Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Todjaeger
Good points and I take them onboard.
Healthy debate, even if revisited.
In all this concentration on the LHD, we should not forget HMAS Choules, and her potential to be forward of the main protected by escorts LHD force.

HMAS Choules has the latent capability to have Phalanx CIWS installed, as well as Mini-Typhoon / Typhoon 25mm guns.

So do the LHD's. As is the case with any RAN vessel prior to being deployed to any possible operational scenario, both vessels will be equipped with their full range of systems in accordance with RAN practice over many years of deployment, if there is any conceivable level of threat.

Manoora to the Gulf in 2003 is a perfect example of that arrangement in effect.

 

[ASSAIL]

The lessons learned from the FI operation are not forgotten. Tod has mentioned AEW but the main lesson the RN learned IMHO it was that ALL escorts need a competent Air Defence system (both sensor and weapon) even against such basic attacks as low level fighter attack aircraft.
The RN hung onto the belief that Seacat and 4.5's in the AA mode were enough and that proved deadly. Its worth remembering that the Ikara frigates (no gun) were not put in harms way.(ipso facto they thought the guns could cut it).
Several of my PWO course classmates fought in that campaign and their thoughts are precisely as stated.

 

[Volkodav]

The lessons learned from the FI operation are not forgotten. Tod has mentioned AEW but the main lesson the RN learned IMHO it was that ALL escorts need a competent Air Defence system (both sensor and weapon) even against such basic attacks as low level fighter attack aircraft.
The RN hung onto the belief that Seacat and 4.5's in the AA mode were enough and that proved deadly. Its worth remembering that the Ikara frigates (no gun) were not put in harms way.(ipso facto they thought the guns could cut it).
Several of my PWO course classmates fought in that campaign and their thoughts are precisely as stated.

One of the greatest ironies was just as FI shower how deadly sea skimming missiles and low level bombing could be, how necessary AEW and CAPs were Australia gave up defending their ships from both. FI demonstrated just how versatile and critical a carrier was, how useful large ASW helicopters and Sea Harriers were the RAN lost the ability to deploy either.

The RAN learnt many lessons from the RNs FI experience nut unfortunately there political masters learnt nothing.

 

[ADMk2]

One of the greatest ironies was just as FI shower how deadly sea skimming missiles and low level bombing could be, how necessary AEW and CAPs were Australia gave up defending their ships from both. FI demonstrated just how versatile and critical a carrier was, how useful large ASW helicopters and Sea Harriers were the RAN lost the ability to deploy either.

The RAN learnt many lessons from the RNs FI experience nut unfortunately there political masters learnt nothing.

Did the RAN learn all that much though? It's next major class of warship after FI came with a 5inch gun and a handful of comparable surface to air missiles (8 Sea Sparrows) to SeaDart and that was it.

No CIWS, no area air defence capability and no over-lapping air defence capability of any kind. That was considered suitable for service in a force with no AEW and outside of land base range, no CAP capability whatsoever. Even NZ added CIWS to their frigates (of the same make!)

It's only in the next year or so we'll actually see a new RAN warship that seems to have incorporated the harsh lessons the RN learned in the FI, in terms of multiple, overlapping air defence capabilities (though arguably the FFG has some capacity in this area, it's definitely restricted with channels of fire etc) multiple channels of fire, multiple sensor and weapon systems and a capability in the broader force to provide AEW&C capability etc for the fleet.

 

[John Newman]

On the question of missile defence systems, I've got a couple about Nulka.

Yes I know what it does and that it is installed on the FFG's and FFH's, and it's going to be installed on the AWD's and the LHD's too.

Does anyone know if there is any consideration to the fitting of Nulka to Choules? (and possibly also to the future replacements for Sirius and Success too?).

Unlike Phalanx which appears to only require an appropriate mount and power supply (I've also read it also needs water for electronics cooling) and a local control panel to be installed in the ship too.

Does Nulka, apart from installing the launch canister(s) in appropriate locations on the ship, also require input from the various radar and sensors already on that ship or are there other specific systems that Nulka requires to be active and operational?

