Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

Future Hydrographic vessel designs sought by Defence - Australian Defence Magazine

More information on the hydrographic vessel design sought by defence.

The navy is looking at a vessel in the 3000 - 3500 ton range although it may end up with something a little bigger. No decision has been made as to whether or not this ship should be built in Australia. Probably would have been useful if this project was started a couple of years ago as it would have helped fill the valley of death after the AWD project is completed and Future Frigate construction begins.

 

[BPFP]

It would be nice to see a Mk 41 launcher in the LHDs (which they are designed to take) quad packed with ESSM, along with a CEAFAR radar to guide it (smaller ANZAC version vs the forthcoming larger version, which I presume would be OK to mount on a ship as large as the LHD without causing stability issues). They'll be carrying a lot of personnel and equipment, certainly worth having their own comprehensive defense.

 

[John Newman]

It would be nice to see a Mk 41 launcher in the LHDs (which they are designed to take) quad packed with ESSM, along with a CEAFAR radar to guide it (smaller ANZAC version vs the forthcoming larger version, which I presume would be OK to mount on a ship as large as the LHD without causing stability issues). They'll be carrying a lot of personnel and equipment, certainly worth having their own comprehensive defense.

Not going to happen and not necessary.

As mentioned above, the LHD's are going to have their self defence systems upgraded with the installation of 3 x Phalanx in the not too distant future.

And regardless, they won't be going into harms way without being escorted by a DDG, Anzac or Future Frigate, or as part of a larger coalition operation with the appropriate escort ships.

 

[John Newman]

Thank you for the replies gentlemen. I am a little bit wiser about the CEC and how it works. I suppose it could be fitted to most of our surface ships of a decent size.

Here's a YouTube animation of CEC in practice:

Gives you a pretty good idea of how all the various individual systems contribute to the big picture.

In the Australian context, we will have the DDGs (hopefully the future FFGs) equipped with CEC, and other assets such as E-7A, P-8A G-550, MQ-4C, F-35A, EA-18G, F/A-18F, etc, all contributing to that 'big' picture too (Plan Jericho), and possibly satellite data (ours or shared), plus whatever Army (ours or shared too), can contribute.

CEC is certainly going to be a powerful tool for the ADF, either in a stand alone operation, or more likely in a coalition operation too.

Cheers,

 

[aussienscale]

The Hobart's have the same propulsion diesels as F-105, the Bravo 16V.

Any idea why the AWD Alliance, and I have seen referenced many times by Navy and Gov, that they have uprated more powerful engines than the Spanish ships?

Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

Not going to happen and not necessary.

As mentioned above, the LHD's are going to have their self defence systems upgraded with the installation of 3 x Phalanx in the not too distant future.

And regardless, they won't be going into harms way without being escorted by a DDG, Anzac or Future Frigate, or as part of a larger coalition operation with the appropriate escort ships.

Correct, and you will also find that the space and weight for the 8 cell VLS saved on JC1 is not available in the Canberra's due to the Australianisation of the island with internal changes to ops rooms etc.

The Canberra's also use the 9lv as does anything that may escort them from our fleet, they can still contribute to the tactical picture from the Giraffe, which is a pretty good piece of kit in itself, so the need or expense of upgrading to CEA radars would not be worth the money

Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

Quite correct - identical to F105 but not F101-104.

CEC depends a bit on how you interpret the word “transfer” doesn’t it.

So not all the same then

 

[Volkodav]

Any idea why the AWD Alliance, and I have seen referenced many times by Navy and Gov, that they have uprated more powerful engines than the Spanish ships?

Cheers

The original F-100 design required the GTs to maintain their specified cruising speed in many conditions, the extra power from the 16Vs permits the F-105and Hobarts to maintain the specified cruising speed in most conditions on diesels, saving fuel.

 

[aussienscale]

The original F-100 design required the GTs to maintain their specified cruising speed in many conditions, the extra power from the 16Vs permits the F-105and Hobarts to maintain the specified cruising speed in most conditions on diesels, saving fuel.

Correct, are the AWD's not baslined from Navantia's F104 ? So different as I said ?

 

[spoz]

Baseline was 104 but with selected 105 alterations, not just the PDEs; and some other mods. The combat system is much different, for example.

 

[mrberry]

With CEC coming to the RAN, will we be able to use it independently from the USN if need be? Maybe use it at time solely by a RAN taskforce or would the USN need to be in the loop. I ask this because I would assume that if the US didn't approve of the mission use by the RAN, could they block its use?

 

[aussienscale]

With CEC coming to the RAN, will we be able to use it independently from the USN if need be? Maybe use it at time solely by a RAN taskforce or would the USN need to be in the loop. I ask this because I would assume that if the US didn't approve of the mission use by the RAN, could they block its use?

Very unlikely we would be doing any action that did not involve them anyway, I don't think they would be able to just switch it off, but could be wrong.

On another note with CEC, I have found a few references but no real information of the potential use of it for anti submarine warfare ? The only couple of times I have been able to find anything says it is possible, but has not yet been investigated for its potential.

Has anyone seen anything else on this ?

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Baseline was 104 but with selected 105 alterations, not just the PDEs; and some other mods. The combat system is much different, for example.

Ah huh, in black and white on the front page of the HCPSS as well as numerous other places in the contract. Trying to remember the exact wording, something along the lines of Baselined on the F-104 with modifications from F-105 and as required for service with the RAN and compliance to legislative requirements.

 

[vonnoobie]

Any idea why the AWD Alliance, and I have seen referenced many times by Navy and Gov, that they have uprated more powerful engines than the Spanish ships?

