Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
That is just the point - apart from the evolved Collins class, or a new design from ASC et al, there isn't one.
MB
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The Soryu-class and Oyashio-class are close/close-ish to the capabilities of the Collins-class. Granted the Soryu-class is likely to cease construction ~2019... The follow-on Japanese design would likely be closest to what the RAN would want from a follow-on design. But this has been brought up previously.
-Cheers
1. Tomahawks would impact too greatly on the available weapons storage space.
2. At present, no. I believe (though I'm happy to be corrected) that Harpoon Block II does not come in encapsulated form and therefore we operate only legacy Block 1C Harpoon from the Collins.
3. RAN has a land attack capability from it's surface ships at present. 76mm guns, 127mm guns have obvious land attack capability and the Harpoon Block II missile can all strike fixed and relocatable land targets, as seen in the video below:
Harpoon Block II Missile - YouTube
In future Government is planning on acquiring a "strategic" land attack capability to be carried by the RAN's surface and sub-surface fleets. Most expect that to be based on Tactical Tomahawk missiles, but perhaps other systems might be available by then.
Block II Harpoons are sub launch capable...no idea whether or not the RAN has the appropriate fire control system or rounds though.
However, the Harpoon Block II's land attack is seriously limited compared to even a Block III TLAM. Also can't do moving targets in a practical sense.
RAN introduced Block II in the early - mid 2000's. It has now successfully conducted live fire launches against open ocean targets, littoral ship targets and land targets.
Against fixed or relocatable (but static) targets, the Harpoon Block II is as capable a weapon as the SLAM-ER (albeit with less range). The antenna and GPS/INS guidance package from JDAM and SLAM-ER has been added to it, so whatever they can accurately target, so can Harpoon Block II.
Lacking the IIR seeker and 2 way data-link of that weapon, it obviously isn't as capable against moving targets, but regardless of that fact, with the Advanced Harpoon Weapons Control Station (which RAN acquired) and the necessary targetting data, the Harpoon Block II provides a capable land attack missile system.
Here's what the Royal Australian Navy thinks of that point, anyway.
Harpoon Block II firing a first for Navy capability | Royal Australian Navy
That's all very familiar, but none of that is relevant to the point that the Harpoon Block II is a significantly less capable land attack missile than a Block III TLAM, particularly in range.
And again, neither is of any practical use against a moving target. Even though Tactical Tomahawk (Block IV) theoretically is, even that is of somewhat limited utility.
I don't recall any suggestion that the Harpoon II was intended for use against moving targets or that it was more capable than Tomahawk CM's.
RAN has practiced and validated the weapon's utility against land based targets, which was the sole point I made in response to Weegee's question about whether RAN maintains a land attack weapons capability.
I suspect that the issue over the Collins and whether it can fire Harpoon Block II is a matter of national sensitivity. I suspect that some of our Northern neighbours would get very upset (publicly) if we admitted we operated a submarine launched land attack capability.
I think the political view is to admit that our submarines are capable of engaging shipping with a range of weapons and glossing over the precise capability of the submarines...
Hence why there has been VERY little discussion over whether or not Harpoon Bock II has been added to Collins and all RAN literature that I've seen has only ever mentioned Harpoon Block 1C...
weegee
Active Member
Ok thanks for the info guys, on another note has anyone heard how HMAS Choules is going since she has entered into service again?
peterAustralia
Member
Today I found information on the Tenix 56m SAR patrol boat that was offered as a Fremantle class patrol boat replacement, but missed out to the Armidlale class
I understand they were to be based on the San Juan SAR boats built by Tenix for the Phillipines coast guard.
links
San Juan-class patrol boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
what it looks like
http://ruelbaby.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/p15b-to-modernize-philippines-coast.html
according to 'ever reliable' wikipedia these boats can do 26 knots top speed, and sustain 12 knots in seastate 4. Not sure how that compares to the Armidale class? top speed may be similar, but the slimmer hull of the Armidales might be able to be pushed faster in a sea state
Boat is optimised for SAR, thus top speed is less than a Fast Attack Craft. My 'ideal' Armidale class replacement would be very much like these 56m tenix vessels, however a bit narrower, a bit longer and with some more power, this should result in greater speeds. Downside would be less internal volume (though still heaps more than Armidale class) as a narrower hull can support less topweight. So at a rough guess reducing beam from 10.5m to say around 9.7m would mean the top most deck would have to be cut down, and the superstructure reduced in size. Trade off would be higher speed at cost of reduced internal volume. A FAC of similar displacement would tend to have a beam of around 9m to 9.3m (obviously can go faster - upside, but internal volume and topweight that can be carried is much less -downside)
some specs
560t
56m x 10.5m x 2.5m
approx 11,000hp
can handle 300 evacuees for a short while
can land a 4.7t helicopter (bell 429 class or heavier)
a mix of these vessels, plus some 2000t hulls that could also be used for an OPV and MCM work and hydrographic survey makes sense to me.
