I thought they were going to try to cram more VLS tubes in as well.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not initially I believe, though if they do, I seriously doubt they will be "strike length" Mk 41 VLS tubes...
If they do, it would probably mean perhaps an 8x cell launcher elsewhere on the ship for ESSM and the 48x cell at the front for SM-2 and any other capability they may decide to employ down the track...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I am very surprised that a "fast track" order will not be made and they will "wait for the White Paper". What are they waiting to see? Whether RAN NEEDS to do anti-submarine and anti-surface work in future years?
ASW is a more critical capability for ADF than air combat power at the current time IMHO and if anything is even more urgent due to the paucity of assets we currently operate.
Whatever one may believe of the F/A-18 Hornets capability, at least it's substantial and sustainable, but 16x Seahawks to be "massaged" over 12 hulls that even according to Navy require 27x helos to adequately support, seems like a bigger capability gap than RAAF might be facing...
At this point in time, the MH-60R seems like the only available option and probably the most capable anyway.
At worst this would mean that ADF would operate 5x helo types, instead of the 4x types envisaged under AIR-9000. It's still a massive improvement over 9x separate types...
I couldn't agree more with this and the rest of your post. I have a nasty feeling that the present Defmin is not likely to approve any new procurement for the ADF before the White Paper. I also have an even nastier feeling that the number of surface combat vessels (and therefore the number of helos required) may well be reduced to fewer than 12 as a result of the White Paper. I hope I'm wrong! :shudderI am very surprised that a "fast track" order will not be made and they will "wait for the White Paper". What are they waiting to see? Whether RAN NEEDS to do anti-submarine and anti-surface work in future years?
Tas
A very real issue.
As for the helo deployment, the 1405 Upgrade seems to be coming through well (now, anyway) and that will give us a better capability to meet the needs of the FFG's. Any ANZACs needing an airframe would also get a Seahawk.
That means that the LPA's will get Squirrels, or perhaps a -90, although that would not happen until the next decade.
I'm not expecting any fast-track orders, especially seeing as there isn't enough background noise in the current socio-political environment for the gov't to see a necessity in ordering any. If they do put orders in I'd be surprised, as that would mean they are looking long term into Defence and committing to spending serious dollars - not something that seems likely.
-60R's are a brilliant platform. We could do a lot with them, and bringing us one step closer to the single-airframe target that seems to have been invisibly set. After HATS and a move to -60R's, then we would only have the (somewhat temporary?) MRH-90's, which in any case will be an Army airframe. That leaves three helo airframes operated by the RAN, including those used to train the Army pilots, and the Army will only have whichever operational airframes they have.
As for the helo deployment, the 1405 Upgrade seems to be coming through well (now, anyway) and that will give us a better capability to meet the needs of the FFG's. Any ANZACs needing an airframe would also get a Seahawk.
That means that the LPA's will get Squirrels, or perhaps a -90, although that would not happen until the next decade.
I'm not expecting any fast-track orders, especially seeing as there isn't enough background noise in the current socio-political environment for the gov't to see a necessity in ordering any. If they do put orders in I'd be surprised, as that would mean they are looking long term into Defence and committing to spending serious dollars - not something that seems likely.
-60R's are a brilliant platform. We could do a lot with them, and bringing us one step closer to the single-airframe target that seems to have been invisibly set. After HATS and a move to -60R's, then we would only have the (somewhat temporary?) MRH-90's, which in any case will be an Army airframe. That leaves three helo airframes operated by the RAN, including those used to train the Army pilots, and the Army will only have whichever operational airframes they have.
There have been so many NH-90 orders, their assembly line will be busy for years. Australia needs helicopters now, not three years from now. Kaman is ten years behind schedule. Sikorsky has several used helicopters they have acquired recently that could be leased now which can be used by the RAN until new helicopters are built. Unfortunately, there aren't any extra used NH-90s around.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I don't agree exactly that the MRH-90 is a "temporary" helicopter. I imagine it will serve every bit as long as the combined Blackhawk/Sea King fleets.
