Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[DDG38]

If you I'm trying to make it an air force vs Navy thing you are wrong. Google Plan Jericho and Plan Pelorus and set the settings to the 12 months. One is multimedia and the other is press releases. As I said in my previous email I have not doubt the navy has a plan and from what I've read it's a sound plan. I'm excited by the ship building program. I appreciate the careful planning and the long lead times when it comes to building ships.

I started think about this reading about the Arafura class OPV and the helipads. I thought WHY!!!. You need options and more so in the case of emergencies. I'm assuming it was a cost saving exercise and not an answer to an engineering problem. This to me is an OH&S issue. If this was made public before hand things could be done differently.
Then there is the CIWS discussion. I agree the Phalanax while still current its capability is aging and thought is needed as we go into the future. Again take the public with you. Australians favor protecting our sailors in harms way. It could accelerate the process.

I am not a naval expert and my thoughts are mine alone. I am starting to embrace this forum as a place of ideas. My point is marketing and the way multimedia multidimensional the world has become. The bigger you appearance the more attention you get. I was in the Airforce and I know it is hard to challenge the status quo. I am out now for quite awhile but from my perspective some bright spark challenged and Jericho was born. I am just encouraging and challenging a thought outside the box.

That's the 2nd time you've mentioned marketing. I'm curious, marketing to who ? Who do you think the Navy should be marketing this plan whatever to ? What was your mustering in the RAAF btw ?

 

[oldsig127]

That's the 2nd time you've mentioned marketing. I'm curious, marketing to who ? Who do you think the Navy should be marketing this plan whatever to ?

I'm wondering myself, but I'd like to make a comment on marketing and public perceptions. In general Australians don't want to send us into harms way inadequately equipped. But there's a quite wide range of opinion about what tasks to equip the services to conduct. Politicians, and the Defence Department have to convince the taxpayer that money is being spent wisely to do just that, though if they can claim incidental free benefits, that's good.

But...it takes not much to get the Greens and assorted independents, and the more left wing of Labor and some Agrarian Nationals to claim that we're wasting money.

The OPV's are a classic example. They displace about SEVEN times as much as their predecessors. They'll do exactly what the RAN CONOPS require, which the old boats can't. Slipping that past a greenie is difficult. Then even leave a slight suggestion they could do more and getting them becomes a fight. So, marketing. Selling what you need to the people who could screw it up if you don't succeed. The taxpayer

oldsig

 

[Depot Dog]

That's the 2nd time you've mentioned marketing. I'm curious, marketing to who ? Who do you think the Navy should be marketing this plan whatever to ? What was your mustering in the RAAF btw ?

Instrument fitter, base cal tech and biomedical engineering as a civvie
I call myself depot dog as I was mainly with 1AD & 2AD

 

[Depot Dog]

I'm wondering myself, but I'd like to make a comment on marketing and public perceptions. In general Australians don't want to send us into harms way inadequately equipped. But there's a quite wide range of opinion about what tasks to equip the services to conduct. Politicians, and the Defence Department have to convince the taxpayer that money is being spent wisely to do just that, though if they can claim incidental free benefits, that's good.

But...it takes not much to get the Greens and assorted independents, and the more left wing of Labor and some Agrarian Nationals to claim that we're wasting money.

The OPV's are a classic example. They displace about SEVEN times as much as their predecessors. They'll do exactly what the RAN CONOPS require, which the old boats can't. Slipping that past a greenie is difficult. Then even leave a slight suggestion they could do more and getting them becomes a fight. So, marketing. Selling what you need to the people who could screw it up if you don't succeed. The taxpayer

oldsig

Thank you for your response. I agree with your points in your post. Defense is insurance for a nation. Tax payers and politicians perceive it as a waste until it's need. Really I don't want to ramble on about this.

I'm an engineer not English scholar so I've probably misused the term marketing. All I'm saying is the RAAF used Jericho to push there case for 5th generation. As I said the pace of development is faster than anytime in the 58 years I'm been on this planet. I was just posing the question what if the navy did the same. If you think they are and I shouldn't infer the opposite. If you think the current pace is fast enough. If you think I'm speaking from my behind. That's okay they are all valid opinions. I welcome them all. I may not agree but they are valid in the authors eye.

This is my opinion and I think it's valid

 

[alexsa]

Thank you for your response. I agree with your points in your post. Defense is insurance for a nation. Tax payers and politicians perceive it as a waste until it's need. Really I don't want to ramble on about this.

I'm an engineer not English scholar so I've probably misused the term marketing. All I'm saying is the RAAF used Jericho to push there case for 5th generation. As I said the pace of development is faster than anytime in the 58 years I'm been on this planet. I was just posing the question what if the navy did the same. If you think they are and I shouldn't infer the opposite. If you think the current pace is fast enough. If you think I'm speaking from my behind. That's okay they are all valid opinions. I welcome them all. I may not agree but they are valid in the authors eye.

