Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Boagrius]

Perhaps many of them are content to operate under the cover of land based ISR aircraft? The USN are probably the only ones who seriously intend to use their CVs way out in the bluest water for sea control etc.

For a navy like the RAN I suspect the solution lies in a dedicated AEW helo/larger UAS flying off LHD, a smaller UAS like MQ8C operating off FFG/DDG or a mixture of both. The main issue I can see with the former is that the CONOPS for the LHDs may not be conducive to providing persistent ISR for all of our task groups, so they might not be able to provide enough coverage.

The latter option leaves you with a larger number of possibly less capable sensors. That problem may be a temporary one though, as the ~600lb Vigilance pod described earlier is "only" ~100lbs over the max payload for MQ8C. It strikes me as plausible that an AEW helo-like sensor package could find its way onto a platform suitable for SEA129 Ph5 in due course (assuming MQ8C + AN/ZPY8 hasn't achieved this already).

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes, I was assuming that China would go CATOBAR with their new carriers and that India intended it.

But, having just TWO navies with the capacity to launch fixed wing early warning aircraft makes my point stronger. If AEW is so critical as this thread suggests, WHY are there so few navies looking for a solution? Is it perhaps because they have decided that the cost outweighs the benefits, especially if it involves foregoing other capabilities? Or are they and their professional thinkers all ignoring an issue that we can see from here?

oldsig

I would first look at which countries operate aircraft carriers, and who operates what type of carrier. Currently there are only two CATOBAR carrier operators (US and France) which in turn means that only these two countries would be able to operate non-STO fixed-wing AEW aircraft from their carriers.

Given that there are no in-service STOVL or STOBAR fixed-wing AEW aircraft, it would then be problematic for one of the nations which operate either STOVL or STOBAR carriers to field a fixed-wing AEW aircraft. Similarly there are not really any STOBAR or STOVL-capable fixed-wing transport aircraft, which could be modified or developed into an AEW capability. When looking over the lists of which navies operate, or have operated STOVL or STOBAR carriers, one of them could have tried to spend the time and treasure to develop such a fixed-wing AEW capability, but I have to question whether or not any of the countries who would have potentially been interested would have had the necessary confluence of R&D and production capabilities to be successful.

As for helicopter-based AEW capabilities, there are currently four such operators that I am aware of. The UK and Italy using (or possibly switching to in the case of the UK) to a Merlin helicopter-based AEW platform, and India and Russia both of which use helicopter-based AEW capabilities from Kamov Ka-31 helicopters.

Also, and this is my take on the idea, but an AEW capability is not "critical" but does provide a significantly greater SA and sensor footprint of a battlespace. As more and more nations' armed forced develop or adopt advanced comms and data links, more nations are now able to take greater advantage of an AEW capability. IMO this is the most likely reason for a number of nations to have started fielding land-based fixed-wing AEW aircraft in the last two decades or so. The same holds true for the airspace over/around a naval vessel or TF, but being able to maintain such an ability is quite a bit more challenging if/when away from friendly airfields.

When looking at the navies which tend to operate TF's away from friendly airfields, there honestly just are not all that many, and the major players there tend to already have an AEW capability of some type.

 

[Stampede]

Yes, I was assuming that China would go CATOBAR with their new carriers and that India intended it.

But, having just TWO navies with the capacity to launch fixed wing early warning aircraft makes my point stronger. If AEW is so critical as this thread suggests, WHY are there so few navies looking for a solution? Is it perhaps because they have decided that the cost outweighs the benefits, especially if it involves foregoing other capabilities? Or are they and their professional thinkers all ignoring an issue that we can see from here?

