Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[AegisFC]

Agree it would be doable (by the US, that is, not by Aust on its own; hence the comment about LCS+) - but is it sensible and financially reasonable to try to do it?

I don't see why it wouldn't be doable or overly expensive. South Korea uses an updated and customized version of NTU on their new (and very nice) frigates.
Consolidating the combat system on all your surface combatants has a few training and logistical advantages. If your AWD's and frigates use the same computer enclosures and consoles that simplifies the supply line. Same goes for training, you only need one school for CND techs and console operators.

The USN is moving towards this model, Aegis CND techs can be sent to large deck ships with SSDS since the hardware is almost identical and the ultimate goal is a common console and computer hardware set that can be upgraded and operated the same through out the fleet.

 

[rip]

As a non-Australian I hope that you do not mind if I propose a different approach. One that might be better than the strictly buy it off the shelf with its (cheaper, more reliable, faster) advantages as the only way or trying to customize everything you need to your specifications so as to not only get better kit as you expect to use it, but to also (build up various independent national resources both military and civilian and also keep as much of you hard earned money at home with your people as possible)?

As you know at least in the areas of conventional ground and naval warfare The US has very few technology transfer restrictions with its good ally Australia. We also know that weapons development is a costly, time consuming, and an uncertain enterprise for everybody regardless who they are. When you are pushing the edge, trying to gain quality advantages because it is unlikely that you will have a quantitative one, (putting more money and technology into our weapon so as to save our soldiers’ lives who will probably all most always be out numbered) unexpected problems come up all the time.

Now the US tries to build its weapons to go any place at any time, from ice and snow, to hot deserts, wet jungles, grassy rolling plains, and high mountains. As such they are expensive powerful and very versatile but not necessarily optimized for a particular country’s needs or what a country thinks it needs. I propose a mixed approach to best satisfy your country’s various requirements. Buy off the shelf for your needs when they are close enough to what you want without so much expensive time consuming and uncertain customizing so as just to have Austrian content. And where you cannot buy what you want off the shelf get involved much earlier in the weapons design and development process with other counties as a partner not just as a customer as seen in programs like the F-35. Except it is better to join in ones that are much less complex than that one and have fewer partners.

There is another serious disadvantage to heavily modifying complex equipment that you might want to use. I think you guys are struggling with which helicopter you wish to buy for you tactical naval needs. I haven’t been following it closely but it seems that it hasn’t gone very well. If you buy the same one that the US Navy uses you should also think about this. If some new requirement comes up or some new game changing gadgets is suddenly developed, the US will go through the trouble of incorporating that feature, whatever it might be, in to its almost identical fleet. If you buy a nonstandard, customized helicopter from someone else that does not already have a huge customer base to spread the development costs among that might not be true. Then if you want or need that new capacity you have to buy a whole new aircraft. Now that is expensive choice where you want the helicopters to be effective up to thirty years.

 

[radar07]

X band is horribly attenuated by weather though. Digital beamforming S and L bands at an elemental level should be able to give the accuracy of X band but with the performance and range of S and to some extent L.

as long as x-band terminal illumination is required a x-band aesa mfr is the best choice to do this job.

 

[justsomeaussie]

as long as x-band terminal illumination is required a x-band aesa mfr is the best choice to do this job.

I'm still not convinced. At the key point in time (multiple ASM inbound) when you want maximum situation awareness provided by your MFR, why then task it for terminal guidance on top? (noting ICWI as well) The currant range of L band radars shouldn't be providing much help.

Too bad if it's not a sunny day when someone wants to start shooting at you.

 

[Volkodav]

The latest ANAO audit provides some "interesting" though obviously well known data that I feel is rather applicable to this point.

21 projects are reviewed. 12 projects have schedule delays, 8 are on schedule and 1 is ahead of schedule.

Of those 12 schedule delayed projects, 5 are also significantly "above" budget.

None of the 9 at or ahead of schedule projects (IIRC) are above budget.

Each of the on or ahead (and under budget) projects are MOTS acquisitions. EVERY over schedule and over budget projects are "Australianised MOTS" or "developmental" projects.

Doesn't speak well of Defence Industry (Australian or otherwise). Doesn't speak well of Defence when "scope creep" is largely to blame for schedule delays either, but then "scope creep" couldn't occur if Defence Industry didn't agree to the contract change proposals allowing it to enter into the projects...

To me, the introduction to service of the capability Australia needs to defend herself should be the number 1 priority. Domestic defence Industry investment should NOT be a priority for Government in preference to the delivery of useable capability and developmental projects, especially whilst defence industry is demonstrably unable to deliver on schedule and under budget on existing projects. If work performance improves, the scope and potential profit should improve likewise...

