Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[seaspear]

Should an opv of this class carry any sort of decoy system , I can appreciate that space and weight is limited especially on smaller ships but if you would argue that the ship needs to carry a larger calibre gun for its role then the risks are of returning fire
There have been some development of U.S.N naval drones it might not be to far in the future that something could be deplyed from small ships
The Navy's Secretive And Revolutionary Program To Project False Fleets From Drone Swarms (thedrive.com)

 

[spoz]

There is, however, a 40, the Bofor (BAE) which is certified, does have programmable ammunition and is already integrated with a SAAB CMS. Further, the 25mm Typhoon has been charactarised as an interim fit, and there is an on going evaluation of what gun would be appropriate for the ship. So we need to wait and see where Defence and Navy are going. A 40 may be capable, just not the Leonardo, or a 30, or they may decide on a 57. But one thing is for certain, they are not looking to this, or any other, forum for determination of what they want.

You probably only need decoy systems if you are going in harm’s way. If they decide to use them In that context, then probably need a system of some sort; but that means you need to be able to cue it; which in turn probably means sophisticated ESM, preferably plus IRST, plus possibly an horizon search radar. You don’t just throw on decoys; by themselves they have no value.

 

[Lolcake]

Some amazing news for you guys.

Bryan Clark, a former adviser to the head of US naval operations, said a new bipartisan bill in Congress to allow Australian naval officers to train on US nuclear submarines signalled the US would provide “one or two” nuclear submarines by 2030.

“Previously I thought the US would not be willing to follow through with the subs part of AUKUS – because of a reluctance to give up domestic submarine production to Australia - but it sounds like there’s been movement on that, that the US may be willing to divert some of its new submarines,” he told The Australian.

“I think the US is now looking at giving Australia one of the final block IV Virginia class subs, within the next few years, as it comes off production, with a second one by the end of the decade,” Mr Clark, a defence technology expert at the Hudson Institute, who earlier spent 25 years in the US navy, said.

Source: the australian

Article goes on to say all ships MAY be built in the US and that maintenance and overhaul facilities will be built here. But at rhe very least early models will be built in the US

 

[Morgo]

Some amazing news for you guys.

Bryan Clark, a former adviser to the head of US naval operations, said a new bipartisan bill in Congress to allow Australian naval officers to train on US nuclear submarines signalled the US would provide “one or two” nuclear submarines by 2030.

“Previously I thought the US would not be willing to follow through with the subs part of AUKUS – because of a reluctance to give up domestic submarine production to Australia - but it sounds like there’s been movement on that, that the US may be willing to divert some of its new submarines,” he told The Australian.

“I think the US is now looking at giving Australia one of the final block IV Virginia class subs, within the next few years, as it comes off production, with a second one by the end of the decade,” Mr Clark, a defence technology expert at the Hudson Institute, who earlier spent 25 years in the US navy, said.

Source: the australian

Article goes on to say all ships MAY be built in the US and that maintenance and overhaul facilities will be built here. But at rhe very least early models will be built in the US

Very interesting news if true.

Having 6x LOTE Collins + 1 Block IV + 1 Block V Virginia (ie with the VPM) by 2030 would provide a very potent capability indeed.

Just the small task of finding the bodies to crew and support them!!

One month ban for speculation on SSNs when we specifically told people not too.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Redlands18]

Very interesting news if true.

Having 6x LOTE Collins + 1 Block IV + 1 Block V Virginia (ie with the VPM) by 2030 would provide a very potent capability indeed.

Just the small task of finding the bodies to crew and support them!!

I would not start talking about Virginia's with VPM at this stage, that is pure speculation and the mods are frowning on speculation concerning Subs. Under current plans the first LOTE Collins is due to decommission in 2038 the same year that the last LOTE Collins is due to return.

 

[Lolcake]

Very interesting news if true.

Having 6x LOTE Collins + 1 Block IV + 1 Block V Virginia (ie with the VPM) by 2030 would provide a very potent capability indeed.

Just the small task of finding the bodies to crew and support them!!

Would be Interesring to see if the models post 2030 would be the block VI or VII variant or if the USN switches focus to the SSNX

Would never have imagined looking back from the early 2000s we would be acquiring such a large capability increase when our pride and joy in terms of deterrence was the F-111.

