Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Muar River said:
An interesting article on the future frigate including the advice that the RFT is set for 24 July and the former defence secretary was a strong advocate of the BAE frigate! Not impressed with that advice at all.
Click to expand...

It demonstrates that the time frame of the Type26 just isn't lining up for the start of Sea5000. In the current environment, I don't see delaying the build to be a viable option either.
 
StingrayOZ said:
It demonstrates that the time frame of the Type26 just isn't lining up for the start of Sea5000. In the current environment, I don't see delaying the build to be a viable option either.
Click to expand...

I'm impressed by the obvious (but until now unstated) comment that the nine frigates will be built in three blocks - allowing the experience gained on the earlier blocks and new developments in technology to be integrated while avoiding - hopefully - some bureaucratic blanket counter suggesting that all the bits for all nine frigates be purchased in advance.

oldsig
 
StingrayOZ said:
It demonstrates that the time frame of the Type26 just isn't lining up for the start of Sea5000. In the current environment, I don't see delaying the build to be a viable option either.
Click to expand...

The impression I am getting is that internal politics will have a lot to do with the final selection. They want first steel cut in 2020.

To be honest I find myself wondering why we are having this selection process in the first case given that the Hobart hull is already in production and the time frame seems to be very tight.
 
hauritz said:
The impression I am getting is that internal politics will have a lot to do with the final selection. They want first steel cut in 2020.

To be honest I find myself wondering why we are having this selection process in the first case given that the Hobart hull is already in production and the time frame seems to be very tight.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more.
The driver here is Pyne and politics will play a big part I am sure.
I have to wonder if we may end up with two classes of vessels for SEA 5000 - the first three being based on the AWD hull and the last six on the T26.
Stranger things have happened
MB
 
When the NASAMS come online in the Army, could the RBS 70s be transferred to the Navy as a cost neautral way to get basic air defence on the AORs, OPVs and LCH replacements.

I know these are all meant to be escorted, but if the capability is there already paid for why not use it.
 
Muar River said:
Is anyone aware of whether the nine frigates be equipped with CEC?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it is clear yet. The combat system might be Aegis or Saab. I think both can support it, but I would imagine it is a key feature of Aegis in most of the modern baselines. The AWD's have the feature.

I would assume it is likely the frigates will too.

Not so sure on LHD's, OPV's and the like. I would like to think so.

When the NASAMS come online in the Army, could the RBS 70s be transferred to the Navy as a cost neautral way to get basic air defence on the AORs, OPVs and LCH replacements.
Click to expand...

I would suppose its possible. They were previously deployed on Kanimbla. Just a question of space/crew I would assume.
 
MickB said:
When the NASAMS come online in the Army, could the RBS 70s be transferred to the Navy as a cost neautral way to get basic air defence on the AORs, OPVs and LCH replacements.

I know these are all meant to be escorted, but if the capability is there already paid for why not use it.
Click to expand...

If Army can justify their replacement on capability grounds and Navy can justify (based on need obviously) the expense of continuing to support, man and train this capability, will it be 'that' much of a stretch for Navy to justify a similar more appropriate naval SAM capability acquisition?

I think the sunk cost argument is a bit thin myself. Then you have to look at shelf life of the missiles themselves and so on. They were put on Kanimbla yes, but as an emergency measure (IMHO) because RAN hadn't sent real vessels to a real war in a LONG time and suddenly had to face the fact that they may for the first time in a LONG time, come under direct (and indirect...) air attack.

Measures like this show that we are (still) nowhere near ready for a high intensity conflict where we are at actual risk of air and guided missile attack, whilst as an interim it might be an alright idea on the surface, I personally think that Navy should be seriously pushing for a more robust defensive capability for all of it's fleet assets.

We are spending up up to $80b on Subs, but our multi-billion dollar, LHD's and AOR's can't afford a dedicated VSHORAD capability?
 
ADMk2 said:
We are spending up up to $80b on Subs, but our multi-billion dollar, LHD's and AOR's can't afford a dedicated VSHORAD capability?
Click to expand...

One solution is a pool of CAMM-L launcher boxes that can be fitted to any of these vessels as required.
They require minimal intergration with combat systems.
In wide service so will have good upgrade path.

If fitted to OPV will provide a basic anti shipping capability.
 
MickB said:
One solution is a pool of CAMM-L launcher boxes that can be fitted to any of these vessels as required.
They require minimal intergration with combat systems.
In wide service so will have good upgrade path.

