Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[AegisFC]

Anyone else notice how defensive focused warships are?

One thing about most warships is they tend to only have 8-16 offensive missiles... Above deck anti ship missiles. The USA also loads tomahawks, but they aren't antiship .

Most vls seem to be used purely for anti missile, perhaps anti warplane, use.

Naval ships seem to be extremely defensive these days.

Am I wrong?

Good thing SM-2 has a surface mode.

 

[vonnoobie]

Just on Deffence Connect and came across this article Defence backs project management experience of SEA 1000 team - Defence Connect.

Rex Patrick naturally again at his grand standing has failed miserably with Defences response to his statements

"No disrespect is directed at the Admiral running the project. Just as you can't post an experienced project manager into the position of submarine Commanding Officer, you can't take a submarine Commanding Officer and place them in the position of a senior project manager," Patrick said.

The response

"The Future Submarine Program is managed by an extremely experienced executive with more than 250 years of collective project management experience," the department said in a statement.

"The team assembled to manage the Future Submarine Project is led by Mr Stephen Johnson, General Manager Submarines, who is a highly accomplished program manager.

"Mr Johnson served as the Director of the Strategic Systems Program and had a major role in the design of the United States Virginia Class, as well as serving as program manager for the Seawolf Class. These are the most complex and advanced submarines available

"The program is led by Rear Admiral (RADM) Greg Sammut, the most senior submariner in Defence. RADM Sammut has applied his 34 years of experience as a Naval officer across a number of submarine capability management roles, including as Head Future Submarine Program since September 2013.

"RADM Sammut is building a high performance team of local and international experts to meet the many complex challenges associated with the design and delivery of the Future Submarine Program. The growing team comprises experts with experience in project management, platform and combat systems, legal, maritime industry and infrastructure, and is supported by highly experienced commercial advisers.

"Defence has also engaged a platform director with over 23 years of acquisition project management experience, including production, with a master's in mechanical engineering specialising in underwater acoustics and structural vibration. He also has the highest level of project management and systems engineering accreditation under the United States Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA), in addition to high‑level accreditation in production environment.

"In addition, Defence has engaged a Combat System Director with over 28 years of service as a United States Naval Officer, including 21 years of submarine acquisition experience and 14 years of experience in submarine operations, who has a bachelor's in engineering and master's in business administration. He has attained the highest level of project management accreditation under the DAWIA, in addition to high level accreditation in systems engineering and business financial management. He also has a further 22 years of program management experience, including five years with a major defence manufacturing company."

That is a lot of very experienced personnel ranging from naval to civilian to naval but each and every one of them works in the naval field. This is a perfect team that I dont know if could be any better, Rex Patrick sticking his nose in risks breaking up a perfectly good team who all have the combined experience to see and navigate around any problems. Anything goes wrong with the program and hand to heart guarantee it will be because of people like him thinking they know better and speaking with out bothering to ask the ADF a few basic questions.

Oh well with knowing who is running it if government takes a back seat then I have no fears on this program. Can rest easy tonight.

 

[stoney]

Good thing SM-2 has a surface mode.

Some points to keep in mind.

On AO/AOR'S smoking is not allowed unless in special area's so blasting off missiles might be counterproductive to ship safety.
Take a look at the stats from past wars see how many hundreds of missiles / thousands of AA rounds were expended per kill. You will
find the ratio is astronomical. Hence several layers of defence.
I have been on AA shoots where 3 ships steaming in a strait line in perfect weather who knew the direction the target was coming from
blasted away for 20 minutes and after several runs the target flew blissfully back to base. Imagine high speed manouvering in bad weather
with the target shooting back. We can only try.

 

[spoz]

And then you can be on a shoot where the first round is a TTB and the third parts the tow cable; where a telemetry missile impacts the target and destroys it rather than passing it at a safe distance; and where an unalerted detection when we'd been in state 2 for about 3 days resulted in a splash (of a target) from the first round with, believe it or not, Seacat.. It doesn't always happen, in fact it doesn't often happen, but it does happen.

 

[rockitten]

Submarines are going to be much better projecting power against naval assets.

In Australia's case it looks like we will have a large surface fleet with very capable anti-air capability, and a level of protection against sub surface threats. But that is always going to be in combination with subs.

Also remember that the subs will have 6 strike length VLS as well. In combination to the 28 odd torpedos/mines/missiles (Harpoon or NSM).

Stingray, is there any open source info about the VLS on our new subs?

No, I trust you and I am excited about it, but I would like to read the source article as well.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Your right, I don't think anyone can confirm anything regarding the Australian Shortfin Barracuda until it is IOC. May and possibly should be inserted into my sentence.

But there have been reports of VLS.
Submarine Matters: Controversial Reuters Article on "Germans lose ground"
The 4,700 SMX Ocean was also illustrated firing a VLS missile
https://www.meretmarine.com/sites/default/files/pdf/MM2014_pp42-55.pdf

I see digging a little deeper confirmation is short.

Submarines can launch tomahawk without VLS of course, as that how the poms do it. Oberon and Collins have strike capability. (harpoon)

 

[ASSAIL]

I thought I'd track down memory lane for the sake of spazsinbad et al.
My lasting memory of A4's and CVS 21, she really was on her limits for space and weight.

