Any thought being given to Helicopter MCM? I believe there were trials conducted with FAA Seakings in the 80s or 90s. Considering that we will have the LHDs and the future OCV is intended to have helo facilities would helos be an option to form part of the future MCM capability?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Answers
1. 100% right, the whole idea of an offensive minefield is that your enemies don't know where it is.
2. Send another in, cheaper than a MH, less risk.
3. Without getting into the weeds, generally slower as the data needs to be collected, downloaded, processed and anaylised. Some systems is a 1:1 others 2:1 per mission hour or longer. Whereas organic MCM happens as you go, but then the "man is in the minefield".
4. Yes, well and truely, but current doctrine does not allow it.
5. Yes, but the same as shipborne sonar, depends on bottom type and amount of burial etc.
6. It is called the Nadir and can be overcome by using alternating track spacing.
7. Pretty low but that's the CATF's problem with risk. "All ships are minesweepers once" LOL.
nfloorl:One thing about USV based MCM compared to MHC based is you can leverage numbers to make up for the lack of platform capability. So rather than a single sonar and single sweep per MHC you can have a couple of USVs doing a simultaneous sonar scan with all sonar measurements fused together by the acoustic processor. When sweeping you can have a couple of USVs each towing influence sweeps so you can get past logic based mines (leave the first target alone as that’s the minesweeper).
Now say you add two SEA 1180 boats with MCM modules to an amphibious task force then you could have at least 12 USVs plus several UUVs (and CD) and maybe even some MCM fit outs for UAVs. That’s going to be better than one or two MHCs that arrive late (8 hours per day of transit) because they can’t keep up with the task force (14 knots vs 20 knots).
Now say you add two SEA 1180 boats with MCM modules to an amphibious task force then you could have at least 12 USVs plus several UUVs (and CD) and maybe even some MCM fit outs for UAVs. That’s going to be better than one or two MHCs that arrive late (8 hours per day of transit) because they can’t keep up with the task force (14 knots vs 20 knots).
To all intents and purpose, the LHD's in that role become an outposted version of JOC
Canberra & Adelaide
Speaking of the LHD's, there are some updated pics of both from our Spanish friends
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver Foro - Royal Australian Navy
Canberra is on the move from where she has been for several months, not sure why, have not been able to find any info on the purpose of the move. You can see in the pics that water is pumping, also noted smoke coming from the deck/superstructure area, assuming it would be from the gen's to keep things going during the move ?
Pic of Adelaide is not too exciting, but shows the first section of the ski jump in position
Cheers
Speaking of the LHD's, there are some updated pics of both from our Spanish friends
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver Foro - Royal Australian Navy
Canberra is on the move from where she has been for several months, not sure why, have not been able to find any info on the purpose of the move. You can see in the pics that water is pumping, also noted smoke coming from the deck/superstructure area, assuming it would be from the gen's to keep things going during the move ?
Pic of Adelaide is not too exciting, but shows the first section of the ski jump in position
Cheers
In prep for platform (ie hull) based acceptance tests.
No CEC. It does have integrated Link 11,16 and VMF + host of encrypted/open channel voice, data and Satellite comms. The basis is there, but CEC is not on any RAN platform that I am aware of.
Correct, the first platforms with CEC will be the AWD's. Do you have any info on what testing they will be conducting on Canberra ? I am assuming it is a contractual requirement prior to floating to Oz
Cheers
I assume it would be a lot of system activation, they would want to have seawater and firefighting up and running at least before the trip out, perhaps internal coms too.
Yes. In Spain or Australia ? Only general info can be provided.
Yes, as part of a staged test / acceptance program and contractual obligations of Navantia for handover.
Just what they are doing at the moment, and anything else you may have for what they will be doing prior to floating to Australia. Just more curious as to what has been fitted and what testing they will do
Cheers
Thanks Samoa,
I was trying to understand the quality of the theatre picture available to CTF embarked and whether or not a CEC composite could be transmitted to the Commander.
This would be even more critical in a joint (multi national) operation and would include the JLENS component and the Marine equivalent.
I'm a bit out on a limb here as I really have exceeded my competency!
Tee_Centre_10
Member
I'm no expert in these matters, but given the lack of PD weapons systems and associated sensors on the LHDs, there is probably little immediate need for CEC. It simply doesn't have anything that adds to the composite picture, unlike USN LHD/LHAs for example.