I would imagine that the sensors on Choules would be rather basic to start with anyway, especially compared to sensors installed on the LHD's and Frigates, etc, and I'm assuming that to install Nulka would require an upgrade to Choules sensor fit too.

I haven't been able to find any detail of what sensors are needed by Nulka.

Thanks,

 

[Volkodav]

Did the RAN learn all that much though? It's next major class of warship after FI came with a 5inch gun and a handful of comparable surface to air missiles (8 Sea Sparrows) to SeaDart and that was it.

No CIWS, no area air defence capability and no over-lapping air defence capability of any kind. That was considered suitable for service in a force with no AEW and outside of land base range, no CAP capability whatsoever. Even NZ added CIWS to their frigates (of the same make!)

It's only in the next year or so we'll actually see a new RAN warship that seems to have incorporated the harsh lessons the RN learned in the FI, in terms of multiple, overlapping air defence capabilities (though arguably the FFG has some capacity in this area, it's definitely restricted with channels of fire etc) multiple channels of fire, multiple sensor and weapon systems and a capability in the broader force to provide AEW&C capability etc for the fleet.

Like I said the RAN learnt, the politicians didn't. RAN wanted the Type 23 and got a dumbed down MEKO 200, they wanted Burkes and will get F-100s. Oh they also wanted a carrier.

 

[Todjaeger]

On the question of missile defence systems, I've got a couple about Nulka.

Yes I know what it does and that it is installed on the FFG's and FFH's, and it's going to be installed on the AWD's and the LHD's too.

Does anyone know if there is any consideration to the fitting of Nulka to Choules? (and possibly also to the future replacements for Sirius and Success too?).

Unlike Phalanx which appears to only require an appropriate mount and power supply (I've also read it also needs water for electronics cooling) and a local control panel to be installed in the ship too.

Does Nulka, apart from installing the launch canister(s) in appropriate locations on the ship, also require input from the various radar and sensors already on that ship or are there other specific systems that Nulka requires to be active and operational?

I would imagine that the sensors on Choules would be rather basic to start with anyway, especially compared to sensors installed on the LHD's and Frigates, etc, and I'm assuming that to install Nulka would require an upgrade to Choules sensor fit too.

I haven't been able to find any detail of what sensors are needed by Nulka.

Thanks,

The Nulka uses a Mk-53 Decoy Launching System, which is essentially a variant of the Mk-36 DLS used to launch the SRBOC. The system can be either tied into the combat system of the vessel, or use an independent fire control system. Not quite what you were looking for, but might give you a better place to start.

-Cheers

 

[John Newman]

The Nulka uses a Mk-53 Decoy Launching System, which is essentially a variant of the Mk-36 DLS used to launch the SRBOC. The system can be either tied into the combat system of the vessel, or use an independent fire control system. Not quite what you were looking for, but might give you a better place to start.

-Cheers

Thanks for the info Tod, appreciated.

Yes I do understand that Nulka is able to be launched by multiple systems and that Nulka is in use with the RAN, USN, RCN and the USCG.

What I have been unclear about (and unable to find the information) is what is needed on a particular ship, in regard to sensor input, to operate Nulka.

And yes it does make sense that it is tied into the ships combat system, or as you also suggested, an independent fire control system on those ships.

As the Nulka system is installed on a wide variety of ships from different navies, can I assume that it's probably more of a 'software' interface to those various systems rather than one specific type of combat/fire control system?

And that still leaves the question, does Choules have the relevant combat or fire control systems? The answer to that is probably no, I know it's dangerous to assume, but I'd assume that the Bay Class LSD(A)'s were probably not fitted, or not required to be fitted, with such systems at the time of construction.

Maybe one of the other Def Pro's might know the answer in more detail.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well the RAN is getting at least 3 AWD. While not as capable as a burke, they are *WAY* more capable than anything we have ever had.

We do have Phalanx but not on everything. I wouldn't be suprised if we got more of them.

