Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

Yeah, that would be one hell of an "atomic ant", but I cannot see why to put the CB90... that will only add weight without improving the capacities that a medium size helo and a pair of RHIBs actually give you...

The SEA 1180 ship has a requirement to support SOF delivery and amphibious ops. The Army will be acquiring a small fleet of Tactical Littoral Craft which could be as big as the CB90. The capability to support the TLC should be in the SEA 1180 ship. With the multi role mission deck and the requirement to operate MCM USVs in the MCM role it will probably be something well within the capability of the ship.

BMT have a new multi role OPV design superseeding their Venator which has some intersting mission deck - stern dock - side davit arrangements. Still a large ~3,500 tonne ship for the RN requirement but some interesting deck arrangements to have this kind of flexibility in a monohull.

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/RINA_2010_Securitor_Paper.pdf

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Australia has plenty of Armidale IPVs with RHIBs for the north, in my mind Australia needs a few OPVs to patrol the fisheries in the Southern Ocean... Three or four NZ OPVs would be nice...

SEA 1180 is for the ship that will REPLACE all of those Armidale patrol boats at their end of life around 2020.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I am seriously hoping for a large steel mono hull with all electric propulsion, a very large helo deck, hanger and multi purpose deck. A significant allocation of space and weight for the future retrofit of a full ANZAC ASMD class combat system and the facility to dramatically increase onboard power generation as well as a stern setup for launch and recovery of craft upto CB90 size would be good.

I think CB90 is a big of a big compromise. I don't see the need to operate a CB90 from a sub 2,000t patrol ship. CB90's could be operated by the LHD for anti piracy etc. Normal RHIB is what the OCV should be designed for.

I think there may be an argument for allowing space for weapon upgrades (up to harpoon), while not actually fitting anything. I would argue having space for a Phalax is proberly more important as to deal with rouge RPG's, motars, boats etc during piracy, or coastal operations and could be fitted as needed from our pool (which should be made bigger in anycase).

In terms of gun, 25mm would be fine, but if possible fitting existing 76mm or new 57mm should be possible.

While I think steel hull would be better, I can see that pushing for aluminium would really help that part of the industry.

 

[swerve]

... I would argue having space for a Phalax is proberly more important as to deal with rouge RPG's,....

This is one of those misspellings or typos which I usually skim over despite it making me see red (ha ha), but today I'm in the mood to be pedantic.

Rouge.

Rogue.

 

[Milne Bay]

This is one of those misspellings or typos which I usually skim over despite it making me see red (ha ha), but today I'm in the mood to be pedantic.

Rouge.

Rogue.

rouge RPG's,....

I hear that these are very much in VOGUE these days

 

[Jhom]

The SEA 1180 ship has a requirement to support SOF delivery and amphibious ops. The Army will be acquiring a small fleet of Tactical Littoral Craft which could be as big as the CB90. The capability to support the TLC should be in the SEA 1180 ship. With the multi role mission deck and the requirement to operate MCM USVs in the MCM role it will probably be something well within the capability of the ship.

BMT have a new multi role OPV design superseeding their Venator which has some intersting mission deck - stern dock - side davit arrangements. Still a large ~3,500 tonne ship for the RN requirement but some interesting deck arrangements to have this kind of flexibility in a monohull.

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/RINA_2010_Securitor_Paper.pdf

I didnt say that it was impossible, Im just pointing out that if you want to carry and be able to launch a 30 ton boat you might be loosing some pretty good space... and adding nothing you cant do with a helo and medium RHIBs...

It seems to me like a bit overkill, plus you have said that Harpoons wont be added because of weight issues... and then we are talking about carrying and launching 30ton boats... something doesnt make sense here, if you are able to launch 30ton baots then you can add a couple of Harpoons without having to worry about weight (in my opinion).

It seems to me that SEA1180 can end up being SEA+1500... or 2000.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think CB90 is a big of a big compromise. I don't see the need to operate a CB90 from a sub 2,000t patrol ship. CB90's could be operated by the LHD for anti piracy etc. Normal RHIB is what the OCV should be designed for.

