Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

Just to ad some local context from an RAN point of view a paper from the Kokoda Foundation, I have not had time to read, but though I would throw it in for digestion and comment

Cheers

Having organic ASW air on an LHD is not a new concept for the RAN. HMAS Sydney usually embarked 2 or 3 Wessex 31B's for her runs to VN and I would suggest the same concept of having 3 or 2 Romeos embarked will be used in future.

I dont think the ADCOM UAV is a suitable vehicle for LHD ops as launch and recover is impossible.

The Kokoda paper is interesting and, in the main its 2011 recommendations have been followed by degree apart from any movement for an ASW enhanced OCV.

Its a pity that the wider community totally disregard ASW as a warfare discipline because its invisible, doesn't go bang or whoosh and is not photogenic.
Have we ever seen a CASEX feature in a PR blurb? I think not, point made

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would assume similar benefits to what Harrier enjoyed with the advent of the ramp. IIRC Harrier was able to take off in half the distance with a typical 10Klb load of weapons/fuel or haul a 13Klb load using 600-ft. run.
I think that the ramp on CVF coupled with SRVL that their F-35B fleet will employ will be a superior arrangement for the RN.

Well it will be interesting. The f35 runs a completely different arrangement, it may be even more beneficial. I would imagine it would possibly help with deck heat.

 

[aussienscale]

I dont think the ADCOM UAV is a suitable vehicle for LHD ops as launch and recover is impossible.

The Kokoda paper is interesting and, in the main its 2011 recommendations have been followed by degree apart from any movement for an ASW enhanced OCV.

Its a pity that the wider community totally disregard ASW as a warfare discipline because its invisible, doesn't go bang or whoosh and is not photogenic.
Have we ever seen a CASEX feature in a PR blurb? I think not, point made

Wasn't suggesting the Adcom system for us was just an example of what is possible, but a similar system designed for STOL for use on Phatships with a long loiter time I think would be a usefull addition to an ASW Picket

And I agree, ASW is certainly not "Poster" type area, which is unfortunate because it is the biggest threat to surface vessels. Does anyone know what a CASEX is ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Does anyone know what a CASEX is ?

rhetorical or actual question? if actual for those who don't
combined anti-sub ex

 

[aussienscale]

rhetorical or actual question? if actual for those who don't
combined anti-sub ex

Rhetorical was just emphasising Assail's point on ASW not being sexy

 

[Todjaeger]

Wasn't suggesting the Adcom system for us was just an example of what is possible, but a similar system designed for STOL for use on Phatships with a long loiter time I think would be a usefull addition to an ASW Picket

And I agree, ASW is certainly not "Poster" type area, which is unfortunate because it is the biggest threat to surface vessels. Does anyone know what a CASEX is ?

Respectfully I disagree. The greatest threat to surface vessels (and other capabilities) are politicians.

Then come the subs. The primary issue I would have with three or four Romeos being operating from an LHD is that the RAN is only getting 24 of them, to provide enough for 8 operational across the fleet. If it could be managed, I would want more available since three to four means that a single one can be sustained. Assuming a RAN task force of an LHD, an AWD and a pair of Anzac-class FFH's, that would still only provide for sustaining two Romeos aloft, each with one or perhaps two LWT...

That is where something with a greater payload and loiter time could, in sufficient numbers, add an extra screening layer around a hypothetical task force. Using the old S-2 Tracker as an example, they could loiter for ~9 hours. Now I agree that a V-22 kitted out for an ASW, MPA or AEW role would be expensive, especially considering they currently approach the price of a new C-130J. However, IMO to provide a larger airborne ASW screen for task force really does require something approximately the size of a mid-range/tier MPA. There are not really very many aircraft which could fit that description, which could also potentially operate from a surface vessel.

-Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

Respectfully I disagree. The greatest threat to surface vessels (and other capabilities) are politicians.

Then come the subs. The primary issue I would have with three or four Romeos being operating from an LHD is that the RAN is only getting 24 of them, to provide enough for 8 operational across the fleet. If it could be managed, I would want more available since three to four means that a single one can be sustained. Assuming a RAN task force of an LHD, an AWD and a pair of Anzac-class FFH's, that would still only provide for sustaining two Romeos aloft, each with one or perhaps two LWT...

