Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

I assume the radar AUSFAR is integrated into Aegis itself?

Makes me wonder how much space are on FREMM or Type 26 to incorporate all these systems and space for things command and control. I find the ASPI analysis interesting because they write off the ability of the ship launched torpedos because the range is too short. I thought Mu90 were the longest ranged lw torpedoes, and something like ASROC or MILAS would help level things up in that regard.

The radar AFAIK is CEA FAR.

As for the dismissal of the value of ship-launched LWT's, that is not too surprising IMO. The MU 90, Mk 46 and Mk 54 LWT's all have operational ranges of ~10 km, when likely heavyweight torpedoes fired from a hostile sub are likely to have a range of 22+ km, or sub-launched AShM with a range of 50+ km.

If a sub got close enough to a RAN vessel to be engaged with LWT's fired from the Mk 32 launchers, that would most likely mean that the sub had penetrated the first to ASW layers. If the RAN were to introduce ASROC, that would provide some additional reach, with the unit able to fire a LWT out to ~19 km from the ship, which then presumably would start it's up to 10 km run at the hostile sub. All the while, the RAN escort(s) need to keep fairly close to whatever shipping they are escorting, in order to provide a defence against aerial threats, as well as the surface and subsurface ones.

This an area where embarked helicopters really are important, as they can be dozens of km's ahead of a task force to sanitize an area, with a greater likelihood of doing so before a hostile sub could get into range with a shot solution for either a torpedoe or AShM.

 

[CB90]

Still a bit different acting as a node in Syria or say East Timor compared to a potential higher end and much more contested space with a tech peer with superior numbers. Wedgetail has only recently been capable of that, and I believe the CEC capability it yet to be fitted (the DDG's were first?).

Yeah, I don't think Wedgetail has CEC.
But CEC is not really a C2 system...it goes beyond just C2 to playing a direct fire control role.

To do the AEW&C mission really just means having a good radar, good system onboard to let the onboard crew manage the picture, and be on same datalink and IFF standard as the aircraft you control. Wedgetail was doing all of this in the early 2010's.

Australia has additional pressures, as it is much more likely to have "fish out of water" situations, as we don't have mirrored capacity in each of the services. So while the US may not worry too much about Apache/USN compatibility, for Australia Army and Navy assets will always work together, the level of integration we need is higher than USMarines and USN. The level of integration with allies is also likely to be higher as well. The level of intergration has to be high, out of the box. New acquisitions are useless unless they are integrated.

Well...the USMC AH-1Z's don't have LINK 16 yet either. Part of this was because they never really needed it.
Bigger part was that mounting datalink hardware into an aircraft was much more difficult until fairly recently. The barrier to entry was lowered, so now everybody wants in. I even heard about some bright idea to put LINK 16 into MRAPs (That's dumb IMO...).

But there basically won't be any new acquisition that's not integrated...unless it's a program that went rogue and went off the accepted Allied standards. Or if your allies can't get their shit together to stay on a standard. Useful and established are the key, just like on commercial networks.

However, it also seems like Australia is making this a significant focus. CEC, Aegis across the fleet, 9LV, US Marines deployed on Australian ships, etc.

Definitely.

I assume the radar AUSFAR is integrated into Aegis itself?

Doubtful, or there would be little reason for the 9LV interface.
I genuinely do not know what the detailed plan is for the radar integration, but direct integration is unlikely, as it would require the program directly tie into AEGIS, which would mean shipping and installing a full up radar set to test this alongside the software.
My guess is that they're taking advantage of the Open Architecture nature of the latest AEGIS, and software virtualization, and will use the known good 9LV interface to pass AEGIS what it wants to get from the radar.

Makes me wonder how much space are on FREMM or Type 26 to incorporate all these systems and space for things command and control. I find the ASPI analysis interesting because they write off the ability of the ship launched torpedos because the range is too short. I thought Mu90 were the longest ranged lw torpedoes, and something like ASROC or MILAS would help level things up in that regard.

