Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe Black said:
I do wonder why hasn't RCN jumped onboard and joined the RAN's Sea 5000 program. :)
Click to expand...

The way Canadian defence procurement has been working for the last 20 years, having Canada on board would be a colossal PITA for Australia. Not sure about how much electronic kit commonality there is between the RCN and RAN frigates.
 
So it seems like the Canberra's will be getting a little bit more defence in the form of upgrades as everyone was questioning in the beginning and would hope them to get.
I wonder if this was always the plan? or when they're out in the big open ocean do they feel a little exposed without some escorts by they're sides. With a year of operations under Canberra's belt is this something that raised alarm bells maybe?

Australian LHDs to be armed with latest-configuration Phalanx CIWS | IHS Jane's 360
 
Good news, the 1B config also has anti aircraft and surface capabilities over and above the baseline anti missile function. I wonder if these will be in addition to or in place of the Typhoons, I suspect additional.

Same vein but more speculative, I wonder what is happening with the self defence length Mk-41s from Sydney and Darwin. They are pretty new but not used on anything other than our FFGs, while I believe there is space and weight on the LHDs for at least one eight cell Mk-41 each. Factor in the Canberras have the same core combat system as the ANZACs, plus their shear size and stability, adding the key elements of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade would not be outside the realm of reality.

Not saying it will, or even should be done, just speculating as to what we could do , especially as fairly new equipment becomes available from a parts pool as ships are upgraded and retired. For example, what has happened to the old fire controls from the upgraded ANZACs or the STIRS from the FFGs as an interim until a CEAFAR Mast becomes available from the ANZACS as they begin being replaced in the early 2020s?
 
weegee said:
So it seems like the Canberra's will be getting a little bit more defence in the form of upgrades as everyone was questioning in the beginning and would hope them to get.
I wonder if this was always the plan? or when they're out in the big open ocean do they feel a little exposed without some escorts by they're sides. With a year of operations under Canberra's belt is this something that raised alarm bells maybe?

Australian LHDs to be armed with latest-configuration Phalanx CIWS | IHS Jane's 360
Click to expand...

Shouldn't come as the slightest surprise. It was in the DWP after all.
(extract from 4.58)

The Government will further invest
in enhancements to the ADF’s amphibious capability, including to the
sensors, countermeasures and weapons on board the Canberra Class
ships. This capability will be developed further over time, taking account
of our experience in operating the Canberra Class.
Click to expand...

oldsig
 
weegee said:
So it seems like the Canberra's will be getting a little bit more defence in the form of upgrades as everyone was questioning in the beginning and would hope them to get.
I wonder if this was always the plan? or when they're out in the big open ocean do they feel a little exposed without some escorts by they're sides. With a year of operations under Canberra's belt is this something that raised alarm bells maybe?

Australian LHDs to be armed with latest-configuration Phalanx CIWS | IHS Jane's 360
Click to expand...

It was always part of the plan Weegee, their is an entire half sentence devoted to it in the DIIP:

6.19 Over time the capability of the ships will be enhanced to better support
joint command and control, including upgrades to communications and
intelligence systems and semi-autonomous self-defence capabilities.

If the LHD's require an additional 4 to 6 Phalanx will the total pool quantity be increased from the existing 12 units?
 
John Fedup said:
The way Canadian defense procurement has been working for the last 20 years, having Canada on board would be a colossal PITA for Australia. Not sure about how much electronic kit commonality there is between the RCN and RAN frigates.
Click to expand...

When the RAN was outlining requirements for the Collins Class Submarines there was a RCN presence to assist with the design.

Is there any valid reason why the RCN should not have a presence in the design & construction of the Short Finned Barracuda?

It would be good politics to invite the NZ'ers as well.:p:
 
pussertas said:
When the RAN was outlining requirements for the Collins Class Submarines there was a RCN presence to assist with the design.

Is there any valid reason why the RCN should not have a presence in the design & construction of the Short Finned Barracuda?

It would be good politics to invite the NZ'ers as well.:p:
Click to expand...

Canada being involved would have merit and benefit if there procurement wasn't FUBAR and they actually where talking about future replacement's, Sadly there proucrement is FUBAR and I have not seen anything (at least official) talking about the future replacement of the Victoria class.

