Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
ASSAIL said:
You need a large f/w UAV capable of covering about 15,000 square miles 50-80 nms ahead of the line of advance. And capable of launching weapons. This roughly replicates what organic fixed wing could do. The P8's would be much further out 100-200 roughly. This constitutes layered defence and the desired detection, location and prosecution of the target would always occur way beyond the screen.
Click to expand...

MQ-8B Fire Scout

The Fire Scout (even the small one MQ-8B) could deliver sonar bouys. With a 600 pound lift, its not unbelievable that it could also be armed with something like a Mk-54 if required. (not really needed IMO) this is really best handled by MH-60R/P8's.

Even something like the proposed OPV could operate 2 or maybe 3 Fire Scouts each (with 8hr endurance thats 24 hr coverage, just, for short periods). Thus enabling a nearby frigate/destroyer to carry a ready to go, armed MH-60R.
 
StingrayOZ said:
MQ-8B Fire Scout

The Fire Scout (even the small one MQ-8B) could deliver sonar bouys. With a 600 pound lift, its not unbelievable that it could also be armed with something like a Mk-54 if required. (not really needed IMO) this is really best handled by MH-60R/P8's.

Even something like the proposed OPV could operate 2 or maybe 3 Fire Scouts each (with 8hr endurance thats 24 hr coverage, just, for short periods). Thus enabling a nearby frigate/destroyer to carry a ready to go, armed MH-60R.
Click to expand...

The MQ-8C, based on the Jet Ranger, is now being flown with the Leonardo Osprey AESA flat panel radar.
This is marketed as having a 12 hour endurance.
 
StingrayOZ said:
MQ-8B Fire Scout

The Fire Scout (even the small one MQ-8B) could deliver sonar bouys. With a 600 pound lift, its not unbelievable that it could also be armed with something like a Mk-54 if required. (not really needed IMO) this is really best handled by MH-60R/P8's.

Even something like the proposed OPV could operate 2 or maybe 3 Fire Scouts each (with 8hr endurance thats 24 hr coverage, just, for short periods). Thus enabling a nearby frigate/destroyer to carry a ready to go, armed MH-60R.
Click to expand...

While I have no user experience with Fire Scout but it suffers from all the same limitations other rotary wing platforms have. They are great on the screen out to say 30 miles but that is way too close for effective ASW. Detection and location opportunities are scarce and brief and need immediate action so without the capability to carry both a large number of sonar buoys and a couple of Mk 54s their utility is limited. 15,000 + square miles is a lot of Ocean so distribution of the buoys, monitoring at high altitude and weapon delivery seems to be beyond a Fire Scouts capability.
 
ASSAIL said:
While I have no user experience with Fire Scout but it suffers from all the same limitations other rotary wing platforms have. They are great on the screen out to say 30 miles but that is way too close for effective ASW. Detection and location opportunities are scarce and brief and need immediate action so without the capability to carry both a large number of sonar buoys and a couple of Mk 54s their utility is limited. 15,000 + square miles is a lot of Ocean so distribution of the buoys, monitoring at high altitude and weapon delivery seems to be beyond a Fire Scouts capability.
Click to expand...


Back in 1987 the V-22 Osprey was being mooted for almost everything... including ASW .... a program which was cancelled. It will be interesting if anything like this ever comes to fruition



https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1987/1987 - 2231.PDF
 
alexsa said:
Back in 1987 the V-22 Osprey was being mooted for almost everything... including ASW .... a program which was cancelled. It will be interesting if anything like this ever comes to fruition



https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1987/1987 - 2231.PDF
Click to expand...

Interesting, the link says virtually everything that I have attempted to say but far more effectively.
If it can land on a SEA 5000 deck and can be maintained on an LHD it makes sense for the RAN but I suspect both the capability and deck size make it a capability for the future, maybe.

A UAV With S3 type capability would be the ultimate IMHO.
 
Massive said:
Thanks Stampede,

Did a fair bit of reading on this recently.

Think with ASW the key is getting a UAV big enough to do something useful - would need to carry either sonobuoys or a dipping sonar to be really useful. Then you would need a helicopter (or a really big UAV) or ASROC to deliver a torpedo to any target.