FREMM and Type 26, being NATO ships, should be fully capable of playing in all NATO standard networks.
The only non-NATO network is CEC, and the hardware for that is relatively minimal.

For torps...every sub launched HWT will badly outrange a surface ship's LWT. Doesn't mean they're useless though...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yeah, I don't think Wedgetail has CEC.
But CEC is not really a C2 system...it goes beyond just C2 to playing a direct fire control role.

To do the AEW&C mission really just means having a good radar, good system onboard to let the onboard crew manage the picture, and be on same datalink and IFF standard as the aircraft you control. Wedgetail was doing all of this in the early 2010's.

This is where Australia seems to be looking a bit wider, I know CEC wasn't even widely deployed across the USN fleet. But Australia seems to have a more detailed level of integration.

The ADF will also integrate CEC with other assets such as the RAAF’s E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft, its future AIR 6500 Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) program, and the SEA 5000 Future Frigate’s Aegis combat management system, to provide a long-range, cooperative and layered air defence. - AustralianAviation - Which is rebranding their website so all links are down.

Australia seems to want direct fire from a variety of platforms. From Wedgetail and from our little "frigates" as well as the battle space management. I think this want may be tied to allied capability, who might have a more difficult time, constitutionally, "pressing the button". Or perhaps from a large attack where the best platform to manage it might want to control and remote fire other platforms for specific reasons. I wonder why they are so keen from the multi platform approach. Maybe they concerned about long range jamming.. Want as many options as possible. They seem to be going with Peer to Peer CEC rather than a top down approach.

Doubtful, or there would be little reason for the 9LV interface.
I genuinely do not know what the detailed plan is for the radar integration, but direct integration is unlikely, as it would require the program directly tie into AEGIS, which would mean shipping and installing a full up radar set to test this alongside the software.
My guess is that they're taking advantage of the Open Architecture nature of the latest AEGIS, and software virtualization, and will use the known good 9LV interface to pass AEGIS what it wants to get from the radar.

I am curious, there was some joint development between US and Aus on this stuff, so I wonder if the hooks are still directly there in Aegis or if they have gone through 9LV and integrated that way. I also wonder how capable that is when tied to BMD, in particular SM-3 fast interception which would have super tight levels in latency management, priority etc. I understand that it can be integrated and managed through the open side, but if eventually you will want something very tight looped to put things exactly where they need to be. It's not like that is real easy to do with current tech even in directly integrated situations. Maybe SM-3 own development makes ship support less important for final interception and it is able to get where it needs to be with a ball park figure. I guess that won't be proven until/if Australia acquires SM-3 and test fires it. Australia sometimes gets a lot of flexibility on system stuff, how many F-18's can fire at F-16's (re Kim Beasley and F-18 decrypt codes)? Wouldn't it be easier to have us on the inside particularly related to hypersonics. I guess it falls under our needs are "special" and we want "special something".

FREMM and Type 26, being NATO ships, should be fully capable of playing in all NATO standard networks.
The only non-NATO network is CEC, and the hardware for that is relatively minimal.

Yes, but I recall some of the chatter about F-105 and Mini-Burke, and some points regarding space for command, briefing, consoles maybe being a bit more generous as on US designs that can happen on the cruisers. For the sea5000, you seem to need two high end combat systems, extra boxes and consoles, special boxes, and Australia isn't going short on things like ASW, BMD, general air defense, Land attack, which many navies often have specialized units or aren't really pursuing. That being said, FREMM/F-5000 and Type 26 are all big frigates. But Australia has a lot of system and roles to integrate into a single "frigate".

Seems a lot of the public analysis is focused on ASW engine noise and hangar space/config.

I don't see Australian frigates driving over opposing subs and dropping torpedoes, I would imagine it is to make them a effective as possible to drive subs away, and have something to round up boats so P8's can drop something fun from above on them, hundreds of km away from actual ships and out of range of anything the sub can put up against them.

Will certainly be interesting to watch what happens and what platform gets chosen and the systems that fill it. Plenty happening in this space.

