Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StevoJH]

The 100th Anniversiary was in July wasnt it? When is the fleet review?

 

[rawcs]

The fleet review will be in 2013 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the entry of HMAS Australia into Sydney for the first time.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The fleet review will be in 2013 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the entry of HMAS Australia into Sydney for the first time.

With Hmas Canberra coming into Sydney Harbour for the first time (in oct)? Are they ahead of schedule with the build, the timing will be close!? That would be one hell of a fleet review centre piece. (and just further makes me want them called the Australia class).

I don't see GI going anywhere. Developing naval bases esp. old ones is a bad idea. HMAS platypus is still being redeveloped, last I heard they were just going to pour concrete all over the site.. I miss seeing the subs moving in Sydney harbour. I though the LHD's will actually be tied up at GI most of the time when they are in port?

 

[Ozymandias]

With Hmas Canberra coming into Sydney Harbour for the first time (in oct)? Are they ahead of schedule with the build, the timing will be close!? That would be one hell of a fleet review centre piece. (and just further makes me want them called the Australia class).

Don't count on it - have you ever known a multi-billion dollar defence project to stick to the schedule?

 

[Volkodav]

With Hmas Canberra coming into Sydney Harbour for the first time (in oct)? Are they ahead of schedule with the build, the timing will be close!? That would be one hell of a fleet review centre piece. (and just further makes me want them called the Australia class).

I don't see GI going anywhere. Developing naval bases esp. old ones is a bad idea. HMAS platypus is still being redeveloped, last I heard they were just going to pour concrete all over the site.. I miss seeing the subs moving in Sydney harbour. I though the LHD's will actually be tied up at GI most of the time when they are in port?

BAE have yet to work their magic so there is still the potential to have the project run two years late. The hassle the LHDs have in comparison with the AWD is there aren’t any other yards to assign work to make back time.

 

[rossfrb_1]

RAN a MK-54 LWT user??

Hi all, there's a blog spot run by a certain F-35 detractor (amongst other things).
This person asserts that in October 2010 Australia purchased '200 more' MK-54 LWTs.
That suggests that Australia already had MK-54's - which would be news to me.
Just in case I'm wrong (has been known to happen) can someone confirm or deny this story?
This would h-ELP put my mind at ease!
cheers
rb

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Neither the RAN or RAAF have any Mk 54 LWT on inventory. Your blogger would appear to have confused the DSCA potential FMS announcement with an order:

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/Australia_10-55.pdf

This was an FMS offer solicited as part of consideration of the MH-60R acquired under FMS for the Navy's new combat helicopter. The MH-60R FMS package including the Mk 54 has been chosen by Government but still there has been no contracts signed. So it will be some time before these torpedoes are actually ordered and delivered.

The ADF does have Mk 46 Mod 5 (SW) LWTs in service. The Mk 54 is generally considered an update of the Mk 46 as it combines the vehicle system of this torpedo with the mission system of the Mk 50.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Neither the RAN or RAAF have any Mk 54 LWT on inventory. Your blogger would appear to have confused the DSCA potential FMS announcement with an order:

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2010/Australia_10-55.pdf

This was an FMS offer solicited as part of consideration of the MH-60R acquired under FMS for the Navy's new combat helicopter. The MH-60R FMS package including the Mk 54 has been chosen by Government but still there has been no contracts signed. So it will be some time before these torpedoes are actually ordered and delivered.

The ADF does have Mk 46 Mod 5 (SW) LWTs in service. The Mk 54 is generally considered an update of the Mk 46 as it combines the vehicle system of this torpedo with the mission system of the Mk 50.

Thanks for that.

Is the MU-90 currently in service with RAN? I know some have been lobbed overboard from some of the Anzacs for trials, but if it came to actually needing to use them, is the RAN in a position to do so now?
Are they regarded as an effective torpedo? My understanding of the issues the RAN has with them stems more from being able to launch them, than from the actual performance once they are in the water.

