Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Yes, it had been planned to do it that way for some time. Not sure of the facts about she being only the second ship to commission at sea; at least two of the DEs (Derwent and Stuart) hoisted the White Ensign while at sea after completion of trials and acceptance of the ships from the builders; mind you, things were done rather differently back then.

The info on the Matafele comes from the Story I’ve linked above and from @Pusser01 post above.

 

[Todjaeger]

Noting the possible purchase of JSM for our F-35's & maybe NSM for the surface fleet later on, would there be a benefit in fitting the RAN's MH-60's with the NSM? I think it would give them a better ASM capability compared to the Hellfires they currently carry. It looks as though India are going to have their MH-60's fitted with the NSM. Cheers. 21 MH-60R Seahawk Maritime Helicopters on Order for the Indian Navy - Naval News

It would provide the Seahawks with a longer-ranged AShM capability, but not necessarily a "better" one. It really depends on what CONOPS the RAN has for using the Romeo Seahawks. IIRC the USN opted to arm the Romeos with Hellfire to provide an anti-FAC AGM for use at comparatively short ranges in littoral environments, a la against swarms of small boats in the Strait of Hormuz.

If the ADF does adopt the NSM as one of the PGM's in war stocks, then having the Seahawk able to carry and launch NSM would make sense, if there is also space in the hangar magazine. I do not think the NSM could really replace the Hellfire in a maritime role, as they are two different types of missiles for rather different roles. A Seahawk might be able to carry one or two NSM at a time, vs. four or eight Hellfires. Also, why 'waste' a 400 kg standoff AShM with a range of 100+ n miles and a 125 kg blast-frag warhead on a coastal patrol boat (or pirate skiff) when a 50 kg Hellfire would be perfectly adequate?

 

[Redlands18]

It would provide the Seahawks with a longer-ranged AShM capability, but not necessarily a "better" one. It really depends on what CONOPS the RAN has for using the Romeo Seahawks. IIRC the USN opted to arm the Romeos with Hellfire to provide an anti-FAC AGM for use at comparatively short ranges in littoral environments, a la against swarms of small boats in the Strait of Hormuz.

If the ADF does adopt the NSM as one of the PGM's in war stocks, then having the Seahawk able to carry and launch NSM would make sense, if there is also space in the hangar magazine. I do not think the NSM could really replace the Hellfire in a maritime role, as they are two different types of missiles for rather different roles. A Seahawk might be able to carry one or two NSM at a time, vs. four or eight Hellfires. Also, why 'waste' a 400 kg standoff AShM with a range of 100+ n miles and a 125 kg blast-frag warhead on a coastal patrol boat (or pirate skiff) when a 50 kg Hellfire would be perfectly adequate?

And how far are you actually extending the range of an NSM by putting it on a Seahawk anyway, Compared to those carried by the Ship? What would the Combat Radius of a Seahawk carrying 2 NSMs be? The Seahawk would have to use a hi-lo approach thus negating any range increase gained from altitude and decreasing its Combat Radius, would be just to vulnerable at 5000 feet and the SAMs collective engagement zone*(CEZ) would be far greater than compared to a Jet Fighter. Of course any such mission would take the Seahawk away from a more vital role in Sub hunting.
*i think that is the correct term, where you cant simply outrun a AA Missile.

 

[Todjaeger]

And how far are you actually extending the range of an NSM by putting it on a Seahawk anyway, Compared to those carried by the Ship? What would the Combat Radius of a Seahawk carrying 2 NSMs be? The Seahawk would have to use a hi-lo approach thus negating any range increase gained from altitude and decreasing its Combat Radius, would be just to vulnerable at 5000 feet and the SAMs collective engagement zone*(CEZ) would be far greater than compared to a Jet Fighter. Of course any such mission would take the Seahawk away from a more vital role in Sub hunting.
*i think that is the correct term, where you cant simply outrun a AA Missile.

I am less concerned about a Seahawk wandering into the NEZ of a hostile ship's area air defences. The range of the APS-147 (or APS-153(V) if upgraded) is likely to be up to ~200 n miles, since the radar itself is supposed to be updated and improved upon from the APS-143 which has been claimed to have a range up to 200 n miles. That should provide plenty of notice for the helicopter unless the area is a crowded/cluttered area.

