Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

I readily admit, I have a number of issues regarding LCS mission modules at present. I will get into that later on in my response.

From my POV, I am not quite sure that calling Stanflex modules "small" is really accurate. They can certainly be carried and operated aboard small/compact vessels like the ~450 ton Flyvefisken-class PCFG and the larger ~2,000 ton Knud Rassmussen-class OPV.

I think small in comparison to say 3x20 foot containers would provide (plus other space on the mission deck including ability to deploy towed arrays UUV etc. Im not saying Stanflex is a bad system, but for Australia partnering and having more synergy with the US would be a priority over the Danish. Some of the stanflex modules aren't really relevant for Australia. We don't need them to contain guns and missiles. If we really need harpoons, typically we carry box launches out the front, so it would make sense to keep with that, rather than a new way to carry them. Stanflex would require to give up the helicopter and aviation capability, which would seem to be a trade off the RAN wouldn't be interested in. Particularly given that many sensors and weapons would be fitted to that aviation assets that the OPV can carry.

Once the LCS are fully in service there will be many more LCS mission modules than there ever will be Stanflex modules. They will most likely receive more updates, with more development dollars. ASW/Mine etc will have capabilities allies like the US, Japan, UK etc are likely to know and train with making the OPV able to fit in with their systems and tactics.

Certainly LCS missile systems seem pretty iffy (not that the RAN would be interested in them at all). But I think other modules which will be the LCS bread and butter are much lower risk, as they bundle together proven and known systems together. Australia could also bundle systems that could be carried by LCS or LCS type ships that can carry 20' containers (ie a heck of a lot of them).

 

[swerve]

... Stanflex would require to give up the helicopter and aviation capability, ...

Why?

Please explain.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Why?

Please explain.

Sorry I didn't really explain that point.

On most /all of the ships mentioned for the RAN OPV the mission deck is underneath the helo area. Stanflex would seem to require open deck space. So if you wanted to fire harpoons or 76mm or a crane, you would be giving up the helo.

Even on much larger ships Stanflex isn't exactly a perfect solution. Absalon class (a much larger ship) for example can only use the missile launching weapons in stanflex modules as it sits in a bathtub. You can't for instance turn it into a gun ship armed with 5 x 76mm guns (in addition to the 5"). I would assume its not suitable for launching MU90's from stanflex either. Not all the modules are compatible with this setup. IMO harpoons may be more efficiently carried in boxes as on Australian frigates/destroyers. Also on Absalon, many of its weapon systems don't sit in stanflex modules (5", CIWS etc).

Certainly if you want to include any weapon systems you want open air above your module. Given how valuable deck space is, on many ships it may not be efficent to package things that way. The OPV-2 design could I imagine be quite easily modified to carry stanflex, if you gave up the helicopter. No one would want that. You are far better offer carrying weapons and sensors on the helicopter than having stanflex module space and launching them from the ship.

I would rather the hell fire missiles be launched from a Tiger or a torpedo launched from a helicopter rather than plop out of a stanflex module at close range which would put the ship at risk.

I would level the same criticism about short range missiles on the LCS. Just operate an helo/UAV and fire short range missiles from that. A Helo or UAV is cheaper, faster and more manoeuvrable than a ship, has fewer/no crew and is a smaller target and can launch at an altitude and speed which makes it more effective with greater targeting accuracy.

If you really want to carry some firepower, harpoon boxes at the front, if they can be fitted. But as I said I don't think the RAN wants or needs to do that. But some navies I could see, have value in a 2600t OPV with harpoons if they didn't have enought or any frigates/destroyers.

 

[Volkodav]

I think small in comparison to say 3x20 foot containers would provide (plus other space on the mission deck including ability to deploy towed arrays UUV etc. Im not saying Stanflex is a bad system, but for Australia partnering and having more synergy with the US would be a priority over the Danish. Some of the stanflex modules aren't really relevant for Australia. We don't need them to contain guns and missiles. If we really need harpoons, typically we carry box launches out the front, so it would make sense to keep with that, rather than a new way to carry them. Stanflex would require to give up the helicopter and aviation capability, which would seem to be a trade off the RAN wouldn't be interested in. Particularly given that many sensors and weapons would be fitted to that aviation assets that the OPV can carry.

