Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

I guess that answers the question if they can operate with the divider in the middle still in place.

MV-22, LCAC.. I think the LHD are proving some of the potential in a space Australia never previously considered.

I don't think it was a question of if it could operate there but rather how well it could. So far all the video showed is the LCAC parking in there (No mention of it fitted all the way in or not) and talk about them doing test's to see what size of vehicles the could load and unload in the well deck.

From other articles I have read the vehicle part of the test (moving on and off the LCAC's within the well deck) has not yet taken part as best as I can tell.

So far they have driven an LCAC in and out, launched and recovered 4 AAV's and that's abouit it, Wonderful new's no doubt but still early day's. We haven't been told if it can be parked in there with the ship all shut up (hard to get the dimensions of the well deck in regards to the divider length), what sort of vehicles can actually be transfered between the LCAC and LHD, etc etc. Still a lot to be worked out so I'd be hard pressed to be going forward saying that it can be done no worries when the test's aren't even finished.

Regards, vonnoobie.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think it was a question of if it could operate there but rather how well it could. So far all the video showed is the LCAC parking in there (No mention of it fitted all the way in or not) and talk about them doing test's to see what size of vehicles the could load and unload in the well deck.

From other articles I have read the vehicle part of the test (moving on and off the LCAC's within the well deck) has not yet taken part as best as I can tell.

So far they have driven an LCAC in and out, launched and recovered 4 AAV's and that's abouit it, Wonderful new's no doubt but still early day's. We haven't been told if it can be parked in there with the ship all shut up (hard to get the dimensions of the well deck in regards to the divider length), what sort of vehicles can actually be transfered between the LCAC and LHD, etc etc. Still a lot to be worked out so I'd be hard pressed to be going forward saying that it can be done no worries when the test's aren't even finished.

Regards, vonnoobie.

There was much discussion in this thread. I don't think the LCAC will fit in the dock shut with the divider. The divider could be made shorter to improve this type of operation if its required. Its more about joint operation at this stage. But if Australia acquired something in the future (and for the LHD that could be 30+ years in the future) would it be useful and usable. Things like ventilation, sea spray, stability, ease of access, clearance etc would all need to be addressed.

The DW did have LCM replacements in there. What that actually ends up as (modified LCM's, or something new, or augmenting the LCM's with something else) remains to be seen.

I imagine things will be clearer after next year when we try to actually form a fairly complete Amphibious Ready Group with USMC equipment (V-22/LCAC) and personnel "making up the numbers" (100-400) on top of the 2500++ or so ADF personnel , the MR-90's, the Chinooks, the LCM's, surging of 2 LHD's and Choules etc.

The space I refer to is not the physical well dock, but the high end amphibious capability. Which is a metric lightyear ahead of where Australia might have even have dreamed in 1999.

 

[alexsa]

Sure, but usually not when it comes down to propulsion. The main difference between the T26/FREMM vs the Hobart AWD/F105 is the use of CODLAG for propulsion rather than CODLOG.

Electric motors are great for ASW work as they are much quieter. For the AWD derived Sea 5000 to work, one need to look at an alternate engine design plus the difference in the gearbox, etc.

Furthermore, I feel that both T26 and FREMM have better stealth shaping than the AWD. Most of the weapon systems are hidden within the seaframe/hull rather than being highly visible, thus likely to present the highest RCS to a sea skimmer.

I am not suggesting that therefore we should consider T26 or the FREMM, I am just simply highlighting that non of the proposed solution is a winner in all departments. BTW, I also think that the proposed Navantia solution looks real ugly.

This is a fairly major generalisation ...... Electric motors in themselves are not necessarily quieter. How they are installed and the nature of the entire propulsion system and how auxillary equipment is mounted has a great deal to do with that. There are electrically driven commerical vessels and they are far from 'quiet'. There is simply not enough information in the public domain to write off the evolved F-105 (or any other option) as being noisier than the others. All claim to be optimised for ASW work and quite.

In addition there is nothing to stop the addition of electric drive motors to start arrangements for slow speed operation rather that full electric. I doubt that is being considered but mention this to point out that options exist.