That is where something with a greater payload and loiter time could, in sufficient numbers, add an extra screening layer around a hypothetical task force. Using the old S-2 Tracker as an example, they could loiter for ~9 hours. Now I agree that a V-22 kitted out for an ASW, MPA or AEW role would be expensive, especially considering they currently approach the price of a new C-130J. However, IMO to provide a larger airborne ASW screen for task force really does require something approximately the size of a mid-range/tier MPA. There are not really very many aircraft which could fit that description, which could also potentially operate from a surface vessel.

-Cheers

It's not a matter of either/or. Dippers are escort substitutes, MPA are area lookers and we need both.
The current reality though is that there is no f/w air platform suitable for deployment on the Canberras and without RAAF support we fail to be effective apart from "Hail Mary" last ditch counter measures.
CVS 21's greatest loss wasn't the A4s it was the S2s but they weren't sexy and not appreciated by decision makers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Rhetorical was just emphasising Assail's point on ASW not being sexy

too subtle mate - when the icons don't work its a bit of a lottery... /smiley

 

[ASSAIL]

The difference between dippers and organic f/w ASW regards search area is dramatic, a dipper can search an area of approx 100square miles per dip.
A Tracker can search an average of 15,000 square miles per sortie dependent upon tasking

 

[gf0012-aust]

CVS 21's greatest loss wasn't the A4s it was the S2s but they weren't sexy and not appreciated by decision makers

the sth koreans were smart enough to pick up the S3's - even though they aren't driving them off carriers.

 

[Todjaeger]

It's not a matter of either/or. Dippers are escort substitutes, MPA are area lookers and we need both.
The current reality though is that there is no f/w air platform suitable for deployment on the Canberras and without RAAF support we fail to be effective apart from "Hail Mary" last ditch counter measures.
CVS 21's greatest loss wasn't the A4s it was the S2s but they weren't sexy and not appreciated by decision makers

Sorry, perhaps the point I was trying to make was not quite clear.

I would want to have Romeos available to operate off of the escorts, and the LHD (space permitting), but I would also like to have an organic S-2 MPA type capability to provide an additional layer beyond the screen that ASW helicopters can provide and maintain.

Depending on how many Romeos get embarked, a RAN taskforce could manage to screen an LHD with two layers (helicopters and surface targets, err... escorts). Being greedy, I want an extra layer of potential awareness and response.

-Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

Sorry, perhaps the point I was trying to make was not quite clear.

I would want to have Romeos available to operate off of the escorts, and the LHD (space permitting), but I would also like to have an organic S-2 MPA type capability to provide an additional layer beyond the screen that ASW helicopters can provide and maintain.

Depending on how many Romeos get embarked, a RAN taskforce could manage to screen an LHD with two layers (helicopters and surface targets, err... escorts). Being greedy, I want an extra layer of potential awareness and response.

-Cheers

I don't want this to go on ad infinitum but screening helo/dippers were usually deployed 12 to 13 miles ahead of the screened force with escorts bringing up the second layer.
I don't know the CONOPS for Romeos but assume they would not be beyond 15 miles although that new sonar (AN/AQS22 ALFS) light years ahead cf the Sea Kings. Any further than that with a dipper would leave huge holes in the screen so your proposed outer layer of helps would be ineffective
Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't want this to go on ad infinitum but screening helo/dippers were usually deployed 12 to 13 miles ahead of the screened force with escorts bringing up the second layer.
I don't know the CONOPS for Romeos but assume they would not be beyond 15 miles although that new sonar (AN/AQS22 ALFS) light years ahead cf the Sea Kings. Any further than that with a dipper would leave huge holes in the screen so your proposed outer layer of helps would be ineffective
Cheers

The hypothetical outer layer would be made up of aircraft with an S-2 ASW/MPA-type capability. The dipping sonar kitted Romeos would make up the middle layer of the screen. The inner layer of the screen would be the actual escort vessels themselves (hopefully equipped with an ASROC-type capability) which would surround and screen the high value targets like the LHD, AOR, etc.

It had been my understanding that due to speed, fuel and stores loadouts, the preference would be for ASW helicopters to keep close to the task force. Given the comment above, that seems to reinforce that, whereas an MPA could potentially drop a line of sonobuoys some distance ahead of a task force, and perhaps range out further.

 

[ASSAIL]

The hypothetical outer layer would be made up of aircraft with an S-2 ASW/MPA-type capability. The dipping sonar kitted Romeos would make up the middle layer of the screen. The inner layer of the screen would be the actual escort vessels themselves (hopefully equipped with an ASROC-type capability) which would surround and screen the high value targets like the LHD, AOR, etc.

