Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

SamB

Member
Most of the larger companies is are traded publicly on the share market which means that the senior management and directors have a responsibility to the shareholders to return the maximum return on their investment through either dividend payments or an increase in the value of their investment.

The only way around this is to have government owned enterprises, or otherwise privately owned companies getting the contracts.

Even if you have an interested Billionaire involved and willing to make minimal profit on an enterprise, you are relying on them to remain interested, their financial situation to not change, and their heirs or successors to have the same mindset.

Government owned enterprise may be the correct way forward, as long as there is a commitment to maintain funding and capability across both sides of parliament and not let it degrade.
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.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The RAN had a lot of challenges with the S100 and it was very expensive.

Personaly, my sense is that drone tech is moving so fast you want to go minimum quantity and as low cost as possible for higher value systems like this (as opposed to an FPV drone for example).

The tech solution just gets superceded so quickly.

Regards,

Massive
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:

Richo99

Active Member
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.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
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.
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
 

Tbone

Active Member
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!
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
They aren’t real small.

The P5 will take up about 8 square metres of space and is stored fully assembled. You could probably use some form of storage rack and stack them on top of each other.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
They aren’t real small.

The P5 will take up about 8 square metres of space and is stored fully assembled. You could probably use some form of storage rack and stack them on top of each other.
The p5 looks interesting
Await some more info and visuals.

Cheers S
 
Top