Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

Ceafar 2 would be ideal for drones and this type of mission. The Anzac has limited firing capabilities, but its detection capabilities are top notch.

However, I don't think detection is a huge problem, even the older Americans who seem to be relying on spy radars seem to be able to pick them up at significant range. Some of these drones are approaching light plane/helo size.

Its not just drones, its ballistic missiles and helicopters and fast boats conducting terrorist boarding operations. An Anzac wouldn't be able to replace a Burke, but it could certainly augment it.

I think this also highlights the value in a WA big dock. If the Suez is blocked by damaged shipping, any NATO fleet would be basically cut off from resupply. Saudi and UAE ports may come under fire as might those in Djibouti.

For the benefit of those who would like to know more than just a one liner : Australia to send small personnel deployment but no warship to Red Sea

Curious. People are pointing out our expectations of the Americans to deploy so much of their force to our region to help us, but when called on we can't find a ship?

However, that delves more into the political space, and political decisions can change very quickly. I would expect more clarity in the New Year.

 

[Volkodav]

About radar because, again correct me if I'm wrong, different sizes of different objects need different quantities of frequency and thus energy requirements.

As I imagine most radars will be searching for objects moving like Aircrafts/Helicopter/ASuW missiles etc.. etc... but not for some like let's say an expensive quadcopter that is way slower and way smaller.

Edit: on missiles.

Don't know about US missiles but when discussing CAMM and Aster we normally consider them not only for range but for intercept capabilities with the Aster being of higher quality than the CAMM. Significantly more.

The radar suite on the ANZACs consisted of three phased array sets, the long range L band, S band for volume and surface search, and X band for missile guidance.

The Hunters will have larger panels for longer range installed in their integrated radar masts.

I am not a radar expert, I leave the green steam to WEOs, but the CEA radars are a couple of generations in advance of SPY-1.

 

[alexsa]

F

Fair question and an important question.

State and federal police have weapons some of which are military grade and can use leathal force.

Borderforce are also well equiped, including having weapons up to in size and capability a 50 cal automatic machine gun.

So the question will need to have an answer as the decades ahead will not look like the decades of the past.

Border force have many roles one of which is to be a coast guard.
It's not the name we give it in Australia but the role is the same.

Looking at other coast guard ships around the world you can see a broad range of capabilities regarding their respective weapons fitout.

I see no need to restrict our Cape Class and OPVs to such minimal fitout regardless of what government department crews the vessel.

Will need to sort this out sooner rather than later.

It will not be a great expense but will provife government more options.

Start with the old 25mm bushmaster.

Cheers S

Border forces is much more limited in its scope than the USCG. The USCG is an arm of the US military and manages a range of areas including acting as the flag State for US Merchant vessels, managing the port State control inspection regime, engaged as part of US boarder security, Providing armed capability in US waters (and outside those waters if directed including drug interdiction), Maritime SAR and a few others including waterways management activities.

The maritime arm of border force is simply a policing unit intended to operate in the Australian EEZ. It is interesting that the Border Force website for the Maritime arm does not include fisheries policing.

On the border force vessels the officers and crew are civilians and the vessel are certified under commercial vessel arrangements (they are subject to the Navigation Act 1912). For a civilian policing purpose a 50 cal is more than enough for what they do and the regulator is likely to have a fit if asked to allow 25mm autocannons. Such a fit is not consistent with the intent of the Navigation Act and these would be considered war ships. That would complication border forces management of these vessels.

The Cape class that are operated by the Navy and the Ocean Protector (and Reliant and Guidance) are ADV (Australian Defence Vessels) are not ‘commercial’ vessels. The ADV vessels are manned by civilian crew with Border Force/RAN staff embarked. The Navy Capes are treated as warships. The ADV vessels are treated as Naval Auxiliaries. The ADV vessels are close to an RFA type asset as opposed to a Coast Guard vessel (akin to the USNS in US service).

Unless you change the status of the border force manned vessels then these would be on thin ice under the UN Convention of the Law of the SEA (UNCLOS) if operating outside Australian waters trying to undertake the functions the USCG undertake. This would mean training crew to a much higher level that the current training. What they have at the moment appears adequate for the limited operations they undertake.