Finally ...... None of the options are particularly 'pretty', however, that is irrelevant.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i'd argue that stating that elec motors is/are better for ASW is not necessarily so

in fact, electric motors can inject their own masking and suppression issues.

it can be easier to find a few thousand tonnes acting as a transducer/induction coil than a decent acoustically mapped and managed conventionally driven hull

 

[aussienscale]

SM-2 Block IIIB

FMS request on DSCA for the following:

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):
Up to eighty (80) STANDARD Missile, SM-2 Block IIIB Vertical Launching Tactical All-Up Rounds,
RIM-66M-09
Up to fifteen (15) MK 97 SM-2 Block IIIB Guidance Sections (GSs)

This request also includes the following Non-MDE: MK 13 MOD 0 Vertical Launching System
Canisters, operator manuals and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering,
technical and logistics support services.

http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_16-17.pdf

Interesting to be using the Mk 13 for the test firings for Combat System Qualifications trials for the AWD's

Cheers

 

[Joe Black]

FMS request on DSCA for the following:

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):
Up to eighty (80) STANDARD Missile, SM-2 Block IIIB Vertical Launching Tactical All-Up Rounds,
RIM-66M-09
Up to fifteen (15) MK 97 SM-2 Block IIIB Guidance Sections (GSs)

This request also includes the following Non-MDE: MK 13 MOD 0 Vertical Launching System
Canisters, operator manuals and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering,
technical and logistics support services.

http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_16-17.pdf

Interesting to be using the Mk 13 for the test firings for Combat System Qualifications trials for the AWD's

Cheers

Andrew Davis had a stab at guessing the reasoning behind this purchase:
Reverse engineering Australia's FMS requests | The Strategist

Interesting to see him doing a bit of sherlock Holmes' style detective work/analysis.

 

[alexsa]

Andrew Davis had a stab at guessing the reasoning behind this purchase:
Reverse engineering Australia's FMS requests | The Strategist

Interesting to see him doing a bit of sherlock Holmes' style detective work/analysis.

Interesting when you look at his number on the SM2 ..... Enough to fill 4 to 6 AWD but we are getting 3 ....... Obviously we have no need for reloads.

 

[aussienscale]

Interesting when you look at his number on the SM2 ..... Enough to fill 4 to 6 AWD but we are getting 3 ....... Obviously we have no need for reloads.

Or any stocks for the Future Frigate how many of them are we getting now ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting to see him doing a bit of sherlock Holmes' style detective work/analysis.

it's an analyst/engineering thing reverse and try and work back to see what is driving it

 

[koala]

Or any stocks for the Future Frigate how many of them are we getting now ?

You would hope that in the event of even a minor skirmish where we need to defend our surface fleet, we have ample missile stock for reloads and we are able to get the warship back out there if they run out of ammo
I as a proud Australian would also hope we have sufficient war stock for the unexpected contingencies? (nukes undeclared
)

 

[ADMk2]

FMS request on DSCA for the following:

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):
Up to eighty (80) STANDARD Missile, SM-2 Block IIIB Vertical Launching Tactical All-Up Rounds,
RIM-66M-09
Up to fifteen (15) MK 97 SM-2 Block IIIB Guidance Sections (GSs)

This request also includes the following Non-MDE: MK 13 MOD 0 Vertical Launching System
Canisters, operator manuals and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering,
technical and logistics support services.

http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_16-17.pdf

Interesting to be using the Mk 13 for the test firings for Combat System Qualifications trials for the AWD's

Cheers

That's not the Mk 13 single arm launcher you are thinking of is it?

The Mk 41 VLS is loaded with Mk 13 canisters... Confusing I know!

 

[ADMk2]

Saw this just now... Curious. Is this designed to clear mines or lay them?

New Mine Warfare Team Established
(Source: Royal Australian Navy; issued July 28, 2016)
Enhanced mine warfare capabilities will soon be a reality for the Royal Australian Navy, with Australia Mine Warfare Team 16 being officially named at a ceremony at HMAS Waterhen.

