Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
This is another one of those sometimes aspect of that rule.
I could elaborate on the fun however I do not know whats going on the ship.
Do not know what radar, what guns but I think its a bushmaster on each corner of the deck. For those involved this will be a big bag of fun. I thought that was an obvious exception to my rule number 2.
Your post does not contribute anything to the discussion though and is actually quite irrelevent, so I suppose that as well as falling foul of the no one liner rule (Number 2), it could also be seen to fall foul of rule number 6.

The Canberra class will be getting the Sea Giraffe Air Search radar along with presumably a number of Navigation and surface search sets. In addition, I believe they are getting a varient of the combat system currently fitted to the FFH's (Otherwise known as the Anzac class).

Point defences will be four 25mm Bushmaster cannon mounted in Typhoon remote weapons platforms. I'm sure there would be provision for the mounting of additional hand aimed weapons systems for defence against threats in port etc.
 

hairyman

Active Member
How much are we paying for these vessels? Is it $1b each, or is that for the pair of them? And yet the ony weapons we have on them are 25mm cannon? Should'nt they also have phalanx, or some type of missile system?:gun
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think that's about it, IIRC there's going to be torpedo decoys and most likely Nulka ASM decoys. Some scattered .50s or other small arms maybe?

But apart from that I think the only real armament the ship will have are the 4 Typhoon stations AFAIK, which is a real shame IMO. Really putting a lot of faith in the Hobarts there (which it appears are actually going to be pretty darn good), but in real terms if Australia was facing a country which could seriously put those LHDs at risk she won't be alone.

I think the contract was $3bn Aus for both of the ships together. $1bn Aus for the pair would be a massive bargain
 
Last edited:

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is another one of those sometimes aspect of that rule.
I could elaborate on the fun however I do not know whats going on the ship.
Do not know what radar, what guns but I think its a bushmaster on each corner of the deck. For those involved this will be a big bag of fun. I thought that was an obvious exception to my rule number 2.
If you can elaborate then do so. If you can't then don't post. Pretty straightforward, isn't it?
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not to mention that just because he doesn't know much about what's going on with the ships doesn't mean he can't elaborate. A forum is a place for mutual discussion and learning after all :)

I've got no idea what i'm talking about most of the time but that doesn't stop me jabbering away, I want to assimilate info so it's better to provoke debate than sit on the sidelines if you're in here :D
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
But apart from that I think the only real armament the ship will have are the 4 Typhoon stations AFAIK, which is a real shame IMO. Really putting a lot of faith in the Hobarts there (which it appears are actually going to be pretty darn good), but in real terms if Australia was facing a country which could seriously put those LHDs at risk she won't be alone.
There is space for a couple of ESSM I believe at the rear if we want to fit it later, I would imagine there is space available for Phalanx which could be fitted. If we end up with only 3 AWD then I think we should put some ESSM and phalanx on it.

Other wise she will be escorted by a single Hobart (?). Maybe just an Anzac at times?. Which means if its single escort is disabled, is drawn away, takes a hit from a single RPG or shell, or engages something and moves away from the LHD, she will be a slow moving, lone large duck.

There is an argument that weapons on a amphib or carrier platform (particularly small ones) just end up being ineffective and clutter up the ship, making it less effective as its intended purpose. (Russian style?).

However given the low number of escorts the RAN has at any one time, it may be worthwhile to fit something to the LHD so it can at least extract itself, or add another layer of defence to improve survivability.

But then again, perhaps more coms would be more useful.
 

Dayra

New Member
Point defences will be four 25mm Bushmaster cannon mounted in Typhoon remote weapons platforms. I'm sure there would be provision for the mounting of additional hand aimed weapons systems for defence against threats in port etc.
I agree. I do not know the full details of the plan to train the Army in Marine Landings etc however because of the US landing in Darwin I would like to suggest that there would be skill transfers based on US experiences with those kind of threats. I saw a pirate skip destroyed recently in the Horn region of Somalia. Marines are usually equipped with Javelin though I am not sure if they can be used at sea effectively but I cant see why not. I think there might also be some discussion on the idea of UAV for security patrol and counter asymmetric's, that might make the ramp useful, seen as the RAN stated they are not thinking about fixed wing aircraft on the Wiki Page;).

