I can't find a price on the Control gear but it's designed to be compliant with ALL the Pentagon's standard UAS Control Segment (UCS) architecture, for all current and future U.S. military unmanned vehicles. (which makes me think a LOT of money and really big ships) Rotor diameter: 8.4 m, Height 2.9 m, Max takeoff weight: 1,430 kg Endurance: 8 hour with a 170 lb payload

TLDR

• Firstly one is the size of a 650cc motorcycle and the other is the size of a Toyota Prado
• The Schiebel $2-3mil per system (with two airships), and it fit's into a shipping Container
• The Fire Scout $20~30mil + (I cant fine a price on the control station, payload, ground equipment, training, and logistics package etc) but it will require a hanger

PS there is no hangers on the RAN OPV, but there is room for a few shipping Container under the helideck

@Sideline Can you please provide links to your sources. Also, Wikipedia is regarded not as a reliable source.