Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[icelord]

A second hangar would not automatically imply a second helicopter. The Naval Aviation 2020 plan is to have each ship flight equipped with a multi-role reconfigurable naval helicopter and a UAV capability of some sort. The later hasn't been determined but it could be some kind of shipboard UAV or UAVs like Fire Scout and would require additional hangar space.

There is also project Sea 1778 for organic deployable MCM. While this will be going in on the LHDs and is likely to consist of some sort of unmanned boat or submersible some of this capability could be provided by air - helos or UAVs. Having a second hangar on your AWD and ANZAC replacement provides space to carry the Sea 1778 vehicles.

The second hangar is the one big cross in the box for the AF-100. However it's hangar can be expanded in size to a hangar and a half. Not as good as the evolved AWD but may allow a full NA2020 flight to be carried on board depending on the UAV solution.

A second hanger would be great, we love them on the FFGs, not because we could get a 2nd helo(1 is hard enough at times) but because we can store a ton of extra gear in boxes in there, so i'd be happy with it as a bonus storing space

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia has plenty of latent nuclear capability.

We have the absolutely best way to seperate isotopes.
We have large stores of already seperated isotopes.
We have plenty of expert knowledge regarding nuclear weapons of all types.
We have extensive rocketry and guidance experience.
We have several very capable or mothballed nuclear delivery systems.

F-111 and Harpoon are nuclear capable devices that would require minimal modification (hours?) to become operational. There would need to be modification, fabrication but on top of this we have extensive experience in long range stand off weapons. For a one off mission we could strike indepedantly almost anywhere on the planet.

The only thing we don't have is a bomb ready to go (atleast in the known public domain). We certainly had agreements with the UK and US regarding nuclear technologies and rocketry and were perhaps a year off our own nuclear weapon stockpile before we signed the paperwork.

Australia doesn't need a weapon to go until we are directly threatend with a suitable weapon (which even during the cold war, wasn't a real high level threat, in fact having ready to go weapons would have made us more of a risk). Given that the most desireable military targets in Australia are infact US bases, I find it very hard to belive that the US (and the rest of the world) would stand by while its bases are turned to glass with nuclear weapons.

The best deterant against nuclear weapons is a missile shield, not nuclear weapons. With SM-3 in our AWD's, we can defend ourselves and our allies from these sorts of threats. In our region few if any would make particular noise about building this sort of sheild.

More effective than nuclear weapons would be nuclear submarines. However given the continued evolution, there may or may not be a strong argument for that sort of equipment in the years to come.

 

[alexsa]

Australia has plenty of latent nuclear capability.

We have the absolutely best way to seperate isotopes.
We have large stores of already seperated isotopes.
We have plenty of expert knowledge regarding nuclear weapons of all types.
We have extensive rocketry and guidance experience.
We have several very capable or mothballed nuclear delivery systems.

F-111 and Harpoon are nuclear capable devices that would require minimal modification (hours?) to become operational. There would need to be modification, fabrication but on top of this we have extensive experience in long range stand off weapons. For a one off mission we could strike indepedantly almost anywhere on the planet.

The only thing we don't have is a bomb ready to go (atleast in the known public domain). We certainly had agreements with the UK and US regarding nuclear technologies and rocketry and were perhaps a year off our own nuclear weapon stockpile before we signed the paperwork.

Australia doesn't need a weapon to go until we are directly threatend with a suitable weapon (which even during the cold war, wasn't a real high level threat, in fact having ready to go weapons would have made us more of a risk). Given that the most desireable military targets in Australia are infact US bases, I find it very hard to belive that the US (and the rest of the world) would stand by while its bases are turned to glass with nuclear weapons.

The best deterant against nuclear weapons is a missile shield, not nuclear weapons. With SM-3 in our AWD's, we can defend ourselves and our allies from these sorts of threats. In our region few if any would make particular noise about building this sort of sheild.

More effective than nuclear weapons would be nuclear submarines. However given the continued evolution, there may or may not be a strong argument for that sort of equipment in the years to come.

Since when was harpoon nuclear capable. There was a bit of press with respect to Israel getting harpoon missiles suggesting they could used for nuclear delivery but this was more consiracy theory than fact (and Israel has better delivery syustems in any case).

The F111 wouel be limited for free fall bombs (not great) as the stand off weapons it is fitted with is not nuclear capable. What other systems (mothballed) are you referring to.

In so far as weapons grade materials we have one Open Pool Light water research reactor used for the production of medical and industrial isotopes. We do not even produce the fuel rods for this reactor in country but these are imported.

We have no reprocessing facility for fuel rods and these are shipped out for reprocessing. As such we have no faciltities in contry for producing weapons material.