This is my opinion and I think it's valid

Good day

I note your concern but would also note the F-35 and other elements of the RAAF development have been a long time coming. The current development of the naval capability has seen some developments that were not expected including CEC, AEGIS on the FFG, Upgrade of AEGIS on the DDG to baseline 9 along with improvements to other data exchange systems. These are significant changes in capability that will benefit interoperability with other Australian assets and those of our allies.

In so far as weapons are concerned ESSM Block 2 will be adopted and it is highly likely that we will get an anti missile capability along with SM6 (noting SM6 may actually provide that capability). These options cannot be implemented until the AEGIS upgrade is completed.

Finally the Australian tactical interface (read SAAB 9LV) will be incorporated into the DDG. This will improve the use of ESSM in the anti-ship missile response as it has in the upgraded ANZAC. The capability of that system should not be underestimated as it has successfully splashed supersonic targets as a direct engagement and as a crossing target. There is a link to a very good history on this programme somewhere in this thread but I don't have time to find it at the moment.

The Phalanx is very much a hail Mary system but it does provide a defence against small surface targets. Personally I like SeaRAM as an option in this space but for the time being we are sticking with Phalanx as a last ditch support to ESSM.

So there is a lot happening.

 

[Gryphinator]

I know a lot of RAN ships have traditionally been "fitted for, not with" Phalanx.
Is there (should there) an obligation for the navy to fit every ship with such systems (SeaRAM etc) under Australian OH&S laws?
Obviously if going to an active war zone they would be, but regular patrols as well?
I'd be interested to hear if anyone here has experience in this area.
Cheers

 

[DDG38]

I know a lot of RAN ships have traditionally been "fitted for, not with" Phalanx.
Is there (should there) an obligation for the navy to fit every ship with such systems (SeaRAM etc) under Australian OH&S laws?
Obviously if going to an active war zone they would be, but regular patrols as well?
I'd be interested to hear if anyone here has experience in this area.
Cheers

That would be an interesting and very short conversation :
SBLT : "Excuse me Sir, I cannot sail from FBE today as the ship isn't fitted with a CIWS and therefor is in contravention of federal WHS laws"
CAPT : ............
SBLT : spends next 3 months cleaning heads and doing scullery in between watches

 

[Gryphinator]

That would be an interesting and very short conversation :
SBLT : "Excuse me Sir, I cannot sail from FBE today as the ship isn't fitted with a CIWS and therefor is in contravention of federal WHS laws"
CAPT : ............
SBLT : spends next 3 months cleaning heads and doing scullery in between watches

Sarcasm aside, I get your point but probably above their pay grade I suspect.

 

[spoz]

Two things; first, enemy action in combat ops is excluded from WHS legislation; and in normal situations there has to be a level of risk to trigger a WHS issue. If there is a level of risk which is above SFARP and which requires CIWS to mitigate it that is ipso facto a result of enemy action in a combat situation so rule 1 applies.

And even if that wasn’t the situation, who (other than Navy command) is qualified to assess the risk inherent in not having CIWS when taking into account other equipment fits, the tactical situation etc?

 

[DDG38]

Just to add to @spoz point, there are quite a few Defence exemptions in the WHS legislation so in general for day to day RAN ops it's not really a consideration. When it is, see how quickly they bolted on CIWS to the Steel Cat (DDG41) before she deployed to the Gulf.

 

[CB90]

Just to add to @spoz point, there are quite a few Defence exemptions in the WHS legislation so in general for day to day RAN ops it's not really a consideration. When it is, see how quickly they bolted on CIWS to the Steel Cat (DDG41) before she deployed to the Gulf.

At first I was confused (Brisbane the AWD was built with CIWS off the bat - and she hasn’t deployed operationally yet) then I remembered you guys actually reuse hull numbers and names for tradition.

 

[John Newman]

At first I was confused (Brisbane the AWD was built with CIWS off the bat - and she hasn’t deployed operationally yet) then I remembered you guys actually reuse hull numbers and names for tradition.

A bit of interesting info on the block allocation and use of pennant numbers:

Semaphore: AWD, Hobart, MFU or DDGH - what’s in a name? | Royal Australian Navy

Royal Australian Navy

www.navy.gov.au

And this:

Ship names Archives - Naval Historical Society of Australia

www.navyhistory.org.au

And this too:

http://www.navy-radio.com/manuals/acp/acp113ah.pdf

Cheers,

 

[DDG38]

Remember during your xmas day to spare a thought for those ADF personnel who are deployed and standing a watch. Like the crew of HMAS Adelaide : "Australian Army soldiers from 6th, 7th, 16th and 17th Brigade wait to board HMAS Adelaide at the Port of Brisbane, before they deploy to Fiji and provide Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief after the devastating cyclone Yasa." Image source - ADF Image Library linky

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Phalanx is very much a hail Mary system but it does provide a defence against small surface targets. Personally I like SeaRAM as an option in this space but for the time being we are sticking with Phalanx as a last ditch support to ESSM.

