Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

One cannot be so dismissive of the overall capability an ASW carrier could bring to the RAN, freeing up valuable spots/room on the LHD for more heavy equipment or utility/heavy lift helicopters. Just to dwell on a single possible loadout of 8 Harrier/F35B for the Italian light carrier Cavour is plain wrong.

One only has to look at the RN Invincible class ASW carriers. The percentage of STOVL/helicopters aircraft differs pending on the mission set at the time of deployment, it may be heavy on ASW light on strike ASuW (12xHarrier, 10xSea King, 1xMerlin) or heavy strike ASuW but light on ASW (18x Harrier, 3x Sea King 1x Merlin).That type of flexibility would be needed for the RAN task force, but under exiting budgets is a luxury the RAN cannot afford at the demerit of the exiting surface/subsurface fleet.


As you know about our contribution to East Timor, in the early days the RAAF had bombed up aircraft on alert, also the Marines had a MEU on board the USS Peleliu stationed off the Timorese coast, it would be interesting to find out the response time those 6 Harriers would be compared to RAAF air support if needed by those on the ground.

There seems to be a point which has been missed. The LHD's as already designed could potentially by used as an ASW helicopter carrier. The limitations which the RAN would have in operating the Canberra-class LHD's as such are two-fold.

The first being whether the internal configuration for the LHD's would provide sufficient fuel and munitions stores to sustain helicopter operations.

The second is whether there would be sufficient naval helicopters for an LHD to operate as a helicopter carrier.

According to various sources, a Canberra-class LHD can carry between 16 - 24 helicopters. Depending on the source one uses, a the Cavour can operate up to 30 aircraft while usually operating 8 Harriers and 12 EH-101 Merlins (from wiki...) while another source (Naval Technology) lists the Cavour's aviation complement as an either 8 Harriers/JSF OR 12 EH-101 Merlins...

Either way, unless things change significantly the RAN is only going to have 24 MH-60R Seahawk naval helicopters, in order to ensure that there are 8 naval helicopters available at any given time for deployment. Given that a Canberra-class LHD is a high value purple asset, it would be escorted to, from and in potentially hostile areas. Basically any op where having naval helicopters present would be valuable, there will be surface escorts present to do so. It is certainly possible that one of them (the LHD's) could be carrying additional Seahawks as part of its helicopter complement, but I really cannot forsee the RAN operating one as a helicopter carrier, since that would basically require all other RAN surface assets to be without a naval helicopter.

Given that the future surface fleet is looking like 3 AWD's, 8+ large FFG's, and up to 20 OCV's which might be helicopter-capable, deploying most/all RAN Fleet Air Arm assets aboard a single vessel seems rather risky.

Speaking of the OCV's...

Remember, SEA 1180 is at present supposed to be a providing an Offshore Combatant Vessel... However, it AFAIK has not been mentioned just how combat capable the OCV's are supposed to be.

It is worth looking at the following SEA 1180 Senate submission here.

Basically the submission suggests the possibility of a Role A/B and a different but related Role C/D design, with maximum commonality of systems between the vessels.

Unfortunately what still has to be determined, is just how capable the OCV is desired to be.

My personal preference would be for the OCV would be to have it highly capable in certain fitouts, with it understood that such fitouts would not be 'the norm' across the fleet.

I would start with a basic, steel mono-hulled design of ~100 m length and of ~2,000 tons displacement. Something which would be fairly typical for an OPV, but I would have it designed as a proper warship, and not just as a constabulary vessel. I would require the design to have a dedicated helipad and hangar with helicopter magazine.

The basic design would have some fairly sophisticated sensors, covering navigation and air/surface search radars as well as at least one (preferably more) illuminator, E/O sensors and hull-mounted sonar, SATCOMM and Link 11/Link 16 capability.

My preference in base weaponry would be for a pair of 35mm Millenium Guns, one each fore & aft.

I would also want the design capable of hosting containerized modules, whether these are modules from the USN's LCS programme, or Danish Stanflex modules, would need to be determined. My preference at this point would be for Stanflex modules, but this might be dependent on capability requirements.

AFAIK Stanflex modules cover a 76mm/62 cal. OTO-Breda (or is it -Melara now?) rapid fire gun, 8 Harpoon AShM, Mk 48 Mod 3 VLS for 12 ESSM SAM's, a LWT launcher and minelaying and MCM gear.

