Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[LancasterBomber]

For those interested in the NGN and the cultural changes to the RAN sub FEB you can watch a little video here:

Scuttlebutt Episode 2 - Royal Australian Navy

Obviously well scripted but a few little behind the scenes type things.

 

[t68]

With regards to the Austral multirole vessel would this not be the perfect multirole platform to use especially with emerging UUV tech in the near future for use in mine hunting and survey work
With the systems being modular in package containers could they also replace the Armidale in the near future Austral listing possible extra tasking such as listed on the brochure,
EEZ Border patrol
Command Control
Surveillance
Humanitarian support
Theatre hospital
Special force transport &support
SAR
ASW
Unfortunately it does not go on to say what the endurance and what sea state she can work in witch would be major consideration for the RAN.


http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/05/austal-multi-role-vessel.html

 

[LancasterBomber]

Electron 'entrainment' via carbon nanotubes puts out energy, in proportion to its weight, about 100 times greater than the equivalent weight of lithium-ion battery.

Then again lithium-ion doesnt ignite fuel...

Still there are good research doors opening up on some of this stuff. Any day you can debunk 100 years of theoretical mathetmatics is a good day!

I probably need to make reference as to how this relates to Sea 1000 sub design but I am not sure I can. It potentially could be relevant insofar as any shift in density of power has the potential to affect our chosen sub form factor (my assumption). It might be more relevant to micro UUVs perhaps?

Source: MIT

 

[StevoJH]

Electron 'entrainment' via carbon nanotubes puts out energy, in proportion to its weight, about 100 times greater than the equivalent weight of lithium-ion battery.

Then again lithium-ion doesnt ignite fuel...

Still there are good research doors opening up on some of this stuff. Any day you can debunk 100 years of theoretical mathetmatics is a good day!

I probably need to make reference as to how this relates to Sea 1000 sub design but I am not sure I can. It potentially could be relevant insofar as any shift in density of power has the potential to affect our chosen sub form factor (my assumption). It might be more relevant to micro UUVs perhaps?

Source: MIT

If you are talking Super Capacitors, from research I was doing last year for an Assignment, they still don't have enough energy density to replace conventional batteries at this point, though I suppose there could be Classified projects further advanced in studies then what was in the articles I had access to. You can charge them quicker, you can draw the charge out of them at a higher level, but they don't have anywhere near as much total storage capacity.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The problem with this technology is its all high risk.

We still can't get diesel engines to meet durability and reliability we need on subs. We had problems with periscopes. Stuff thats been around for over a hundread years. I hope if they plan on using any of this stuff it has many backup systems and redundancies and is designed that it can still function if several or many cells fail. Things going bad in a sub, often require opening up of the pressure hull.

UUAV's might be a better area for application.

They might augment existing batteries, however I don't see them replacing them.

 

[LancasterBomber]

The problem with this technology is its all high risk.

This is true. It can be very easy to get lost in the clouds of theoretical future capability. I was flicking through one of the RAN working papers today and found this great quote from Air Commodore John Blackburn:

"The importance of the future is in the 'journey'. The journey to the future is more important than the predicted destination, for we will have to fight and win whilst we are on the journey and not when we reach the end of the rainbow."

(Air Commodore John Blackburn circa 2000)

Which reminds me I still wouldnt mind picking up a couple of Astutes as 'risk mitigation' for the 'journey' from Collins to Collins II

 

[1805]

This is true. It can be very easy to get lost in the clouds of theoretical future capability. I was flicking through one of the RAN working papers today and found this great quote from Air Commodore John Blackburn:

"The importance of the future is in the 'journey'. The journey to the future is more important than the predicted destination, for we will have to fight and win whilst we are on the journey and not when we reach the end of the rainbow."

(Air Commodore John Blackburn circa 2000)

Which reminds me I still wouldnt mind picking up a couple of Astutes as 'risk mitigation' for the 'journey' from Collins to Collins II

Excellent quote, the more you look at those very simple almost obvious words you realise he has absolutely "hit the nail on the head". Military planning so often focuses on the future at the exclusion of the present and yet unexpected things can happen today as much as in the future.

Prehaps 2 cheaper conventional subs off the shelf would be less expensive and less political challenging, whilest providing the training and local coverage RAN needs and allow the Collins to focus on longer range requirement.

 

[LancasterBomber]

Of course it is also possible we will streamline beautifully from one platform to the next. I'm not completely discounting that outcome and I dont particularly want to be labelled an internet doomsayer just yet! I am probably just a little spooked by the JSF creep.

Ideally I'd love to shift our subs onto a twin platform - 4 nukes for 'go all day' 'bring the rain' long distance traditional mission sets and 6 x Collins Mark II conventionals for cutting edge UUV command, reconnaissance, intelligence etc

By building a greater diversity in our 'unknown threat' does this compound the complexity of the environment for our opponent ? Does this benefit outweigh the logistic cost of maintaining a dual platform sub FEG (excess load on personnel numbers,excess training,more complex logistics/supplies etc)?