While CB90 might not be the actual solution there is a need to operate the Army’s new Tactical Littoral Craft, SOF RHIBs and to provide for growth in RHIB capability. Current Navy RHIBs are 9m types but SOF are 11m and there is potential that the Navy will upsize to this type. Further the TLC might come in as a CB90 sized boat, though I think a SB90E or JMEC size is more likely. Either way bigger means the other can be accommodated.

Especially since the SEA 1180 will have to operate MCM unmanned vessels. Which could include the speed boat sized sweep pullers plus some rather large mini-sub types. There is a definite requirement for the SEA 1180 ship to be able to operate upwards of 20 tonne boats.

I think there may be an argument for allowing space for weapon upgrades (up to harpoon), while not actually fitting anything. I would argue having space for a Phalax is proberly more important as to deal with rouge RPG's, motars, boats etc during piracy, or coastal operations and could be fitted as needed from our pool (which should be made bigger in anycase).

I don’t see the need for Harpoon because this ship is not the ADF’s only ship killer asset. A guided missile for maritime interdiction (boat killing) is certainly something you would want but these are best on the helicopter – providing greater reach. Phalanx is a good self defence capability and probably already under consideration re the “autonomous self defence” capabity listed in the SEA 1180 documents.

As a modular capability like Phalanx a medium calibre gun makes a lot of sense. But it isn’t really needed on MCM, Hydro or border protection missions. But when the SEA 1180 is doing its warfighting thing supporting SOF and so on it would be very useful. The legacy 76mm from the FFGs would be fine in numbers and better in capability as it provides a shore bombardment capability. 57mm may be better for sinking swarm boats but a missile like Griffin would be better for this role.

While I think steel hull would be better, I can see that pushing for aluminium would really help that part of the industry.

It’s really only one yard which seems to be the most successful in Oz anyway. The key issue is more what hullform is required for the sea states expected. From catamaran to ramform and everything in between. If the sea state requirement is beyond trimarans then AUSTAL could build a 500 tonne deadweight monohull from aluminium anyway.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I didnt say that it was impossible, Im just pointing out that if you want to carry and be able to launch a 30 ton boat you might be loosing some pretty good space... and adding nothing you cant do with a helo and medium RHIBs...

Well that’s not true in the slightest. Can a RHIB land 20 soldiers under armour? Can a helo sit in a river for 24 hours controlling all traffic?

It seems to me like a bit overkill, plus you have said that Harpoons wont be added because of weight issues... and then we are talking about carrying and launching 30ton boats... something doesnt make sense here, if you are able to launch 30ton baots then you can add a couple of Harpoons without having to worry about weight (in my opinion).

Go have a look at the requirement – I’ve been kind enough to provide you with a link – and then start talking about something CB90 being overkill. This ship is required to have a mission deck and carry multi hundreds of tonnes of loads. It isn’t required to give up valuable topside real estate and above MC weight for a 30 tonne missile launcher that isn’t within its CONEMP.

It seems to me that SEA1180 can end up being SEA+1500... or 2000.

It can seem to be anything to you if you don’t bother finding out what it is for and how it is supposed to be used.

 

[StingrayOZ]

While CB90 might not be the actual solution there is a need to operate the Army’s new Tactical Littoral Craft, SOF RHIBs and to provide for growth in RHIB capability. Current Navy RHIBs are 9m types but SOF are 11m and there is potential that the Navy will upsize to this type. Further the TLC might come in as a CB90 sized boat, though I think a SB90E or JMEC size is more likely. Either way bigger means the other can be accommodated.

But thats a very large compromise. Going from a 9m RHIB to a 11m RHIB is prudent, but assuming to operate CB90 is a bit far. If we need CB90 to operate in the area you can motor them in, or carry and operate out of a LHD. SB90E sized is more reasonable and there would be several ways to launch ships of that size, not every hull would need to launch SB90E sized vessels. Thats not to say CB90 isn't useful, but placing it in a 1000t boat isn't going to be the best compromise. The OCV can still act as a base of operations for CB90 sized craft it just doesn't have to carry it as well. Maybe place them with the LHD or other large vessel.