At the high end of the range, I could see the value in the OCV mounting four such modules in addition to the base kit. This could allow an OCV to be detailed to a RAN task force to provide MCM, but not require quite as much protection as a Huon-class MHC would against surface and aerial threats. An OCV kitted out with a 'high end' configuration could potentially be used as a close escort for AOR and sealift entering a theatre of operations, with a gun for surface threats, 12-24 ESSM for aerial threats, and LWT for ASW.

What could also potentially be interesting, would be for a mission deck to be included which could fit ISO containers for medical ops, additional quarters for an embarked force, and/or act as a RoRo vehicle deck for lightweight vehicles.

-Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

There seems to be a point which has been missed. The LHD's as already designed could potentially by used as an ASW helicopter carrier. The limitations which the RAN would have in operating the Canberra-class LHD's as such are two-fold.

The first being whether the internal configuration for the LHD's would provide sufficient fuel and munitions stores to sustain helicopter operations.

The second is whether there would be sufficient naval helicopters for an LHD to operate as a helicopter carrier.

According to various sources, a Canberra-class LHD can carry between 16 - 24 helicopters. Depending on the source one uses, a the Cavour can operate up to 30 aircraft while usually operating 8 Harriers and 12 EH-101 Merlins (from wiki...) while another source (Naval Technology) lists the Cavour's aviation complement as an either 8 Harriers/JSF OR 12 EH-101 Merlins...

Either way, unless things change significantly the RAN is only going to have 24 MH-60R Seahawk naval helicopters, in order to ensure that there are 8 naval helicopters available at any given time for deployment. Given that a Canberra-class LHD is a high value purple asset, it would be escorted to, from and in potentially hostile areas. Basically any op where having naval helicopters present would be valuable, there will be surface escorts present to do so. It is certainly possible that one of them (the LHD's) could be carrying additional Seahawks as part of its helicopter complement, but I really cannot forsee the RAN operating one as a helicopter carrier, since that would basically require all other RAN surface assets to be without a naval helicopter.

Given that the future surface fleet is looking like 3 AWD's, 8+ large FFG's, and up to 20 OCV's which might be helicopter-capable, deploying most/all RAN Fleet Air Arm assets aboard a single vessel seems rather risky.

Speaking of the OCV's...

Remember, SEA 1180 is at present supposed to be a providing an Offshore Combatant Vessel... However, it AFAIK has not been mentioned just how combat capable the OCV's are supposed to be.

It is worth looking at the following SEA 1180 Senate submission here.

Basically the submission suggests the possibility of a Role A/B and a different but related Role C/D design, with maximum commonality of systems between the vessels.

Unfortunately what still has to be determined, is just how capable the OCV is desired to be.

My personal preference would be for the OCV would be to have it highly capable in certain fitouts, with it understood that such fitouts would not be 'the norm' across the fleet.

I would start with a basic, steel mono-hulled design of ~100 m length and of ~2,000 tons displacement. Something which would be fairly typical for an OPV, but I would have it designed as a proper warship, and not just as a constabulary vessel. I would require the design to have a dedicated helipad and hangar with helicopter magazine.

The basic design would have some fairly sophisticated sensors, covering navigation and air/surface search radars as well as at least one (preferably more) illuminator, E/O sensors and hull-mounted sonar, SATCOMM and Link 11/Link 16 capability.

My preference in base weaponry would be for a pair of 35mm Millenium Guns, one each fore & aft.

I would also want the design capable of hosting containerized modules, whether these are modules from the USN's LCS programme, or Danish Stanflex modules, would need to be determined. My preference at this point would be for Stanflex modules, but this might be dependent on capability requirements.

AFAIK Stanflex modules cover a 76mm/62 cal. OTO-Breda (or is it -Melara now?) rapid fire gun, 8 Harpoon AShM, Mk 48 Mod 3 VLS for 12 ESSM SAM's, a LWT launcher and minelaying and MCM gear.

At the high end of the range, I could see the value in the OCV mounting four such modules in addition to the base kit. This could allow an OCV to be detailed to a RAN task force to provide MCM, but not require quite as much protection as a Huon-class MHC would against surface and aerial threats. An OCV kitted out with a 'high end' configuration could potentially be used as a close escort for AOR and sealift entering a theatre of operations, with a gun for surface threats, 12-24 ESSM for aerial threats, and LWT for ASW.