I wonder if Australia and the US would test out CEC with Australia leading US ships. There was talk about MRF-D serving under direct Australian command (The future for US Marines in Darwin), wonder how the Pacific fleet would feel about some destroyers and amphibs working under Oz. Now throw in a retired four star Pacific admiral/ambassador...

After all, how are we going to get good at CEC if we only have one ship available for the next few years capable of being linked in with CEC or operating with CEC. A Network of one... Makes it a lonely place. I would imagine many would want that one ship somewhere further afield.

Just spit balling... I get bored waiting for announcements.

 

[seaspear]

As a ship that,s original prime task is asw is the need for holding two helicopters still prime ? , if the ship could deploy two MH-60r then when one is in maintenance after a patrol the other takes over , I dont know how many hours of maintenance is for every hour of flight time , but for chasing away contacts you would need a helicopter not being serviced

 

[ASSAIL]

As a ship that,s original prime task is asw is the need for holding two helicopters still prime ? , if the ship could deploy two MH-60r then when one is in maintenance after a patrol the other takes over , I dont know how many hours of maintenance is for every hour of flight time , but for chasing away contacts you would need a helicopter not being serviced

The two helos won't be used in that fashion. In a hot scenario both helos will be prosecuting the contact and provided they can fly, see/hear and shoot they will be in the air. It could even be one helo and one UAV being used as a weapon carrier, the combinations are many but one won't be sitting on deck when in contact. Screening is a different proposition.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia's $35b plan to hunt submarines

For those who missed it.. (25th of May) More ASW in the general domain. Graphics and explanation and some detail. Inc what is training is going on.

The more assets you have, the more you can do and the longer you can maintain it. The better the odds.

I think one manned helo and one UAV is likely for the Frigates. Operating two manned helos from each of our deployed future frigates would require more than what we have. Sustaining it for a period of time would also be difficult (pilots, helos, support crew, logistics, ship capabilities). However, there may be times where you want two manned helos and we could do that. Some of the UAV platforms are smaller, so might make better sensor, endurance platforms. While manned is usually larger and armed.

But it also usually won't be a single ship acting a lone in blue water. That would be a bad situation and to the subs advantage.

When it comes to China, I would imagine we would be part of a huge fleet and effort of Japanese, US and Korean ships, subs and planes, trying to pen in subs or trying to keep them from returning. It could be more like two dozen frigates/destroyers, operating twice a many helos, with dozens of p3/p8's and trying to maintain that for as long as possible.

Then you need some sort of air cover for that type of operation, as that would be the point, another way to push them out. Then in that situation, Australia moving ships in and out of theater is likely to come under pressure, as well as others, trying to fray the edges and wear it down.

You can see why there is a huge push to have a standing forces agreement with Japan/Australia, and why what ever we operate will have to be supportable from Japan. US and Japanese systems and munitions are going to be very desirable.

But China trying to prevent US, Japanese, Korean and Australian ships would be a huge ask. That is a tremendous amount of area and vectors they will be approaching from. Life would be very hard for the Chinese in such circumstances. But I imagine that is kind of the point, China proves its boxed in, surrounded by adversaries and need to break free and have territory outside of that. Russia grabbed its territory that enabled multiple dispersed sea access. China is looking for that or options that will improve its situation.

 

[ASSAIL]

The linked article above sounds like it has been written by a journo who has no idea and is trying hard to interpret what he is being told by a professional, failing dismally and inserting crap which he believes should be included.
It really is quite misleading particularly regarding confined waters such as the Malacca Straits and choke points.
Submarines don't operate in confined waters they patrol areas around the entry to and exits from these waters, "choke points".
He's also tried to interpret the ASPI paper on SEA 5000 contenders but fails to mention that 2 helo capability is mandated for all contenders.
Readers get a better understanding of the competing ships by reading through this thread and not being mislead by that crap.

 

[MickB]

I like the concept of a "Regional amphibious training hub"( as in the above article), located in Darwin.
This would seem to greatly assist on two Australia's defense goals, the establishment of the ARG and engagement with regional allies.

To take maximum advantage of this I would see two changes in the ADFs structure.

