Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Joe Black]

has been proposed before in recent times and rejected by immediate neighbours

Seriously no country wants to ruffle China's feathers. They may not like China and when aware of China's bully tactics but China now has the economic cloud that no one sane will want to destroy their own rice bowl or so to speak.

 

[t68]

From memory I don't think Ausgov has ever gifted/sold (except to the maritime museums) a 1st tier combat asset to another nation, I think they either been broken up or used as artificial reefs. Granted support assets have been gifted.

Would the Anzacs be in any usable shape at the end of there service life to the RAN?

 

[ngatimozart]

From memory I don't think Ausgov has ever gifted/sold (except to the maritime museums) a 1st tier combat asset to another nation, I think they either been broken up or used as artificial reefs. Granted support assets have been gifted.

Would the Anzacs be in any usable shape at the end of there service life to the RAN?

Isn't the plan to pull through a lot of their kit to their replacements. Items such as the CEAFAR radars, Mk41VLS, 127mm gun, CEC, CIWS etc., so basically you will be left with a knackered hull and propulsion system with not a lot of anything else.

 

[StingrayOZ]

has been proposed before in recent times and rejected by immediate neighbours

I would assume more will try given the general flow of the situation. Indonesia is absolutely critical for the SCS long term. By 2050 Indonesia is likely to be the 4th biggest economy in the world. 4th or 5th most populous country in the world.

China isn't a huge trading partner of Indonesia either. Going into the future, they may be more in competition with each other.

Seriously no country wants to ruffle China's feathers. They may not like China and when aware of China's bully tactics but China now has the economic cloud that no one sane will want to destroy their own rice bowl or so to speak.

While they have gained clout, I wouldn't put them as above the law. I don't think the US wants to play the appease game with China.

While China is finding its time in the sun, its not clear how long that will last. It certainly won't be the most populous nation for long, and probably not the biggest economy.

 

[Alf662]

Navy looks to remotely piloted aircraft

I stumbled on this article from yesterdays Financial Review.

Navy looks to remotely piloted aircraft | afr.com

The article states that contract signatures are scheduled for 18th August. I don't know if this is believable when compared with what was in the DIIP, it just seems to be a very compressed time frame. May be some one else can shed a bit of light on it's accuracy.

The DIIP had this to say about UAV's (I think I have the right project):

Quote
Maritime tactical unmanned aircraft
4 .32
To improve the situational awareness of ships on operations, we
will acquire a new tactical unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance aircraft system that will complement other sensors and
systems by extending the area able to be held under surveillance .
These systems will be progressively introduced over the decade to
FY 2025-26 . They will be able to operate from a range of vessels of
varying size, including the future frigates and patrol vessels.

The program time frame is 2018 to 2030 and is worth $500M to $750M.

 

[Joe Black]

I stumbled on this article from yesterdays Financial Review.

Navy looks to remotely piloted aircraft | afr.com

The article states that contract signatures are scheduled for 18th August. I don't know if this is believable when compared with what was in the DIIP, it just seems to be a very compressed time frame. May be some one else can shed a bit of light on it's accuracy.

The DIIP had this to say about UAV's (I think I have the right project):

This is just RAN playing catchup. With the Singaporean navy already deployed Instu ScanEagles on their Missile Corvettes, this is not going to be some new capability in the region.

What would excite me is if they were to deploy UCAV like Predators B or even C from Canberra class LHD.

 

[ASSAIL]

The remaining three LCHs were transferred to the Philippines Navy on 28th March at HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin. HMA Ships Balikpapan, Betano and Wewak are joining their two sisters already serving in the Philippines where they have proven to be ideal and it looks like they will have a very long life ahead after nearly 40 yrs in the RAN.

 

[Redlands18]

This is just RAN playing catchup. With the Singaporean navy already deployed Instu ScanEagles on their Missile Corvettes, this is not going to be some new capability in the region.

What would excite me is if they were to deploy UCAV like Predators B or even C from Canberra class LHD.

Could you land a Predator on a Canberra, probably take off alright (with a reduced fuel load?). But landing one may present a problem and would cause problems for the flight deck crew. I can see a role for a VSTOL UAV on the Canberras but there is none available other than Helicopters.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Could you land a Predator on a Canberra, probably take off alright (with a reduced fuel load?). But landing one may present a problem and would cause problems for the flight deck crew. I can see a role for a VSTOL UAV on the Canberras but there is none available other than Helicopters.

these are just scan eagle sized.... RAN aren't looking at big ones yet - small steps issues

 

[ADMk2]

Could you land a Predator on a Canberra, probably take off alright (with a reduced fuel load?). But landing one may present a problem and would cause problems for the flight deck crew. I can see a role for a VSTOL UAV on the Canberras but there is none available other than Helicopters.

The 65 foot wingspan of a Predator would likely present a bit of a problem, not to mention that rather wheezy under-carriage they have...

 

[Muar River]

The tale of the engineering woes of the T 45 in the RN should be a salutary lesson for the RAN when selecting SEA 5000 and shows the benefits of a MOTS solution. the newest kinkiest and shiniest is not always the best solution, surely we learnt that lesson with torpedoes and helos.

The £6bn gamble on risky engines for navy’s fleet of destroyers backfired admits defence chief - Portsmouth News

Warships magazine reported that the RN may lay up a Daring Class destroyer and Type 23 frigate at Portsmouth to provide crewing for the Queen Elizabeth Class.

In terms of our future frigate, will the crewing and operating efficiencies of the A400 frigate over other designs have a large influence on final choice? The A400 has a crew of 120 whereas the modified Hobart is over 230.

 

[John Newman]

Warships magazine reported that the RN may lay up a Daring Class destroyer and Type 23 frigate at Portsmouth to provide crewing for the Queen Elizabeth Class.