What could also potentially be interesting, would be for a mission deck to be included which could fit ISO containers for medical ops, additional quarters for an embarked force, and/or act as a RoRo vehicle deck for lightweight vehicles.

-Cheers

But.........such a ship would be a waste of resource for border protection. We can't get away from the fact that the normal NORCOM operations are ideally suited to the Armidales/Cape class including sustainment from DNB.
Trying to keep a capable larger ship trained and motivated in combat skills is almost impossible in the border protection role.
SEA 1180 poses an interesting dilemma for our planners and I frankly don't see it resolved without splitting to 2 x hull classes. The cost benefits of commonality are defeated by the manning and running costs IMHO.

 

[t68]

Todjeager

I agree with what you have said, under the current budget it is just a no go. In past posts over the last couple of days, I mentioned the fact that additional surface platforms would also bring an additional burden on the helicopter fleet or lack of it.

A light carrier in RAN colours is a nice to have, but not at the expense of the rest of the ADF.

 

[alexsa]

These are very attractive craft, seem to fulfill many of the requirements and are locally built. All are attributes that would have won me over in the past.

But I am slowly getting better educated by other members of this forum. I understand that aluminium construction is more expensive, higher maintenance and shorter life than steel. And that building to civilian HSC standards means a lesser seakeeping ability.

Could such a vessel, if optimised for lower speeds, be built from steel to a higher standard. Would the cost of such a rework be prohibitive.

It seems the Tri hull does confer some benefits over a mono hull eg: larger flight deck, wider mission bay and stern ramp.

I like the idea of mulitrole abilities in second line units,( hence a fondness for the Absalon class as well).

While I would never advocate that the RAN stop training and equipping for a full scale conflict, the fact is that for over 60 years the majority of fleets activities have been in a low threat enviorment. This is likely to continue for the near future.

Even in Korea, Vietnam and The Gulf only a small portion of the navy was involved at any one time.

The use of these smaller, less capable craft would free up the major fleet units and allow for working up and deployment as required.

DWT of this unit is only 400 tonnes on 80m - and that is for the 25mm not a 57mm as chown in their glossy shots. the modules will detract from thist as will all the fuel, crew, PAX, stores etc etc etc..... not forgetting the 111 tonne helo and all its fuel stores etc etc.

And you are correct on the hull limitations. This vessel is really best suited for northern operations and would be limited compare to a more robust hull if it were tasked to cover southern operations.

 

[aussienscale]

It was considered for the AWD for close in surface defence. I too have a lot of time for the 57mm but believe the 76mm to be a better option for a larger vessel as the OCV appears to be heading towards.

Had not heard of that before with regards to the AWD ? Could have been interesting.
I agree with what you are saying about the 76, do you know if there is similar ammo available for the 76 ? That would change the ball game, I dont see why BAE could not move the 3p into the 76mm round

 

[alexsa]

But.........such a ship would be a waste of resource for border protection. We can't get away from the fact that the normal NORCOM operations are ideally suited to the Armidales/Cape class including sustainment from DNB.
Trying to keep a capable larger ship trained and motivated in combat skills is almost impossible in the border protection role.
SEA 1180 poses an interesting dilemma for our planners and I frankly don't see it resolved without splitting to 2 x hull classes. The cost benefits of commonality are defeated by the manning and running costs IMHO.

And I am not altogehter convinced that all the hydrographic tasks would be best carried out by such a compromise although having that capability gives more bang for buck as other ships can carry out the role. Having a small number of designed and dedicated vessel to carry out the majority of the grunt work makes sense.

This idea seems to run the same risk the LCS has and that is if the module (particularly the MCM role) provies to be a flop you have real problems. To have a ship that can be rapidly configures to a number of roles does impose a weight penalty as the ability to change out modules requires structure/laod/unload and securing systems. It is also noteable that the Senate paper refers to an ASW roles as well and t simply adds to the complication, hence the suggested two types I guess.