First relocate 2 RAR from Townsville to Darwin.
As the ADFs experts in amphibious warfare then the training hub would appear the place to be.

Second, push forward with a replacement for the LCH and base several of them in Darwin.
It seems impracticle to base a LHD in Darwin but both the ADF and their allies will need ships to train on if such training is to be really effective.
A versatile platform such as the LST 120 could perform many roles within the ADF.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The linked article above sounds like it has been written by a journo who has no idea and is trying hard to interpret what he is being told by a professional, failing dismally and inserting crap which he believes should be included.
It really is quite misleading particularly regarding confined waters such as the Malacca Straits and choke points.
Submarines don't operate in confined waters they patrol areas around the entry to and exits from these waters, "choke points".
He's also tried to interpret the ASPI paper on SEA 5000 contenders but fails to mention that 2 helo capability is mandated for all contenders.
Readers get a better understanding of the competing ships by reading through this thread and not being mislead by that crap.

I think the ASPI paper doesn't put things clearly and it will be parroted back imperfectly by the rest of the media. It isn't like the ASPI stuff gets a proper peer review by other outlets. I don't think the ASPI is generally bad, but there are limitations and imperfections in many things, I don't like blindly reading and believing.

 

[CB90]

This is where Australia seems to be looking a bit wider, I know CEC wasn't even widely deployed across the USN fleet. But Australia seems to have a more detailed level of integration.

The ADF will also integrate CEC with other assets such as the RAAF’s E-7A Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft, its future AIR 6500 Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) program, and the SEA 5000 Future Frigate’s Aegis combat management system, to provide a long-range, cooperative and layered air defence. - AustralianAviation - Which is rebranding their website so all links are down.

Australia seems to want direct fire from a variety of platforms. From Wedgetail and from our little "frigates" as well as the battle space management. I think this want may be tied to allied capability, who might have a more difficult time, constitutionally, "pressing the button". Or perhaps from a large attack where the best platform to manage it might want to control and remote fire other platforms for specific reasons. I wonder why they are so keen from the multi platform approach. Maybe they concerned about long range jamming.. Want as many options as possible. They seem to be going with Peer to Peer CEC rather than a top down approach.

CEC to a non-sensor/shooter battle space management system (my understanding of AIR 6500) sounds odd. I'd be interested in knowing the rationale behind that one, not entirely without advantages, but it's an expensive and in many ways limited to way to establish C2 links to your battle space management system.

Integrating it with Wedgetail could be a big deal.

I am curious, there was some joint development between US and Aus on this stuff, so I wonder if the hooks are still directly there in Aegis or if they have gone through 9LV and integrated that way. I also wonder how capable that is when tied to BMD, in particular SM-3 fast interception which would have super tight levels in latency management, priority etc. I understand that it can be integrated and managed through the open side, but if eventually you will want something very tight looped to put things exactly where they need to be. It's not like that is real easy to do with current tech even in directly integrated situations. Maybe SM-3 own development makes ship support less important for final interception and it is able to get where it needs to be with a ball park figure. I guess that won't be proven until/if Australia acquires SM-3 and test fires it. Australia sometimes gets a lot of flexibility on system stuff, how many F-18's can fire at F-16's (re Kim Beasley and F-18 decrypt codes)? Wouldn't it be easier to have us on the inside particularly related to hypersonics. I guess it falls under our needs are "special" and we want "special something".

Not familiar with what you're referring to with decrypt codes. IFF?

BMD is...complex. Depends on what's being shot (-3 or -6), type and trajectory of target, how it's being tracked along the way, etc.
Probably better discussed on separate thread. As for CEAFAR, I would be very surprised if it's not already fully capable from a performance standpoint, it's just a matter of figuring out how to get the CMS to properly interface with it to control the radar set.