The reason why the politicians didn't get them, is because the logic is, if we ever needed it, the americans will be with us to supply it. Ie not hot situation without the americans and their might by our side. US air defence will protect us wherever we go. USA all the way. Middle of the cold war and all that.

However, East Timor proved that wasn't the case. We will get US support, maybe, on US terms, and at a time that is convenient to the US. The US support may put screening requirements that are above our capability level, meaning our entire navy will be preoccupied working with the americans to provide what they need we won't have a navy able to perform the mission. It was now even for seeable that we may not get any useful US support, even if they wanted to give it to us (internal, external, operational or global strategic issues).

We have to have our own independant expeditionary capability if we want any say in what happens in our region. IF PNG (or indonesia, or a province, or Fiji, or Samoa, etc) collapses, you could be looking at 100,000's of refugees per year, but neither china nor the US will be keen to commit to a mission that is very far for both of them, with most likely no "winning" strategy possible. However other regional powers may take opportunity to redraw boundaries or add to it outside of their control (rouge military or police units) etc.

The LHDs however, I think will be relatively well protected and will always be escorted. They will most likely have Phalanx and eventually ESSM. However, the escorts need upgrades. We need that 4th AWD, and we need the new frigates to be far more capable than what we have. I also believe we need PAC-3 and SM-3.

With only 2 LHD and 3 AWD's, Choules does have the potential to be right in the middle of a sticky situation.

 

[ASSAIL]

With only 2 LHD and 3 AWD's, Choules does have the potential to be right in the middle of a sticky situation.

Whilst agreeing with much of your post, I think you're way too pessimistic regarding the RAN escorting capability.
The Anzacs, after the ASMD upgrades, will be quite capable complimentary escorts to the AWD's and certainly capable of acquitting themselves well in a regional stoush as outlined above including protecting Choules.

 

[MickB]

I agree that an FI style situation is unlikely in the extreme, and the AD of the LHD can and will be upgraded to suit the situation. The lesson I take from FI is that the US (or any ally) will only do what is is in their own political interest.

Don't blindly take their continued assistance for granted. I know they provided material assistance to the Brits but think of the difference a Carrier Battle Group would have made.

 

[rjtjrt]

All this talk of escorts for point defence against aircraft and antiship missiles, protecting the amphibs.
What if an escort or more than one gets wounded, or sunk, by air/ sub whatever.
Remember, Choules or LHD can carry a fair proportion of the army, personnel and equipment, and if lost or severely damaged, it would make us almost stuffed in one fell swoop, and if not physically stuffed, then politically stuffed, as the folks at home look to politicians and others for who to blame. If it had happened in 1999, all of a sudden, public support would vanish.
A lot potentially riding on those ships. MAJOR targets. If I were Kameria, it would be worth everything to get to those ships. A compelling target.
They need some extra layers of defence - cheap insurance.

 

[Samoa]

Thanks for the info Tod, appreciated.
What I have been unclear about (and unable to find the information) is what is needed on a particular ship, in regard to sensor input, to operate Nulka.

And yes it does make sense that it is tied into the ships combat system, or as you also suggested, an independent fire control system on those ships.

As the Nulka system is installed on a wide variety of ships from different navies, can I assume that it's probably more of a 'software' interface to those various systems rather than one specific type of combat/fire control system?

Nulka can take queues from ships sensors such as the ESM or a air search radar. The current implementation is standalone, such that it takes parallel feeds from these sensors that would otherwise be destined for the Combat System (CMS). Nulka has it's own processing system, and launch is controlled by manual operator under the direction of the PWO. Even on later implementations such as ASMD this remains unchanged. Future upgrades would consider a much better integration between the Nulka and the CMS to provide coordinated soft and hard-kill engagement capabilities.

 

[alexsa]

I understand the JC1 design had scope to fit up to two Mk41 VLS catering for ESSM only. The base system fitted to the vessel is based on the SAAB system in the ANZAC which means integration is not a complete unknown but FC and and effective air search/ASMD capability would need to be added.

