On the otherhand these days you are probably shooting down cheap store bought drones with multi-million dollar missiles. Rig up a cheap drone with a hand grenade and you win either way. It either hits the target or causes your enemy to expend a disproportinately more expensive missile to stop it.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The new frigates have secondary defence systems to deal with the cheap drone threats, which I assume won’t be the primary threat in blue water operations where submarines and expensive ASMs are the biggest concerns.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Cheap store bought drones are not hardened against electronic counter measures, even a powerful radar like CEAFAR would fry their circuits long before they got anywhere near the ship. Most ships have a CIWS as well, you are not going to waste a multi-million dollar missile on them.
Assuming they see them in the first place. Some interesting stories coming out if Ukraine with S400, S300 and Buk systems not seeing the small drones about to attack them. I am feeling more confident in western systems but does anyone here have any harder data on this subject?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I was referring to Warships, they have multiple layers of defence, all integrated into a CMS. Russian land-based SAM systems do not tend to be integrated anywhere near the extant a modern warship is. The electronics in cheap store bought drones are not going to survive against the electronic countermeasures that are an integral part of a warships defence.
Off hand a few things to take into account. Those small drones taking out radars and launchers for some top notch AD assets have limited range. Those same radars have been primarily designed around detecting larger missiles/assets, Those radars are far more constrained in power availability then that of a ship.
Two entirely different scenario;s that are applies and oranges and two entirely different asset types/capabilities that are also apples and oranges.
d-ron84
Member
Also Ships have electro-optical systems, so if the drone RCS is to small, they will still be seen
You illustrate what I mean
Betcha that the Treasurer loves the tax take from your pay packets.
Nice find. Well that's the RNZN stuffed because we can only afford two oarsmen to power one ship and that's being extravagant.I found this article interesting particularly when the chat here at time has talked about having ships with a hundred or more VLS. These numbers are in $USD so multiply roughly by 1.5 for Aussie Dollars.
Even a 8 X cell MK41 VLS quad packed with ESSM is getting close to $100m worth of missiles
A Hobart with 48 cells spread across ESSM, SM2 and SM3 and whatever Anti Ship missiles, the numbers certainly add up very fast
Here Is What Each Of The Navy's Ship-Launched Missiles Actually Costs
Arming America's fleet of fighting ships is an extremely expensive endeavor.www.thedrive.com
Yep I posted on it in the RNZN thread. I have a copy of the RFI.
What we would like to get and what the pollies and Treasury decide are two totally different things. Same goes for the definition of a "balanced fleet".
Mate, the RAN is not getting any tier 2 combatant. We can’t even crew our current anaemic surface fleet. The scuttlebutt is that HMAS ANZAC is to be retired early (end of this year, early next year). That way the Government saves money from not doing the TransCAP upgrade for ANZAC and her crew can bolster the remaining fleet. So we will shortly be down to 10 major surface combatants.
A very sad state of affairs. Whatever the surface review comes back with, the reality is that our navy is shrinking (notwithstanding the deteriorating strategic environment in our region).
After being away on a certain Navy tall ship for the past eleven days and already being behind on top of that it's been a lot of discussion for me to catch up on.
To avoid replying to month old comments I'll summarise that I agree with just about every contribution Brissy has made and that having a PWO in this thread is quite a nice addition to the already strong knowledge base provided by the defence pros and ex-defence pros.
Finally, so that this comment isn't entirely without substance, here is one of the photos I took a couple months ago of the Exercise Malabar task force entering Sydney Harbour.
To avoid replying to month old comments I'll summarise that I agree with just about every contribution Brissy has made and that having a PWO in this thread is quite a nice addition to the already strong knowledge base provided by the defence pros and ex-defence pros.
Finally, so that this comment isn't entirely without substance, here is one of the photos I took a couple months ago of the Exercise Malabar task force entering Sydney Harbour.
peterAustralia
Member
the other week I posted in the RAAF thread, that hardened hangars for aircraft might make sense. The day after I posted that the Ukrainians damaged a Tu160 and an IL 76 on the ground via drones,,, Obviously in that case the range is a few hundred miles and many drones can fly that far.. In decades to come drones are going to get better, faster, more sophisticated and have longer range,, and probably launched in salvos.. In this regard it might be prudent to build hardened shelters for the submarines... say three meters of concrete thick.
Say enough pens for six submarines... that might cost ,, rough guess one billion dollars,, maybe less,,, yes a lot of money,, but not much compared to 350 billion total cost of project...
Would be quite embarrassing to have a couple of multi billion dollar submarines out of action for a few years because a cheap simple drone dropped a small depth charge 2 meters below the keel of a sub..
In terms of surface ships,, it gets harder because of air draft (height),,, so the pens have to be a lot higher and be more expensive... In terms of geometry pens for surface warships would be better if there are two bays inside the same pen,,, say interior dimensions of 30 meters inside width,,, and say 45 meters high... It may well be prudent to modify the antenna so that it can fold down to fit in the pen,, the top 8 meters or so... IMHO submarines would make more sense as they are more dollars investment per dollar of hardened pen... Another upside is hardened pens could last hundreds of years... The top of the hardened pen could have a travelling crane for lifting things,, doing some minor maintenance
One way would be to make out of reinforced concrete, the other to dig into vertical rock as per the Swedish method.. One place that might work in point perpendicular,, just inside Jervis bay,, sail in, turn right,, then right again... The cliffs there are 80 meters high from memory, and apparently a good rock fishing spot, and real estate less valuable that north head or Vaucluse
Oh yes,,, A kilo submarine was badly damaged in Crimea a couple of days ago by a missile of some sort
Say enough pens for six submarines... that might cost ,, rough guess one billion dollars,, maybe less,,, yes a lot of money,, but not much compared to 350 billion total cost of project...