oldsig

Probably a number of reasons.
Geography, Alliances ,cost ,politics and need.
I'm sure others could add to the list.
We have bloody great bits of ocean on all four sides with the top bit speckled with thousands of islands and millions of people.
Consequently we recognise this fact and thus have a big ship navy to go big distances. ( not a coastal force )
We also recognise our size and limitations and therefore have cuddled up to big friends for a couple of century's.
Our current mate is the USA and her Navy which has a big professional balanced force that globally is in a league of it's own.( At the moment )
It spends tonnes of money to buy good kit. Much of which most nations like ourselves don't have, like Naval AEW at SEA.
The politic's bit is their defence capability is for their interest, which is not always in our best interest....A conundrum faced by many.
The need part in moving forward in the 2020's is I feel that in some areas of our defence force, capabilities need to be bolstered or introduced to provide a greater range of sovereign capability and options to government.
We will need to act increasingly on our own terms.

A bit long winded for sure, but not many maritime nations have our unique needs and can afford the coin to pay for it.
We do, and suggest naval AEW is a big gap unless you are purely content with being a node as apart of a bigger force.
The RAAF can only do so much across the challenging geography mentioned above!


Regards S

PS - Not saying we cannot be allied to the USA........Just seeing a rapidly changing world requiring the right tools to navigate through the unknown.

 

[Mark_Evans]

The latest USN test by USS Portland was with a 150 MW laser (as per post on USN thread). We also know the power generation for the Zumwalt, 78 MW, thus making this class a good place to start with more powerful lasers.

Power level of the laser on the ship is 150Kw. Not 150 Mw. If it was 150 Mw it would be a whole different ball game and wold require some pretty large nuclear reactors on board.

The Navy Just Tested Its Most Powerful Laser Yet

It's the most destructive laser to go to sea.

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[OldTex]

Also, and this is my take on the idea, but an AEW capability is not "critical" but does provide a significantly greater SA and sensor footprint of a battlespace. As more and more nations' armed forced develop or adopt advanced comms and data links, more nations are now able to take greater advantage of an AEW capability. IMO this is the most likely reason for a number of nations to have started fielding land-based fixed-wing AEW aircraft in the last two decades or so. The same holds true for the airspace over/around a naval vessel or TF, but being able to maintain such an ability is quite a bit more challenging if/when away from friendly airfields.

If an embarked Landng Force (of at least battle group (BG) size) and an ARG (of 2 capital ships, a LSD, an AWD and an FFG) are not "critical" to the ADF I am not sure what would be critical. The navies which have invested in manned helicopter based AEW appear to have made that decision for their principle force projection capabilities (i.e. their CSG or the equivalent). For the ADF the principle force projection capability is the ARG. While the principle AOs for the ARG are likely to be the SW Pacific and the Indonesia archipelago to the north there is no guarantee that the RAAF will be able to provide persistent AEW for the ARG and its associated logistic support elements.
The trade-off between the unmanned/UAS helicopter AEW and the manned helicopter AEW options is the capability vs endurance trade-off. Use of the AN/ZPY-8 on the MQ-8C, while meeting the endurance criteria, is largely an unknown quantity wrt AEW. While Leonardo claim that the Osprey 30/50 has an air MTI capability, both the USN and HM Coastguard use the radar primarily for surface search and surveillance. Manned helicopter AEW, such as Merlin HM2 with Crowsnest or the EH-101, have the AEW capability they lack the endurance (~5hrs vs ~12hrs for the MQ-8C) and hence require more airframes (with the Crowsnest being switched between available HM2 as opposed to extra EH-101 being needed) IOT provide the persistent AEW coverage.

 

[OldTex]

That problem may be a temporary one though, as the ~600lb Vigilance pod described earlier is "only" ~100lbs over the max payload for MQ8C.

The reported payload weight for the MQ-8C at 500 lb (Naval Technology)(although NAVAIR reports the payload as over 700lbs) is well able to take the AN/ZPY-8 (at 63lbs per module for a total weight of around 200lbs). The question is whether the ZPY-8 has the air MTI capability claimed by Leonardo.
Perhaps a mix of MQ-8C (for the LHDs) and MQ-8B (for the AWD and FFGs) operating with the same radar would meet a possible requirement for persistent AEW of the ARG and escorted logistic support elements.