 

[Morgo]

I would not start talking about Virginia's with VPM at this stage, that is pure speculation and the mods are frowning on speculation concerning Subs. Under current plans the first LOTE Collins is due to decommission in 2038 the same year that the last LOTE Collins is due to return.

Fair point - but I’m just responding to what the article said, being that one would be a late Block IV and one an early Block V. I have no basis for anything beyond that, other than to say there are probably significant inefficiencies in us operating and maintaining more than one subtype (noting there is obviously still a ton of commonality between blocks).

 

[Going Boeing]

Fair point - but I’m just responding to what the article said, being that one would be a late Block IV and one an early Block V. I have no basis for anything beyond that, other than to say there are probably significant inefficiencies in us operating and maintaining more than one subtype (noting there is obviously still a ton of commonality between blocks).

Having read an article on Bryan Clark’s recent interview, there was nothing to indicate which Block the Australian submarines could come from. Lolcake’s post suggests that the first one could be one of the last Block 4 Virginia’s and it would make sense that the second one comes from the same Block (albeit with a few years USN service on it) thus keeping systems differences to a minimum and thus simplifying maintenance. I can’t see the USN giving up a VPM equipped Block 5 Virginia when they are needed to replace the Ohio SSGN’s that are to be retired in a few years time.

The US is helping Australia stand up a nuclear-powered submarine fleet. First it must help train commanding officers.

One month ban for speculation on SSNs when we specifically told people not too.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Underway]

Does it need to be able to detect and possibly shoot down drones or deter aircraft?

Detect maybe, Scanter 6002 isn't up to the task to do air surveillance anyways. 10-15nm and a max of 6000ft is great for helicopter control but not air warfare. It's a radar that doesn't have a 3D capability and certainly can't do volume search. . Shoot down? No. No drone or aircraft worth its salt is going to get anywhere near a 57 mm range. It can watch or kill the OPV from well beyond if it wanted to.

Its a OPV. It's job is to patrol, report, and when it needs to go kinetic its going to be on unarmed trawlers and deal with drug runners. Let the warships and warplanes do the warfare.

It is also the gun used by friendlies in the region(Burnei, Thailand, Malaysia, . The US also intergrated the 57mm on its national Coast guard NSC cutters and off shore patrol cutter. 57mm gun is also integrated into the 9lv combat system. It is also organic to the ship being built.

Two things here. Who cares if the gun is used by everyone else. That's irrelevant to the capabilities. I wouldn't take Thailand, Malaysia or Burnei's idea of what they need as the same thing as Australia needs. And the US patrol cutters are frigates in anything but name. They usually pack an SPQ-9B fire control radar, Phalanx, 57mm, have been loaded with harpoons, and also have an EWS.

Secondly as I pointed out above the Scanter 6002 is not a Fire Control Radar. EOIR which is what the OPV is going to have will not unlock anything resembling the full capabilities of a 57mm even if you could integrate the two together. Integrating into a 9LV combat system means absolutely nothing if you can't get the targeting solution because your sensors are not good enough.

Does the opv need a 40mm? Apparently it did. But it isn't integrated and isn't a production ready in gun with low risk and existing customers. It was also not up to the threat assessment.

In regards to a 25-30mm weapon, does it take 15 minutes to make it operational? Do crew need to be exposed while doing so. Does the 25mm have the enforcement power? the range? If the 40mm isn't capable how is the 25mm more so?

I can't speak to the threat assessment because there isn't a reference. But I'm willing to bet the RAN have decided that the OPV's will be used in a more permissive threat environment then originally planned and that the RAN and RAAF warships will be used for proper warship jobs.

EDIT: You know last time I looked the RAAF weren't flying warships

Ngatimozart.

 

[Stampede]

Detect maybe, Scanter 6002 isn't up to the task to do air surveillance anyways. 10-15nm and a max of 6000ft is great for helicopter control but not air warfare. It's a radar that doesn't have a 3D capability and certainly can't do volume search. . Shoot down? No. No drone or aircraft worth its salt is going to get anywhere near a 57 mm range. It can watch or kill the OPV from well beyond if it wanted to.

Its a OPV. It's job is to patrol, report, and when it needs to go kinetic its going to be on unarmed trawlers and deal with drug runners. Let the warships and warplanes do the warfare.