If there was a 'net gain' we could then split the rolling over of these platforms by 10-15 years. Bring the nukes onboard in 2020-2024 (at the expensive of Collins in a decades time). Then bring Collins Mark II on board from 2030-2036 or at the time it becomes ready (i.e give it freedom to come online when we have it nailed down to our satisfaction).

Then as we move forward as a fleet group we can better manage our personnel by rolling over our sub hardware in a staggered fashion rather than an 'all or nothing' high pressure transition period (where capability gaps might open up or worse)

If we are going to build Collins Mark II completely on our own (technical help from the US) then we at least owe ourselves the requisite time and space to nail it. If we are really serious about a sustainable, organic sub production industry that we can nurture into the future (not just Sea 1000 but beyond) then we need to be patient and meticulous in creating the environment that is conducive to innovation and development.

Anyway I just hope we get it right.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Excellent quote, the more you look at those very simple almost obvious words you realise he has absolutely "hit the nail on the head". Military planning so often focuses on the future at the exclusion of the present and yet unexpected things can happen today as much as in the future.

Prehaps 2 cheaper conventional subs off the shelf would be less expensive and less political challenging, whilest providing the training and local coverage RAN needs and allow the Collins to focus on longer range requirement.

I wouldnt risk buying conventionals as it would set a modern day precedent of aus importing conventional, id fear a successfull foreign buy my tempt government to take the easy road and import collins replacement.

post edit-with the possiblity of reducing required capabilty of collins replacement.

 

[agc33e]

I post a selection of pics from the canberras, let me add that in an interview with one commander of the juan carlos i, this man said that the comms in this ship were 3 times more powerful than any other ship of the spanish navy (including f100´s), he was impressed with the comms, ok the canberras will have other equipment but maybe the same comms structure, wirings, capacities, many different channels for the different bands...

Thanks.

 

[StingrayOZ]

That deck needs surfacing.. Its killing me.

I think we should go nuclear, but in that timeframe Im not sure its possible. In combination we should have two nuclear powerstations (melb, syd and planning for one in QLD) these would feed additional power in the grid and also should be constructed in combination with a high speed rail network (Sydney to Canberra allowing canberra airport to take load, but a Bris, syd, Melb link to eventually be built). We should also build another nuclear research facility at one of these sites (perhaps near the syncrotron?). We are talking a 100 billion+ $ project, but one that will transform Australia and its economy.

I am thinking that these 12 subs may not have to be of exactly the same type.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

That deck needs surfacing.. Its killing me.

Kinda has a varnished teak deck effect right now doesn't it? At least from a distance and at a glance anyways...

Be nice to see what she finally ends up looking like when she's all fitted out.

 

[hairyman]

Teak, I thought it was rust.

 

[StingrayOZ]

teak. Hahaha.. We should start using wood on warships again... The tower shot deadset looks like timber of somekind..

Its proberly a protective bonding coating. Could be rust. Looks weird. Hopefully blacktop will get onto it soon enough..

 

[gf0012-aust]

I post a selection of pics from the canberras, let me add that in an interview with one commander of the juan carlos i, this man said that the comms in this ship were 3 times more powerful than any other ship of the spanish navy (including f100´s), he was impressed with the comms, ok the canberras will have other equipment but maybe the same comms structure, wirings, capacities, many different channels for the different bands...

Thanks.

the comms fitout for the canberras will be nothing like the juan carlos class of spain.

As they will be task force flags they will be the most comm'd up assets outside of the mainland. they will have the most capable surgeries of any non mainland asset and will be CBRN "protected"

 

[agc33e]

the comms fitout for the canberras will be nothing like the juan carlos class of spain.

As they will be task force flags they will be the most comm'd up assets outside of the mainland. they will have the most capable surgeries of any non mainland asset and will be CBRN "protected"

The fitout or the equipment maybe not, but the capacities should be the same in terms of handling many aircrafts in the air, also the jci is command and control or flag ship and cbrn i suppose or some parts, the citadels. But maybe they are not the same comms capacities handling 15 helos simply directing or exploring than handling 22 f35b´s and 6 helos in a battle like the spanish could want, for the ranges and issues of the differente aircrafts. Actually i would say that helos-lhd comms should be more "complete" in terms of datalink for assigning surface and underwater targets and issues, apart from the voice, than the jet-lhd comms.

And the deck it is not made of wood, the same colour is the steel before painting it to grey. But there is a platform in the dock made of wood, i expect the ball bounce better there or worse, but you fall from a fault is not as bad...

