Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

AEW would be useful even without the F-35B's.

quote]

Absolutely. In addition to giving early warning of impending air attack or providing a much better surface picture it would also allow full employment of future systesm such as SM-6 for over horizon targetting of fixed or rotory wing targets (including UAV's) using a fire and forget missile that does not need an illuminator for targeting. As such this could be fitted to a future frigate to augment the AWD outer layer defence.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_014817.pdf

 

[Todjaeger]

AEW would be useful even without the F-35B's.

quote]

Absolutely. In addition to giving early warning of impending air attack or providing a much better surface picture it would also allow full employment of future systesm such as SM-6 for over horizon targetting of fixed or rotory wing targets (including UAV's) using a fire and forget missile that does not need an illuminator for targeting. As such this could be fitted to a future frigate to augment the AWD outer layer defence.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_014817.pdf

Indeed, it might be worthwhile for the RAN to look at having some NFH-90 helis configured for an AEW role even if the BPE design isn't selected. Given the increased situational awareness that can be provided, if the G&C AWD design is selected and carries two helis, then if it leads as part of a taskforce, the heli could expand the awareness and targeting abilities of the whole taskforce. By way of illustration, when MH-60R "Romeo" Seahawks were doing flight testing/exercises from Texas over the Gulf of Mexico, the APS-147 radar was able to also keep the USN aware of aircraft taking off & landing in southern Texas and northern Mexico. And that was with a sea search radar. I'd imagine a radar primarily tasked with air search would be even more capable.

-Cheers

 

[BKNO]

Q: What is the likely choice of the Australian Navy as for their future BPCs ?

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/1466/bpcsf6.jpg

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/9400/bpc2yr4.jpg

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=104755

http://www.meretmarine.com/bateauclasse.cfm?classeid=16

Thanks.

 

[Tasman]

Q: What is the likely choice of the Australian Navy as for their future BPCs ?

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/1466/bpcsf6.jpg

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/9400/bpc2yr4.jpg

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=104755

http://www.meretmarine.com/bateauclasse.cfm?classeid=16

Thanks.

The decision is due in July. Both designs, the Spanish Navantia BPE and the French Mistral, appear to meet the ADF's baseline requirements but the BPE is favoured by a number of commentators because it is seen as having more growth potential, including the capability of operating VSTOL aircraft from its ski jump. However, this is not currently an RAN requirement. Much will depend on which design is seen as providing best value in relation to a combination of capability, cost, Australian industry participation, delivery schedule, etc.

Cheers

 

[BKNO]

Cheers, may the best win it!!!

 

[StingrayOZ]

The BPE has several advantages even totally ignoring the F-35 skijump.

-It can carry more
-It can deck a chook with its blades removed
-It has better accomodation and room for more troops

The offical Navantia Canberra class bid website list a whole load more.

I think it looks sexier..

http://www.lhd.tenix.com/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LHD_Navantia_lg.jpg

As its been pointed out, AEW would be a smart buy regardless (even with no LHD). The BPE is the more capable ship for Australia regardless of STOVL. So to operate F-35B's off it, we would just have to upgrade our F-35 order for ~12 units F-35B for ~$10 million a peice extra. With very little additional logistics and ongoing costs over a F-35A.

$120 million dollars to have stealth fixed wing airsupport for our navy at sea and land forces overseas. As well as able to be stationed at rough and ready airfields? Not to mention Australia would be one of the very few countries with TWO carriers. Thats ~$6 for every Australian, money well spent. You could get elected on that slogan.

Not to mention the pubicity win for the ADF, attracting people to work on its new carriers in army, navy and airforce. It would encorage them all to work more cohesively together. It would also maximise the effectiveness of the AWD's freeing some cells for SM-3 etc instead of land or shipping stike weapons and allowing them to be more flexable in the selection.

It would also make Australia the logical base for F-35 service contracts regionally. Bringing in money, creating jobs, building skill base.

Australia would step out to become a true blue water force, as well as a regional security power, more able to operate independant of US forces and US policy. Australia would find new political friends, with 2nd tier players looking for a strong friend.

It would be un-Australian to not get the BPE and the F-35B's to stick onto it.

 

[Tasman]

The BPE has several advantages even totally ignoring the F-35 skijump.

