Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

Nope.

The Canberra class (should have been Australia class) have all the Aviation capability they will ever need.

Can you honestly say we'll ever see the pair of them with a full load of Helicopters aboard simultaneously? That would be >50% of the ADF's total helicopter inventory.

With two fully operational Canberra's at sea (assuming a 3rd is purchased) does the Aus military have the army assets to fill them and still maintain other defence commitments? Can you realistically see a scenario where both would be fully loaded (tri-service) and sent on extended operations?

What does current Aus operational planning allow for - 1 x Brigade sized tri-service grouping on indefinite operations (rotated every six months)? I would be interested to hear what size unit and supporting arms each Camberra could sustain?

 

[StevoJH]

From memory the requirement was for a 1000 man (err, person) reinforced battlegroup including all supporting elements spread over the two ships.

That may have changed now though with the procurement of Largs Bay and the enlarging of the budget for the sea lift ship.....

 

[ADMk2]

Booo. I don't trust Wiki and usually go to "official" websites for info. But in this case, Wiki trumps the RAN website. I also like Gobalsecurity.org and FAS.org.

The question remains though: ESSM + Phased Array Radar versus SM-1/2 + older radar. Which is more capable?

Different capabilities and not directly comparable. The ANZAC is likely more capable at fending off ASM's, but then it hasn't got a weapon designed for extended range air defense.

FFG's the other way around.

Hopefully both ships are deployed on any Ops to get the best of both worlds...

 

[Volkodav]

Different capabilities and not directly comparable. The ANZAC is likely more capable at fending off ASM's, but then it hasn't got a weapon designed for extended range air defense.

FFG's the other way around.

Hopefully both ships are deployed on any Ops to get the best of both worlds...

Will the ANZACs be getting CEC?

Is CEAMOUNT compatable with SM-2?

Is there enough stability to permit the short VLS from the FFGs to be retro fitted to four of the ANZACs for ESSM leaving the full length cells for SM-2 etc?

 

[Bonza]

Will the ANZACs be getting CEC?

Is CEAMOUNT compatable with SM-2?

Is there enough stability to permit the short VLS from the FFGs to be retro fitted to four of the ANZACs for ESSM leaving the full length cells for SM-2 etc?

From what I've read from other posters on this site and others, stability has been an issue (or at least an important factor) with the ANZACs before, hasn't it? I seem to recall it being mentioned in connection with both the Harpoon upgrade and radar refit... sounds like it could possibly be a problem, and I wonder if the potential SM-2 payload would be worth it - unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't the present VLS onboard limit the payload to eight missiles?

I'm not qualified to make a properly informed comment, but I just thought I'd mention it as I believe I recall stability issues having been mentioned before.

 

[OpinionNoted]

UCAVs - I'd say not
URVs - a better chance

urv?...underwater reconnaisance vehicle?

 

[ADMk2]

From what I've read from other posters on this site and others, stability has been an issue (or at least an important factor) with the ANZACs before, hasn't it? I seem to recall it being mentioned in connection with both the Harpoon upgrade and radar refit... sounds like it could possibly be a problem, and I wonder if the potential SM-2 payload would be worth it - unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't the present VLS onboard limit the payload to eight missiles?

I'm not qualified to make a properly informed comment, but I just thought I'd mention it as I believe I recall stability issues having been mentioned before.

Yep stability and top weight has been an issue with the ANZAC's, one of the reasons, or so I believe why the Australian ships have never had Phalanx fitted...

The Mk 41 fitted to the ANZAC's at present is the strike length VLS system. It could accomodate SM-2's but are 8 worth it? It has space for another 8 cells but from my understanding no longer has the margin to accomodate the additional cells, due to Harpoon and "other" equipment fitted up high on the ship.

Given the ESSM has the range capability that the SM-1 had anyway, plus it's anti-ship missile capability it seems the more worthwhile investment...

 

[Jhom]

urv?...underwater reconnaisance vehicle?

I´d place my bet on Unmanned Reconnaisance Vehicle, but I really think that the 2 Canberras will carry some sort of fixed wing "thing" sooner or later...

And according to the third Canberra that somebody mentioned above... that would pay my new house, I really hope that 3rd LHD comes to reality, it would literally save
the Ferrol shipyard...

 

[Volkodav]

Yep stability and top weight has been an issue with the ANZAC's, one of the reasons, or so I believe why the Australian ships have never had Phalanx fitted...

The Mk 41 fitted to the ANZAC's at present is the strike length VLS system. It could accomodate SM-2's but are 8 worth it? It has space for another 8 cells but from my understanding no longer has the margin to accomodate the additional cells, due to Harpoon and "other" equipment fitted up high on the ship.

Given the ESSM has the range capability that the SM-1 had anyway, plus it's anti-ship missile capability it seems the more worthwhile investment...

Stability is the issue hence my question. It was just a thought of what to do with the short VLS from the Adelaides. Maybe two ANZACs could replace their single strike length VLS with a pair of short ones from the FFGs.

