Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

This is going to seem really random but I've been waiting a while to have my say here goes...

First of all,
The Hobart Class AWD, in my opinion is not up to scratch.
With only two fire control channels it would be unable to properly defend itself and other ships in normal operations and would definitely not be able to defend itself against a saturation attack. Why are we spending so much money on the Aegis combat system and SPY radar when we have been developing one of the only two fourth generation phased array radar right here in Australia?
I am of course, talking about the CEAFAR from CEA technologies, which can effectively, when paired with the latest SAAB Combat System provide up to Ten fire control channels simultaneously. This system is already being fitted to the ANZAC Class and has been VERY successful in sea trials. Versions of this system should be fitted to every surface warship and should be sold to the navies of other nations as well.
Why do we continuously buy overseas designs not suited to our requirements when we are perfectly capable of building and maintaining our own designs and systems. Look at what we did with HMAS Jervis Bay and HMA ships Kanimbla and Manoora (admittedly there were problems due to our inexperience).

The AWD's are going to be pretty special boats. In terms of AWD and ANZAC operating together, think of them as High end (AWD) and low end (ANZACs) and you will be fairly close to the mark.

The main reason RAN is opting for AEGIS, is CEC capability. I wouldn't get too hung up on "fire control channels". AEGIS can control many missiles in the air, they don't all need terminal homing, as the name suggests, for the entire flight...

As for your fire control channels issue, there is more than one way to "skin a cat"...

http://www.thalesgroup.com/netherla...vy+to+use+Thales+Missile+Control+System&dis=1

Hasn't been announced for AWD yet, but it shows there are other options available to deal with such issues...

1 x Canberra Class LHD operating MRH-90 and Tiger helicopters armed with CEAFAR/SAAB combat system, 2 x CIWS and 8 cell VLS with 32 x ESSM.
With the retirement of Kanimbla, Manoora and the upgraded Adelaide class FFG's we will have an additional 6 x Phalanx CIWS (block 1B) and 4 x 8 cell Mark 41 VLS which could be fitted to (for example) the Canberra Class.

RAN needs MORE LHD's, not less.

The effect of having only 1 LHD will be NIL LHD capability available for significant periods of time. same with having one light carrier.

Look at France and her sole carrier. It hasn't been at sea, until recently for 2 years...

8 x ANZAC Class, 5 inch gun, 8 cell VLS with 32 ESSM and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

Not so fanciful. We've already got them...

4 x Hobart Class, a larger more capable version of the ANZAC class, armed with a 48 cell Mark 41 VLS with SM2 and ESSM, 5 inch gun, 2 x CIWS. CEAFAR radar and SAAB combat system. Essentially a larger ANZAC with more VLS cells and more capable version of the SAAB Combat system and CEAFAR. Also equipped with Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Why would you want to redesign the Meko 200 hull, if we even could, due to Intellectual Property issues? Meko sold us hulls. They didn't AFAIK, sell us the design rights to it...

Why on Earth would you want CEAFAR to replace AEGIS? Because it's Australian made?

It is FAR less capable...

Is it better to have Australian made radar systems on the bottom of the ocean, than American made radar systems providing the capability we actually need?

6 x Collins Class, with Harpoon anti-ship missiles and tomahawk cruise missiles.

Part of the way there... Tomahawk is unlikely because it can only be fitted at the expense of Torpedos and Harpoon. Collins can only carry 22x weapons as well so your Tomahawk loadout is going to be small anyway you want to cut it.

Much better to leave Collins the way they are and include Tomahawk on the AWD's if we must have it, or on the next generation subs and let the RAAF handle long ranged strike in the meantime. Harpoon II provides some land attack capability now. That will probably suffice for the immediate future...

18 x Armidale Class Patrol Boat, as is now but with four of the ships upgraded with the edition of 1 x SeaRAM and anti-submarine capabilities in order to act in a secondary role as lower level anti submarine ships, escorts and offshore patrol vessels.

Not going to happen. Phalanx and SEARAM are large systems that weigh tons. Where are they going to fit?

A larger and more powerful Bushmaster cannon could be mounted, on the existing Bushmaster mount (Bushmaster ranges in calibre from 25mm up to 40mm) to provide a firepower boost and a post mounted defensive SAM system, such as TETRAL/SIMBAD might be fitted to provide a minimal anti-air capability, but I really don't see the point.

Such would not allow them to operate against a significant air threat and the existing 25mm weapon provides air defence capabilities against low level threats...

Personally, I think the most cost effective enhancement for the Armidales, if they need to be given an air defence capability boost, would be to upgrade the Bushmaster cannon to the Bushmaster III 35mm variant, with dual feed capability and equip same with the Oerlikon 35mm AHEAD air burst ammunition as well as "standard" 35mm ammunition.

