Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[agc33e]

can you prove that
- they all detect the same target

It does seems so because the 3 missiles converge to the same direction.

- they start firing at the same target
- they start firing as soon as it was possible by the radar/cms (the human factor can also slow down an interception)

As you can see in other launchings of the video there is no chain command for launching, it just the guy at the screens, paying atttention to the screens, who pressess the botton, EDITED LATER: at least with the spanish, and if the 3 ships look for the same target, the others two should be the same procedia for launching, if they are comparing between themselves.

imho this video can't prove it.
using similar radar systems, the highest radar will detect a low flying target first.

Also i can say that in other spanish forums someone said all this seriously, i cannnot give more "proofs". But maybe it is the wiring system, you know also that aegis is integrated in the whole combat system, which uses its own electronic hardware, maybe little, but i think there is more than the height (from the nansen).
If we follow the sequences we see, that the video is arranged with a series of launching and imagees of interception, then the last sequence of the video can be target of the 3 ships or it can be other (like a harpoon, and i dont see the coming of the missile that destroyes it...), EDITED LATER: actually you might be right because i see the explosion of the "harpoon" but also we can see a near previous explosion, what it would be?...Maybe they launched simultaneously 3 targets for the 3 ships, and we see the previous interception..

Regards.

 

[agc33e]

After watching the video better i see that one missiles employs 26 seconds in destroying a sea level missile target, so my calculations made before for the essm are slower, that means that the destroyment is further away from the awd, not 12 kms...because in 20 seconds they go far far more than 1 km, it seems like +10 kms (its personal estimation)...i hope you follow me. EDITED LATER: it is possible that the guy that compiled the video, took images of two differente exercises, the first images are the alvaro the bazan with the mason, i think without the nansen, but the last images are with a nansen of later exercises.

Cheers.

 

[LancasterBomber]

A bit off topic (but lets face it with agc33e around when are we ever on topic lol) but I was reading this article today and pondering it in the context of new naval bases.

If the WA govt is in the mood to build ports would there be any broader national strategic utility in looking at a naval base (be it subs and/or skimmers) in the Pilbara?

On the upside it sends a very strong message about our willingness to protect our assets (at least mitigating any first strike/mover advantage in the region should a country decide to get very very cheeky on the resources front). The other upside might be the opportunity to really invest heavily in a new port that the RAN can structure around our long term hardware plans i.e its a greenfield site we can get a lot of free reign to customise to our explicit needs.

Downsides being it would be nuts to base our boys in the middle of mining boom (potentially getting them cherry picked again like last time). Total sausage fest with no access to the hot chicks (i.e quality of life is low in such an isolated area). Would the base be too far away from our centres of population and therefor leaving our industrial trade ports more vulnerable? Not sure on that one.

Building brand new naval bases probably isnt on the minds of NGN cost cutters or fed govt or just about anyone but we do have probably 200 billion in raw assets sitting on or off the pilbara and although im sure we can project force quite nicely from FBW perhaps the RAN can piggy back the WA govt with some extra federal dollars to modernise and restructure our basing right across Australia to better project our force into the future (Aren't we a bit top heavy in the south east region?)

I am not necessarily suggesting anything is drastically wrong with how we set up right now but sometimes when these greenfield site opportunities come up it might present an opportunity to review and take stock of how we want to shake down any would be invasion force moving forward.

I guess I bring this up in reference to our recent discussion on basing subs on the east coast. And I do take the point that a new base in the Pilbara doesnt solve the recruitment issue for subbies in any way shape or form. In fact posting blokes to the Pilbara region would probably be as well received as Icelord belting out karaoke tunes at 3am after a night on the piss. :gun

(I have no evidence Icelord would behave in such a manner!)

 

[agc33e]

can you prove that
- they all detect the same target
- they start firing at the same target
- they start firing as soon as it was possible by the radar/cms (the human factor can also slow down an interception)

imho this video can't prove it.
using similar radar systems, the highest radar will detect a low flying target first.

Better thought, i would say the last sequence of the video is not the target of the sequence of the 3 ships (the penultimate sequence), because no missil destroyes it, it is probably self destruction or with the ciws or with the cannon, because i suppose they test all the weapons systems.

So i can say from the sequence of the 3 ships that probably are with the same target because it woould be more dificult to prepare an exercise so that each ship has to decided which target of the various targets is his target, the thing is various targets for the 3 ships or the same target.

Rgds.

 

[PeterM]

I was looking at Austal's MRV

• Multi-Role Vessel - Austal

how does that stack up as an option for the OPV concept?


How far away are the Leeuwin class survey vessels, and the Paluma class survey motor launches from needing replacement? I believe they will be needing replacement before the the Armidale class patrol boats, the Huon class minehunters.

 

[hairyman]

Just watched the promo for Austals Multi Role Corvette again. Very impressive, but does anyone know its size? Gives its speed and endurance, but no dimensions.