A single type would appear to run a high risk of compromising the abiltiy of the the OCV to be completely capable of any role. However, looking at the base requirements you wouel ahve to concluded that the OCV idea is mooted based on northern ops (leaves a bit of a hole down south and raises the question of how capable it would be deployed in rought conditions) and is based onthe the MRV80 concepts based on para 35 in the senate paper (noting the MRV concept predates the OCV idea).

This list of requirements should get a few people scrating their heads as the 'sustained speed' of 24 knots in sea state 3 is hardly stellar. Sea state 3 is 0.5 to 1m wave height. Woo Hooo. Again this appears to suggest the thought process are aimed at operations almost exclusively above the red line in figure 1 with no more real patrol capability than that offered by the ACPB..... except for the air capability and ability to a greater number of carry additional persons.

And here, I do have another issue........................ the air capabiltiy only has value if we have the air assets to provide this. A Romeo would be over kill and a lighter wieght type would help where top weight and load capacity are an issue, however based on 20 OCV, 8 ANZAC/ANZACII, 3 AWD and the 2LHD not to mention the desitre to see vertrep on the AOR's (lets say 34 to 35 decks) the Romeos and NH90 aircraft available will be wholly inadequate to the task even if only half the ships carried a helicopternoting these too have training and maintenance requirements. However, there is nothing in the concept or project to include such increased capability. If this is not provided you might as well delete the hanger and save weight as the deck will simple be a land on spot and used for the small UAV's we are at least using.

Finally-

1. Navy do not have the sole responsibltiy for boarder protection but this type of ship should fit inot that role with no issue, particualry if it has a UAV and/or helicopter capability............ not holding my breath on the latter.

2. As noted in paragraph 1 this idea replaces 26 vessel with 20. While it will be an improvement over the ACPB and Survey launches I am yet to be convined that it will work for the larger hydrgrpahic ships or MCM. If we look at LCS the MCM mission moduel includes RHIB's, RMS systems, UWUAV and at least 1 MH-60S for search and sweep. This all relies upon intergration with these systems with the LCS systems and there is a great deal of cost and complexity (and risk) in this noting the MH-60 carried RAMICS is still in doubt even for LCS (this may have changed). The weight of these systems is not to be sneezed at either. Teh senate paper appears to suggest we will look at a full stand off capabiltiy but if we go the whole LCS mission module hog the MCM vessel may actually appear cheap.

Rant over.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We still have the old 76mm from the retired ships?

The Italians have some trick 76mm stuff I think. However I don't know if it can be fired from those old guns. 76mm might be overkill. A round not suited to littoral engagement where you might have other friendly assets nearby.

We have 5" guns. Given the role, something small but precise might offer something more suitable more of the time.

 

[ADMk2]

Had not heard of that before with regards to the AWD ? Could have been interesting.
I agree with what you are saying about the 76, do you know if there is similar ammo available for the 76 ? That would change the ball game, I dont see why BAE could not move the 3p into the 76mm round

Oto Melara provide similar anti-air, anti-surface and extended range ammunition types for the 76mm, including a 76mm Vulcano variant currently under development. Oto has the 76mm 3A Plus (programmable fuse system).

http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/f...siness/naval/development/spoletta_3a_plus.pdf

And a new 76mm Vulcano round:

Oto Melara Introduces a 76mm Version of Vulcano Multi-Mission, Long Range Naval Projectile Technology | Defense Update

There is also an Oto Melara 76/62mm variant that operates as a standalone system for the DART anti-air module called the Strales, that integrates a standalone radar guidance system on the turret, meaning the vessels combat system only has to provide target position and stabilisation data. The gun system takes over from there and can self guide DART and can handle anti-surface and Vulcano extended range munitions as well...

OtoMelara - Medium Calibres

It seems as if they offer a pretty comprehensive range of combat solutions from their 76mm range, that shouldn't really break the bank for what is afterall meant to be a combat vessel...

 

[ADMk2]

We still have the old 76mm from the retired ships?

The Italians have some trick 76mm stuff I think. However I don't know if it can be fired from those old guns. 76mm might be overkill. A round not suited to littoral engagement where you might have other friendly assets nearby.

We have 5" guns. Given the role, something small but precise might offer something more suitable more of the time.

Yep they can all be fired from our in-service 76/62 guns, the turret shields would need to be replaced for some of the solutions though, particularly the Strales radar command guidance system for the DART anti-air round, unless the vessel had some other form of suitable fire control system on-board that could guide the round, in which case we could use our existing guns as is, I believe with only some modification needed to the ammunition feed system.