This would give the Armidales an enhanced anti-surface capability, an air defence capability and a CIWS like anti-missile capability (though with lower ROF than most CIWS systems).

It would be far cheaper than almost any other option, yet provide credible capability. It would introduce yet ANOTHER ammunition requirement for ADF, but of this gun were to be fitted to the Huon class Minehunters as well and replace their existing 30mm DSI's, that would mitigate the effect overall and provide enhanced capability overall.

6 x Huon Class (As Is)

As above, I'd replace the 30mm DSI with the Typhoon naval weapons mount and control unit and equip it with 35mm Bushmaster III cannon and standard and AHEAD air-burst ammunition...

 

[swerve]

But the Queen Elizabeth CVFs carry much more aircraft with nearly the same amount of crew. ....

Er - no. The CVFs will have just over twice the crew of Cavour, unless Cavour is operating as an amphibious command centre & carrying the crew for that, &/or carrying troops, & you count them as crew. You're confusing accommodation with crew. Marines are passengers.

CVF - 1450
Cavour - 697
+ amphibious command 140
+ marines 360 (+90 short-term)

Consider a pure carrier Cavour, with the amphibious capacity sacrificed for more aircraft, & the airgroup crew increased accordingly. Perhaps 60% of the crew of a Queen Elizabeth?

 

[PeterM]

Why the interest in the Cavour type?

Couldn't the LHD's have a STOL JSF capability if the vehicle deck was used for hanger space (if that capacity was required)? If so then the simplest option would be to get a small number of STOL JSFs and allow the RAAF to operate them from LHDs as required (most likely primarily for ground strike missions).


Regardless, the RAN may ideally like a carrier capability, but it isn't going to happen largely due to huge costs and also doctrine.

Carriers by their nature are very offensive. Where is the RAN likely to conduct offensive operations that is the RAAF can't reach with air to air refueling. The RAN doesn't have the escort capability for any long range taskforce deployments and defending Australia's Sea Lanes of Communication.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Carriers by their nature are very offensive. Where is the RAN likely to conduct offensive operations that is the RAAF can't reach with air to air refueling. The RAN doesn't have the escort capability for any long range taskforce deployments and defending Australia's Sea Lanes of Communication.

We deployed a carrier to Korea in the 50's and could only support 2x escort ships...

We couldn't deploy a USN style Carrier battlegroup true, but who says we'd need to?

An ANZAC/ASEAN taskforce with an Australian carrier as the flagship could easily be formed.

Otherwise, we'd be operating as part of a US led Coalition and the escort problem would no longer exist...

However in saying all that, the Canberra Class LHD's we are acquiring are not well suited to aircraft carrier operations. Their bunkerage and munitions magazines capability for instance will be significantly less than that required for a dedicated aircraft carrier and any attempts at employing such a capability will significantly impinge on their ability to conduct amphibious warfare operations, which is their primary purpose.

Will they have some capability to support STOVL aircraft operations?

Definitely.

Will it be a genuine carrier capability?

No.

 

[PeterM]

Does anyone have any information on what landing craft will be used with the Canberra LHDs?

Presumably it will be some kind of new aqusition capable of carrying the M1A1 Abrams

 

[PeterM]

Will they have some capability to support STOVL aircraft operations?

Definitely.

Will it be a genuine carrier capability?

No.

That was very much what I was thinking

Limited capability to operate RAAF F-35B (if that capability was deemed necessary), most likely in support of ground operations. Very different to true carrier operations.

I wasn't saying that an LHD could be a quasi carrier; although I guess the LHD design could be used as the basis for a true CVL design (but that certainly isn't likely to happen)

 

[Jezza]

This is going to seem really random but I've been waiting a while to have my say here goes...

18 x Armidale Class Patrol Boat


More patrol boats would be good.

the rudd gov should invest in aussie built products
in this recession.
another 6 would be great.

france just ordered another mistral class

 

[Sea Toby]

I think the Aussies have enough patrol boats. In my opinion they should buy a few New Zealand OPVs instead. Of course redesigned not to be overweight for longer range EEZ patrols with longer endurance and better seakeeping. I would think four to six should be sufficient. A fourth destroyer is also atop my list to improve the RAN along with another sea lift ship of some kind.

While more submarines may be better for warfare, the ocean patrol vessels could and would help protect Australia's fisheries as far as Heard Island.

 

[Jezza]

opvs would be great
rather than the patrol boats.
redesigned with slightly heavier armament.

 

[Navor86]

As for LHD Air Wing. In the preview for the defence white paper on defence.gov.au there was a community suggestion to use UCAVs from the LHD. Which could be an option in the mid future. As long as they could launch and recover it from the LHD and would have more or less sufficient weapons.

What is the current stance on UAV/UCAV for RAN/RAAF?

