Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Well, today Navantia updated the news section of its website so here you have the press note released by Navantia (English version) about the keel laying ceremony of yesterday: Link.

Good news. Im suprised this doesn't get greater press coverage. Has the JC1 started trials yet?

We are getting two large fixed wing compatable amphibious carriers no one seems terribly fussed. I was equally suprised at the lack of fuss over the WP.


Quick while no one is looking add destroyer 4 and 5, another LHD, 1 JSS, SM3.

 

[Sea Toby]

Good news. Im suprised this doesn't get greater press coverage. Has the JC1 started trials yet?

We are getting two large fixed wing compatable amphibious carriers no one seems terribly fussed. I was equally suprised at the lack of fuss over the WP.


Quick while no one is looking add destroyer 4 and 5, another LHD, 1 JSS, SM3.

Yes, the information an pictures are on the last pages of the Spanish naval thread.... If you are interested in the Juan Carlos i, this is where I would look, not on an Australian navy thread.....

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yeh, I just realised all the JC1 coverage and my pollution of this thread.

Good to see the RAN being real serious about boardings, tough job. Our divers are much like US Seal teams aren't they? I know they have to meet the same/harder fitness requirements as the SAS.

Australia doesn't have any SBS or simular does it? Other than the divers?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Australia doesn't have any SBS or simular does it? Other than the divers?

No SBS equiv, and the CD's are not really the same even though they have an obvious water focus.

The training for CD's or equiv in other services are as tough but "different" from the specials. eg the german swimmers have a very very tough entrance and qual regime, much tougher than GSG-9 and KSK land ops.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If it is SAS however, opens up whole new range of options to conduct boardings over there, as they can do hostile non-compliant boarding ops.

SAS/SASR do conduct boardings.
My daughter used to be in maritime security on cruiseliners, and whenever they were delivering a refurb they used to get specials practicing VBSS and K/C missions in transit.

Thats included specials from a number of countries - state based actions in national waters, and specials from different agencies in international waters.

she's been singularly impressed at how efficient some of them can be....

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeh, I just realised all the JC1 coverage and my pollution of this thread.

Good to see the RAN being real serious about boardings, tough job. Our divers are much like US Seal teams aren't they? I know they have to meet the same/harder fitness requirements as the SAS.

Er, no. Fit lads they are, but they do little more than a course somewhat equivalent to the special forces barrier test that is the entrance test into SOCOMD...

It isn't equal to the SASR Cadre course and nor should it be.

The fact that you can watch an intake on youtube should be illuminating...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxLZ14JuEN0]YouTube - Australian Navy Divers - Episode 1 (Part 1 / 3)[/ame]

 

[Beagle]

Good news. Im suprised this doesn't get greater press coverage. Has the JC1 started trials yet?

We are getting two large fixed wing compatable amphibious carriers no one seems terribly fussed. I was equally suprised at the lack of fuss over the WP.


Quick while no one is looking add destroyer 4 and 5, another LHD, 1 JSS, SM3.

Slightly change of path but there is actually more of a wait on the 4th AWD amoungst the RAN now, atleast at the top. There are some new technologies that many would love to see put in the AWD which they are now banging there heads about as to why it wasn't able to be incoperated in the current version (which will not be cutting edge very soon). This will be a great ongong maintenace cost and expense to future upgrades. Expect to see a descision made after/around the next election. About 2011 would be perfect for the navy

I too was a big fan of the fourth AWD but recently would actually prefer to sacrifice the fourth to see only three but with a different fit out.

 

[PeterM]

Slightly change of path but there is actually more of a wait on the 4th AWD amoungst the RAN now, atleast at the top. There are some new technologies that many would love to see put in the AWD which they are now banging there heads about as to why it wasn't able to be incoperated in the current version (which will not be cutting edge very soon). This will be a great ongong maintenace cost and expense to future upgrades. Expect to see a descision made after/around the next election. About 2011 would be perfect for the navy

I too was a big fan of the fourth AWD but recently would actually prefer to sacrifice the fourth to see only three but with a different fit out.

What are these new technologies?

 

[Beagle]

What are these new technologies?

ASMD for one(hence 2011). 4 Ceamounts means atleast four (practically instantaneous) illumitnators over only two mechanical ones in the AWD's. Plus active PAR vs passive on the AWD's. Simplistically the ANZAC's will be fitted with 4th gen radar while the AWD's fitted with 3rd gen.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Why can't these be incorporated? We haven't exactly cut steel yet.

