Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

CN delivered an address to the Lowy Institute on 17th August last week.
The title of the address was an innocuous "Navy's Role in the Maritime Century"
The full text is at the RAN website - News section.

However, buried in the last few pages, and in reference to the ANZAC replacements, there is an indication of what the future force may look like. It is a clear hint to what VADM Griggs, and I suppose the uniforms, are advocating.

"There is no point in making it (sustainment - my brackets) more complex by having a disparate fleet of ships and submarines that have little in common in terms of platform systems, sensors, training systems and the like.
In my mind, this drives us toward having classes of ships with a similar heritage or design philosophy or for us to mandate key systems and suppliers so that we keep through life cost of ownership at the forefront of our aquisition decisions"
I believe that all the discussion about T26 is probably just that. The logic of sustaining a continuous production at the AWD Alliance and using the same basic hull (if not propulsion) for the ANZAC replacement is too pervasive to disregard

Unfortunately we are talking political decisions and..............and.........well you know the rest!

 

[justsomeaussie]

F100 hull with updated running gear will be fine, just keep main deck and up to current needs, incorporate AUSPAR, CEC and whatever comes along should not be a big ask. As I understand it, Navantia have a number of people running around Canberra, im sure they have plenty of ideas ?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. AUSPAR is still a capability demonstrator. No fielded systems, no record of operational testing. CEC hasn't been integrated with anything else outside of AEGIS, so it is a big ask. You can quote all the systems you want but it doesn't mean they exist. At this stage you'd be lucky to get CEAFAR mkII.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. AUSPAR is still a capability demonstrator. No fielded systems, no record of operational testing. CEC hasn't been integrated with anything else outside of AEGIS, so it is a big ask. You can quote all the systems you want but it doesn't mean they exist. At this stage you'd be lucky to get CEAFAR mkII.

Developing AUSPAR is Phase 1 of SEA 5000. CEC has been integrated with everything from E-2D Hawkeye, LHDs to CVNs. If anything AUSPAR is actually CEAFAR mark 2. What is important is what combat system the SEA 5000 NGC will have. AUSPAR is just a radar, AEGIS is NOT a radar (SPY-1 is its radar).

 

[justsomeaussie]

Wow. Guess you've been talking to CEA more than navy has. I'll start writing the press release now.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Wow. Guess you've been talking to CEA more than navy has. I'll start writing the press release now.

Maybe you should start with reading press releases rather than writing them...

 

[justsomeaussie]

Maybe you should start with reading press releases rather than writing them...

Happy to take the pissing match offline but next time you run into SC or MF at pacific just ask them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Happy to take the pissing match offline but next time you run into SC or MF at pacific just ask them.

How about we start with reading the 2012 DCP?

www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf

SEA 5000 Phase 1A Future Frigate

Scope

To develop a high-power phased array radar demonstrator based on the successful Australian developed and produced CEAFAR Radar being installed in the ANZAC Class Frigates. Integration studies with other potential systems may also be
undertaken. This system may provide the fire control search and track capability for future surface platforms such as the Future Frigate. IMR will occur upon the completion and release of the supplies. This project relates to the provision of a phased array radar demonstrator and therefore IOC, LOT and FOC are not relevant.

If people at CEA are unaware of this I'd hate to see how they explain it to their CEO...

 

[justsomeaussie]

Ah! The public DCP. It's nice to have aspirational goals isn't it.

 

[Bonza]

Let's go with taking that pissing match offline, shall we?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ah! The public DCP. It's nice to have aspirational goals isn't it.

Well by that rationale the entire SEA 5000 project is probably going to be turned into more Norwegian built oil and gas ships crewed by Teekay… But until that is actually reflected in a formal government planning document how do you suggest we have a rational based discussion about it? Now sure we have a government doing a Genghis Khan to the defence force so they can shore up a handful of votes before their demolition at the next election. But that doesn’t mean all defence planning is worthless and that these projects won’t be refunded by the incoming government (which is proclaiming at every opportunity that this is what they will do).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Let's go with taking that pissing match offline, shall we?

There's only one person pissing up against the wall in this discussion. They are more than welcome to take it offline but I'm not going to stop posting some facts here just because of it.

 

[Bonza]

No problem with facts being posted, but I wouldn't like any personal comments (from anyone) to get in the way of that.

 

[aussienscale]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. AUSPAR is still a capability demonstrator. No fielded systems, no record of operational testing. CEC hasn't been integrated with anything else outside of AEGIS, so it is a big ask. You can quote all the systems you want but it doesn't mean they exist. At this stage you'd be lucky to get CEAFAR mkII.