 

[Stampede]

Border forces is much more limited in its scope than the USCG. The USCG is an arm of the US military and manages a range of areas including acting as the flag State for US Merchant vessels, managing the port State control inspection regime, engaged as part of US boarder security, Providing armed capability in US waters (and outside those waters if directed including drug interdiction), Maritime SAR and a few others including waterways management activities.

The maritime arm of border force is simply a policing unit intended to operate in the Australian EEZ. It is interesting that the Border Force website for the Maritime arm does not include fisheries policing.

On the border force vessels the officers and crew are civilians and the vessel are certified under commercial vessel arrangements (they are subject to the Navigation Act 1912). For a civilian policing purpose a 50 cal is more than enough for what they do and the regulator is likely to have a fit if asked to allow 25mm autocannons. Such a fit is not consistent with the intent of the Navigation Act and these would be considered war ships. That would complication border forces management of these vessels.

The Cape class that are operated by the Navy and the Ocean Protector (and Reliant and Guidance) are ADV (Australian Defence Vessels) are not ‘commercial’ vessels. The ADV vessels are manned by civilian crew with Border Force/RAN staff embarked. The Navy Capes are treated as warships. The ADV vessels are treated as Naval Auxiliaries. The ADV vessels are close to an RFA type asset as opposed to a Coast Guard vessel (akin to the USNS in US service).

Unless you change the status of the border force manned vessels then these would be on thin ice under the UN Convention of the Law of the SEA (UNCLOS) if operating outside Australian waters trying to undertake the functions the USCG undertake. This would mean training crew to a much higher level that the current training. What they have at the moment appears adequate for the limited operations they undertake.

Thanks Alexsa for the detailed and we'll articulated response.

Looking into the crystal ball of the future I regretably have a somewhat pessimistic view as to the many challenges we may face and how we will respond to such predicaments.

The blurred line of constabulary and military engagement will be part of the challenge.

Not sure that I'm comfortable with the current mix and arrangement as a solution moving forward.

Again thanks for your post.

Cheers S

 

[ngatimozart]

We may need to go back to a medium calibre (127mm) gun on the stern to provide all round cover. Where to put it so as to not obstruct the helipad is the $64 question!

The Mk45 5in / 127mm gun is deck piercing and requires a magazine plus the carousel and powder and ammo hoists below the gun. Magazines are generally well below the water line so its not an easy fix and definitely something that would require a major redesign and refit to retroactively fit to a current frigate. There are other solutions to the original problem.

I am aware. The question not of mounting but of use to apply lethal force (not to shoot down drones, an unlikely requirement for them, or to sink a hazard to navigation). It’s when civilians kill using military weapons that an issue could well arise.

During WW2 merchant ships had 4in guns mounted on their sterns and many had 20mm Oerlikon cannons and machine guns mounted topside. The 4in guns sometimes had naval or marine gun crews, but not in all cases. So a legal precedent exists.

 

[Samoa]

The radar suite on the ANZACs consisted of three phased array sets, the long range L band, S band for volume and surface search, and X band for missile guidance.

The Hunters will have larger panels for longer range installed in their integrated radar masts.

I am not a radar expert, I leave the green steam to WEOs, but the CEA radars are a couple of generations in advance of SPY-1.

Hunter will pack a major punch when it comes to an ability to detect and track and support engagement of air targets and surface targets. The radar array is enormous and highly capable. ANZAC has a two band [S and L) set of arrays and the X Band is exclusively a phased array illuminator. Hunter will have a total of 24 phased array panels covering S, X and L Band all operating concurrently to provide a true multi band 360 degree high revisit rate system with an enhanced S Band for a full elevation volume search to zenith. Forget about SPY1, and even SPY6 which is only a 4 panel single S Band system and cannot perform all functions concurrently simply due to limited time of radar resources. Hunter will be the one of the best surface combatants in the world and a true Tier 1 in multiple warfare domains with the highest level of networked interoperability bar none.

 

[Meriv90]

I read that for quadcopters and slow moving drones, the right band is X and above.

Now comes my ignorance, I dont understnd if the X band on the ANZAC can be used to spot them or it is just a guidance system?

 

[Meriv90]

During WW2 merchant ships had 4in guns mounted on their sterns and many had 20mm Oerlikon cannons and machine guns mounted topside. The 4in guns sometimes had naval or marine gun crews, but not in all cases. So a legal precedent exists.

