Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

Fair enough point about the LSD's role being to support the LHD's, so they don't necessarily need their own Landing Craft as they can use the LHD's. Still it is a useful capability to be able to deploy a LCM-8 in theater to under take the independent tasking's a LCM-1e is not capable of. After all when we pay off the legacy Amphibs we loss that capability.

Well this is part of the problem of the Bayophilia for the ADF’s sealift ship. It hasn’t been designed to the ADF’s spec for this role but for a British spec for a slightly different role.

In case of supporting LCM8s for independent logistics tasking the big limiter here is not the well dock but the cranes. There is no need for the sealift ship to have a big well dock because it could carry extra LCM8s as deck cargo. That is if it had a ~60 tonne crane able to lower them over the side. Bay class only have 30 tonne cranes. But this is probably something you could refit with the cranes from the LPAs.

The LHDs will be able to dock and support LCM8s.

 

[ThePuss]

The LHDs will be able to dock and support LCM8s.

I did not word my last post exactly right (I had a few Friday afternoon beers by that stage ) What I meant to say is the LHD's would deploy to any tasking with it's permanently embarked complement of LCM-1E's, so the Bay turning up to the AO with a LCM-8 in the back which it then sends off to do it's own thing is very useful. The "8" is then supported from ashore, from the LHD, from the LSD, or from a combination of all three.

I agree that the 30 ton cranes are a limiting factor of the Bay (I did laugh a the Bayophillia comment) and retrofitting it with a single much larger crane is a good idea, so we can get multiple LCM-8(or it successor) in theater. I believe we need this capability because of the short legs of the "1E's" and because personally I do not like the chances of the LCH's ever being replaced :rel.

 

[Volkodav]

I guess nothing is insurmountable, it comes down to compromise, compromise on design, performance, interoperability, etc. The RadHaz and interoperability implications of SPY-1D are quite huge to say the least, and I don't believe it would make much sense to have both systems on a common platform. Integration of CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT into the AEGIS suite (in replacement of SPY-1D), well that does make sense especially for a medium range engagement capability on a smaller platform (ie. frigate). I guess Northrup Grumman (part share holder in CEA) would be pushing for this, but I would think Lockheed Martin would probably like to see something from there own product line integrated rather than CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT.

The ASMD mast is an all aluminimum structure and is largely empty, and the CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT faces while not light, aren't that heavy in comparison to comparable legacy technology. AWD doesn't really have a mast for the SPY radar as it's integrated into the foremast/bridge house and apparently doesn't require the elevation to get full horizon coverage, so it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges...

What I was thinking was replacing the AN/SPQ-9 and the pair of AN/SPG-62 as well as incorporating the various coms, ESM etc antennas into a single LO mast mounted above the SPY-1D(V) to improve overall LO, horizon search, and anti-ship self defence agaist surface skimming missiles. It could potentially also reduce top weight and free up space and weight for other systems.

If possible some of the space and weight could be used to install additional VLS and move Nulka in to the VLS using the Extensible Launcher or even intergrate VL RAM (Block II).

 

[ThePuss]

Even though I said on my last post that I don't think the LCH's will be replaced, I really hope they are.

This design has probably been suggested here before but I only came across it today. It is BMT's Fast LCT 200.

BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft Tank Caimen-200 (Design DS703)

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/33/WarshipTechnologyOctober2008-P26-27.pdf

BMT’s New Caimen-200 Fast LCT Offers Speedier Amphibious Ops - Naval Technology

I like it because it has a very good max speed (for a smallish landing ship, yes I know they call it a "Craft" but at 860 tonnes it's rather large, much larger than the LCH's)

Seems to me to be a perfect "Missing Link" between the gigantic LHD's and the tiny and short ranged LCM-1E's. I don't know, but it may even be possible for these FLCT to "Nuzzel" it's bow into the dock of an LHD, to effect vehicle transfers more easily than the current ramp to ramp method employed by the LPD/LCH combo.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Even though I said on my last post that I don't think the LCH's will be replaced, I really hope they are.

This design has probably been suggested here before but I only came across it today. It is BMT's Fast LCT 200.

I like it because it has a very good max speed (for a smallish landing ship, yes I know they call it a "Craft" but at 860 tonnes it's rather large, much larger than the LCH's)

Seems to me to be a perfect "Missing Link" between the gigantic LHD's and the tiny and short ranged LCM-1E's.

I’m less inclined to think that the BMT LCT would be a good match for JP 2048/5. Primarily it lacks range. Only ~1,000 NM at 16 knots (60 hours) which might be fine for the Mediterranean or Persian Gulf but isn’t very far in our region.