And Sea 5000 is due when ? Not exactly getting ahead of ourselves there are we, look at the timings

Have seen the other responses after replying to this, so rather than trolling, and hinting at your knowledge ?? Anty up and put your money where your mouth is ?? no need to take it off line when you back up your statements, but judging by your posts you just seem to have some issue with CEA based on emotion and not reality ? Either that or just some school boy reaction, lets see which one shall we ?

 

[StobieWan]

I'd definitely like some more facts on Auspar, really interested to seeing how it's turning out - CEAFAR looks pretty interesting technology, last I heard CEA had a first production AUSPAR set built and working - or am I confusing myself with an announcement about a tech demo ?

Ian

 

[justsomeaussie]

I'd definitely like some more facts on Auspar, really interested to seeing how it's turning out - CEAFAR looks pretty interesting technology, last I heard CEA had a first production AUSPAR set built and working - or am I confusing myself with an announcement about a tech demo ?

Ian

AUSPAR is a classified technology demonstrator program with the US so you shouldn't see anything on here on it. CEAFAR on the other hand is amazing technology with a lot of legs still left in it. I was pointing out that any speculation based on AUSPAR being on any platform is purely that, speculation.

 

[aussienscale]

AUSPAR is a classified technology demonstrator program with the US so you shouldn't see anything on here on it. CEAFAR on the other hand is amazing technology with a lot of legs still left in it. I was pointing out that any speculation based on AUSPAR being on any platform is purely that, speculation.

Sea 5000 IOC is still listed as 2027-28, use a bit of rationale here, AUSPAR is the follow on from CEFAR, it will not be around let alone viable/relevant when Anac II hits the water. This is exactly what we need to do with our building and planning, we need to be progressive in our approach.

Have a look at the earlier post by Assail re the recent comments by Ray and his hint to the way forward. It is all about progresive/incremental steps

 

[swerve]

Anyway wether there are 32 CAMM or 24 in each of these modules isn’t of much impact on refitting with ESSM. CAMM is a soft launch missile so it is ejected from the VLS before the rocket motor ignites. Therefore its VLS is little more than a canister. Mk 41 VLS allows for a high energy rocket to ignite in the cell and can divert its exhaust up and out of the ship. Weight wise the difference is huge also even the shortest Mk 41 VLS system (SDSS) is going to be about twice as long as the CAMM launcher. Plus of course each ESSM weighs three times as much as a CAMM. I very much doubt you could replace the forward CAMM launchers with any ESSM.

While you are, of course, right in principle (i.e. that any ESSM fit will be much heavier & bulkier than a CAMM installation), I'm afraid you're exaggerating a bit. ESSM can use the Mk 56 VLS, which is 4.65 metres high according to the manufacturer - i.e. less than 50% taller than the CAMM missile, & a CAMM launcher will have to be taller, to hold the gas generator for soft launch. I think ESSM needs no more than a metre more height than CAMM, not twice as much.

Weight - yes, no argument there. And the deck footprint will probably be bigger, too. But if there's a metre of so of height available below deck to fit a Mk 56, or deck houses that high could be put where the CAMM cells are sited, it might be possible to fit two Mk 56 packs, with (depending on the available width), up to 32 ESSM in each.

If only 12 missile Mk 56 packs can fit there, perhaps another 12 pack or two could be fitted in the superstructure.

Such an installation would be heavier, but given the size of the ship, that shouldn't be a problem.

With all the talk of modularity & future-proofing of Type 26 (lets hope there's more to it than with CVF!), perhaps weight & space for ESSM has been allowed for.

BTW, I wouldn't call >25 km VSHORADS. Just SHORADS - unless you want to start introducing new categories of VVSHORADS & maybe VVVSHORADS.

PS. Self defence length Mk 41 is 5.2 metres. More than Mk 56, but still only 50% or so taller than a CAMM installation, not twice as tall.

 

[chargerRT]

according to Dockwise's website, Blue Marlin has a submerged draft of between 24 and 28m(im no expert here). wiki says that port phillip bay has a max depth of 24m. my question is, can Blue Marlin offload Canberra in the bay? ive had a quick search, but cant seem to find anything that says yes or no. i cant imagine the offload happening in bass straight.

 

[bazza]

They would be more expensive ... but I think that they are affordable. The navy is talking about buying up to 20 OCV to replace all of the patrol, MCV and survey vessels so they obviously believe the money is there.

It wouldn't be necessary to replace the boats on a one to one basis. To start with they could stay on station longer. They would also be able to deploy their own helicopter or UAV. Plus you could add other assets such as land based UAVs.

Hopefully that would allow fewer ships to operate more efficiently.

Really? how do they intend on mine hunting with a metal hull from one of these platforms?

 

[hauritz]

Really? how do they intend on mine hunting with a metal hull from one of these platforms?

That is their claim ... not mine.

The plans are to replace 26 vessels with a common hull of around 2000 tons.

I admit that this sounds a little simplistic.