In fact, one potential utilization in an anti-surface warfare role would be for a Seahawk to provide organic SA of an area/region around a ship or TF, including target detection which could then be used to launch and guide AShM towards hostile shipping.

 

[Boagrius]

*i think that is the correct term, where you cant simply outrun a AA Missile.

That would be the No-Escape Zone or NEZ. You are correct in that the NEZ describes the volume of airspace within which it would be essentially impossible for a target aircraft to turn and outrun the incoming missile. The size of the NEZ is dynamic and fluctuates based on launch parameters. Outrunning a missile is typically not an option for a helicopter, but the effective range of the incoming missile can also be compressed by the fact that the chopper will generally also be presenting it with a very low closure rate as compared to a fixed wing aircraft. AFAIK the traditional SAM survival strategy for choppers is generally to either stay out of their range or out of their sight by remaining below the radar horizon or behind terrain features.

 

[Stampede]

Edit to above post

Navy Daily

Navy Daily provides the online delivery of news stories about Royal Australian Navy's daily activities.

news.navy.gov.au

Navy Daily has confirmed that Sydney was commissioned at Sea off the coast of NSW, with the CN and Commander Australian Fleet on board. Only the 2nd ever occasion of this happening the other being HMAS Matafele in 1943

Thanks for the HMAS Sydney update.

I know Wiki has it's detractors, but it has already updated Sydney's commissioning with the total number of Hobart destroyers listed as a total of three, not the previous total of 2 + 1.

Royal Australian Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well done to the editor. References - Notes ( 30 )


Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

That would be the No-Escape Zone or NEZ. You are correct in that the NEZ describes the volume of airspace within which it would be essentially impossible for a target aircraft to turn and outrun the incoming missile. The size of the NEZ is dynamic and fluctuates based on launch parameters. Outrunning a missile is typically not an option for a helicopter, but the effective range of the incoming missile can also be compressed by the fact that the chopper will generally also be presenting it with a very low closure rate as compared to a fixed wing aircraft. AFAIK the traditional SAM survival strategy for choppers is generally to either stay out of their range or out of their sight by remaining below the radar horizon or behind terrain features.

No Escape Zone, i was close, thanks for the correction mate

 

[Redlands18]

Thanks for the HMAS Sydney update.

I know Wiki has it's detractors, but it has already updated Sydney's commissioning with the total number of Hobart destroyers listed as a total of three, not the previous total of 2 + 1.

Royal Australian Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well done to the editor. References - Notes ( 30 )


Regards S

I have actually found the Wikipedia pages for RAN Ships to be quite extensive with a lot of information that can usually be backed up by other sources.

 

[Stampede]

I have actually found the Wikipedia pages for RAN Ships to be quite extensive with a lot of information that can usually be backed up by other sources.

I don't disagree.
Relying on any sole source of literature for ones knowledge is always not without it's bias and reliability.
But I find Wiki is usually OK for the basic date, fact and figure stuff.
Others may disagree.
But like any research you will consult multiple resources to form your opinion.

Alternatively just read my posts and know with confidence I'm the fount of all wisdom................

Cheers


Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

Although I am not certain that there existed 2 forward turrets at any point; the 8' gun did have a few issues, but, it is likely with modern applications and developments, the gun would be well suited to the role outlined above.

I believe that one of the main issues with the 8' gun for the USN, was that during testing and evaluation, long-range rocket-assisted projectiles were being analyzed for the 5' gun that negated the range advantage of the 8' gun, thus eliminating the gains of the new 8' system. (Many of the other issues of the 8' gun stemmed from the 'bad' choice of the testbed ship, as the 'Hull' was unsuited to the physical size of the gun).
Prop
- The sad part of this story is that the long-range projectiles never fully materialized to be deployed, leaving the capability undeveloped.