 

[John Fedup]

Power level of the laser on the ship is 150Kw. Not 150 Mw. If it was 150 Mw it would be a whole different ball game and wold require some pretty large nuclear reactors on board.

The Navy Just Tested Its Most Powerful Laser Yet

It's the most destructive laser to go to sea.

www.popularmechanics.com

My bad, definitely a big difference.

 

[Todjaeger]

If an embarked Landng Force (of at least battle group (BG) size) and an ARG (of 2 capital ships, a LSD, an AWD and an FFG) are not "critical" to the ADF I am not sure what would be critical. The navies which have invested in manned helicopter based AEW appear to have made that decision for their principle force projection capabilities (i.e. their CSG or the equivalent). For the ADF the principle force projection capability is the ARG. While the principle AOs for the ARG are likely to be the SW Pacific and the Indonesia archipelago to the north there is no guarantee that the RAAF will be able to provide persistent AEW for the ARG and its associated logistic support elements.
The trade-off between the unmanned/UAS helicopter AEW and the manned helicopter AEW options is the capability vs endurance trade-off. Use of the AN/ZPY-8 on the MQ-8C, while meeting the endurance criteria, is largely an unknown quantity wrt AEW. While Leonardo claim that the Osprey 30/50 has an air MTI capability, both the USN and HM Coastguard use the radar primarily for surface search and surveillance. Manned helicopter AEW, such as Merlin HM2 with Crowsnest or the EH-101, have the AEW capability they lack the endurance (~5hrs vs ~12hrs for the MQ-8C) and hence require more airframes (with the Crowsnest being switched between available HM2 as opposed to extra EH-101 being needed) IOT provide the persistent AEW coverage.

I think you misunderstood what I was posting. What I was posting is than an AEW capability is not critical. Given that the RAN does not have an AEW capability, and the ADF only recently introduced an AEW&C capability, then such a capability is not critical. It is, or would be, quite advantageous to have, because of the greater sensor footprint and thus increased SA such a capability can provide.

With respect to the ARG and/or any sort of embarked landing force, an AEW capability could be advantageous, but is again not necessary for the unit to function. Also, depending on force composition, an AEW capability could actually prove detrimental to the operation of the embarked force, since it could negatively impact the number of helicopters available for lift ops.

 

[OldTex]

I think you misunderstood what I was posting. What I was posting is than an AEW capability is not critical. Given that the RAN does not have an AEW capability, and the ADF only recently introduced an AEW&C capability, then such a capability is not critical. It is, or would be, quite advantageous to have, because of the greater sensor footprint and thus increased SA such a capability can provide.

No, I did not misunderstand what you posted although I do disagree with it. Your own words are that 'an AEW capability is not critical' and you justify that statement with the argument that because the ADF has only recently introduced an AEW&C capability then such a capability is not critical. If the the capability is not critical to the ADF then why has it been introduced at the expense of other capabilities, in both time and money terms.

While an AEW capability to support the ARG (or other combined fleet units) is not necessary (your words) for the ARG (or fleet unit) to function but it might just be necessary for it to survive. As I wrote earlier, if the MRH-90 could support the Crowsnest system then consideration of the procurement of additional MRH-90 airframes (perhaps 4-5) to augment the pool of available airframes, without diminishing the primary trooplift capability. Also manned helicopter AEW lack the endurance of UAS helicopter AEW, specifically the MQ-8C (~5hrs vs ~12hrs for the MQ-8C) and hence require more airframes IOT provide the persistent AEW coverage.

 

[Boagrius]

I think you misunderstood what I was posting. What I was posting is than an AEW capability is not critical. Given that the RAN does not have an AEW capability, and the ADF only recently introduced an AEW&C capability, then such a capability is not critical. It is, or would be, quite advantageous to have, because of the greater sensor footprint and thus increased SA such a capability can provide.