Somethink like a Sea Skua could also be an option for Surface to Air.

I think the Radar discussion is inadequate. Especially with the emergence of Drones. I wonder what they will get in terms of Passive Radar in the E suite. Hopefully they have thought about what will happen if they loose their escorts, to all that equipment. Murphys law of Combat right. EADS Cassidian are a good example of a system worth considering.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
There is space for a couple of ESSM I believe at the rear if we want to fit it later, I would imagine there is space available for Phalanx which could be fitted. If we end up with only 3 AWD then I think we should put some ESSM and phalanx on it.

Other wise she will be escorted by a single Hobart (?). Maybe just an Anzac at times?. Which means if its single escort is disabled, is drawn away, takes a hit from a single RPG or shell, or engages something and moves away from the LHD, she will be a slow moving, lone large duck.

There is an argument that weapons on a amphib or carrier platform (particularly small ones) just end up being ineffective and clutter up the ship, making it less effective as its intended purpose. (Russian style?).

However given the low number of escorts the RAN has at any one time, it may be worthwhile to fit something to the LHD so it can at least extract itself, or add another layer of defence to improve survivability.

But then again, perhaps more coms would be more useful.
I'm generally of the opinion that every ship has to have some form of point AAW defence system be it in CIWS or missiles, just something to throw up a challenge to an incoming threat especially in the case of there being not neccesarily enough AAW destroyers to try create as few bleeders as possible.

If the RAN operates like people expect the RN to then one AAW destroyer should always be tagged to escort the LHD and maybe 2 ANZAC frigates? (i've not got a particularly big amount of knowledge about standing RAN deployments so these numbers really are plucked from the air).

I've been reading a few things about people believing missile firings from aviation orientated ships may cause nasty disruptions to flight ops, is this a legitimate concern?
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I agree. I do not know the full details of the plan to train the Army in Marine Landings etc however because of the US landing in Darwin I would like to suggest that there would be skill transfers based on US experiences with those kind of threats. I saw a pirate skip destroyed recently in the Horn region of Somalia. Marines are usually equipped with Javelin though I am not sure if they can be used at sea effectively but I cant see why not. I think there might also be some discussion on the idea of UAV for security patrol and counter asymmetric's, that might make the ramp useful, seen as the RAN stated they are not thinking about fixed wing aircraft on the Wiki Page;).

Somethink like a Sea Skua could also be an option for Surface to Air.

I think the Radar discussion is inadequate. Especially with the emergence of Drones. I wonder what they will get in terms of Passive Radar in the E suite. Hopefully they have thought about what will happen if they loose their escorts, to all that equipment. Murphys law of Combat right. EADS Cassidian are a good example of a system worth considering.
The Sea Skua is an air to surface missile for launch by the Lynx, though Kuwait does use it as a SSM from their Umm Al Maradem FAC's. Also is it rather old and in the process of having its successor tested.
Cheers
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What can be fitted/might be fitted/will be fitted to the LHDs is all platform centric, does not take an holistic look at the Australian amphibious future and is therefore of minor importance when considering the overall capability.

A simple presentation of the Conops for the ADF's Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment (ADAS) is summarized in the link for JP 2048 here http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/caex/pdf/hawkins.pdf
and deals with the various phases and timetable for implementation.
Mind you, labor's defence cuts have somewhat muddled the picture for some of the phases, particularly the introduction of the LCH replacements.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Perhaps the answer isn't adding CIWS to the LHDs but rather buying extra AAW destroyers.