Would be quite embarrassing to have a couple of multi billion dollar submarines out of action for a few years because a cheap simple drone dropped a small depth charge 2 meters below the keel of a sub..
In terms of surface ships,, it gets harder because of air draft (height),,, so the pens have to be a lot higher and be more expensive... In terms of geometry pens for surface warships would be better if there are two bays inside the same pen,,, say interior dimensions of 30 meters inside width,,, and say 45 meters high... It may well be prudent to modify the antenna so that it can fold down to fit in the pen,, the top 8 meters or so... IMHO submarines would make more sense as they are more dollars investment per dollar of hardened pen... Another upside is hardened pens could last hundreds of years... The top of the hardened pen could have a travelling crane for lifting things,, doing some minor maintenance
One way would be to make out of reinforced concrete, the other to dig into vertical rock as per the Swedish method.. One place that might work in point perpendicular,, just inside Jervis bay,, sail in, turn right,, then right again... The cliffs there are 80 meters high from memory, and apparently a good rock fishing spot, and real estate less valuable that north head or Vaucluse
Oh yes,,, A kilo submarine was badly damaged in Crimea a couple of days ago by a missile of some sort
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Interesting suggestion. It would depend on the geology but if the Jervis Bay / Perpendicular Point geology is similar to Sydney then this might be very feasible. Sydney sandstone is an almost ideal tunnelling material, hard enough to be self supporting without concrete lining, but not so hard as to require drilling and blasting rather than ripping.
It's definitely something to consider for the future, but at the moment that would be a lot of resources going into something which can be covered fairly well with the types of relatively small and cheap, high-end C-UAS systems that can be provided by local SMEs like Droneshield and EOS.
If you are considering such an idea then a closer look at the geology needs to be undertaken. This is Muskö naval base inside a mountain 70km south of Stockholm. I can't find a geological map of the area, and geology reports are behind paywalls.
Sweden - Naval Base
GlobalSecurity.org is the leading source for reliable military news and military information, directed by John Pike
Generally speaking sandstone is a soft stone because it's formed by deposition. A granite or gneiss rock is far better because it is hard and can be really hard. If you have a few hundred metres of it above you, even a nuke would have trouble doing any damage at all. One of the best places in Australasia for such a sub pen would be in Fiordland on the South Island of NZ. The rock there is basically granite and is some of the hardest rock in the world, plus you would have 1km + of rock above your head. It is the only rock in the world that managed to repeatedly stall a tunnel boring machine. That was about 15 years ago when the second West Arm (Lake Manapouri) tail race tunnel was built.
The last figure I saw for the 6 lane western harbour tunnel being built was in excess of 6 billion dollars, so I suggest you go away and have another think on how much 6 underground semi flooded submarine pens big enough to house a Virginia boat and associated infrastructure might actually cost and come back with a more realistic (and cost prohibitive) figure.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect that the answer will be quite similar to the answer for bombproof HAS, i.e. cost prohibitive, particularly for the level of protection provided.
To protect against 'bunker-buster' type munition, then one is talking about requiring 5+ metres of reinforced concrete, or 50+ metres of earth (GBU-28 class penetrator).
How difficult and expensive do people think it would really be to construct a structure hardened to such a degree? There is also the matter of any sub pen needs an opening or aperture for the sub to ingress/egress, which would leave a way for a bomb or drone to enter before detonation. From my perspective, if a hostile actor has the ability to get ordnance close enough to Australia to launch an attack, they will most likely have sufficient precision guidance capabilities to get said ordnance to where it would be most effective.
In the past, hardened sub pens were more effective because the ordnance in use at the time lacked the precision guidance available today. Even so, during WWII when there were large numbers of hardened sub (or U-boat) pens built, Allied bombers were able to successfully attack and damage/destroy pens and their contents.
As a final note, I believe the production cost for a single GBU-28 is USD$145k for a LGB/INS/GPS-guided bomb. Given the size and weight, I suspect fitting such a device to a standoff missile would be expensive, but even if that caused a thousand-fold price increase, it would still most likely be less expensive than a building programme which would likely cost billions.
To be fair …. And not advocating one way or the other . That $6billion tunnel is 6.5km long going under the harbour. This bloke suggestions is something 3-400m deep being dug at surface level. Road tunnel needs full ventilation and exhaust systems. A whole different level of excavation expertise required to dig under a harbour . Assuming you had a suitable sandstone geology (simplifying things here somewhat) you would do the suggested cut with a half a dozen 80 ton excavators and rock breakers. Not suggesting it would be cheap but if I can get the contract at $6B where do I sign?
Rowan Moffitt is a retired rear admiral with 40 years’ service in the RAN, the last 14 years in Defence’s senior leadership, including as the Fleet Commander, has acquired himself some 18in gun turrets and fired a broadside at the current state of the RAN. He states that it is unfit for purpose and lays the blame on the RAN, politicians, defence acquisition agencies and defence strategy since 1987. He doesn't hold back.
navalinstitute.com.au
There are one or two Australian Defence Professionals on here who will either know the Admiral personally or by reputation. I think that they may be able to speak to his professionalism, skills etc., and critique his comments in the link above.
RAN unfit for purpose: retired admiral | The Australian Naval Institute
navalinstitute.com.au
There are one or two Australian Defence Professionals on here who will either know the Admiral personally or by reputation. I think that they may be able to speak to his professionalism, skills etc., and critique his comments in the link above.