With respect to the ARG and/or any sort of embarked landing force, an AEW capability could be advantageous, but is again not necessary for the unit to function. Also, depending on force composition, an AEW capability could actually prove detrimental to the operation of the embarked force, since it could negatively impact the number of helicopters available for lift ops.

I think the importance of an organic AEW capability for the RAN is probably increasing now, mainly due to the threat posed by regional (primarily PRC) supersonic sea skimming ASMs.

Other posters would have more expertise on the subject than I do, but having to wait until weapons like YJ12 or YJ18 crest the radar horizon before defensive measures could be taken strikes me as an increasingly dangerous, and potentially untenable proposition.

Even against large salvos of subsonic ASMs, the restricted reaction time must put immense pressure on a ship's ability to support multiple interceptors simultaneously and to effectively employ soft kill measures like Nulka. This is being aided somewhat by fitting ARH seekerheads to ESSM, SM2 and SM6 (alleviating some of the bottleneck created by the need for target illumination radars), but I'd wager that true 24/7 OTH targeting would have a disproportionately positive effect on ship survivability going forward.

The USN appears to be addressing this problem via NIFC-CA, using the E2D to provide OTHR cueing to ARH SAMs like SM6 at extended range, but the RAN must obviously look to alternative solutions in the absence of CATOBAR CVs.

 

[swerve]

...
I too was wondering if Lockheed Martin is still offering the Vigilance pod? It's designed as a pair of conformal, removable radar pods that utilize helicopter weapons stations on each side to provide 360 coverage along with roll-on/roll-off consoles. The original prototypes used APG-81 which is useful commonality for F-35 users although strapping two F-35 radars on a helicopter probably has cost, size, and weight limitations. The last prototypes switched to an Elta Systems radar. ...

I wonder if the ELTA radar is the same as that fitted to the ELTA/Embraer AEW project announced last year.
Portal Embraer

 

[Redlands18]

No, I did not misunderstand what you posted although I do disagree with it. Your own words are that 'an AEW capability is not critical' and you justify that statement with the argument that because the ADF has only recently introduced an AEW&C capability then such a capability is not critical. If the the capability is not critical to the ADF then why has it been introduced at the expense of other capabilities, in both time and money terms.

While an AEW capability to support the ARG (or other combined fleet units) is not necessary (your words) for the ARG (or fleet unit) to function but it might just be necessary for it to survive. As I wrote earlier, if the MRH-90 could support the Crowsnest system then consideration of the procurement of additional MRH-90 airframes (perhaps 4-5) to augment the pool of available airframes, without diminishing the primary trooplift capability. Also manned helicopter AEW lack the endurance of UAS helicopter AEW, specifically the MQ-8C (~5hrs vs ~12hrs for the MQ-8C) and hence require more airframes IOT provide the persistent AEW coverage.

I have to totally agree with @OldTex here on this, the RAN is highly unlikely to be conducting Ops alone against an enemy that has the means to launch persistent Air strikes, its far more likely to be part of an Alliance and a critical part of that operation is going to be a persistent AEW coverage, that may be in the form of Hawkeye’s operating off USN Carriers, Helicopter based systems operating from TF Ships or E-7/3/2s operating from nearby Airbases.
In the era of Naval Guided Missiles, only 1 Navy has had to defend itself against persistent Air Attacks and they done that without AEW cover, the cost was horrendous and the speed the RN put together the Sea King AEW program post FI shows they learnt that lesson very quickly.
Not having an organic AEW doesn’t prove that the RAN thinks AEW isn’t critical to operate in a hostile environment, just as not having an organic Fixed Wing Combat Wing does, it would take an extraordinary set of circumstances for an Australian Government to send a RAN TF into a hostile zone without decent Air Cover, including Fighters and AEW Aircraft.