Once the LCS are fully in service there will be many more LCS mission modules than there ever will be Stanflex modules. They will most likely receive more updates, with more development dollars. ASW/Mine etc will have capabilities allies like the US, Japan, UK etc are likely to know and train with making the OPV able to fit in with their systems and tactics.

Certainly LCS missile systems seem pretty iffy (not that the RAN would be interested in them at all). But I think other modules which will be the LCS bread and butter are much lower risk, as they bundle together proven and known systems together. Australia could also bundle systems that could be carried by LCS or LCS type ships that can carry 20' containers (ie a heck of a lot of them).

It makes sense to ensure our future OPVs and possibly even frigates and LCH(R)s can interface with LCS mission modules as that way the RAN can hook into the USNs spiral development program to stay up to date with the latest USN configurations. At the same time the Danish STANFLEX system offers options currently not available for the LCS, i.e. Harpoon, ESSM, Mk45, Mk75 etc.

Stanflex was retrofitted to the Niels Juel Class Corvettes as well as being incorporated in new builds through the 80s, 90s, 2000s, to current, it is scalable and adaptable. I wonder if it would be possible to incorporate both STANFLEX and LCS Modules?

Also the ANZACs are a version MEKO 200 and as such use set size modules for many systems, such as the main gun. Using modules is nothing new for the RAN, what would be new is having modules that can be changed out while in service.

 

[ngatimozart]

It makes sense to ensure our future OPVs and possibly even frigates and LCH(R)s can interface with LCS mission modules as that way the RAN can hook into the USNs spiral development program to stay up to date with the latest USN configurations. At the same time the Danish STANFLEX system offers options currently not available for the LCS, i.e. Harpoon, ESSM, Mk45, Mk75 etc.

Stanflex was retrofitted to the Niels Juel Class Corvettes as well as being incorporated in new builds through the 80s, 90s, 2000s, to current, it is scalable and adaptable. I wonder if it would be possible to incorporate both STANFLEX and LCS Modules?

Also the ANZACs are a version MEKO 200 and as such use set size modules for many systems, such as the main gun. Using modules is nothing new for the RAN, what would be new is having modules that can be changed out while in service.

The Stanflex system should be adapted. Basically it comprises of five parts, the frame and support, power, fluid, electronic cabling and mission (capability) software. It takes them 24 hours to fully change modules and re-role a ship. The modules plug into power, fluid and electronics outlets on the deck. The Danes use an open source software that is not dedicated hardware dependent in the CIC. So they use the same work stations for ASW, Anti Air, ASuW, etc., - doesn't matter what work station that it is loaded on to. They just download mission software and upload the new mission software. The Danes have designed it for their requirements. It is the design and functionality of the Stanflex that is important. I am not an engineer, but it should be doable to change the footprint of it to fit that of a 20ft ISO TEU or for that matter a 10ft TEU. With regard to fitting it to ships, if the RAN is going to build OPVs or OCVs then something like this should be thoroughly investigated during the pre-design phase of the project so that it will inform the design. At the same stage they should do the same with LCS modules.

 

[swerve]

Sorry I didn't really explain that point.

On most /all of the ships mentioned for the RAN OPV the mission deck is underneath the helo area. Stanflex would seem to require open deck space. So if you wanted to fire harpoons or 76mm or a crane, you would be giving up the helo.

Even on much larger ships Stanflex isn't exactly a perfect solution. Absalon class (a much larger ship) for example can only use the missile launching weapons in stanflex modules as it sits in a bathtub. You can't for instance turn it into a gun ship armed with 5 x 76mm guns (in addition to the 5"). I would assume its not suitable for launching MU90's from stanflex either. Not all the modules are compatible with this setup. IMO harpoons may be more efficiently carried in boxes as on Australian frigates/destroyers. Also on Absalon, many of its weapon systems don't sit in stanflex modules (5", CIWS etc).

Certainly if you want to include any weapon systems you want open air above your module. Given how valuable deck space is, on many ships it may not be efficent to package things that way. The OPV-2 design could I imagine be quite easily modified to carry stanflex, if you gave up the helicopter. No one would want that. You are far better offer carrying weapons and sensors on the helicopter than having stanflex module space and launching them from the ship.

