Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

Looks the goods to me.

ANZAC Mark II, here we come!

Certainly interesting design, the 'two' crew idea is interesting (120 x 2), I wonder what the 'total' accommodation availability on the ship is?

A total of 48 strike length VLS in two locations (certainly appears to be more than in the current UK Type 26 configuration).

A bulk purchase from our German Friends? 8 Meko 400 frigates and 12 Type 216 submarines perhaps??


Here is the link to the PDF:

https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26503/Kamerman-The-German-experience-slides.pdf

 

[Milne Bay]

Looks the goods to me.

ANZAC Mark II, here we come!

Key wording in the document:
We will build your future frigates anywhere that the Australian Goverment wants to build them; with full technology transfer and close on - site technical and programme management support and assistance to the Australian Shipyard(s) for the duration of the build
(ed my emphasis)

I think that they have read the climate for Australian shipbuilding very well.
I would not rule the Germans out of the Future submarine project either
MB

 

[Bluey 006]

Ikara

I think i might have asked this once before... but anyway

Is anyone on here familiar with the Ikara project?

1. Why was it never updated?

2. With submarines again becoming the major threat to navies around the world, should the DSTO consider updating and reintroducing a modern version of the Ikara?

With updated technology (autonomous guidance, loiter ability, Unmanned systems capable deploying sonobuoys and longer range etc) it could prove to be a useful weapon system. The original Ikara was generally considered a superior system to the ASROC then, Modern tech could make a far superior system. Could also be good solution for smaller warships internationally, i.e those without a VLS or permanent Helo (say the LCS or OPVs etc) or for a situation like the AWD - only one helicopter (which might be otherwise engaged)

Light VT UAVs and an IKARA like system could work in tandem etc

 

[Milne Bay]

I think i might have asked this once before... but anyway

Is anyone on here familiar with the Ikara project?

1. Why was it never updated?

2. With submarines again becoming the major threat to navies around the world, should the DSTO should consider updating and reintroducing a modern version of the Ikara?

With updated technology (autonomous guidance, loiter ability, Unmanned systems capable deploying sonobuoys and longer range etc) it could prove to be a useful weapon system. The original Ikara was generally considered a superior system to the ASROC then, Modern tech could make a far superior system. Could also be good solution for smaller warships internationally, i.e those without a VLS or permanent Helo (say the LCS or OPVs etc) or for a situation like the AWD - only one helicopter (which might be otherwise engaged)

Light VT UAVs and an IKARA like system could work in tandem etc

I think that Ikara was the delivery vehicle of choice before embarked helicopters became the norm.
The ability of the helicopter to deliver a torpedo at extended range negated any further development of Ikara AFAIK.
MB

 

[Joe Black]

Key wording in the document:
We will build your future frigates anywhere that the Australian Goverment wants to build them; with full technology transfer and close on - site technical and programme management support and assistance to the Australian Shipyard(s) for the duration of the build
(ed my emphasis)

I think that they have read the climate for Australian shipbuilding very well.
I would not rule the Germans out of the Future submarine project either
MB

Looking really really good. If the price is right, this is probably one of the best option for the RAN. Would be interesting to see what the Italian will proposed with the Australianised FREMM.

 

[Bluey 006]

I think that Ikara was the delivery vehicle of choice before embarked helicopters became the norm.
The ability of the helicopter to deliver a torpedo at extended range negated any further development of Ikara AFAIK.
MB

What happens if the Helicopter is already engaged in SAR or MEDEVAC or something else?

What if bad weather or sea-conditions deny Helicopter operations?

What happens if multiple submarines attack a ship in a wolf pack style attack?

 

[Milne Bay]

What happens if the Helicopter is already engaged in SAR or MEDEVAC or something else?

What if bad weather or sea-conditions deny Helicopter operations?

What happens if multiple submarines attack a ship in a wolf pack style attack?

Indeed.
Just explaining why Ikara was not followed through when embarked helicopters became the norm.
Realistically though if the ship is tasked with ASuW duties, its helicopter will be used for that.
MB

 

[Bluey 006]

Indeed.
Just explaining why Ikara was not followed through when embarked helicopters became the norm.
Realistically though if the ship is tasked with ASuW duties, its helicopter will be used for that.
MB

yer, I understand that these days helicopters are the primary ASuW weapon. The thing is helicopters aboard these warships must wear many hats and they can't be everywhere at once.

At a time when we are discussing requirements for our future frigates, of which anti-submarine warfare has been touted as a core mission. To me it makes sense to also look at layered solutions.

Especially when you consider that Ikara was Australian designed, and an updated system may have export potential as well, especially if it can be independent of the VLS (thus not occupying valuable cells)


It is not inconceivable that in today's asymmetric battle-space that pirates or a disabled refugee ship or something else of that nature, could be used to draw the helicopter away from the ship, then a submarine/s could approach from the other direction and engage.

