Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

Yeah ... they are too big for the MCVs. They might be too large for the OPVs as well.

The OPVs can fit two 20ft containers which probably isn't enough space to accommodate one these boats and the containerised mission management system.

With plans to keep the Huon in service until the 2030s it will be interesting to see what they will do with these things. Perhaps the future frigate might end up deploying them.

Might be time to say to Border Force since the defence budget paid for ABFC Ocean Shield we will take that back thanks.

Australian Defence Vessel (ADV) Ocean Shield - Naval Technology

 

[hauritz]

Might be time to say to Border Force since the defence budget paid for ABFC Ocean Shield we will take that back thanks.

Australian Defence Vessel (ADV) Ocean Shield - Naval Technology

It does make you think about how mine hunting will be conducted in the future. There might be a need for a much larger mothership then is currently being planned .... and perhaps several of them.

Either that or the navy is thinking about deploying them from some of their combat ships. I know the USN was considering deploying UAVs off destroyers and having them swim ahead of the fleet.

The Royal navy used the well deck of the RFA Cardigan Bay to deploy small boats when they were guarding Iraqi oil terminals so maybe they could end up being used from the Choules. That could explain why the navy is hedging its bets between either another logistics ship or an additional tanker in the late 20s. With a small fleet of these boats another Choules type ship could be more useful than an additional tanker.

It is possible that in the end the navy will simply be deploying these boats off just about any ship large enough to accommodate them.

 

[t68]

It does make you think about how mine hunting will be conducted in the future. There might be a need for a much larger mothership then is currently being planned .... and perhaps several of them.

Either that or the navy is thinking about deploying them from some of their combat ships. I know the USN was considering deploying UAVs off destroyers and having them swim ahead of the fleet.

The Royal navy used the well deck of the RFA Cardigan Bay to deploy small boats when they were guarding Iraqi oil terminals so maybe they could end up being used from the Choules. That could explain why the navy is hedging its bets between either another logistics ship or an additional tanker in the late 20s. With a small fleet of these boats another Choules type ship could be more useful than an additional tanker.

It is possible that in the end the navy will simply be deploying these boats off just about any ship large enough to accommodate them.

Agree about Navy could be hedging there bets with sealift or tanker. Makes me wonder if the T26 mission bay could be reconfigured to accept these in a similar fashion to the Danish Absalon Class Combat/Flexible Support Ship

 

[vonnoobie]

Well this is surprising considering was only last year that the Commonwealth gave first pass approval for the life extension of the Huon class. That still moving ahead or has that been put on the back burner for these boats? Or we going for both and increasing the capability.

 

[Milne Bay]

Well this is surprising considering was only last year that the Commonwealth gave first pass approval for the life extension of the Huon class. That still moving ahead or has that been put on the back burner for these boats? Or we going for both and increasing the capability.

I would say that this is an additional capability, on top of the Huon class life extension.
The Huons are in very good shape apparently, and there has been an identified need for increased mine countermeasures for the RAN.
There is a link somewhere but I cannot find it at present
MB

 

[MickB]

It does make you think about how mine hunting will be conducted in the future. There might be a need for a much larger mothership then is currently being planned .... and perhaps several of them.

Either that or the navy is thinking about deploying them from some of their combat ships. I know the USN was considering deploying UAVs off destroyers and having them swim ahead of the fleet.

The Royal navy used the well deck of the RFA Cardigan Bay to deploy small boats when they were guarding Iraqi oil terminals so maybe they could end up being used from the Choules. That could explain why the navy is hedging its bets between either another logistics ship or an additional tanker in the late 20s. With a small fleet of these boats another Choules type ship could be more useful than an additional tanker.

It is possible that in the end the navy will simply be deploying these boats off just about any ship large enough to accommodate them.

As I have posted in the past, these kind of capabilites could be deployed off LST120s. Which could also do double duty as replacements for the LCHs.
If fitted with the armament from retireing ACPBs they could also backstop the OPVs, much like the Huons have done in the past.
And act as mother ship for the Army's new combat boats.
The downside in the expeditionary context is the low transit speed.

 

[hairyman]

I take it Steber is only building the fibre glass boat. Who will build the submersible anti sub vessels? Is there an off the shelf available that we know of?