SeaRAM vs perhaps CAMM?

On platforms like the Type 26 you don't even have to choose, you can have Phalanx/searam, CAMM, ESSM etc. In fact given that option, I think Phalanx may be with us a while yet. There may be cases where drones/surface boats that the gun based Phalanx is preferred, while it may not be in its element knocking out modern supersonic naval munitions it has a place.

With this in mind, SM6 ought to be a game changer. That leaves the Harpoon replacement, which IMO would be better filled by a deck mounted, box launched LRASM. Impressive as NSM is, it falls well short of the pacing threat (YJ18 and YJ100) in terms of both range and warhead weight.

I see LRASM and NSM in different roles. LRASM is the ideal missile to be cued with far off assets at large high value, well hardened or protected targets. Its a 2 ton missile (three times the mass of harpoon), and won't be replacing harpoon box launchers, so it will have to most likely exist in the VLS tubes, competing with air defence missiles for space. Or on a platform like the ANZAC's, never abled to be fitted. Even if they did fit, what is going to cue them. But ideal for fighters, P8's, DDG's.

NSM on the other hand is usefully longer ranged than harpoon, a whole lot more likely to be able to make it to the target. It can easily replace boxed harpoon launchers as its designed (and weight 2/3rds that of a Harpoon, or 1/5th that of a LRASM), providing additional shots in the process. It could be easily fitted to the Anzacs and smaller ships and give a useful upgrade. Given it seems we will have the Anzacs for while yet, even small buy of NSM box launchers would go a long way.

 

[Boagrius]

I see LRASM and NSM in different roles. LRASM is the ideal missile to be cued with far off assets at large high value, well hardened or protected targets. Its a 2 ton missile (three times the mass of harpoon), and won't be replacing harpoon box launchers, so it will have to most likely exist in the VLS tubes, competing with air defence missiles for space. Or on a platform like the ANZAC's, never abled to be fitted. Even if they did fit, what is going to cue them. But ideal for fighters, P8's, DDG's.

NSM on the other hand is usefully longer ranged than harpoon, a whole lot more likely to be able to make it to the target. It can easily replace boxed harpoon launchers as its designed (and weight 2/3rds that of a Harpoon, or 1/5th that of a LRASM), providing additional shots in the process. It could be easily fitted to the Anzacs and smaller ships and give a useful upgrade. Given it seems we will have the Anzacs for while yet, even small buy of NSM box launchers would go a long way.

Fair point. That said my concern is that by the time you're in range to shoot your NSM salvo, you're also well within range of the target's harder hitting YJ18s and YJ100s. I guess it boils down to a question of CONOPS - exactly what targets do we want our ships to be able to tackle with ASMs?

 

[Boagrius]

As an addendum, I should acknowledge that AFAIK only the Type 052D DDG and Type 055 CG carry the YJ18 & 100, both of which are in a very different weightclass to something like the ANZACs. Remaining PLAN surface vessels (like the more analogous Type 054/054A) seem to use C802 derivatives, to which the NSM would be a very capable answer. That said, where the larger Hobarts and Hunters are concerned I do wonder how future proof the NSM would be(?).

 

[John Newman]

Fair point. That said my concern is that by the time you're in range to shoot your NSM salvo, you're also well within range of the target's harder hitting YJ18s and YJ100s. I guess it boils down to a question of CONOPS - exactly what targets do we want our ships to be able to tackle with ASMs?

Where as in the present and past, the ADF had one AShM, Harpoon, but in the future I can certainly see multiple types in service.

There are multiple types of AAW weapons for the RAN (and RAAF), shorter and longer range, horses for courses.

With LRASM, the RAN (and RAAF) will be able to take on large heavily armed targets at long range, But I also see them as an expensive overkill for lighter smaller targets.

Anyway, I can see a place for LRASM, NSM and JSM in ADF inventory.

 

[hairyman]

I am surprised that we have not already ordered the NSM, even if only for the F35;s. Perfect fit for our current frigates too, having twice the range of the Harpoon missile.

 

[ADMk2]

Fair point. That said my concern is that by the time you're in range to shoot your NSM salvo, you're also well within range of the target's harder hitting YJ18s and YJ100s. I guess it boils down to a question of CONOPS - exactly what targets do we want our ships to be able to tackle with ASMs?

NSM / LRASM won’t be the only shooting options. SM-6 will be providing a 300k + supersonic / hypersonic option too. Won‘t sink a ship perhaps, but won’t do them much good...

 

[Boagrius]

NSM / LRASM won’t be the only shooting options. SM-6 will be providing a 300k + supersonic / hypersonic option too. Won‘t sink a ship perhaps, but won’t do them much good...

True, and we should be getting on the SM6 bandwagon in time to go straight for the larger Blk IB version. Certainly a variety of options on the table, which is a good problem to have. At this point any of them would be better than the increasingly obsolete Harpoon(!).