 

[John Newman]

yer, I understand that these days Helicopters are the primary ASuW weapon. The thing is helicopters aboard these warships must wear many hats and they can't be everywhere at once.

At a time when we are discussing requirements for our future frigates, which anti-submarine warfare has been touted as a core mission. To me it makes sense to also look at layered solutions.

Especially when you consider that Ikara was Australian designed, and an updated system may have export potential as well, especially if it can be independent of the VLS.


It is not inconceivable that in today's asymmetric battle-space that pirates or a disabled refugee ship or something else of that nature could be used to draw the helicopter away from the ship, then a submarine/s could approach from the other direction and engage.

If the Government found it necessary to have a ship launched 'missile' that was capable of carrying a torpedo in the RAN's inventory, then I would imagine that the current ASROC, capable of Mk41 VLS launch, would be the weapon of choice, see below:

RUM-139 VL-ASROC - Wikipedia


Not to say that we couldn't develop an updated Ikara of the type and capability that you mention, it's just that I can't see that we would invest in developing such a capability and then try and export it too, just can't see it happening.

 

[ASSAIL]

What happens if the Helicopter is already engaged in SAR or MEDEVAC or something else?

What if bad weather or sea-conditions deny Helicopter operations?

What happens if multiple submarines attack a ship in a wolf pack style attack?

That's why ASROC is carried.

Ikara was conceived in an era before helos were borne in RAN escorts and before general use of Links 11 & 16. Those were the days of ASW Hunter/Killer Groups led by CVS's and in our case CVS 21.

ASROC went to sea at about the same time, 1962-64, as HMAS Derwent became the first escort fitted with Ikara, 24,000yds which outranged ASROC, 10,000 yds (VLS ASROC has a range of 24,000 yds same as original Ikara)

The CVS screens in those days employed dipping sonar helos and it was a real advantage for the escorts to carry the bulk of the weapons to maximise helo "on task" time and as they usually screened at between 10-12 miles ahead, Ikara was a real advantage for it had both the range and a data link for mid course guidance. It was a great system for its time.

The demise of HMAS Melbourne and her Wessex 31B;s/Seakings and the lack of dipping sonar made Ikara superfluous.

In modern escorts the magazine and handling/launching space required for Ikara (even worse in the RN versions) is a bridge too far when space is at a premium and of no discernable advantage over VLS launched ASROC especially as torpedo search technology has improved so that mid course guidance is easily substituted with inertial guidance and improved delivery speed in ASROC.

I understand the RAN is considering ASROC for the Hobarts but haven't read anything substantive. Can anyone help?

Cheers
Chris

 

[Bluey 006]

Not to say that we couldn't develop an updated Ikara of the type and capability that you mention, it's just that I can't see that we would invest in developing such a capability and then try and export it too, just can't see it happening.

To be fair to I agree, I don't see it happening but it is a little disappointing. I am aware of the ASROC and its capabilities - the concern is that depending on ship(number of VLS cells etc) occupying VLS cells may not be best option.

Take something small like the ANZACs, you couldn't justify putting ASROC into the 8 VLS because those cells are needed for AAM etc

At a time when we are looking to invigorate our naval industry, projects like this with export potential go a long way helping fill the gaps.

Such a system may have potential as a anti-submarine self defence weapon for a variety of ships (many which have no VLS) all across the world - beyond just major combatants.

We have already done development work on this system, more would need to be done... but why not maximize this investment.

 

[alexsa]

Looking really really good. If the price is right, this is probably one of the best option for the RAN. Would be interesting to see what the Italian will proposed with the Australianised FREMM.

There are lots of good options out there but to hark on with the main aim ...... if it cannot be built quickly it is not going to resolve the whole 'valley of death' issue. Forjacs will soon run out of work and BAE systems are already laying off people.

The evolved solution is very nice and I like a lot of the thinking ....... but:
1. it is a paper ship - with the F125 coming in at 5600 tonnes growth to 6200 tonnes is no small design feat; and
2. we are not tooled up for it.

Maybe down the track as a new 'batch' but if we are going to beat the valley of death what ever we choose will need to be a real design of known quantity....... and really soon!

As I said, nice ship and the distributed arrangement and electric drive is a very good feature for the limited view we have of the sales pitch.

PS - Have to correct myself .... the F125 is at the 7000 tonne mark, still not a completed design that we can throw into production, but more mature than the T26.

 

[Joe Black]

Indeed.
Just explaining why Ikara was not followed through when embarked helicopters became the norm.
Realistically though if the ship is tasked with ASuW duties, its helicopter will be used for that.
MB

The missile carrier body was quite big too, I think anything that can't fit into the MK 41 VLS will essentially not going to work. For it to fit into an MK41 VLS, the missile will need to be totally redesigned probably with a smaller profile plus folding fins. Plus I think today you would want to carry a MK54 or MU90 torpedo too.