These points are a heresy no doubt, but I fail to understand WHY such a situation continues again and again.

The replacement of SPG-62 with CEAMOUNT etc seems to me to be a case in point. SPG-62 will provide GOOD capability. An EXCELLENT capability in fact. One that the USN is using as it's frontline capability. CEAMOUNT remains developmental. Therefore UNTIL it demonstrates a sound operational capability (as opposed to theoretical development) it should be the province of industry to "prove" it. Defence should concern itself with introducing it's planned capability into service and achieve "professional mastery" of the capability before scope creep or capability upgrade is even considered.

I understand the "cutting edge of technology" issue very well, but defence so often repeats that PEOPLE are the true determinate of capability NOT the platform itself, that it beggars belief that IF this mantra is actually believed then WHY should the platform in the capability acquisition phase, be changed around or re-configured so much during it's introduction to service that the change itself actually and directly impedes the introduction to service...

It's bureaucracy gone mad. Personally I'd rather see ALL current proposals for weapons platforms upgrades/replacements completely halted UNTIL current acquisitions actually give us a useable capability and ALL current project management resources are devoted to delivering the capabilities we already have planned.

Project Overlander is a case in point. Scope creep and operational realities (ie: Army is finally realising that non-protected vehicles can't operate in a modern battlespace littered with IED's, mines and light/heavy anti-armour weapons and are in fact only useful for peacetime training activities NOT operations) have completely stuffed that program, leading to unbelivable schedule delays to what will, at the end of the day, provide ADF with new light and medium utility vehicles, hardly the most technically complex project.

God only knows what someone actually firing modern anti-ship missiles at the ANZAC Class or AWD's would actually do to those platforms...

You nailed it with scope creep and operational realities; whether an acquisition is MOTS, modified MOTS, or indigenous design has far less impact on the health of a project. I would also add political interference, inadequate initial funding and over optimism to the list of root causes.

A properly executed project, be it FMS, local assembly or local design is only as good as our procurement planning and project management. We can and have screwed up MOTS acquisitions too, its just that there is less room for pork barrelling and gold plating so less things that have started off less than optimally.

The real advantage with MOTS is we can shop around and buy the proven gear, even then it can go wrong though, usually when it comes time for depot level maintenance or rectification of unanticipated defects.

The secret is to get something that is good enough in service while it is still good enough to do the job you need done.

 

[jeffb]

The Monthly had a piece on Steven Smith in their November issue that touched on these problems.

"Not only will Smith find no coherent defence policy as he tries to sort out this muddle, he will find a defence organisation – military and civilian – with very little capacity to help him develop one. There are many bright individuals on Russell Hill but the organisation collectively is not well placed to provide clear and cohesive advice on Australia’s future military needs.

This is something of a scandal; imagine if the Treasury could not provide a picture of our long-term economic outlook. There are many internal causes for defence’s policy deficit but the fault lies ultimately with Smith’s predecessors. They did not care that defence couldn’t produce good policy advice because they had no intention of making serious decisions about Australia’s long-term defence requirements.

Instead, they were content to go with the flow, signing up to the projects and programs that emerged from the defence machine – having been nudged along by industry lobby groups – and that lacked any coherent strategic rationale. Smith will find the results in projects such as the Air Warfare Destroyer, a $10 billion white elephant to build three warships with no cost-effective role to play in meeting Australia’s future strategic objectives – though they are much beloved of the navy and the government of South Australia, where they are being built."

 

[justsomeaussie]

You nailed it with scope creep and operational realities; whether an acquisition is MOTS, modified MOTS, or indigenous design has far less impact on the health of a project. I would also add political interference, inadequate initial funding and over optimism to the list of root causes.

A properly executed project, be it FMS, local assembly or local design is only as good as our procurement planning and project management. We can and have screwed up MOTS acquisitions too, its just that there is less room for pork barrelling and gold plating so less things that have started off less than optimally.

The real advantage with MOTS is we can shop around and buy the proven gear, even then it can go wrong though, usually when it comes time for depot level maintenance or rectification of unanticipated defects.

The secret is to get something that is good enough in service while it is still good enough to do the job you need done.

The ANAO report is pretty damning for some projects. I think Steve Gumley has made some good changes to the DMO but it's still taking a long time for those changes to come out. Secretary Gates has finally realised how that ITAR is killing the US so hopefully the AUS/US Defence Trade Cooperation will finally allow FMS cases to go through a lot faster.

I think Defence and Industry is in for some good years with the amount of Defence/Industry integration early on in projects.

 

[Volkodav]

The ANAO report is pretty damning for some projects. I think Steve Gumley has made some good changes to the DMO but it's still taking a long time for those changes to come out. Secretary Gates has finally realised how that ITAR is killing the US so hopefully the AUS/US Defence Trade Cooperation will finally allow FMS cases to go through a lot faster.

