Brings a tear to the eye, particularly on days like today, because I am not there. Nothing quite like working on a major project in a mid to senior engineering role, not just for what you get to do but mostly because of the people you get to work with and what you get to learn.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Firstly, sorry it took so long to reply. Just work/life distractions as we all know.
You're absolutely right on all counts, assuming what you feel might come to pass, does. Peace time aspirations are important though because as far as RAN naval operations go, peace time is almost all the time.
I feel your frustration, really, but lately I'm looking differently at that old elephant in the room that is China. Beyond the aggressive island building, the whatever dash lines and all the huff and puff of this and that mega destroyer/carrier killing missile/etc announcement from them, I don't feel any bit of that is a war type threat to us directly for some time, certainly not as a traditional conflict.
I don't envisage a genuine large scale hot war in SEA anytime soon. I don't believe China wants any part of that idea given its own internal security issues and mostly conscript /inexperienced /unmotivated military stock. They would avoid a direct war with most countries for sure but will pursue expansion policy by every dirty, nasty non-direct means possible.
What I do think is a threat today and going into the future is this newer trend of using 'coast guard' and 'civilian fishing vessel' fleets as weapons to secure natural and mineral resources around Asia. Few shots are fired. The vast fleets (several hundred thousand) of untracked fishing vessels have done a marvellous job of scouring their own home waters bare and currently it's a rather one sided game of taking over neighbouring seas. Soon enough it will move further south. I think if the Arafura class makes maximum use of OTH surveillance drones as I detailed in the OP, these will be the perfect platforms to monitor and stand up to this new hybrid resource 'war' we're facing against large numbers of small vessels, in trying to protect our enormous and rich EEZ. So long as we're not too afraid to send a few 40mm over some bows. Maybe even occasionally directly into one. African and Latin American waters are already being 'mined' heavily because many of those nations don't have the resources to patrol/enforce. The link below is a good article on this fishing issue:
How China’s Expanding Fishing Fleet Is Depleting the World’s Oceans
After exhausting areas close to home, China’s vast fishing fleet has moved into the waters of other nations, depleting fish stocks. More than seafood is at stake, as China looks to assert itself on the seas and further its geo-political ambitions, from East Asia to Latin America.
e360.yale.edu
Also worth remembering that this expanded surveillance envelop also makes it far better at all the other traditional anti-piracy/smuggling roles.
I was also one that was initially, quietly, disappointed at the choice and outfitting of this class. There is much more potential there than what has been chosen but it's important to focus on the fact that right now this class fills an urgent need to replace a bunch of rubbish aluminium speed boats that were never truly fit for purpose or longevity and only sport a 25mm autocannon. This is a huge upgrade over what it replaces.
I also like to believe there are enough smart leaders in the RAN/ADF who also considered the potential in the selection. Should the arms build up in SEA continue its trend over the next few years, we have a ready-to-go option for a 'corvette' type vessel, even as a new class inserted during the Arafura run. The hulls are easy to knock out in the two primary Australian shipyards and over time there will be experience gained in construction and operation of Arafura to guide such a decision. You may yet see some future whitepaper listing a need for a 'corvette' type role based on the same hull with all the extra bits you wish for, and it could be done very quickly and easily. That's an option we have as a nation should it be required somewhere in the next decade. It's nice to have options.
Don't hold your breath though!
Meanwhile, in the working Navy : "Able Seaman Boatwains Mate Samuel Day throws the first line as HMAS Arunta comes alongside the wharf at Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia for a logistical Port visit." (Image source - ADF Image Libarary link to image)
New Officer PQ created for UAV pilots in the RAN. Caption : "Members of the first Remote Pilot Warfare Officer course with a ScanEagle Unmanned Aircraft at Jervis Bay Airfield. L - R Lieutenant Jonathan Pearce, Sub Lieutenant Jack Parsey, Acting Sub Liutenant Mark Pearson. As part of Navy's commitment to developing unmanned aviation capability under Project SEA129 Phase 5, a new Officer PQ was developed called Remote Pilot Warfare Officer. These officers are responsible for operating and tactically employing unmanned aircraft from sea and ashore." (Image credit - ADF Image Library link to image)
Some may be already aware of this policy shift ceasing/reducing MEAO deployments for RAN MFUs but here's the "official" announcement on the RAN YouTube channel : ADF's naval presence in the Middle East is changing
Thanks DDG38
Just spotted this on the ABC website which reiterates the above.
The horse may have bolted, but I still feel we should of kept the last two FFG's in service .
Suggest ship numbers and availability will be very important in the years ahead.
If crew numbers are a challenge to this end, then some increased effort may need to be invested to remediate this situation.