For those in the know, obvioulsy this information is old hat, for the rest of us, it may be of some use.
I understand they were to be based on the San Juan SAR boats built by Tenix for the Phillipines coast guard.
links
San Juan-class patrol boat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
what it looks like
http://ruelbaby.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/p15b-to-modernize-philippines-coast.html
according to 'ever reliable' wikipedia these boats can do 26 knots top speed, and sustain 12 knots in seastate 4. Not sure how that compares to the Armidale class? top speed may be similar, but the slimmer hull of the Armidales might be able to be pushed faster in a sea state
Boat is optimised for SAR, thus top speed is less than a Fast Attack Craft. My 'ideal' Armidale class replacement would be very much like these 56m tenix vessels, however a bit narrower, a bit longer and with some more power, this should result in greater speeds. Downside would be less internal volume (though still heaps more than Armidale class) as a narrower hull can support less topweight. So at a rough guess reducing beam from 10.5m to say around 9.7m would mean the top most deck would have to be cut down, and the superstructure reduced in size. Trade off would be higher speed at cost of reduced internal volume. A FAC of similar displacement would tend to have a beam of around 9m to 9.3m (obviously can go faster - upside, but internal volume and topweight that can be carried is much less -downside)
some specs
560t
56m x 10.5m x 2.5m
approx 11,000hp
can handle 300 evacuees for a short while
can land a 4.7t helicopter (bell 429 class or heavier)
a mix of these vessels, plus some 2000t hulls that could also be used for an OPV and MCM work and hydrographic survey makes sense to me.
For those in the know, obvioulsy this information is old hat, for the rest of us, it may be of some use.
I know she was deployed on Exercise Sea Lion in Far North Qld recently (and perhaps still is) working up with 2RAR, landing craft, Blackhawks and MRH-90's ahead of Talisman Sabre, later this year.
Everything seems to be going along just fine with her so far. Hopefully she stays that way!
Why is a 56m boat your "ideal" replacement. The fact is they lack persistence and a multi role patrol capability. Building the Cape class for picking up irregular entires has really limited their scope to do other things because of their size.
If we go down the 56+ m parth I suspect that Austal would be in with a chance using the Cape Class (and I am not a fan of this option noting there are better hulls about), however, if were to hard look at what can be done in teh same money (less hulls more capability) then an OPV with helo capabiltiy wouel be right up there.
There is good reason to look at this as the 8 Cape Class are now coming on line for BPC and these are a quantum improvement over the Bay Class. 14 more of the same thing really appears to be a waste.
justsomeaussie
Member
I think there is a bigger requirement that the current make up. With 14 Armidales doing the offshore work and 8 Bays doing the near shore work we still have massive holes in our EEZ. We simply do not have enough resources to apply to a problem with pretty much everyone predicts is going to get worse.
I'd much rather see the Armidale replacement and then on top another six 2000 ton OCV vessels to act as mother ships in peace time and in war time as in combat corvettes.
Simply one for one replacements isn't going to work. At least by the DCP saying that SEA1180 is pushed to the right there might be a chance of Armidale replacements and OCVs.
I'd much rather see the Armidale replacement and then on top another six 2000 ton OCV vessels to act as mother ships in peace time and in war time as in combat corvettes.
Simply one for one replacements isn't going to work. At least by the DCP saying that SEA1180 is pushed to the right there might be a chance of Armidale replacements and OCVs.
Your supposition is too simplistic. Firstly, the primary detection capability within the EEZ is provided by air assets. Surface assets react. Secondly you have sold short the efforts of the MCU. Customs do a great deal of "offshore" work.
The ACPB's are unsuitable for sustained offshore border protection duties. They are too small, they have no aviation capability and have no reserve accommodation to handle refugees. Any wartime contribution would be minimal.
Your proposal for 6 or 7 OPV's for BP is in line with SEA 1180 but would need to be boosted to about 12 to keep the requisite number on task.
Unfortunately I doubt if any of this will be realised in the next 20 years and we will be saddled with yet another class of "useless" PB's
The full SEA 1180 capability will not be fulfilled for many years.