-It can carry more
-It can deck a chook with its blades removed
-It has better accomodation and room for more troops

The offical Navantia Canberra class bid website list a whole load more.

I think it looks sexier..

http://www.lhd.tenix.com/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LHD_Navantia_lg.jpg

As its been pointed out, AEW would be a smart buy regardless (even with no LHD). The BPE is the more capable ship for Australia regardless of STOVL. So to operate F-35B's off it, we would just have to upgrade our F-35 order for ~12 units F-35B for ~$10 million a peice extra. With very little additional logistics and ongoing costs over a F-35A.

$120 million dollars to have stealth fixed wing airsupport for our navy at sea and land forces overseas. As well as able to be stationed at rough and ready airfields? Not to mention Australia would be one of the very few countries with TWO carriers. Thats ~$6 for every Australian, money well spent. You could get elected on that slogan.

Not to mention the pubicity win for the ADF, attracting people to work on its new carriers in army, navy and airforce. It would encorage them all to work more cohesively together. It would also maximise the effectiveness of the AWD's freeing some cells for SM-3 etc instead of land or shipping stike weapons and allowing them to be more flexable in the selection.

It would also make Australia the logical base for F-35 service contracts regionally. Bringing in money, creating jobs, building skill base.

Australia would step out to become a true blue water force, as well as a regional security power, more able to operate independant of US forces and US policy. Australia would find new political friends, with 2nd tier players looking for a strong friend.

It would be un-Australian to not get the BPE and the F-35B's to stick onto it.

Good post StingrayOZ and I agree with everything you have said. I've never quite been able to get over the abandonment of the fixed wing FAA.

The writing was probably on the wall for the FAA from the time it proved so successful during Sydney's deployment to Korea. The RAAF always resented its existence, believing, probably correctly, that it took money away from the airforce.

As early as 1954 the government backed away from the original plans of operating two front line carriers. Sydney had its modernization plans cancelled and was relegated first to training and then to troop transport roles, after only six years service as a carrier. With encouragement from the RN, who advised that it would be unable to operate the next generation of British naval fighters, Melbourne was given an ASW role by the government even though many in the RAN believed it would be more valuable as a light strike carrier. With this view in mind, contingency plans to operate Sea Furies alongside the Sea Venoms, in place of some or all of the Gannets, were kept in place for some time. The concept of acquiring American aircraft did not fit with the 'old school tie' RAN hierarchy of the time. In 1959, after Melbourne had been in service for only four years plans were made to abandon fixed wing flying in 1961 and operate her as an ASW helicopter carrier. Only the dedication of the FAA leadership and the turning of a few 'blind eyes', kept the existing Sea Venoms and Gannets in service until replacement aircraft were eventually acquired in the late 60s. Moves to acquire a faster and larger replacement for Melbourne were rejected on the basis of cost or manpower requirements. The British carriers Bulwark, Albion and Centaur were all considered at various times beginning soon after Melbourne entered service and from the mid 60s there were proposals to acquire a modified Essex class carrier, together with 28 F4B Phantom IIs, 24 S2E Trackers and 8 E1B Tracer AEW aircraft. Had such a carrier been purchased it would have needed extensive modification to operate the F4 (which was not used on USN Essex class carriers) but the fact it was considered is interesting. Subsequent proposals for a VSTOL carrier finally foundered with the cancellation of the Invincible purchase in 1982 and fixed wing naval aviation was gone.

Not all of the FAA’s decline can be blamed on government or on RAAF jealousies. There was also an almost unbelievable ignorance of the capability of available naval aircraft by some very senior naval staff including at least one CNS. Often these staff relied totally on what they were told by their RN counterparts whereas their own naval pilots could have told them about aircraft like the A4 Skyhawk and its proven ability to operate from the CVLs years before it was finally acquired (it had been tested by the RCN on Bonaventure). The RAN could have had the Skyhawk in service at least 5 or 6 years earlier than what finally eventuated.


Sources: Flying Stations, A Story of Australian Naval Aviation, Australian Naval Aviation Museum, Allen and Unwin, 1998

The Royal Australian Navy, David Stevens, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2005

IMO, it would be very risky from a political point of view to push for a naval F-35B squadron at this stage but a good starting point would be for the navy and army to push the RAAF to acquire a small number for a joint operations squadron. It would certainly be great to see the RAN regain the ability to operate advanced fighter aircraft at sea.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes, there were quiet a few things at work that unravelled Australia's carriers.
Sydney was outdated very quickly. Melbourne was a lone ship and had limited capabilities. I suppose it highlights some of the limitations of Australian defence procurement and planning. I don't want these mistakes to be made again. Australia should be able to operate two small carriers, with a respectable squad on each ship.