I would have thought that ceamount would have been installed in conjunction (in a simular manner to the test module fitted to an ANZAC). While small and less optimal it should be a bit of a test bed for the ANZAC replacements being built off the same hull and given additional capabilities.

I was under the impression that the radar fitted to the AWD was a better performer in some regards and weaker in other compared to Ceamount/auspar. More of a complimentary system.

 

[StevoJH]

I thought that CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT, while possibly even comparable to or more advanced the SPY-1 and illumintors on a technology level simply do not have the power or range to replace SPY-1 and its illuminators on a platform operating SM-2.

 

[Aussie Digger]

ASMD for one(hence 2011). 4 Ceamounts means atleast four (practically instantaneous) illumitnators over only two mechanical ones in the AWD's. Plus active PAR vs passive on the AWD's. Simplistically the ANZAC's will be fitted with 4th gen radar while the AWD's fitted with 3rd gen.

Won't happen. SPY-1D is a FAR more powerful and capable radar than AUSPAR.

CEA-MOUNT I'm also dubious on, given that Mk 99 fire control system has been ordered, with AN-SPG-62 directors included. That they have also been paid for, for AWD along with the rest of the AEGIS kit, makes it less likely that CEA-MOUNT will be adopted before introduction to service, IMHO...

 

[LancasterBomber]

Thought you guys (and girls?) might be interested in this (if you haven't already read it).

Inside the Navy's Command Center of the Future | Geek Gestalt - CNET News

A look at a 'forward looking' facility in San Diego aimed to give US (and RAN) naval command a better idea at how different future technologies can interplay. Obviously heavily focused on displaying potential command centre 'workflow' iterations.

However you cannot understate the value of a 3D visualisation of potential hardware fitouts. In fact I hope there is a lot of full 3D 'operational' visualisation of various hardware fitout iterations for the new RAN subs (and other long term naval assets under development that involve potential complex tradeoffs).

In fact I hope it goes beyond 3D visualisation mapping and that like the facility in San Diego we can actually build spatial replications 'on spec' to fitout various iterations of forward looking hardware and software options to make better operational informed decisions - rather than getting bogged down with 'on paper' specs that can often (it would appear) fail to illuminate tactical frailties in the field.

Obviously this isnt a new concept per say but I do hope we take it to a new level.

Given that I will likely command one of these new subs I have a high vested interest in making sure we dot 'i's and cross 't's on this one. I don't particularly wish to be left with a heavy burden going forward, on the back of poor decision making in the next 5 years,

One thing we will have during this sub development period is stability of political will which cannot be understated. We are unlikely to see the Coalition in power for quite a long time. (This is not a political opinion as I am indifferent to this prospect but a mere statement of facts as I see it.) If we can keep this national security asset out of a national accounts fiscal debate then we have an improved chance of getting the deployment right.

Anyway keep up the robust discussion. This thread is a real asset in and of itself! I thoroughly enjoy it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

A look at a 'forward looking' facility in San Diego aimed to give US (and RAN) naval command a better idea at how different future technologies can interplay. Obviously heavily focused on displaying potential command centre 'workflow' iterations.

I dunno doesn't seem that impressive to me. I think I might be more impressed with more funding.

I have access to simular stuff here at school. Our connected classrooms have projector, touch screen, plasmas for telesconfencing, numerous cameras (3?). Many primary school classrooms in Australia has that sort of level of technology.

Im starting a build to get a multiprojector polarised stereo 3D setup (you have to wear sunglasses) in my classroom in combination with a 80cm tv, a few workstation screens, multi touch IWB, wifi and of course the kids all have netbooks. I can expand this to a superwide setup utilising multiple projectors in non stereo 3d.

I can't imagine a massive room on the new subs. Tight on space. I would imagine a version of this might appear in the LHD as command space or on the AWD.

However I could build you a room with 3d stereo projectors on all sides, sort of a holodeck. You might need it to get a gasp on a battlespace with swarms of drones from all directions.

I would the subs should have space allocated for servers. Given all this talk of dismounted weapons, remote sensors, etc the subs are going to need significant server space to handle/process preanalyse all this stuff.

Collins was somewhat crippled by the lack of processing power. With parallelisim going big I hope they have additional spacepower/heat allocated for that.

 

[aricho87]

Going off in a different direction here but I was watching a show on the Royal Navy and how there invincible Class Carriers were initially ordered and it has come to my attention that our Canberra Class LHD’s are in exactly the same situation.

The invincible class carriers were initially designed as submarine hunter cruisers and sold like that to politicians to get them through the budget but were really intended as light carriers as alternatives to larger more expensive carriers.

