Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

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.

Yep, you "might" get the 76mm that we already have in a compact turret configuration with "perhaps" the DART air defence rounds, considering we've already got 6x 76mm guns, turrets and fire control systems, but RAM etc? I think not, beside RAN hasn't shown much interest in Ram / SeaRam anyway. We looked at bloody SIMBAD Mistral launchers of all things for the ANZAC Self Defence upgrade, before running with the CEAFAR/CEA-MOUNT solution, though admittedly that could have been budget inspired...

Anyhoo, the OCV's don't ALL have to have a 76mm gun, just the deployable ones. The local non-deployed ones would be fine with a 25mm Typhoon / 12.7mm combo we use now.

We might just want to clear mines in a war-zone at some point... Having a slow firing un-guided 30mm (for some weird reason instead of a 25mm Bushmaster...) on a small "non combatant" isn't going to do much if there is someone around to actually fire away from themselves and toward us...

That is the purpose of their intended modularity / flexibility I believe...

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

We might just want to clear mines in a war-zone at some point... Having a slow firing un-guided 30mm (for some weird reason instead of a 25mm Bushmaster...) on a small "non combatant" isn't going to do much if there is someone around to actually fire away from themselves and toward us...

The Huons predate the Typhoon RWS mounting, and I think the design and procurement phase of the MHC slightly predate the Army decision regarding the ASLAV. A requirement was for a locally-operated powered mounting, perhaps the RAN wasn't at the time spoiled for choice of 25mm mounts fitting this requirement?

Mine clearance may need to occur in a combat zone, but it is not envisioned that it would happen without protection from other forces (air or sea). If it needs to happen in a combat zone it would need to be a Priority mission with a capital P and the word underlined twice, so escorts would be a given. During mine clearing operations an MHC is a very vulnerable target, so they shouldn't be left on their own in combat regardless of how heavily armed they are.

Regarding the OCV and weapons, my opinion is that when it is designed/constructed the structure around the forward gun mounting should be made a bit beefier to allow for the possibility of a different system being mounted in the future (not necessarily a 76mm, a 57mm or 35mm NGS might be more realistic), and the compartment below also allows for the possibility of a mounting intruding below the deck.

I think we're also forgetting that if a more capable weapons system is installed it also needs the associated search and targeting sensors; the limited optical systems of the Armidales won't cut it. That needs space, weight and even more cash.
Not forgetting that a 57mm or 76mm gun would need a bigger magazine than a 25-35mm gun does.

There has been much analysis regarding RAN needs in the future, and there has been much made of the developing submarine threat across the South Asia-East Asia regions and Australia's vulnerability to military threats/blackmail by attacks on offshore resource platforms and commercial shipping. The DCP has placed more emphasis on A/S capabilities, so it would seem the concern is genuine.

Instead of a corvette bristling with guns and missiles, surely it would more important to the RAN for the OCV to have an A/S sonar, the ability to fit a VDS (not such an issue given the modular nature of the OCV concept), and perhaps even the ability to fire Mk-54 torpedoes via the lightweight, fixed version of the Mk 32 tubes. In such a situation, with cover from higher sea/air assets and operating near or within the EEZ, the 25mm gun and perhaps a Sinbad/Sadral type SAM launcher would be adequate.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

I was reading the latest issue of " The Navy" magazine...

That might be the problem right there. The Navy League of Australia has been bitching, moaning and agitating about this since 1982 when HMAS Melbourne was paid off without replacement.

As much as I feel an uncomfortable stirring in the loins at the thought of the RAN resuming fixed wing operations, I am of the opinion that although a supreme capability it is a massive money magnet that will suck a huge amount of funding away from other capabilities. What would we be willing to lose to fund F-35B operations? Submarines? Global Hawks? M113/ASLAV replacement?

No doubt fixed-wing fighters are a powerful strike force. But once this capability is introduced the RAN will revolve around its needs (protection, stores, funds, maintenance, personnel) and will no longer be a multi-role service because in such a small navy all capabilities and energies would be focused on the one role/platform. It will be the RAN of the '60s and '70s all over again; a carrier supported by one tanker and enough DD/FF to support an escort of 1 DD and 2 FF.

So what is the NLAs answer to the funding of RAN fixed-wing fighters? From the link:

Some avenues, which come to mind, are:-
1. Reduce the number of fleet units, which are currently in the pipeline, or in future programs.
2. One defence analyst has suggested that it may be valid to consider a trade off between organic air and future surface to surface missiles.
3. An article in 'The Navy' suggested that when the time comes to replace Kanimbla and Manoora, this could be done with an appropriate 'carrying vehicle'.

So the LHDs were an answer to Prayer Number 3.