As I’ve said a few times the best replacement for the LCH is what the Army originally wanted: the LSM Mk II. Beach offload, 15 knots, ocean going, good range, plenty of cargo (vehicles and stores), helo deck, etc. See attach image and more info at:

Australian Landing Ship Medium Mk. II

I don't know, but it may even be possible for these FLCT to "Nuzzel" it's bow into the dock of an LHD, to effect vehicle transfers more easily than the current ramp to ramp method employed by the LPD/LCH combo.

I doubt you could fit the bow into the well dock as it is quite high. Even if you could this would seem very dangerous to me. With the LCT’s bow beached on the well dock it could be twisted on the side walls of the LHD if hit by waves from abeam. Broken in half LCT would not be a good look. Also the dock would have to be flooded to try this and any vehicle cargo would have to ford the forward part of the dock to reach the LCT.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What I was thinking was replacing the AN/SPQ-9 and the pair of AN/SPG-62 as well as incorporating the various coms, ESM etc antennas into a single LO mast mounted above the SPY-1D(V) to improve overall LO, horizon search, and anti-ship self defence agaist surface skimming missiles. It could potentially also reduce top weight and free up space and weight for other systems.

For starters you can’t replace the SPG-62 illuminators with CEA MOUNT illuminators. Well you can but you will hugely slash the range at which targets can be illuminated. Also for a ship with SPY-1D(V) the difference in horizon search and track between a two face rotating SPQ-9B and the CEA PAR is quite small. And to justify this marginal improvement you would have to develop an entirely new integrated radars combat system. The reason SPQ-9B was chosen for the AWD was it was a well known radar for integration with SPY-1 and AEGIS. With a new radar a huge amount of work would be needed to make sure they can work together.

If possible some of the space and weight could be used to install additional VLS and move Nulka in to the VLS using the Extensible Launcher or even intergrate VL RAM (Block II).

You wouldn’t be freeing up much weight, probably increasing it. Also the weight margins for more VLS are very different and depending on what types of VLS you are planning. You are not going to fit anymore strike length VLS into a F100 unless you start giving up things like the flight deck and hangar. Plus there is little or no reason to move Nulka into VLS and to acquire RAM. Any VL RAM would replace one of one ESSM within VLS cells and that doesn’t make much sense.

CEA PAR was considered for AWD but rejected because of the marginal capability gain for significant complexity gain. That being said it is very likely that CEA radars will be on the AWDs in their life time. But more likely in the form of AUSPAR to replace SPY-1 as part of a mid life upgrade.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Would it be possible to fit both?

There was talk before about fitting panels for ABM work etc.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Would it be possible to fit both?

Sure but why? You then have to go integrate the CEA PAR with SPY-1 and AEGIS anyway, which is the whole problem.

There was talk before about fitting panels for ABM work etc.

Well you wouldn’t want to fit CEA PAR for BMD because it lacks the range and sensitivity. The US has considered the High Power Discriminator (HPD) X Band phased array as an add on to AEGIS BMD ships but this is a radar based on the TPY-2 and is nothing like the CEA PAR. It was rejected in the end because this kind of capability is now provided via the network.

For the RAN with only a terminal BMD requirement – yet unendorsed by Govt. – such a mid course BMD radar is overkill. Anyway you couldn’t fit it to an F100 unless you took out the hangar.

 

[Volkodav]

For starters you can’t replace the SPG-62 illuminators with CEA MOUNT illuminators. Well you can but you will hugely slash the range at which targets can be illuminated. Also for a ship with SPY-1D(V) the difference in horizon search and track between a two face rotating SPQ-9B and the CEA PAR is quite small. And to justify this marginal improvement you would have to develop an entirely new integrated radars combat system. The reason SPQ-9B was chosen for the AWD was it was a well known radar for integration with SPY-1 and AEGIS. With a new radar a huge amount of work would be needed to make sure they can work together.



You wouldn’t be freeing up much weight, probably increasing it. Also the weight margins for more VLS are very different and depending on what types of VLS you are planning. You are not going to fit anymore strike length VLS into a F100 unless you start giving up things like the flight deck and hangar. Plus there is little or no reason to move Nulka into VLS and to acquire RAM. Any VL RAM would replace one of one ESSM within VLS cells and that doesn’t make much sense.