Two things here. Who cares if the gun is used by everyone else. That's irrelevant to the capabilities. I wouldn't take Thailand, Malaysia or Burnei's idea of what they need as the same thing as Australia needs. And the US patrol cutters are frigates in anything but name. They usually pack an SPQ-9B fire control radar, Phalanx, 57mm, have been loaded with harpoons, and also have an EWS.

Secondly as I pointed out above the Scanter 6002 is not a Fire Control Radar. EOIR which is what the OPV is going to have will not unlock anything resembling the full capabilities of a 57mm even if you could integrate the two together. Integrating into a 9LV combat system means absolutely nothing if you can't get the targeting solution because your sensors are not good enough.



I can't speak to the threat assessment because there isn't a reference. But I'm willing to bet the RAN have decided that the OPV's will be used in a more permissive threat environment then originally planned and that the RAN and RAAF warships will be used for proper warship jobs.

EDIT: You know last time I looked the RAAF weren't flying warships

Ngatimozart.

Ngatimozart....................RAAF warship



Just add missiles!!!!


Cheers S

 

[ASSAIL]

Congratulations to VADM Mark Hammond our new CN
It’s great to have a Submariner CN at this critical time in the RAN’s force development.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngatimozart....................RAAF warship
View attachment 49456


Just add missiles!!!!


Cheers S

Well they were one tough old bird for sure. The Luftwaffe called them flying porcupines.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Detect maybe, Scanter 6002 isn't up to the task to do air surveillance anyways. 10-15nm and a max of 6000ft is great for helicopter control but not air warfare. It's a radar that doesn't have a 3D capability and certainly can't do volume search. . Shoot down? No. No drone or aircraft worth its salt is going to get anywhere near a 57 mm range. It can watch or kill the OPV from well beyond if it wanted to.

Its a OPV. It's job is to patrol, report, and when it needs to go kinetic its going to be on unarmed trawlers and deal with drug runners. Let the warships and warplanes do the warfare.

Well its hard to read into exactly what the RAN wants to do with it when it has a failed gun selection. Certainly with the Scanter it won't be doing anything too complicated, then perhaps why select the 40mm at all in the first place.

Two things here. Who cares if the gun is used by everyone else. That's irrelevant to the capabilities. I wouldn't take Thailand, Malaysia or Burnei's idea of what they need as the same thing as Australia needs. And the US patrol cutters are frigates in anything but name. They usually pack an SPQ-9B fire control radar, Phalanx, 57mm, have been loaded with harpoons, and also have an EWS.

Well if one of the missions of the RAN is to build regional strength, providing training pathways for other nations and alliances then its not irrelevant. It may not drive the selection criteria but it may not be irrelevant.

I guess part of the issue regarding the OPV is we knew we wanted a much bigger ship, but didn't really articulate what we wanted other than that. So hence we have had a lot of media speculations about helicopters, guns, missiles etc. Now we have a 40mm gun selected that can't be used, on a hull design that was original conceived around a 57mm gun.

I don't know if ignoring US coast guard concepts is a bad idea. Long range patrol and enforcement would seem to be a good basis for a OPV.
The National security cutter was going to be fitted with ceafar and a model was produced as such. Ceafar was touted to be able to scale up and down, from a "corvettes to cruisers".

Interesting the Brazilians and the Thais purchased OPV from the UK with 25mm and 30mm guns..

Given the 30mm DS30M on the Hunters, it would seem to be another fairly straight forward purchase. Also in use by Thailand, Malaysia.. The DS30B's are already on the Huons with more to come. Two of these have been decommissioned so the guns would be available for fitting onto OPV's.

Plenty of options. Not sure why we went down the way we did or where this will go.

 

[ADMk2]

Well its hard to read into exactly what the RAN wants to do with it when it has a failed gun selection. Certainly with the Scanter it won't be doing anything too complicated, then perhaps why select the 40mm at all in the first place.


Well if one of the missions of the RAN is to build regional strength, providing training pathways for other nations and alliances then its not irrelevant. It may not drive the selection criteria but it may not be irrelevant.

I guess part of the issue regarding the OPV is we knew we wanted a much bigger ship, but didn't really articulate what we wanted other than that. So hence we have had a lot of media speculations about helicopters, guns, missiles etc. Now we have a 40mm gun selected that can't be used, on a hull design that was original conceived around a 57mm gun.