 

[PeterM]

Just watched the promo for Austals Multi Role Corvette again. Very impressive, but does anyone know its size? Gives its speed and endurance, but no dimensions.

I found a pdf on the Austal site that provides more information.
http://www.austal.com/download.cfm?DownloadFile=8CD0409E-65BF-EBC1-23F60FE851E1F144


Austal has three versions that all qualify to the general requirement so far (though the LCS is certainly at the upper end of the 2,000t limit).

MRV 86 - 1,075t, 86m x 19.1m x 3.0m, 26kts, 4,500nm (12kts), 35 crew, 25mm main gun

MRV 90 - 1,250t, 89.5m x 20.7m x 3.7m, 35kts, 2,000nm (12kts), 45 crew, 40mm main gun

LCS 127 - 1,980t, 127.1m x 31m x 4.0.m, 35kts+, 4,500nm (12kts), 45 crew, 57mm main gun


It is reasonable to assume the government will want to build the OPVs domestically if possible, an Austal design will probably be a in strong contention..

 

[icelord]

I found a pdf on the Austal site that provides more information.
http://www.austal.com/download.cfm?DownloadFile=8CD0409E-65BF-EBC1-23F60FE851E1F144


Austal has three versions that all qualify to the general requirement so far (though the LCS is certainly at the upper end of the 2,000t limit).

MRV 86 - 1,075t, 86m x 19.1m x 3.0m, 26kts, 4,500nm (12kts), 35 crew, 25mm main gun

MRV 90 - 1,250t, 89.5m x 20.7m x 3.7m, 35kts, 2,000nm (12kts), 45 crew, 40mm main gun

LCS 127 - 1,980t, 127.1m x 31m x 4.0.m, 35kts+, 4,500nm (12kts), 45 crew, 57mm main gun


It is reasonable to assume the government will want to build the OPVs domestically if possible, an Austal design will probably be a in strong contention..

Im a big fan of the Austal OPV, more for its practical options in terms of space and alike. As for the OPV to replace the Minor fleet from 2015, highly unlikely. Unless they can bring options for suite fit out in regards to MCM and Hydro, as these are the key killers of alot of options for Austal Multi-role OPV. There are a couple of OPV designs floating around that are options for the RAN, these include Hydro survey, Mine Counter Measure and Patrol Packages able to be be added on by container, which is what the RAN is looking to do.

I guess I bring this up in reference to our recent discussion on basing subs on the east coast. And I do take the point that a new base in the Pilbara doesnt solve the recruitment issue for subbies in any way shape or form. In fact posting blokes to the Pilbara region would probably be as well received as Icelord belting out karaoke tunes at 3am after a night on the piss.

(I have no evidence Icelord would behave in such a manner!)

From experience...thats not a good thing! and yes i would after several bundys:cheers

We want to put the Sub base on the East coast, the West is covered within Stirling, and any thought to further basing West is pointless. Broome offers a small Refuel, Resupply station to Darwin Based patrol boats, but thats about all the West gets beyond FBW. As i keep harping on about, the East is where we need to move the Subs for more crew, as the further west we go, the less people would want to join the Sub Service, which is the opposite of what we want.

 

[PeterM]

Im a big fan of the Austal OPV, more for its practical options in terms of space and alike. As for the OPV to replace the Minor fleet from 2015, highly unlikely. Unless they can bring options for suite fit out in regards to MCM and Hydro, as these are the key killers of alot of options for Austal Multi-role OPV. There are a couple of OPV designs floating around that are options for the RAN, these include Hydro survey, Mine Counter Measure and Patrol Packages able to be be added on by container, which is what the RAN is looking to do.

Whichever design is selected for OPV, it will have some kind of modular system for a range od capabilities including MCM and Hydrographic.

The MRVs are listed as being a Role-Reconfigurable Seaframe. Whilst I am no expert, it seems the MRV could implement new modules to meet the MCM and Hydrographic needs; apparatly they already have ASW capability; perhaps this could be used as a starting point for the development the these kind of modules?



.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We need another (small mostly sub) navy base on the east. To base some subs and help FBE which lets say is going to get a little crowed. I think the best place would be in QLD as NSW seems to have all sorts of issues on the coast (even tho I think it is best for recruitment/retain and training) and VIC/TAS is too far. QLD would also be a good point for deployment of subs to operation areas yet still close enough to FBE to do operation with surface units. While still open to resource skill drain, not to the same extent as WA, and southern QLD is only a 1 hr ~$50 flight from sydney, allowing cruise commutes which IMHO would effectively solve the sub recruitment problem.

FBW is big enough for our needs on the west coast. However some of these resupply points (WA and NT) will need beefing up when they start operating 2,000t corvettes, possibly with airunits attached. I think we should seriously concider a FBN or FBNE for the future.

