Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

Being able to select a depth to avoid the terrain of the sea floor makes path finding simple but also reduces your risk of collision. There is almost no traffic to contend with, so the the risk of collision is really low.

If this was the case, no submarine would ever crash, no ship would ever have a grounding. No ship would crash into another ship or a dock or an island.

1) Sea floor isn't static
2) Sea floor isn't conclusively mapped
3) Finding your position while underwater is not trivial. Particularly if you are trying to be stealthy. Currents are non-trivial for submersibles.
4) Inertial dead reckoning has significant limitations. 20-30 mins and you could be in a huge area of probability. Unlike air systems, where turns tend to be strong, sharp, fast and clear, everything in water is slow and over a long period. Everything they hate.
5) The nature of the ocean, can make it possible to detect solitary objects. Any emission or surface coms is likely to give away positions, signal penetration at depth in most frequencies is poor. Positions can give away missions.
6) Submarines and drones can use ships as cover. Being deliberately in close proximity make collisions way more frequently than you may think.

If we are talking about using drones for a few hours or a day or two underwater, in an area with acoustic buoys in a fenced of baseline area, in friendly waters, sure doable. Or tethered, all good. Going out for a 30 day cruise in the blue ocean against hostiles? Much more challenging.

There are also things in the ocean other than ships. Whales, dolphins, floatsam, shipping containers, seaweed, drift nets, pumice, crabs, jellyfish. When your self driving tesla is driving along, it doesn't expect to become engulfed in jellyfish blocking its engine. The weather at sea is also a more significant factor than on land.

In a military context, you also have the enemy. Who is deliberately trying to mess things up. Spoofing locations, hunting your drone.

China to return seized U.S. drone, says Washington 'hyping up' incident

China will return an underwater U.S. drone seized by a naval vessel this week in the South China Sea, both countries said on Saturday, but Beijing complained that Washington had been "hyping up" the incident.

www.reuters.com

Just like drone aircraft, there is a place for them, and they will become increasingly important. However, they aren't manned platforms. Manned platforms aren't going away. I wouldn't as of yet write of experience from pilots and sailors.

 

[alexsa]

If this was the case, no submarine would ever crash, no ship would ever have a grounding. No ship would crash into another ship or a dock or an island.

1) Sea floor isn't static
2) Sea floor isn't conclusively mapped
3) Finding your position while underwater is not trivial. Particularly if you are trying to be stealthy. Currents are non-trivial for submersibles.
4) Inertial dead reckoning has significant limitations. 20-30 mins and you could be in a huge area of probability. Unlike air systems, where turns tend to be strong, sharp, fast and clear, everything in water is slow and over a long period. Everything they hate.
5) The nature of the ocean, can make it possible to detect solitary objects. Any emission or surface coms is likely to give away positions, signal penetration at depth in most frequencies is poor. Positions can give away missions.
6) Submarines and drones can use ships as cover. Being deliberately in close proximity make collisions way more frequently than you may think.

If we are talking about using drones for a few hours or a day or two underwater, in an area with acoustic buoys in a fenced of baseline area, in friendly waters, sure doable. Or tethered, all good. Going out for a 30 day cruise in the blue ocean against hostiles? Much more challenging.

There are also things in the ocean other than ships. Whales, dolphins, floatsam, shipping containers, seaweed, drift nets, pumice, crabs, jellyfish. When your self driving tesla is driving along, it doesn't expect to become engulfed in jellyfish blocking its engine. The weather at sea is also a more significant factor than on land.

In a military context, you also have the enemy. Who is deliberately trying to mess things up. Spoofing locations, hunting your drone.

China to return seized U.S. drone, says Washington 'hyping up' incident

China will return an underwater U.S. drone seized by a naval vessel this week in the South China Sea, both countries said on Saturday, but Beijing complained that Washington had been "hyping up" the incident.

www.reuters.com

Just like drone aircraft, there is a place for them, and they will become increasingly important. However, they aren't manned platforms. Manned platforms aren't going away. I wouldn't as of yet write of experience from pilots and sailors.

Thank you for responding ..... my response would have been significantly less polite.

 

[cdxbow]

If this was the case, no submarine would ever crash, no ship would ever have a grounding. No ship would crash into another ship or a dock or an island.