I would rather the hell fire missiles be launched from a Tiger or a torpedo launched from a helicopter rather than plop out of a stanflex module at close range which would put the ship at risk.

I would level the same criticism about short range missiles on the LCS. Just operate an helo/UAV and fire short range missiles from that. A Helo or UAV is cheaper, faster and more manoeuvrable than a ship, has fewer/no crew and is a smaller target and can launch at an altitude and speed which makes it more effective with greater targeting accuracy.

If you really want to carry some firepower, harpoon boxes at the front, if they can be fitted. But as I said I don't think the RAN wants or needs to do that. But some navies I could see, have value in a 2600t OPV with harpoons if they didn't have enought or any frigates/destroyers.

Ah, I see.

But this is not a problem inherent to Stanflex. It's a question of how you choose to use it. The Danes, sensibly, don't treat it as something ideological, & require its use everywhere all the time. They're pragmatic, & use it where they think it's useful.

As with any similar system, ideally one wants a ship designed to use it, but it has been retrofitted to ships, e,g, the Niels Juel corvettes/OPVs - which had helicopter decks (no hangars) & kept using them.

Yes, deck space is precious. But Stanflex (or any other system) isn't in addition to all the stuff the ship will carry, it's part of it. So when you decide what you want the ship to do, you think about whether some modules would be appropriate, & if so, when you do the detailed design, or customisation for the specific customer, you put the modules in a suitable space, if necessary moving something else. You don't scrap core capabilities (such as a helicopter, if that's core), any more than you would for anything else. If it's core it's core.

The point is that you can carry A or B, depending on circumstances. If you're deploying for a few months on anti-piracy patrol, you can leave behind something irrelevant, & maybe take something else, more relevant. If a ship is in refit, its modules can be transferred to other ships. If a piece of kit needs major work, it can be swapped out, so the ship can keep operating rather than having to be in dock for the repair.

You seem to be thinking of Stanflex as a way of adding extras to a fully-fitted ship. I urge you to try to get away from that. It's not, for the most part, how it's used. Nor has anyone ever envisaged it as a way of completely transforming ships, e.g. by fitting an Absalon class with several 76mm guns. You're also criticising it for not being perfect. Well, what is? There are trade-offs & compromises in everything. You seem to be advocating waiting for whatever the USN comes up with for LCS. But what we know about that is that it's been completely mishandled: the USN just doesn't seem to have got it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

You seem to be thinking of Stanflex as a way of adding extras to a fully-fitted ship. I urge you to try to get away from that. It's not, for the most part, how it's used. Nor has anyone ever envisaged it as a way of completely transforming ships, e.g. by fitting an Absalon class with several 76mm guns. You're also criticising it for not being perfect. Well, what is? There are trade-offs & compromises in everything. You seem to be advocating waiting for whatever the USN comes up with for LCS. But what we know about that is that it's been completely mishandled: the USN just doesn't seem to have got it.

I like the stanflex concept, but I don't think the concept is great for weapon systems. I think its much better for things other than weapon systems. I also think the format is pretty small. Developing a system based around 20' containers seems like a much more practical and future proof solution. Certainly any commonality/connections with Stanflex or LCS or other existing module systems would be ideal. Sure the LCS has had its problems but the US overcomes its problems, and I don't see the LCS being much different in that regard. Stanflex wasn't really designed with a mission deck in mind.

Australia looks like getting 11 pretty capable surface combatants, with plenty of space and sensors for weapons. The OPV's don't have to be burdened with weapons, missiles, large guns etc.

The other advantage is that when not being used for modules is that they can carry 20' containers of anything. Many things can be fitted in 20' containers. Sever farms/data centres, solar power stations, huge back up generators/ups, refrigerated containers, temporary housing, C&C, food, fuel and gas, fire fighting, medical (a shipping container clinic), pollution gear, water filtration/desalination, etc. They can easily be moved by truck or existing port infrastructure. Moved by air sea or water. Many more things that stanflex offers. Particularly useful for a OPV

 

[Volkodav]

I like the stanflex concept, but I don't think the concept is great for weapon systems. I think its much better for things other than weapon systems. I also think the format is pretty small. Developing a system based around 20' containers seems like a much more practical and future proof solution. Certainly any commonality/connections with Stanflex or LCS or other existing module systems would be ideal. Sure the LCS has had its problems but the US overcomes its problems, and I don't see the LCS being much different in that regard. Stanflex wasn't really designed with a mission deck in mind.

