Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Interesting stuff, thats for clarifying guys.
It will be interesting to see how heavy the ANZAC II's end up.
It will be interesting to see how heavy the ANZAC II's end up.
Targets...The bigger the better more tonnage to send to the bottom of the sea.
Tonnes Per Centimetre
other useful links:
Ship Construction & Stability - Level 4 - Nautical Training - Camosun College
Ship Draft Survey - Forums
"fat ships" = fat targets.
What options are there for the new naval combat helicoptor?
Presumably the leading options are the NFH (leveraging the ADFs exisiting MRH-90) and the MH-60R (new verion of the seahawk)
Both have ASW and ASuW capability. Which is better for the RAN?
Are there any other options?
How many will be purchased? perhaps 27 (replacements for 16 Seahawk + 11 proposed Seasprites)?
Presumably the leading options are the NFH (leveraging the ADFs exisiting MRH-90) and the MH-60R (new verion of the seahawk)
Both have ASW and ASuW capability. Which is better for the RAN?
Are there any other options?
How many will be purchased? perhaps 27 (replacements for 16 Seahawk + 11 proposed Seasprites)?
winnyfield
New Member
Really only two options.
MH60 - off the shelf, simple purchase through US FMS. RAN already operates Sea Hawks. BUT, incompatible with future ADF NH90 fleet.
NH90 'NFH' - compatible with future NH90s, larger cabin. BUT, still in development, some problems.
other options: Lynx (too small, doesn't offer much utility), EH101 (too big and expensive)
The NFH did run into problems as have many other airframes, this has delayed the program, but these have been resolved. Italy and Netherlands are receiving their aircraft later this year with France and Norway in Feb 2010.
The big benefit for the NFH (or some variant) is that they could be built by Australian Aerospace in Brisbane leveraging the exisiting experience with the Tiger ARH and MRH-90.
Aparantly there was a NH 90 demostrator at Avalon in the ASW format, did anyone check it out?
Does anyone know much on the sensors and weapons of the NFH?
Baseline weapons seem to be:
- MBDA Marte 25 antiship missile
- Eurotorp MU90 or Mk46 or Stingray torpedos
- with option for 2 GPMG
Baseline avionics seem to be
- Thales European Naval Radar (ENR)
- EADS AN/AAr-60 MILDS, Elettronica DETE-90 ALR-733v4 ESM and MBDA ELIPS CMDS (though Norwegian versions will use ITT ALQ -211 IRCM suite
- Thales FLASH sonar with the TMS 2000 sonobuoy or the ELAC HELRAS
It does seem that sikorsky is pushing the MH-60R to NFH customers
The MH-60R would likley leverage the existing USN supply train and also the RAN experience with the current seahawks.
Baseline weapons seem to be:
- AGM-114 anit-surface missile
- mk 50 or mk 46 torpedos
Avionics seem to be
- Raytheon AN/AQS-22 dipping sonar.
- Raytheon AN/AAS-44 detection/tracking system
- Telephonics AN/APS-147 multi-mode radar
Can anyone provide some general information on the capabilities of these aircraft and systems and their effectiveness for the RAN's needs?
I keep being amazing that no one at the white paper level is mentioning anything regarding manning. The ABS predicts that the people entering the workforce between the 2020-2030 period will be the same as entered the workforce in 2007. That is, a single year's manning spread over a ten year period due to declining birth rates etc. Talk of 8, 12, 18 submarines is just Labor government talk and will stay that way.
Manning for the defence force will slightly increase over the next few years as unemployment increases then it will decease when all the baby boomers retire and will get lower and lower, and as always defence recruiting will almost stop. The ADF needs to be planning for a more condensed, highly efficient force, rather than a larger spread out role.
Things will get a lot worse for defence, not better.
Manning for the defence force will slightly increase over the next few years as unemployment increases then it will decease when all the baby boomers retire and will get lower and lower, and as always defence recruiting will almost stop. The ADF needs to be planning for a more condensed, highly efficient force, rather than a larger spread out role.
Things will get a lot worse for defence, not better.
The submarine crewing problem is an issue of RAN own making IMO. Im not an expert but I have spoken to several submariners.
They relocated all subs to Western Australia. Ok defence personel should expect to work in various locations, but as a dolphin you are already commited to making greater sacrific than most. Historically Sydney had them that rules out a great number of personel on East coast who want to remain in contact with family on the east coast..
WA personal were going to be hard to retain while the mining boom was on. Everyone in Perth was going to be hard to retain. Ask businesses in WA how retention has been in the last 3 years.
Instead of performing many short term operations they are now operating them (strategically) like they are SSN's going for huge patrols (at 5-10kts) more frequently. Crew shortages ment that people got rotated back onto boats in an unsupportable way.
However I do think Australia can support 12 main surface combatants, half a dozen sealift ships, 20 OCV and 12 subs. But the RAN will need to address several issues to do that.