CEA PAR was considered for AWD but rejected because of the marginal capability gain for significant complexity gain. That being said it is very likely that CEA radars will be on the AWDs in their life time. But more likely in the form of AUSPAR to replace SPY-1 as part of a mid life upgrade.

Thanks for your input, I will be sure to pass it on to the CDG at the next opportunity as well as have the CEA radars removed from the growth plan.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

as well as have the CEA radars removed from the growth plan.

Yeah CDG are itching to get those CEA PARs into the AWD. LOL.

 

[Volkodav]

Yeah CDG are itching to get those CEA PARs into the AWD. LOL.

Tell you what Abraham, why don't you join the Navy and work your way to an appropriate rank, or get a job within the defence industry, or appropriate arm of government, obtain the necessary technical skills to work on the project as well as all the required clearances (security, ITAR, FMS) and look see for yourself. Do all that and we could have a relevant discussion on the matter.

Another option is you could wait a decade and see what eventuates as the growth plan starts to come into play (no guarantees of what will and won't get up), twenty years for a book on the project, or thirty years for project documentation to be released.

Of course you could just follow form and exercise your master black belt in "one ups man ship", by ridiculing and knocking anything put forward by anyone who appears to have some knowledge you don’t.

I have read a great many of your posts and it is clear you have an admirable level of knowledge of a wide range of topics, however your arrogant treatment of others in conjunction with a number of statements you have made that I, and I presume others know to be incorrect, make it impossible for me to sort the good from the bad. I am afraid your attitude detracts from any potentially useful or accurate information you may post from time to time.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Tell you what Abraham, why don't you join the Navy and work your way to an appropriate rank, or get a job within the defence industry, or appropriate arm of government, obtain the necessary technical skills to work on the project as well as all the required clearances (security, ITAR, FMS) and look see for yourself. Do all that and we could have a relevant discussion on the matter.

LOL. Nice personal attack mate, pity it makes as much internal sense as your desire to rebuild the AWDs with radars and decoy launchers it doesn't need. Since you are keen on preaching to others about how they should conduct themselves here's something in return:

Develop a thicker skin. If you are going to make suggestions about how things should be done in Defence then be ready to have them criticised. Since you currently can't handle that perhaps you should keep your mouth shut? Or you can act like an adult and realise that criticism is not a challenge to your ego or existential existence but a means as to which thoughts and ideas are sharpened to a level to which they can be implemented.

 

[Volkodav]

LOL. Nice personal attack mate, pity it makes as much internal sense as your desire to rebuild the AWDs with radars and decoy launchers it doesn't need. Since you are keen on preaching to others about how they should conduct themselves here's something in return:

Develop a thicker skin. If you are going to make suggestions about how things should be done in Defence then be ready to have them criticised. Since you currently can't handle that perhaps you should keep your mouth shut? Or you can act like an adult and realise that criticism is not a challenge to your ego or existential existence but a means as to which thoughts and ideas are sharpened to a level to which they can be implemented.

Ah you selected option three no surprise really as your reply to me on this was almost identical to those you have made to others who have dared to question your attitude. My ego has nothing to do with it as I know what I know, however your need to put any new member who appears to have any knowledge on a topic back in, what you see, as their place displays more than a little ego, if not some degree of an “alpha male” mind set, not to mention a lack of maturity.

I am not referring only to the couple of exchanges we have had on this site but to a pattern of behaviour I have observed by you on multiple sites and many different participants over a period of years. You initiate the exchange by responding to a post by another member, which was often not intended for you at all, dismissing their comment and them. You proceed to bait and niggle until you get a personal response when you bring out “…. criticism is not a challenge to your ego…..” rapped in insults and abuse. You keep going until a moderator steps in when you kowtow to the moderator and protest that it is all the other members fault for not being as “clever” as you and their lack of understanding of defence…….

What is written on the net stays on the net, if anyone needs proof of what I have said just, Google "Abraham Gubler" and read a selection of discussions across various sites, it is enlightening.

Just to make it very clear, the replacement of elements of the AWD system with lighter more capable, more reliable systems over time within a growth plan is not my idea, it is a requirement on the project as a whole. It is not my job to come up with these concepts, nor to determine if they are practicable or achievable, it is also definitely not my role to decide to go ahead if everything else lines up, then again that is not your job either.

You, sir, are a journalist, not a defence professional. You undoubtedly have a high level of skill in research; however, unless I am greatly mistaken you have never served in the ADF, nor worked in any technical capacity on any defence or other project. You are an observer and commentator, yet in your hubris you seem to believe you know more than individuals on here know about the matters they work on and come across day to day.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What is written on the net stays on the net, if anyone needs proof of what I have said just, Google "Abraham Gubler" and read a selection of discussions across various sites, it is enlightening.