Yes, but I recall some of the chatter about F-105 and Mini-Burke, and some points regarding space for command, briefing, consoles maybe being a bit more generous as on US designs that can happen on the cruisers. For the sea5000, you seem to need two high end combat systems, extra boxes and consoles, special boxes, and Australia isn't going short on things like ASW, BMD, general air defense, Land attack, which many navies often have specialized units or aren't really pursuing. That being said, FREMM/F-5000 and Type 26 are all big frigates. But Australia has a lot of system and roles to integrate into a single "frigate".

Briefing space is often underestimated, so yes, that's a legitimate gripe on smaller ships.
Consoles...yeah that's another problem as well. Ideally you need dedicated consoles for whoever will oversee the C2 function...very difficult to wedge in even on US DDG's. Only the CG's can really sustain it long term because they were designed with the extra space in mind.

But exercising command functions is going to be tough to pull off on a frigate size hull no matter how you work it. It's ultimately a matter of having enough extra people to throw manhours at the planning/watchkeeping problem. T26 may be more appropriate in that regard, as the RN is IIRC in having enough excess capacity to embark Royal Marine dets.

I wonder if Australia and the US would test out CEC with Australia leading US ships. There was talk about MRF-D serving under direct Australian command (The future for US Marines in Darwin), wonder how the Pacific fleet would feel about some destroyers and amphibs working under Oz. Now throw in a retired four star Pacific admiral/ambassador...

After all, how are we going to get good at CEC if we only have one ship available for the next few years capable of being linked in with CEC or operating with CEC. A Network of one... Makes it a lonely place. I would imagine many would want that one ship somewhere further afield.

I know for a fact it will be tested with US ships and aircraft when they go Stateside, and I can't imagine they wouldn't perform a network test with US ships passing through Southeast Asia/Australian waters when the opportunity arises. The RAN will get plenty of time with it. It's not a very complex system to use or coordinate. Honestly, developing and testing your tactics operating with airborne nodes is far more "interesting."

 

[old faithful]

I like the concept of a "Regional amphibious training hub"( as in the above article), located in Darwin.
This would seem to greatly assist on two Australia's defense goals, the establishment of the ARG and engagement with regional allies.

To take maximum advantage of this I would see two changes in the ADFs structure.

First relocate 2 RAR from Townsville to Darwin.
As the ADFs experts in amphibious warfare then the training hub would appear the place to be.

Second, push forward with a replacement for the LCH and base several of them in Darwin.
It seems impracticle to base a LHD in Darwin but both the ADF and their allies will need ships to train on if such training is to be really effective.
A versatile platform such as the LST 120 could perform many roles within the ADF.

2 RAR is pretty much a paper Battalion, with a skeleton staff. There is a rumour that two companies of A Res may be on the cards, in which case Darwin is not a good place for them. Too small to have a res units and norforce.

 

[old faithful]

2 RAR is pretty much a paper Battalion, with a skeleton staff. There is a rumour that two companies of A Res may be on the cards, in which case Darwin is not a good place for them. Too small to have a res units and norforce.

 

[seaspear]

The two helos won't be used in that fashion. In a hot scenario both helos will be prosecuting the contact and provided they can fly, see/hear and shoot they will be in the air. It could even be one helo and one UAV being used as a weapon carrier, the combinations are many but one won't be sitting on deck when in contact. Screening is a different proposition.

Is there a ship launched U.A.V being considered by the R.A.N for ASW operations ?

 

[aussienscale]

Is there a ship launched U.A.V being considered by the R.A.N for ASW operations ?

Think along the lines of MQ-8C Fire Scout etc

Firescout and Skeldar likely contenders for Navy UAS - Australian Defence Magazine

Quick run down, not sure where we are with the RFT ? don't recall seeing anything definitive on the selection

Integrating it with Wedgetail could be a big deal.

Do you mean this in a good way or bad way ?

Space, weight and location has been planned into the Wedgetail since inception, this is an older doc, but still a good read, reference to CEC space provision on slide 20

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APD...-Wedgetail-SQNLDR-Glenn-Salmon_Powerpoint.pdf

Cheers

 

[hauritz]

Think along the lines of MQ-8C Fire Scout etc

Firescout and Skeldar likely contenders for Navy UAS - Australian Defence Magazine

Quick run down, not sure where we are with the RFT ? don't recall seeing anything definitive on the selection



Do you mean this in a good way or bad way ?