 

[ngatimozart]

I wonder if the ELTA radar is the same as that fitted to the ELTA/Embraer AEW project announced last year.
Portal Embraer

ELTA do have this one https://www.iai.co.il/p/elm-2052 which I suspect could be mounted on a variety of platforms. There's also this https://www.iai.co.il/p/elm-20600-rtp, but it's more for attacking surface targets.

 

[Rob c]

Talking of radar I have noticed this article in the msn news which could provide a revolution in detection abilities in all area's as some of the possibilities when you think about it are mind boggling.

Physicists Just Built The First Working Prototype Of A 'Quantum Radar'

 

[ngatimozart]

Talking of radar I have noticed this article in the msn news which could provide a revolution in detection abilities in all area's as some of the possibilities when you think about it are mind boggling.

Physicists Just Built The First Working Prototype Of A 'Quantum Radar'

Maybe, but from the engineering side we'll wait and see. Theoretically, it is indeed mind boggling and it'd be practically jam and spoof proof. It'd also make a first rate highly secure comms tool. However having said that it's a fantasy at the moment.

 

[Mark_Evans]

My bad, definitely a big difference.

Tis ok. You are just a decade ahead of your time.
1 MW lasers already in development and so is energy storage capacity.
Who knows where we will be in 10 years time. Probably standard for ciws and trialling high power for fleet defence.
Not a naval weapons expert but have seen a lot of how technology can transform how we do things in our daily lives.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Can't believe this Teddy Sheehan VC business.

Sheean battle rages on with PM in Lambie's sights after rebuke for Defence Minister
Papers are full of it today as well

PM won't reconsider top honour for sailor

The prime minister will not intervene in the decision to deny war hero Teddy Sheean a posthumous Victoria...

www.canberratimes.com.au

I don't get why it doesn't meet the requirements?

 

[t68]

Can't believe this Teddy Sheehan VC business.

Sheean battle rages on with PM in Lambie's sights after rebuke for Defence Minister
Papers are full of it today as well

PM won't reconsider top honour for sailor

The prime minister will not intervene in the decision to deny war hero Teddy Sheean a posthumous Victoria...

www.canberratimes.com.au

I don't get why it doesn't meet the requirements?

I agree how would he not meet the “threshold” to be Award a VC, no disrespect to past VC recipients such Mark Donaldson, VC & Daniel Keighran, VC. I put their actions on par with one another and all three put themselves in harms way for the greater good of there comrades as did Edward "Teddy" Sheean

 

[Redlands18]

I agree how would he not meet the “threshold” to be Award a VC, no disrespect to past VC recipients such Mark Donaldson, VC & Daniel Keighran, VC. I put their actions on par with one another and all three put themselves in harms way for the greater good of there comrades as did Edward "Teddy" Sheean

I agree, how many RAN Personal served in the 2 World Wars and not one VC although he probably has a greater honour in being only 1 of only 7 RAN personnel to have a commissioned Ship of the RAN named after him.

 

[ASSAIL]

I agree, how many RAN Personal served in the 2 World Wars and not one VC although he probably as a greater honour in being only 1 of 7 RAN personnel to have a commissioned Ship of the RAN named after him.

Believe I or not VCs for the RAN were awarded through the RN as the ships were operating under the control of the British Admiralty
Army and RAAF through Australia.
In 1914 Australia placed its Navy under the command and control of the Admiralty.
On 30 Aug 1939 they did so again with one proviso listed in a Secret Cable “The Commonwealth Government desire to place the the ships of the RAN and their personnel at the disposal of the UK government but find it necessary to stipulate that no ships should be taken from Australian waters without prior concurrence of the Commonwealth Government”
There has been previous discussion about Sheehan and moves by Senator Guy Barnett in the early 1990s moved an opposition motion to award three posthumous VCs, him included but not accepted.
There was argument that the GOTD had no power to grant the awards as this was the prerogative of the Crown/GG