I don’t see the need for Harpoon because this ship is not the ADF’s only ship killer asset. A guided missile for maritime interdiction (boat killing) is certainly something you would want but these are best on the helicopter – providing greater reach. Phalanx is a good self defence capability and probably already under consideration re the “autonomous self defence” capabity listed in the SEA 1180 documents.

Being able to carry harpoon could be useful for several reasons. Other nations might become interested (NZ, pacific etc). While Australia has other assets, there may be a case where they need to move away from the area (LHD, AWD and ANZAC) while the OCV has to stay closer, medical evac, insertion, extraction etc. Im not saying it would be its standard mode of operation, but may be a role it needs something a bit heavier. Also with that land attack harpoon may also be critical to strike targets during an insertion. Carrying harpoon would not be done at the same time as many of its other roles, weight margin should be there anyway (really about making sure console space is avalible etc, and there is an appropriate space to fit harpoons).

As a modular capability like Phalanx a medium calibre gun makes a lot of sense. But it isn’t really needed on MCM, Hydro or border protection missions.

But thats the genius of it, fit it as needed, on a per mission requirement. A ship like this would more likely be attacked by munitions Phalanx would be great at rather than a missile based system. RPG, drones, light missiles, motars, old naval guns etc. You more likely to be closer where missile systems may have difficulty engaging. Most of the time none of them would carry it.

76 mm would seem to be an ideal size and something we already have. (57mm I don't think we need). The remainder could be fitted with typhoons. I would imagine for SOF you would use the unit fitted with 76mm and a Phalanx mount with perhaps mini typhoon mounded stern. Operating with a CB90 under the protection of the OCV (and its helo), then able to dart out to sea where a much larger asset (LHD and AWD's) would protect, carry etc. Being able to refuel/resupply a CB90 I think is more important than carrying it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But thats a very large compromise. Going from a 9m RHIB to a 11m RHIB is prudent, but assuming to operate CB90 is a bit far.

I think you missed the point. The Army is planning on acquiring a tactical littoral craft. It will be used to support SOF infil/exfil. The SEA 1180 boat will be tasked to support these operations. Therefore the SEA 1180 boat will need to be able to support the TLC. The TLC could be a CB90 sized boat. Therefore it is prudent to look at this kind of capability for the SEA 1180 boat. It is a separate issue to the RAN upsising their RHIBs.

Besides the SEA 1180 boat will be up to 2,000 tonnes in conventional displacement (not 1,000 tonnes). It will also need to operate quite large MCM equipment. It is not going to have troubles managing a CB90. They won’t be swinging from the davits but a stern approach into the modular mission bay is a possibility.

 

[rand0m]

Is the DoD planning on acquiring any sort of new amphibious vehicles to operate from the LHD's & LPD? (ie; AAVP7A1). I recently saw a news clip of the defence force practicing amphibious landings using ducks (DUKW) and really thought to myself "what the?":lol2

I was also under the impression that ASLAVS are not designed to for open ocean to shore amphibious movements? (ie; they don't like waves!).

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is one of those misspellings or typos which I usually skim over despite it making me see red (ha ha), but today I'm in the mood to be pedantic.

Rouge.

Rogue.

Wouldn't you want protection against RPG's covered in cosmetics? You were pretty quick picking that up Swerve, you don't work in the cosmetic industry do you?

 

[riksavage]

But thats a very large compromise. Going from a 9m RHIB to a 11m RHIB is prudent, but assuming to operate CB90 is a bit far.

I think you missed the point. The Army is planning on acquiring a tactical littoral craft. It will be used to support SOF infil/exfil. The SEA 1180 boat will be tasked to support these operations. Therefore the SEA 1180 boat will need to be able to support the TLC. The TLC could be a CB90 sized boat. Therefore it is prudent to look at this kind of capability for the SEA 1180 boat. It is a separate issue to the RAN upsising their RHIBs.