The embarked TF commander wouldn't need to fuse the incoming data from other platforms with that generated onboard the LHD, but would require an already fused picture from an escort/s (such as an AWD, AWACS or later a FF), for which Link11/16 would be sufficient.
Not saying there is no need for CEC, but it could come at a later date and enabling the LHDs to become nodes in a wider CEC network.
The embarked TF commander wouldn't need to fuse the incoming data from other platforms with that generated onboard the LHD, but would require an already fused picture from an escort/s (such as an AWD, AWACS or later a FF), for which Link11/16 would be sufficient.
Not saying there is no need for CEC, but it could come at a later date and enabling the LHDs to become nodes in a wider CEC network.
The architecture of the C4I on LHD lends itself to providing a COP (Common Operating Picture) to all users on the LHD, be that to the PWO in the Ships Ops Room via conventional tactical picture for management of ownship defence, or to a embarked forces commander for planning and control of landing forces both air and amphib from the JOR (Joint Ops Room). While the LHD has only limited organic sensors and little firepower, it still has a comprehensive comms suite which includes the latest in data link capabilities, which is all the is really needed to perform its role. CEC has two basic capabilities, the first is a process by which it can create a real time high quality situational awareness picture by fusing own ship sensor data and that provided by remote platforms (for example other vessels within a TG, or air surveillance platforms of even data via SATCOM). The second relates to engagement, either launching of weapons or taking control of weapons (ie long range missiles) launched from a remote platform. The LHD really only performs the first role of what could be called CEC.
I'm not sure what your reference to JLENS is about, as this is just a specific sensor (Aerostat) which could act as one of those "remote platforms" I referred to above. In an ADF application this would be an AWAC. If the ADF LHD was part of a multi-national TF, then it would be able to partake in nets via Datalink (ie. Link 16) and share the COP data. This data would then be displayed in the other vessels native Combat System, for example AEGIS.
Tee-Centre_10 has the right idea, but with one small correction.
Dependant on a platforms role it's Combat Systems can "choose" to receive or transmit data on specific targets to the net. All assets are effectively sharing a common "fused" picture or really the data from which a "fused" picture can be locally presented on that platforms Combat System. For the LHD it still would use it's own Combat System to co-ordinate all planned operations, ie own ship defence, helo operations, amphib embarkment, etc.
Hopefully all of that wasn't too confusing, I probably haven't quite explained it with all the common Naval terminology.
She looks fantastic, even incomplete.
I thought the AWD will coordinate fleet defence while LHD will oversee the rest of the operation. Kinda what the USN does with its carriers.
I thought the AWD will coordinate fleet defence while LHD will oversee the rest of the operation. Kinda what the USN does with its carriers.
Part of the sea basing idea is that the land force commander can stay on the boat. There won’t be a conventional rear area ashore with the various combat teams operating independently. All of their logistics will stay at sea with ‘in time’ resupply and the like. A huge cultural change so don’t bank on it but supposedly possible.
That will make force protection much easier against most adversaries, very hard to hit a landing craft or helicopter with an IED or RPG. It will be interesting if once the LHDs are in service if the ADF looks to a UAV for logistics support as the USMC is intending to do.
I haven't read any detailed info on the theory so stand to be corrected but this "sea-basing" idea as thought up by the ADF seems to be in lala land.
Anything other than a small scale/short term deployment will fall on its ass as soon as it gets tried anywhere outside a TS exercise. Leaving the commander on the ship could have a comms advantage but would make face-to-face reporting a nightmare.
And logistic support would be far more difficult needing to move every supply convoy off and on the LHD. And with no "rear area" they would effectively have to be able to fight their way ashore for every trip.
Logistically this just doesn't seem to stack up and thats to put it nicely.
Is there any published info on the details behind this?
Anything other than a small scale/short term deployment will fall on its ass as soon as it gets tried anywhere outside a TS exercise. Leaving the commander on the ship could have a comms advantage but would make face-to-face reporting a nightmare.
And logistic support would be far more difficult needing to move every supply convoy off and on the LHD. And with no "rear area" they would effectively have to be able to fight their way ashore for every trip.
Logistically this just doesn't seem to stack up and thats to put it nicely.
Is there any published info on the details behind this?
- Status