Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

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

G'day

Regardless of which US helicopters fly off Canberra at RIMPAC this year it appears they will beat the ARH Tiger which is scheduled now for flight operations in Q1, 2017.

This appears to be a very long journey for this aircraft..... Surely with 22 aircraft in county and a life sized mockup with navy for training and handling we can get this aircraft certified much quicker than 2017.
Now I understand the importance of safety and the competing demands for the Canberra class for both Army and Navy but really how difficult is it! Just because the DWP means it may have a shorter life, and I'm sure we all have an opinion as to what should of been done in the past, and what should be done in the future; the reality of the situation is we need to live and opperate with the Tiger regardless of its limitations in the immediate future. I would suggest that the aircraft still has something to offer and as such will be an asset for Army. However in the maritime context it will only be an asset if it can be deployed at sea. Surely a greater priority than waiting for 2017.
Time to make it happen!

Just a thought

Regards S

 

[t68]

G'day

Regardless of which US helicopters fly off Canberra at RIMPAC this year it appears they will beat the ARH Tiger which is scheduled now for flight operations in Q1, 2017.

This appears to be a very long journey for this aircraft..... Surely with 22 aircraft in county and a life sized mockup with navy for training and handling we can get this aircraft certified much quicker than 2017.
Now I understand the importance of safety and the competing demands for the Canberra class for both Army and Navy but really how difficult is it! Just because the DWP means it may have a shorter life, and I'm sure we all have an opinion as to what should of been done in the past, and what should be done in the future; the reality of the situation is we need to live and opperate with the Tiger regardless of its limitations in the immediate future. I would suggest that the aircraft still has something to offer and as such will be an asset for Army. However in the maritime context it will only be an asset if it can be deployed at sea. Surely a greater priority than waiting for 2017.
Time to make it happen!

Just a thought

Regards S

Aussie Digger said just after the DWP, stop wasting our money on the bloody things order the AH-1Z and be done with it

 

[Stampede]

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.

RIMPAC 2016
Probably not.........But really who doesnt want to see a pic of a Harrier on Canberra's flight deck.
As for RIMPAC 2018 , 20 , 22, 24 ...............who know's
I find it hard to believe that with USMC Harriers in service until at least 2015 they will not get a go on the Canbera class at some stage.
As to the F35b, well the RAAF will fly the F35 for some three decades and Navy will have the Canberra's for a similar time. As to the need well many would like to put that to rest.
The answer probably lies with the stategic circumstances in the future and how best to deal with them. Will there be a place for the F35b and the Canberra class and who will be the political / military driver for said capability
Interestingly how many PM's, Defence ministers and heads of services will come and go the next three decades. Alot of dynamics at play
In 2016 it looks like the RAAF roundal will not get a go on the B but long ,long term, who can really say.

Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

RIMPAC 2016
Probably not.........But really who doesnt want to see a pic of a Harrier on Canberra's flight deck.
As for RIMPAC 2018 , 20 , 22, 24 ...............who know's
I find it hard to believe that with USMC Harriers in service until at least 2015 they will not get a go on the Canbera class at some stage.
As to the F35b, well the RAAF will fly the F35 for some three decades and Navy will have the Canberra's for a similar time. As to the need well many would like to put that to rest.
The answer probably lies with the stategic circumstances in the future and how best to deal with them. Will there be a place for the F35b and the Canberra class and who will be the political / military driver for said capability
Interestingly how many PM's, Defence ministers and heads of services will come and go the next three decades. Alot of dynamics at play
In 2016 it looks like the RAAF roundal will not get a go on the B but long ,long term, who can really say.

Regards S

Economics and Force structure can really say.

I don't see any one spending mega bucks to upgrade the two ship's to ascertain a marginal capability especially when future purse string's will only be all the more tighter nor do I see the ADF calling for it as again the would be ascertaining a marginal capability at the complete clobbering of our ability to deploy forces abroad and sustain them.

It's really down to simple logic, Get the F-35 that might one day be used but at the expense of our troop deployment capability that is far more likely to be used on a regular basis be it an armed conflict or humanitarian aid. Doing that we get 2 combat aircraft capable ships that might have two dozen F-35's between them to add to an allied pool of 20 (23 in future) just between the US and UK capable of hundreds of aircraft. The wouldn't be of any aid to our allies and used independently worthless to us.

 

[Joe Black]

Just as a thought bubble, why don't we get ASC to build 3 more "evolved" Collins subs with some of the latest technologies we know are matured enough and will be employed into the future SEA 1000 subs. This will buy us some time to get SEA1000 right while ASC could use these three subs to test out new technologies, ramp up and skill up for SEA 1000.

ASC/RAN could start the rolling build program from this point onwards. 3 subs starting in 2020, at a cadence of 1 boat per 3 years, means that in 2030 when the first SEA1000 is being built, the first Collins class can be retired 1 boat every 2 to 3 years while RAN commission the SEA1000 subs with the same cadence / drum beat.

