Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

At last! We finally have ONE good reason why we purchased the Skandi Bergen.

Wait up, we don't have any minesweeping drones, damn! Oh hell, we removed the heave compensated crane.

That blew it:

All the new stuff is sized in at around ~10 tonnes so you don't need a heavy lift ship. And the RAN did have three mine sweeping drones (MSD 01-03) in service during the 90s and they were only 7m cats.

Here is the project (SEA 1778):

SEA 1778 | Defence Capability Plan 2011

Here is the kind of future MCM capability and how it will be in modules:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005umv_auv/tuesday/mons.pdf

 

[icelord]

No it won't. The new mine hunting gear replaces the low sig boat with unmanned systems that have low sigs. So the SEA 1180 vessel is just a mother ship for a bunch of minehunting boats that go into the minefield like a Huon would have. This gear is being brought for the LHDs and will eventually replace the Huon class.

Makes sense, my bad

Is this part of the defence departments mindset that the minewarfare branch will be back to full operational capability in 6 years with the purchase of the OCV that we have not even ordered?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Is this part of the defence departments mindset that the minewarfare branch will be back to full operational capability in 6 years with the purchase of the OCV that we have not even ordered?

The actual OCV program probably isn't as important for the minewarfare branch as SEA 1778. This program will acquire the first MCM modules and they will go to sea on the LHDs. It is very likely that the MCM capability for the SEA 1180 OCV will just be additional LHD modules. It is kind of moving the minewarfare personnel from having their own boats to operating like naval aviation with 'flights' that deploy onto ships.

 

[ASSAIL]

All the new stuff is sized in at around ~10 tonnes so you don't need a heavy lift ship. And the RAN did have three mine sweeping drones (MSD 01-03) in service during the 90s and they were only 7m cats.

Here is the project (SEA 1778):

SEA 1778 | Defence Capability Plan 2011

Here is the kind of future MCM capability and how it will be in modules:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005umv_auv/tuesday/mons.pdf

Thanks for that info on the ROV's AG I hadn't seen that before.

My comment on the SK B was more tongue in cheek and related to the German 100 ton units mentioned by Kato.

The AQS 14/24 system in the LHD is interesting however, do they have; a) the control range to operate them in the required clearance areas from the ships standoff position and b) have we allowed adequate C4 facilities in the LHD's to conduct MCM whilst all else is breaking loose?

The reason I ask is that many posters have said that the C4 in the LHD's is inferior to that of Bill & Ben.

 

[kato]

All the new stuff is sized in at around ~10 tonnes so you don't need a heavy lift ship.

Sure, although that largely depends on what capabilities you want to deploy. You can't pack target-simulation based influence sweeping into a 10-ton catamaran for example. And you'll be very limited with any other baiting.

Don't get me wrong though, the RAN approach of pure minehunting works in the context and theaters where the RAN is likely to deploy. And that's what counts.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sure, although that largely depends on what capabilities you want to deploy. You can't pack target-simulation based influence sweeping into a 10-ton catamaran for example. And you'll be very limited with any other baiting.

Don't get me wrong though, the RAN approach of pure minehunting works in the context and theaters where the RAN is likely to deploy. And that's what counts.

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. The current MCM USV approach is to use RHIBs that have considerable engine power. Apart from being used to tow the dyads they provide lots of electrify to operate influence simulators. You might not be able to replicate large merchant ships but certainly up to destroyer size should be no problem. The system design is for both hunting and sweeping.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The AQS 14/24 system in the LHD is interesting however, do they have; a) the control range to operate them in the required clearance areas from the ships standoff position and b) have we allowed adequate C4 facilities in the LHD's to conduct MCM whilst all else is breaking loose?

The concept is for a series of shipping containers and USVs (ROV RHIBs) for sweeping and hunting and UUV/CDT for disposal and low profile hunting. The containers will be fitted with all support and C4 gear. The only thing the mother ship will need to provide is floor space, hotel services, antennas and hoisting capability for the boats. So the LHD’s combat system will not have to do the MCM work so shouldn’t be burdened by it. The comms range of these USVs and UUVs are pretty long. The in service WLD-1 RMS has over the horizon comms range and can go autonomous and then update when within comms range. Future systems are planned with high band width satcom for continuous high data flows. These unmanned sweepers and hunters are likely to go further away from friendly ships than conventional manned minehunters who need protection from air, sea and land based threats.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/RMS-brochure.pdf

 

[StevoJH]

How do they compare to current platforms with regards to sea state operational restrictions? I notice the RHIB was limited to sea state 3 and below?

Could an LHD at the centre of a mine warefare task group carry a couple of dozen of these USV's?