Space, weight and location has been planned into the Wedgetail since inception, this is an older doc, but still a good read, reference to CEC space provision on slide 20

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APD...-Wedgetail-SQNLDR-Glenn-Salmon_Powerpoint.pdf

Cheers

I would look at Asroc as well. Frigates won't last long in close with a modern sub.

A mix of perhaps several UAS and standoff ASW weapons could be an effective mix.

 

[StingrayOZ]

CEC to a non-sensor/shooter battle space management system (my understanding of AIR 6500) sounds odd. I'd be interested in knowing the rationale behind that one, not entirely without advantages, but it's an expensive and in many ways limited to way to establish C2 links to your battle space management system.

Integrating it with Wedgetail could be a big deal.

Its a bit more shadowy, and the battlespace management stuff is less platform sexy. I would assume it will come together and be a bit more obvious. I also wonder if it has something to do with the way the ADF will manage things and also for non-kinetic things.

Not familiar with what you're referring to with decrypt codes. IFF?

It wasn't ever made publicly clear, that was the implication, but it went further than that. NATO needs and systems/protocols/doctrine aren't always ideal for Australia. Australia tries to maintain an edge (on everyone), in at least some areas or across the force. Either in the gadgets or the systems. There is less delineation between good guys and bad guys (non aligned states are everywhere). We don't (always) assume explicit US support and generally assume it comes with a double edge. Superior access either through formal or informal (or out right cracking) links are always sought. Give up tech for access. Driving integration of Growler, pushing E7 development etc). CEA and Northrup had a deal with CEA back in 2005, there was a mystery customer in 2014. BMD has been on the table for a long time and at some point it looked like it might be directly incorporated. I am curious how the sea5000 integration goes, and then is rolled back onto the AWD/DDG's and what sort of radar upgrade they may get in the future (CEAFAR?).

Australia and USA Collaborating on New Small-Ship Radars

But exercising command functions is going to be tough to pull off on a frigate size hull no matter how you work it. It's ultimately a matter of having enough extra people to throw manhours at the planning/watchkeeping problem. T26 may be more appropriate in that regard, as the RN is IIRC in having enough excess capacity to embark Royal Marine dets.

Personally I am a bit disappointed in the British. The type 45 was meant to have CEC (and Aegis?) integrated, Mk41vls, some US weapons, the type 26 could have then learnt 2nd gen lessons from that experience and been timed to be in the water now. The more info that comes down regarding numbers and fitout of the UK type 26 isn't exactly encouraging, even in the current global situation and the imminent decisions on the type 26 (aus/can). Time frames seem unfavorable. Australia seems to be able to find efficiencies in the Spanish crew accommodation (hundreds in the case of the LHD), it seems to Spanish had quite luxurious spaces (Europeans eh?) on the LHD. I believe the DDG's were planned with that mission in mind, so I would assume the F-5000 isn't deficient in that regard. Don't know about FREMM, I assume it is a possibility too (Europeans? Cruise ships? I jest). Type 26 seems to be the biggest, so is assumed to have space for everything. But they haven't been boasting about it, for the UK the Type 26 is somewhere above a OPV, below a t45.

SM-6 is all but a done deal for Australia, and is likely to feature on all 12 ships. But there seems genuine interest in SM-3. There is a feeling that the US umbrella is a bit light on and would be helped if we had a hand in the high end game and that is a game for us only limited by money. No one really worries about Australia having SM-3 locally, in fact in the immediate region its likely to be welcomed. The Japanese will be pleased, and the Chinese, while miffed, isn't a deal breaker.

I know for a fact it will be tested with US ships and aircraft when they go Stateside, and I can't imagine they wouldn't perform a network test with US ships passing through Southeast Asia/Australian waters when the opportunity arises. The RAN will get plenty of time with it. It's not a very complex system to use or coordinate. Honestly, developing and testing your tactics operating with airborne nodes is far more "interesting."