Compared to other regional players our practical rockertry "expertise" is minimal with Womera largely limited to sounding rockets. The last time we launched something with the range necesary for this sort of system was in the ELDO, Spartan and Black arrow series of rockets in the late 60's early 70's but these were European/UK vehicles and the launch pad is now decomissioned.

However I do agree that a shield is a better option for Australia.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Compared to other regional players our practical rockertry "expertise" is minimal with Womera largely limited to sounding rockets.

Woomera is getting used for Hypersonic tests, and there are 3-4 different "black" LO UCAV/UAV programs being run out of there at present. (4 different countries incl Aust)

 

[StingrayOZ]

Since when was harpoon nuclear capable. There was a bit of press with respect to Israel getting harpoon missiles suggesting they could used for nuclear delivery but this was more consiracy theory than fact (and Israel has better delivery syustems in any case).

Well, its a pretty big grey area. There is nothing specifically stopping anyone from developing a nuclear warhead the right size for a land attack harpoon. Given the Land attack harpoon is fitted with the Tomahawk conventional warhead, I would imagine it would possibly with some modification take the Tomahawk nuclear physics package (something like a W80). The harpoon is certainly in a class of missiles that is large enough to take a real physics package and guide it to a target. Not ideal but certainly workable. Its not like we couldn't do it if we had to.

The F111 wouel be limited for free fall bombs (not great) as the stand off weapons it is fitted with is not nuclear capable. What other systems (mothballed) are you referring to.

Well if we were supplied with a off the shelf mothball US weapon yes. That still means we can dispatch several megaton payloads anywhere in our region. Combining the F-111 and a nuclear harpoon would provide a suitable delivery system to get through most modern defences. A custom weapon could be of a Extended range glide or powered type. So Australia does have a delivery system it would just need the payload, which is actually the easy part of the whole deal. Harpoons can also be sublaunched from our SSG's. Again part of Australia's (inadvertant?) latent nuclear deterant.

In so far as weapons grade materials we have one Open Pool Light water research reactor used for the production of medical and industrial isotopes. We do not even produce the fuel rods for this reactor in country but these are imported.

I don't know if this is really the place for an open discussion on Australia nuclear capability. Silex is a method that is now capable to be used and is going to be used in the nuclear fuel industry. Once you have a deep understanding of the details (like Australia does) it would turn enrichment into a very minor issue for Australia. Any stores of uranium or Plutonium could easily be used. At purity levels never seen before from diffusion or centrifuging. There is a plant becomming operational in the US, but establishing one here would take minimal time given we have the knowhow. Even ignoring that, Australia would not be beyond establishing diffusion or centrifuging, but that would add 12 months min to any process.

Previous articles from various sources rank Australia highly on the "near nuclear power" list, in simular position to Japan, Germany or Canada. Any of these countries could quickly develop a nuclear device before things like sanctions, blockades etc would have any effect on the outcome. Japan has tons of weapon grade material in stores, germany would have extensive access and same with Canada. None of these countries (or most advanced 1st world nations) would find developing nuclear devices difficult.

However I do agree that a shield is a better option for Australia.

Which is why we should go down that road. Its a defensive not an offensive asset that would be useful both within our region and outside of it if required. The argument of becoming nuclear weapons capable is really something people should have left behind in the 80's at the latest. Almost any country if determined can become a nuclear power if it really wanted it. Delivery systems on the other hand are a different matter. Defensive systems will assist in non-proliferation and development in the first place.


Admin: Please use the approp forum editing tools - it makes it easier for everyone to identify who's who in the reply zoo....

 

[alexsa]

Silex Systems Limited (Silex) has carried out work on enrichment technology to the proof of concpet stage (completed in 2005) and that 'indicated' it appeared to have attrractive economics. In the first half of 2007 the transfer of the SILEX Uranium Enrichment project to GE’s Wilmington, North Carolina nuclear fuel plant was completed. This included equipment used in prior work and a team of 12 key Silex staff.

It is worth noting that the technology developement undertaken by Silex took 13 years to bear fruit.

The main point is we do not have enrichment facilites in this country. Setting up such facilities is not a simple process either and involves the importation of chemicals not currently produced in this country.

Similarly reprocessing facilities (for extraction of plutonium from spent rods) are not 'simple' to set up and I wouel suggest a 12 month window is wildy optimisitic. Given the small scale of our reactor is is just not viable to reprocess in Australia.

Finally the public howling that would arise from trying to set up large scale enrichment or reprocessing would be deafening.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, its a pretty big grey area. There is nothing specifically stopping anyone from developing a nuclear warhead the right size for a land attack harpoon. Given the Land attack harpoon is fitted with the Tomahawk conventional warhead, I would imagine it would possibly with some modification take the Tomahawk nuclear physics package (something like a W80). The harpoon is certainly in a class of missiles that is large enough to take a real physics package and guide it to a target. Not ideal but certainly workable. Its not like we couldn't do it if we had to.

