Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Not much at all - its usually swinging the other way around.... there's a number of reasons why we tend to take the lead
The interest would be in propulsion and energy generation - everything else is covered off and there are better options for those IMO
Ironically had we gone for the T45 with AEGIS and SPY3 as proposed or SPY-1D(v) to de-risk we would have had the perfect modern platform on which to base our future major combatant force. Four AEGIS AWDs followed by four CEAFAR ASW orientated DDG/FFGs, followed by four AUSPAR GP DDGs. Best of both worlds, a superb UK platform with equaly superb US CS and weapons with US/Aust state of the art radars and directors. Plenty of reserve power generation capacity, more than adequate helicopter facilities, economical to run.
I've been on a bit of a LCS binge over the last few days but one of the major things I've learnt is one of the main CONOPS for them is clearing out and maintaining security of the SEA BASE.
Seeing as how the ADF's main warfighting role is likely to be force projection with the 2 x LHD's, establishing and maintaining Sea Bases, I find it odd that SEA 5000 almost ignores these later developments and concentrates on blue water ASW and TLAM.
I know that SEA 1180 toys with the concept but it seems highly unlikely that the 1180 result will be anything other than a souped up ACPB.
If 1180 turns out to be an all singing 2000 ton + ship with the Mine warfare and surface warfare capability the problem will not exist.
I believe we should be carefully reassessing SEA 5000 and SEA 1180 together to make sure they are complimentary. Any serious degrading of 1180 has a huge effect on the force balance, a consideration that hasn't applied to previous patrol forces.
Seeing as how the ADF's main warfighting role is likely to be force projection with the 2 x LHD's, establishing and maintaining Sea Bases, I find it odd that SEA 5000 almost ignores these later developments and concentrates on blue water ASW and TLAM.
I know that SEA 1180 toys with the concept but it seems highly unlikely that the 1180 result will be anything other than a souped up ACPB.
If 1180 turns out to be an all singing 2000 ton + ship with the Mine warfare and surface warfare capability the problem will not exist.
I believe we should be carefully reassessing SEA 5000 and SEA 1180 together to make sure they are complimentary. Any serious degrading of 1180 has a huge effect on the force balance, a consideration that hasn't applied to previous patrol forces.
I was just glancing back to the RAN in 1999, if the same events with ET occured today we would absolutely stuffed. No HMAS Manoora or Kanimbla, all six LCH's gone without a replacement, then there's HMAS Tobroken, the all but problem solving HMAS Choules, three Adelaide class frigates left. Ohh but wait, we have the Skandi Bergan!!!
Is it just me or what the hell happened to our navy??? :smash
Is it just me or what the hell happened to our navy??? :smash
Neither ship was used in INTERFET. They were both still in Newcastle getting rebuilt.
It has become to expensive to run thanks to a collapse in effeciency. Even without a disinterested government it would be in crisis.
t68
Well-Known Member
So outsourcing was not the answer to closing down the trade training schools,who would have thought that........
The lack of adequately trained people onboard makes the civilian contractors task near impossible as there is no one operating the equipment day to day with the technical competence to identify the real issues or root causes to the contractor. i.e. the contractors have to trouble shoot without being able to operate the systems and without the full story of what the problem is.
Much easier to have properly trained people on board in the first place, although then you get the issue of Gina and co poaching them, maybe we need a mining tax to compensate (i.e. use to improve wages and conditions for critical trades) for the damage being done to other industries and the ADF.
Too be honest, and probably quite clear from a number of my previous posts, I am of the opinion that the ANZACs should be replaced with a mix of additional AWDs (say a total of 8) and beefed up SEA 1180 OCVs able to accommodate USN LCS mission modules over and above a decent baseline combat system. I question the need for a GP frigate let alone a specialist ASW frigate when a mix of AWDs and corvettes (ADMKIIs idea) would provide greater capability and versatility and similar or lower cost.
Not all SEA 1180 would be high end combatants; say only 40 t0 60 % or 8 to 12 hulls would be built to the high end spec with uprated propulsion, power generation, open architecture CS and improved damage control arrangements. Of these only some would be fitted to the full spec for training and operational purposes with the remainder able to be easily upgraded during assisted dockings if required.
The remaining 8 to 12 hulls would share a high level of commonality however would be slower, cheaper to run, less able to be upgraded to full spec, but above all significantly cheaper to operate while remaining fully capable of carrying out all required duties, be it border protection, survey, MCM. In addition many of the crew for the specialist mission modules would be reservists who only join the ships for training and operations otherwise they would employ their modules from shore for regular training as well as making extensive use of simulators.
I think more like this (IMO):
4 x AWD (3 + 1 election promise)
6 x Frigates (based of a common hull (F100 or Type 26) with Auspar and SM-2/ESSM/harpoon and 5"). Basically all the ANZAC stuff on a new hull. Maybe additional cells are possible. Could be upgraded further to fire PAC-3.
6 x Blue water 2000t OCV - Able to support 2 helo's. These could operate like mother ships for the patrol boats also go out for deep water work chasing whales and Bob Brown. Able to carry ~100-200 additional personal for amphibious, refugee, triage/medical, aid or resupply etc (longer stay - processing on board?).
10-14 x 1000t OCV replacement patrol boats but with helo spots for landing. No hanger or hanger only for UAV. Increase space for refugees (~75 emergency short stay) etc. Some of these will be fitted for mine and survey work.