1) Sea floor isn't static
2) Sea floor isn't conclusively mapped
3) Finding your position while underwater is not trivial. Particularly if you are trying to be stealthy. Currents are non-trivial for submersibles.
4) Inertial dead reckoning has significant limitations. 20-30 mins and you could be in a huge area of probability. Unlike air systems, where turns tend to be strong, sharp, fast and clear, everything in water is slow and over a long period. Everything they hate.
5) The nature of the ocean, can make it possible to detect solitary objects. Any emission or surface coms is likely to give away positions, signal penetration at depth in most frequencies is poor. Positions can give away missions.
6) Submarines and drones can use ships as cover. Being deliberately in close proximity make collisions way more frequently than you may think.

If we are talking about using drones for a few hours or a day or two underwater, in an area with acoustic buoys in a fenced of baseline area, in friendly waters, sure doable. Or tethered, all good. Going out for a 30 day cruise in the blue ocean against hostiles? Much more challenging.

There are also things in the ocean other than ships. Whales, dolphins, floatsam, shipping containers, seaweed, drift nets, pumice, crabs, jellyfish. When your self driving tesla is driving along, it doesn't expect to become engulfed in jellyfish blocking its engine. The weather at sea is also a more significant factor than on land.

In a military context, you also have the enemy. Who is deliberately trying to mess things up. Spoofing locations, hunting your drone.

China to return seized U.S. drone, says Washington 'hyping up' incident

China will return an underwater U.S. drone seized by a naval vessel this week in the South China Sea, both countries said on Saturday, but Beijing complained that Washington had been "hyping up" the incident.

www.reuters.com

Just like drone aircraft, there is a place for them, and they will become increasingly important. However, they aren't manned platforms. Manned platforms aren't going away. I wouldn't as of yet write of experience from pilots and sailors.

I have never suggested manned platforms are going away, nor have I suggested it's time to go after hostiles, or using them in currently in conflict. I promise none of those are my words. .

The maintenance, issue you mention is a very real one and one I mentioned specifically as 'support'. The 'Bird shit on the sensor problem', is a real one, in this case we'll keep with the jellyfish up it's aft. I don't think there is good information about the degree or nature of these problems, and they will vary with the different sea environments, including sea creatures. That's why you build 3 prototypes to test these sorts of things. I've thought with any large, long duration drone, not specifically a UUV, they need to carry, at the very least a small drone that can move around the larger vehicle to show what condition it's in. Better still would be something with an effector, in this case something to clean the jelly from it's aft. I suspect fishing nets are probably the greatest danger, and one I think we need a solution before widespread deployment. The ideal solution would be to be able to detect them and go around them, which needs appropriate sensors and enough smarts.

The initial roles will not need the craft to be armed, you really wouldn't want to start with an armed drones. It will be things like collecting hydrographic data, mapping, surveillance & intelligence collection. One of the important things the test phase will be sorting out is what sensor suite is needed. Cost versus capability. A small UAV may aid it's surveillance & intelligence capabilities for modest cost.

Anyway, we can speculate all day about it's capabilities but the one thing I am sure about, this is a very important project for the RAN. I hope they can stick to, or beat the 3 year timeline for delivery of the 3 prototypes and start testing.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have never suggested manned platforms are going away, nor have I suggested it's time to go after hostiles, or using them in currently in conflict. I promise none of those are my words. .

The maintenance, issue you mention is a very real one and one I mentioned specifically as 'support'. The 'Bird shit on the sensor problem', is a real one, in this case we'll keep with the jellyfish up it's aft. I don't think there is good information about the degree or nature of these problems, and they will vary with the different sea environments, including sea creatures. That's why you build 3 prototypes to test these sorts of things. I've thought with any large, long duration drone, not specifically a UUV, they need to carry, at the very least a small drone that can move around the larger vehicle to show what condition it's in. Better still would be something with an effector, in this case something to clean the jelly from it's aft. I suspect fishing nets are probably the greatest danger, and one I think we need a solution before widespread deployment. The ideal solution would be to be able to detect them and go around them, which needs appropriate sensors and enough smarts.

The initial roles will not need the craft to be armed, you really wouldn't want to start with an armed drones. It will be things like collecting hydrographic data, mapping, surveillance & intelligence collection. One of the important things the test phase will be sorting out is what sensor suite is needed. Cost versus capability. A small UAV may aid it's surveillance & intelligence capabilities for modest cost.

Anyway, we can speculate all day about it's capabilities but the one thing I am sure about, this is a very important project for the RAN. I hope they can stick to, or beat the 3 year timeline for delivery of the 3 prototypes and start testing.