CEC would give the ANZACs to ability to direct an FFGs SM2s if CEAMOUNT is compatable while the Adelaides are still in service.

On the numbers side I remember reading (when I was at uni 20 odd years ago so don't ask for the reference ) there was an aspiration in the late 60s to have a total of 23 destroyers and frigates and a two ocean navy.

The DDL was initially planned to be a class of ten and following its cancellation it was invisaged that we would buy / build an eventual total of ten FFGs. Australia was also involved in the design of the RN AMAZON Class FF at about this time so I wonder if the intention had been to have 3 DDG, 10 FFG/DDL and 10 AMAZON.

During the 80s the plan was for 8 teir 1 ships (DDG/FFG), 8 teir 2 (Patrol Frigates) and 12-15 Teir 3 (patrol craft / OPV) this was stuffed up first by going overboard on the ANZACs and then by a change in PM then government which saw the plans change with the DDGs retired without replacement, the FFGs put through an expensive upgrade and a number of attempts to upgrade the ANZACs into front line assets as opposed to their original intended role.

Events following 2000 have resulted in the order of 3 AWDs in a belated recognition that the previous attempts to upgrade the FFGs and ANZACs have not delivered the required capability.

While it is true we have not operated more than a dozen major surface combatants since WWII the intention to increase numbers has been there quite consistantly through the post war period and was revisited following the discarding of the carrier capability in the early 80's. Additional helicopter equiped FFGs were intended to replace the carrier and its aircraft.

 

[gf0012-aust]

urv?...underwater reconnaisance vehicle?

Unmanned Rotary Vehicle - eg RMAX Firescout etc...

The terminology is changing internally though, as UAS is being used in far nmore official documents to articulate UAV, UCAV, TUAV as the construct on doctrine focuses on the system

Unfort UAV is likely to stay in general terminology as its embedded in the media and publics brains

 

[aussienscale]

From what I've read from other posters on this site and others, stability has been an issue (or at least an important factor) with the ANZACs before, hasn't it? I seem to recall it being mentioned in connection with both the Harpoon upgrade and radar refit... sounds like it could possibly be a problem, and I wonder if the potential SM-2 payload would be worth it - unless I'm mistaken, wouldn't the present VLS onboard limit the payload to eight missiles?

I'm not qualified to make a properly informed comment, but I just thought I'd mention it as I believe I recall stability issues having been mentioned before.

As I understand it, yes top weight and stability was a major concern for the CEA upgrade, Not sure how much but Perth did have extra ballast added down low, others may be able to comment on amounts added, the adding of ballast has obvious flow on effects to what can be done in the future

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I understand it, yes top weight and stability was a major concern for the CEA upgrade, Not sure how much but Perth did have extra ballast added down low, others may be able to comment on amounts added, the adding of ballast has obvious flow on effects to what can be done in the future

it was an issue even before the mast change.

a few years back it was a serious discussion issue about whether the superstructure needed lancing due to COG and top heavy issues.

another defective item.... no pun intended....

 

[meatshield]

I was reading about the US looking into small nuc's that can be used to power forward air bases that are set up away from a power supply. These reactors look very small and produce a fair amount of power.

Do you think it would be something the new Australian subs could use as a way to charge batteries as opposed to running diesels. That is they could keep the very quiet as they still use batteries but maybe free up some room because they don't use as big a fuel tank. And still go where a fully nuc boat won't.??

Also it might be easier to sell to the public as it not a full blown nuc! Well maybe??

As you can tell I don't know anything about subs but Ive read that nuc's run 24/7 and are earier to hear than an electric boat.

Or scrap that idea and go for a Virginia class boat?

Please forgive my ignorance in advance.

 

[aussienscale]

I was reading about the US looking into small nuc's that can be used to power forward air bases that are set up away from a power supply. These reactors look very small and produce a fair amount of power.

Do you think it would be something the new Australian subs could use as a way to charge batteries as opposed to running diesels. That is they could keep the very quiet as they still use batteries but maybe free up some room because they don't use as big a fuel tank. And still go where a fully nuc boat won't.??

Also it might be easier to sell to the public as it not a full blown nuc! Well maybe??

As you can tell I don't know anything about subs but Ive read that nuc's run 24/7 and are earier to hear than an electric boat.

Or scrap that idea and go for a Virginia class boat?

Please forgive my ignorance in advance.

Anything even associated with nuclear will not get through parliment, let alone be sold to the Australian public, particulary now that the Australian Greens Party have the balance of power in the Senate So although in practical and operating terms there are many advantages, there are also many disadvantages for us as well in even concidering nuclear.

I have however been a keen fan for some time of us getting a modified Virginia class without nuclear, this has now been touted as a possible outcome for Collins II ?
Time will tell

 

[alexsa]

I´d place my bet on Unmanned Reconnaisance Vehicle, but I really think that the 2 Canberras will carry some sort of fixed wing "thing" sooner or later...