Given pace of change, may well be here sooner than I think though.

Question for you though would be do they really need a separate flight deck - hangar space may be more the critical factor.

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...

Thinking more along the lines of an extended flight deck with a mission bay underneath to store and service small UAV's which are serviced by a small lift.. Your Scan eagle and S100 sized systems are not that big and should not be too difficult to accommodate in a destroyer sized ship.
It's not just ASW that is the domain of the helicopter; logistical work,ISR and maritime strike are all shouldered by the scarce aviation asset that is the ships helicopter.
Small UAV's will compliment and support some of the above. Larger UAV,s may evolve to do the lot more,but I see this happening later down the track.
For the next decade we will rely on the Romeo's which are a great platform made even more effective by being complimented for some tasks with smaller UAV's.
Its about aviation numbers at sea.... lets utilise the destroyers flight deck and Hanger to capacity.
Lets build that capacity into our next destroyers.

By 2030 probably half our Frigates / Destroyers will still have only one helicopter hanger until the last of the ANZAC's are retired beyond this date.
Does anyone know if there is any space left in a ANZAC class ships hanger if it embarks a Romeo helicopter, ie could you fit a s100 UAV as well?

Thanks S
 
ASSAIL said:
You need a large f/w UAV capable of covering about 15,000 square miles 50-80 nms ahead of the line of advance. And capable of launching weapons. This roughly replicates what organic fixed wing could do. The P8's would be much further out 100-200 roughly. This constitutes layered defence and the desired detection, location and prosecution of the target would always occur way beyond the screen.
Click to expand...

Layered defence is everything and yes small UAV's have limitations.The later will be an addition not a substitute for existing helicopters and fixed wing, supporting and complimenting where applicable.They will be good at the inner circle eyeball stuff that big helicopters are wasted on.
The Romeos and P8's will still do the heavy lifting in the immediate future.
As to the future who know's!

Regards S
 
ASSAIL said:
You need a large f/w UAV capable of covering about 15,000 square miles 50-80 nms ahead of the line of advance. And capable of launching weapons. This roughly replicates what organic fixed wing could do. The P8's would be much further out 100-200 roughly. This constitutes layered defence and the desired detection, location and prosecution of the target would always occur way beyond the screen.
Click to expand...

Kind of makes me wonder if a truly useful ASW screen is even possible?

Are we wasting money trying?

Regards,

Massive
 
Massive said:
Kind of makes me wonder if a truly useful ASW screen is even possible?

Are we wasting money trying?

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...
If Australia follows through with its plans there will be very few countries that could match the ASW capability that it could field.

The navy will have 9 specialised ASW frigates, 24 Seahawks, 12 extremely capable submarines, 15 P-8A as well as UAVs and perhaps AUVs. That is already a pretty potent force.

I can't think of too many nations that could match that.
 
hauritz said:
If Australia follows through with its plans there will be very few countries that could match the ASW capability that it could field.

The navy will have 9 specialised ASW frigates, 24 Seahawks, 12 extremely capable submarines, 15 P-8A as well as UAVs and perhaps AUVs. That is already a pretty potent force.

I can't think of too many nations that could match that.
Click to expand...

from an ASW task force perspective though its about platform synergy and integration rather than isolated if not stranded assets

certainly at the broad platform level there is some signifcant individual capability - but the test is about all singing from the same hymn book at the choir level
 
gf0012-aust said:
from an ASW task force perspective though its about platform synergy and integration rather than isolated if not stranded assets

certainly at the broad platform level there is some signifcant individual capability - but the test is about all singing from the same hymn book at the choir level
Click to expand...

This seems to be the chorus line for all ADF branches - army, navy and RAAF.
Too many people forget this and go back to the platform vs platform comparisons of the past - something that is often seen in defence media reporting.
Of course the challenge is to not only sing from the same playbook, but to have all the assets available so that the parts can operate in harmony.
This will require some concerted training scenarios involving all
MB
 
gf0012-aust said:
from an ASW task force perspective though its about platform synergy and integration rather than isolated if not stranded assets

certainly at the broad platform level there is some signifcant individual capability - but the test is about all singing from the same hymn book at the choir level
Click to expand...

Definitely not thinking platform v platform.