As the Americans have found with the AGS on the Zumwalts, long range Naval precision fire is a very expensive capability, around the same cost as a new FFGX Frigate to fill the Magazine

 

[John Fedup]

As the Americans have found with the AGS on the Zumwalts, long range Naval precision fire is a very expensive capability, around the same cost as a new FFGX Frigate to fill the Magazine

True, however the AGS ammunition would have been much more viable if the Zumwalt program been allowed to proceed to even half the fleet size that was planned. The ship cost would be better too. That being said, the Zumwalt’s fire support role wasn’t a great mission for a 4 billion dollar ship. With 78 MW of power, Zumwalt is the ideal platform for railguns and lasers in an air defence and anti-ship role.

 

[hauritz]

Week and months later the guided missile would take a back seat! In an all out it war there would be no ships left. I’m not sure how anyone thinks any ship could survive an all out assault by ASMs? A first round salvo of 4-10 missiles would probably completely deplete any defence. Assuming every incoming is killed...what happens when the next salvo is headed your way?

In the event of this happening it’s probably going to come down who has the most missile tubes (if they are full) and the longest range ASMs weapons wins and even then it’s highly likely that the winner will get a seriously bloodied nose.

I imagine modern navies would try to avoid any situation that is likely to involve fighting off waves of missiles. A modern fighting arena is a complex place with ISR and EW systems detecting, blinding and neutralising enemy defences before any advanced navy would put their ships in harm's way.

I actually think the bigger threat to a modern warship is more likely to be from submarines.

 

[At lakes]

This is a bit pedantic but Forrest Sherman’s had 5/54s in A, X and Y position (not that the USN called them that). The 8 inch was in place of Mount 51, the forward 5 inch.

You are correct my mistake I was getting me a and the x and y's mixed up

 

[weegee]

Hi Guys not sure if any others have seen this Video from ASC by way of Penske. But its a good one showing the preparation of joining the first OPV together.

I'm glad to see there hauling arse in building these although you won't see anything in the news about how well they're going only the doom and gloom of failures.

 

[Stampede]

But you have to be able to launch those Salvos and that will not be easy, because your enemies first priority will be to kill the launch and ISR Platforms, Bases, supply dumps, Comms etc , that is the greatest weakness of any weapon system, the launch Platform. Doesn’t matter how good your ASMs are, they are useless if the Aircraft is a smoking hole in the ground or a ship sitting on the ocean floor, or you can’t feed it the information it needs due to your ISR Platforms being out of commission or your Comms have been taken out, supply lines have been severed or your Air Base has been destroyed while your on that first sortie.
Missile effectiveness is subject to failure in so many ways and the only way to assure effectiveness is to have command of the Battle space. There are no absolutes in warfare, everything is subject to so many factors including blind dumb luck

Best to take out the archer rather than the arrows.
Choose your battles.
And yes, blind dumb luck!


Regards S

 

[Milne Bay]

Things on the Arafura front have moved on considerably, with quite a bit of the superstructure erected.

Are there progress images of the construction available on the web?
Search reveals the hull joining but little after that
MB

 

[magicbandit7]

The new Lightweight Multi-Role Missile seems to fit the bill when it comes to cheap missiles that can do the anti-air and anti-surface at close range. Also RAM fit into an ExLS canister inside the Mk41 could also be viable and would have that 360 degree coverage or even CAMM but i think that it would start usurping the role of the ESSM.

 

[ngatimozart]

THREAD LOCKED PENDING MODERATORS DISCUSSION .

 

[OPSSG]

We have created a new thread for interesting and obscure RAN discussions (not related to current capabilities), so as to avoid polluting this main RAN thread with discussions on how RAN can continue to fight at D+6 months...

 

[swerve]

The new Lightweight Multi-Role Missile seems to fit the bill when it comes to cheap missiles that can do the anti-air and anti-surface at close range. Also RAM fit into an ExLS canister inside the Mk41 could also be viable and would have that 360 degree coverage or even CAMM but i think that it would start usurping the role of the ESSM.

LMM's guidance isn't capable against fast-moving flying things, especially not if they take evasive action. The only flying objects Thales mentions as potential targets are helicopters & UAVs, & I think they probably mean smallish, prop-driven UAVs.

Putting RAM into an EXLS inside Mk41 seems to me like a very bulky, heavy & expensive way to get a 73.5 kg misile on a ship. I think it'd make more sense to use the Mk41 for bigger missiles, & fit a dedicated RAM launcher or two.