I might be wrong but its clear to me that the Canberra Class LHD’s could be easily converted without too much trouble to light carriers or LHD’s with embarked fixed wing cargo to increase the capacity of the RAN in overseas theaters. They do have a ski jump and are actually longer than the invincible class carriers and while a small quantity of fixed wing aircraft is not a lot, it would make a significant difference to our capability.

I’m sure the Nay Sayers will put down this post but to me the option is worth exploring!!

 

[Beagle]

Won't happen. SPY-1D is a FAR more powerful and capable radar than AUSPAR.

CEA-MOUNT I'm also dubious on, given that Mk 99 fire control system has been ordered, with AN-SPG-62 directors included. That they have also been paid for, for AWD along with the rest of the AEGIS kit, makes it less likely that CEA-MOUNT will be adopted before introduction to service, IMHO...

I never suggested it should be put on the first 3 AWD's, as the RAN is already heavily commited with SPY. I was only talking about the "fourth". The first three were never going to get it due to politcial reasons and the fact defence was risk adverse on unproven projects. Hence why I said 2011 as IOC on HMAS PERTH due at that time and is more likely to be accepted by the government for installation on any 4th AWD.

As for the capabilty component I disagree, its stated as 4th gen vs 3rd gen; AESA vs Passive. The US seems specifically to activley be upgrading its radars to AESA due to the enhanced capabilities. As for power, I can't find anything publically on its power or lack of it. I know the SPY uses more power but as for output, I can't find anything publically stating AUSPAR can't do the job. Do you have any links? Don't forget AESA can do more with less when it comes to power, due to its resolution and anti-jamming capabilities.

 

[PeterM]

Going off in a different direction here but I was watching a show on the Royal Navy and how there invincible Class Carriers were initially ordered and it has come to my attention that our Canberra Class LHD’s are in exactly the same situation.

The invincible class carriers were initially designed as submarine hunter cruisers and sold like that to politicians to get them through the budget but were really intended as light carriers as alternatives to larger more expensive carriers.

I might be wrong but its clear to me that the Canberra Class LHD’s could be easily converted without too much trouble to light carriers or LHD’s with embarked fixed wing cargo to increase the capacity of the RAN in overseas theaters. They do have a ski jump and are actually longer than the invincible class carriers and while a small quantity of fixed wing aircraft is not a lot, it would make a significant difference to our capability.

I’m sure the Nay Sayers will put down this post but to me the option is worth exploring!!

It is interesting that the RAN is retaining the ski jump on the Canberra, yet there is (at least officially) no intention to aquire the STOL versions of the JSF.

Personally I think it is unlikely the RAN is trying to get a carrier by stealth.

I wouldn't mind some of the JSF purchase to include a small number of F-35B to provide capability to operate RAAF aircraft from the Canberras as well as forward deployments (much like how the RAF use the Harrier). But that capability is very different from true carrier capability.

 

[Aussie Digger]

It is interesting that the RAN is retaining the ski jump on the Canberra, yet there is (at least officially) no intention to aquire the STOL versions of the JSF.

RAN explored the option of having the Ski-Ramp removed from the design but the cost simply wasn't worth it.

That should suggest how likely it is that ADF will be operating F-35B from the decks of the Canberra Class.

 

[riksavage]

RAN explored the option of having the Ski-Ramp removed from the design but the cost simply wasn't worth it.

That should suggest how likely it is that ADF will be operating F-35B from the decks of the Canberra Class.

The issue here will be allocating dedicated pilots and support crews. Also will they be day/night qualified or just day qualified? If you do opt for F-35B's giving you the option of deploying a maritime strike force, then training needs to be ramped up substantially and pilots / ground crews need to spend plenty of time at sea operating in confined spaces in all weathers. This burden is so great the UK has decided to qualify JFH RAF for daylight only operations leaving the RN pilots day/night capable. The latter will spend more time at sea than the former.

By retaining the ski jump the RAN may be looking at deploying some form of UCAV in the future, which would be cheaper (cost of platform and training / man-power) and a lot less of risk to aircrews.

 

[PeterM]

RAN explored the option of having the Ski-Ramp removed from the design but the cost simply wasn't worth it.

That should suggest how likely it is that ADF will be operating F-35B from the decks of the Canberra Class.

That is pretty much what I expect.

I certainly am no expert, but It doesn't make sense to me that it would cost a lot more money to modify the design and subsequently build the ship without the ski jump.