The OCV is going to be a big step up for RAN. But we need to find room/resupply points for 20x2000t ships we didn't previously have.

 

[t68]

What about Point Wilson it has an ammo wharf there, goes a fair out into the bay which might be protected somewhat build a few sub pens plus ready assess to Melbourne for the night life or Geelong.

Does any one know what is happening at Cockatoo Island its got two large dry docks buy Google and is now heritage listed but it would solve possible basing requirements in Sydney harbour for the subs with alterations.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The OCV is going to be a big step up for RAN. But we need to find room/resupply points for 20x2000t ships we didn't previously have.

2 x 20,000+ tonnes ??

work is underway further north for that. as thats where everything else relevant to their tactical mission set will be "nominally" based.

 

[LancasterBomber]

We still have plenty of time for open ended discussion of potential technology sets in Sea 1000.

I like the look of nanophotonics in terms of its ability to shift the development curve for computational thermal dynamics.

It allows us to prototype in a far more efficient manner.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWhcwVxI2sQ]YouTube - IBM Researchers Create Device Which Uses Light for Communication Between Computer Chips[/ame]

 

[t68]

We still have plenty of time for open ended discussion of potential technology sets in Sea 1000.

I like the look of nanophotonics in terms of its ability to shift the development curve for computational thermal dynamics.

It allows us to prototype in a far more efficient manner.

YouTube - IBM Researchers Create Device Which Uses Light for Communication Between Computer Chips

What?
I know you are talking about a computer chip but that's about it.

 

[LancasterBomber]

Its just a way to potentially flick information around that lets us scale up development work on our new subs.

Just lets us use computers to model thermal and fluid dynamics in prototype design at a speed we couldnt achieve previously by a considerable margin. (i.e shifts the curve)

It might also play a role on-board the sub platform itself. A conservation of energy in conjunction with an expansion in power (in this case processing) is exactly the kind of solutions you might want in sub.

My apologies if its a bit off topic but I enjoy looking for potential solutions for our Collins II subs.

 

[t68]

Its just a way to potentially flick information around that lets us scale up development work on our new subs.

Just lets us use computers to model thermal and fluid dynamics in prototype design at a speed we couldnt achieve previously by a considerable margin. (i.e shifts the curve)

It might also play a role on-board the sub platform itself. A conservation of energy in conjunction with an expansion in power (in this case processing) is exactly the kind of solutions you might want in sub.

My apologies if its a bit off topic but I enjoy looking for potential solutions for our Collins II subs.

So it's some sort of fibre optic or laser talking between computer chips?
sound's intreating but out of my league.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Its just a way to potentially flick information around that lets us scale up development work on our new subs.

There is a DSTO tech thats ahead of that techset. The US has been looking at it for a while.

 

[PeterM]

Has anyone heard anything on the Domestic Design Study for the Future Submarine Project which was reportedly due to be finished in Feb 2010?

RAND corporation has been commissioned to do a Domestic Desgin Study for the Future Submarine Project. The study will examine Australia's submarine design capability and capacity.

RAND corporation have done similar studies for the US and UK.

 

[LancasterBomber]

There is a DSTO tech thats ahead of that techset. The US has been looking at it for a while.

Stop teasing me GF!! Faster than nanophotonics? In the words of Big Kev 'I'm excited!'.

Whenever I pick any of this stuff up I usually just assume defence and intelligence circles have already scoured over it 12-18 months prior and running their own parallel or 'forked' development platforms in similar areas.

Wish they would hurry up with my national security clearance. Not that they would let a little grunt like me near any of the cool toys!

 

[LancasterBomber]

Has anyone heard anything on the Domestic Design Study for the Future Submarine Project which was reportedly due to be finished in Feb 2010?

RAND corporation has been commissioned to do a Domestic Desgin Study for the Future Submarine Project. The study will examine Australia's submarine design capability and capacity.

RAND corporation have done similar studies for the US and UK.

I had dismissed that as a classic KPMG/Accenture type "powder puff" consultancy report (i.e how are they going to evaluate 'design capability gaps' in our industry if they have no clue on what systems or design or materials we will choose from?)

We need to at least determine our design 'ethos' for the project and some operational/technological parameters (boundaries) first so that any 'domestic design evaluation' can formulate 'useful' conclusions.

Just struck me as a little odd to make a determination on the readiness of industry significantly ahead of even having a concept nailed down.

I havent paid enough attention to it so I could be completely wrong on the scope of the report and I too havent heard anything about it being delivered.

Edit: Unless they were specifically tasked with making a broad based comparative analysis of cost efficiencies in domestic defence industry corporations relative to US or ROW counterparts (i.e not looking at the granular level of specific technologies) then that would make sense. Or if its a 'how the hell do we clean up the ASC mess' report which would make sense too.