A cynics view, unfortunately
Last edited by a moderator:
justsomeaussie
Member
Air assets are useless unless you can act on their tracks. So even if we cover the sky with drones we'll need need enough intercept vessels to do the actual work.
Sounds a little contradictory here. First you say the Bays do a great deal of offshore work, then the Armidales (of course larger vessels) are not suitable for sustained offshore work. Which is it? The Bays are a bit of a pig when the sea gets up.
Not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting 12 PBs for non warlike operations, same as we have now just updated. Basically putting the "patrol" back into patrol boat.
Then on top another 6 OCVs, which act as motherships. They have the helo deck, room for 150+ PIIs etc but have either modular for fixed weapon systems. Basically a 2000ton multi role corvette which can defend itself.
Otherwise you end up with a 20 vessel OCV which would be far too expensive to procure and maintain or what we've currently got where we have to supplement with Minehunters and ANZACs (costing $400k per day mind you) to plug the gaps.
If you add it up we end up with 14 Armidale replacements (whatever that is but I would guess it's going to be very similar to a Cape Class in size), 8 Cape Class, 6 OCVs. Giving us a 28 vessel fleet which can deploy helos, conduct long range patrol, hold a large number of PIIs and worst case the OCVs can be an offensive capability.
And the number one reason, there is a chance we can afford them.
Primary detection is by air though. plus bits and pieces fed by ground int. any skimmer will just not have the same detection footprint as an aviation asset - and depending on the asset, by a factor of 20 in square area terms
air is normally covering off a lot of the sea space that skimmers just aren't available for - and they're then normally updating, feeding and directing the closest available maritime asset
the track management picture for hi level air far surpasses whats on any skimmer except maybe an air warfare or command asset, and even then they'll have a far bigger and better "informed" picture than an (eg) AWD
Neither the Bays nor the Armidales are suitable but both soldier on in trying conditions
We have a navy to fight when necessary. What you're suggesting would be to expand the Customs fleet.
You can't isolate the capabilities described for SEA 1180 for BP only. The other tasks, Geospatial intel, and Mine Counter Measures have to be a considered.
Nothing you have proposed addresses these and they would be ignored because, as you correctly point out, there are finite limits on resources
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
justsomeaussie
Member
What would you say the difference is between how the Armidales are employed an how the Cape class will be employed?
From my perspective we have two organisations trying to achieve 95% of the same goals with regards to offshore patrol.
Re gf0012-aust:
Of course a vessel is only going to give you a 12-20nm radar horizon which is not even a drop in the ocean with what is required to reconnoiter our EEZ.
From my perspective we have two organisations trying to achieve 95% of the same goals with regards to offshore patrol.
Re gf0012-aust:
Of course a vessel is only going to give you a 12-20nm radar horizon which is not even a drop in the ocean with what is required to reconnoiter our EEZ.
peterAustralia
Member
Yes ten of twelve OPVs, ideally with a small helicopter would be nice. Trouble is a little thing called money gets in the way. Even more so with the economy slowing down and defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP quite low.
One thing I got annoyed with in regards to the SEA1180 program, was that the OPVs would be the same bare hull as the MCM and hydrographic survey ships. As a result they would be equipped with much much more equipment than a relatively simple OPV (example sonar, ECM, chaff launchers etc). The unit price starts to climb and climb, into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Multiply that by say ten OPVs needed assuming these would replace the Armidale class, then the bill for capital costs alone goes into a couple of billion dollars plus.
So it seems with dollars tight, they might possibly perserve with smaller boats, continue the tradition started in 1967 with the first Attack class boats.
I also get a bit confused, if the new Custom Cape class are being built to go far from shore, who will do the more mundane tasks like inspecting commercial ships as they wait outside of port waiting to take on cargo.
One thing I got annoyed with in regards to the SEA1180 program, was that the OPVs would be the same bare hull as the MCM and hydrographic survey ships. As a result they would be equipped with much much more equipment than a relatively simple OPV (example sonar, ECM, chaff launchers etc). The unit price starts to climb and climb, into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Multiply that by say ten OPVs needed assuming these would replace the Armidale class, then the bill for capital costs alone goes into a couple of billion dollars plus.
So it seems with dollars tight, they might possibly perserve with smaller boats, continue the tradition started in 1967 with the first Attack class boats.
I also get a bit confused, if the new Custom Cape class are being built to go far from shore, who will do the more mundane tasks like inspecting commercial ships as they wait outside of port waiting to take on cargo.
- Status