I don't think a FAA will return. I think the fixed wing will be run by the Airforce. Thats okay, really its a detail of politics. As long as they are running same generation aircraft with simular capabilities and getting simular upgrades then thats fine. These sort of aquisitions are more run by politics and ministers than the brass at ADF HQ, so I doubt really the RAN will object.

Its a great point we are at now. Spain is building one heck of a decent sized STOVL carrier, which is very capable and larger than any carrier Australia previously operated. The F-35 is going to be one nice plane for sea based missions. We will also have the subs, destroyers and frigates to protect and escort it. A lucky break indeed.

Ideally the point to push for F-35B's is after the LHD has been selected and signed but before the F-35 have been signed off. A date that is only months away and a small window of only a few months to do it. The cost of the project is nothing. Almost a freebie. The only problems are perceptions, awareness and motivation.

I know when that window opens up I will be sending letters/emails out. I see no reason why Australia can't be in a position in 12 months time with a deal signed for two LHD's that can operate as a light carrier and suitable aircraft for them. A deal that will take a huge step in securing Australia for the next 30+ years.

Australia will be in a position its never had before, two brand new, fully capable carriers, with brand new airwings and brand new escorts. Australia could project power right to the door of any aggressor, it can also take a leading role in any regional mission, without help from the inlaws.

 

[Tasman]

What you propose is an excellent vision of what is possible if sensible decisions are made during the next twelve months or so. Let's hope it happens.

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Spain's BPE is likely to win if Navantia hands out a significant discount for a bulk buy of BPE + F100-derived DDGs... something DCN can't match.
A bit of a shame though since at least the Mistrals LPHs are already proven ships (latest seen in operation on the Lebanese coastline).

cheers

 

[BKNO]

Thanks for this interesting imput.

 

[Jezza]

i think the bpe with the rear flat area the have RAM missile launchers on
each side and naval guns for long rage fire support as well.

 

[Rich]

I know when that window opens up I will be sending letters/emails out. I see no reason why Australia can't be in a position in 12 months time with a deal signed for two LHD's that can operate as a light carrier and suitable aircraft for them. A deal that will take a huge step in securing Australia for the next 30+ years.

The benefits of this are so obvious its hard to imagine why any politician would vote against it. But, we have our own politicians that are hard to figure out.

Ive said this before many times here that two LHDs, flying F-35s off of them, would be a force multiplier of a degree far in excess of their actual costs. Force multipliers on a level of the Collins class fleet SSKs.

 

[VGNTMH]

Ran Aew

Two comments on RAN AEW

Swedish NH-90 NFH
I think I remember reading somewhere that the Swedish version of the NH-90 NATO Frigate Helicopter comes with a version of the Telephonics APS-143 Ocean Eye radar which is AEW capable. This version of Ocean Eye was different from the one on the Seasprites, I think.

That is, if the RAN FAA gets Naval (ie non transport) NH-90s to replace the Sea Hawks or Seaprites, this version could perhaps be a de facto AEW helicopter as well as ASW or ASuW?

Can anyone confirm details on the Ocean Eye radar?

Wedgetails
Remember that, even without AEW helicopters, the RAAF Wedgetail AEW aircraft will be quite long ranged and AAR capable.

I am not sure how far a trio of Wedgetails, with a moderate amount of AAR, say one refueling on the way out and one on the way back, would be able to maintain a continuous AEW coverage. But it would be many thousands of kilometers from Australia. Especially if the Wedetails could refuel at the Cocus Islands, in Singapore, at Diego Garcia, or Nauru etc. So, for the first time ever, the RAN will get meaningful air defense assistance from the RAAF, when the RAN is more than a couple of hundred kilometers from Williamstown!

The Wedgetail:
• Has (or will have!) a very modern and long range L band active phased array radar, and remember that L band is very good for long range surveillance but less good at low level cruise missile defense.
• Will be able to integrate with and form a single integrated air picture with the AWDs.
• Probably won’t be able to integrate with the ANZACs or upgraded FFGs (?), though it will still be able to verbally cue them at very least!
• Won’t have an X band radar so won’t be able to provide OTH illumination for SM-2.