It is by no means an "Army" helicopter seeing as though 6x airframes are dedicated Navy platforms (specifically to replace Seaking helos), with the others being used for Army and Joint traiining requirements.
The MH-60R whilst an excellent helicopter I agree, if anything, takes us further away from the "consolidated" multi-role helo that AIR-9000 aimed to introduce.
If Nh-90 NFR were to be acquired, then the "single airframe" multi-role helo would indeed be a reality, but given the timelines involved, seems less likely...
However as Tasman suggested, Government's appreciation of the "capability gap" with respect to RAN, could be rather different to most of ours and they may see that the wait until the White Paper is delivered is worthwhile.
At least in that timeframe, the NH-90 NFR should have it's niggling issues sorted out...
I believe RAN needs additional capability now, however. I don't see it likely that FFG-UP is likely to be cancelled, despite what Defmin Fitzgibbon may have stated.
Is it likely that FFG-UP can be "rolled back" to pre-upgrade status? Not likely, from my understanding and all 4 hulls have been modified or are under-going modification. The only other choices seem to be to operate hulls incapable of performing their previous or future roles, withdraw the capability entirely and leave RAN with 8x surface combatants comprising ANZAC frigates only or to operate a leased or "interim acquisition" vessel of some kind that can provide a defacto capability that the FFG-UP was meant to provide...
Some rather unpleasant thoughts in amongst those choices... :shudder
I guess it all depends on just how big a stuff up the FFGUP really is. If, for example, the main problem is the integration of SM-2 and they are able to effectively operate ESSM , 76mm gun, CIWS, Mini Typhoon, ASW TT, Nulka and chaff, they would still be useful in the RAN's order of battle. The RAN would still have an air warfare capability gap but I believe ESSM can cover much of the envelope previously covered by SM-1 so they would still be able to provide some air defence for other ships. With their ability to support and operate two helos they would contribute significantly in the ASW and patrol roles. Above all, they would be valuable in retaining the skills of their crews until the AWDs come into service.
Tas
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
IIRC the major problem was with the intergration of the combat management system, and therfore all of those systems are effected, which if true means a rather fundimental problem with the Adelaides. Of course i'm not in a position to know. Withdrawing the vessels from our ORBAT perminantly is not an option IMO, depriveing the RAN of 40% of our force structure and our most capable units. If that is indeed the case then FFGUP may prove to be one of the most costly mistakes in the modern history of the RAN. Perhaps in that case 2~3 decommed Kidd class DDG's could be procuredfrom the USN, although what shape thier in and how long that would take is a mystery. Iwonder if we could lease 2 Areleigh Burke class DDG's? Anyway as AD stated, unless the problem can be rectified the choices for the RAN are indeed grim.
Not all the systems are effected. It is primarily the EW kit, the C-Pearl that is not working as advertised. There are issues with detection ranges and arcs and with the info not being properly diseminated into the ADACS system. There are also issues with the MOAS and towed torpdedo defence system. The ADACS system itself is working very well in the AAW and surface warfare areas. They are getting great detection ranges with the upgrades to SPS49 and CAS compared to the old Adelaide, their auto detection and tracking surpasses that of an Anzac. ESSM has worked well, SM2 hasn't been intergrated yet. This is based on mates I have who are currently serving on them, I have only done the ADACS course, am yet to get on one myself. As to using Kidds, don't think the Taiwanese will want to give them up as they now own all 4 of them.IIRC the major problem was with the intergration of the combat management system, and therfore all of those systems are effected, which if true means a rather fundimental problem with the Adelaides. Of course i'm not in a position to know. Withdrawing the vessels from our ORBAT perminantly is not an option IMO, depriveing the RAN of 40% of our force structure and our most capable units. If that is indeed the case then FFGUP may prove to be one of the most costly mistakes in the modern history of the RAN. Perhaps in that case 2~3 decommed Kidd class DDG's could be procuredfrom the USN, although what shape thier in and how long that would take is a mystery. Iwonder if we could lease 2 Areleigh Burke class DDG's? Anyway as AD stated, unless the problem can be rectified the choices for the RAN are indeed grim.