One site mentions potential deficiencies with the MK-54
MK-54 Lightweight Hybrid Torpedo

Is this really an issue?

cheers
rb

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Is the MU-90 currently in service with RAN? I know some have been lobbed overboard from some of the Anzacs for trials, but if it came to actually needing to use them, is the RAN in a position to do so now?

There have been plenty MU90s delivered to the RAN and the torpedo maintenance centre is operational. The Mk 1 torpedo delivery program is expected to finish this financial year with the Mk 2 (Australian built) starting delivery. The certification program is not yet complete but the torpedoes work and could be used in an emergency. There will probably be some delays in the schedule for delivery of the Mk 2 MU90 but its not as if the RAN will not have an adequate supply. The basis of provisioning for the Mk 2 torpedo is basically to refight the North Atlantic U-Boat campaign in Australian waters which is another one of those legacy fantasies from the Defence of Australia regime.

Are they regarded as an effective torpedo? My understanding of the issues the RAN has with them stems more from being able to launch them, than from the actual performance once they are in the water.

The MU90 mission system (sensor, processors, warhead, etc) is a big step up from the legacy Mk 46 so it’s a far more effective torpedo. The vehicle system (motor, power source, etc) uses an exotic type of battery (Aluminium-Silver Oxide) that offers high performance but at high cost in acquisition and maintenance. Certainly a lot more demanding than the relatively simple Otto fuel engines of the Mk 46 and Mk 48 HWT. As a war shot the MU90 is going to be a lot better than the Mk 46, especially in littoral waters and against high end submarines.

One site mentions potential deficiencies with the MK-54
MK-54 Lightweight Hybrid Torpedo

Is this really an issue?

No the FAS webpage mentions deficiencies with the Mk 46 torpedo the Mk 54 is replacing. The Mk 54 combines a comparable (if not better) mission system to the MU90 with advanced digital processors, programmable counter decoy capability, direct energy warheads, etc with the cheap to buy/maintain and high reliability vehicle system of the Otto fuel engine.

The key difference is the Mk 50 and MU90 were conceived during the Cold War where the threat of high speed Soviet submarines (Alfa class) was still a reality. So they have >50 knot speeds so they can chase down one of these very fast boats. The Mk 54 makes do with the ~40 knot speed of the Mk 46 LWT because this is more than adequate for taking out much slower diesel eclectic submarines in the littorals and ~30 knot nuke boats.

Interestingly the default combination of the very fast frigate LWT (MU90) and slower air dropped (MH-60R, P-8A) LWT (Mk 54) that is emerging for the ADF will provide tailored speed solutions. The air dropped torpedo is likely to be launched much closer to the target than the frigate weapon so in less need of a speed advantage to chase down the sub but the higher speed frigate LWT enables the ship to engage the submarine at a distance to keep it away and under threat to avoid being shot in return.

 

[Todjaeger]

No the FAS webpage mentions deficiencies with the Mk 46 torpedo the Mk 54 is replacing. The Mk 54 combines a comparable (if not better) mission system to the MU90 with advanced digital processors, programmable counter decoy capability, direct energy warheads, etc with the cheap to buy/maintain and high reliability vehicle system of the Otto fuel engine.

The key difference is the Mk 50 and MU90 were conceived during the Cold War where the threat of high speed Soviet submarines (Alfa class) was still a reality. So they have >50 knot speeds so they can chase down one of these very fast boats. The Mk 54 makes do with the ~40 knot speed of the Mk 46 LWT because this is more than adequate for taking out much slower diesel eclectic submarines in the littorals and ~30 knot nuke boats.

Interestingly the default combination of the very fast frigate LWT (MU90) and slower air dropped (MH-60R, P-8A) LWT (Mk 54) that is emerging for the ADF will provide tailored speed solutions. The air dropped torpedo is likely to be launched much closer to the target than the frigate weapon so in less need of a speed advantage to chase down the sub but the higher speed frigate LWT enables the ship to engage the submarine at a distance to keep it away and under threat to avoid being shot in return.