And there is also the possibility of a RAAF RQ-4B Global Hawk UAV having an AEW capable radar. And a Global Hawk would have extremely good persistense
all around South East Asia, the Pacific, and the Indian ocean!

 

[VGNTMH]

Summary of First Tier Western Naval Air Defense Suites

There has been some mention of AEGIS/SPY-1, PAAMS/Sampson, and APAR above. Here is my summary of the merits of the various first tier western naval air defense suites (from one of my posts on Strategy Page):

PAAMS
This combat system will be used by the UK on the type 45.

It consists of:

• S1850M (variant of SMART-L) single panel rotating active phased array L band main surveillance radar
• Sampson twin face rotating S band active phased array radar for surveillance and target tracking
• The PAAMS combat data system
• Aster 30 and 15 missiles in a Sylver vertical launch system

The pros of this combat system include:

• Very modern active phased array radar technology for both the S1850M and Sampson radars
• Modern Aster missiles, with terminal active radar guidance, resulting in multiple channels of fire, no need for illuminators, and over the horizon capabilities (though there are some damming comments about Aster above!)
• The Sampson radar is mounted very high on the mast, resulting in a larger radar horizon
• The Sampson radar is active phased array and therefore can produce multi simultainious beams and has graceful degradation rather than a single point of failure in the wave generators
• The S1850M radar is very long range and has possible ballistic missile defense and counter stealth capabilities

The cons of this combat system include:

• The rotating main radars raise the possibility of mechanical failure
• The type 45s have a very limited volume of fire without quad packed ESSMs, they only have 48 missiles in total, though they could perhaps be fitted for 64, compared to upwards of 200 on the ABs when many quadpacked ESSMs are carried
• No current theatre ballistic missile defense capability without SM-3
• Commonality with USN lost from not using AEGIS/SM-2/ESSM

SMART-L/APAR
This combat system is used on the new Dutch (LCF), German (F-124), and Danish frigates and consists of:

• SMART-L single panel rotating active phased array L band main surveillance radar
• APAR fixed X band active phased array radar for horizon search, target tracking, and semi active radar illumination
• SM-2 and quad packed ESSM missiles in a mark 41 vertical launch system

The pros of this combat system include:

• Very modern active phased array radar technology for both the SMART-L and the APAR radars
• No single point of failure, unlike SPY-1D's wave generator and Sampson's rotator, as APAR is OK for self defense even if SMART-L is down and APAR is both a fixed non mechanically rotating radar and a gracefully degrading active phased array
• The APAR X band fixed active phased array radar excellent for horizon search and SAR illumination
• Very large number of channels of fire due to APAR active phased array radar illumination
• Large volume of fire due to the quad packed ESSMs
• The combination of X band AESA APAR and quad packed ESSMs is optimized for littoral saturation anti ship missile defense, the main threat faced by western warships
• The SMART-L radar is very long range and has possible ballistic missile defense and counter stealth capabilities
• Compatibility with the USN is increased by the use of the SM-2 and ESSM missiles and the mark 41 launcher

The cons of this combat system include:

• Although the APAR radar is fixed the main surveillance radar is rotating and this is the radar which is constantly used! Though as mentioned above APAR has some shorter range search capability
• No existing theatre ballistic missile defense capability without SM-3
• Older semi active radar missile guidance technology is used, though ESSM is very highly respected, SM-2 and ESSM are much more widely tested and used than Aster equivalents, and the semi active radar terminally guided missiles do have the advantage of a much more powerful radar
• Some commonality with USN lost from not using AEGIS
• There is no over the horizon area air defense capability as the SM-2 missiles are primarily semi active radar guided (though SM-2 block 3B has IR terminal guidance)

AEGIS
This combat system is used by the USN, Japan, Spain, Norway, and soon to be Korea and Australia.