If we aren't 100% in a huge conflict I wouldnt put any military on civilian ships.
We tried by putting Italian marines on merchant ships to protect them.
It ended badly.

Enrica Lexie case - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[spoz]

All ships are required by the IMO to carry an X band navigation radar. The nature of navigation radars is that they need to be high definition (which is why they are X band), capable of picking up small targets such as buoys. Given the lobe shape of a typical example it also means they can detect targets up to a height of (usually) something like 5 or 6 thousand feet and they often serve double duty as helo approach control radars.

If they are mechanical the aerial rotation period (ARP) is short and the pulse repetition frequency (PRF) high; therefore they update quickly by mechanical radar standards.

So in general, any reasonable navigation radar should be able to detect drones; although admittedly they are likely to lose them as they approach the zenith, which for obvious reasons they don’t cover whereas an air warning radar, which would normally be expected to be S band, does.

Nevertheless, there is no absolute guarantee that any radar will pick up a target, particularly if it is small and made of non radar reflective materials. That is where optronic and infrared systems come into play (and why ships are required by the IMO to always maintain a visual lookout).

You have to be careful when using the letter L to describe a radar as there are two band identification systems, and each uses the letter L; but for differing frequency ranges. X band is I and part of J band in the other system.

 

[Bob53]

Interesting that Australia will not be sending a ship to the Red Sea task force.

Australia is Instead sending diplomatic assistance with the reason given by DefMin Marles “What comes from the Defence Strategic Review is an urgency around Australia maintaining a strategic focus on our immediate region, and that’s what we’ll do.”

At the same time has a Wedgetail and a support team of 100 to Germany to provide surveillance over the Ukraine…..

Does this seem counter intuitive?

 

[Meriv90]

All ships are required by the IMO to carry an X band navigation radar. The nature of navigation radars is that they need to be high definition (which is why they are X band), capable of picking up small targets such as buoys. Given the lobe shape of a typical example it also means they can detect targets up to a height of (usually) something like 5 or 6 thousand feet and they often serve double duty as helo approach control radars.

If they are mechanical the aerial rotation period (ARP) is short and the pulse religion frequency (PRF) high; therefore they update quickly by mechanical radar standards.

So in general, any reasonable navigation radar should be able to detect drones; although admittedly they are likely to lose them as they approach the zenith, which for obvious reasons they don’t cover whereas an air warning radar, which would normally be expected to be S band, does.

Nevertheless, there is no absolute guarantee that any radar will pick up a target, particularly if it is small and made of non radar reflective materials. That is where optronic and infrared systems come into play (and why ships are required by the IMO to always maintain a visual lookout).

You have to be careful when using the letter L to describe a radar as there are two band identification systems, and each uses the letter L; but for differing frequency ranges. X band is I and part of J band in the other system.

Spoz thanks for the explanation I really appreciate it.

 

[Samoa]

I read that for quadcopters and slow moving drones, the right band is X and above.

Now comes my ignorance, I dont understnd if the X band on the ANZAC can be used to spot them or it is just a guidance system?

ANZAC CEAFAR X band is an illuminator only, but she carries two X Band solid state Nav Radars and these are being replaced by an updated Scanter navigation radars to maintain 360 deg coverage. As explained by Spoz, these systems do track slow moving close proximity targets, although their use for engagement by pointing weapons such as a small calibre gun is limited as they are 2D sources (range and bearing only), but if the track data is fed into the combat system, it can be used to queue a gun which has an inbuilt EO source and tracker. The issue with drones is the low RCS and small size which translates to detection by Nav radars to only a handful of Nm, and lack of target discrimination if these drones are in a raid/swarm. A true multimode / multiband radar can provide detection at far greater range as a 3D track with better discrimination, and while still handling very erratic target manoeuvre. A system used for tracking super fast moving missiles and aircraft is usually optimised for that, ie the track extractor isn’t inherently suitable for slow erratic moving targets. So you need multiple concurrent track extracters running at the same time if you want to track all target types. A simple Nav radar can never do that….. well not at the moment.

 

[hauritz]

Interesting that Australia will not be sending a ship to the Red Sea task force.