The retention of key, experienced people as the boomers retire will be an issue.
They relocated all subs to Western Australia. Ok defence personel should expect to work in various locations, but as a dolphin you are already commited to making greater sacrific than most. Historically Sydney had them that rules out a great number of personel on East coast who want to remain in contact with family on the east coast..
WA personal were going to be hard to retain while the mining boom was on. Everyone in Perth was going to be hard to retain. Ask businesses in WA how retention has been in the last 3 years.
Instead of performing many short term operations they are now operating them (strategically) like they are SSN's going for huge patrols (at 5-10kts) more frequently. Crew shortages ment that people got rotated back onto boats in an unsupportable way.
However I do think Australia can support 12 main surface combatants, half a dozen sealift ships, 20 OCV and 12 subs. But the RAN will need to address several issues to do that.
The retention of key, experienced people as the boomers retire will be an issue.
They were originally designed to undertake long range SSN type mission cycles. It doesn't matter whether they were based, Indian or Pacific, they would still undertake long cycles.
If they were going to split the sub fleet, then Sydney wasn't a logical choice anyway IMO. Further north, and closer to the likely action so as to cut down transit times would have made more sense.
They were strategically designed to undertake the same missions that the Oberons did, except with less "operational stress".
Considering that the Oberons used to take happy snaps inside the Harbour at Vladivostok, during the cold war, then I'm not sure what in a mission sense has changed. Vladivostok was the extremity point of a likely conflict as far as the Oberons were concerned.
The RAN has been running 14 surface combatants until recently, and it was originally planned that the 3 AWD's were to replace the CFAdams Destroyers. I would prefer to see the RAN with more surface combatants than subs. Ideally 16 or 17 surface combatants to 12 subs. As well as performing all the duties the RAN has traditionally done, in future we will need frigates/destroyers to act as escorts for the Canberra ships, a role probably not required since the days of Melbourne and Sydney Carriers.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The RAN had 13 combatants recently, not 14. Canberra decommissioned before the last ANZAC commisssioned.
Before the Adelaides were purchased the RAN had 12 combatents.
3 x Daring Class
3 x Adams class
6 x River Class
This then changed to:
6 x Adelaide
3 x Adams
3 x Rivers
The River's, Adam's and first two Adelaide's decommissioned as the ANZAC class entered service.
The Netherlands should be receiving the first in 2011 (they are the first customer to receive the NFH).
Secretary of State Jack de Vries informed Parliament on June 10 that the NFH is still too heavy and is therefore at the moment unable to land on the Dutch frigates.
He couldn't tell if it would lead to more delays.
They did do it, but im not sure how frequently.
I think Qld would be a reasonable place for a second sub base. Closer North. Plus you are fishing in a different pool of personel. Cockburn sound doesn't seem any closer to where the action will be. With two bases you can perform missions from two vectors, allowing greater operational potential and shorter transit times.
However if we are going to push further out of our EEZ with long range missions, I think we should concider a faster sub design.
RAN will have decent numbers.
4 x AWD (has to be 4, for escort/taskforce leading)
8 x ANZAC II (same size/simular fitout minus AEGIS as AWD)
Plus 20 x OCV's which could share in a small pool of harpoons and CIWS (searam or ESSM), these would be capable of protecting and securing low threat enviroments.
Amphibious Strike group
2 x LHD
2 x AWD
1 x ANZAC II
2 x OCV
1 x replentishment
Combat group (BMD etc)
2 x AWD
3 x ANZAC II
Combined with what ever other assets allies can bring. But these can stand alone.
The OCV's as long as they are given sufficent teeth can handle most missions we currently give to the Anzacs. I see them freeing up the supersized Anzac II's for more challenging stuff. We will have 32+ vessels for securing our waters.
Enough to cause the Prime Minister of the newly formed Labor Govt to have coniptions.... - and to subsequently direct RAN to stop all further ferrets.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Since i'm fairly sure its an act of war and since no RAN Oberon was lost at sea, i'm assuming they were never caught.
Which labor prime minister? Hawke or Keating?
battlensign
New Member
I seem to remember something about getting tangled in fishing boat nets and being forced to surface in the SCS.....here's an apt quote from an interesting article I have:
From: Author: Geoffrey Barker
Date: 28/11/2003
Publication: Australian Financial Review
Section: Magazine
Page: 16
Source: AFR
".....Australia's secret O-boat patrols started in 1978 and ended in 1992. They were cancelled by the then Defence Minister in the Keating Labor government, Senator Robert Ray, who, according to senior submariners, panicked when told that one of the O-boats had come dangerously close to being detected ......"
_____________
Hope this helps.
Brett.
Hawke.. It was released under the 30 Year Rule provisions a few years back.
An Oberon took happy snaps of a Sov asset in Vladivostok
- Status