Not sure exactly what you mean by the 76mm round not being "suitable" for littoral engagements?

If you are referring to engagements against light attack craft or terrorist craft of some sort, I think this system is probably not the most efficient cost wise, sure, but it would certainly be effective. The 76mm Vulcano round for instance is to be fitted with GPS/INS guidance as well as a semi-active laser guidance system (similar to Hellfire) so I'm not sure how you get much more precise than that...

Littoral doesn't only refer to these types of operations however and I'm sure regardless of the solution chosen for OCV that 12.7mm guns will be included in the capability and they most definitely are the RAN (and most navies, let's face it) choice for close in self-defence capability.

What it provides, beyond the capability of a small calibre weapon is serious anti-air, anti-surface and NGS capability at ranges beyond those our current 127mm guns can provide (if equipped with 76mm Vulcano) and at a significant rate of fire. For attacking shorelines, coastal installations and for surface action roles etc, this weapon is infinitely superior to any smaller calibre weapon that I am aware of.

As others have pointed out, other options exist too, such as the BAE 57mm Mk 3/Mk 110, which appears to be an excellent weapon, though I'm not sure it's "more" capable than the 76mm solutions, though it may require less hull penetration and be suited to smaller craft and moving the systems between ships, but that would be introducing a new round of ammunition into service (admittedly, the 30mm DSI and 76mm would likely have been removed from service by then) as well as all the stuff you need to get the capability from the system including fire control, sensors and combat system integration anyway.

I don't see it as much cheaper, especially when one considers we have the guns, turrets and systems we'd need to use 76mm guns for a large number of the vessels anyway and we manufacture 76mm ammunition domestically at the current time.

(As we do with 25mm. I'm rather surprised we haven't replaced the 30mm DSI guns, and sold them and the ammunition off and use the left over 25mm Typhoons from Manoora / Kanimbal on the Minehunters and reduce our ammunition logistical burden but anyway, never mind...)

I don't envisage ALL of the proposed OCV fleet being equipped with such a weapon all of the time, just as not all of our vessels carry Phalanx CIWS etc all of the time.

The only issue there, would be the relative ease of moving the weapons between vessels when necessary, in which case the 57mm Bofors Mk3, might have an advantage...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was just trying to prove a point in that post, im not saying we need a carrier. I was saying why are we getting 2 LHDs if we are only defending Australia and if we were only defending and aircraft carrier would be more of use.

The strategic policy of Australia is not just continental defence, nor has it been for over 10 years. The national strategy includes expeditionary operations (ie amphibious) in medium intensity environments to preserve regional and global security.

As to how this fits into the RAN having an aircraft carrier it is a touchy point. Because the threat level the Government wants the RAN to be able to go out into and lodge an amphibious force realistically requires considerable TACAIR support. The RAAF can provide this within a certain radius of an air base (and 600 NM is being very, very generous, try 200 NM) and the Navy is investing several billions in capabilities to replicate some of a carriers capability (SM6, LACM). The cruncher being of course the Government does not have the money and/or a cost efficient Department of Defence to acquire a proper carrier capability. But realistically from an operational analysis perspective the future RAN needs at least a light carrier (like HMS Invincible) with a suitable air wing to provide survivability for the amphibious deployment and sustainment capability against medium intensity threats.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But.........such a ship would be a waste of resource for border protection. We can't get away from the fact that the normal NORCOM operations are ideally suited to the Armidales/Cape class including sustainment from DNB.

Operations have shown the ACPB has a range of limitations in border protection missions. Key being the lack of endurance, organic aviation to fill the target track gap between volume search detection and interception, and a lack of accommodation for intercepted wannabe refugee visa holders. A larger SEA 1180 vessel would presumably solve all these problems.

 

[weegee]

All this talk of the RAN with a light carrier (even thought it won't happen) say we were getting one what would be the reaction be around South East Asia? Every country seems to have something to say about China getting theirs in the water and running around finally, would it be the same for the RAN as well? or does size matter in this instance? a light carrier is acceptable but a heavy one is not?

 

[SASWanabe]

its got nothing to do with the fact someone is getting a carrier, or the size.

it has everything to do with Chinas relationship with its neighbours. which isnt good.