So it is just possible some kit could move from the FFG7 once they pay off provided the space is sufficient in our LHD to accept the MK41 and we can fit the supporting systems. This presupposes that the Mk41 from the FFG7 are not shagged by that time and the whole process does not mean messing about with structure or finding a lot of extra space.


May be a phurphy.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Whilst agreeing with much of your post, I think you're way too pessimistic regarding the RAN escorting capability.
The Anzacs, after the ASMD upgrades, will be quite capable complimentary escorts to the AWD's and certainly capable of acquitting themselves well in a regional stoush as outlined above including protecting Choules.

I would say the Anzacs once upgraded are a good frigate. Good enough for what we need as a frigate now. But 10 years into the future?

It depends what you want to do and the global environment your operating in.

And if you think two Australian LHD's will be targets. Think about operating with US, Japanese or Korean forces. I would imagine a Japanese aircraft carrier could be a magnet for everyone in the region who wants to settle a score, and Koreans will all ways be at risk from their nemesis.

What if an escort or more than one gets wounded, or sunk, by air/ sub whatever.

Wouldn't even need to be that. Storm damage, engine fault, electrical faults, terrorist attack, drone attack, or even clogged prop or grounding would (could) be enough to mission kill it (or at least severely reduce its effectiveness). It doesn't have to be a full on attack.

 

[Samoa]

I understand the JC1 design had scope to fit up to two Mk41 VLS catering for ESSM only. The base system fitted to the vessel is based on the SAAB system in the ANZAC which means integration is not a complete unknown but FC and and effective air search/ASMD capability would need to be added.

So it is just possible some kit could move from the FFG7 once they pay off provided the space is sufficient in our LHD to accept the MK41 and we can fit the supporting systems. This presupposes that the Mk41 from the FFG7 are not shagged by that time and the whole process does not mean messing about with structure or finding a lot of extra space.


May be a phurphy.

I believe it would be possible, using two Mk92 fwd and aft with cues from the AMB radar it could be done. The Saab software is modular and the existing builds could be augmented from an ANZAC implementation. It would offer similar capabilities to a pre-ASMD ANZAC but with two fire channels. Interfacing hardware for the VLS and FCDs would need to be added, but the LHD CMS design has spare capacity. This would need to be redesigned to some extent as it would be different to FFG and an evolution of ANZAC. An interesting aspect would be the location for the Mk92s to provide good FOV but without compromising other systems. Funny as LHD is larger than anything in the RAN, but upper deck space is a premium with so much communication kit onboard. One LHD has more Comms and Data network capability than the rest of entire fleet combined.

 

[Pusser01]

Thanks for the info Tod, appreciated.

Yes I do understand that Nulka is able to be launched by multiple systems and that Nulka is in use with the RAN, USN, RCN and the USCG.

What I have been unclear about (and unable to find the information) is what is needed on a particular ship, in regard to sensor input, to operate Nulka.

And yes it does make sense that it is tied into the ships combat system, or as you also suggested, an independent fire control system on those ships.

As the Nulka system is installed on a wide variety of ships from different navies, can I assume that it's probably more of a 'software' interface to those various systems rather than one specific type of combat/fire control system?

And that still leaves the question, does Choules have the relevant combat or fire control systems? The answer to that is probably no, I know it's dangerous to assume, but I'd assume that the Bay Class LSD(A)'s were probably not fitted, or not required to be fitted, with such systems at the time of construction.

Maybe one of the other Def Pro's might know the answer in more detail.

Yes Nulka can operate in a stand alone mode but to be most effective it needs to receive input from an EW suite. This is so that it knows what the threat missile is and from what direction the missile is approaching. Can't say much more than that.
Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

I understand the JC1 design had scope to fit up to two Mk41 VLS catering for ESSM only. The base system fitted to the vessel is based on the SAAB system in the ANZAC which means integration is not a complete unknown but FC and and effective air search/ASMD capability would need to be added.

So it is just possible some kit could move from the FFG7 once they pay off provided the space is sufficient in our LHD to accept the MK41 and we can fit the supporting systems. This presupposes that the Mk41 from the FFG7 are not shagged by that time and the whole process does not mean messing about with structure or finding a lot of extra space.