And trialing them and proving them with some operationally relevant experience. Not just getting boxes to talk to each other, but the most effective way to deploy that advantage and integrate with our limitations and our edge. These is an energy to do this, that I see lacking in other countries acquisitions.

I actually think the first likely implementation will be in the Gulf. There are already the elements in play to give that a very interesting experience and we are in to our eyeballs there and will likely be, like Syria, another place to learn real lessons very quickly. I would imagine a DDG deployment is imminent. Otherwise RIMPAC is an obvious point, the Japanese will be there of course as well.

By the time it comes to South East Asia, you want combat proven experience. You don't want it to be a theoretical possibility, but a proven fact with years of operation experience learned and implemented, reviewed, systems sorted and able to be used as a true on field advantage from day 0.

Which gets back to the broader battlespace management systems, mass deployment of CEC on all new combat surface and existing E7. A couple of weeks ago, there was an announcement of a $1b upgrade of JORN and Australia has a renewed interest in Space, launching a bunch of smaller cube sats for defence purposes and some big long term funding.

Plenty of interesting stuff indeed.

 

[CB90]

Do you mean this in a good way or bad way ?

Space, weight and location has been planned into the Wedgetail since inception, this is an older doc, but still a good read, reference to CEC space provision on slide 20

In a great way. If they're planning to do with it what the USN has been doing recently with that sort of combination, that would be a very significant and immediate force multiplier.
The consequence of this though, may be that it works so well, the ADF will want the RAAF to procure more Wedgetails (don't know if realistic) to provide more of this support.

It wasn't ever made publicly clear, that was the implication, but it went further than that. NATO needs and systems/protocols/doctrine aren't always ideal for Australia. Australia tries to maintain an edge (on everyone), in at least some areas or across the force. Either in the gadgets or the systems. There is less delineation between good guys and bad guys (non aligned states are everywhere). We don't (always) assume explicit US support and generally assume it comes with a double edge. Superior access either through formal or informal (or out right cracking) links are always sought. Give up tech for access. Driving integration of Growler, pushing E7 development etc). CEA and Northrup had a deal with CEA back in 2005, there was a mystery customer in 2014. BMD has been on the table for a long time and at some point it looked like it might be directly incorporated. I am curious how the sea5000 integration goes, and then is rolled back onto the AWD/DDG's and what sort of radar upgrade they may get in the future (CEAFAR?).

It was the "F-18s shooting at F-16s" line in your previous comment that didn't quite make sense to me. There's nothing really preventing anybody from doing that now (or any other Blue aircraft combination)...and nothing really special in terms of modifications would really be required to do so.
Same goes for saying "NATO needs and systems/protocols/doctrine aren't always ideal." No argument on doctrine, as that's a matter of how you choose to employ the system.
But wanting to break from the common hardware/software standards and protocols, the systems shared by your allies...well you can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously have the ability to seamlessly integrate with any and all allies, and also have unique standards that others don't have access to. This isn't to say sharing the same protocols as others (as obviously not everybody with F-16's is exactly friendly to the US or the West...ie Venezuela) means you can't fight them if things go sour.

Personally I am a bit disappointed in the British. The type 45 was meant to have CEC (and Aegis?) integrated, Mk41vls, some US weapons, the type 26 could have then learnt 2nd gen lessons from that experience and been timed to be in the water now. The more info that comes down regarding numbers and fitout of the UK type 26 isn't exactly encouraging, even in the current global situation and the imminent decisions on the type 26 (aus/can). Time frames seem unfavorable. Australia seems to be able to find efficiencies in the Spanish crew accommodation (hundreds in the case of the LHD), it seems to Spanish had quite luxurious spaces (Europeans eh?) on the LHD. I believe the DDG's were planned with that mission in mind, so I would assume the F-5000 isn't deficient in that regard. Don't know about FREMM, I assume it is a possibility too (Europeans? Cruise ships? I jest). Type 26 seems to be the biggest, so is assumed to have space for everything. But they haven't been boasting about it, for the UK the Type 26 is somewhere above a OPV, below a t45.