 

[PeterM]

What is the current stance on UAV/UCAV for RAN/RAAF?

from an armchair point of view, I think unmanned aircraft are reasonably high on the agenda for the ADF

Presumably the leading contender for the RAN will be Fire Scout VTUAV which is currently being evaluated by the USN

Presumably the leading contender for the RAAF will be the Predator/Reaper; this is in service and both Italy and the UK are in the process of trying to aquire them.
I believe the ADF was interested in Global Hawk, but I believe they pulled out due to problems/costs/delays.

 

[Firn]

The RAN operates Scaneagles as far as I know and it seems to be a wise choices as the whole UAV packages and overall systems seem to be very sound. The Fire Scout offers a unique combination of capabilities, but we will see how it fits the USN and possibly the RAN.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The RAN operates Scaneagles as far as I know and it seems to be a wise choices as the whole UAV packages and overall systems seem to be very sound. The Fire Scout offers a unique combination of capabilities, but we will see how it fits the USN and possibly the RAN.

RAN doesn't operate Scan Eagles.

Boeing operates Scan Eagles on behalf of deployed ADF forces, but only Land forces in Iraq (formerly) and now in Afghanistan.

RAN does not yet maintain a UAV capability, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Aussie Digger]

from an armchair point of view, I think unmanned aircraft are reasonably high on the agenda for the ADF

Presumably the leading contender for the RAN will be Fire Scout VTUAV which is currently being evaluated by the USN

Presumably the leading contender for the RAAF will be the Predator/Reaper; this is in service and both Italy and the UK are in the process of trying to aquire them.
I believe the ADF was interested in Global Hawk, but I believe they pulled out due to problems/costs/delays.

Apart from a few leased Skylarks and Scan Eagles, that claim seems difficult to back up with results...

ADF talks up UAV capability, but is seemingly doing very little in the way of actually acquiring capability...

Australianisation is VERY much involved in all the UAV projects to date and it's no coincidence they've all gone belly-up, except for the "off the shelf" leases...

JP-129 TUAV project? Been running for more than 10 years and has been sent back to tender after the I-VIEW tender winner decided on an engine change AFTER their product had been selected without bothering to notify ADF. ADF therefore had no choice but to re-release the tender once they found out...

Global Hawk has just been deferred at least 5 years and who knows what the Government in 5 years will think about the project...


Predator/Reaper? Where is the stated requirement for such a capability? It hasn't ever been a part of any Defence Capability Plan and whilst media speculation has it as an apparent priority, who can provide any link whatsoever, that ADF sees such a capability as a priority, of any kind?

I can't...

 

[Firn]

RAN doesn't operate Scan Eagles.

Boeing operates Scan Eagles on behalf of deployed ADF forces, but only Land forces in Iraq (formerly) and now in Afghanistan.

Ah yes, I made a mental mixup between the maritime Scaneagles operated by the RSN (Republic of Singapore navy) and the ones supporting the ADF (Australian Defence Force) in Afghanistan.

IMHO the systems surrounding the Scaneagle and the Integrator as well as the well proven and wide capabilities of the former, especially the ability to operate with ease from relative small vessels set it as maritim UAV way ahead of the pack. It offers huge advantages and capabilities which will make such UAVs soon irreplacable for a firgate or corvette. I wonder how long it will take to develop a roughly 20kg heavy AESA maritim patrol radar. The lightest seems to be right now around 30-35kg.

 

[battlensign]

RAN doesn't operate Scan Eagles.

Boeing operates Scan Eagles on behalf of deployed ADF forces, but only Land forces in Iraq (formerly) and now in Afghanistan.

RAN does not yet maintain a UAV capability, to the best of my knowledge.

Are you sure about that.......? Doesn't 20STA use them?

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

In my order:
* 4th AWD - We need this
* Sealift ships 1 x 40,000t slightly modified commerical RoRo
* 1 x 10,000 OPV with additional sealift capability.
* Announcement and clear direction on Collins II (6-8 subs) and ANZAC replacement (using tweaked F-100 design 10)
* An amphibious/ aircraft carrier (simular to the Cavour) With 18 F-35 B's. The other two LHD can operate as temp carriers, and the new ship can also assist and fill in as an additional amphibious ship
* some decent landing craft for the LHD's
* Tomahawks (x16) for the AWD's, SM-3 Capable systems (missiles can be aquired later).
* Additional helicopters including sea search NH-90
* decent UAV (something bigger rather than smaller).
* Additional patrol boats

Australia could make a very nice taskforce from that:

2 x AWD's, 2 x Frigates, 1 or 2 LHD's, 1 carrier with 6-10 F-35B's, 3x tigers and several UAV's, 1 sealift roro, 1 fleet oiler, with several subs scattered regionally. Combined with NZ(frigate), Singapore (LHA and frigate), American (cruiser and perhaps a sub) and japanese (destroyer and LHA) escorts your talking about a force that would match or be greater than a RN or US amphibious group.