May be a phurphy.

I like that idea, maybe a mix of systems from the FFGs and new build items from ASMD.

On the prospective ANZAC replacements I still feel we could do better than just a new more capable frigate. Cut the numbers and split the build, build three DDG 1000s followed by three Hyuga / Izumo type ships backed up by a class of OPV/Corvettes/FFLs.

 

[RobWilliams]

The idea of a mixed hi/lo approach is fine, but i'd definitely oppose any DDG-1000's. Hell of an expensive ship even for the most powerful navy on earth.

I like the Izumos, I like them alot. It's a design concept i'm rather fond of. Should it count as part of an ANZAC replacement? Not in my book. As much as they like to be called 'destroyers', they are and always will be closer to capital ships in my book rather than escorts, capital ships that require escorts.

Some might disagree with that, but that's my opinion on it.

Potential for savings and reinvestment in the future 12 SSK plan, what's everyones thoughts on that? Going from 6 to 12 seems like one hell of a jump, would something closer to 8 and the spare going into the surface fleet be better? If the boats are larger, more fuel efficient and have a better reliability rate, is 12 the best number?

I don't really know, so that's why all the Q's

 

[alexsa]

The idea of a mixed hi/lo approach is fine, but i'd definitely oppose any DDG-1000's. Hell of an expensive ship even for the most powerful navy on earth.

I like the Izumos, I like them alot. It's a design concept i'm rather fond of. Should it count as part of an ANZAC replacement? Not in my book. As much as they like to be called 'destroyers', they are and always will be closer to capital ships in my book rather than escorts, capital ships that require escorts.

Some might disagree with that, but that's my opinion on it.

Potential for savings and reinvestment in the future 12 SSK plan, what's everyones thoughts on that? Going from 6 to 12 seems like one hell of a jump, would something closer to 8 and the spare going into the surface fleet be better? If the boats are larger, more fuel efficient and have a better reliability rate, is 12 the best number?

I don't really know, so that's why all the Q's

IMO, and it is just my opinion, 12 results in an imbalance. 8 is a reasonable number noting we rely on SLOC and need a reasonable escort force not jsut for capital ships. To this end I would love to see 4 AWD.

I am willing to see the ANZAC II cut to 6 significantly more capable ships if this was supplimented by a light frigate (OPV) with greater capabiltiy to provide a lower tier escort with reasonable ASW capability, a self defence capability (ESSM in an 8 cell Mk41 perhaps), limited ASuW (2 to 4 Harppon) and a mid range gun (76mm as and example).

If I have my day dreaming goggles on then 6 (maybe 8) of these would provide a great capability for patrol and supplimentry escort. You could even carry over systems from the ANZAC to lower risk. The 80 to 90m OPV designs from the 90's certainly had a lot fo this capability and extending the desigh by a couple of metres to add range and growth margin and using modern control systems to reduce crew size these would be a capable tier of escort. They wouel also provide additional ship building work if built in batches of 4.

If we were really brign the same hull and propulsion package coudl be used for a fitted for but not with pure patrol vessel to suppliment the fully armed batch.

But this is a fantasy, so while I am at why not add a Cavour to the mix. That would give the RAN:

1 x VSTOL carrier
2 x LHD with limited VSTOL support
4 x AWD
6 x 7000t ANZAC II (built in batches of 3)
8 x Collins replacement (built in batches of 4 and updated between batches)
4 (8) x Light Frigate (built in batches of 4 and updated between batches)
and if we are really dreaming 4 x OPV version

and of course

2(3) x AOR/MARS (whatever is selected)

Hmm.......................... seems reasonable but highly unlikely. However, building in batches allows the build rate to be spread out and avoids fitting obselete equipment to a ship at the end of a long production run. Building a different type of ship between each batch allows redesign (not massive) to take account of operational experiance. Ideally this process would continue and the designs would effectively evolve with lessons being learnt on all platforms feeding into the next batch of ships (whatever they are) where it is applicable.

Way too sensible if you ask me.