Speculators dream of the of the profits derived from picking winners. It's what FDR might have called it a New Boom deal. Everyone has every reason to be confident in U.S. resolve. Ambassador Rudd is doing fantastic work to shape things in our collective favour. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic but the materials of a winning culture is Infront of us.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
The S100 is used by some 20 militaries and about the same number of non militaries.
Clearly it works and works well!
If not the preference for the ADF so be it.
Agree the drone tech thing is an evolutionary space.
Kind of wonder in the excellence is the enemy of good scenario what’s the best approach.
With regards to a UAV shipborne concept, I’d suggest just get something and get it aboard all vessels so it becomes a cultural part of going to sea. It does not have to be that flash.
Get that dynamic right and people and concepts in place in good numbers and then aim for something better.
Cheers S
Last edited:
A few thoughts in a naval UAV.
1) the Transwing P4 has a payload of <7kg of cargo (future P5 has significantly more), whereas the S100 has 50kg of sensors. Not in the same class.
2) I figure that UAVs have a lifespan of less than 10 years. Over the majority of the next 10 years we will have a max of say 10 major surface combatants, 6 OPVs and 2 LHDs: 18 ships.
However, my understanding is that the ANZACs would struggle to accomodate an S100 in their hanger in addition to the Romeo.
If I recall correctly, there was quite the concern when the Seasprites got axed that the Anzac hangers would be too small for a Sea Hawk, so cant imagine theres a lot of spare space for an S100. If thats correct, then for the short term, at least, we only really have 11 ships capable of operatinh an S100 sized UAV. Then, assuming a couple are either in upgrade (Hobarts) or general maintenance, we probably only need 8 flights.
Not a big investment, to get a significant operational capability, and not a huge loss if it doesnt turn out to be quite what we need / want..
3) I remember reading at the time of the S100 cancelation, that there were concerns about whether security had been compromsed somehow by either (or both) the PRC and Russia. If this were a contributing factor, it would appear to have been dealt with, as there have been numerous orders by major NATO countries (amongst others) including France, the UK, Belgium and Greece.
4) Let's just buy a dozen mature, respected systems (S100) that we are very familiar with, and that at least one major ally uses, put it to sea, and stop pissing about.
1) the Transwing P4 has a payload of <7kg of cargo (future P5 has significantly more), whereas the S100 has 50kg of sensors. Not in the same class.
2) I figure that UAVs have a lifespan of less than 10 years. Over the majority of the next 10 years we will have a max of say 10 major surface combatants, 6 OPVs and 2 LHDs: 18 ships.
However, my understanding is that the ANZACs would struggle to accomodate an S100 in their hanger in addition to the Romeo.
If I recall correctly, there was quite the concern when the Seasprites got axed that the Anzac hangers would be too small for a Sea Hawk, so cant imagine theres a lot of spare space for an S100. If thats correct, then for the short term, at least, we only really have 11 ships capable of operatinh an S100 sized UAV. Then, assuming a couple are either in upgrade (Hobarts) or general maintenance, we probably only need 8 flights.
Not a big investment, to get a significant operational capability, and not a huge loss if it doesnt turn out to be quite what we need / want..
3) I remember reading at the time of the S100 cancelation, that there were concerns about whether security had been compromsed somehow by either (or both) the PRC and Russia. If this were a contributing factor, it would appear to have been dealt with, as there have been numerous orders by major NATO countries (amongst others) including France, the UK, Belgium and Greece.
4) Let's just buy a dozen mature, respected systems (S100) that we are very familiar with, and that at least one major ally uses, put it to sea, and stop pissing about.
There was never any problem fitting a S-70 into an ANZAC. The Sea Sprite is indeed a smaller helicopter; it was a surface warfare optimised aircraft, but it was actually sized for the cancelled OPC. It was an aircraft which met the operational concept of the Anzac when it a patrol frigate. The S-70 was optimised for ASW which was not, at that time, an Anzac Priority.
Fitting an S100 into an Anzac or Hobart hangar would probably be impossible if an MH-60R was embarked. They were designed to closely fit the S-60/70 family; while they needed mods for the Romeo these were fairly minor. The aircraft that would have been a difficult fit was the NH-90, had we bought it.
Fitting an S100 into an Anzac or Hobart hangar would probably be impossible if an MH-60R was embarked. They were designed to closely fit the S-60/70 family; while they needed mods for the Romeo these were fairly minor. The aircraft that would have been a difficult fit was the NH-90, had we bought it.
Last edited:
The S100 is very capable and versatile UAV.
Certainly a much bigger aircraft compared to the p4 thing navy have gone with and one that can be much more than just a sensor platform.
That said the S100 is still not big.
Stand next to one and you tower over it.
A great little package for its size.
If it cannot fit inside the hangar with a Seahawk I wonder if you could potentially have a locker on the flight deck to house the UAV.
It would not be very large and hopefully enable full flight operations bearing in mind all elements of safety.
Just a thought
What ever the choices get decent numbers out to the fleet asap.
It’s the future
That is a UAV ( small / medium / large ) on all vessels,Cape class and above in size
Thats correct; 30 plus vessels.
Cheers S
AndyinOz
Active Member
From what I gather and could source Strix is a whole different class of VTOL 160kg payload at 800km range for the purpose we seem to have been discussing here. https://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/product/strix-uas
It would be interesting to hear updates on this strix drone to see where it is at… it’s been years in development now and I would have thought a naval variant would be useful to go along side army and airforce flying them. It would help the Arafura class patrol and many of these launching of the LHD eve a force multiplier!
