Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

Is'nt there a ban on exporting crusie missiles that exceed 400 klm range?

Its only 300km, it applies to all types of missiles – cruise and ballistic – but only if they deliver more than 500 kg in payload. The TLAM and JASSM both deliver a 1,000 lb or 450 kg warhead so do not fall under the MCTR export ban.

What about ABM capability, wasn't that looking at being delivered by PAC-3? Can these be quad packed and could if required fill the area of ESSM (ie perform the same role as ESSM thus be deducted from the ESSM load)?

The BMD terminal defence weapon is called Sea Based Missile Segment Enhancement (SBMSE) which I mentioned as an alternative to the next generation ESSM in one of those posts. The enhanced missile segment of SBMSE refers to the Block 2 version of the missile that is part of the PAC-3 Patriot upgrade. This missile is actually called the MIM-104F not the PAC-3 as PAC-3 includes more than just a new missile. But everyone calls it the PAC-3. SBMSE missiles could be quad packed in a Mk 41 VLS.

PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement | Lockheed Martin

 

[alexsa]

Alexsa could likely provide better commentary, but here goes...

As I understand it, a HSV (like those built by Austal & Incat) would not really be a practical option as a missile barge. Such vessels are not really designed to operate in 'blue water' environments, being multi-hull vessels built to HSC standards, which IIRC requires that they operate within ~8 hours transit time of a port. So basically means that such an HSV could not travel with a task force, unless the task force basically stayed near coastlines.

Also, since the HSV's are typically aluminum-hulled vessels, they seem to have ~half the service life of traditional steel-hulled naval vessels and have limitations in terms of tonnage available for cargo/weapons/systems.

If one is looking for the greatest displacement available for weaponry, as well as the ability to operate in open waters, then traditional monohulls AFAIK are the best. The areas where such hull forms are not necessarily the best are in terms of maximum speed and minimum draught.

-Cheers

Pretty good, add to that the sustained speed in poor conditions drops and the range drops dramatically at speed.

The vessel concept is a high speed shart haul trade with low weights. You cannot under estimate the weight issue. The dead weight of the bigger HSV are only in the order of 7-900 tonnes (max) and this has to cater for fuel (take of 250 tonnes or there abourts), crew, stores, and cargo. these things ax out on weight well before volume.

Don't forget that is the cargo version. if you want to turn this into a warship then crew accomodation and facitlies, weapons systems, stores, speras ammunition all eat into that growth margin. LCS2 has a paylaod capcity in the 200 tonne range for that reason. By the time you bung a helo (and its fuel and stores) on board, there will be very little weight marking for a Mk 41's, and missiles...... noting the Mk41 will have structural mass assocaited with it.

 

[alexsa]

Thanks for the reply. But I must admit the above comment leaves me wondering why the LCS are of aluminum construction.

The need for speed. Getting cars and punters from one place to another in under 6 hours.

 

[RubiconNZ]

The need for speed. Getting cars and punters from one place to another in under 6 hours.

Living their lives one nautical mile at a time?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I had thought one of the reasons would be to assist ASW work.

While 50kt won't outrun missiles or shells, it is fast enough that it would have a very good chance of out running many torpedo set ups (particularly older ones). Nuclear submarines already have this advantage (most could outrun many types of torpedos given a bit of a head start or favourable directions). It would also be able to apply pressure to a submarine chase by keeping up over a short distant perhaps long enough to get air assets into place or another high speed ship (or a SSN).

I can't really see the US that interested in a ship that can move 200t slightly faster than a carrier or twice as fast as an amphib/sealifter (carries what, of the order of 20,000t+) both of which can do it over much much longer distances. Or aircraft that can move 70t at near supersonic speeds. While its handy (particularly around islands or large river bays), I don't think that's the only mission for this type of ship.

 

[ASSAIL]

Armidale replacement/OCV

The consensus seems to want to make the OCV a capable war fighting ship on a 2000 tonne or thereabouts platform.
Where does this leave the continuous, important though mundane operations of Northern Command?
It would appear overkill to employ such ships rounding up reffos and illegal fishermen.
Will Customs expand and take full responsibility for this?
Is a Coastguard reappearing on the planners agenda?
The Darwin Naval Base has a synchrolift limited to 500 tons displacement so is there planning afoot to upgrade?
Members thoughts on the above would be welcome
Cheers

 

[lopez]

I was thinking about what they would do myself.
Could they expand customs with an Armidale mk2 type vessel? It seems that if there is to be no smaller ships in the navy that this will be necessary.

 

[StevoJH]

I was thinking about what they would do myself.
Could they expand customs with an Armidale mk2 type vessel? It seems that if there is to be no smaller ships in the navy that this will be necessary.