Australia looks like getting 11 pretty capable surface combatants, with plenty of space and sensors for weapons. The OPV's don't have to be burdened with weapons, missiles, large guns etc.

The other advantage is that when not being used for modules is that they can carry 20' containers of anything. Many things can be fitted in 20' containers. Sever farms/data centres, solar power stations, huge back up generators/ups, refrigerated containers, temporary housing, C&C, food, fuel and gas, fire fighting, medical (a shipping container clinic), pollution gear, water filtration/desalination, etc. They can easily be moved by truck or existing port infrastructure. Moved by air sea or water. Many more things that stanflex offers. Particularly useful for a OPV

I disagree and believe you are missing the point that StanFlex, or similar, can be used in addition to a multi-mission deck where containerised systems can be hooked up or even just transported. Look at the Absalons (my phones auto correct really wants to change it to Absalom ), they combine a weapons deck for up to five modules (Mk-56 VLS, Harpoon, SIGINT/ELINT), a fixed armament and a large Multi-mission deck, the Iver Huitfeldts six slots, a fixed armament including a 32 cell Mk-41 VLS, the Flyverfisken class patrol vessel, Thetis class frigates and Knud Ruasmussen class patrol vessels all have a number of slots that can basically re-role the entire vessel.

You can combine StanFlex with fixed systems and even more flexible multi-mission decks, limited only by the size and layout of the vessel. The key advantage of StanFlex is it permits an operator to configure a combatant as required for the anticipated threat or situation, i.e. ASW modules can be replaced by MCM modules, Harpoon can be replaced by additional ESSM or by a SIGINT/ELINT module. Going forward new systems can be integrated into the modules, the ExLS, which would provide multiple quad packed CAMM, RAM Block II, Nulka, potentially Griffon, maybe Spike ER, other options could be RAM, SEARAM, Phalanx, the 30mm turrets as used by the LCS etc.

A future OCV (any near term OPV will pretty much have to be MOTS) could reasonably be expected to include a multi-mission deck that could embark a number of plug and play containers, transport, storage and accommodation containers, transport vehicles, plant and supplies, even, in conjunction with a suitable stern launch ramp and cradle system, operate a variety of boats, RHIBs, assault and landing craft. Fixed armament would not be suitable for such a vessels as while a 25mm Typhoon would be adequate for a patrol tasked OCV it would be over kill for one configured for survey and insufficient for one tasked for policing UN embargos or supporting an ADF intervention such as seen in Timor.

This is where StanFlex is ideal, Typhoon can be replaced with a 76 or 57mm gun, storage modules can give way to ESSM or Harpoon, ASW torpedo modules can be interchangeable with MCM or survey ROV modules. All the base OCV needs is a stern ramp, a multi-mission deck, alternate sensor configurations on an integrated mast and several StanFlex slots to tailor the OCV to what ever role is required.

Another advantage with the system is specialist sailors can be trained on the modules and deploy with them as required. Many functions, survey for example, could be permanent Navy but some could be assigned to the reserve, MCM etc. Slots could also be incorporated in future frigates, for example ASW torpedoes could be interchangeable with MCM ROV modules, ASUW missile modules with AAW missile modules as could one housing a 25mm Typhoon and 57 or 76mm guns.

 

[Todjaeger]

I like the stanflex concept, but I don't think the concept is great for weapon systems. I think its much better for things other than weapon systems. I also think the format is pretty small. Developing a system based around 20' containers seems like a much more practical and future proof solution. Certainly any commonality/connections with Stanflex or LCS or other existing module systems would be ideal. Sure the LCS has had its problems but the US overcomes its problems, and I don't see the LCS being much different in that regard. Stanflex wasn't really designed with a mission deck in mind.

Australia looks like getting 11 pretty capable surface combatants, with plenty of space and sensors for weapons. The OPV's don't have to be burdened with weapons, missiles, large guns etc.