I think the key point you raised is if you can't carry it, then it is not useful. If an S100 can't fit in a ship with a Seahawk, then it's a problem. No frigate or destroyer mission is ever going to prioritise an S100 over a Seahawk.
I think the other point is drones are all about quantity. Single drones, however capapable, are not attritable. A bunch means you can afford to loose some, and that is important for the type of mission these may be used in. It's a bit pointless if your drone is as scarce and rare as your Seahawk.
If its for an OPV, similar problem with storage. The S100 needs to come with its own containerised entourage. Even worse for a patrol boat.
The P4, from what I've seen comes in a box that can fit in a ute, or store off the deck in a rack, or in a cabin, that can be carried by two people to a suitable launch position. It's just far easier to store on any platform, all without having to sacrifice something else to make space for it.
A frigate could have a dozen of these in below deck storage and still carry its normal Seahawk. An OPV could also have multiples stored below the flight deck. An S100 could not do that.
As a simple surface ISR platform, it probably matches the S100 for how it would be used (say scouting over the horizon in the 50-100km range). Payload capacity is less relevent for that role.
I'm also going to assume that the P4 is substantially less than the S100. Google says an S100 (minus all its controls and support equipment) is about $600k. $3M as a full embarked package. P4 costs seem to be confidential, but I did find a Reddit article that indicated about $100k per unit. So you could possibly have a dozen of the P4s with all controls for about the same price as a single S100.
Sounds like we will have the first batch of P4s this year and the larger P5s next year, so also probably sooner than we could receive an S100, which I imagin by now has a multi year order book for its European customers.
The Strix is quite a big platform; probably store one (maybe 2) in the mission bay of an HCF, a fair number in an LHD and maybe one on the flight deck of an OPV, but in a Hobart/ANZAC/Mogami it would have to occupy the hangar. An AOR has two hangars so conceivably a helo in one and a couple of Strix in the other.
The P5 is smaller, but still not insignicant. You could probably fit several in the average escort hangar, but it would be at the expense of the helo.
The P5 is smaller, but still not insignicant. You could probably fit several in the average escort hangar, but it would be at the expense of the helo.
devo99
Well-Known Member
To a certain degree I would prefer SeaRAM over Mk49 just for the independent engagement capability. As long as there's power still going in it could well be the only thing working in a worst case scenario where there's damage to other systems that Mk49 would be reliant on. This is not to say that I would prefer SeaRAM in every case though. The extra 10 shots is going to keep that inner self defence capability up for more engagements.
Interesting point. Do you prioritise RAM missile capacity, or redundant radar capability.
I once made myself famous (in a bad way) with my ship captain when I interupted power supply during a damage control exercise, overlayed with an action station exercise. In the exercise our forward generator room was on fire, whilst we were under sustained air attack. I rolled the switchboards from forward to aft without approval causing a power interuption. End point is we completely lost the entire combat system and radars for about 15 minutes while everything rebooted.
Needless to say we failed the exercise, I got a public pineapple over the ship's intercom and the PWO refused to sit with me at dinner.
The end point being, the SeaRAM and main ship radars all use a lot of common systems, like power. I suspect that a stand alone CIWS is not the full redundancy that people may think it is.
Remember that the original Phalanx came from an era where a ship's main combat system and radars could get overwhelmed. Even Burkes only have two fire director radars, which with the early versions of SM2 and ESSM were essential for guidance. A Phalanx fitted well into that picture by not taking up valuable fire channels.
In the modern era, with radars like ceafar that can lock onto multiple targets simultaneously, and with modern missiles that no longer need illumination, then a stand alone radar for a CIWS I think becomes less important.
It is much more useful for ships with less capable radars such as the LHDs, oilers, and (in a different universe) an OPV.
With all that in mind, I can see the reason for the decision to go with the larger capacity Mk49
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
That makes a lot of sense, Sammy. So, the Hunters will have 42 rounds loaded in the Mk.49s plus a mix of ESSM, SM-2 and Tomahawk in the Mk.41 VLS, the 127mm gun, 8 NSM, and 2 x 30mm . Quite an echidna!!!! Conroy was talking about up to 128 rounds of ESSM in the Evolved Mogamis. If they are only getting 1 x 11 round SeaRAM that's still quite a loadout.
Prior to coming in for her AMCAP, Ballarat was fitted out as the trial ship for the S100. As well as a control station set up in an office off the hanger, she was fitted out with a wheeled frame that allowed the S100 to be moved out of the hanger onto the flightdeck. They some how managed to shoehorn it into the hanger along with the MH60R. Flight trials were undertaken & I'm led to believe that it all worked after a fashion. Cheers
My understanding is the biggest issue with Romeo was different lashing down requirements due to its different tires and greater weight.
The whole Seasprite debarkle is made worse by the fact we never ordered the OPCs which is what the Mogamis would be replacing now.
That must have been incredibly crowded. I suppose they would have to stow the S100 ahead of the helo; certainly can’t believe you could get anything alongside it and still be able to do maintenance. That would imply the need to spot the helo, get the S100 out, and rehangar the helo before launching the S100 - ugh.
In addition to the tie downs for the Romeo there were some power supply differences and differing stowage requirements. It wasn’t enormous.
Yes, we should have cancelled the SH-2G(A) when the OPC was canned. Tell me about it.
The S100 was actually stowed at the aft end of the hanger. It needed to be wheeled out & put in the forward port corner of the flightdeck to enable the Seahawk to be dragged out.