It had been my understanding that due to speed, fuel and stores loadouts, the preference would be for ASW helicopters to keep close to the task force. Given the comment above, that seems to reinforce that, whereas an MPA could potentially drop a line of sonobuoys some distance ahead of a task force, and perhaps range out further.

Agreed, the classic ASW screen. The fixed wing need to be 70 miles plus ahead to be effective so without organic ASW air we're neutered.

 

[Todjaeger]

Agreed, the classic ASW screen. The fixed wing need to be 70 miles plus ahead to be effective so without organic ASW air we're neutered.

That far out? I would have thought that more than 50 miles would have been too far.

By my count the ASW helicopter screen would be some 20 - 25 miles out from the high value target, I had sort of figured doubling that to get the approximate area for the fixed-wing (or Osprey rotary-winged) ASW screen.

On a side note, would there be a difference in capabilities between sonobuoys dropped a fixed-wing vs. rotary-winged ASW platform?

IIRC the S-70B-2 Seahawks that the RAN had been using for the past two decades or so could each carry ~12 sonobuoys. Since an S-2 or something like it cannot lower a dipping sonar, I figured they would drop a line of sonobuoys. Would it be possible for a Romeo to get the datafeed from a sonobuoy dropped by another platform, especially if that platform had 'moved on' to another area?

-Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

That far out? I would have thought that more than 50 miles would have been too far.

By my count the ASW helicopter screen would be some 20 - 25 miles out from the high value target, I had sort of figured doubling that to get the approximate area for the fixed-wing (or Osprey rotary-winged) ASW screen.

On a side note, would there be a difference in capabilities between sonobuoys dropped a fixed-wing vs. rotary-winged ASW platform?

IIRC the S-70B-2 Seahawks that the RAN had been using for the past two decades or so could each carry ~12 sonobuoys. Since an S-2 or something like it cannot lower a dipping sonar, I figured they would drop a line of sonobuoys. Would it be possible for a Romeo to get the datafeed from a sonobuoy dropped by another platform, especially if that platform had 'moved on' to another area?

-Cheers

25 miles is too far out for effective screening by dippers, about 12 was the practice.
A sub knows most things about you 50 miles out and is simply jockeying for an attack, it's then that they are most vulnerable,SSGs that is, to attack from above hence the S2 tasking. Land based P3/P8s are far ahead in choke points or around 200 plus miles from the transiting force, an escorting SSN would be 100 miles
plus ahead of the carrier group.
This is why removing the S2/3s was like removing one leg from a tripod, an act of stupidity , vandalism because planners thought the only country to have subs was the USSR.
Tasking ASWAir was what I did way back when the S2s were around.

 

[protoplasm]

Just came across this is The Australian

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Just wondering if anyone in the know has come across this, or is it just the usual political though bubble that'll never happen. I'm more in the camp of if you want fixed wing air off ships, including STOVL, build something appropriate to do that. Don't compromise an existing design to make some kind of Frankenship.

 

[oldsig127]

Just came across this is The Australian



Just wondering if anyone in the know has come across this, or is it just the usual political though bubble that'll never happen. I'm more in the camp of if you want fixed wing air off ships, including STOVL, build something appropriate to do that. Don't compromise an existing design to make some kind of Frankenship.

It's cobblers. There's not one word in that report that wasn't known and discussed here two ? weeks ago. Somehow a reply from Defence that this was a possibility being considered as part of the review has become a headline saying Tony Abbot Aims for Aircraft Carriers

Standard crap journalism.

os127

 

[hauritz]

It will be interesting to see what the white paper says about this. It wouldn't surprise me if this was the beginning of baby steps to get the RAN back into the Aircraft Carrier business.It has been a long time since they operated a carrier ... and that expertise will have to be regained.

Why not start small by operating a small number of F-35Bs off of our LPHs?

Further down the track when the navy has a better understanding of what is required they can look at a proper carrier.

 

[t68]

It will be interesting to see what the white paper says about this. It wouldn't surprise me if this was the beginning of baby steps to get the RAN back into the Aircraft Carrier business.It has been a long time since they operated a carrier ... and that expertise will have to be regained.

Why not start small by operating a small number of F-35Bs off of our LPHs?

Further down the track when the navy has a better understanding of what is required they can look at a proper carrier.

Don't need to take baby steps at all to regain the instructional knowledge, look at the UK with embedded pers on USN carriers, and they are getting the knowledge on a catobar carrier.

Granted by using the LHD it gives our mob something to work on till something was built but by the time we get the B we could in theory nearly have the ship as well.