Australia is on great terms with pretty much everyone, most of our "Neighbours" would welcome Australia buying a carrier. even India who is really the only competition in the indian ocean.

 

[gf0012-aust]

most of our "Neighbours" would welcome Australia buying a carrier. even India who is really the only competition in the indian ocean.

no they don't and no they wouldn't.

the problem here is that people are looking at carriers through the prism of a strike platform, when if there is any need, it would be around the construct of an ASW TF.

that too is a long way out of actual needs due to the need for at least 3 of type .

there is some serious underestimation of what it costs to deploy and sustain a carrier - whether it be a strike platform, ASW, as a defacto helicopter carrier or as an expeditionary capital asset.

 

[Volkodav]

Had not heard of that before with regards to the AWD ? Could have been interesting.
I agree with what you are saying about the 76, do you know if there is similar ammo available for the 76 ? That would change the ball game, I dont see why BAE could not move the 3p into the 76mm round

Did some more checking and I was wrong, this was not the case. I got my wires crossed, added two plus two and got seventy six!

Then again DDG 1000 has a pair of SAK 3s as secondary gun armament, the Italian Audace class had four 76mm as well as a pair of 5", the Durand de la Penne have three Super Rapido 76mm (used as CIWS), while the Horizon Class AWDs ship a pair of Super Rapidos as their primary gun armament that was originally intended to be secondary prior to the deletion of the medium calibre gun forward of the VLS (for cost reasons).

With the latest generation of guided projectiles having a secondary gun armament could be seen as a general purpose replacement for smaller calibre CIWS, RWS and even RAM (or similar) VSRAD. The new non penetrating light weight Super Rapido (50 rounds on mount) looks very interesting as a close in defence option.

 

[ASSAIL]

Operations have shown the ACPB has a range of limitations in border protection missions. Key being the lack of endurance, organic aviation to fill the target track gap between volume search detection and interception, and a lack of accommodation for intercepted wannabe refugee visa holders. A larger SEA 1180 vessel would presumably solve all these problems.

I agree that the boats are not perfect but they are a good compromise between cost and capability.
Their cruise endurance of 3,500 nms (15kts) is reasonable, the lack of organic air is mitigated by the efforts of Coastwatch who provide almost continuous coverage and I can't see us ever having the the funding to provide aircraft for each vessel on patrol.

The aft spartan accommodation for 20 was unuseable for some time but I assume they have rectified the toxic fume situation? and if so, this is OK for illegal fishing etc and is supplemented by the accommodation provided at Ashmore Reef by Guardian and Trident. As Ashmore is the epicentre of large illegal boatloads, I suspect that this ameliorates the problem of capacity in the ACPB's

We have to assume that this surge in refugees will not continue at the same level for decades so designing future requirements will reflect that.

I would like to think that by accepting less on the PB's, the others can be more highly capable.


In summary, I agree with you that there are some shortcomings, but having commanded a predecessor, these look like Park Lane

BTW The Huons hulls will last way beyond the planners hopes. I have three large 35-50 mtr hulls (built in Japan in controlled environment) in the fleet I ran, the oldest 1974, the youngest 1989. Their hulls are stronger than the day they launched, there is no hull preservation work apart from filling the occaisional ding. We painted them once every seven years. Never seen osmosis in all this time!
Therfore, if Navy wanted to keep them its simply a matter of keeping the sensors and machinery current

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Their cruise endurance of 3,500 nms (15kts) is reasonable, the lack of organic air is mitigated by the efforts of Coastwatch who provide almost continuous coverage and I can't see us ever having the the funding to provide aircraft for each vessel on patrol.

The problem with air capability is not for detection but sustaining a track until the ship can get onsite. The Coastwatch asset detects the target and identifies it but rarely can it stay overhead until a patrol boat is on the horizon. But with organic air a nearby patrol corvette can get a LUH onto the track before the volume search asset has gone or before the target can get too far away to be easily picked up. The LUH then sustains the track until the patrol boat has eyes on the target. Otherwise if the target wants to get away it’s a simple matter of changing course once the Coastwatch asset has gone and the sea is big and it is unlikely the patrol boat will find them until the next time a Coastwatch asset comes around.

