Would an ANZAC be a realistic proposition?
No Phalanx or bushmaster.
Most likely ESSM only.
Load of 32
Hobart yes,but just two available.
Would we risk it?
Also should we actually be involved???????
Cheers S
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
No Phalanx or bushmaster.
Most likely ESSM only.
Load of 32
Hobart yes,but just two available.
Would we risk it?
Also should we actually be involved???????
Cheers S
Should we help defend our allies?
Is this even a reasonable question? Would we want help if we had ballistic missiles and drones raining down on our cities?
Realistically an Anzac is a poor fit for gulf work these days IMO. No phalanx or point defence is really a big weakness in that environment. It would basically need escorting. They are also not new ships, and been worked hard, and its a long transit followed by a long and challenging deployment far from home. We are tasked with other missions, which haven't magically gone away.
Probably not, if we can avoid it. The war is a messy. But UAE is a security partner. If partners help each other or partners don't get any help. We still do manitou there:
The Australian prime minister can defend that point of view as well:
There are challenges. Particularly in a naval capability because our capabilities are so fickle and brittle at the current point in time. But if we want oil, and not to toilet our economy, our farming, our transport, our industry, our defence capabilities, then we should probably consider it.
Its exactly these reasons we have things like a Navy and Air force. At least one capable of deployment. The new Mogami ships I think will be good ships for this kind of deployment. Armed well enough.
At this stage there are no announcements. However, If the war continues, pressure will quickly mount. I would assume options are being looked at. Can we do anything in terms of naval support...
thatsamguy
Member
Latest video from BAE visualising Hunter Class. That pineapple isn't getting any smaller but it's slowly growing on me. 2x amidship phalanx is an interesting location choice that I don't think was as clear on the previous renders etc.
The old CEAMOUNT was such a smaller radar face, It's not clear to me on the 6 sets of 4 faces (!!) which is which band radar. I assume the largest is S band.
The old CEAMOUNT was such a smaller radar face, It's not clear to me on the 6 sets of 4 faces (!!) which is which band radar. I assume the largest is S band.
Arafura class OPV update…
Defence Connect
www.defenceconnect.com.au
-The armament options now include a mix of uncrewed systems. So we are looking at the Arafura Class as being a platform that will integrate uncrewed surface systems and uncrewed air systems in the future. A number of different options is underway, including potential for main armament, which remains under consideration.
Defence Connect
Navy leaders clarify drone integration plan for Arafura Class OPVs
The Royal Australian Navy has clarified plans to integrate uncrewed aerial and surface vehicles into Arafura Class offshore patrol vessels under project SEA 1180.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
-The armament options now include a mix of uncrewed systems. So we are looking at the Arafura Class as being a platform that will integrate uncrewed surface systems and uncrewed air systems in the future. A number of different options is underway, including potential for main armament, which remains under consideration.
downunderblue
Well-Known Member
So it seems HMAS Nambour aka 'the big pineapple' is coming along, slowly.
Can someone please explain to me the basics why some designs put very specific effort into making the design as low observable (from radar) and some designs it seems a lost cause or potentially an afterthought?
Example in point are the proposed ASM launchers on the Hunter versus the Mogami- see the below for comparison:
Did the Hunter design just give up from a LO POV? All I see is lots and lots of stuff to reflect the radar wave back to the receiver whereas the Mogami is at least trying to minimise this.
Oddly the opposite is true from an accoustic perspective BAE spending a lot of time and money making the T26's machinery shielded and overall v quiet in it's primary ASW role. She's clearly silky quiet under the waterline yet wearing a sign saying 'come get an eyefull of this' above it ...
Different strokes for different folkes but surely wouldn't there be some checklist somewhere at BAE when designing it to make it as LO as possible (without incuring extra cost)?
Albeit now with the big pineapple on top, maybe there was just no point?
Some designs are well thought through from stern to bow, designed well for a particular role and made to a high standard on well run production lines that can demonstrably deliver on time and on budget.
Others are bastardised versions of a vessel designed for something else, being chocked full of stuff they were never meant to have, looking more like a square peg in a round hole, made to work more or less eventually with the sheer number of resources thrown at it, with capability, schedule and cost all taking massive hits along the way.
Guess which one is the Australian design and which one isn’t?
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
*
I’m not an expert on radar but, the indications are that the 3 radars on each face are L, S & X band. Earlier on this thread, a contributor said that CEAMOUNT is an X band transmitter and all of its roles can be performed via that radar. It was also surmised that the radars facing near vertically are probably X band to give the best discrimination against ballistic missile threats.
It’s growing on me as well - it will be an impressive warship.
I’m not an expert on radar but, the indications are that the 3 radars on each face are L, S & X band. Earlier on this thread, a contributor said that CEAMOUNT is an X band transmitter and all of its roles can be performed via that radar. It was also surmised that the radars facing near vertically are probably X band to give the best discrimination against ballistic missile threats.
A good observation about the different approach to stealth between the Hunter & Mogami designs, one possible reason why the Hunter’s side profile doesn’t continue higher to conceal the ASM’s is because of their issues with excessive elevated weight. In order to accommodate such a powerful radar system, they may have had to sacrifice some steath. Of course, this stealth only works against seaborne radars as the angle is more likely to be perpendicular to airborne radars.
Last edited:
Should we be involved is very much a question that should be asked.
Always!
I get the push pull of the world but at some stage you say yes and some stage you say no!
We make choices.
Some assistance to the UAE has merit.
But how much!
This conflict will have long lasting consequences not of our making.
The US will come knocking.
What is going to be our call.
I see nothing but a complete complicated mess unfolding.
Regards S
Last edited:
The basic role of Australia's military is to defend Australia's interests. Australia definitely has an interest in ensuring that oil continues to flow.
The official line of course is that we are helping to defend the UAE from drone and missile attack, but as the most advanced AEW&C in the region I expect it might find itself being utilised by the Americans as well. Best way to defend against missiles and drones is to target the launch sites.
Might be a few Arab nations take an interest in buying these aircraft as well.
As for ships, the ANZACs were fitted for, but not with phalanx although if I had to choose a ship I would prefer to deploy a Hobart.