Cheers.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
So the problem isn't fundimental within the CMS? Well thats good to hear. Is the sub system comm problem down to software bugs or what? Hopefully its not beyond repair. If we get the vessels working as advertised they are apt to be some of the most capable (non PAAMS/Aegis) frigates operational.
Ahh yes your right, not a bad piece of kit. I guess theres not many options as far as a replacement is concerend. We could possibly buy/lease a few OHP's from the USN but the Mk 13 and SM1/Harpoon would have to be reintergrated to get them up to old Adelaide standard. Not a very attractive option. Perhaps we could buy/ lease 2/3 spruance's but again large scale conversion would be needed to convert them to the AAW role, they do have a impresive latent capability considering the Mk 41 VLS tubes you could put into the hull, however the work needed would be comperable or greater to FFGUP, which isnt very attractive considering Hobart is on the way. Again maybe we could lease a couple of AB DDG's untill Hobart is operational. I guess the only real cource of action is to push on with FFGUP.
The sad thing for the RAN is that the four Kidds were originally offered to them but were turned down in favour of the FFGUP!
Tas
The Kidds have been accepted by Taiwan, they are no longer available. I'm not sure whether the first four Mk26 Ticenderogas are still available, they may have been either scrapped or sunk by now.
I would think its would be best for Australia to continue the FFG-UPgrade program despite its problems and much alike the Collins class submarines fix them, even if they have to revert back to their former state.
I would think its would be best for Australia to continue the FFG-UPgrade program despite its problems and much alike the Collins class submarines fix them, even if they have to revert back to their former state.
All you'd have to do is reinstall the arm of the Mk-13 and the FCS for missile guidance. None of the equipment for the Mk-13 was removed except the arm and a steel plate bolted in place.
The Valley Forge has been sunk, the others are still around (as far as I know) but I don't know why anyone would want them, the original SPY-1A is a PITA to maintain and parts would be expensive and hard to get ahold of.
It sounds as though these ships will still be able to perform useful roles in the RAN, even if not as good as was hoped. At least they will provide the number of hulls that the RAN needs until the Hobart class comes on line. Let's hope that most, if not all, the problems with the EW and torpedo defence systems will be overcome. If not, they will still be better than nothing.
Tas
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
At the most recent Senate Estimates, Dr Gumley stated they were working through the issues with C-Pearl but at any rate have a planned "back up" should the current arrangements prove untenable.
I seriously doubt, despite Mr Fitzgibbons comments that RAN will be emasculated by the retirement (without replacement) of 4x hulls from it's current force, leaving it with only 8x ANZAC hulls to provide it's surface warfighting capability... :shudder
If they do decide to replace the EW kit in the FFGUP, it won't be the first time that has happened in recent times. The orginal EW fitout for the Anzac's, Sceptre-A, was found to be wanting and has now been replaced by Centaur through out the whole class. Don't really know the full details why, being ASW myself, never really cared
Will ask around however and findout.Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Will be interesting to hear, if you can share...If they do decide to replace the EW kit in the FFGUP, it won't be the first time that has happened in recent times. The orginal EW fitout for the Anzac's, Sceptre-A, was found to be wanting and has now been replaced by Centaur through out the whole class. Don't really know the full details why, being ASW myself, never really cared
Cheers
Gumley waffled on a bit as the brass are wont to do, but basically they "believe" the current issues can be worked through, however they are getting to the point where they have to make a decision one way or the other.
I guess that will be a big part of Mr Fitzgibbon's "review"...
Schumacher
New Member
China has found a way to neutralize the Aussie subs.
The comment that only half the fleet is capable of action is probably an exaggeration though.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18130ef6-eed0-11dc-97ec-0000779fd2ac.html
Australia sailors turning to mining
By Peter Smith in Sydney
Published: March 10 2008 18:39 | Last updated: March 10 2008 18:39
Chinese demand for commodities has triggered a crisis in the Australian navy, whose submarine fleet is suffering from a critical crew shortage as skilled technicians are lured into higher paying jobs by the booming mining industry.