The team, named after the 16th Mine Sweeping Squadron, achieved the milestone on Thursday 14 July, with Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, and members of the original 16th Mine Sweeping Squadron watching on.

Vice Admiral Barrett said the establishment of Australia Mine Warfare Team 16 will help Navy achieve its capability priorities.

“The team’s formation follows a major review of Navy’s mine clearance capability. This has resulted in a significant workforce restructure and the delivery of upgraded mine warfare and clearance diving systems,” he said.

“Ultimately, the review and restructure will deliver a sustainable, full-spectrum, deployable mine warfare capability to enable future expeditionary maritime task group operations.”

Commanding Officer of Australia Mine Warfare Team 16, Lieutenant Commander Ryan Carmichael, paid tribute to members of the 16th Mine Sweeping Squadron.

“Today’s naming ceremony is an important milestone in the team’s development. We look forward to operating our new manned and unmanned mine warfare systems as capabilities materialise,” Lieutenant Commander Carmichael said.

“Australian Mine Warfare Team 16 is charged with a key role in aligning mine warfare and clearance diving with Navy Strategy 2018 and today marks a significant step in a longer expeditionary mine counter measures journey.”

Mrs Jacquie Clarey, the wife of the President of 16th Mine Sweeping Squadron Association, agreed to be the team’s lady sponsor.

 

[aussienscale]

That's not the Mk 13 single arm launcher you are thinking of is it?

The Mk 41 VLS is loaded with Mk 13 canisters... Confusing I know!

Ah yes of course dopey don't know why I did not think of that !! Was thinking for some strange reason it was alluding to a Mk13 Launcher that they might install onshore for test firings, thought it was strange, would have been a nice addition to West Head though

Cheers

 

[Joe Black]

That's not the Mk 13 single arm launcher you are thinking of is it?

The Mk 41 VLS is loaded with Mk 13 canisters... Confusing I know!

No really, Missile containers and canisters are identified by a mark and mod number:

1. Mk 372 container - Standard missiles (SM)

2. Mk 632 container - Harpoon missiles

3. Mk 183 container - ASROC missiles

4. Mk 13 canister VLS - Standard SM-2 all-up-round (AUR) missiles Block II, III, IIIA, and IIIB

5. Mk 14 Mod 0 and 1 canister VLS - Tomahawk AUR

6. Mk 15 canister VLS - ASROC missiles

see: Containers, Canisters, and Handling Equipment

 

[aussienscale]

No really, Missile containers and canisters are identified by a mark and mod number

AD does realise that, he was just politely pointing out that I had not read it properly and had made the assumption on the Mk13 launcher and not the canisters for the VLS loading

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting when you look at his number on the SM2 ..... Enough to fill 4 to 6 AWD but we are getting 3 ....... Obviously we have no need for reloads.

Japan has placed a pretty significant order for SM-2 as well.

SM-2 is going to be cheaper than SM-6 and SM-2 is most likely still going to be a very effective missile for most purposes and still make up a significant proportion of weapon load outs on all ships for the foreseeable future. SM6 evolved from SM2 so if you aren't using the features of SM6 then why not fire SM2's?

Its highly likely that the future frigate will have 48 VLS. Resulting in a not a small number of ~580 VLS in the future RAN. We sure as hell won't be filling all of those with SM6 (or SM3) or ESSM. Nor should they be. Sm2 is still the workhorse and I see a long life for them.

Same with the SDB. If you aren't after the new features of the model II (which are unlikely to be used for every mission), why not just buy the much cheaper I and then augment with a smaller order of the Model II when it becomes avalible.

I would rather we have a decent stock at a decent price rather than try to get production to start up to give us more when we are desperate.

 

[t68]

Just after bit of clarification information and just to be above board this is not an attempt to discuss whether the RAN LHD should have a fixed wing component. I stumbled on this reply letter which was forwarded to NAVY Magazine, regarding the F-35B for Australia's LHDs in response to article by Mark Boast in the Jan-Mar 2015 edition and appears to have been written by a LCDR J.R.Brown RAN(Rtd)

http://www.faaaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/JSF.pdf

My main clarification is concurrent fixed wing and rotary operations from the Juan Carlos/Canberra class LHD and the spotting of rotary aircraft and possibly fouling the main launching take-off tramway, and whether this also would impact an all rotary fleet spotted on the flight deck?