Tactom is manufactured by Raytheon and uses a 1000lbs blast fragmentation warhead fitted inside a missile body with a diameter of 20.4 inches (56.1cms).

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...ts/content/rtn_rms_products_tomahawk_data.pdf

Harpoon Block II is manufactured by Boeing and uses a 500lbs blast fragmentation warhead fitted inside a missile body with a diameter of 13.5 inches. (37.25cms).

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/harpoon/docs/HarpoonBlockIIBackgrounder.pdf

Clearly they do not share the same warhead...

The amount of engineering required to make a Tomahawk CM warhead fit into a Harpoon missile body, is going to be extreme and possibly impossible.

Well if we were supplied with a off the shelf mothball US weapon yes. That still means we can dispatch several megaton payloads anywhere in our region. Combining the F-111 and a nuclear harpoon would provide a suitable delivery system to get through most modern defences. A custom weapon could be of a Extended range glide or powered type. So Australia does have a delivery system it would just need the payload, which is actually the easy part of the whole deal. Harpoons can also be sublaunched from our SSG's. Again part of Australia's (inadvertant?) latent nuclear deterant.

Basing your idea on a nuclear warhead equipped Harpoon missile doesn't sound like such a strong idea to me.

See above...

 

[Todjaeger]

Tactom is manufactured by Raytheon and uses a 1000lbs blast fragmentation warhead fitted inside a missile body with a diameter of 20.4 inches (56.1cms).

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...ts/content/rtn_rms_products_tomahawk_data.pdf

Harpoon Block II is manufactured by Boeing and uses a 500lbs blast fragmentation warhead fitted inside a missile body with a diameter of 13.5 inches. (37.25cms).

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/harpoon/docs/HarpoonBlockIIBackgrounder.pdf

Clearly they do not share the same warhead...

The amount of engineering required to make a Tomahawk CM warhead fit into a Harpoon missile body, is going to be extreme and possibly impossible.

Basing your idea on a nuclear warhead equipped Harpoon missile doesn't sound like such a strong idea to me.

See above...

Okay, AD beat me to it...

I would suggest though that discussion of an Australian nuclear capability is somewhat OT in the RAN thread. Perhaps the discussion should be moved here.

-Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

I've posted in the "past history" replies to Alexsa and Aussie Digger. I'll leave the issue at that.

However I really do hope the RAN aquires SM-3 at the least, rather than fill the AWD with plain old SM-2's.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

However I really do hope the RAN aquires SM-3 at the least, rather than fill the AWD with plain old SM-2's.

SM-3 is a stage in the US BMD capability. For the AWD it would not be an ideal BMD solution. Considering that to provide an AWD an AEGIS BMD mod and only nine SM-3s cost over USD 500 million it is very pricey too.

 

[AegisFC]

I've posted in the "past history" replies to Alexsa and Aussie Digger. I'll leave the issue at that.

However I really do hope the RAN aquires SM-3 at the least, rather than fill the AWD with plain old SM-2's.

At this point BMD and SM-3 only applies to a very specific computer baseline and equipment setup and it is a baseline the Australians are unlikely to buy.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Im not saying it has to be purchased urgently. We don't have the AWD yet anyway. But we should still be concidering them and follow a procurement path that doesn't exclude them.

While ABM is one of the tasks SM-3 can have, it can perform other duties as well. While expensive SM-3 has had several real tests which is more than many other stages of the shield system.

I would also like to see SM-6 on board as well. After all they are called air warfare destroyers, why carry a whole bunch of antishipping missiles and big old slow old semi guided biplane destroyers.

 

[ThePuss]

HMAS WARRAMUNGA FAREWELLED
The Honourable Gary Gray AO MP has today farewelled Royal Australian Navy Anzac Class Frigate HMAS Warramunga on behalf of the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon, MP.

HMAS Warramunga’s Ship’s Company of 185 men and women were farewelled, in a traditional ceremony in front of family and friends as she departs for a six-month deployment to the Middle East.

Mr Gray congratulated HMAS Warramunga’s Commanding Officer, Commander Andrew Gordon, RAN, for his crew’s rigorous training program in preparation for the task.

“Warramunga is well prepared and mission ready for the important job before them. The crew are a true reflection of the commitment and dedication of the Australian Defence Force,” Mr Gray said.

“I would like to thank the families and friends of the personnel deploying to the Gulf for their ongoing support and wish those deployed on Operation SLIPPER continued success and ongoing safety.”