Besides the SEA 1180 boat will be up to 2,000 tonnes in conventional displacement (not 1,000 tonnes). It will also need to operate quite large MCM equipment. It is not going to have troubles managing a CB90. They won’t be swinging from the davits but a stern approach into the modular mission bay is a possibility.

The Combat Boat CB 90 H appears to be flavour of the month, with both the RM, Dutch, Swedes and USMC committed.

Considering Australia's diverse coastline and region in general I wonder whether a small armoured air-cushion would ever be considered?

The RN have been working with the Swedes and have two CB90 on loan. I'm sure HMAS Choules crew would have had the chance to spend time with 1 Assault Sqn on their recent trip and seen one in action. Two should fit nicely in the back of a BAY. Plus they have been modified to be davit compatible.

Landing craft exchange | Royal Navy

Mounted on davit's

http://www.fmv.se/WmTemplates/page.aspx?id=5332

 

[aussienscale]

Is the DoD planning on acquiring any sort of new amphibious vehicles to operate from the LHD's & LPD? (ie; AAVP7A1). I recently saw a news clip of the defence force practicing amphibious landings using ducks (DUKW) and really thought to myself "what the?":lol2

I was also under the impression that ASLAVS are not designed to for open ocean to shore amphibious movements? (ie; they don't like waves!).

No plans ATM for any type of amphib vehicle. And yes you are correct ASLAV is riverine only

 

[Volkodav]

These ship are intended to be able to carry out a wide range of support roles but are not intended to be front line combatants. Space and weight for a VLS would be great however a medium calibre gun and the ability to operate a variety of watercraft is without a dought more important.

The strength of these ships should be to carry out roles that major surface combatants are not suitable for, but able to do this in contested waters when supported by our frigates and destroyers.

 

[SASWanabe]

These ship are intended to be able to carry out a wide range of support roles but are not intended to be front line combatants. Space and weight for a VLS would be great however a medium calibre gun and the ability to operate a variety of watercraft is without a dought more important.

"Waiting for Swerve".


with all that is expected of these ships, i suspect we might end up seeing a ship more than the 2000 tonnes thats been said. probably up around 2500-3500 tonnes.

 

[hairyman]

Everybody is talking "Harpoon" all the time. What about the Norwegian Anti-Ship Missile that Australia is helping to fund an air launched version of? Are they in the RAN's sights at all?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Everybody is talking "Harpoon" all the time. What about the Norwegian Anti-Ship Missile that Australia is helping to fund an air launched version of? Are they in the RAN's sights at all?

Harpoon is an in-service ADF weapon. Australia is NOT funding the development of the NSM. DSTO provided some funds for an integration study of the NSM with the F-35. Just to see what kind of performance would be possible of the stealthy F-35 with a stealthy NSM and if it is physically and digitally possible for the two to work together. There is a new project for the acquisition of a maritime strike weapon for the F-35 and there is a project to acquire weapons for the new SEA 5000 frigate. NSM would be a contender for both. There is no project afoot to replace Harpoon from its current users. There is also no requirement for the SEA 1180 boat to have an anti ship strike capability. None at all.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Harpoon

Harpoon is something we have now, in large numbers.

If we are talking about 2000-3000t ships that are flexable and able to perform a wide range of missions it would seem sensible to allow the fitment of it, as long as it doesn't compromise its other mission capability.

For example, a frigate or a AWD could be missioned killed, could be as simple as a grounding, a navigational accident, USS cole style attack, storm, or a hit. Being able to take the harpoons off the striken ship, fit them to the OCV for 12 months could be very useful. Also when we start decom the AWD being able to throw some harpoons onto the OCV would be more useful than nothing. Then as I mentioned previously, other nations might be interested in the design and they might see value in operating them all the time with missiles attached.