From available diagrams it appears possible to park three helicopters forward of the island, and three aft, however they would have to be folded, with their tail sections over the side of the deck so as to facilitate fixed wing operations. In other words, should the ship be required to launch an F35B, no helicopters would be able to foul the deck. Depending on the number of fixed wing to be launched, there would be a subsequent delay in commencing to spot the helicopters. Suffice to say that once helicopter spotting/spreading started, any situation requiring the emergency land-on of the fixed-wing would be the first of the "deck cycle" problems.

If what the above is true how long does it take to change the "cycle" from the operational tramway until the rotary aircraft can be set up for operational use, and if the rotary aircraft encroach onto the tramway would they also have to be in the same folded position when other rotary aircraft are being launched and recovered?

The only footage that I have come across is via you tube and the JC1and multiple SH-3 Sea King which have been brought up individually from the hanger deck and no other aircraft spotted on the flight deck or Harrier with a single Huey spotted in the forward spot and in line with the flight deck, I can’t say for sure but it seems there is kernel of truth to it, how does that impact flight ops for say a company lift with 6x MRH-90 and escort with Tiger ARH or its possible successor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdtjW0xawSU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMfUXje1GTk

 

[SpazSinbad]

...My main clarification is concurrent fixed wing and rotary operations from the Juan Carlos/Canberra class LHD and the spotting of rotary aircraft and possibly fouling the main launching take-off tramway, and whether this also would impact an all rotary fleet spotted on the flight deck?

If what the above is true how long does it take to change the "cycle" from the operational tramway until the rotary aircraft can be set up for operational use, and if the rotary aircraft encroach onto the tramway would they also have to be in the same folded position when other rotary aircraft are being launched and recovered?

The only footage that I have come across is via you tube and the JC1and multiple SH-3 Sea King which have been brought up individually from the hanger deck and no other aircraft spotted on the flight deck or Harrier with a single Huey spotted in the forward spot and in line with the flight deck, I can’t say for sure but it seems there is kernel of truth to it, how does that impact flight ops for say a company lift with 6x MRH-90 and escort with Tiger ARH or its possible successor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdtjW0xawSU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMfUXje1GTk

Lots of questions I cannot answer however you may find this video interesting for Harrier Jet VL recoveries aboard Juan Carlos 1 LHD?

LHD Juan Carlos I, Harrier lands between Ospreys [rotor blades turning]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aatfXKDVvps

 

[t68]

Lots of questions I cannot answer however you may find this video interesting for Harrier Jet VL recoveries aboard Juan Carlos 1 LHD?

LHD Juan Carlos I, Harrier lands between Ospreys [rotor blades turning]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aatfXKDVvps

Certainly interesting, I notice a Sea King spotted with what appears to be its tail encroaching the tramway(bad light)

According to the USN fact file Sea king is marginally longer being 16.5m and the Navy showing MRH-90 at 16.13m, interestingly USN fact file is showing Seahawk at 19.6m, from what I can ascertain MH-60R fuselage I the same length

 

[Stampede]

Just after bit of clarification information and just to be above with 6x MRH-90 and escort with Tiger ARH or its possible successor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdtjW0xawSU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMfUXje1GTk

Fixed wing taskings aside

I do wonder what the total helicopter deck parking capacity is on the Canberra's.
Assuming the lifts and the flight deck are left free, I would take that the starboard aircraft parks would be good for a total of four MRH-90 sized aircraft both fore and aft the Island structure with a couple more smaller tiger sized helicopters between the same Island and the foulline of the flight deck.
Suggest a total of ten parking spots up top, with flight deck free and hanger/garage open for mission dependant utility and use.
Certainly the speed of automatic folding blades have merit as we increasingly take helicopters to sea. The weight penalty of the folding mechanism and cost is probably worth it for the benefits of increased sortie rate and safety aboard a busy flight deck in all weather condictions.

Will watch the LHD's progress in aviation with interest

Regards S