You think that you know it all, but you know nothing.

Ex RAN submariners answered you and they are real experts. I did some shallow water hydrographic surveying so I have an understanding of how sound moves through water and the impacts that salinity and temperature affects the speed of sound through water. Others who are ASW experts contributed as well. This real world shit and not something that's done in a video game or read in some book or magazine. The hydrographic and oceanographic science that was applicable 120 years ago is still applicable today because the physical; i.e., molecular, thermal, atomic and subatomic properties of salt water hasn't changed.

Your two previous posts on this thread have earned you a seven day holiday from it because of your attitude. You are also issued with 4 demerit points for 1 year.

 

[swerve]

Yes, open ocean is easy, but littorals are where most things happen.

 

[TScott]

If this was the case, no submarine would ever crash, no ship would ever have a grounding. No ship would crash into another ship or a dock or an island.

1) Sea floor isn't static
2) Sea floor isn't conclusively mapped
3) Finding your position while underwater is not trivial. Particularly if you are trying to be stealthy. Currents are non-trivial for submersibles.
4) Inertial dead reckoning has significant limitations. 20-30 mins and you could be in a huge area of probability. Unlike air systems, where turns tend to be strong, sharp, fast and clear, everything in water is slow and over a long period. Everything they hate.
5) The nature of the ocean, can make it possible to detect solitary objects. Any emission or surface coms is likely to give away positions, signal penetration at depth in most frequencies is poor. Positions can give away missions.
6) Submarines and drones can use ships as cover. Being deliberately in close proximity make collisions way more frequently than you may think.

If we are talking about using drones for a few hours or a day or two underwater, in an area with acoustic buoys in a fenced of baseline area, in friendly waters, sure doable. Or tethered, all good. Going out for a 30 day cruise in the blue ocean against hostiles? Much more challenging.

There are also things in the ocean other than ships. Whales, dolphins, floatsam, shipping containers, seaweed, drift nets, pumice, crabs, jellyfish. When your self driving tesla is driving along, it doesn't expect to become engulfed in jellyfish blocking its engine. The weather at sea is also a more significant factor than on land.

In a military context, you also have the enemy. Who is deliberately trying to mess things up. Spoofing locations, hunting your drone.

China to return seized U.S. drone, says Washington 'hyping up' incident

China will return an underwater U.S. drone seized by a naval vessel this week in the South China Sea, both countries said on Saturday, but Beijing complained that Washington had been "hyping up" the incident.

www.reuters.com

Just like drone aircraft, there is a place for them, and they will become increasingly important. However, they aren't manned platforms. Manned platforms aren't going away. I wouldn't as of yet write of experience from pilots and sailors.

I don't think he was arguing that, in fact I don't think he was even saying subsea navigation wasn't difficult, he was arguing that the AI required for a drone to run autonomously continuously on land is more difficult than below the sea because of the sheer amount of moving objects prevalent above water than below it (this is not to say there aren't any non static items below sea, it's not a competition, which some people seem to have taken it as a slight against nautical navigation in general....) and putting aside the current communication and fire control issues.


The counterargument to your post is Autonomous Underwater Vehicles already exist, this is not an impossible technology, whilst difficult, it's already been achieved, proven and is operational despite the current limitations with communication.

 

[alexsa]

I don't think he was arguing that, in fact I don't think he was even saying subsea navigation wasn't difficult, he was arguing that the AI required for a drone to run autonomously continuously on land is more difficult than below the sea because of the sheer amount of moving objects prevalent above water than below it (this is not to say there aren't any non static items below sea, it's not a competition, which some people seem to have taken it as a slight against nautical navigation in general....) and putting aside the current communication and fire control issues.


The counterargument to your post is Autonomous Underwater Vehicles already exist, this is not an impossible technology, whilst difficult, it's already been achieved, proven and is operational despite the current limitations with communication.

The issue I have with the rejection of any advice on this is tracking your position submerged is not easy as your cannot rely on GPS and other mechanism while dived. The UUV’s are not high speed vessels and tidal conditions, currents and the impact of wind and sea will have an effect on them. If the vessel cannot reduce that pool of errors then there is a risk that the vessel will stray into area’s it should not be (i.e. move into the territorial sea of another state during peace time operations…. Under convention they must be surfaced and engaged in innocent passage for this to be allowed).