Regards S
"An MH-60R 'Romeo' helicopter from 816 Squadron firing an Advance Precision Kill Weapons System laser guided rocket off the South Coast of New South Wales." Photo by CPOIS Cameron Martin (ADF Imagery Library - image link)
The shipyard project or Hunter?
SEA5000 is, IMO, suffering from the RAN still struggling to understand what they want it to actually do.
There are also issues with many of the industry players being new to AEGIS combat system integration and working with FMS in general.
Many players bringing a Royal Navy design and operating philosophy to the design phase also doesn't really help things.
Not those issues aren't insurmountable once you actually define the requirements.
Not sure what you actually mean/infer by these two comments, care to expand a little more please ?
Cheers
Sure, the bigger issue being curtailing requirement growth creep.
I can't really even speculate on the T26 platform hull side, but probably safe to assume those are generally sorted out to provide a good functional hull with properly reliable ship's services - the RN knows how to design a warship.
As far as requirement creep, you start with a solid basic ASW/GP frigate design.
But then, as an example, the IAMD space, where the starting design has comparatively little capability in that regard (Sea Ceptor is limited to local AAW only), its radars and missile magazines are designed accordingly for that limited capability.
The RAN then starts adding things like SM-2, SM-3 (BMD), SM-6, and now while you are introducing good capability, to support it you definitely need more radar "stuff" (which CEA can provide - but at considerable growth in topside weight and cost) and having done that you also might at least want more missile mag capacity to make the investment worthwhile.
But at that point...is it still an ASW focused/GP frigate? Or is this another Air Warfare Destroyer (with the starting design already a bit heavier than the Hobart class) with better ASW capability? And now its bigger, heavier, and more expensive than when you started.
Which isn't to say that's wrong (it's certainly added capability)...as long as the government will support the increased costs.
Not really requirements creep; all that, standfast BMD capability which is still not a requirement (given the proliferation of anti ship ballistic missiles, there might be an argument it should be), have been there effectively from the beginning of the project. Effectively, replacing RN systems with the ones the RAN uses; some of which, such as Mark 41, bring added capability in their wake.
There will of course be a need for evolution of the requirement set in a program which will, essentially, last for 25 years but up to this point it seems to have remained remarkably stable.
There will of course be a need for evolution of the requirement set in a program which will, essentially, last for 25 years but up to this point it seems to have remained remarkably stable.
Fair point. The fact that a lot of RN systems would be changed out obviously was known about from the earliest days. May be better to say the extent of the capability desired is what is still a moving target and creating the changes in design. But, as you note, evolution in this kind of program will also be inevitable.
I would think that the only commonality between the RN Type 26 and the RAN Hunter class will be the hull, power plant, main gun, and Mk-41 VLS. My half penny's worth.
I still don't think this is remotely true. BAE, Fincantieri, and Navantia responded to a requirement which included CEAFAR, AEGIS, Mk.41 VLS etc. and all three responded with variants which met, to whatever level they could, the requirement. Now they have to meet that requirement. In time honoured supplier fashion, BAE will now start quibbling about what was included, and what should be a variance attracting extra payment, while GoA will be trying to pin them to actually making good their promises without being screwed over.
Business as usual
oldsig
I hate giving suppliers any slack if I don't have to, but objectively, I will say things like what the final CEAFAR configuration would look like (ie how many array faces, height, etc), just "how much" AEGIS was desired (as in the other USN sourced combat system elements), final count of VLS cells, what SSM would be chosen, etc. were and to some extent still are moving targets. The FMS sale for the USN sourced systems only went through approval earlier this year.
Another small wrinkle is SEA 4000 Phase 6. There is definitely a desire (for obvious reasons) for as much commonality in the 2 ship types as possible as far as combat system configurations (with obvious exceptions where there are full system replacements - eg SPY1 vs CEAFAR). While this would be the logical choice and greatly benefit sustainability/training/logistics of both platforms, I am not sure how much of a lever the GoA staff have to drive this with BAE as the ship designer.
But to tie all that back to the original post - that would be my guess as to why there hasn't been a whole lot more information from the PR shops (particularly images) as to what is driving to the final design. Beyond that though, I don't know that there's a whole lot to show until the next event worth reporting happens...the next milestones are System Design Review then cutting steel as I recall.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere. It is a primer explaining the Australian sub program. Just had a brief glance at it so far.
Periscope that does not break the surface.
The RAN have announced that they will be acquiring a periscope that does not break the oceans surface.
Can someone advise how this is possible?
If the matter is subject to embargo then advise on this aspect is also sought.
Regards
Chris
The RAN have announced that they will be acquiring a periscope that does not break the oceans surface.
Can someone advise how this is possible?
If the matter is subject to embargo then advise on this aspect is also sought.
Regards
Chris
- Status