I don't know if ignoring US coast guard concepts is a bad idea. Long range patrol and enforcement would seem to be a good basis for a OPV.
The National security cutter was going to be fitted with ceafar and a model was produced as such. Ceafar was touted to be able to scale up and down, from a "corvettes to cruisers".

Interesting the Brazilians and the Thais purchased OPV from the UK with 25mm and 30mm guns..

Given the 30mm DS30M on the Hunters, it would seem to be another fairly straight forward purchase. Also in use by Thailand, Malaysia.. The DS30B's are already on the Huons with more to come. Two of these have been decommissioned so the guns would be available for fitting onto OPV's.

Plenty of options. Not sure why we went down the way we did or where this will go.

Because the OPV as part of it’s OCV heritage ‘has’ a combat role. Not a frontline combat role to be sure, but a combat role nonetheless.

RAN acknowledged it withdrew the 40mm in part due to a revised threat assessment for the class. Underway stated he was willing to bet that meant a reduced likelihood of an Arafura being used in anything other than a permissive environment.

I am equally willing to bet it means the exact opposite of that due to1. The rapidly deteriorating strategic circumstances we find ourselves in, 2. The Government specifically reviewing options to up-gun the Arafura’s, 3. The recent events of direct intrusions in the so-called ‘permissive’ areas these ships are supposed to be operating in and 4. Because the RAN already has a perfectly serviceable medium calibre gun system in the Rafael Typhoon 25mm it could transition at virtually no cost straight from the Armidales to the Arafura’s and is doing so on the initial 3 vessels, BUT have made it very clear they are doing so only as an ‘interim’ weapon until a permanent solution can be decided upon, acquired and integrated…

Like you, no idea where this goes, and am not invested in any particular system, I’m sure this time RAN will actually choose an appropriate one, but little shows me they intend to acquire less capability in this regard. With respect to fire control and so forth, I imagine such issues (if relevant) will be very much part of the study Government is conducting. I have little doubt there are plenty of capable solutions to address such issues and vendors would be lining up to do just this…

SAAB for instance I would speculate would have an opinion on this given they are providing the combat system, sensor system as it is, and quite possibly the gun system for the Arafura’s as well…

 

[spoz]

SAAB do not make guns; that was Bofors who are now part of BAE.

 

[Volkodav]

We can fit high end radars to small aircraft, UAVs, helicopters and even Hawkeis, but for some reason it's not appropriate for an OPV.

In a couple of years time we could probably lash a NASAMS troop from 16 AD to an OPVs deck and give it more combat power than we ever envisaged.

There are options out there, we just chose not to use them. We could easily have adopted the Danish STANFLEX system decades ago and now be deploying modules kitted out to our requirements across the fleet.

 

[ngatimozart]

We can fit high end radars to small aircraft, UAVs, helicopters and even Hawkeis, but for some reason it's not appropriate for an OPV.

In a couple of years time we could probably lash a NASAMS troop from 16 AD to an OPVs deck and give it more combat power than we ever envisaged.

There are options out there, we just chose not to use them. We could easily have adopted the Danish STANFLEX system decades ago and now be deploying modules kitted out to our requirements across the fleet.

There are no reasons why you can't design and build your own flex modules. The one problem with STANFLEX is that it has a bespoke footprint reducing its compatibility. If you design a module with the same footprint as the 20ft TEU container, then you have greater compatibility because it is easily moved across platforms, vehicles etc.

 

[swerve]

There are no reasons why you can't design and build your own flex modules. The one problem with STANFLEX is that it has a bespoke footprint reducing its compatibility. If you design a module with the same footprint as the 20ft TEU container, then you have greater compatibility because it is easily moved across platforms, vehicles etc.

A STANFLEX module is 3 x 3.5 metres. Annoyingly, that's both wider & longer than a 10' container.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to repackage the contents of STANFLEX modules into 10' or 20' containers. A pity the Danes didn't do that from the start.

 

[Stampede]

Congratulations to the Navy Fleet Air Arm celebrating 75 years of service.

https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media-releases/navy-fleet-air-arm-celebrates-75th-anniversary

Cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

SAAB do not make guns; that was Bofors who are now part of BAE.

Never said they did…

Lurssen don’t make the Oto 40 either…