Joel Fitzgibbon, Australia’s defence minister, acknowledged on Monday that the navy was suffering an acute manpower problem.
“Our people and skills shortage is probably the single biggest challenge facing the Australian defence force, and of course the service suffering most is the navy, where retention and recruitment has become a real crisis,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.
“The navy just happens to share many of the same skills bases as the mining industry, and of course, the mining industry is booming. We know that the mining companies in Western Australia, for example, hover around HMAS Stirling [a naval base] on pay day, seeking and hoping to pick up technicians to use in their own industry.”
Media reports have claimed that only half of Australia’s submarine fleet is capable of action. The defence department said the fleet was still able to “meet operational requirements” even though there were fewer submarine sailing days.
Brendan Nelson, the opposition leader and a former defence minister, said uncompetitive wages were behind the navy’s problems. “If you’re an engineer on a sub and you’re pulling A$80,000 ($73,000) a year and you’ve got three kids to feed – [and] if you’ve got somebody at the gate of the base offering A$130,000 to drive a truck ... what are you going to do?” he said.
Mr Fitzgibbon said it was impossible for the navy to compete with the salaries offered by mining companies buoyed by record demand for resources such as iron ore and coal – especially from China.
Although there are acute labour shortages in certain parts of the Australian economy, Amy Auster, head of international economics at the Australian and New Zealand banking group, said there had not been a break-out of wage inflation.
“In aggregate, wage inflation has been quite tame when you consider how tight the labour market is,” she said.
Labour demand in Western Australia is generating high wages, but the majority of the population live in the eastern states of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. “To get those wages you have to move, and only a minority of the population are prepared to do that,” Ms Auster said.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
"FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy | Terms
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2008.
The comment that only half the fleet is capable of action is probably an exaggeration though.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18130ef6-eed0-11dc-97ec-0000779fd2ac.html
Australia sailors turning to mining
By Peter Smith in Sydney
Published: March 10 2008 18:39 | Last updated: March 10 2008 18:39
Chinese demand for commodities has triggered a crisis in the Australian navy, whose submarine fleet is suffering from a critical crew shortage as skilled technicians are lured into higher paying jobs by the booming mining industry.
Joel Fitzgibbon, Australia’s defence minister, acknowledged on Monday that the navy was suffering an acute manpower problem.
“Our people and skills shortage is probably the single biggest challenge facing the Australian defence force, and of course the service suffering most is the navy, where retention and recruitment has become a real crisis,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.
“The navy just happens to share many of the same skills bases as the mining industry, and of course, the mining industry is booming. We know that the mining companies in Western Australia, for example, hover around HMAS Stirling [a naval base] on pay day, seeking and hoping to pick up technicians to use in their own industry.”
Media reports have claimed that only half of Australia’s submarine fleet is capable of action. The defence department said the fleet was still able to “meet operational requirements” even though there were fewer submarine sailing days.
Brendan Nelson, the opposition leader and a former defence minister, said uncompetitive wages were behind the navy’s problems. “If you’re an engineer on a sub and you’re pulling A$80,000 ($73,000) a year and you’ve got three kids to feed – [and] if you’ve got somebody at the gate of the base offering A$130,000 to drive a truck ... what are you going to do?” he said.
Mr Fitzgibbon said it was impossible for the navy to compete with the salaries offered by mining companies buoyed by record demand for resources such as iron ore and coal – especially from China.
Although there are acute labour shortages in certain parts of the Australian economy, Amy Auster, head of international economics at the Australian and New Zealand banking group, said there had not been a break-out of wage inflation.
“In aggregate, wage inflation has been quite tame when you consider how tight the labour market is,” she said.
Labour demand in Western Australia is generating high wages, but the majority of the population live in the eastern states of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. “To get those wages you have to move, and only a minority of the population are prepared to do that,” Ms Auster said.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
"FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy | Terms
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2008.
- Status