More that the arguments presented in the thread suggest that in the absence of organic fixed wing ASW the planned force structure would not be able to provide effective ASW defence to a task force.

If that is the case, and organic fixed wing ASW is not feasible, is the planned acquisition of large ASW escorts worth it given they are not going to be able to provide the effective ASW defence they are being purchased for?

Regards,

Massive
 
Massive said:
Definitely not thinking platform v platform.

More that the arguments presented in the thread suggest that in the absence of organic fixed wing ASW the planned force structure would not be able to provide effective ASW defence to a task force.

If that is the case, and organic fixed wing ASW is not feasible, is the planned acquisition of large ASW escorts worth it given they are not going to be able to provide the effective ASW defence they are being purchased for?

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...

It surprises me that there doesn't seem to be much development work on STOVL UAVs that could operate off flatops without cats.

I can see a lot of navies that would be interested in that technology.
 
hauritz said:
It surprises me that there doesn't seem to be much development work on STOVL UAVs that could operate off flatops without cats.

I can see a lot of navies that would be interested in that technology.
Click to expand...

If this Bell concept gets of the ground (no pun intended!), it would appear to fit the bill:

Bell Helicopter Introduces Bell V-247 “Vigilant†Tiltrotor Unmanned Aerial System in Ship-Borne Configuration

And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-247_Vigilant

I'd like to see an AEW version developed to operate off the LHD's.
 
Massive said:
Definitely not thinking platform v platform.

More that the arguments presented in the thread suggest that in the absence of organic fixed wing ASW the planned force structure would not be able to provide effective ASW defence to a task force.

If that is the case, and organic fixed wing ASW is not feasible, is the planned acquisition of large ASW escorts worth it given they are not going to be able to provide the effective ASW defence they are being purchased for?

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...

ASW has always been a joint effort and cooperation between RAAF and RAN has been paramount. ASW training was(in my time) always conducted through a series of exercises known as CASEX or Combined anti submarine exercises and these included basic ship v sub, ship helo v sub, MPA v sub and a combination of all three.
A joint school (AJASS) was established at NASNOWRA in 1951 as a result of the Cold War soviet submarine presence and drove the development of ASW tactics and doctrine, https://www.faaaa.asn.au/ajass/

so singing from the same hymn sheet is not new, What is new is the means to achieve that jointness.

There are many times when all layers of a screen can't be achieved, particularly when a TG is deployed remote from RAAF bases and those aircraft are unavailable, hence my advocacy of organic capability. You fight with what you have at any given moment.
 
OPV for Sea 1180

From the video of the current Talisman Sabre exercise, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5St_kKyAJ5I

we can see that RAN is using the ACPBs as war fighting boats, the ACPBs are clearly stepping up from their typical constabulary role.

I now starting to think that the new OPV should at least be able to carry weapons for war fighting. Will be interesting to see if the OPVs will be giving some self-defence capabilities too such as ECM and decoy launchers. I would love to see them being equipped with a air search radar such as the Sea Giraffe too. It will be nice if the OPV can be fitted for 2 pairs with AShMs and a CIWS when needed.
 
Joe Black said:
From the video of the current Talisman Sabre exercise, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5St_kKyAJ5I

we can see that RAN is using the ACPBs as war fighting boats, the ACPBs are clearly stepping up from their typical constabulary role.

I now starting to think that the new OPV should at least be able to carry weapons for war fighting. Will be interesting to see if the OPVs will be giving some self-defence capabilities too such as ECM and decoy launchers. I would love to see them being equipped with a air search radar such as the Sea Giraffe too.
Click to expand...

Where do you get war fighting boats out of that ?
 
aussienscale said:
Where do you get war fighting boats out of that ?
Click to expand...

You don't send constabulary coast guards vessels to a major exercise whereby they sail with major warships and practice defending against simulated attack by enemy jets. Some level of self-defence capability would be nice.

Have a look at the Singaporean navy, they are starting to equip their patrol vessels (their new Independence class LMV) with Mica VLS system.

I am not proposing turning the OPV into an OCV, but it would be nice to have the OPV to be fitted for some additional capabilities when needed, in the sense of mission modules or in the traditional "fitted for but not with" way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top