To be honest, and rather unfortunately, I'm very skeptical on Type 26.
I expect it will be a UK too big to fail domestic project, but if not properly funded (a real risk especially with QE, JSF, and Dreadnought sucking up the major funds), it may end up a "Fitted for but not with" project that in the short term falls short of its full development goals.

The reason it is unfortunate is the USN, RN, RCN, and RAN, all coincidentally have a simultaneous frigate requirement. And here we are, with the possibility all 4 nations wind up selecting completely different hulls.
It is rare the stars align like this with four "Five Eyes" partners needing the same general product at the same approximate time...there could have been some tremendous opportunity to share development costs. It could essentially have become what the French-Italian FREMM is today as a custom-izable export frigate, but employing new generation of hull design improvements.
Personally, IMO, the USN does bear much of the blame for this missed opportunity. As the biggest spender, we tend to establish the generally acceptable baseline that others are willing to sign on to to tailor to their individual needs...and we dropped the ball on this by taking so long to develop a more "standard" frigate requirement.
While a joint development has shades of JSF, a modular frigate design with realistic requirements to use proven technology seems like something that could have stayed within program targets.

And trialing them and proving them with some operationally relevant experience. Not just getting boxes to talk to each other, but the most effective way to deploy that advantage and integrate with our limitations and our edge. These is an energy to do this, that I see lacking in other countries acquisitions.

The AWD trials in the US are intended to be live fire events utilizing operationally relevant scenarios. It's far more than just boxes talking...that's what the early sea trials in home waters were to prove out.
Getting much more operationally relevant and proven than those trials will require actual bad guys trying to do bad things.

I actually think the first likely implementation will be in the Gulf. There are already the elements in play to give that a very interesting experience and we are in to our eyeballs there and will likely be, like Syria, another place to learn real lessons very quickly. I would imagine a DDG deployment is imminent. Otherwise RIMPAC is an obvious point, the Japanese will be there of course as well.

Going over there would be opportunity for significant time operating in active networks, good way to verify long term network (and integrated with CMS) stability and reliability under operational conditions.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't know if more Wedgetails are on the cards. There might be some flexibility on the E7/P8/UAV question going into the future.

I think rather than develop our own protocols, its more about flexibility to integrate what we want on the platforms we have. While we have favored OTS and mostly US MOTS where ever possible, sometimes it doesn't fit, and we don't have the flexibility to do what we want or need it to do. Key points would be able to operate offensively in a high intensity situation without US support. Things like the E7 make a lot of sense, common airframe for E7 and P8 is just obvious. We now have the G550 surveillance planes, and we could look at other items like that in the future.

But look at the subs, french hulls, american weapons and combat systems, French, American, UK sensors, French (?) propulsion and photonics mast, plus stuff that is only and uniquely for the sub. It is also possible Japanese sub tech might find its way aboard. We don't want to throw money at reinventing the wheel, we just want a wheel that works and can bolt onto the car.

I am hopeful even if AUUSUKCA all choose different platforms there is at lease some commonality on sensors and systems. Directing that development to a really good single solution rather than a bunch of average solutions. US and CA decisions haven't been made, so there is still a chance of even sporting the same platforms as a majority. While I think some people write the F-5000 off as old, I think it might be more competitive than people think. It has definitely seen evolution and as far as systems goes seem well placed.

F-5000 I think is quite good at carrying weapons and systems. When it comes down to carrying capability it does quite well.
Australia’s navy needs to mind the missile gap

 

[ASSAIL]

The first of 21 Pacific Patrol Boats has been launched at ASC Henderson. This will be gifted to Papua New Guinea.
Whilst reasonably insignificant by itself it represents the first hull launched under the governments $90b shipbuilding plan.
They are named the "Guardian" Class but OMG they're ugly.

Wrapped up with a bow: First Pacific patrol boat hits the water

 

[76mmGuns]

Guardian Class boat doesn't look bad. Much better looking than the Lurssen OPV80 imho. (I wish the Fassmer had been chosen, purely for aesthetic reasons )