 

[ASSAIL]

The problem with air capability is not for detection but sustaining a track until the ship can get onsite. The Coastwatch asset detects the target and identifies it but rarely can it stay overhead until a patrol boat is on the horizon. But with organic air a nearby patrol corvette can get a LUH onto the track before the volume search asset has gone or before the target can get too far away to be easily picked up. The LUH then sustains the track until the patrol boat has eyes on the target. Otherwise if the target wants to get away it’s a simple matter of changing course once the Coastwatch asset has gone and the sea is big and it is unlikely the patrol boat will find them until the next time a Coastwatch asset comes around.

Again, you are right by degree, remember these are travelling at 4-6 kts and you don't go far between Coastwatch passes. Although the aircraft radars are looking at mainly timber vessels, downward looking radar is far more effective than surface radar and can usually detect them at 20 miles in clear weather. Thats an effective search area of 1260 sq nms at any given moment. At 4 kts heading for a known area that's reasonably easy to relocate.

We can discuss this ad infinitum on detail but my basic proposition remains; if we replace the ACPB's with an improved version, we have more to spend on a war capable OPV/corvette which includes some of the goodies we all want.
Cheers
Chris

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

The problem with air capability is not for detection but sustaining a track until the ship can get onsite.

That being the case, it doesn't necessarily follow that it needs to be a helicopter that maintains contact, as a UAV (as has been mooted) could also undertake the role. This capability could be organic or a high-endurance, land-based Heron-sized UAV.

I'm a bit wary of a helicopter capability as it will end up being the primary driver how large it will need to be. Include a helicopter and the OCV could end up as large as the 1900t RNZN Protector-class OPV, without it and the class may be more like 1000t.
Similarly a flight deck and hanger would cause a significant space penalty on the design, limiting the mission/workspace down aft for the various mission modules the class is supposed to carry.
What helicopter type would it be, as a helicopter the size of the MH60R is expensive to buy, operate and house (in terms of onboard space). If a smaller LUH is used that is an additional type for the RAN and ADF to operate (or common to Air 9000Ph7?) and the choice of small marinised helicopters isn't large either.

A helicopter may have other very useful capabilities (such SAR and boarding) but on a vessel the size of the OCV the space, weight and cost penalties to land and hanger a helicopter would be high. And it isn't just the additional direct operating costs of a larger design to be accounted for, but associated helicopter operating costs and the costs of upgrading Darwin and Cairns to berth, maintain and support the larger design.

You'd want to do a serious cost/benefit analysis of whether it is worth it.

 

[ancientcivy]

That being the case, it doesn't necessarily follow that it needs to be a helicopter that maintains contact, as a UAV (as has been mooted) could also undertake the role. This capability could be organic or a high-endurance, land-based Heron-sized UAV.

I'm a bit wary of a helicopter capability as it will end up being the primary driver how large it will need to be. Include a helicopter and the OCV could end up as large as the 1900t RNZN Protector-class OPV, without it and the class may be more like 1000t.
Similarly a flight deck and hanger would cause a significant space penalty on the design, limiting the mission/workspace down aft for the various mission modules the class is supposed to carry.
What helicopter type would it be, as a helicopter the size of the MH60R is expensive to buy, operate and house (in terms of onboard space). If a smaller LUH is used that is an additional type for the RAN and ADF to operate (or common to Air 9000Ph7?) and the choice of small marinised helicopters isn't large either.

A helicopter may have other very useful capabilities (such SAR and boarding) but on a vessel the size of the OCV the space, weight and cost penalties to land and hanger a helicopter would be high. And it isn't just the additional direct operating costs of a larger design to be accounted for, but associated helicopter operating costs and the costs of upgrading Darwin and Cairns to berth, maintain and support the larger design.

You'd want to do a serious cost/benefit analysis of whether it is worth it.

Why does it have to be a full sized helo with the associated weight and size issues? Should'nt the RAN investigate the possible aquistion of the US Navy Fire Scout rotary UAV,which could provide the surveillance capabiliy for a smaller patrol vessel, plus incorporate weapons delivery systems ?

Additionally, given that the US forces are looking at payloads of up to 200 kilos, I wonder if it could be fitted to drop sonorbuoys, partially answering the problem of providing an aws module for a larger OCV. Indeed it may be an asset with applications throughout the entire fleet not just in future sea1180 vessels.