You get 10 front line combatants while a reduction, these will only be combatants, war time stuff. 6 frigates will be based off a ~5-7,000t hull.
You get 20 OCV's.
6 quite large ones, that can stay at sea for months, be "mini" amphibious ships, extract personnel, help in disaster relief, blue water patrol, partial process small numbers of people on board. Mono steel hull. They can refuel and operate sea class helos. Very little weapon systems.
14 smaller ones that can feed and work with the 6 larger ones and do all the day to day patrol work. Alloy hulled cats. Can land helos, or/and operate a UAV. Also deploy ribs and UUV's. Only some fitted with weapons.
4 x AWD (3 + 1 election promise)
6 x Frigates (based of a common hull (F100 or Type 26) with Auspar and SM-2/ESSM/harpoon and 5"). Basically all the ANZAC stuff on a new hull. Maybe additional cells are possible. Could be upgraded further to fire PAC-3.
6 x Blue water 2000t OCV - Able to support 2 helo's. These could operate like mother ships for the patrol boats also go out for deep water work chasing whales and Bob Brown. Able to carry ~100-200 additional personal for amphibious, refugee, triage/medical, aid or resupply etc (longer stay - processing on board?).
10-14 x 1000t OCV replacement patrol boats but with helo spots for landing. No hanger or hanger only for UAV. Increase space for refugees (~75 emergency short stay) etc. Some of these will be fitted for mine and survey work.
You get 10 front line combatants while a reduction, these will only be combatants, war time stuff. 6 frigates will be based off a ~5-7,000t hull.
You get 20 OCV's.
6 quite large ones, that can stay at sea for months, be "mini" amphibious ships, extract personnel, help in disaster relief, blue water patrol, partial process small numbers of people on board. Mono steel hull. They can refuel and operate sea class helos. Very little weapon systems.
14 smaller ones that can feed and work with the 6 larger ones and do all the day to day patrol work. Alloy hulled cats. Can land helos, or/and operate a UAV. Also deploy ribs and UUV's. Only some fitted with weapons.
Depends on numbers and timing. If we go a fouth AWD make it a repeat of the first three (may not be possible due to unavailability of some now obsolete systems but could be close) and follow later with another four built to an improved Batch II design but still with AEGIS / SPY-1. What would probably work better would be build three Batch II ships following the first three and then go for a new, or significantly evolved, design (with AUSPAR) sometime down the track (probably after the high end SEA 1180 corvettes) for the last two but make it three or four to increase total numbers to where they should be.
For the corvette probably an updated 9LV CMS with a scaled CEAFAR. Maybe space and weight for VLS but would go the self defence length Mk41 rather than the over kill of strike length, maybe even stand alone ExLS instead. Either way I would be tempted to go for RAM to start with and probably Griffin as well.
I have always been a fan of the Oto Melara and would look to fit a Super Rapido optioning DAVIDE with DART and VULCANO. If possible an all electric propusion system with a GT (the lower level hulls would only have diesels) providing the extra power required.
protoplasm
Active Member
ESSM or RAM
Just wondering Volkodav,
Would you go ESSM or RAM? I was just thinking that if you bother to put the weight and volume of a VLS into a 2000t corvette that you would probably want to have the range that ESSM offers. Otherwise just stick a 21 cell launcher on the back for RAM.
Just wondering Volkodav,
Would you go ESSM or RAM? I was just thinking that if you bother to put the weight and volume of a VLS into a 2000t corvette that you would probably want to have the range that ESSM offers. Otherwise just stick a 21 cell launcher on the back for RAM.
OCV, quite possibly. With some sort of stanflex container system (if we go down that road). Ships could load the JSM missiles for littoral support work when operating in higher threat environments, where escorts could be off focused on escorting LHD's etc or in archipelago areas where large ships and deep drafts would be difficult to operate (all around north Australia, Indonesia, but also other similar areas world wide). It would make more sense than a giant harpoon launcher on these small ships.
However I can't imagine its the primary role of that missile. I have a feeling it is more appropriate for F-35's. But who knows, once in service, they might try to fire it from helos, subs and OCV's..
ESSM seems overkill for an Australian corvette or OCV. Realistically they are more likely to deal with RPG's and the like. You wouldn't want to put a corvette up as a ship in a missile slug match.
So far only a new maritime strike weapon for AIR-6000 - Next Generation Air Combat Capability has been announced.
That gobbledygook means a new anti-ship missile for the JSF.
However the project to acquire this missile is known as Joint Program 3023, which implies that such capability might be used Jointly within ADF, ie: by Navy and RAAF, however such has not yet been announced or included in the Defence Capability Plan, as far as I've seen.
I expect RAN will be looking to replace it's sub-surface Harpoon Block 1C and surface-launched Block II missile capabilities within the next decade or so, but no firm plans have been made public yet, to the best of my knowledge.
Australia is not funding the NSM or any other Norwegian missile. Australia jointly funded with Norway - eight years ago - a very simple integration study to see if the NSM could be carried and used by the F-35.
Space and weight for VLS but fit RAM initially. There may never be a need to fit the VLS but on the other hand you can never tell what the future holds so being able to fit a VLS or ExLS if required would be good.
If a pair of Mk144s are all that planned for the F-125 Frigate so should be fine for an OCV.
- Status