I think Defence and Industry is in for some good years with the amount of Defence/Industry integration early on in projects.

The biggest issue is going to be breaking down stovepipes; they exist in industry, public service and the ADF and result in a lot of waste. Equally important is rejigging KPIs and project milestones to encourage overall performance rather than rewarding the insular pursuit of limited goals by individual organisations, groups, or even departments.

Examples; IT get their business systems up and running ahead of schedule and below budget….gold star, good job, give that man a promotion. The trouble is the system doesn’t have the functionality required by the users causing them to miss their milestones and blow their budget when they need to hire contractors to pick up the slack. Supply chain buy all the material they need to buy and meet their KPIs, trouble is the material they ordered is unsuitable for the selected production process, still they met their KPI so pats on the back all round, its production who cops the flack for missing targets because of now needed work arounds.

A bit of consultation, better planning and consideration of the end user is what required but it is also what is missed when everyone is stuck in their silos.

 

[Samoa]

Something that appears to be getting lost in recent discussions is the fact that CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT and in particular the design implementation on an ASMD ANZAC are based around the plaftorms current ESSMs. ie it is matched in range to allow engagement at max range. AWD and AEGIS with it's SPY radar are designed for a longer range and matched to appropriate missiles accordingly. The issue with AWD is it lacks the channels of fire, and hence needs the longer range in order to counter a multiple threat scenario. Since it lacks the diversity of a ASMD solution, it requires time to account for serial engagements to overcome a multiple inbound threat.
Under the next stage of ANZAC ASMD, the use of ICWI with MCG means that parallel engagements can occur and to a very high density. In order to get the Pk up the engagement will occur well within the max range of the ESSM (ie at furtherest range Pk actually goes down). Ofcourse this is up to a point, and hence the 9LV suite optomises the engagement to get PIP at max Pk. All of this means an ASMD ANZAC does not need the range of SPY to defeat an equal or even greater threat as compared to AEGIS and SPY.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Something that appears to be getting lost in recent discussions is the fact that CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT and in particular the design implementation on an ASMD ANZAC are based around the plaftorms current ESSMs. ie it is matched in range to allow engagement at max range. AWD and AEGIS with it's SPY radar are designed for a longer range and matched to appropriate missiles accordingly. The issue with AWD is it lacks the channels of fire, and hence needs the longer range in order to counter a multiple threat scenario. Since it lacks the diversity of a ASMD solution, it requires time to account for serial engagements to overcome a multiple inbound threat.
Under the next stage of ANZAC ASMD, the use of ICWI with MCG means that parallel engagements can occur and to a very high density. In order to get the Pk up the engagement will occur well within the max range of the ESSM (ie at furtherest range Pk actually goes down). Ofcourse this is up to a point, and hence the 9LV suite optomises the engagement to get PIP at max Pk. All of this means an ASMD ANZAC does not need the range of SPY to defeat an equal or even greater threat as compared to AEGIS and SPY.

An interesting thing that seems to be forgotten is that CEAFAR was scaled to its size for ASMD. So it would be an interesting exercise to see its capabilities at a SPY-1D size at 3.7m diameter compared to CEAFAR on Perth at 1.3m. Even the MF STAR is something like 3m

The biggest hurdle for an easily scalable radar such as is this is that people compare it based on the platform just as they would with a non scalable radar.

 

[SASWanabe]

sorry to go off your topic but i was trying to find some construction photos of Hobart and i found this

Royal Australian Navy - Themarshallwiki

most of its a little "Out there" but its an interesting "What if".

 

[Jaimito]

The issue with AWD is it lacks the channels of fire, and hence needs the longer range in order to counter a multiple threat scenario. Since it lacks the diversity of a ASMD solution, it requires time to account for serial engagements to overcome a multiple inbound threat.

Aegis and Spy can track more, can command many more essm or sm2 at the same time, and can fight-sustain electronic warfare much more consistently than Cea (defined by developers as for minor war vessels ).

 

[justsomeaussie]

Aegis and Spy can track more, can command many more essm or sm2 at the same time, and can fight-sustain electronic warfare much more consistently than Cea (defined by developers as for minor war vessels ).

New radar allows 'channels of fire' | The Australian

^^Noting the 4th generation part. SPY-1 is classified ast 1st generation PESA.

AESA Technology - Next Generation Radar - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

As I said before you can't compare the two. SPY-1 is three times the size and has a huge power budget and output.

 

[Samoa]

Aegis and Spy can track more, can command many more essm or sm2 at the same time, and can fight-sustain electronic warfare much more consistently than Cea (defined by developers as for minor war vessels ).

