Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

So what did happen to the last two Adelaide class FFGs?
Has Poland ended up with them, or someone else?
I think Poland wanted SM2's etc to go with them and that may have been a sticking point.
So what is the sate of play?
MB

HMAS Melbourne is still going with a scheduled decommission on the 26th of Oct.
Open day in Tasmania on the 17th of Aug, if your a Tassie local.

As to their future, I have not heard anything other than the speculation that has already been mentioned.
I've done my fantasy fleet with these two ships and HMAS Sirius in the past, but at this stage it looks like it's well and truly set in concrete their days with the RAN are over.
As to their future we will just have to wait and see.
I will certainly be interested in their outcome.

Cheers

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Just some thoughts as to the sending of HMAS Toowoomba to the Persian Gulf.
Given the Iranian use of high speed craft to provoke and attack, I'm wondering if an ANZAC frigate has the range of options to deal with such a tactic.
Without a Phalanx CIWS and 25mm Bushmaster there appears a missing range of response options in between the ships 50 Cal and 5 inch gun.
While I acknowledge the ship a has a single helicopter and will be apart of a coalition force, one would hope the ship should be a contributor and not a liability.
Without rebuilding the ship; is there any merit in carrying some extra infantry based weapons to counter fast moving provocative surface craft.
Some Javelin ATGW or Mk47 LWAGL. may be a suitable and agricultural solution to an awkward situation.

Thoughts

Regards S

 

[Richo99]

Just some thoughts as to the sending of HMAS Toowoomba to the Persian Gulf.
Given the Iranian use of high speed craft to provoke and attack, I'm wondering if an ANZAC frigate has the range of options to deal with such a tactic.
Without a Phalanx CIWS and 25mm Bushmaster there appears a missing range of response options in between the ships 50 Cal and 5 inch gun.
While I acknowledge the ship a has a single helicopter and will be apart of a coalition force, one would hope the ship should be a contributor and not a liability.
Without rebuilding the ship; is there any merit in carrying some extra infantry based weapons to counter fast moving provocative surface craft.
Some Javelin ATGW or Mk47 LWAGL. may be a suitable and agricultural solution to an awkward situation.

Thoughts

Regards S

7.62mm flex mounted miniguns is what both the UK and US have installed in the recent past. Light weight and devastating weight of fire, but short range....

 

[alexsa]

7.62mm flex mounted miniguns is what both the UK and US have installed in the recent past. Light weight and devastating weight of fire, but short range....

Don’t forget the Romeo is not without a missile capability and a hellfire will make a mess of a small FAC outside the range of their weapons. Added to that 5” firing barrage (AA) is going to make things dicey for open (or partly open) vessels .... again well before they are in range. Finally there will be other allied assets backing up the patrolling vessel.

I suspect that if a number of FAC are detected headed out they will be the subject of the attention of multiple assets both floating and flying.

 

[Richo99]

Don’t forget the Romeo is not without a missile capability and a hellfire will make a mess of a small FAC outside the range of their weapons. Added to that 5” firing barrage (AA) is going to make things dicey for open (or partly open) vessels .... again well before they are in range. Finally there will be other allied assets backing up the patrolling vessel.

I suspect that if a number of FAC are detected headed out they will be the subject of the attention of multiple assets both floating and flying.

Presumably also APKWS from the Romeos these days too.

Fleet Air Arm gains 'Advanced Precision'

I have wondered if the 5" Vulcano munition from Leonardo could be a useful adition to the Anzacs and Hobarts for deployment to the ME. Im not sure what the target set is meant to be for this version of the Vulcano...major surface combatants, corvettes/FACs or boghammers, or all three.

Apparantly the IR guided anti ship is in service with the Italian navy, and BAE have adapted the mk45 to handle it as wel as the original leonardo gun. One would think a relatively easy add-on to our ships if considered appropriate.

VULCANO 127mm

Euronaval 2018: BAE Systems Vulcano Precision Guided Munition & Mk 45 Naval Gun

Also, if it doesnt compromise opsec, anyone know the minimum effective range of a mk45 ?