Regards.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The fitout or the equipment maybe not, but the capacities should be the same in terms of handling many aircrafts in the air, also the jci is command and control or flag ship and cbrn i suppose or some parts, the citadels. But maybe they are not the same comms capacities handling 15 helos simply directing or exploring than handling 22 f35b´s and 6 helos in a battle like the spanish could want, for the ranges and issues of the differente aircrafts. Actually i would say that helos-lhd comms should be more "complete" in terms of datalink for assigning surface and underwater targets and issues, apart from the voice, than the jet-lhd comms.

you're making an assumption that the CONOPS for the canberras in the RAN is the same as that for the Juan Carlos. They are NOT. They are C2 flags fitted out for expeditionary management. They're not carriers in the oblique sense.

its irrelevant how many aircraft you think it can handle if its C2 fitout is different to JC.

They might look the same - but they are not the same. Again, refer to the CONOPS that sits behind both platforms.

And the deck it is not made of wood, the same colour is the steel before painting it to grey. But there is a platform in the dock made of wood, i expect the ball bounce better there or worse, but you fall from a fault is not as bad...

Regards.

I have no idea what you are on about. However, wrt to the prev, your assumptions about the fitout similarities are wrong. Where in any of this have I made comment about the construction materials used in the deck?

 

[agc33e]

About the wood floor for decks, sorry, i was talking about previous messages to your post.

Yes i understand different fitouts for differente requirements, but for the basic that is for example 15 helos, they do the same, that is i suppose enough big requierement for any comms system. But i am talking just of aircrafts-ldh comms, there are the submarine comms, surface coms, sat cooms, all these should be similar in the jci and the canberras because probably they are the same requirements..

 

[StevoJH]

About the wood floor for decks, sorry, i was talking about previous messages to your post.

Yes i understand different fitouts for differente requirements, but for the basic that is for example 15 helos, they do the same, that is i suppose enough big requierement for any comms system. But i am talking just of aircrafts-ldh comms, there are the submarine comms, surface coms, sat cooms, all these should be similar in the jci and the canberras because probably they are the same requirements..

Different systems and most likely on a completely different scale. The ADF has more money to spend then the Spanish Forces, and they will spend it. Speaking with no knowledge, I wouldn't be surprised if the only ships at sea comparable to Canberra's Comm's fitout once they are built will be the US Task Force command ships (Carriers, LHD's and Command ships) along with the UK Albion class and QE class.

When was the last time PdA served as Flagship for a Combined Task Force including USN , MN and RN in an operational (non-exercise) capacity.

 

[agc33e]

Imagine a conflict of australia against a country that wants to bring the war to australian territory, so australia wants to bring it to the enemy´s territory also, in his plans australia can use tomahawcks:
- if using them from subs alone in a range of fire off the enemys territory, they declare themselves, that is it beggins a directed hunt against them, we can imagine the enemy has a fleet and cn-295 eads persuaders or similar type with 6 torpedos and sh3 sikorski or similiar antisubmarine helos or that can cover well the australian subs fire ranges zones, i would say that without the australian fleet near australian subs would be hunted (of course it depends if the enemy is well prepared, but there are many in asia), for ex. cn-295 persuader range patrolling asw is 1800 nautical miles, so 3500 kms but without the external tanks), the range of the enemys fleet is also mucho more than that, so they cover well the zone off the enemys coast for australian subs launch their tactoms, say 1200-1500 kms off enemyes coast.
-so probably i would use a fleet to give cover to the subs, and complement the subs tactoms with the awds and future anzacs tactoms, it is not the same to destroy the electricity plants of one city than many cities trying to paralize opponents sources, also with the cover they can launch them closer to the enemys coast so reach inland. With the fleet near you can choose when your subs gets quickly info, just info, and when you want the fleet to approach for a wave of tactoms.
-if the enemy is able to have 2 fleets, one for definding himself and other to attack australia or so, then australia would need 2 fleets also, for defending and attacking, and we see the importance of having may assets of the different kinds:
-3 awd´s for the austrlian offensive fleet, 2 if the enemy´s offensive fleet has a carrier, the 3rd awd for the austrlian defensive fleet to face the enemys carrier.
-anzacs, the other frigates and the new anzacs.
-24 sh3 sikorski with 4 torpedos, for the 2 fleet and australian territory.
-and the 2 variables, the 2 lhd and the subs:
-we can use some antisubmariene helos from the canberras, one for each australian fleet, or if they needed use them as carriers in the offensive fleet and make the deffensive helos platform a galizia class (4 sh3 sikorski each, like the same helos as four anzacs).
-we can have 6 more complex collins II, or we can have 10 smalller cheaper subs offensive and defensive fleet capable sooner and less risky (probably), because if australia is going to offend, and even just gain spy info from the subs, they will need an australian fleet near, so really we might not need collins I ranges for the collins II, as a basic requirement or a requirement to be fulfilled at high speed. What is more important as a requirement, to have some subs for gain secret info and stay long in station very away and very fast, or to have more subs for dividing them in 2 fleets for a real conflict, apart from the fact than in a real conflict of an austrlian fleet against and enemys fleet, the smaller subs might have advantage.

I know i have repeated some things i said before, but amplified as well.

Regards.