 

[hauritz]

I take it Steber is only building the fibre glass boat. Who will build the submersible anti sub vessels? Is there an off the shelf available that we know of?

Steber isn't exactly the first name that pops into your head when you are thinking of top end military hardware. The really interesting stuff is what the RAN intends to put in them.

With the lives of the Huons extended out to the 2030s it may well be that these boats will simply be used for testing purposes. It seems like just about every navy is conducting trials with unmanned vessels these days.

 

[aussienscale]

Steber isn't exactly the first name that pops into your head when you are thinking of top end military hardware. The really interesting stuff is what the RAN intends to put in them.

With the lives of the Huons extended out to the 2030s it may well be that these boats will simply be used for testing purposes. It seems like just about every navy is conducting trials with unmanned vessels these days.

Finally got a chance to do a little google fu on this one, looks like we are backing off a joint UK/French program

The Maritime Mine Counter Measures programme | BAE Systems | Australia

Go to the 8 min mark on the video

Cheers

Edit: A couple more links to some PDF's

http://www2.thalesgroup.com/press/W...913094651/Press datasheet/mmcm-thales-eng.pdf

http://www.janes360.com/images/asse...rts_an_unmanned_course_into_the_minefield.pdf

 

[Joe Black]

Singaporean Navy, too, has employed this technology.

See the video starting from 0:26

 

[Joe Black]

Lockheed Martin to supply MK 41 VLS for Type 26

Lockheed Martin to Supply MK 41 VLS for Royal Navy's Type 26 Frigate

From the model seen here,

one can almost imagine that the Type 26 can carry 48 MK41 VLS modules. The RN's Type26 model is showing 3x8 cells Mk41 VLS on the back row. The front row to be slated for 4x 6 cells VLS for CAMM missiles will occupy the space that could easily be taken up by another 3x8 cells MK41, enabling the Type26 to carry 48 MK 41 VLS cells. Of course we don't know if they all will be strike length cells, or some will be strike length, the others all tactical length cells.

 

[hauritz]

Lockheed Martin to supply MK 41 VLS for Type 26

Lockheed Martin to Supply MK 41 VLS for Royal Navy's Type 26 Frigate

From the model seen here,

one can almost imagine that the Type 26 can carry 48 MK41 VLS modules. The RN's Type26 model is showing 3x8 cells Mk41 VLS on the back row. The front row to be slated for 4x 6 cells VLS for CAMM missiles will occupy the space that could easily be taken up by another 3x8 cells MK41, enabling the Type26 to carry 48 MK 41 VLS cells. Of course we don't know if they all will be strike length cells, or some will be strike length, the others all tactical length cells.

 

[hauritz]

There are another 24 CAMM launchers amidships giving it a loadout equivalent of 144 ESSM compared to a theoretical 192 ESSM for the Hobart.

I have a feeling that missile loadouts won't be the be all and end all when it comes to selecting a new frigate. If the RAN prefers conventional ASW capability over air defence then the Type 26 is a real chance.

 

[Todjaeger]

There are another 24 CAMM launchers amidships giving it a loadout equivalent of 144 ESSM compared to a theoretical 192 ESSM for the Hobart.

I have a feeling that missile loadouts won't be the be all and end all when it comes to selecting a new frigate. If the RAN prefers conventional ASW capability over air defence then the Type 26 is a real chance.

Except that it would not be an equivalent ESSM loadout, it is a hypothetical loadout of up to 96 ESSM and 48 Sea Ceptor, with ESSM being nearly triple the weight of a CAMM/Sea Ceptor and having ~twice the range. Further, I would not expect the Future Frigate to have all the Mk 41 VLS cells quad-packed with ESSM.

IMO the quantity and type of VLS cells is more important to focus on. So far, it would seem that the Type 26 can fit 48 Sea Ceptor VLS cells, and 32 Mk 41 VLS cells (albeit I do not know what type). Assuming that either/both designs are fitted with strike-length Mk 41 VLS, then IMO an additional 16 strike-length Mk 41 VLS cells is more valuable by providing more flexibility and capability to a design than 48 Sea Ceptor/CAMM cells.

On a related note, I suspect a more likely VLS missile loadout for the Hobart-class AWD would be either 40 SM-2/3/6 and 32 ESSM, or 32 SM-2/3/6 and 64 ESSM, and unless the RAN decides that it will start arming the minor warships and support vessels with an air defence capability, it will not adopt the CAMM/Sea Ceptor.