The other advantage is that when not being used for modules is that they can carry 20' containers of anything. Many things can be fitted in 20' containers. Sever farms/data centres, solar power stations, huge back up generators/ups, refrigerated containers, temporary housing, C&C, food, fuel and gas, fire fighting, medical (a shipping container clinic), pollution gear, water filtration/desalination, etc. They can easily be moved by truck or existing port infrastructure. Moved by air sea or water. Many more things that stanflex offers. Particularly useful for a OPV

I am getting the sense that what the Stanflex system is, and how the Danes use it, are something you are looking in a completely different way from most of the rest of us.

For one thing, it seems that most Stanflex modules developed so far are for various types of weapons systems. This would suggest that Stanflex is better for modular weaponry than it is for other types of capabilities. Given the small size of a Stanflex module, it would be IMO totally insufficient/inappropriate for a modular surgery centre or hospital-type facility. It can due quite well however, at allowing carriage and employment of 8 Harpoon AShM, or a 76 mm/62 naval gun, a dozen ESSM, etc. The size of a Stanflex module itself (L 3m x W 3.5m x H 2.5m) + whatever roof/top penetration occurs because of the type of module itself, is about half the size of a 20' ISO container (L 6.1m x W 2.44m x H 2.59m). Which raises the question; for something like 8 AShM cells, is it better to require more or less space on a vessel? From my POV (as a non-marine engineer) if both ways can carry the same 8 cells, using the system with the smaller footprint would be better, because a smaller system can be fitted more easily.

Also there is nothing preventing a vessel which is fitted for Stanflex modules from also having either some permanently mounted weapon systems, or a multi-mission deck, or both. The Danish Absalon-class support vessel, which does have slots for certain types of Stanflex modules, has a multi-mission deck which can transport ISO containers, it also can use modules to operate as a hospital, and some weapon systems, like the 127mm gun, are permanent, not Stanflex weapons.

An issue I have with using ISO containers for modules is that for some types of systems, they are really way too large. Going with all ISO container-sized modules would likely require that either less modules can be carried, or an overall larger vessel to have the same number of modules. As an example of a potential problem, I doubt that there would normally be sufficient space in the 'A' position of a warship for an ISO container-sized weapon to be mounted. Which would effectively mean no naval gun in the 'A' position, unless the class had a permanently mounted gun there already. With Stanflex, a module slot/socket can fit into the 'A' position, to mount whatever is appropriate for a particular class and mission role.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Perhaps you are right. Is there any particular Stanflex ship you think would be suitable as a OPV for the RAN?

I actually think (IMO) a OPV would be very useful in a support role, just not carrying missiles. If built in the numbers I suggested, everyone would/could be armed with either a 25mm typhoon Patrol or a 76mm gun (Deep water). When operating in high threat environments they would be operating under the umbrella of a frigate or AWD (IMO) which given modern weapons can be very far indeed. Or use its helicopter to engage targets at a distance (say with a MH-60 with hellfire or mk46/mk54).

For example in a ASW they bring significant air capability, and another platform for sensors uuv etc. As a AWD or F-105 based ship will only be able to operate 1 MH-60, having a OPV that can operate a Mh-60 and a UAV would be a very useful addition.

So the module space or mission deck doesn't have be on the surface of a ship. I guess I see the stanflex working against the mission bay concept. It may not have to be that way.

 

[Punta74]

Australia asks Japan to join submarine tender | The Japan Times

Anyone know why we have to "ask" Japan to join the tender ?

 

[John Newman]

Australia asks Japan to join submarine tender | The Japan Times

Anyone know why we have to "ask" Japan to join the tender ?

I think the simple answer to that is 'diplomacy and politics', I don't think it is a case of having to 'ask' as you are suggesting, or even begging, 'please, please, pretty please, can we have some of your submarines?'.

I'm sure there is also 'high' level political contact with both German and French political leaders from our political leaders too, it's not just going to be a case of the Defence Department talking to a particular designer or supplier of Submarines, I'm sure there is contact and discussions at 'all' levels, and especially at the 'top' too.

For example, if you look at the great relationship that the various arms of the ADF have with the US military, which has seen the US military bend over backwards (giving up production slots for early delivery of the Super Hornets and C-17's as an example), those relationships don't just develop out of the blue, they also develop and grow because of the good political and diplomatic relationships at a Government to Government level too.