Check out the specifications of BPC's new cape class PB's.

 

[aussienscale]

Check out the specifications of BPC's new cape class PB's.

Didn't we just discuss this like 2 pages ago guys ?

 

[icelord]

The consensus seems to want to make the OCV a capable war fighting ship on a 2000 tonne or thereabouts platform.
Where does this leave the continuous, important though mundane operations of Northern Command?
It would appear overkill to employ such ships rounding up reffos and illegal fishermen.
Cheers

This is part of the issue with consolidating the minor war vessel fleet into one class of ship, as the requirments we have call for different types of vessels for different missions. As always navy will realise the issues after we purchase the ships and then we will have to make do.

Will Customs expand and take full responsibility for this?
Is a Coastguard reappearing on the planners agenda?

I f**King hope not! Coastguard politically died with labour and mark latham way back when.

The Darwin Naval Base has a synchrolift limited to 500 tons displacement so is there planning afoot to upgrade?
Members thoughts on the above would be welcome

DNB is set to undergo an upgrade over the next few years, and with the announcement of the US marines be based, hopefully the port of darwin will be upgraded to accomadate larger USN ships visiting as well.

 

[Volkodav]

The consensus seems to want to make the OCV a capable war fighting ship on a 2000 tonne or thereabouts platform.
Where does this leave the continuous, important though mundane operations of Northern Command?
It would appear overkill to employ such ships rounding up reffos and illegal fishermen.
Will Customs expand and take full responsibility for this?
Is a Coastguard reappearing on the planners agenda?
The Darwin Naval Base has a synchrolift limited to 500 tons displacement so is there planning afoot to upgrade?
Members thoughts on the above would be welcome
Cheers

As much as I would like to see the OCV evolve into a corvette or mini frigate I get the impression that it will be, as advertised, a basic OPV with variants optimised for MCM, Hydrographic Survey, Oceanography and all having extra space to allow them to be used for disaster relief etc.

Militarily they will be no more powerful or combat capable than an ACPB. What they will be is more seaworthy, longer ranged and more flexible.

 

[t68]

Militarily they will be no more powerful or combat capable than an ACPB. What they will be is more seaworthy, longer ranged and more flexible.

Do you see if Austral with the MRV-80 as the most likely successful tender for OCV/OPV or another design?

http://www.austal.com/Resources/Del...-8693-bcf8493e31cf/mrv-80-data-sheets-sml.pdf

For my money I would like to see both MRV-80 and a faster larger improved Armidale class.

 

[ASSAIL]

This is part of the issue with consolidating the minor war vessel fleet into one class of ship, as the requirments we have call for different types of vessels for different missions. As always navy will realise the issues after we purchase the ships and then we will have to make do.



I f**King hope not! Coastguard politically died with labour and mark latham way back when.


DNB is set to undergo an upgrade over the next few years, and with the announcement of the US marines be based, hopefully the port of darwin will be upgraded to accomadate larger USN ships visiting as well.

There is a continuing Darwin Port development plan with the current wharves capable of handling bulkers and tankers up to 60,000 dwt. Draft limited to 12 mtrs. The main wharf face is 700 metres long!
Even the old Fort Hill wharf has capacity to berth large USN ships the largest todate has been USS BOXER IIRC.

The problem therefor is DNB which will be capable of upgrade to larger seawalls and wharves to frigate standard but extremely difficult to upgrade the synchrolift, refit shed and boatpark. Tri's like the MRV 80 would need total renewal of the docking systems because of their beam.

 

[ADMk2]

As much as I would like to see the OCV evolve into a corvette or mini frigate I get the impression that it will be, as advertised, a basic OPV with variants optimised for MCM, Hydrographic Survey, Oceanography and all having extra space to allow them to be used for disaster relief etc.

Militarily they will be no more powerful or combat capable than an ACPB. What they will be is more seaworthy, longer ranged and more flexible.

I believe the option of fitting a medium gun (bigger than 30mm, but less than 127mm) is on the cards for the OPV, but otherwise I agree.

These aren't mini-frigates...

So if the medium calibre gun system happens, who likes what? Personally I'd like to see 76mm be retained, but I'm open to discussion...

 

[Volkodav]

I believe the option of fitting a medium gun (bigger than 30mm, but less than 127mm) is on the cards for the OPV, but otherwise I agree.

These aren't mini-frigates...

So if the medium calibre gun system happens, who likes what? Personally I'd like to see 76mm be retained, but I'm open to discussion...