The idea is not to convert the OCV into a corrvette or frigate permanently, just add temporary capability to fill a temporary niche. I don't think we need to go as far as adding ESSM capability, permanent VLS, etc. Harpoon and manpads, ciws and a 76mm would seem to cover the basics. Or atleast manpads and Phalanx. Isn't there some trick ammo for the 76mm that could offer some AA capability?

CB90
If its just about operating the CB90 does it have to carry it? CB90 is fairly large craft, that could be better carried in other ships. You also mentioned CB90 sized MCM craft, and I would imagine UUV's etc as well. If we are talking about a 2000-3500t ship then yes. I suppose I was thinking of something more like Austals MRV 90 sized would struggle. If it can then it should. I would imagine CB90 type of craft would be immensely useful. Several OCV's could really work well in insertion or antipiracy. Offering air (NH-90/Tigers/MH-60R/Squirrels) and water (Navy/Army RHIB/CB90/specific MCM/UUV's). If its able to launch a CB90, why not allow it to transfer load onto a LCM-1E as well?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If we are talking about 2000-3000t ships that are flexable and able to perform a wide range of missions it would seem sensible to allow the fitment of it, as long as it doesn't compromise its other mission capability.

But it does compromise. Where is it going to get the topside real-estate to fit the Harpoons? It is going to be stressed enough to fit in a gun, medium sized helo capability and the mission deck. Look at the MRV 80 – where would you put the Harpoons? Or HMNZS Otago? Again where goes the Harpoons.

Further tactical employment of the Harpoon requires the ship to go in close and engage the enemy. Where is the SEA 1180’s capability for survivability in this kind of engagement. It has no high end air self defence, it has no low profile, no electronic warfare capability. It is not designed to be a strike craft.

For example, a frigate or a AWD could be missioned killed, could be as simple as a grounding, a navigational accident, USS cole style attack, storm, or a hit. Being able to take the harpoons off the striken ship, fit them to the OCV for 12 months could be very useful.

That would have to be the weirdest justification for a capability I’ve ever seen.

The idea is not to convert the OCV into a corrvette or frigate permanently, just add temporary capability to fill a temporary niche. I don't think we need to go as far as adding ESSM capability, permanent VLS, etc. Harpoon and manpads, ciws and a 76mm would seem to cover the basics. Or atleast manpads and Phalanx. Isn't there some trick ammo for the 76mm that could offer some AA capability?

Covering the basics? But what about the helicopter? Harpoon was only fitted to the Anzacs because the Seasprite/Penguin wasn’t available. Any SEA 1180 ship called upon to provide maritime interdiction will be able to operate the MH-60R. This has the capability for stand off, anti ship strike. Firing you anti ship missile from the helicopter is far more effective. It may not stand out as much in the Combat Fleets of the World listing but it’s a better capability.

If its just about operating the CB90 does it have to carry it? CB90 is fairly large craft, that could be better carried in other ships.

Why better? Where are these other ships going to be when the SEA 1180 boat is supporting SOF infil/exfil with the Army’s TLC and the TLC happens to be the CB90? Kind of defeats the purpose if you need to send a LHD along with each SOF op because the boat that’s meant to do it (SEA 1180) can’t carry the infil/exfil platform.

You also mentioned CB90 sized MCM craft, and I would imagine UUV's etc as well. If we are talking about a 2000-3500t ship then yes. I suppose I was thinking of something more like Austals MRV 90 sized would struggle.

The MRV 80 would have no problems with CB90s in its mission deck given a suitable interface.

If it can then it should. I would imagine CB90 type of craft would be immensely useful. Several OCV's could really work well in insertion or antipiracy. Offering air (NH-90/Tigers/MH-60R/Squirrels) and water (Navy/Army RHIB/CB90/specific MCM/UUV's). If its able to launch a CB90, why not allow it to transfer load onto a LCM-1E as well?

Because there is no need for it to offload to an LCM and such a capability would require a floodable stern dock which is just ridiculous for a 2,000 tonne boat. Though any ship can have an LCM tie up alongside it in a harbour and pass down loads to the LCM. All these capabilities are determined by missions not by what looks cool and sexy.