So the UUV will need some method of confirming its position noting inertial systems will not be accurate over a long period where other effects such as currents, tidal streams and poor weather with have an effect. In addition the UUV will need some method of communicating with its controllers. This is necessary to update the UUV on tasking, threats, instructions, mission changes etc. VLF communications can be received underwater but really only at periscope depth. So this means the UUV will need to be able to determine when it is safe to communicate without compromising its position and have the smarts to resolve a lost contact situation without compromising its position. All the options involve some level of risk (i.e close to the surface with an antenna out for GPS and comms or using an echo sounder to rely on bottom contour navigation).

Trust me when I say that operating unwatered in areas with a lot of surface traffic (including fishing boats …. Say the South China Sea) is no joke and there is a night risk of detection/accident if you get it wrong. Operating in high seas is also not a lot of fun and Oberon’s did roll badly at Periscope depth in high seas. The UUV would be more impacted when close to the surface.

To reiterate my point at the beginning of this discussion …. These vessels are going to have to have some impressive smarts to operate independently and the the complexity should not be underestimated.

To simply write off the feedback as being ignorant of the technology (basically advised we were not up with the times and this is easy) by someone who has never actually been involved in such operations is the height of arrogant rudeness.

I did not say it was impossible… but it will not be easy and it will go wrong from time to time.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

There was an ASPI article out today that featured an interview with the head of the AUKUS SSN delivery task force, Adm Jonathon Mead. Worth a read to those interested. To my perception this all seemed sensible stuff
- the need to build up human (nuclear science) capability in the RAN, Defence and industry.
- Discussion of interim jointly crewed SSNs (but not leased) RAN/RN or RAN/USN boats. This seems very sensible for training and allows RAN crews to get to sea sooner rather than later.
- upgrading of Australia's NPT (nuclear security and safety as well) approach

Australia considering next-generation US and UK designs for nuclear submarines | The Strategist

Australia is involved in complex negotiations to ensure that its plan to acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines doesn’t weaken the international non-proliferation regime. The chief of the Royal Australian Navy’s nuclear-powered submarine taskforce, Vice Admiral Jonathan ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[John Newman]

A little video by Xavier from Naval News:

You’ll notice that Choules is undergoing a refit/upgrade, but what you’ll specifically notice is a Phalanx CIWS has finally been mounted forward of the superstructure.

 

[Stampede]

A little video by Xavier from Naval News:

You’ll notice that Choules is undergoing a refit/upgrade, but what you’ll specifically notice is a Phalanx CIWS has finally been mounted forward of the superstructure.

Good pickup re HMAS Choules with Phalanx.
A lot of scaffolding on the ship.
Are they building something or fixing....Interesting.

His comment of the Navy wanting three LPD's raised an eyebrow.
Conjecture, miss information or a Navy wish list.

Hmmmmm


Cheers S

 

[Wombat000]

Ok, clearly I’m no expert, but I sometimes wear an armchair Admirals hat.

I appreciate LPDs, and the interests in a balanced fleet facilitating wider govt foreign policy objectives that LPDs might contribute to.

But the employment of LPDs (& LHDs) requires freedom of action, not only of those units in their mission but the greater merchant traffic that is essential. Navy will still require these precursors, correct.

The LPDs (& LHDs) will require escorts.
We will already struggle to cater for escorts, and adding further, albeit beautiful Auxilluries/Lift will only add to the burden.

in effect, I’m thinking that if the water gets hot, without the USN, the LHDs and any LPDs will be conscripted as convoyed ASW carriers.

ergo, with limited valuable crewing capacity & ship acquisition we need escorts, not more auxiliaries/ lift ships.

 

[OldNavy63]

Following on from BMT partnering with Austal and Raytheon Australia in a candidate for Land 8710-1A earlier this month, BMT propose to submit their Ellida Multi-Role Logistic Ship for the RAN’s Joint Support Ship SEA 2200 project.

Xavier’s earlier reference to the RAN’s requirement for three LPDs probably related to SEA 2200 JSS.

BMT to offer updated ELLIDA™ SEA2200

BMT to offer updated ELLIDA™ multi-role logistics ship for SEA2200

www.bmt.org

 

[Mikeymike]

General Atomics have announced a new product for the Reaper product line in a STOL Version designed to fly off Ships like LHDs.

GA-ASI GROWS MOJAVE LINE WITH NEW MQ-9B STOL PACKAGE

Looks like it could be interesting and a more likely candidate if the RAN decide to operate drones off the LHDs than the Turkish drones.