Your point being? Oh yes you make allegations about some inadequacy in my comments but offer no evidence to back them up. Sure I know I’ve pissed off a lot of people like yourself. Its called talking truth to power. You may not like to have facts injected in opposition to your opinion and you may think I have no right to do so. But that is simply a problem you have.

This is an open forum and I’m concerned that many casual readers don’t get misinformed reading comments that are not factual. So I offer alternative comments based on what I have learnt and can deduce. Comments which you apparently haven’t even bothered to read in their full, as in this case over the AWD growth plan. If you had you’d have noticed that I’ve already said the things you appear to be presenting here as some kind of counter to what you think I wrote…

Just to make it very clear, the replacement of elements of the AWD system with lighter more capable, more reliable systems over time within a growth plan is not my idea, it is a requirement on the project as a whole. It is not my job to come up with these concepts, nor to determine if they are practicable or achievable, it is also definitely not my role to decide to go ahead if everything else lines up, then again that is not your job either.

Absolutely and if you’d bothered to read my post rather than jump straight into your attempt to discredit me you would find out that this is not something I disagree with. I wrote some of the first articles about AWD growth plans four years ago. But the things you suggest are within the growth plan are those that aren’t.

Please you think you’re the first person to ask the question why not fit CEA FAR into the AWD? I asked that question four years ago and of the program executive manager who explained to me why it wasn’t high on their list. I’ve passed that insight on to this forum and others years ago and repeated it again for your special benefit.

Not that you appeared to notice as you were busy trying to cut me down.

You, sir, are a journalist, not a defence professional. You undoubtedly have a high level of skill in research; however, unless I am greatly mistaken you have never served in the ADF, nor worked in any technical capacity on any defence or other project. You are an observer and commentator, yet in your hubris you seem to believe you know more than individuals on here know about the matters they work on and come across day to day.

You are greatly mistaken about this and many other things. I have served and I have worked and I am working. From reading your introduction post this service/work is in positions of far more complexity and responsibility than you. And certainly in the Army I learnt something you didn’t: not to run crying every time I get told what's what.

You may call it hubris but I’m yet to see you offer a single countering point of fact or analytical credibility. You claim things like replacing the Mk 99 weapon system’s SPG-62 illuminators with the CEA MOUNT which anyone with more than a passing knowledge of radar knows is totally bogus. Like saying you can replace a Double B truck with a HiAce.

Communication by internet text only significantly heightens the appearance of emotional dislike and conflict. Especially where there is disagreement. Your petty personal attack on me from the thin shelter of your online alias is a low and distasteful act motivated by an exaggerated sense of suffering. If you could get over yourself and move on you might actually learn and contribute something positive.

 

[StobieWan]

Not to get into the personality issue but just to ask as I'm curious - what's the difficulties in replacing those illuminators with CEA FAR? If it's been discussed before then just point me in the right direction so I can read the earlier discussion - or if you can summarise easily, that'd be really interesting for me. I don't really understand how they work and it's a subject I'm getting to grips with a tiny fact at a time,

cheers

Ian

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not to get into the personality issue but just to ask as I'm curious - what's the difficulties in replacing those illuminators with CEA FAR? If it's been discussed before then just point me in the right direction so I can read the earlier discussion - or if you can summarise easily, that'd be really interesting for me. I don't really understand how they work and it's a subject I'm getting to grips with a tiny fact at a time,

Sure. Firstly the CEA illuminator is called the CEA MOUNT, CEA FAR is the radar, the illuminator only transmits RF (radio frequency) and does not receive it so can't provide a track of the target. But the big difference in performance between a SPG-62 and the CEA MOUNT is antenna gain. This is the intensity of transmitted RF in a particular direction or in other words the power of the illuminator. The higher the gain the longer the range of the illuminator.

SPG-62 is in the 10kW class whereas CEA MOUNT is 2-5 kW. Only the lower power medium range CEA MOUNT (1 sqm antenna) has been developed with a long range 2.5 sqm antenna proposed. Even with the long range antenna it could only provide terminal guidance for SM-2 BIII not the extended range SM-2 BIV or SM-6. (Note: figures for first gen CEA MOUNT, as fitted to the ASMD using smaller arrays)

There are advantages in the CEA MOUNT particularly its lack of mechanical components. It doesn’t exactly save much weight, the medium range antenna still weighs 1,200 kg or almost 5 tonnes for four of them. By being a fixed array it has much less maintenance requirements and is less likely to have a breakdown. But by being a phased array radar (so it can be fixed) it has issues with dissipating heat that hopefully will be solved with the AUSPAR program. Which will allow much higher power versions to be developed.