I'm sorry, but this is simply not correct. I can assure you that ASMD has many more channels of fire than an AWD AEGIS and hence can theoretically control many more ESSMs in the air at same time. Sure I agree it doesn't have the range, but it was designed that way. It's not a flaw in the system, like I said it's matched to the capability needs. The issue on ANZAC is that there is only one Mk41 VLS and hence it is possible for the launcher to become quickly depleted in a high intensity engagement.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm sorry, but this is simply not correct. I can assure you that ASMD has many more channels of fire than an AWD AEGIS and hence can theoretically control many more ESSMs in the air at same time. Sure I agree it doesn't have the range, but it was designed that way. It's not a flaw in the system, like I said it's matched to the capability needs. The issue on ANZAC is that there is only one Mk41 VLS and hence it is possible for the launcher to become quickly depleted in a high intensity engagement.

Is there sufficient stability remaining to install a second 8 cell VLS, I know there is space reserved?

 

[Sea Toby]

Is there sufficient stability remaining to install a second 8 cell VLS, I know there is space reserved?

While an eight cell Sea Sparrow may be consumed quickly in a high intensity environment, quad packing Evolved Sea Sparrows won't run out so quickly. Its the whole purpose to quad packing the ESSMs, 32 missiles won't be consumed as quickly as 8 missiles... Plus I doubt seriously whether the Australian navy would send a single frigate into a high intensity environment without other ships in a task force...

 

[Jaimito]

New radar allows 'channels of fire' | The Australian

^^Noting the 4th generation part. SPY-1 is classified ast 1st generation PESA.

AESA Technology - Next Generation Radar - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

As I said before you can't compare the two. SPY-1 is three times the size and has a huge power budget and output.

From that link i see how Ceamount works, it is one fire channel that skips from guided missile to guided missile, so it is a shared fire channel. But Spy has multiple "fire channels" as Radar Basics
and each of these "fire channels" should have the same type of ability as Ceamount (due to computerized controlled beaming) to be shared between guided missiles, which multiplies capacity wrt Ceamount.
To reinforce this note that Spy has 16400 multifunctional elements, while Ceamount has 4x4 tiles in each array, 4 arrays, with 64 elements per tile, so like 4000 guiding elements. Other figure is the 4000-6000 kwatts max Spy output, you can expect all that power is not alltogether just in one "fire channel" :unknown

 

[radar07]

I'm still not convinced. At the key point in time (multiple ASM inbound) when you want maximum situation awareness provided by your MFR, why then task it for terminal guidance on top? (noting ICWI as well) The currant range of L band radars shouldn't be providing much help.

Too bad if it's not a sunny day when someone wants to start shooting at you.

every mfr regardless of it's radar band needs to prioritize, schedule and queue it's tasks. if you use your s-band mfr for mid course update data transmission or high update rate target tracking or kill assesment you will also lose performance on volume search etc.
this is one reason to have two radars instead of one.
and yes the attenuation by rain is higher in x-band than in s-band but on the other hand the resoultion of x-band is better and x-band is preferable for horizon search. each band has pros and cons which is another good reason to have two different radar systems on board.

and as long as you need x-band illumination it doesn't make much sense to use x-band illuminators, s-band mfr's and l-band vsr's. it's more useful to use a x-band mfr either with an s-band mfr (dbr aka spy-3/amdr-s or whatever) or with an l-band vsr (apar/smart-l).

of course if you use active seeker sam's you can also go with s-band mfr and l-band vsr.

 

[Todjaeger]

Is there sufficient stability remaining to install a second 8 cell VLS, I know there is space reserved?

Unfortunately, no there does not appear to be. While space & weight was indeed 'set aside' for a 2nd 8-cell Mk 41 VLS, due to topweight increases (either current or projected), there is no longer sufficient weight, at least where needed, to accomodate 8 more cells. Which is part of the reason why no Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS has been fitted. OTOH, some of the topweight increase has been as a result of quadpacking the ESSM canisters instead of a single missile per canister, per cell. With that in mind, 32 ESSM in an 8-cell VLS is better IMO than 16 ESSM in what amounts to a 16-cell VLS..

-Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

While an eight cell Sea Sparrow may be consumed quickly in a high intensity environment, quad packing Evolved Sea Sparrows won't run out so quickly. Its the whole purpose to quad packing the ESSMs, 32 missiles won't be consumed as quickly as 8 missiles... Plus I doubt seriously whether the Australian navy would send a single frigate into a high intensity environment without other ships in a task force...

Yes, I am aware of the quad pack, what I was interested in is whether there is sufficient stability reserve to fit the second 8 cell VLS that the design has provision for. i.e. increasing the load out from 32 to 64 ESSM.