 

[Tasman]

On a related note, I suspect a more likely VLS missile loadout for the Hobart-class AWD would be either 40 SM-2/3/6 and 32 ESSM, or 32 SM-2/3/6 and 64 ESSM, and unless the RAN decides that it will start arming the minor warships and support vessels with an air defence capability, it will not adopt the CAMM/Sea Ceptor.

I've been wrong before but I believe that it is highly unlikely that the RAN will adopt any missile that is not in the USN inventory. It is important that the RAN has the ability to fit seamlessly into the USN supply line if things go pear shaped. Even if it is decided in future to arm minor and/or auxilary ships with an air defence capability I would be surprised to see CAMM/Sea Ceptor adopted. In that scenario I believe SeaRAM would be a more likely choice on any unit unable to be equipped with ESSM.

Tas

 

[Todjaeger]

I've been wrong before but I believe that it is highly unlikely that the RAN will adopt any missile that is not in the USN inventory. It is important that the RAN has the ability to fit seamlessly into the USN supply line if things go pear shaped. Even if it is decided in future to arm minor and/or auxilary ships with an air defence capability I would be surprised to see CAMM/Sea Ceptor adopted. In that scenario I believe SeaRAM would be a more likely choice on any unit unable to be equipped with ESSM.

Tas

IMO the RAN is more likely to adopt the RIM-116 RAM and either the RAM launcher or SeaRAM, if (big IF here) there was a decision that the RAN needed a smaller self-defence missile for VSHRAAD than the ESSM. However I also am not discounting the possibility that once Sea Ceptor is in service aboard RNZN frigates, the capabilities might sway the RAN in that direction instead. Particularly if the integration and operations go smoothly and the missile performance matches listed performance data.

However, I also would not be shocked if the RAN opted to keep the ESSM as the smallest air defence missile in the inventory either.

 

[CB90]

CAMM basically does not make sense unless the RAN plans to move away from ESSM.

As an ESSM Consortium member, I would be surprised if Australia made that choice. Particularly as ESSM Block II basically closes the gap with CAMM, has commonality with existing weapon logistics and the USN, and would not require additional integration.

As far as loadouts...ESSM is a short ranged missile. If you're ever at the point that you seriously think you're going to need to expend a truly LARGE number of ESSM's...man, you might want to reconsider whatever it is you're thinking about doing.

 

[Joe Black]

Folks,

I don't think anyone is proposing CAMM/Sea Captor as the loadout for RAN. The model is meant for RN. A "RAN Type 26" would most likely have only MK41 VLS loaded with quad pack ESSMs and SM-2 block IIIAs only.

I do hope that RAN will, in the near future, acquire SeaRAM as an additional layer of defence against supersonic sea-skimmers, and 35mm Millennium guns replacing the Phalanx Blk 1Bs.

 

[Todjaeger]

CAMM basically does not make sense unless the RAN plans to move away from ESSM.

As an ESSM Consortium member, I would be surprised if Australia made that choice. Particularly as ESSM Block II basically closes the gap with CAMM, has commonality with existing weapon logistics and the USN, and would not require additional integration.

As far as loadouts...ESSM is a short ranged missile. If you're ever at the point that you seriously think you're going to need to expend a truly LARGE number of ESSM's...man, you might want to reconsider whatever it is you're thinking about doing.

I would not really consider the ESSM to be a short-ranged missile, since it supposedly has a range of ~50 km, while the Sea Ceptor is supposed to be ~25 km, and the RAM is ~9 km.

Again, I do not think it likely that the RAN the will adopt the Sea Ceptor, but the way things are currently I can see a few scenarios where the RAN might seriously look at adding Sea Ceptor missiles to the inventory which is why I have posted that I would not rule it out.

For me, the scenarios would start out with changes in the maritime security environment around Australia, ASEAN, and Australia's extended SLOC. More specifically, changes that result in an increased threat of air and/or AShM attack upon shipping, the RAN's minor warships/patrol vessels, as well as RAN support and amphibious ships.