I almost choked when I read Number 2. Given the age of the statement (no reference to the JSF/F-35 by name) I can only think they are referring to a Harpoon replacement or Tomahawk. How many Tomahawks would the RAN have to give up to make introducing Harriers (F-35 being barely a twinkle in Lockheed's eye) affordable? Many hundreds? A thousand?
Or are they talking about a Harpoon replacement? What about vessels that aren't operating as part of this indispensable carrier task force? Not having organic air support puts "ships and their crews at unacceptable peril", but they don't need SSMs? Wouldn't this put them in "unacceptable peril"?

As worthy as they are the NLA are quite fixated on this issue. When the LHDs were announced the first thing they proposed was to fly STOL fighters off them, instead of seeing them as far more capable replacements for the LPAs and to be used similarly. The LHDs aren't being purchased for opposed landings against a capable adversary, 1000s of km from Australia, and operating without allies.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Huons predate the Typhoon RWS mounting, and I think the design and procurement phase of the MHC slightly predate the Army decision regarding the ASLAV. A requirement was for a locally-operated powered mounting, perhaps the RAN wasn't at the time spoiled for choice of 25mm mounts fitting this requirement?

Actually I am not sure AD was talking about the Huon-class MHC. IIRC the DSI 30mm gun are fitted with has a ROF ~650 rds/min, while the 25mm Bushmaster in a Tiffy-mounting has a max ROF of ~200 rds/min.

-Cheers

 

[t68]

Tee-Centre-10


I agree with you and others who have fundamentally said the same thing in a different way, but it is my personnel opinion that both views at the core are correct. Australia needs a balanced fleet one that can meet the commitments of supporting a light ASW carrier and simultaneously commitments for the LHD.Earlier Aussie Digger stated the case for additional surface ships for which most here would agree with except for the Treasury dept.

With the recent announcement from President Obama and or own PM of establishing a Marine MEU component in the Northern Territory over the next ten years, joint amphibious operations will become the norm. With two Australian and one American LHD in the north alleviates some of the will to get the third LHD, but that does not alleviate the responsibility of the government to protect those assets wether they are Australian or American.

If China does rise in a more aggressive way like the cold war, America may look to Australia to be more proactive in the same way the UK (ASW heavy) was during the cold war. Therefore Australia commitment might go along the lines of a multi-role asset for fixed wing and helicopter support for either ASW or sea control. The LHD can be used in a ASW role but would diminish the amphibious capacity for the asset which might be needed for a rotation of either Australian or American assets, the other alternative is a pure LPH such as HMS Ocean.

Having 2x LPH (ideal) in Australian service can have a twofold effect but also place additional burden and expenditure needed in helicopter assets. A LPH can carry the ASW helicopters plus additional Tiger for CAS leaving the LHD to deploy more MRH-90 or additional heavy lift helicopters such as Chinooks.But all this requires the government to actively raise the defence budget, but in these times of fiscal uncertainty under the current government I reckon hell would freeze over before they raise expenditure.

 

[donuteater]

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...



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?

.

It still doesnt mean that the RAAF can support an amphibious operation beyond
600nm

 

[phreeky]

It still doesnt mean that the RAAF can support an amphibious operation beyond
600nm

The ADF is there to protect Australia and interests etc, not launch amphibious assaults on foreign soil. Besides what do they mean by "beyond 600nm"? Beyond Australian territory? Beyond aircraft range? Tanker range? RAAF bases? What about the fact that if Australia were partaking in such a large assault that it would be as part of a coalition?

You're dreaming up scenarios that don't appear to be the ADFs mission anyway.

 

[donuteater]

The ADF is there to protect Australia and interests etc, not launch amphibious assaults on foreign soil.

If there was a war, we would be protecting Australia but when we start making ground we would need our LHD's. Anyway, if the navy is here to defend, an aircraft carrier would be more of use. So why are we getting LHDs. These ships are for offence not defence and if we had them for defence of Australia they would really need harriers or F-35B's

Mod edit: Corrected quote block. In the future, please pay more attention to including the closure of a quote (i.e. the [/) as their absence makes reading and understanding who is being quoted significantly easier.
-Preceptor

 

[MickB]

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

These are very attractive craft, seem to fulfill many of the requirements and are locally built. All are attributes that would have won me over in the past.

But I am slowly getting better educated by other members of this forum. I understand that aluminium construction is more expensive, higher maintenance and shorter life than steel. And that building to civilian HSC standards means a lesser seakeeping ability.

Could such a vessel, if optimised for lower speeds, be built from steel to a higher standard. Would the cost of such a rework be prohibitive.

It seems the Tri hull does confer some benefits over a mono hull eg: larger flight deck, wider mission bay and stern ramp.

I like the idea of mulitrole abilities in second line units,( hence a fondness for the Absalon class as well).