Just a thought.

 

[Volkodav]

Just as a thought bubble, why don't we get ASC to build 3 more "evolved" Collins subs with some of the latest technologies we know are matured enough and will be employed into the future SEA 1000 subs. This will buy us some time to get SEA1000 right while ASC could use these three subs to test out new technologies, ramp up and skill up for SEA 1000.

ASC/RAN could start the rolling build program from this point onwards. 3 subs starting in 2020, at a cadence of 1 boat per 3 years, means that in 2030 when the first SEA1000 is being built, the first Collins class can be retired 1 boat every 2 to 3 years while RAN commission the SEA1000 subs with the same cadence / drum beat.

Just a thought.

This very thing was proposed a couple of times since the last three Collins neared completion, including by Bomber Beazley as late as 2007 just before he was pushed aside by Rudd/Gillard. It involved too much vision and competence for any government we have had since Hawkes last caucus, as every PM and cabinet since then has listened more to finance and treasury than defence and industry, i.e. Bill and Ben instead of aa new purpose built ship, possibly something like Ocean, more F-111 instead of replacing them with Night Attack F/A-18Ds or even Fs, FFGUP instead of replacing the DDGs and first four FFGs with new build ships, and of course, not taking up the option of building at least an extra pair of Collins.

Hindsight is a fantastic thing but it is a fact that had we ordered the final pair of submarines many of the availability issues encountered could have been avoided. The caveat being the government didn't lay up boats to save money as occurred in the mid 2000s and instead ensued the extra hulls were used effectively to train and qualify the required number of technical sailors.

 

[Muar River]

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.

I'm with you about the ASMD Anzacs and it would be great to have feedback on their performance during the exercise. I question if other nations are interested in how they perform as there appears to be scope for export sales?

 

[the road runner]

By all accounts the ANZAC frigate upgrade has been a success.The missile defense systems are held in high regard not only by Australia but the US as well. I recall HMAS Perth was involved in a test where the frigate shot down an anti ship missile and was dubbed "Robo frigate" after the quick reaction of ASMD systems and crew

There was talk of the systems being exported overseas but i have no idea if this has been the case

 

[t68]

By all accounts the ANZAC frigate upgrade has been a success.The missile defense systems are held in high regard not only by Australia but the US as well. I recall HMAS Perth was involved in a test where the frigate shot down an anti ship missile and was dubbed "Robo frigate" after the quick reaction of ASMD systems and crew

There was talk of the systems being exported overseas but i have no idea if this has been the case

Pretty sure I read somewhere that US was interested as its scalable up or down, from memory they were thinking of the minor warfare vessels or perhaps LCS and with the new mindset that every platform could be a shooter

 

[vonnoobie]

Pretty sure I read somewhere that US was interested as its scalable up or down, from memory they were thinking of the minor warfare vessels or perhaps LCS and with the new mindset that every platform could be a shooter

From memory Lockheed Martin did take a 50% stake in CEA for an undisclosed sum and since then has been pushing for it's incorporation on the LCS as well as looking at it as a possible replacement for SPY-1D(V) as it has been shown to out perform it according to LM.

Has also been successfully integrated as a ground based radar with IRIS-T, which fit's in with the white paper

5.24 Defence will also acquire ground-based active electronically scanned
array radars from around 2020 and expand Australia’s access to air and
space situational awareness information, including through space-based
systems (discussed in the Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,
electronic warfare, space and cyber stream).

Mentions have been made of it also being used in air traffic control, From the looks of it CEAFAR is on the way to be the core radar used across the ADF by almost every branch.

Might take some time but I can see a good future for CEAFAR globally if the ADF roll's it out force wide.

------------------

Through google surfing, With the IRIS-T SLM developed jointly between Australia and Germany apparently Diehl had an order for the system in March 2013 from Sweden, Could that be the mystery customer confirmed by CEA in May 2014?

 

[Muar River]

From memory Lockheed Martin did take a 50% stake in CEA for an undisclosed sum and since then has been pushing for it's incorporation on the LCS as well as looking at it as a possible replacement for SPY-1D(V) as it has been shown to out perform it according to LM.

Has also been successfully integrated as a ground based radar with IRIS-T, which fit's in with the white paper



Mentions have been made of it also being used in air traffic control, From the looks of it CEAFAR is on the way to be the core radar used across the ADF by almost every branch.

Might take some time but I can see a good future for CEAFAR globally if the ADF roll's it out force wide.

------------------

Through google surfing, With the IRIS-T SLM developed jointly between Australia and Germany apparently Diehl had an order for the system in March 2013 from Sweden, Could that be the mystery customer confirmed by CEA in May 2014?