If the above scenarios were to start to play out, then the RAN might very well decide that the future OPV's, the LHD's, HMAS Choules, the replacement AOR's, etc. need to have a greater self-defence capability vs. air and missile attacks, but also have that extra/new capability not be intrusive on the vessel like installing (or attempting to install) a Mk 41 VLS would be. This would in turn mean installing something like RAM/SeaRAM, Phalanx/SeaPhalanx, the Millennium Gun, or some other non-deck penetrating weapon system which either included it's own embedded sensors, or could plug into the ship's sensors and combat data system, and also did not require a target illuminator for guidance.

Depending on the capability requirements the RAN might have should the above scenario present itself, and also depending on how the Sea Ceptor development and integration goes, then Sea Ceptor might also qualify as a potential solution to the given scenario. IMO much would hinge upon whether or not a 'bolt-on' VLS can be developed that has a footprint and displacement comparable to some of the other potential self-defence solutions like SeaRAM. If such a launcher were to be developed for Sea Ceptor, then it would be possible for a navy to maintain a pool of Sea Ceptor VLS, and fit them as needed to vessels on deployments in much the same way that the RAN does with the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS now.

As should be clear, there are a number of variables which would impact whether or not such an idea would be viable, which is why I am not advocating for attempting to develop such a capability. IMO however, the potential for increased air and AShM threats to Australia's SLOC and areas of interest is real, as is the possibility that some RAN vessels might need more than a CIWS to defend either themselves, or other vessels near them.

As a side thought, it might be interesting to see if the SeaRAM launcher could be adapted to also launch Sea Ceptor, Hellfire, or Brimstone missiles, or if the launcher could serve as the base for a common ship launch system. Hellfire and Brimstone missiles would of course be little use vs. air and missile threats, but would make a mess of fast attack craft.

 

[Tasman]

There has been some interesting discussion in the previous posts regarding the possible need for the RAN to enhance its anti-aircraft and anti-missile defences by providing more effective close-range weapons for the LHDs and Choules, along with the future AORs and OPVs. Whilst I agree that this is an area that needs close attention in future planning there is another area where I believe there is a glaring weakness in the RAN’s order of battle that needs to be addressed in future planning; namely the number of deployable helicopters.

It has been interesting to follow Exercise Ocean Explorer 2018, which has now moved into Bass Strait. With 10 ships (including 1 RN and 1 RNZN) and 2 submarines involved it is certainly large scale by RAN standards. One of the things that stands out, however, is the comparatively small number of helicopters that can be observed in the video and photographic images made available so far. With HMAS Canberra spearheading the force it is a pity, IMO, that the navy seems unable to take advantage of her aviation capacity at times when she does not have a sizeable amphibious force and supporting army helicopters embarked. This of course is not the fault of the navy but comes down to the small number of helicopters available for deployment. With just 6 – 8 MRH-90s assigned to the FAA and 24 (or is it now 23?) MH-60Rs, there just doesn’t appear to be enough available to enable the fleet to operate to its potential.

Way back in the Vietnam war era HMAS Sydney used to carry a detachment of 4 Wessex helos on some of its supply runs. I hope that the RAN is looking at the future possibility of deploying MH-60Rs from the LHDs as even a small detachment would be a huge force multiplier to any task group, in ASW, anti-shipping, surveillance and logistical roles. However, to stand up even one flight of 3 – 4 Romeos for this role, it is apparent that additional units would need to be ordered. The present inventory is required just to support the 8 deployable single helicopter flights that are currently planned.

If 3 helos are required for every 1 at sea, I just can’t see how an inventory of 6-8 will enable the navy to provide an adequate number of MHR-90s for the new AORs, as well as Choules and the LHDs.

The other requirement that is emerging is the need to be able to provide light helos able to operate, when required, from the OPVs. I know that at this stage the RAN has no publicly declared plans to permanently embark manned helicopters on these ships, but they will have flight decks and it would seem sensible to maintain at least a small number of LUHs under naval control that could be deployed if required. With the withdrawal of the Squirrels and the replacement EC-135s being assigned to the HATS program, there must be uncertainty as to whether any of these helicopters would be able to be deployed operationally (as happened in emergencies in the past with the Squirrels).

Obviously, the procurement of additional naval helicopters is unlikely in the short term as it would fall outside projects approved under the present White Paper. It will also need to be considered against other long-term desires, but it does seem to me that it is an area where an increase in deployable numbers is needed to enable the currently planned fleet to operate to its full potential.

Tas