If fitted to OPV will provide a basic anti shipping capability.
Click to expand...

http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/egypt-using-deck-parked-avenger-sam-system-to protect-mistral-class-amphibious-assualt-ships/
Of course this is another way of doing it in an emergency. We would NASAMS in the future mounted on whatever Vehicle is chosen of course

Sorry Link doesn't take you to the exact page but if you go to the home page you will find the story under : Egypt using Deck parked Avenger.
 
Last edited:
Redlands18 said:
http://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/egypt-using-deck-parked-avenger-sam-system-to protect-mistral-class-amphibious-assualt-ships/
Of course this is another way of doing it in an emergency. We would NASAMS in the future mounted on whatever Vehicle is chosen of course

Sorry Link doesn't take you to the exact page but if you go to the home page you will find the story under : Egypt using Deck parked Avenger.
Click to expand...

Are these some of the images you are referencing to?

FormerDirtDart said:
There are always unconventional techniques
Egyptian Navy chaining US Avenger SHORAD systems to the deck of a Mistral-class ship.
View attachment 6872

View attachment 6873
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MickB said:
One solution is a pool of CAMM-L launcher boxes that can be fitted to any of these vessels as required.
They require minimal intergration with combat systems.
In wide service so will have good upgrade path.

If fitted to OPV will provide a basic anti shipping capability.
Click to expand...

IIRC it's always been the intent to upgrade the LHDs with CIWS and the AORs come fitted with it. If the RAN were to upgrade to a missile it would no doubt be SEARAM as this negates the integration problems.
IMHO It would be highly unlikely to complicate the sustainment issues by stocking a Euro missile when most others are sourced from the US.
 
ADMk2 said:
Measures like this show that we are (still) nowhere near ready for a high intensity conflict where we are at actual risk of air and guided missile attack, whilst as an interim it might be an alright idea on the surface, I personally think that Navy should be seriously pushing for a more robust defensive capability for all of it's fleet assets.

We are spending up up to $80b on Subs, but our multi-billion dollar, LHD's and AOR's can't afford a dedicated VSHORAD capability?
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. As an emergency measure, if we had to deploy an LHD to a 'hot' zone today, then yes it would make good sense to attach army RBS 70 units to the ship. But to actually plan to use them as a long term solution would,IMO, be penny pinching of the worse kind. Also, as AD suggests, these missiles are likely to be reaching the end of their shelf life by the time they are replaced by the army.

The LHDs and other assets such as the AORs definitely deserve a robust self defence capability. The addition of soft kill systems (Nulka) and CIWS (Phalanx) will be a good start but I would love to see further enhancement if space, weight and funding can be found.

Tas
 
ASSAIL said:
IIRC it's always been the intent to upgrade the LHDs with CIWS and the AORs come fitted with it. If the RAN were to upgrade to a missile it would no doubt be SEARAM as this negates the integration problems.
IMHO It would be highly unlikely to complicate the sustainment issues by stocking a Euro missile when most others are sourced from the US.
Click to expand...


Thanks Assail .... you saved me another rant about suggestions we get disparate systems and glib remarks about how easy things are to integrate.
 
I cant see why the Nasaams system minus the vehicle cant be permanently fitted to RAN ships. Just a matter of deciding whether they need the short or medium range missiles. I would suggest both.
 
alexsa said:
Thanks Assail .... you saved me another rant about suggestions we get disparate systems and glib remarks about how easy things are to integrate.
Click to expand...

It might be worth while to add SeaRAM to the Phalanx pool. I could certainly see value on some of the bigger ships like the LHD, AOR, and possibly the AWD's. Giving that important inner middle layer.

For the OPV's I think the 35-40mm should be sufficient for most situations. If we need more than that, then 57mm or 76mm should be considered. There are some capable anti air/antimissile rounds in 76mm. We already have 76mm guns.

It would be easier to up the main gun than try to mount 6+tons with good firing arcs somewhere else. If you really wanted a layer defence then 3t of 35mm millennium gun is going to be easier to mount on a small ship.

My preference is only guns on smaller ships like the OPV. Cheaper and more suitable.
 
hairyman said:
I cant see why the Nasaams system minus the vehicle cant be permanently fitted to RAN ships. Just a matter of deciding whether they need the short or medium range missiles. I would suggest both.
Click to expand...

It is, its basically a land based ASMD. The LHDs already have and the OPVs plus maybe the AORs will likely have the same core combat system as the ANZACs so an ASMD derived system is possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top