As for NZ.... Why? There government has shown no interest in acquiring such a capability so any NZ involvement in the design and procurement phase would have no benefit but quite possibly just add an extra layer of political BS to a project that doesnt have the time to deal with it. Much as I love the NZ people there government (and by extension the majority of the populace) have shown them selves to be an unwilling partner as shown by how hard it is to get them to replace a like for like capability, You can't help some one that doesnt want to help them selves so Australia should not be bending over backwards to do so.

We now have the number's and plan's going forward to have a continuous sustainable build in surface ships and submarines, Possible we may be able to help out NZ and Canada going forward but we deffintly should not tie any of our programs to either nation.

Regards, vonnoobie.
 
Volkodav said:
Good news, the 1B config also has anti aircraft and surface capabilities over and above the baseline anti missile function. I wonder if these will be in addition to or in place of the Typhoons, I suspect additional.

Same vein but more speculative, I wonder what is happening with the self defence length Mk-41s from Sydney and Darwin. They are pretty new but not used on anything other than our FFGs, while I believe there is space and weight on the LHDs for at least one eight cell Mk-41 each. Factor in the Canberras have the same core combat system as the ANZACs, plus their shear size and stability, adding the key elements of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade would not be outside the realm of reality.
Click to expand...

Volk, I would rather see the LHDs carry a pair of SeaRAMs instead of the Mk41s to be honest. I think 3x Phalanx CIWS is good for minimum protection, but to be truly capable of defending a large asset such as the LHD against saturated attacks, SeaRAM is probably going to be a much better system / capability to have.

As for the spare Mk41 VLS,from the retired FFGs, I'm sure they will find themselves on the new Sea5000 frigates soon enough... :)
 
Joe Black said:
Volk, I would rather see the LHDs carry a pair of SeaRAMs instead of the Mk41s to be honest. I think 3x Phalanx CIWS is good for minimum protection, but to be truly capable of defending a large asset such as the LHD against saturated attacks, SeaRAM is probably going to be a much better system / capability to have.

As for the spare Mk41 VLS,from the retired FFGs, I'm sure they will find themselves on the new Sea5000 frigates soon enough... :)
Click to expand...

A capable system no doubt, but when one has twice the speed and over 5 times the range I think you are giving SeaRam a bit too much credit over ESSM.
 
vonnoobie said:
A capable system no doubt, but when one has twice the speed and over 5 times the range I think you are giving SeaRam a bit too much credit over ESSM.
Click to expand...

I was comparing SeaRAM against Phalanx. I don't think it is necessary for the LHDs to be armed with ESSM, and overkill. LHD needs to defend against leakers from a saturated AShMs attack and I see that the SeaRAM is probably likely to excel and exceed in this area. ESSM is more for defending a fleet or a task force. I suspect the cost per shot is also a lot more than a RAM missile too. But seriously, if RAN would like to install the MK41 unto the LHDs and load them with ESSMs, I wouldn't complain. I would think that would be excellent too.

BTW, why only 3 Phalanx for both LHDs? I would have thought each ship would need at least 2, so 4 Phalanx would make more sense. I do understand that Phalanx can be bolted on quickly, but I would rather see them being installed as a permanent feature rather than only when they are deployed.
 
It will come down to real estate and requirements. First and foremost, if there isn't space it wont happen, if there is it could happen.

I recall someone who had seen the layouts of JCI or Canberra mentioning there was space and weight for a Mk-41. RAM and SeaRAM are a different matter as, while they have the same physical footprint as Phalanx there is also the question of blast. Not saying it can't be done, just that people with access to far more information than me will need to assess and advise.
 
Joe Black said:
I was comparing SeaRAM against Phalanx. I don't think it is necessary for the LHDs to be armed with ESSM, and overkill. LHD needs to defend against leakers from a saturated AShMs attack and I see that the SeaRAM is probably likely to excel and exceed in this area. ESSM is more for defending a fleet or a task force. I suspect the cost per shot is also a lot more than a RAM missile too. But seriously, if RAN would like to install the MK41 unto the LHDs and load them with ESSMs, I wouldn't complain. I would think that would be excellent too.
Click to expand...