Richard.

 

[Mark_Evans]

Presumably also APKWS from the Romeos these days too.

Fleet Air Arm gains 'Advanced Precision'

I have wondered if the 5" Vulcano munition from Leonardo could be a useful adition to the Anzacs and Hobarts for deployment to the ME. Im not sure what the target set is meant to be for this version of the Vulcano...major surface combatants, corvettes/FACs or boghammers, or all three.

Apparantly the IR guided anti ship is in service with the Italian navy, and BAE have adapted the mk45 to handle it as wel as the original leonardo gun. One would think a relatively easy add-on to our ships if considered appropriate.

VULCANO 127mm

Euronaval 2018: BAE Systems Vulcano Precision Guided Munition & Mk 45 Naval Gun

Also, if it doesnt compromise opsec, anyone know the minimum effective range of a mk45 ?

Richard.

I am sorry but i have no idea if this is accurate.
500yd
Surface Flashcards | Quizlet

 

[John Newman]

Just came across an interesting article on the ADBR website:

Feature – AN ARMY IN MOTION – ADBR

Yes I know it is an 'Army' specific article, but a few paragraphs did get my attention:

“In terms of moving this equipment, we currently rely on Navy or Air Force to move Army around,” he said. “And once we’re in a location we have our own organic vehicle transport and aviation support. But I’ve also become increasingly focused on our own watercraft capability to make sure that we have sufficient, organic maritime manoeuvre, and to support these new capabilities.

“I think there’s real opportunity there as we think about the (JP 2048 Phase 5) future watercraft project to make sure that it accommodates both Army’s needs, but also provides opportunities in the region to better collaborate with our regional partners as we think about inter and intra-island movements.

“So there is a project in the IIP for watercraft replacement, and we’re focused on what that might look like to meet these needs,” he added. “Army has operated heavy landing craft in our past prior to Navy taking on the role. And as you know, we have recently provided some of these vessels to our Pacific island neighbours.

“So we’ve been there before, and we still operate the smaller LCM8 as well. That’s an old but reliable capability that does need to be replaced, so as we think about what that future holds, the medium and heavy landing craft concept is certainly an area that we are actively looking at. And I think that will allow us to be much more effective in our own region and make our Army more deployable and more self-contained with little extra overhead.”


The LCH replacement (JP 2048 Ph 5) was on the table for a long time, but appeared to 'disappear' when the 2016 DWP was released, specific wording regarding the LCH replacement couldn't be found (I've read and re-read the DWP and DIIP numerous times!!).

It would appear to me, from reading the article, that the Army is possibly sticking it's hand up to be the owner and operator of an LCH capability (from a historical point of view, the LCH were originally intended for Army ownership before the RAN took control).

Interesting!

Cheers,

 

[spoz]

Very unlikely; there were extremely good reasons why they were transferred to Navy in the first place, and it is unlikely now that any politician will let Army spend money duplicating Navy capabilities in training, administration, etc. Much easier to just leave it to the pros.

 

[Takao]

Very unlikely; there were extremely good reasons why they were transferred to Navy in the first place, and it is unlikely now that any politician will let Army spend money duplicating Navy capabilities in training, administration, etc. Much easier to just leave it to the pros.

If only that was true.....

Unfortunately, giving any watercraft to the RAN is fraught with a lack of desire (on both sides) and manning issues.

Shame IMHO. Would get a professional service to deal with the floaty bits and provide some good command experiences for junior officers / senior NCOs

 

[seaspear]

This is an interesting article showing an example of the use of remote vehicle combined with a ships towed sensor in asw operations ,this may be the likelihood for the Hunter class in its operations carrying multiple remote craft then further assisted by the dipping sonar
MAST Asia: iXblue Unveils SEADRiX USV for Persistent ASW Missions - Naval News

 

[John Newman]

Very unlikely; there were extremely good reasons why they were transferred to Navy in the first place, and it is unlikely now that any politician will let Army spend money duplicating Navy capabilities in training, administration, etc. Much easier to just leave it to the pros.