Abe, please correct me if I have this wrong. The impression I had, was that the MU90 and Mk 50 LWT programmes were essentially 'the same' in that they were US and Euro solutions to a North Atlantic Soviet sub hunt.

Given the end of the Cold War, as well as the decline of the Soviet fast sub fleet, the US no longer wanted to keep purchasing the as already mentioned fast and therefore expensive, Mk 50 LWT. Hence the development of the Mk 54, which as I understood it, was basically a Mk 46 LWT casing and powerplant, but fitted with a Mk 50 warhead, sonar and processors.

Also I understand it, part of the RAN interesting in the Mk 54, apart from it already being integrated onto the MH-60R 'Romeo' is that it is significantly cheaper than an MU90 for comparable performance in all areas except for speed. This is why the Hobart-class AWD appears likely to be fitted with the Mk 54 instead of the MU90.

In addition, I have heard a rumour that the USN was looking at updating the ASROC to deliver a Mk 54 torpedoe in place of the current Mk 46, and with that possibility, the RAN was looking at having some VLS cells aboard the AWD and/or the follow-on to the ANZAC-class FFH fitted with ASROC. With something like that in service to assist naval helicopters conducting ASW, the difference in speed between the MU90 and the Mk 54 would (IMO at least) become less important.

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

Hi all, there's a blog spot run by a certain F-35 detractor (amongst other things).
This person asserts that in October 2010 Australia purchased '200 more' MK-54 LWTs.
That suggests that Australia already had MK-54's - which would be news to me.
Just in case I'm wrong (has been known to happen) can someone confirm or deny this story?
This would h-ELP put my mind at ease!
cheers
rb

An ex-photographer and now APA acolyte got something wrong about defence?

No!!! How could he? He clearly knows all. All that time spent taking staged happy snaps of military bases means he knows exactly how obsolete F-35 is to "the threat" and how corrupt and incompetent everyone except him and his clown club buddies are...



He got upset a few years ago when I called him a wanker because of his stated opinions and attitude back then. My goodness his feelings would be hurt if we communicated today...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe, please correct me if I have this wrong. The impression I had, was that the MU90 and Mk 50 LWT programmes were essentially 'the same' in that they were US and Euro solutions to a North Atlantic Soviet sub hunt.

Given the end of the Cold War, as well as the decline of the Soviet fast sub fleet, the US no longer wanted to keep purchasing the as already mentioned fast and therefore expensive, Mk 50 LWT. Hence the development of the Mk 54, which as I understood it, was basically a Mk 46 LWT casing and powerplant, but fitted with a Mk 50 warhead, sonar and processors.

Yes. Thats more data and ellaboration on what I thought I could get away with saying "Cold War era".

Also I understand it, part of the RAN interesting in the Mk 54, apart from it already being integrated onto the MH-60R 'Romeo' is that it is significantly cheaper than an MU90 for comparable performance in all areas except for speed. This is why the Hobart-class AWD appears likely to be fitted with the Mk 54 instead of the MU90.

Yeah, plus the P-8A MPA. The Mk 54 is much cheaper than the MU90 because of the USD - AUD exchange, US FMS purchasing and the Otto fuel engine.

In addition, I have heard a rumour that the USN was looking at updating the ASROC to deliver a Mk 54 torpedoe in place of the current Mk 46, and with that possibility, the RAN was looking at having some VLS cells aboard the AWD and/or the follow-on to the ANZAC-class FFH fitted with ASROC. With something like that in service to assist naval helicopters conducting ASW, the difference in speed between the MU90 and the Mk 54 would (IMO at least) become less important.

There was no requirement in the AWD acquisition for an ASW missile. Nor has there been anything for it beyond scopping for weaponry for the Anzac class replacement. But the AWD has a high end "force level" ASW sensor system that is much better than US DDG-51s.

 

[ancientcivy]

"The Mk 54 is much cheaper than the MU90 because of the USD - AUD exchange, US FMS purchasing and the Otto fuel engine".

