Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1965a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0358a.JPG

Miramar_14_GR4_1646a.JPG

Miramar_14_LF_0221a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Volkodav The other option would to go even smaller and aquire a fast interceptot craft that could ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 36 votes, 4.14 average.
Old November 9th, 2012   #9781
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
The other option would to go even smaller and aquire a fast interceptot craft that could be operated from either fixed bases or from larger mother ships, i.e. the ANZAC replacement if it were fitted with a stern launch and recovery system.
That is one of the things I have been wondering about. Just what/where the break point is between a ship's launch/recovery system and a well-dock in terms of cost and operating restrictions.

If such a system could be fitted to the OCV's, then whatever selected FAC could be used for boarding and intercepts in place of/in addition to RHIB's, and mount a bit more punch than a RHIB could. Going back a few years, such a fitout would have likely dissuaded Iran from seizing the RN boarding party which had been operating in the Gulf.

Also, if MCM or surveying ops were the assigned tasks, change out either the FAC configuration, or have a similarly sized but different smallcraft for the relevant specific tasks, with the OCV acting as a mothership.

Me being me, I prefer the notion of a small well-dock on the OCV, since that would permit a larger FAC, or LCP. This would be useful regionally if OCV's end up being assigned to transport personnel or kit to the beach in areas where port facilities are either lacking or damaged, especially if the amphibs are assigned other tasks.

OTOH the requirements for a well-dock in terms of space, displacement and location might mean that they are not appropriate for such a small vessel.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9782
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,856
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
Even if only a pooled capability as we've traditionally done with Phalanx CIWS, I'd think a warship carrying as vital a cargo as the LHD's would be worth the rather minimal overall investment in a latent capability to add Phalanx etc as may be required for deployments...
Off-topic but after reading your post, something occured to me. Most combatants in most navies - even smaller non-NATO ones - are fitted with chaff launchers to decoy missiles. But, are most LPDs, LSTs or even combatants in larger NATO [which also have chaff launchers] fitted with torpedo decoys? Granted, it depends on the circumstances but I think people tend to place too much emphasis on the threat posed by air, land and sub launched sea skimmers but surely sub launched heavyweight torpedos pose an even greater threat? Do we know if USN, RN and Marine Nationale carriers are fitted with torpedo decoys as insurance in case a sub gets past their escorts?

Also, do we know yet if the AWDs will be fitted with Nulka or another system?
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9783
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by STURM View Post
Off-topic but after reading your post, something occured to me. Most combatants in most navies - even smaller non-NATO ones - are fitted with chaff launchers to decoy missiles. But, are most LPDs, LSTs or even combatants in larger NATO and non-NATO navies fitted with torpedo decoys? Granted, it depends on the circumstances but I think people tend to place too much emphasis on the threat posed by air, land and sub launched sea skimmers but surely sub launched heavyweight torpedos pose an even greater threat? Do we know if USN, RN and Marine Nationale carriers are fitted with torpedo decoys as insurance in case a sub gets past their escorts?

Also, do we know yet if the AWDs will be fitted with Nulka or another system?
On a related note to the question about torpedoe decoys, how effective are they against modern heavyweight torpedoes, realistically?

Given that many of the sub-launched heavyweight torpedoes have wire guidance from the sub for some distance, I would imagine that decoys might only be effective when the torpedoe is reliant on its own onboard guidance package.

What might work better are bubbling systems like Praire Masker, perhaps working in concert with a noisemaker and/or depth bomb.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9784
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,856
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
On a related note to the question about torpedoe decoys, how effective are they against modern heavyweight torpedoes, realistically?
I see your point but surely we can say that same about chaff vs Sea skimmers as there are many variables involved as to whether chaff will work against the seeker head of a particular missile when the missile goes in the terminal phase? Same I think goes with active jammers as to how effective they will be against sea skimmers, especialy given that certain missiles have home on jam stuff fitted [assuming of course they work as advertised].
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9785
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 294
Threads:
Slight change of subject. Todays The Age is reporting that the Americans are less than impressed with our current defence spending, as Australia's current defence spending as a share of GDP is at its smallest level since 1938. They have said they suspect Australia is taking advantage of the US Marine deployment to Darwin to reduce its spending.
Will this criticism be sufficient to cause the government to increase our defence spending to a decent level?
hairyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9786
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 822
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
Slight change of subject. Todays The Age is reporting that the Americans are less than impressed with our current defence spending, as Australia's current defence spending as a share of GDP is at its smallest level since 1938. They have said they suspect Australia is taking advantage of the US Marine deployment to Darwin to reduce its spending.
Will this criticism be sufficient to cause the government to increase our defence spending to a decent level?
No. Present government are so fixated on achieving their surplus that they would probably sell off Tasmania to achieve it if necessary. They would have diggers equipped with slingshots to achieve this if necessary. Mind you, the opposition are in many ways just as much to blame - as they have created the 'wedge' that Labor have trapped themselves in. Politics... well I suppose its better than anarchy...(maybe).
Marc 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9787
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 768
Threads:
Have just been reading an article in the Financial review regarding nuke subs once again on offer to the ADF by the USA.Why is there such a big push from the press to buy nukes? Is it they are that ill informed?

The article goes on to talk about a Collins 2 design or a Type 214 as other choices.

Coalition leaders float nuclear navy

Its the standard dribble that the press seems to pump out to sell papers.
How is it a Virgina Class is cheaper to operate? It will have an extra 70 crew members compared to a Collins.I assume it is rather expensive to train a Submariner up to a high standard.

I would like to see an article written by someone in the know instead of these presstitutes.