While I would never advocate that the RAN stop training and equipping for a full scale conflict, the fact is that for over 60 years the majority of fleets activities have been in a low threat enviorment. This is likely to continue for the near future.

Even in Korea, Vietnam and The Gulf only a small portion of the navy was involved at any one time.

The use of these smaller, less capable craft would free up the major fleet units and allow for working up and deployment as required.

 

[Volkodav]

We might just want to clear mines in a war-zone at some point... Having a slow firing un-guided 30mm (for some weird reason instead of a 25mm Bushmaster...) on a small "non combatant" isn't going to do much if there is someone around to actually fire away from themselves and toward us...

That is the purpose of their intended modularity / flexibility I believe...

Well it was one of the drivers behind an OCV varient replacing the MCM force, developing an actual deployable MCM capability to support the LHDs. A good compliment to this would be an MCM helo capability to deploy in conjunction with the OCV MCMs.

Take it a step further, if we go for a split build on the OCV, with two different hull sizes, we could design them to use the same modular interchangable exchangable systems. They could also use many of the same fixed systems, i.e. propulsion and generator diesels etc.just in different numbers to make savings in logistics and training. They would be a 500t OPV and an up to 2000t OCV/Corvette, with the OCV able to ship say two or three different equipment outfits at the same time while the OPV would be limited to a single role at a time. The OCV could be kitted out for MCM / ASW and Hydrographic to support an LHD deployment.

 

[Todjaeger]

If there was a war, we would be protecting Australia but when we start making ground we would need our LHD's. Anyway, if the navy is here to defend, an aircraft carrier would be more of use. So why are we getting LHDs. These ships are for offence not defence and if we had them for defence of Australia they would really need harriers or F-35B's

Can we please drop the discussion of the RAN buying a carrier. This has been discussed previously earlier in the thread, as well as related discussions in the RN thread as well as various CBG discussion threads elsewhere on DT.

The essence of those discussions are as follows. In order for such a carrier to be worthwhile, it would need to be at least as large as the LHD's and operate as a part of a CBG. Using the Italian Cavour carrier as an example, such a design could sustain operations of ~8 F-35B's. Now, is the ability to sustain operations of ~8 F-35B's worth the resources the ADF/RAN would need to expend to do so?

Personally I can find better things the RAN could do than have a loitering Collins-class SSG or the Future Submarine, a Hobart-class AWD and 1-2 Anzac-class FFH's or their follow-on replacements, plus the requisite AOR. In short, to operate one carrier would require virtually all the surface escorts the RAN is likely to have available at any given time, all for ~8 JSF... And this is not even considering the amount of sunk costs required to build a vessel like the Cavour, or acquire the number of F-35B's required for operational deployment, or setup a training and deployment programme...

When really considering such matters, the question on initial AND sustainment costs must be considered, and then weighed against the possible and likely services and asset would provide. In this case, is the value of ~8 JSF worth spending AUD$3 bil. or more? The acquisition costs go sharply upwards if one feels the RAN should always have a carrier ability available, as that doubles if not triples the number of required aircraft and aircraft carriers...

 

[donuteater]

Can we please drop the discussion of the RAN buying a carrier. This has been discussed previously earlier in the thread, as well as related discussions in the RN thread as well as various CBG discussion threads elsewhere on DT.

The essence of those discussions are as follows. In order for such a carrier to be worthwhile, it would need to be at least as large as the LHD's and operate as a part of a CBG. Using the Italian Cavour carrier as an example, such a design could sustain operations of ~8 F-35B's. Now, is the ability to sustain operations of ~8 F-35B's worth the resources the ADF/RAN would need to expend to do so?

Personally I can find better things the RAN could do than have a loitering Collins-class SSG or the Future Submarine, a Hobart-class AWD and 1-2 Anzac-class FFH's or their follow-on replacements, plus the requisite AOR. In short, to operate one carrier would require virtually all the surface escorts the RAN is likely to have available at any given time, all for ~8 JSF... And this is not even considering the amount of sunk costs required to build a vessel like the Cavour, or acquire the number of F-35B's required for operational deployment, or setup a training and deployment programme...

When really considering such matters, the question on initial AND sustainment costs must be considered, and then weighed against the possible and likely services and asset would provide. In this case, is the value of ~8 JSF worth spending AUD$3 bil. or more? The acquisition costs go sharply upwards if one feels the RAN should always have a carrier ability available, as that doubles if not triples the number of required aircraft and aircraft carriers...

I was just trying to prove a point in that post, im not saying we need a carrier. I was saying why are we getting 2 LHDs if we are only defending Australia and if we were only defending and aircraft carrier would be more of use.