Australia is Instead sending diplomatic assistance with the reason given by DefMin Marles “What comes from the Defence Strategic Review is an urgency around Australia maintaining a strategic focus on our immediate region, and that’s what we’ll do.”

At the same time has a Wedgetail and a support team of 100 to Germany to provide surveillance over the Ukraine…..

Does this seem counter intuitive?

Yep, we will be sending around 16 personnel. I am expecting more people than that at my Christmas dinner.

 

[devo99]

Hunter will pack a major punch when it comes to an ability to detect and track and support engagement of air targets and surface targets. The radar array is enormous and highly capable. ANZAC has a two band [S and L) set of arrays and the X Band is exclusively a phased array illuminator. Hunter will have a total of 24 phased array panels covering S, X and L Band all operating concurrently to provide a true multi band 360 degree high revisit rate system with an enhanced S Band for a full elevation volume search to zenith. Forget about SPY1, and even SPY6 which is only a 4 panel single S Band system and cannot perform all functions concurrently simply due to limited time of radar resources. Hunter will be the one of the best surface combatants in the world and a true Tier 1 in multiple warfare domains with the highest level of networked interoperability bar none.

As is helpfully depicted here by a CEA graphic display. The array faces are colour coded with red being X band, green being L band and blue being S band.

@devo99 Source for image please. You know the rules.

Ngatimozart

 

[Going Boeing]

Another view of the Hunter class mast configuration from the CEA graphic, courtesy of Reddit

 

[Morgo]

Another view of the Hunter class mast configuration from the CEA graphic, courtesy of Reddit

View attachment 51051

Also interesting is the weapons loadout in this diagram….

Looks to me like:

- 16x Box Launchers, presumably NSM
- 3 x 8 of some sort of smaller VLS between the box launchers
- 4 x 8 (although harder to see these ones) larger VLS

Obviously speculative but CEA should know what the weapons loadout is likely to be I would’ve thought.

If so we might be looking at 16 NSM, 24x VLS for ESSM, 32x strike length?

Or are the smaller ones a Sea Ceptor “mushroom farm” and this is a Type 26 with CEAFAR digitally added?

 

[Brissy1982]

Also interesting is the weapons loadout in this diagram….

Looks to me like:

- 16x Box Launchers, presumably NSM
- 3 x 8 of some sort of smaller VLS between the box launchers
- 4 x 8 (although harder to see these ones) larger VLS

Obviously speculative but CEA should know what the weapons loadout is likely to be I would’ve thought.

If so we might be looking at 16 NSM, 24x VLS for ESSM, 32x strike length?

Or are the smaller ones a Sea Ceptor “mushroom farm” and this is a Type 26 with CEAFAR digitally added?

The smaller VLS tubes in the image forward of the Mk 41 VLS and between the exhaust stack and SSM launchers are for CAMM/Sea Ceptor. While the RN's Type 26 will carry CAMM/Sea Ceptor, I think the missile armament in the CEA image is purely speculative. While the RNZN has adopted CAMM/Sea Ceptor on its Anzac class frigates, the RAN doesn't currently use CAMM/Sea Ceptor and as far as I'm aware doesn't plan to use it, as quad-packed ESSMs launched from the Mk 41 VLS fulfil the same short-to-medium range AAW role. So I don't think the CEA image can be taken as giving a reliable indication of the Hunter class missile armament.

 

[DDG38]

As per the actual Reddit thread you posted :
"according to the person who took the picture, the 3D model shown off was only meant to highlight the radar and effectively stuck the Aussie radar mast onto the base Type 26 model, hence the mix of 24x Mk.41 & 48x Sea Ceptor cells.
As far as we know, the Hunter-class are still expected to have 32x Mk.41."
That thread is also 10 months old and a low resolution photo of a monitor display could hardly be called a reliable source.

 

[spoz]

There are a number of other differences which indicate RN not RAN practice. Amongst others these include the helo trap, deck markings and aerial arrangements.

 

[devo99]

Important disclaimer I should've given originally. That display render was made by CEA specifically for showing the CEA radar suite being fitted to the Hunters. The rest of the model is just a Type 26 placeholder that is in no way indicative of BAE or RAN plans for a possible systems fit and most likely predates the latest Hunter-class physical display models from BAE anyway.
I asked the CEA employee about it after taking the photo and that is what I was told.