Oh in that case SeaRam and RAM are preferable to Phalanx though as Volk mention's it all depends on the back blast rather then simple space available.

As for ESSM and Mk41 I to have heard the Juan Carlos actually being fitted with (though it could be fitted for) a VLS for ESSM, How big or it's location I can't speak to. While it is more of a fleet defense system I view that as being more beneficial to Australia as we have a large area of responsibility with limited number's of ship's in the water thus we need to make use of every vessel. No garauntee that the LHD's will be escorted at all times meaning a VLS may be needed to provide self protection.
 
re new sub discussion earlier around canadians and NZ presence and participation.

having observer status is not the same as design input - and its a very limited view of whats happening

its also not easy to do as just because a country may have FMS coverage on common solution sets - that does not mean that they have entitlement to see whats going into that platform

the FMS constraints are very specific
 
The other thing that has to be considered is, assuming there is a requirement to fit the LHDs with an improved self defence capability over and above Phalanx, what the RAN already has in service and has the support systems for. It could well be that interesting RAM into the RAN has a greater through life cost than reusing existing systems that are already in service. Support costs can be as great or greater than acquisition costs for any system especially when comparing a new acquisition to an in service one with an established support system.
 
Regarding NZ participation in any sub program, NZ has never shown interest in owning and operating subs. It was not and is not in our CONOPS. However we have taken great interest in sinking ones who have annoyed us and by accounts were good at it. Around 1983 - 84 it was suggested by some group that NZ acquire 4 subs to replace the frigates but that suggestion was sunk fairly quickly. We had one officer driving subs in the RN during WW2 and he was RNZNVR. However we did have a lot of RNZNVR officers and ratings in the RN FAA during the war.
 
Joe Black said:
Volk, I would rather see the LHDs carry a pair of SeaRAMs instead of the Mk41s to be honest. I think 3x Phalanx CIWS is good for minimum protection, but to be truly capable of defending a large asset such as the LHD against saturated attacks, SeaRAM is probably going to be a much better system / capability to have.

As for the spare Mk41 VLS,from the retired FFGs, I'm sure they will find themselves on the new Sea5000 frigates soon enough... :)
Click to expand...

Same mount... I suspect that Phalanx 1B might be the relatively quick qnd inexpensive solution to upgrading the protection for these vessels to a reasonable level, however further enhancement will likely be required throughout these vessels lifespans, so SeaRAM may come into play later in their lives?
 
ADMk2 said:
Same mount... I suspect that Phalanx 1B might be the relatively quick qnd inexpensive solution to upgrading the protection for these vessels to a reasonable level, however further enhancement will likely be required throughout these vessels lifespans, so SeaRAM may come into play later in their lives?
Click to expand...

I think Phalanx would be okay, and will be useful against asymmetric and small drone threats. Mopping up anything else. I hear SeaRAM is pretty expensive. It would be hard to think of a situation where the existing layered defense (including the new Phalanx) wouldn't be pretty sufficient. Remembering that it can support lots of other things organically such as armed helicopters/drones.

Navantia claims SeaRAM can be fitted on two points on the LHD:
https://www.navantia.es/ckfinder/userfiles/files/sala_pr/folleto LHD_marzo_para navantia_ingles.pdf
 
Since the topic of Canberra's layered defence is popping up I'll put it out there, What would theoretically (within the realm of reality, ie: it can actually be fitted and we are likely to use it) be the best layered defence for the ship's them selves?

So far they have the 4 x Rafael Typhoon 25 mm remote weapons systems but may soon have upto 3 x Phalanx's, Are the complementing them or replacing them (In part of in full)?

The Phalanx and 25mm Typhoon mounts appear to me as more close in weapons so I'm stumped if I can work out why you would need both so if any one can help out there be much appreciated.

SeaRAM tends to be the medium range system while ESSM-ER tends to be the long range system (In regards to this vessel, I don't think any one in there right mind would be wanting to fit RIM-174 to the LHD's).

I'd imagine ESSM would come before SeaRAM purely cause we actually have history with those systems, we have (or will have) spare launcher's and such a move would create more jobs (Ceafar) for Australia.

Regards, vonnoobie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top