CEAFAR on a 7000 tonne A400 with sixty four vls, two seahawks, 28 plus knots is exciting. Being able to forward deploy an A400 to the Gulf for 2 years swapping out crews every 4 months must make this attractive to Treasury. I'd say this package would also be attractive to other navies.

 

[thatsamguy]

ADM has posted a new SEA1000 article regarding Soryu vs Collins "The submarine problem - deeper than meets the eye" (sorry unable to post links, but posted today under news).

They go through various areas of the two current and proposed designs, mostly postulating on the are the new subs going to be "regionally superior" or even better than Collins at all.

"To say it in plain English, if the Collins were to fight the Soryu today Collins would kill it every time."

Even before the problems of range and endurance are considered, a complete redesign of the Soryu based on technology from outside Japan is required - perhaps Australia will donate this technology to Japan from the Collins?

Also re: desired performance/range:

“Every single nut and bolt forward of the thrust block in Soryu needs redesign and none of it is trivial”

Are their arguments valid or just inflammatory? My knowledge is not enough to work out if they're doing 2 + 5 = 76 or not.

 

[Gordon Branch]

Here's the article: The submarine problem - deeper than meets the eye

 

[John Fedup]

The ADM article seems to imply Collins 2 is needed which is not on. I will let the experts weigh in on the validity of some the points raised against the Soryu. In any event the census leans towards a Japanese solution over a Euro one and this thread and the Submarine thread contain many posts explaining why.

 

[vonnoobie]

While it is hard to weigh the validity of it, I guess in part it does make some sense considering Payne not so long ago did say that not one of the submarines to that date where up to what we wanted (or along those lines).

When it is all said and done we will have a better understanding very soon with them having a Soryu participating in games with us around Sydney. Ideally we would deploy a Collins there to compare them head to head, If said Collins could wipe the floor with them then we may need a major rethink, if not then we are fine.

 

[kaz]

A question to Australians, has the ADM always been like this? The entire article feels like the ramblings of a irate blogger than anything carefully and professionally researched.

Do the so-called technical drawings published by KHI have any value to engineers? AFAIK, it's simply an illustration of what block and modular construction means to submarines. It even has cartoon drawings of the crewmen mopping the floor! Before linking to the technical report, it's a short summary of the contents and three picutres. It's also quite impossible to conclude that it's even directly related to the development of the Soryu submarines from these pictures and that abstract alone.

The article implies that the RAN would be used as a guinea pig for testing the Li-ion subs which is incorrect. AFAIK, the JMSDF plans to commission its first Li-ion submarine by 2020, way before Australia can start building theirs. If anything, they'll be dealing with any teething problems from being the early-adopters first.

At last, it manages to bring up the entire culture and language difference issue once again, which has been debunked repeatedly. It goes on to say that Japanese engineers lack any know-how and technological expertise to build any competitive submarine, that they're bidding to steal Australia's submarine secrets.

You'd think regular exercises with US forces and having one of the most developed ASW capabilities in the world today would've exposed any shortcomings and inadequacies of their subs long ago.

Meanwhile, you may want to look at and compare satellite images of MHI and KHI in Kobe using Google Earth or any similar service if you're interested in submarine-building in Japan.

 

[gf0012-aust]

re the ADM article, perhaps the author could have the courage to declare who they and whether they have had any association or been approached by any of the competing primes - so that readers can establish whether they have some conflict of interest

there are some bold assumptions made in here which I'm happy to address from another perspective once that's declared

there are also some mischievous comments in there which don't stand up to scrutiny

 

[swerve]

I just looked at MHI. Vast works, & two submarines visible. One looked complete, or nearly so, & the other (at the inner end of the same divided dock) appeared to be at a fairly early stage of building. KHI had one submarine part-built in a floating dock.

Looked as if both yards were photographed at the same time, which is logical, as they're close to each other.

 

[ASSAIL]

re the ADM article, perhaps the author could have the courage to declare who they and whether they have had any association or been approached by any of the competing primes - so that readers can establish whether they have some conflict of interest

there are some bold assumptions made in here which I'm happy to address from another perspective once that's declared

there are also some mischievous comments in there which don't stand up to scrutiny

Off course those conducting the CEP have been totally oblivious to all these supposed shortcomings in Soryu and are happy to recommend an inferior sm to govt. they have also not examined any of the technology presented by other primes because they have predetermined the outcome due to a deal between Abe and Abbott.
Really, is it the authors God given gift to understand all Soryu shortcomings when others simply can't or won't? (Rant off)

It sounds like a grumpy Saab staff writer with a hell bent desire to discredit the Japanese offering. I'm not current enough to know whether some of the points are valid but I'm comfortable enough with the process, CEP, to know that the experts will choose the best compromise.
I'm also impressed enough by our Defmin to think that she will bring the best solution to the National Security Committee for the ultimate choice.

 

[old faithful]

Surley at this stage, a descision has been made, and just waiting for contracts etc to be drawn up be going public?