Could Australia's and for that matter New Zealands' mark 46 lwts stocks be upgraded/re-enginered to mark 54 lwts,with consideralbe cost savings, for both Countries?

regards AncientCivy

 

[Abraham Gubler]

"The Mk 54 is much cheaper than the MU90 because of the USD - AUD exchange, US FMS purchasing and the Otto fuel engine".

Could Australia's and for that matter New Zealands' mark 46 lwts stocks be upgraded/re-enginered to mark 54 lwts,with consideralbe cost savings, for both Countries?

Yep. If you have a Mk 46 you can convert it to a Mk 54 via an upgrade kit. But the cost savings are not going to be spectacular. The front end of the torpedo is where all the money is. And then you have an issue of maintaining an old warhead and old motor.

 

[BystanderAgain]

An ex-photographer and now APA acolyte got something wrong about defence?

No!!! How could he? He clearly knows all. All that time spent taking staged happy snaps of military bases means he knows exactly how obsolete F-35 is to "the threat" and how corrupt and incompetent everyone except him and his clown club buddies are...



He got upset a few years ago when I called him a wanker because of his stated opinions and attitude back then. My goodness his feelings would be hurt if we communicated today...

Why the continuing personal insults.
I thought relevant informed discussion was the aim?

 

[Bonza]

BystanderAgain Why the continuing personal insults.
I thought relevant informed discussion was the aim?

Made an alt username, did you? Please refer to the forum rules, specifically section 13, if you wish to return after your ban expires.

 

[Volkodav]

Also I understand it, part of the RAN interesting in the Mk 54, apart from it already being integrated onto the MH-60R 'Romeo' is that it is significantly cheaper than an MU90 for comparable performance in all areas except for speed. This is why the Hobart-class AWD appears likely to be fitted with the Mk 54 instead of the MU90.

As far as I am aware the MU90 is still being fitted to the AWDs. The systems have already been ordered and there would be cost and schedule implications to change now.

There will be issues stowing the Mk54 with its OTO fuel vs the MU90 originaly assumed for the helos but this will probably be easier to fix than the issues we would have had, had we tried to specify the MU90 be certified for the Romeo.

 

[Todjaeger]

As far as I am aware the MU90 is still being fitted to the AWDs. The systems have already been ordered and there would be cost and schedule implications to change now.

Really? I was aware that the MU90 had been tested and certified for use aboard the Anzac-class FFH and that they had been ordered as replacements for the Mk 46 LWT currently in use. I had not been aware that they had already been chosen as the LWT for use aboard the Hobart-class AWD. I had thought a decision on that was still pending.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know what the Spanish navy uses aboard their F-100's as a LWT?

-Cheers

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Out of curiousity, does anyone know what the Spanish navy uses aboard their F-100's as a LWT?

Mk 46s according to Wiki.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lvaro_de_Baz%C3%A1n_class_frigate"]Ãlvaro de Bazán class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:F-102_Almirante_Juan_de_Borbon_CSSQT.jpg" class="image"><img alt="F-102 Almirante Juan de Borbon CSSQT.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/F-102_Almirante_Juan_de_Borbon_CSSQT.jpg/300px-F-102_Almirante_Juan_de_Borbon_CSSQT.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/93/F-102_Almirante_Juan_de_Borbon_CSSQT.jpg/300px-F-102_Almirante_Juan_de_Borbon_CSSQT.jpg[/ame]

Mac

 

[spoz]

Really? I was aware that the MU90 had been tested and certified for use aboard the Anzac-class FFH and that they had been ordered as replacements for the Mk 46 LWT currently in use. I had not been aware that they had already been chosen as the LWT for use aboard the Hobart-class AWD. I had thought a decision on that was still pending.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know what the Spanish navy uses aboard their F-100's as a LWT?

-Cheers

The AWDs are being fitted with MU 90s as the SLT. They will probably have to carry Mk54s as the ALT (and other air weapons) but that will almost certainly be a mod after delivery. The F100s carry Mk46s so their magazine is designed for Otto fuel.