Warramunga will conduct maritime security operations in the Central and Southern Persian Gulf as part of Task Force 152.
Maritime security operations help develop security in the maritime environment, which promotes stability and global prosperity. These operations complement the counterterrorism and security efforts of regional nations. They also seek to disrupt violent extremists’ use of the maritime environment as a venue for attack or to transport personnel, weapons or other material.

This will be the second time that Warramunga has been deployed to the Gulf, with the frigate’s departure establishing a new chapter in the Navy’s deployments to the Middle East. HMAS Warramunga will replace HMAS Parramatta which is due to return to Fleet Base East in February 2009

Source "The Australian" newspaper


Well an end to an era. The RAN since the completion of GW 2 has always had a frigate as part of TF 158. TF 158 role is close protection of the two oil platforms that 95% of Iraq's GDP is sent over sea's from. TF 152 is role is to patrol the central and southern part of the gulf. Totaly different job.
Ive been a member of TF 158 and know how vital it is so we are not paying $2.50 a litre for petrol in Austraila because some more suicide boats got through again and actual did the job properly and succeed in blowing the platforms up.I hope the Iraqi navy is up to the task.

It was a boring job 99% of the time though

 

[splat]

Note, the sarcasm was not directed at you, more at the Australian populace. Not so much sarcasm as fact.

I apologize.

 

[Tasman]

HMAS WARRAMUNGA FAREWELLED
The Honourable Gary Gray AO MP has today farewelled Royal Australian Navy Anzac Class Frigate HMAS Warramunga on behalf of the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon, MP.



Well an end to an era. The RAN since the completion of GW 2 has always had a frigate as part of TF 158. TF 158 role is close protection of the two oil platforms that 95% of Iraq's GDP is sent over sea's from. TF 152 is role is to patrol the central and southern part of the gulf. Totaly different job.
Ive been a member of TF 158 and know how vital it is so we are not paying $2.50 a litre for petrol in Austraila because some more suicide boats got through again and actual did the job properly and succeed in blowing the platforms up.I hope the Iraqi navy is up to the task.

It was a boring job 99% of the time though

It may have been boring but as ThePuss says it was a vital task.

For images of Warramunga's departure visit the ADF site:

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2009/Jan/20091014/index.htm

Tas

 

[icelord]

It may have been boring but as ThePuss says it was a vital task.

For images of Warramunga's departure visit the ADF site:

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2009/Jan/20091014/index.htm

Tas

Increases chance of FFGs in the region on rotations.

 

[Pusser01]

Increases chance of FFGs in the region on rotations.

I would hazard a guess that Warramunga could be the last ship sent to the Gulf for a while, will just have to wait and see

 

[battlensign]

I would hazard a guess that Warramunga could be the last ship sent to the Gulf for a while, will just have to wait and see

A navy LCDR said something similar to me yesterday...........is that a reference to what I think it is?

Brett.

 

[icelord]

I would hazard a guess that Warramunga could be the last ship sent to the Gulf for a while, will just have to wait and see

Moving the ship out of task force 158 and more south would give indication the current Govt. wants to seperate itself from Iraq as much as possible, without realising that the RAN was in 158 long before the PM considered politics and was part of the original elements of the force.

I'm guessing they want a role in Anti-Piracy after the whole blow up for situations coming about in past 6mths, though we've helped with training Asian nations Anti-piracy response forces for years and will continue in the future to do so.

In all regards, as long as the deployment bonus remains and ships have a more increased role in the operation with a clear rules of engagments then it would beat Gulf trips and the circles of oil platforms...Except stops in Dubai,gotta keep them...

 

[Pusser01]

Moving the ship out of task force 158 and more south would give indication the current Govt. wants to seperate itself from Iraq as much as possible, without realising that the RAN was in 158 long before the PM considered politics and was part of the original elements of the force.

I'm guessing they want a role in Anti-Piracy after the whole blow up for situations coming about in past 6mths, though we've helped with training Asian nations Anti-piracy response forces for years and will continue in the future to do so.

In all regards, as long as the deployment bonus remains and ships have a more increased role in the operation with a clear rules of engagments then it would beat Gulf trips and the circles of oil platforms...Except stops in Dubai,gotta keep them...

Unfortunately, the further South the ship goes, the deployment bonus heads south aswell. Warramunga's crew will be getting less, from what I hear down from $150 a day that Parramatta's crew have been getting down to around $125 a day. The crews only get this when they get enter the Gulf. If they do anti-pirarcy off Somalia, which I doubt they will, it will be substantially less.
Warramunga's crew also won't be eligable for the Iraq campaign medal though they will still get the AASM for the moment.
Cheers