 

[icelord]

The concept is for a series of shipping containers and USVs (ROV RHIBs) for sweeping and hunting and UUV/CDT for disposal and low profile hunting. The containers will be fitted with all support and C4 gear. The only thing the mother ship will need to provide is floor space, hotel services, antennas and hoisting capability for the boats. So the LHD’s combat system will not have to do the MCM work so shouldn’t be burdened by it. The comms range of these USVs and UUVs are pretty long. The in service WLD-1 RMS has over the horizon comms range and can go autonomous and then update when within comms range. Future systems are planned with high band width satcom for continuous high data flows. These unmanned sweepers and hunters are likely to go further away from friendly ships than conventional manned minehunters who need protection from air, sea and land based threats.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/documents/RMS-brochure.pdf

But could you truely see the RAN utilising the LHDs for this operation. A small boat of 30 crew Vs a Large Amphib with 330 core crew, not to mentioned embarked forces...
The Navy is so risk adverse that i would see this as a great PR and capability training, but NEVER EVER operational.
Even if deployed, they would rather sit beyond the horizon then get anywhere close to a area where they would need the capability. Considering i had a CO that would not allow the ships RHIBs to be outside of visual range while testing comms that were designed for that exact purpose, i would have no doubt that there are a few more COs like that.

 

[ASSAIL]

But could you truely see the RAN utilising the LHDs for this operation. A small boat of 30 crew Vs a Large Amphib with 330 core crew, not to mentioned embarked forces...
The Navy is so risk adverse that i would see this as a great PR and capability training, but NEVER EVER operational.
Even if deployed, they would rather sit beyond the horizon then get anywhere close to a area where they would need the capability. Considering i had a CO that would not allow the ships RHIBs to be outside of visual range while testing comms that were designed for that exact purpose, i would have no doubt that there are a few more COs like that.

Here we go again, Skandi Bergen!:dbanana

 

[icelord]

Here we go again, Skandi Bergen!:dbanana

Nope, not going to work. By the time we get the LHD shes in service of customs...cause the DOD is so awesome, and has so much money to throw around that we gave customs a ship...just gave it to them, the damn thing is not even here yet and we have already given it away!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How do they compare to current platforms with regards to sea state operational restrictions? I notice the RHIB was limited to sea state 3 and below?

I actually don’t know that much about these systems so I’m not the person to ask such technical question. Also while a typical minehunter can no doubt sail in sea states over 3 I’m not so sure they could successfully tow sweeps, scan sea floors and deploy ROVs and divers.

Could an LHD at the centre of a mine warefare task group carry a couple of dozen of these USV's?

The LHD is not going to be part of a mine warfare task group. The idea of Phase 1 of SEA 1778 is to provide an organic MCM capability to the amphibious task group. So the LHD’s MCM drones will be providing clearance for the amphibious boats going ship to shore. They could carry loads of USVs/UUVs if they had to but the typical number looks like three with a spare.

But could you truely see the RAN utilising the LHDs for this operation. A small boat of 30 crew Vs a Large Amphib with 330 core crew, not to mentioned embarked forces...
The Navy is so risk adverse that i would see this as a great PR and capability training, but NEVER EVER operational.

The LHD isn’t going to be doing anything different to what it would be doing without the MCM capability deployed. It’s just a few extra RHIB sized boats they will be launching and recovering from time to time. It won’t require the LHD to sail closer to shore or further to operate. The MCM USVs/UGVs will go off and do their thing.

Even if deployed, they would rather sit beyond the horizon then get anywhere close to a area where they would need the capability. Considering i had a CO that would not allow the ships RHIBs to be outside of visual range while testing comms that were designed for that exact purpose, i would have no doubt that there are a few more COs like that.

If that CO ends up in command of an LHD then the whole amphibious capability is screwed. That is until the army storms the bridge and throws him overboard so the ship’s LCMs are allowed to sail to shore to unload supplies. One thing about an unmanned boat is the risk of its crew drowning is rather significantly reduced. So one might expect a higher risk margin for its operation.

 

[kato]

Also while a typical minehunter can no doubt sail in sea states over 3 I’m not so sure they could successfully tow sweeps, scan sea floors and deploy ROVs and divers.

Most minesweepers and -hunters are built to operate in at least a limited scope up to sea state 4, usually depends on the ROV used. Including the current RAN units. 'sweepers towing gear becomes complicated at sea state 3 already.

 

[mankyle]

Could anyone please confirm what we're hearing here in Spain that the RAN is going to lease the new Spanish AOR Cantabria A15 for one year WITH spanish crew included so they can asses the good and bad points of the design?

I mean I have been hering the rumour for one week and seeing that the Aussie Navy needs two or three Replenishment oilers.

 

[StingrayOZ]

That's an interesting rumour. Seems unlikely.