Last edited by the road runner; November 9th, 2012 at 11:30 PM. Reason: Wrote type 212 instead of 214 my mistake as pointed out by sea 1000
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9788
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,044
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayra View Post
So I have to ask you, what do you think about the Cape Class in terms of your experience, will it be up to the Task?
The Cape Class are simply Armidales without a gun (more or less) and will be fine for border protection duties.

SEA 1180 is the defence capability requirement for the RAN to replace the ACPB's with a MRV of some description. A capability that combines Minewarfare, Hydrographic/geospatial duties and littoral defence in an area from 5degs North to 48 degs South within the australian sphere of influence. There has been plenty of discussion in this forum on this topic.

Suffice to say that there has been a conflict between requirements set by Aust govts for the patrol force in past decades. First and foremost, we don't have a Coastguard and border protection has been undertaken by the RAN but the navy's fundamental wish is to have all its forces equipped for warfighting.
This has led to some very ineffective compromises in our past ship designs that have rendered them hopeless at both tasks (the ACPB's are an improvement for border protection)
Since the mid 90's our Customs service has acquired offshore patrol capabilities and it seems that our governments have less political angst in approving a growing Customs force than a growing naval force.

The proposed OCV (SEA 1180) should complete the cycle and steer the the navy away from pure border protection back to a useful naval capability although the effort in border protection will remain unchanged. Aviation capable ships, UAV's etc will be both useful for border protection but also vital for the tasks (Hydro, littoral defence and mine warfare) described in the DCP.

Last edited by Preceptor; November 10th, 2012 at 12:09 AM. Reason: Fixed quotation
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9789
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 207
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post

Since the mid 90's our Customs service has acquired offshore patrol capabilities and it seems that our governments have less political angst in approving a growing Customs force than a growing naval force.

The proposed OCV (SEA 1180) should complete the cycle and steer the the navy away from pure border protection back to a useful naval capability although the effort in border protection will remain unchanged. Aviation capable ships, UAV's etc will be both useful for border protection but also vital for the tasks (Hydro, littoral defence and mine warfare) described in the DCP.
I have always wondered what the navy really thinks of doing this sort of work. On the one hand it would prefer to concentrate on the warfighting role ... on the other hand it might be concerned that funding for an expanded customs fleet might be coming from its budget.
hauritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9790
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,246
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayra View Post
'The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Andrew Davies' criticized the idea of a 2000 ton boatship pulling up beside a small fishing vessel.
That’s the dumbest argument I’ve heard against an OPV in a long time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayra View Post
Its a $20 billion program that is coming under review.
SEA 1180 is NOT a $20 billion program. More like $200 million. But what’s three significant figures between friends…
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9791
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,044
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hauritz View Post
on the other hand it might be concerned that funding for an expanded customs fleet might be coming from its budget.
They're concerned alright, $130m has already been robbed from the Navy budget by the purchase of the Skandi Bergen/Ocean Shield.
What's not clear to me is the source of the sustainment costs, particularly as this is a civilian crewed ship on full commercial MUA (Maritime Union of Australia) rates of pay and conditions. If sustainment is against the navy budget the drain on funds continues.

Last edited by Preceptor; November 10th, 2012 at 12:11 AM. Reason: Fixed quotation
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9792
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,712
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
They're concerned alright, $130m has already been robbed from the Navy budget by the purchase of the Skandi Bergen/Ocean Shield.
What's not clear to me is the source of the sustainment costs, particularly as this is a civilian crewed ship on full commercial MUA (Maritime Union of Australia) rates of pay and conditions. If sustainment is against the navy budget the drain on funds continues.
60m of that value will never get used (ROV hangers. heave compensated crane and DP2). What a waste.......... all because it had tobe bought in that budget cycle and the 'shed' on the Ocean Protector can be moved to it when it is given to ACBP.

Still it looks nice sitting there doing sod all.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9793
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyman View Post
Slight change of subject. Todays The Age is reporting that the Americans are less than impressed with our current defence spending, as Australia's current defence spending as a share of GDP is at its smallest level since 1938. They have said they suspect Australia is taking advantage of the US Marine deployment to Darwin to reduce its spending.
Will this criticism be sufficient to cause the government to increase our defence spending to a decent level?
yes I suspect the Americans are very worried about defence spending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the road runner View Post
Have just been reading an article in the Financial review regarding nuke subs once again on offer to the ADF by the USA.Why is there such a big push from the press to buy nukes? Is it they are that ill informed?

The article goes on to talk about a Collins 2 design or a Type 212 as other choices.


Its the standard dribble that the press seems to pump out to sell papers.
How is it a Virgina Class is cheaper to operate? It will have an extra 70 crew members compared to a Collins.I assume it is rather expensive to train a Submariner up to a high standard.

I would like to see an article written by someone in the know instead of these presstitutes.
actually it seems to talk about the type 214s

Mod edit: Merged posts. Additionally, please provide more than a single line of commentary. "One-liner" posts add little to a discussion and are frowned on. Please read the forum rules.
-Preceptor

Last edited by Preceptor; November 10th, 2012 at 12:15 AM. Reason: Mod edit
sea1000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012   #9794
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 207
Threads:
The submarine story mentions that the Soryu class won't be available to Australia.

I am not sure that this is necessarily the case. Australia is negotiating with Japan over this very issue at the moment.

As far as leasing Virginia subs is concerned ... exactly where will the subs come from?

The USN have 33 built, or on order and I am pretty sure that they would want to hang onto them. I can't see them giving up between 6 and 12 of these boats for Australia.
hauritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2012   #9795
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 287
Threads:
Let's get this straight: the US doesn't want Australia to have nuc subs. The reason being is that quiet diesels complement nuclear subs quite well. So rather than having to split its sub force (US is only nuc), its far better to partner with a country that has the capabilities that you lack.

12 diesels are here to stay. Ill bet a dollar a signifiant portion are built in Australia as well.
justsomeaussie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:49 AM.