Cheers

That would be in relation to the F-100 class, F-105 came about after the fact so likely wouldnt have been counted. Engines in F-105 and Hobarts are the same with both being superior to what was in the earlier ships.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Very unlikely we would be doing any action that did not involve them anyway, I don't think they would be able to just switch it off, but could be wrong.

On another note with CEC, I have found a few references but no real information of the potential use of it for anti submarine warfare ? The only couple of times I have been able to find anything says it is possible, but has not yet been investigated for its potential.

Has anyone seen anything else on this ?

Cheers

I do wonder with our closer ties with Japan if Australia operating CEC could be a game changer in the relationship. I assume with the pressure to get the status of forces agreement they are quite keen for something, and I assume it would be naval based, perhaps surface ships and submarines. For many reasons, I think the Japanese might be interested. We have seen the USN have issues based around being over committed, even now in peacetime, and the white house be some what ambiguous on a number of issues. Having another partner that can slot right in and tie everything together and bring significant credibility might be highly desirable for all concerned.

With subsurface threats, I think generally you have a bit more time and things are happening at a bit of a slower rate, so may not be as useful as it is for air threats where you can handle many fast moving threats very quickly across a number of platforms. I would still imagine data is shared including hawklink data.

I wonder if the USN would ever put nuclear armed weapons (eg something like TLAM) under Australian control via CEC. Obviously that isn't going to happen tomorrow but if the nuclear situation starts to break down through North Korea and Iran and there is a wider proliferation, could be something on the table in the future.(?)

 

[aussienscale]

That would be in relation to the F-100 class, F-105 came about after the fact so likely wouldnt have been counted. Engines in F-105 and Hobarts are the same with both being superior to what was in the earlier ships.

I do understand,that was the point I was making

 

[Todjaeger]

I wonder if the USN would ever put nuclear armed weapons (eg something like TLAM) under Australian control via CEC. Obviously that isn't going to happen tomorrow but if the nuclear situation starts to break down through North Korea and Iran and there is a wider proliferation, could be something on the table in the future.(?)

IMO it would be very doubtful. Realistically a nuclear weapon (even a 'tactical' one) is a strategic weapon as it opens the Pandora's Box of a WMD response in kind, if not an escalation. As such, I cannot foresee a target which would be targeted using a CEC which would then result in a nuclear response.

 

[t68]

IMO it would be very doubtful. Realistically a nuclear weapon (even a 'tactical' one) is a strategic weapon as it opens the Pandora's Box of a WMD response in kind, if not an escalation. As such, I cannot foresee a target which would be targeted using a CEC which would then result in a nuclear response.

Aren't we technically part of the chain anyway thru Pine Gap(NT)and the ADCS and NCSHEH(WA) even tho we don't have direct authority which is what CEC would do indirectly if needed?

 

[Todjaeger]

Aren't we technically part of the chain anyway thru Pine Gap(NT)and the ADCS and NCSHEH(WA) even tho we don't have direct authority which is what CEC would do indirectly if needed?

To my understanding, no. AFAIK Pine Gap is a communications facility (there are likely related, non-comms roles) used to do things like permit contact with subs when they are in the southern hemisphere and submerged. Now if there were USN SSBN's on a patrol in the southern hemisphere and a nuclear strike was ordered by the POTUS or other authority, I would imagine the message carrying such an order would likely pass through Pine Gap or one of the related installations. However, I would not expect anyone involved in the traffic chain (apart from the initial encryption and receiving decryption) to either understand the message, and/or have the option of deciding not to pass the message further along the chain. By the same token, AFAIK no one at Pine Gap or any other Australian installation would have the ability to message a USN SSBN to initiate a nuclear strike.

As for strike targeting, I would imagine that the USN (and USAF) have pre-planned targets for the US nuclear arsenal and there would be no need transmit targeting coordinates, instead which strike plan would be used. Keep in mind the data transmission rate to a submerged vessel is very low, on the order of 31 bps IIRC, which is well below the max data rate from the dark days of dial-up at 56 kbps from ~20 years ago.

As for the non-strategic nuclear weaponry like the nuclear depth bombs, surface/air-to-air missiles, and cruise missiles, I believe these have been retired. The 'tactical' nuclear weapon which remains in service is primarily composed of (comparatively) low-yield artillery shells and gravity bombs and these are not routinely fielded.

 

[hauritz]

I was talking with a friend the other day and he made an interesting point that the size of the Australian navy will shrink quite substantially over the next 10 years.

If current plans go ahead the fleet could look like this in 10 years.

Destroyer/Frigates - 11
Submarines - 6
OPV - 8?
Huon - 4?
AOR - 2
LPH - 2
LPD - 1
survey - 1

That is around 36 ships which is well down from the 47 commissioned ships currently in service. Mostly it will be the non-combatants that will go ... but still, that is a substantial drop in numbers. The real crunch may come if there are any delays in the Collins replacement program. Even with life extensions, the Collins class will be decommissioning during the 2030s so it would be crucial that news subs be available by then. If not the size of the combatant fleet may drop below today's level at a time when tensions may be at an all time high in this region.

The main reason of course is the national shipbuilding plan which will deliver ships at a slower rate. If everything goes according to plan the fleet will eventually build up to around in current ship numbers sometime in the late 40s.

Perhaps the answer might be to extend the life of the Anzacs out to around 35 years. That would actually see the size of the frigate fleet increase to around 14 to 15 ships by the 2030s. At least that would give us a substantial amount of combatants until the sub fleet could be built up.