 

[Volkodav]

I was just trying to prove a point in that post, im not saying we need a carrier. I was saying why are we getting 2 LHDs if we are only defending Australia and if we were only defending and aircraft carrier would be more of use.

Disaster relief, regional peace keeping and peace enforcement, evacuation of civilians etc. These assets are not intended to assault defended beaches they are more for events like the Fiji coups, Timor, Solomons etc and assisting post tropical cyclones, earth quakes etc. They will also be extremely useful as command ships in UN or alliance operations.

 

[aussienscale]

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...

I have a bit of a soft spot for the MK110 57mm, pretty nifty piece of kit, especially with the ammo available

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBPGfCq21s"]Futureweapons: Mark 110 57mm Naval Gun - YouTube[/nomedia]

40 and 57 mm 3P Ammunition - BAE Systems

I think for the intended use of the ship, this little baby will do very nicely, and with the
3p ammo available, plenty of flexability to match her potential/possible tasking

 

[t68]

The essence of those discussions are as follows. In order for such a carrier to be worthwhile, it would need to be at least as large as the LHD's and operate as a part of a CBG. Using the Italian Cavour carrier as an example, such a design could sustain operations of ~8 F-35B's. Now, is the ability to sustain operations of ~8 F-35B's worth the resources the ADF/RAN would need to expend to do so?

One cannot be so dismissive of the overall capability an ASW carrier could bring to the RAN, freeing up valuable spots/room on the LHD for more heavy equipment or utility/heavy lift helicopters. Just to dwell on a single possible loadout of 8 Harrier/F35B for the Italian light carrier Cavour is plain wrong.

One only has to look at the RN Invincible class ASW carriers. The percentage of STOVL/helicopters aircraft differs pending on the mission set at the time of deployment, it may be heavy on ASW light on strike ASuW (12xHarrier, 10xSea King, 1xMerlin) or heavy strike ASuW but light on ASW (18x Harrier, 3x Sea King 1x Merlin).That type of flexibility would be needed for the RAN task force, but under exiting budgets is a luxury the RAN cannot afford at the demerit of the exiting surface/subsurface fleet.


As you know about our contribution to East Timor, in the early days the RAAF had bombed up aircraft on alert, also the Marines had a MEU on board the USS Peleliu stationed off the Timorese coast, it would be interesting to find out the response time those 6 Harriers would be compared to RAAF air support if needed by those on the ground.

 

[ADMk2]

I have a bit of a soft spot for the MK110 57mm, pretty nifty piece of kit, especially with the ammo available

Futureweapons: Mark 110 57mm Naval Gun - YouTube

40 and 57 mm 3P Ammunition - BAE Systems

I think for the intended use of the ship, this little baby will do very nicely, and with the
3p ammo available, plenty of flexability to match her potential/possible tasking

No hull penetration for the fitment of this weapon system either. The turret houses the gun and magazine entirely...

 

[Volkodav]

No hull penetration for the fitment of this weapon system either. The turret houses the gun and magazine entirely...

I too have a lot of time for the 57mm but believe the 76mm to be a better option for a larger vessel as the OCV appears to be heading towards.

 

[the road runner]

One cannot be so dismissive of the overall capability an ASW carrier could bring to the RAN

Im not a defence pro,but i have been here long enough to realise 1 single ship, of any class ,Aircraft carrier ,ASW carrier is a waste of money and resources. Remember the rule of having 3 ships,1 for work up,one in maintenance and one on patrol.This is the reason , why a single ship of any class is a waste.(learnt that here)

I dont feel that way with Choules tho,as she has sister ships in the RN.Wouldnt mind another one of them being snagged of England for a good price.

Regards

 

[t68]

Im not a defence pro,but i have been here long enough to realise 1 single ship, of any class ,Aircraft carrier ,ASW carrier is a waste of money and resources. Remember the rule of having 3 ships,1 for work up,one in maintenance and one on patrol.This is the reason , why a single ship of any class is a waste.(learnt that here)

I dont feel that way with Choules tho,as she has sister ships in the RN.Wouldnt mind another one of them being snagged of England for a good price.

Regards

That’s true of a single class of ship such as the old HMAS Melbourne (R21) but in this instance while having one is not the ideal solution but it can be over come, limited amounts of time using LHD for concurrent training whilst your one single ASW carrier is in refit, if all assets where bought in threes we might not have been in dire straight to begin with.

3x LSH (Tobruk), 3x Kanimbla class or 6x Canberra class, cannot see any government of both persuasions going down that route.

 

[the road runner]

3x LSH (Tobruk), 3x Kanimbla class or 6x Canberra class, cannot see any government of both persuasions going down that route.

Think that is the problem,Australia faces,having a small population, large land mass,and even larger area of ocean to patrol,what is the right mix without sending the country broke.