The SPG-62 is a powerful illuminator, so powerful it’s a weapon in its own right. It will be sometime before phased array illuminators are ready to replace them. For the AWD this is likely in a major mid life upgrade around 2030-2035 in which most of its radars will probably be replaced.

 

[StobieWan]

Sure. Firstly the CEA illuminator is called the CEA MOUNT, CEA FAR is the radar, the illuminator only transmits RF (radio frequency) and does not receive it so can't provide a track of the target. But the big difference in performance between a SPG-62 and the CEA MOUNT is antenna gain. This is the intensity of transmitted RF in a particular direction or in other words the power of the illuminator. The higher the gain the longer the range of the illuminator.

SPG-62 is in the 10kW class whereas CEA MOUNT is 2-5 kW. Only the lower power medium range CEA MOUNT (1 sqm antenna) has been developed with a long range 2.5 sqm antenna proposed. Even with the long range antenna it could only provide terminal guidance for SM-2 BIII not the extended range SM-2 BIV or SM-6.

There are advantages in the CEA MOUNT particularly its lack of mechanical components. It doesn’t exactly save much weight, the medium range antenna still weighs 1.2kg or almost 5 tonnes for four of them. By being a fixed array it has much less maintenance requirements and is less likely to have a breakdown. But by being a phased array radar (so it can be fixed) it has issues with dissipating heat that hopefully will be solved with the AUSPAR program. Which will allow much higher power versions to be developed.

The SPG-62 is a powerful illuminator, so powerful it’s a weapon in its own right. It will be sometime before phased array illuminators are ready to replace them. For the AWD this is likely in a major mid life upgrade around 2030-2035 in which most of its radars will probably be replaced.

Ah, I see - just to check my understanding on two points:

As an emitter only, this wouldn't be so much of an issue if coupled with a beam forming MFR, like CEA-FAR or say, SAMPSON? I'm guessing that you need something of a rapid and accurate update to keep any illuminator pointed in the right direction, be it transmissions from the 62 itself or cueing from some other radar system?

Range wise, the gain difference- would everything be fine for say, guiding ESSM?

My questions spring from a post I saw on another board in which someone suggested that the issues with Seaviper could be fixed by junking the system entirely and selecting ESSM, which would presumably need an illuminator. I wasn't convinced it'd be either straight forward or advisable but that's totally off topic of course.

Cheers for the answer, it's been very helpful,

Ian

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As an emitter only, this wouldn't be so much of an issue if coupled with a beam forming MFR, like CEA-FAR or say, SAMPSON? I'm guessing that you need something of a rapid and accurate update to keep any illuminator pointed in the right direction, be it transmissions from the 62 itself or cueing from some other radar system?

Ohh yeah. The SPG-62 and the CEA MOUNT only work integrated with a phased array tracking radar that provide them with the information where to point their beam. There was some talk a while ago off adding a receiver to the SPG-62 to provide excellent littoral target tracking but improvements to SPY-1D made it not so necessary.

Range wise, the gain difference- would everything be fine for say, guiding ESSM?

Yep, CEA MOUNT as built to date is customised for the ESSM so providing a terminal illumination capability out to the horizon.

My questions spring from a post I saw on another board in which someone suggested that the issues with Seaviper could be fixed by junking the system entirely and selecting ESSM, which would presumably need an illuminator. I wasn't convinced it'd be either straight forward or advisable but that's totally off topic of course.

ESSM has been integrated with the AIM-120 seeker as the (SLAMRAAM-ER) so potentially could provide an Aster 15 replacement without the need for terminal illumination. But such a replacement would also be a very big task because you would also have to integrate the radar mid course update for the new missile. Without mid course update an active homing missile like Aster or AIM-120 is not very effective. The RN is pretty much stuck with PAAMS/Aster/Sea Viper and has to make a go of it.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Abe,

Perhaps it's best if you call some of your industry contacts before you make any more a fool of yourself. You are misrepresenting an Australian company's products and therefore misleading everyone else.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Perhaps it's best if you call some of your industry contacts before you make any more a fool of yourself. You are misrepresenting an Australian company's products and therefore misleading everyone else.

Yeah right. Care to actually point out where I am misleading? Or just like your mate 'wolfhound' are you just interesting in mud slinging?