In the longer term perhaps the Anzac replacements should have a few ships optimised for air defence rather than ASW.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Shouldn't every major RAN warship feature a reasonable level of self-defence against air, surface and sub-surface threats though?

Even if only a pooled capability as we've traditionally done with Phalanx CIWS, I'd think a warship carrying as vital a cargo as the LHD's would be worth the rather minimal overall investment in a latent capability to add Phalanx etc as may be required for deployments...
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
There’s a very good reason why the LHDs haven’t been built with a CIWS. Because at the time the ships were contracted the RAN hadn’t decided what the future type of VSRAD (very short range air defence) system would be acquired. This was left open so different ideas could be assessed via the ASMD and AWD projects. No surprise that the latest block of Phalanx has been selected and a project has been raised via the DCP to upgrade the RAN’s fleet of legacy Phalanx. The Juan Carlos I class are built with the capacity to take onboard Phalanx so when the RAN’s units are upgraded it will be no surprise that some will be fitted to the new ships.
 

Dayra

New Member
Shouldn't every major RAN warship feature a reasonable level of self-defence against air, surface and sub-surface threats though?

Even if only a pooled capability as we've traditionally done with Phalanx CIWS, I'd think a warship carrying as vital a cargo as the LHD's would be worth the rather minimal overall investment in a latent capability to add Phalanx etc as may be required for deployments...
Did you look at the PDF about the Army Division Amphib transition? A few things bug me about the new OpPlan suggested. One thing is the way it suggests a marathon deployment through enemy terrain hitting multiple objectives along the way all the way deep into enemy territory and back. Though in all honesty that is much easier imagined than actually done, unless of course its like Cobra 2, through the Desert with little resistance. I think anyone who reads the PDF will know what I mean, think Mountains, Rivers, Obstacles and monitored and guarded passes. And it wont be long before the Russians, Chinese and Iranians, etc catch on to the idea of CL20, making any conventional however asymetric attack even more difficult. As I recall they havent worried to much about collateral damage in the pass even though we currently dum it down. I think this is a relevant position to because of the Arms race in our region and surrounds as well as the fact that were in RIMPAC etc. But we really need to define what conflicts were likely to get into.

The ones that might never happen, defending Japan, Vietnam or the Philippians from China as part of a US led PACOM Force. In this case I like the idea. It was mentioned in a previous post that such actions would likely be suppored by the 7th Fleet and your concern would be neutralised by the sheer size of Comdesron San Diego, Everet and Pearl Harbor
see for yourself. you must Google. COMDEsRON 1 and then click through to Pacific Fleet Surface Ships.

This is why they say it will be over very quickly. China simply can not match the Tonnage of the USN despite the claims the USN has dropped in size back to 100 years ago'ish. Not to mention the Zumwalt, Gerald Ford and the F35 upgrades that are due to roll up.

Russia on the other hand paints a different story but they seem to be quite friendly these days. However they seem to be advancing to the stage of production on a number of platforms and are also buying up foreign platforms like the Mistral class which they are going to equip with KA52 Choppers. The other think is there state of the Art Stealth Frigate. If we get pulled into a spat with them it would be significant but it doesn't seem likely at this stage with the Russians probably more worried about containing China than getting into a fight with the US which is probably why they are quite chummy with India.

Recently I was made aware of the situation with East Timor, on the Border there they have been having some extreme issues with Rebel Activity as well as the usual problems fledgling countries have over economics. However it was signaled that our troops are currently on standby in New Guinea and Darwin. This is something the new plan would suit albeit on a much smaller scale than the full planned force could provide. The Choules may get its first Action I think (its not ready yet though is it). Then again I dont think they even need to many guys to go over there however they have two medium sized units on standby ready to go, or so I was told.

The middle east could get interesting. Todays West Australian published a story about Saudi Arabia becoming a net importer of Oil by 2030. Then you also have Iranian tensions. If we had Aircraft Carriers we could probably pull off a Invasion as good as Cobra 2 all by ourselves once the whole Amphib force is ready to deploy and it would be better by then to I would think with the way these things evolve.