However, a short term lease, with some crew to stay on as trainers that speak english/spanish, isn't out of the realm of possibilities. Crazier things have happened.

My guess someone is assessing possible options and that is one of the options. Doesn't mean its going to happen. If we were to buy the A15 then we would need to assess it, that might mean it heads to Australia for a look over for short period of time and operates on an exercise with our navy. I would imagine the Spanish would be keen to get a sale, having it sitting in Sydney harbour/training with the RAN is one way to push for a sale.

 

[icelord]

Could anyone please confirm what we're hearing here in Spain that the RAN is going to lease the new Spanish AOR Cantabria A15 for one year WITH spanish crew included so they can asses the good and bad points of the design?

I mean I have been hering the rumour for one week and seeing that the Aussie Navy needs two or three Replenishment oilers.

i know an officer part of the team looking at future replishment units, ill make a call later today and see what the story is.
Id agree with stingray that its more having it sail for say 2 week review by RAN, much like what occured with the F100 in 2008 when it stopped by for visit at FBE.

I actually don’t know that much about these systems so I’m not the person to ask such technical question. Also while a typical minehunter can no doubt sail in sea states over 3 I’m not so sure they could successfully tow sweeps, scan sea floors and deploy ROVs and divers

Most MHC units dont sail outside of sydney if its too rough, let alone considering sea state...

If that CO ends up in command of an LHD then the whole amphibious capability is screwed. That is until the army storms the bridge and throws him overboard so the ship’s LCMs are allowed to sail to shore to unload supplies. One thing about an unmanned boat is the risk of its crew drowning is rather significantly reduced. So one might expect a higher risk margin for its operation.

Hes one of the most qualified navigators in the fleet, and i know his aim is to be CO of Canberra...f**k i hope not!

 

[ASSAIL]

Hes one of the most qualified navigators in the fleet, and i know his aim is to be CO of Canberra...f**k i hope not!

Its about what you'd expect from a N specialist! (with the proviso that "many of my friends are")

They spend their entire lives learning something that all Executive branch officers learned in 3 years (not sure if that's still the case).

The rest of us expanded to learn relevant warfighting skills while the N stood around on the bridge with his head firmly planted up the CO's ar....e, looking after his division of 1, only to be promoted early because the CO, usually a N specialist didn't have a clue.

The view from an ex PWO ASW:duel

 

[icelord]

Its about what you'd expect from a N specialist! (with the proviso that "many of my friends are")

They spend their entire lives learning something that all Executive branch officers learned in 3 years (not sure if that's still the case).

The rest of us expanded to learn relevant warfighting skills while the N stood around on the bridge with his head firmly planted up the CO's ar....e, looking after his division of 1, only to be promoted early because the CO, usually a N specialist didn't have a clue.

The view from an ex PWO ASW:duel

Ive been in that division of 1....^_^

Ive worked for 7 Navs now, and 2 i would go to war alongside, 4 i would work for, and 1 i would stand on the bridgewing with a lifejacket on at all times...

Having seen the work they do, there is some degree of good knowledge and fighting needed to ensure theres a good link between a PWO and N, but this guy has no PWO knowledge other then course, and is just hopeless with his people skills.

 

[brolgaboy]

All the new stuff is sized in at around ~10 tonnes so you don't need a heavy lift ship. And the RAN did have three mine sweeping drones (MSD 01-03) in service during the 90s and they were only 7m cats.

Here is the project (SEA 1778):

SEA 1778 | Defence Capability Plan 2011

Here is the kind of future MCM capability and how it will be in modules:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005umv_auv/tuesday/mons.pdf

LOL none of that has even made it to first pass, (someone will correct me if it has) even if it has, no money has made it to the end user who still borrow the R100 from DSTO. Project Neptune (realignment of CD and MW branches) has been put on the backburner. Whilst it is all a good plan our inability to action anything is a joke. The kiwis are light years ahead of the RAN in the use and integration of lightweight AUV's.

Long live the next senate estimates committee hearing, what was bad last time they met is a lot worse...............

 

[salthorse]

A quick note to ponder on the notion of 'arm's length' MCM:
1. The first minestrike/ minefind means you are in the minefield;
2. What happens when an autonomous system breaks down in the minefield?
3. How long does it take for autonomous systems to sweep/ hunt to 80%+ clearance compared to a high definition/ short range, ahead looking, MCM sonar?
4. Can sidescan (SSS) or multi-beam detect at range and positively classify contacts through multi-aspect prosecution and then reacquire?
5. Can SSS detect buried mines?
6. Have SSS enthusiasts forgotten about the blind spot in the water column during search?
7. What's your confidence on entering a threat area if you haven't conducted pre-cursor magnetic acoustic sweeping?

...something to think about