 

[cdxbow]

Key wording in the document:
We will build your future frigates anywhere that the Australian Goverment wants to build them; with full technology transfer and close on - site technical and programme management support and assistance to the Australian Shipyard(s) for the duration of the build
(ed my emphasis)

Seems very well pitched in a number of way given current needs. The wiki quotes 2.2 billion euros for 4x F125, elsewhere quotes around 650 million euros ($929.5 m AUD) per ship . This seems a pretty good price, but will surely be higher built in Oz to RAN specifications. Any one offer a reasonable guesstimate on a RAN ship?

 

[Joe Black]

There are lots of good options out there but to hark on with the main aim ...... if it cannot be built quickly it is not going to resolve the whole 'valley of death' issue. Forjacs will soon run out of work and BAE systems are already laying off people.

The evolved solution is very nice and I like a lot of the thinking ....... but:
1. it is a paper ship - with the F125 coming in at 5600 tonnes growth to 6200 tonnes is no small design feat; and
2. we are not tooled up for it.

Maybe down the track as a new 'batch' but if we are going to beat the valley of death what ever we choose will need to be a real design of known quantity....... and really soon!

As I said, nice ship and the distributed arrangement and electric drive is a very good feature for the limited view we have of the sales pitch.

PS - Have to correct myself .... the F125 is at the 7000 tonne mark, still not a completed design that we can throw into production, but more mature than the T26.

Good point, perhaps lets go with a batch of 4 Australianised F125, then a second batch of MEKO400?

Don't think you can really ram up the Future Frigate build any quicker. I think building a fleet of OPVs (finger crossed Damen OPV 2) soon, would probably be more realistic. Plus, lets get the Pacific Boat happening now!

 

[Bluey 006]

The missile carrier body was quite big too, I think anything that can't fit into the MK 41 VLS will essentially not going to work. For it to fit into an MK41 VLS, the missile will need to be totally redesigned probably with a smaller profile plus folding fins. Plus I think today you would want to carry a MK54 or MU90 torpedo too.

If it is going into the VLS - best just go with the ASROC, but keeping it out of the VLS could be a key unique sales advantage for a locally produced system.

With modern systems, I wonder if the whole system could be miniaturized?... I have no idea if it is feasible, but a modular system (cold launched) capable of fitting into a multi-mission space of sorts would be ideal.

After all the 100km ranged Super-Ikara was going to be box launched

That said, if this system is never revived and we look at acquiring the ASROC, due care must be taken with the number of cells and size we chose for our next generation of ships.

48 cells is probably the absolute minimum, with 64 closer to the mark if you want

SM-2
SM-6
TLAM
ESSM
ASROC

hmmmm....

 

[alexsa]

Good point, perhaps lets go with a batch of 4 Australianised F125, then a second batch of MEKO400?

Don't think you can really ram up the Future Frigate build any quicker. I think building a fleet of OPVs (finger crossed Damen OPV 2) soon, would probably be more realistic. Plus, lets get the Pacific Boat happening now!

Except the F125 does not really fit the bill at the moment. Its air defence is RAM. The stated desire is CEAFAR which is pretty pointless if you do not have the VLS to back it up.

The F125 is replacing the Bremen class frigate which is an ASW frigate with limited AAW capability. The F125 is a much more flexible platform but lacks the ASMD of the ANZAC so it would be a step back if we took it on as is.

 

[Punta74]

Going to be an interesting white paper in a few months that will answer a lot of questions.

Keeping it realistic what's expected, and what surprises are/could be forecast for the RAN?

 

[John Newman]

48 cells is probably the absolute minimum, with 64 closer to the mark if you want

SM-2
SM-6
TLAM
ESSM
ASROC

hmmmm....

Firstly SM-2 will eventually be replaced by SM-6 (assuming that SM-6 is still on the shopping list), ESSM will certainly be required (quad packed), TLAM yes (but in what numbers and how often would it be deployed?) ASROC, well we still don't know if that is going to happen or not, so a 48 cell Mk41 VLS is still probably workable.

It maybe that in a 'future' taskforce, containing a number of Future Frigates, that they may have differing loads and if the company of an AWD, and if all the ships are fitted with Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), that would possibly negate the need for all ships to carry all the available weapons.

 

[Bluey 006]

Firstly SM-2 will eventually be replaced by SM-6 (assuming that SM-6 is still on the shopping list), ESSM will certainly be required (quad packed), TLAM yes (but in what numbers and how often would it be deployed?) ASROC, well we still don't know if that is going to happen or not, so a 48 cell Mk41 VLS is still probably workable.

It maybe that in a 'future' taskforce, containing a number of Future Frigates, that they may have differing loads and if the company of an AWD, and if all the ships are fitted with Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), that would possibly negate the need for all ships to carry all the available weapons.

I believe the SM-6 is not meant to entirely replace the SM-2 series of missiles rather complement them.

Yes your are right Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) does solve some of the problem for a task force but what about ships operating independently? (we only have 3 x AWD remember)

Also I could be wrong on this but I think as it stands the current CEAFAR doesn't have cooperative engagement capability(CEC)

Can anyone confirm?