The point being is that even though the AWD program is in my opinion inadequate and unacceptable given the way Passive Radar has surfaced and that we should be looking at more sleak designs (like the Zumwalt) rather than going legacy, the face remains that we should be more than fine with the current plan with the exception of probably looking at increasing the size of the whole force due to dry dock maintenance requirements. We could also probably look at getting a Elizabeth Class Carrier and look into ordering F35 B and C rather than relying solely on the Airforce to provide air support. This is my thinking, I hope I have added to the debate.
 

weegee

Active Member
Ausmin

Hey guys,

Any thoughts on what the out come or what will be raised at next weeks AUSMIN? Or can we expect more of the same.
 

koala

Member
Hi All,
I have been lurking for a couple of years but have now made the effort to join. Except for my parents I do not have any military background but I am a middle aged and proud Australian who cares a great deal about my country and about our defence force, I have a particular interest in Navy.

My question is about Bill and Ben, what equipment they have salvaged from them (phalanx, mini typhoon ect) and what are they going to with there hulls? dive wrecks, scrap ect. noticed they have been moved to the wharf around Anzac bridge as one of the posters has already mentioned.

Hope I will not be a pain in the you know what for asking maybe dumb questions sometimes, so please go easy on me!

Cheers
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
More about the state of the navy's patrol boat fleet.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/patrol-boats-cant-stay-shipshape/story-e6frg8yo-1226513358065
For those who can't access the story the jist of it is that the navy is struggling to keep 7 boats available. Three boats have structural cracks and two have had major engine failures.

Some in the navy believe that the boats, which were constructed to civilian rather than military specifications, are poorly suited to the task of intercepting asylum-seeker boats in rough seas.

Austal maintains that the problems besetting the fleet relate to their workload rather than to design.

The problems with the patrol boats have become political, with the opposition blaming the fleet's troubles on the government's failure to stop the flow of asylum-seeker vessels.
I am not really sure that the opposition party can afford to get too cocky about this. After all they are they ones who decided to penny pinch when they selected the design.
 

Dayra

New Member
More about the state of the navy's patrol boat fleet.
Patrol Boats can't stay ship shape
For those who can't access the story the jist of it is that the navy is struggling to keep 7 boats available. Three boats have structural cracks and two have had major engine failures. I am not really sure that the opposition party can afford to get too cocky about this. After all they are they ones who decided to penny pinch when they selected the design.
So you cant beat them so Join them. I think the best way to beat their business model is to start up the very first Australian Asylum Ferry Boat.

Ok so how about we have a chat to Hilary Clinton next week about this problem. So I just read the Planned Australian offshore combatant vessel project and apparently "Huntington Ingalls Industries proposed a variant of the Legend-class National Security Cutter, a ship built for the United States Coast Guard" , so perhaps we ask her when shes here if we could get some allied support because we have a gap that needs filling. I know they would be more than happy to assist in our time of need. After all what are friends for. I like the cutter class by the way. I know its like the Rifle and Thales when you think about the Littoral Class debate. Proceedings Magazine had a great article that everyone at Austal probably threw darts at. The cutter was just cheaper and more effective than what the Independence class is providing. I think it hits upon the need to level up with technology when the legacy version does just the same thing. Not that the Independence class wont meet what it was designed for which is something it has not had to do yet. Maybe when they get to Singapore they will be fully utilized. Either way if the US sends down a couple of cutters and we put some RAN guys on board to see them in action then we get to see for ourselves if they will operate at a level we need. I think this adds to the debate. :haha:bum
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Have you seen the price of the NSC cutter? Not cheap, not for a patrol craft - more than some Euro frigates in fact.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Yep. And that's without frigate-standard weapons & sensors, which would push the price up a great deal.

It should be cheaper if built outside the USA, where shipbuilding costs are notoriously high.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top