Land 2,000 troops and heavy equipment. Give air lift and transport. Patrol extensively and enforce in the area of operation, be able to fend off and conduct high intensity operations. Provide air coverage for the area of operation and air support for troops. And sustain this for a long period of time.

If things heat up additional american support (say an amphibious strike group or a Carrier strike group) or british support (a carrier or/and a amphibious strike group) you have a very capable force.

This is a huge leap in capability, we are now able to do what the RN could do before (amphibious assault), while the RN is leaping forward to do only what the USN could do before (naval airstrikes).

 

[luv2surf]

Singapore doesn't operate ScanEagle, it was a Boeing Australia trial :



SINGAPORE, March 02, 2009 -- ScanEagle, a long-endurance, fully autonomous unmanned aircraft system (UAS) developed by The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] and subsidiary Insitu, today successfully completed a ship-based trial with the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN).
The trial included both an RSN LST (Landing Ship, Tank) and a frigate. ScanEagle was launched and recovered from the ships' helicopter decks, flying day missions using an electro-optical camera payload and night missions using an infrared camera payload.
During the flights, the ScanEagle UAS successfully demonstrated sea-based launch and recovery capabilities and the ease with which the physical ground support equipment and control hardware can be integrated onboard. All tactical objectives and operational scenarios set for the flights were achieved.
"ScanEagle performed exceptionally well during the trials and proved it has the potential to be an asset for building the RSN's organic ship-based unmanned aerial vehicle capability," said Andrew Duggan, ScanEagle program manager for Boeing Defence Australia. "The ScanEagle UAS adds another dimension to persistent situational awareness for the ship's crew and generates actionable intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information."
Boeing Defence Australia provided a complete maritime ScanEagle system for the trial, including a ground control station, communication links, launcher and SkyHook recovery system. A Boeing Insitu team deployed to Singapore for the entire trial.
The ScanEagle UAS has operated from a variety of maritime platforms, most notably U.S. Navy ships since 2005, achieving 1,500 launches and recoveries. It has also operated from a UK Royal Navy Type 23 frigate and from commercial vessels.
Boeing Defence Australia began operating ScanEagle in December 2006. Since then, it has surpassed 16,000 flight hours supporting Australian Land Forces overseas as well as delivering in-country operator and field maintainer training.





http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090302a_nr.html

 

[Aussie Digger]

Are you sure about that.......? Doesn't 20STA use them?

Brett.

20STA has no UAVs issued to the best of my knowledge.

The only UAVs issued to an ADF unit are possibly to the specwarries and these will most likely be limited to "micro" UAVs and in any case, they aren't telling...

20STA operators have deployed to the "Ghan", Iraq and Solomans and have worked with civilian operated and maintained UAVs leased directly from the manufacturers, including Scan Eagle and Skylark.

So ADF and 20STA have access to some UAV capability on operations, but no UAV has actually been acquired, for the conventional ADF as yet.

 

[aricho87]

Defence white paper

Given the current climate we are in i believe the Aus Government should look to acquire a more flexible stratergy for its naval foreces. I would hope they would invest in:
2 x LHD: Primarily as amphibious ships but with the capcity to have VTOL or STOVL F-35B's in number upto but no more than 20. This allows us to conduct operations with an offensive strike capability, conduct sea denial operations and to conduct humanitarian operations. I do not see it neccersary to always have the full 15 - 20 fighters embarked on the LHD's but only when called for. The RAN has seen its resources stretched in the current years with deployments in South east pacific countries increasingly becoming a problem, meaning the two LHD's would always ben in need.

4 x AWD's: The DDG's are vital to providing an air umbrella for RAN assets(2x LHD) in a hostile enviroment and are needed to meet current and future threate of the future from developing navies.

8 x ANZAC's: I believe these ships are primarily used for escort duties in conflict due to their limited Anti-air capability but could be used effectively if under the umbrella of an AWD type ship. They are very useful however in their current use for boarder/fisheries patrol and suit that requirement.

6 - 8 Collins Class II: Although it has been said that the only weapons platform the US see's useful to its self from Aus in any future war is our current Collins class subs, it doesn't make sense to field a large sub force when we can't man the 6 we have now and alot of Aus navy's time is spent in humanitarian assistance, south east pacific countries which subs are virtually useless. Why purchase large numbers of a tool that might never see use when you can spend more on tools ie LHD's, AWD's, FFG's that serve multiple purposes.

2 x Fast LPD's: Similar to the fast Seacat we had during the timor operation, a seacat platform would be handy to supplement the LHD's and for operations in the south pacific and would enable the RAN to deploy a force similar to a US MEU, giving the RAN a quick reaction force which would be ideal in our area.

The RAN must increase in size and its ability to deploy in force and numbers in the South east pacific (our general area of concern) and also must have the capacity to deploy to future conflicts abroad to protect allies and areas of interest.