And according to the third Canberra that somebody mentioned above... that would pay my new house, I really hope that 3rd LHD comes to reality, it would literally save
the Ferrol shipyard...

Sorry about this but its Saturday and I have had a week of stakeholders giving be "cunning plans at work" so I could not resist.................... perhaps the extra money would buy an LHA version of the LHD!

 

[StevoJH]

Sorry about this but its Saturday and I have had a week of stakeholders giving be "cunning plans at work" so I could not resist.................... perhaps the extra money would buy an LHA version of the LHD!

:lam

I'm too afraid to ask what government department asked you that question.....

Got be the one of the silliest questions someone could possibly ask on that topic.....though you and gf probably have heard worse.....

 

[icelord]

Sorry about this but its Saturday and I have had a week of stakeholders giving be "cunning plans at work" so I could not resist.................... perhaps the extra money would buy an LHA version of the LHD!

And then when we realise we dont have enough helos to operate off it we would have to buy F35B to fly off it....BRILLIANT! :rel
why hasnt anyone else thought of this....

 

[alexsa]

And then when we realise we dont have enough helos to operate off it we would have to buy F35B to fly off it....BRILLIANT! :rel
why hasnt anyone else thought of this....

Bugger............. my cunning plan has been discovered

 

[peterAustralia]

There was an article in the Age Newpaper today, July 3 2011 by Natalie OBrien. I would add a link but they are not allowed here. In short it says that not one of the 200 illegal entry vessels (refugees / people smugglers, whichever term you prefer) has been detected by the 1.8 billion dollar JORN radar network. Apparently the JORN (jindallee over the horizon radar network) is only designed to look for vessels of the Armidale class and larger, 56m long.

If I recall correctly one boat tied up to the warf in Darwin Harbour and that was the first anyone knew of it.

Perhaps a contributing factor is that these undetected vessels was that they are built of wood as opposed to steel or aluminium (me thinking out loud). and hence give lower radar returns.

Perhaps a cost effective (much less than 1.8 billion) might be an array or fixed unmanned radar stations off the north west coast. Apparently we are to get one on Christmas Island (after about 50 people drowned). If put on a high stand like a tripod and powered by solar panels it could be a useful and cost effecitve addition to JORN. May as well add an air search radar as well. You would need a satellite dish too to pass on data. May as well add some high quality remote controlled TV cameras (both visible and infrared). Say at a height of 70m above sea level (when in an attol) such a setup would provide a useful local reconnaisance capability for modest cost.

On a fixed station, quality of the information would be better than something moving around in a seaway.

One for Christmas Island, maybe one for Heard Island (illegal fishing - surface radar only and wind powered) one for Ashmore reef, one on the NW corner of Melville Island. One in the Torres straight somewhere, one anchored to an attol off the great barrier reef.

There might be a need for a helicopter platform for maintenance. Environmental impact would be modest, cost modest too. Just an idea.

It is not only people coming seeking asylum that are an issue. There is thing called terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal fishing vessels. Quarantine issues would be another reason why detecting small wooden boats whilst at sea would be advantageous

 

[StevoJH]

Our $1.8bn waste: 200 boats sneak in under hi-tech radar

Illegal boats arent the be all and end all. There is a reason that JORN is attached to the Defense Department rather then to Border Protection Command. JORN was not procured to chase people smugglers.

Note:

''The ability to detect surface objects smaller than this is highly improbable, based on one or more factors, including object size, construction, prevailing ionospheric and environmental conditions."

Basically, the very principles by which JORN was designed (bouncing radar signals off the ionosphere) mean that its range and resolution on any specific day depends on the prevailing weather conditions, it has however been 'alleged' that JORN has previously detected American B2 bombers transitting over the North Pacific.

Perhaps a cost effective (much less than 1.8 billion) might be an array or fixed unmanned radar stations off the north west coast. Apparently we are to get one on Christmas Island (after about 50 people drowned). If put on a high stand like a tripod and powered by solar panels it could be a useful and cost effecitve addition to JORN. May as well add an air search radar as well. You would need a satellite dish too to pass on data. May as well add some high quality remote controlled TV cameras (both visible and infrared). Say at a height of 70m above sea level (when in an attol) such a setup would provide a useful local reconnaisance capability for modest cost.

While these systems would be able to monitor the area locally, their range would be hampered by the fact they could only see to the Horizon. As far as I am aware, the primary means BPC use to detect illegal fishermen and boat people is *NOT* with the patrol boats, but rather through use of radar equiped Dash 8's and RAAF AP-3C's. These can cover much larger areas's of ocean in a single sortie then a Patrol boat or Fixed radar could ever hope to do.

My understanding is that the Patrol boats act more as interceptors, responding to target identification notifications from the aerial assets.

Using unmanned stations greatly limits the level of technology you can equip the stations with since they are so vulnerable to outside interference. In addition, if they are using diesel generators to provide power, it could be quite costly keeping them supplied (look at the US's 20 billion dollar electricity bill for the Ghan!).