It consists of:

• SPY-1D fixed S band passive phased array radars
• AEGIS combat data system
• AN/SPG-62 mechanically steered SAR illuminators
• SM-3, SM-2 and quad packed ESSM missiles in mark 41 vertical launch systems

The pros of this combat system include:

• Widely used and tested
• Offers compatibility and commonality with the USN
• Its main/constantly operating radar is fixed non rotating
• Very high power and long range SPY-1D
• It has a working ballistic missile defense system with SM-3
• Large volume of fire due to the quad packed ESSMs

The cons of this combat system include:

• SPY-1D is older passive phased array radar technology, with one or two points of failure in the wave generator(s), no gradual degradation, and only one beam generated at any one time (?) though it can flick from task to task
• AN/SPG-62 illuminators are old mechanically steered non phased array radars, limiting the number of channels of fire to two or three
• Older semi active radar missile guidance technology is used, though ESSM is very highly respected, and SM-2 and ESSM are much more widely tested and used than Aster equivalents, and the semi active radar terminally guided missiles do have the advantage of a much more powerful radar
• No over the horizon area air defense capability as the SM-2 missiles are primarily semi active radar guided (though SM-2 block 3B has IR terminal guidance)

All correct?

Personnally I like the Dutch/Thales APAR based solution. It it optimised for the tasks Western warships will face. It takes advantage of mark 41 and ESSM. It still has growth potential to perform ballistic missile defense. Especially with the long range SMART-L. This was demonstrated by the Dutch LCF off Hawaii recently.

But I am still happy with AEGIS for the RAN. It is better than the current situation!

 

[Tasman]

Personnally I like the Dutch/Thales APAR based solution. It it optimised for the tasks Western warships will face. It takes advantage of mark 41 and ESSM. It still has growth potential to perform ballistic missile defense. Especially with the long range SMART-L. This was demonstrated by the Dutch LCF off Hawaii recently.

But I am still happy with AEGIS for the RAN. It is better than the current situation!

Interesting post VGNTMH! Thanks for sharing the info.

Regardless of merit the RAN will have AEGIS in its new ships as, IIRC, it has already made a hefty down payment on three systems.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

Yes, outstanding couple of posts VGN. Thank you.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Great post. Interesting the points of failure on the AEGIS system, I think there is a difference between F-100 and G&C with the G&C more redundant system.

AEGIS is the right system, for the navies we are going to work with (Japan, US, Korea) and for what we want. Of these its the safe bet.

 

[Markus40]

What was of particular interest was the visit of a Aegis Destroyer to Sydney recently. Obviously the RAN is very interested in its ability to incorporate its systems in its own AAW later to come. Was that a result of the down payment? Not sure.

Knowing the most likely bidder will be the Aegis, is there any further news on who the successful bidder is for the AAW? The Spanish or the US? Also is the total component elements of Aegis going to be installed or will there be other systems IE Radar, Weapons that will be incorporated on the AAW other than AEGIS? This along with the LPD updates would be great. Have anything more about that?

Interesting post VGNTMH! Thanks for sharing the info.

Regardless of merit the RAN will have AEGIS in its new ships as, IIRC, it has already made a hefty down payment on three systems.

Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

• SPY-1D fixed S band passive phased array radars
• AEGIS combat data system
• AN/SPG-62 mechanically steered SAR illuminators
• SM-3, SM-2 and quad packed ESSM missiles in mark 41 vertical launch systems

The only major part you forgot was the Aegis Display System (ADS) which is the large screen displays, consoles, computers and peripherals for the CO and TAO on DDG's and Warfare Coordinators and staff on CG's.

[*]SPY-1D is older passive phased array radar technology, with one or two points of failure in the wave generator(s), no gradual degradation, and only one beam generated at any one time (?) though it can flick from task to task

It is true that the transmitter has a couple single points of failure but the rest of the system is very redundant.
Also the newer versions of the SPY family (I would imagine the RAN would be buying the newest variants) are significantly upgraded and feature a large amount of COTS and modernized equipment that is more reliable and takes up less space than older models.
I used to have a link to an article about one of the newer versions of SPY-1D (I think SPY-1D(V6)) that can radiate out of 2 opposite array faces, I'll keep looking for that article.

[*]AN/SPG-62 illuminators are old mechanically steered non phased array radars, limiting the number of channels of fire to two or three

That is for the last couple of seconds for terminal guidance, Aegis can handle 18 missiles at one time and time share the illuminators during the terminal phase.
Also their is an option called command all the way where 3 missiles can be guided without using the illuminators, but it is less accurate.