Royal Australian Navy

 

[hauritz]

Some points to keep in mind.

On AO/AOR'S smoking is not allowed unless in special area's so blasting off missiles might be counterproductive to ship safety.
Take a look at the stats from past wars see how many hundreds of missiles / thousands of AA rounds were expended per kill. You will
find the ratio is astronomical. Hence several layers of defence.
I have been on AA shoots where 3 ships steaming in a strait line in perfect weather who knew the direction the target was coming from
blasted away for 20 minutes and after several runs the target flew blissfully back to base. Imagine high speed manouvering in bad weather
with the target shooting back. We can only try.

I must admit I have always been a little sceptical as to how effective air defences would be in a real war.

I find it hard to believe any surface fleet would survive for long if they were under sustained missile attack. That is why I do tend to be more of an advocate of submarines than surface ships.

The only real-world war I can think of where a fleet had to fight off sustained air attacks involving standoff weapons was the Falklands where even a first world power like the UK struggled to hold the largely obsolete Argentine airforce at bay.

 

[Todjaeger]

I must admit I have always been a little sceptical as to how effective air defences would be in a real war.

I find it hard to believe any surface fleet would survive for long if they were under sustained missile attack. That is why I do tend to be more of an advocate of submarines than surface ships.

The only real-world war I can think of where a fleet had to fight off sustained air attacks involving standoff weapons was the Falklands where even a first world power like the UK struggled to hold the largely obsolete Argentine airforce at bay.

IIRC during the Falklands War there was concern about standoff munitions, but much of the subsequent air attacks were actually bombing runs. Also worth noting is that the Argentines were familiar with the capabilities of the RN's main area air defence missile, the Sea Dart, as well as the capabilities of the main Sea Dart launch platform which was the Type 42 Destroyer, since the Argentine Navy had two Type 42 Destroyers in service. As a result of this, the tactics used during air attacks were adjusted to minimize the effectiveness of the RN's air defence capabilities. The conflict was also a rather extreme example of expeditionary warfare be something like 10,000 miles from the UK and well outside the range at which land-based aircraft could provide support, and at a time before the RN had an organic AEW capability.

 

[ASSAIL]

I must admit I have always been a little sceptical as to how effective air defences would be in a real war.

I find it hard to believe any surface fleet would survive for long if they were under sustained missile attack. That is why I do tend to be more of an advocate of submarines than surface ships.

The only real-world war I can think of where a fleet had to fight off sustained air attacks involving standoff weapons was the Falklands where even a first world power like the UK struggled to hold the largely obsolete Argentine airforce at bay.

The RNs short range air defences were as obsolete as the Argentinian Air Force.
As Tod has stated, Sea Dart had limitations it was not the missile it later became and the Sea Cat system (what we today refer to as CIWS) had even worse limitations.
The Type 21 and Leander frigates were effective ASW platforms but despite being labelled as General Purpose frigates their AAW,capabilities were not fit for purpose.

 

[Joe Black]

The RNs short range air defences were as obsolete as the Argentinian Air Force.
As Tod has stated, Sea Dart had limitations it was not the missile it later became and the Sea Cat system (what we today refer to as CIWS) had even worse limitations.
The Type 21 and Leander frigates were effective ASW platforms but despite being labelled as General Purpose frigates their AAW,capabilities were not fit for purpose.

Taken a page and lessons learnt from the Falkland wars? I don't see how relying on MK15 Phalanx will be adequate in the near future when RAN will likely be facing multiple supersonic cruise missiles from different directions, attack profile, etc. Yes, we have the Nulkas soft kill - one of the best in the world, yes, we have ESSM coupled with CEAMount for multiple channels of fire, but is RAN ready to deal with the couple of leakers with just MK15 as the last line of defence?

I would like to think that given the increase in the threat matrix, it is about time to consider something more capable like the the SeaRAM and the 35mm Millennium guns.

 

[Stampede]

Taken a page and lessons learnt from the Falkland wars? I don't see how relying on MK15 Phalanx will be adequate in the near future when RAN will likely be facing multiple supersonic cruise missiles from different directions, attack profile, etc. Yes, we have the Nulkas soft kill - one of the best in the world, yes, we have ESSM coupled with CEAMount for multiple channels of fire, but is RAN ready to deal with the couple of leakers with just MK15 as the last line of defence?

I would like to think that given the increase in the threat matrix, it is about time to consider something more capable like the the SeaRAM and the 35mm Millennium guns.

Fair comment made all the more concerning when you consider that two thirds of our Frigate / destroyer force have no CIWS. Yes this component being the ANZAC frigates will eventually be replaced. However it must be remembered they will still be a significant part of the fleets major units for the next decade. Which of course is a long time of uncertainty to not have a, CIWS or even a smaller bushmaster sized weapon.
Not sure of the options due to weight limitations, but suggest its a problem that needs addressing.
This may require some sort of creative solution, but I would argue doing nothing is not really an option.
My concern is the ANZAC's replacement time table in SEA 5000 is in reality still a way off in delivering one, yet alone nine ships at FOC.