76mm would be the way to go especially with the Oto-melara guided munitions available now, leave space and weight for a RAM or SeaRAM launcher as well as for a decent integrated mast with a light weight CEAXXX radar and fire control set up......

Oh dear I have just blown the budget.

 

[hairyman]

Is it possible that some of these ships could be fitted with sonar and torpedoes and have an anti-sub role? Or is 80 metres and 400 tonne deadweight too small?

 

[ancientcivy]

OCV and OPV

76mm would be the way to go especially with the Oto-melara guided munitions available now, leave space and weight for a RAM or SeaRAM launcher as well as for a decent integrated mast with a light weight CEAXXX radar and fire control set up......

Oh dear I have just blown the budget.

Now to blow the budget totally out of the water.

At the start of the debate on OCVS Icelord made the point that what is really needed is two different classes a true opv and a more capable ocv. Given that amonst the mission capablities identified is special forces opertional support and possibly mine hunting for an LHD task force operating in a hostile eviroment, a small lightly armed opv hardly seems to fit the bill. Additionally given the length of Australia's sea lanes and coast line the ability to fit an asw module so the ocvs could supplement what will soon be eleven asw capable units would seem a very useful add on.

I will leave discussions on class numerical division, size, displacement, sensor and weapons fitout to those with professional knowledge while admitting that in all probability Navy will only get a minimum capable vessel.

 

[donuteater]

Why does Australia need a light carrier? The RAAF is very capable of providing cover defending Australia.

I was reading the latest issue of " The Navy" magazine ( volume 74 no 1) and there was an article " the need for NGS" that was commenting on the Canberra based airpower think tank and a representative from the RAAF stated that it can only support amphibious operations within 600nm.

Any opposed landing abroad won't happen until air superiority is won by air forces.

A light carrier can carry jet fighters for this role. Besides if the RAN ever does undertakes an invasion or something, it will probably be near China.

The LHDs will be escorted with destroyers and frigates with scores of SAMs and SSMs.

The RAN is a small navy, a little after the second LHD is comissioned we will only have at tops, 11 ships able to escort the LHDs, and the ANZAC class frigates arn't really well suited to an escort role and at times of war, many of the ships will be doing something else.

Furthermore, air superiority isn't required for the many humanitarian missions amphibious ships do every year.

Either are the tigers and the escorts and the ASW helicopters. We can simply base the CAS aircraft at HMAS Albatross

 

[donuteater]

Why does Australia need a light carrier? The RAAF is very capable of providing cover defending Australia.


Any opposed landing abroad won't happen until air superiority is won by air forces.



The LHDs will be escorted with destroyers and frigates with scores of SAMs and SSMs.



Furthermore, air superiority isn't required for the many humanitarian missions amphibious ships do every year.

I was reading the latest issue of " The Navy" magazine ( volume 74 no 1) and there was an article " the need for NGS" that was commenting on the Canberra based airpower think tank and a representative from the RAAF stated that it can only support amphibious operations within 600nm.

A light carrier can carry jet fighters for this role. Besides if the RAN ever does undertakes an invasion or something, it will probably be near China.

The RAN is a small navy, a little after the second LHD is comissioned we will only have at tops, 11 ships able to escort the LHDs, and the ANZAC class frigates arn't really well suited to an escort role and at times of war, many of the ships will be doing something else.

Either are the tigers and the escorts and the ASW helicopters. We can simply base the CAS aircraft at HMAS Albatross

 

[ADMk2]

I was reading the latest issue of " The Navy" magazine ( volume 74 no 1) and there was an article " the need for NGS" that was commenting on the Canberra based airpower think tank and a representative from the RAAF stated that it can only support amphibious operations within 600nm.

Yes, but no-one ever said the RAAF will ALWAYS have to remain in Australia. It's aircraft can operate from other bases than just RAAF ones...

A light carrier can carry jet fighters for this role. Besides if the RAN ever does undertakes an invasion or something, it will probably be near China.

Who, Vietnam? Been there, done that. I don't think we'll be doing it a second time. Taiwan? They are our friends. Ditto for Japan, Thailand and South Korea.

Russia might be just a bit beyond our capability to invade, so who is it exactly "near" China that we might be invading?

The RAN is a small navy, a little after the second LHD is comissioned we will only have at tops, 11 ships able to escort the LHDs, and the ANZAC class frigates arn't really well suited to an escort role and at times of war, many of the ships will be doing something else.

Either are the tigers and the escorts and the ASW helicopters. We can simply base the CAS aircraft at HMAS Albatross

Actually the ANZAC's are excellent escorts. That is their primary design role as stated by the navy in their very FIRST line of the describing the ANZAC Class:

Anzacs are long-range escorts

.