In terms of our future frigate, will the crewing and operating efficiencies of the A400 frigate over other designs have a large influence on final choice? The A400 has a crew of 120 whereas the modified Hobart is over 230.

The size of the crew quoted for the A-400 is a little deceptive.

From what I understand the F-125 (which the A-400 is based on), can be operated with a crew of 120 and the 'model' that the Germans will be using is that when a ship is on deployment, every four (4) months the whole crew is 'swapped' out and replaced with the next crew of 120.

So whilst the ship can supposedly be operated by a crew of 120, there also has to be another 120 people ready to take the place of 'crew 1' and so on.

I've also read that the F-125 have accommodation for approx. 200 crew.

Sure they may be more 'economical' in crewing requirements because of automation (as most modern ships appear to be anyway), but I don't think it's just a case that they 'only' need a full time crew of 120.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Warships magazine reported that the RN may lay up a Daring Class destroyer and Type 23 frigate at Portsmouth to provide crewing for the Queen Elizabeth Class.

In terms of our future frigate, will the crewing and operating efficiencies of the A400 frigate over other designs have a large influence on final choice? The A400 has a crew of 120 whereas the modified Hobart is over 230.

The 120 is for a F-125 I believe, it will be interesting how many, with all required weapons and systems on board in a configuration the RAN is happy with. I would think a A400 Sea5000 ship would be greater than 120 in practice.

IMO its the biggest selling point of the F-125 design. Across 9 ships saving 110 crew per ship over the service life is pretty huge. Greater availability and/or less crew overall for the capability.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The revised manning numbers I saw for the mini burke was 180 - and that involved extensive discussions with the USN as they were also trying to work out whether they could reduce their own manning reqs.

ultimately they couldn't due to different ship SOPS (fire control, water damage, redundancy etc...)

 

[weegee]

Just came across this nice little article giving some insight about what the RAN plans on doing this RIMPAC.
Little surprised no subs seem to be heading over? Well not that they are telling us anyway.

RAN to integrate USN's MV-22 Osprey, CH-53 Sea Stallion on board HMAS Canberra at 'RIMPAC' 2016 | IHS Jane's 360

 

[Volkodav]

Just came across this nice little article giving some insight about what the RAN plans on doing this RIMPAC.
Little surprised no subs seem to be heading over? Well not that they are telling us anyway.

RAN to integrate USN's MV-22 Osprey, CH-53 Sea Stallion on board HMAS Canberra at 'RIMPAC' 2016 | IHS Jane's 360

And what about AV-8B or B+? That would be very interesting......

In fact, once the F-35B starts replacing the Harriers it could provide for some very interesting possibilities should the need arise.

 

[phreeky]

And what about AV-8B or B+? That would be very interesting......

It's hard to see them bothering with that.

In fact, once the F-35B starts replacing the Harriers it could provide for some very interesting possibilities should the need arise.

Interesting indeed, but I wonder whether it would re-open a can of worms that the gov (and perhaps the ADF) would prefer stay shut? Besides did they end up giving the Canberra the surface coatings/treatment required? Everything in that article points to the utilisation of Canberra for its primary purpose, so I expect it to be limited to moving troops and their gear.

 

[vonnoobie]

Being such a new asset providing an unprecedented capability for us I reckon they are looking to find out it's full capabilities and limit's around it's core focus, Harriers and B's just dont fit into that.

Best to get the core mission nailed down before even thinking about the odd Harrier or B cross decking onto them, Just means less time to perfect any single task.

On the other side of the equation there will be two Anzac's there both of which have had the ASMD upgrades, Will be interesting to see how they perform in a fleet based exercise.

 

[Redlands18]

Being such a new asset providing an unprecedented capability for us I reckon they are looking to find out it's full capabilities and limit's around it's core focus, Harriers and B's just dont fit into that.

Best to get the core mission nailed down before even thinking about the odd Harrier or B cross decking onto them, Just means less time to perfect any single task.

On the other side of the equation there will be two Anzac's there both of which have had the ASMD upgrades, Will be interesting to see how they perform in a fleet based exercise.

In an edition of Australian Aviation Magazine last year there was an article of a visit to the Canberra by a team from the Magazine and they talked to the Air Boss (the RANs first since the days of the Carrier Melbourne). He talked about cross decking AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys, no mention of CH-53s and MV-22s. I wonder if they have been added or a change has been made to the program. Either way all these aircraft will have to qualified to operate of the Canberra first.

 

[StingrayOZ]

In an edition of Australian Aviation Magazine last year there was an article of a visit to the Canberra by a team from the Magazine and they talked to the Air Boss (the RANs first since the days of the Carrier Melbourne). He talked about cross decking AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys, no mention of CH-53s and MV-22s. I wonder if they have been added or a change has been made to the program. Either way all these aircraft will have to qualified to operate of the Canberra first.

The priority would be given to equipment we are likely to buy in the near term. Like AH-1Z.. Its something we are likely to buy, it was announced in the white paper, so obviously operating them off the LHD's would be a priority.

Ch-53, MV-22 and F-35B we aren't likely to procure immediately. We aren't likely to operate them off the LHD immediately. That's not to say people aren't looking at it, Spain operates a similar LHD and has been extensively looking at the MV-22. I would imagine Spain would most likely be the first to get a F-35B on the LHD deck. They are already operating harriers off them, they could see F-35B compatibility being a selling point for the LHD.

Australia will be pretty tied up trying to build this massive Amphibious capability. We really don't have time to do a whole lot of other things (other than the missions like Fiji). Spain does and will. Which is fine, as anything that they do with the USMC can most likely be recycled and provide information for the ADF.

I wouldn't be surprised if the MV-22 success operating off the spanish LHD means that is something Australia might want to look at cross decking in 2018+.