Looks like the AWD's will have their work cut out for them in the 2020's

So a question

Realistically, what level of harms way would the Commonwealth commit an ANZAC class frigate.




Regards S

 

[Todjaeger]

Fair comment made all the more concerning when you consider that two thirds of our Frigate / destroyer force have no CIWS. Yes this component being the ANZAC frigates will eventually be replaced. However it must be remembered they will still be a significant part of the fleets major units for the next decade. Which of course is a long time of uncertainty to not have a, CIWS or even a smaller bushmaster sized weapon.
Not sure of the options due to weight limitations, but suggest its a problem that needs addressing.
This may require some sort of creative solution, but I would argue doing nothing is not really an option.
My concern is the ANZAC's replacement time table in SEA 5000 is in reality still a way off in delivering one, yet alone nine ships at FOC.

Looks like the AWD's will have their work cut out for them in the 2020's

So a question

Realistically, what level of harms way would the Commonwealth commit an ANZAC class frigate.
Regards S

Realistically, I suspect what the RAN should and will do regarding a CIWS for the ANZAC-class FFH is nothing. IIRC the original plan for the RAN version for the frigate was to have space & weight available to fit a 2nd 8-cell Mk 41 VLS with RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles, and a Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS. The reality has turned out somewhat differently, with the heavier and much more capable ESSM being developed along with a method to quad-pack ESSM into Mk 41 VLS cells.

Along the way it turned out that the space and weight margins, topweight in particular, to add much more aboard a RAN frigate once the ESSM was fitted.

This in turn left the RAN with a decision to make, opt for 32 ESSM, or perhaps 16 ESSM and a CIWS. Given that kind of a choice, selecting more of the most capable option seems sensible. I would prefer that future RAN vessels have a position set aside for a CIWS of some sort, to provide an inner defence area, but for the FFH, having more of the ESSM was the better choice IMO.

Also speaking of CIWS, I do feel having 'pooled' CIWS would be the way to go if/when possible, but I would prefer that the Mk 15 Phalanx be replaced, as I feel in the current and future threat environments, the 20 mm gun's performance again possible supersonic AShM would prove insufficient. I think something like SeaRAM and/or the 35 mm Millennium Gun would be better options.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Hobarts and the FF get 30mm or 35mm or even super 40mm replacements for the m242. Given its a bolt on and there is a rumored upgraded mount that holds double the rounds and increases the arc of fire and includes an axial .50 cal. Mk39 mod 3 (or mod 4)
https://www.defence.nioa.com.au/supply/product_attachment/10/mk44-bushmaster.pdf

With that kind of gun upgrade, then putting a seaRAM on the back might make a bit more sense from a layer perspective.

You would want to ensure you have non-missile threats covered before you take off Phalanx. I would imagine part of the reason these haven't already been selected is because they are in development.

 

[SpazSinbad]

I thought I'd track down memory lane for the sake of spazsinbad et al.
My lasting memory of A4's and CVS 21, she really was on her limits for space and weight.

Royal Australian Navy

IIRC the max carried was a dozen for KANGAROO TOO?! TEN A4Gs onboard for KANGY WUN [ http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Navy_News-June-21-1974.pdf ]. First wuz 4 A4Gs for Fleet Defence then by late 1972 when the BADGERS were grounded A4G numbers increased becuz they could to 6 then 8 whilst 8 A4Gs was usual for a few years then entropy set in as losses mounted via accidents various down to the magic four at the end I believe?

 

[SpazSinbad]

I'm too SLOW my 30 mins for editing have passed - past midnight and I have turned into a pumpkin, however part of the text in the second pic says: Navy News 07 Jun 1974 "...ten A4G Skyhawks, five S2E Trackers & Four 31B Wessex joined 13 May 1974..." http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Navy_News-June-7-1974.pdf

 

[SpazSinbad]

I'm not a AceHooker so not able to see the FACEbook image except a brief glimpse only, so here is anotherie example: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3a/fe/23/3afe23958eeabb580946e626a965b4bd--a--melbourne.jpg

 

[spoz]

I seem to remember we had at least 6 onboard for the IO trip in ‘80 which was the last time A4s were embarked - and lost two of them. Sure, we operated Melbourne at her limit, but we did it extremely well for many years.

Nice picture Spaz, makes me feel about 40 years younger!

 

[SpazSinbad]

'spoz' thanks - not certain of the A4G numbers for last embarkation - makes sense - but the two lost in the Indian Ocean as you mention on that trip with the LAST EVER A4G Catapult (almost catapult). And the four remaining were craned off back in Sydney, Oz. You may be interested in the current FAAAA 'MYSTERY PHOTO'?

Mystery Photo No 38 | Fleet Air Arm Association of Australia

 

[ASSAIL]

I seem to remember we had at least 6 onboard for the IO trip in ‘80 which was the last time A4s were embarked - and lost two of them. Sure, we operated Melbourne at her limit, but we did it extremely well for many years.

Nice picture Spaz, makes me feel about 40 years younger!

Spoz, I was CAGASW for that trip, nice memories.