Be interesting if any country takes them up, could see Japan or UK buying some as they both operate the normal Reapers.

 

[Redlands18]

Some highlights of day 1 from Indo-Pacific 2022

Austal to Convert Decommissioned RAN Patrol Boat into USV - Naval News

The Royal Australian Navy, L3Harris, and Austal will convert the recently decommissioned patrol boat, HMAS Maitland, into an autonomous patrol boat.

www.navalnews.com

Austal to convert the recently decommissioned HMAS Maitland into a USV.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/...erate-12-s-100-flights-across-four-ship-types

The RAN has outlined its plans for operating the S-100 Camcopter across 4 ship types, including the Anzacs, Arafura's, Canberra's and the trg Vessel MV Sycamore.

 

[spoz]

That amount of scaffolding is normal for work on masts, etc. - doesn’t have to be an upgrade, although it might be; masts need maintenance and painting from time to time.

 

[alexsa]

Good pickup re HMAS Choules with Phalanx.
A lot of scaffolding on the ship.
Are they building something or fixing....Interesting.

His comment of the Navy wanting three LPD's raised an eyebrow.
Conjecture, miss information or a Navy wish list.

Hmmmmm


Cheers S

I cannot help but wonder if they are modifying the exhaust arrangements in the manner done to the RFA vessels in service. The Choules has the exhaust in the original position over the stern which is an odd configuration that has the risk of exhaust gases over the flight deck in a following wind. There does appear to be some scaffolding around the gantry aft of the cranes. This is where the exhaust of the RFA Bay Class was relocated to.

Just speculation.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/6b/8e/826b8e90ed1a8ad8ab5a0c1b1be8fd0b.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/www.destinationsjourney.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/20160518_103218.jpg?ssl=1

 

[Volkodav]

Some highlights of day 1 from Indo-Pacific 2022

Austal to Convert Decommissioned RAN Patrol Boat into USV - Naval News

The Royal Australian Navy, L3Harris, and Austal will convert the recently decommissioned patrol boat, HMAS Maitland, into an autonomous patrol boat.

www.navalnews.com

Austal to convert the recently decommissioned HMAS Maitland into a USV.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/...erate-12-s-100-flights-across-four-ship-types

The RAN has outlined its plans for operating the S-100 Camcopter across 4 ship types, including the Anzacs, Arafura's, Canberra's and the trg Vessel MV Sycamore.

Depending on her material condition she may be more of an autonomous reef than a USV.

Yes I know I'm panning Armidales again but its so hard not to.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I was going to add this comment as a postscript to the ASPI article I linked yesterday but thought it was more appropriate to make it a second post.

One thing I missed which still concerns me - timing. Buried in the text was a reference to having Australia's first SSN in the water by "the end of the next decade" i.e. 2040. There are then vague references to bringing that forward. So what is the plan? Without some realistic build start and finish dates this remains a problem both for industry and workforce training.

Nobody plans a career requiring 4+ years of tertiary study, with few alternative career paths in this country, without a prospective job waiting at the end of it. Likewise construction capability - who would incur capital costs installing unique equipment for a contract that may or may not be tendered? These issues are highlighted in this article today.

Warning of defence shipbuilding skills shortage amid uncertainty over local submarine build

The defence shipbuilding industry warns of a skills crisis as it awaits details of how much of the nuclear submarine build will happen in Australia.

www.abc.net.au

This then leads to greater risk of time and cost blowouts, which can adversely affect capability in the mean time. Sorry to be negative, as I support the SSN decision and think the Collins Class replacement remains a national priority of some urgency. But I do not see any urgency in this timing.

 

[vonnoobie]

On the subject of Austal they along side L3 Harris will be converting the recently decommissioned HMAS Maitland over an 18 month period into an AUV to gain real world experience and knowledge to help the RAN ascertain how such will fit into the future RAN fleet along with what systems on manned ships can actually be made autonomous.

Austal to Convert Decommissioned RAN Patrol Boat into USV - Naval News

We will be working alongside the USN as they are doing similar tests aboard EPF 13.

 

[Going Boeing]

Another announcement coming out of Indo-Pacific 2022 about USV’s towing Thales thin line towed arrays for ISR around Australia’s vast coastline.

Thales and Ocius autonomous threat detection and surveillance.

From John Newman’s post, it’s good to see the addition of the Phalanx CIWS system to HMAS Choules but, as it appears that its coverage would be limited to the forward 200 degree arc, is there an aft facing unit also being fitted?