Unlikely or not (and also noting Tako's comments too), it would appear that the Chief of Army is certainly pushing for an enhanced, and expanded, water transport capability for Army (above and beyond the current LCM-8s).

Normally Senior Sir's in (Government or private enterprise) roles don't usually be specific about wants, needs and goals unless there is a pretty good chance of it actually happening.

Anyway, regardless of the outcome, it does appear that an LCH replacement capability possibly being considered sooner rather than later.

Cheers,

 

[Stampede]

Unlikely or not (and also noting Tako's comments too), it would appear that the Chief of Army is certainly pushing for an enhanced, and expanded, water transport capability for Army (above and beyond the current LCM-8s).

Normally Senior Sir's in (Government or private enterprise) roles don't usually be specific about wants, needs and goals unless there is a pretty good chance of it actually happening.

Anyway, regardless of the outcome, it does appear that an LCH replacement capability possibly being considered sooner rather than later.

Cheers,

Whichever service crews an LCH replacement, I'm sure there are many like myself who would welcome such an acquisition.
Fingers crossed

Regards S

 

[pussertas]

Just some thoughts as to the sending of HMAS Toowoomba to the Persian Gulf.

IMHO it would be more advantageous to have an Army team assigned,at random, to tanker shipping heading towards the Persian Gulf.

A team of say 6-8 experienced soldiers with the authority to open fire on any small ship that gets close to their tanker would be more
effective. By aiming their rounds below the water line of any small vessel intruding within say 100m of their tanker it is highly likely that the
target would sink.

This Army team being assigned to tankers on a covert basis. So the 'enemy' is not aware of which tanker they are on,

Recovery of the Army team by helicopter once their tanker is outside the danger zone.

Edited by Moderator to fix BB coding.

 

[Stampede]

IMHO it would be more advantageous to have an Army team assigned,at random, to tanker shipping heading towards the Persian Gulf.

A team of say 6-8 experienced soldiers with the authority to open fire on any small ship that gets close to their tanker would be more
effective. By aiming their rounds below the water line of any small vessel intruding within say 100m of their tanker it is highly likely that the
target would sink.

This Army team being assigned to tankers on a covert basis. So the 'enemy' is not aware of which tanker they are on,

Recovery of the Army team by helicopter once their tanker is outside the danger zone.

Edited by Moderator to fix BB coding.

Probably many layers of response to the situation in the Persian Gulf.
Your suggest is not without some merit.

On a side note a rather interesting Editorial in the Sept Edition of APDR by Kim Bergmann. re the rationale for going to the Gulf in the first place.
Probably this is not the thread for that discussion but worth a read.
APDR is free to sign up to.

Regards S

 

[Flexson]

This photo is from the Navantia facebook page. Stalwart ready to launch . Pennant number 304! Really thought we would go with the previous Stalwart's 215 not Success's 304.

 

[Stampede]

This photo is from the Navantia facebook page. Stalwart ready to launch . Pennant number 304! Really thought we would go with the previous Stalwart's 215 not Success's 304.
View attachment 46715

Thanks for the pic.

Good to see the this project tracking well so far.
Maybe hard to tell in the photo, but the ships paint appears to be the newer Hase Grey colour scheme.
Can anyone confirm
I understand the latest Hobart Class destroyer is being repainted in this colour as well.

Regards S

PS - looks like they're yet to install the Five inch gun on the bow.

 

[spoz]

Sydney is now in haze grey.

 

[Jezza]

Launching of Stalwart

 

[ASSAIL]

Sydney is now in haze grey.

Since when has the RAN been putting the pennant number on the transom?
I wondered when Supply was launched and assumed it was a mistake but...Stalwart also?

 

[spoz]

They’re on the quarter for the DDG. I have no real knowledge of the AOR project, but they look to be in exactly the same place (and style, but not colour) as the Spanish practice - so I wonder if it some quirk of the contract. standard RAN would, I would have thought, would have been OR 304 on the bow with the OR about a thirdthe size of the 304 and with the quarter markings, that’s what we’ve done since the late 60s for auxiliaries.