I think the spin, in the way you asked the question, that we are having to 'ask' Japan isn't accurate.

 

[Trackmaster]

I think the simple answer to that is 'diplomacy and politics', I don't think it is a case of having to 'ask' as you are suggesting, or even begging, 'please, please, pretty please, can we have some of your submarines?'.

I'm sure there is also 'high' level political contact with both German and French political leaders from our political leaders too, it's not just going to be a case of the Defence Department talking to a particular designer or supplier of Submarines, I'm sure there is contact and discussions at 'all' levels, and especially at the 'top' too.

For example, if you look at the great relationship that the various arms of the ADF have with the US military, which has seen the US military bend over backwards (giving up production slots for early delivery of the Super Hornets and C-17's as an example), those relationships don't just develop out of the blue, they also develop and grow because of the good political and diplomatic relationships at a Government to Government level too.

I think the spin, in the way you asked the question, that we are having to 'ask' Japan isn't accurate.

Agree with the above.

To me, the source of the story gives it away. It is written for consumption by a Japanese audience, so there is some stroking of national pride going on.

I suspect, but don't have a source, that as John says, there are multiple levels of communication open on this between Australia and the nations invited to come forward with ideas.

 

[Milne Bay]

Agree with the above.

To me, the source of the story gives it away. It is written for consumption by a Japanese audience, so there is some stroking of national pride going on.

I suspect, but don't have a source, that as John says, there are multiple levels of communication open on this between Australia and the nations invited to come forward with ideas.

And good manners and politeness never go astray.
MB

 

[John Newman]

And good manners and politeness never go astray.
MB

Exactly the point I was making, good manners, politeness and all the diplomatic niceties that you would expect with a Government to Government discussion.

As most of the senior Def Pro's have pointed out here in the past, submarine technology is often the 'crown jewels' for a particular country, and if you want a look at and share of those crown jewels, then good relationships is going to be the key to getting access to that technology.

As far as the actual report goes, I'm sure that before our Def Min spoke to the Japanese Def Min that he would have known that the answer to the question was a 'yes', I'm sure that the 'diplomats' from both sides would have negotiated and agreed on the outcome that was reported.

 

[Punta74]

I assumed it was simple political politeness, but it read to a degree as if Japan may have lost a little interest relating to the tender, and we had to reignite the flame a little.

May have just been my over analysis.

 

[ancientcivy]

Future OPV

Should Navy require a heavier calibre than 25 mm Cannon but less than 76 mm could they opt to piggyback on Army's planned 30-40 mm acquisition for Land 400?
Given there will be economies in scale plus the ability to share an ammunition supply, possibly locally produced, would this be considered worthwhile?

 

[aussienscale]

Should Navy require a heavier calibre than 25 mm Cannon but less than 76 mm could they opt to piggyback on Army's planned 30-40 mm acquisition for Land 400?
Given there will be economies in scale plus the ability to share an ammunition supply, possibly locally produced, would this be considered worthwhile?

We will have to wait and see what the DWP comes up with as far as ship size and basic concept of operations, just going by the size of ship we are possibly looking at my guess would be bare minimum something along the lines of the Mk110 57mm or then into the 76mm Otto.

30mm is no real point as main gun, unless you have Bushmaster in Typhoon moount etc as additional support, but then of course you would go the 25mm as currently used, Bofors 40mm I believe would still be too small for the intended use of the OPV's

Cheers

 

[Punta74]

Australia to get classified Japanese data on stealthy submarines ahead of bid, sources say | The Japan Times

As a follow on to both defence minister talks yesterday, being reported that Japan has now agreed to TOT.

 

[ASSAIL]

Just read Cameron Stewart's article in the Weekend Australian today (sorry can't post it) reporting that the RAN has "been stymied over an audacious bid to obtain the most potent ships in the nations history"
Capable of launching 100 missiles, 96 cell VLS, between 6,000 and 8,000 tonnes.

Where does this come from and have we been missing something? Alternatively, is he just being a sensationalist d..ck? or.... does he have some inside channel to Dennis Richardson from being an ex spook?