Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Hopefully not a silly question.

Would the recent MH-60R Seahawk helicopter ditching in the Philippine Sea have sunk like a lead sinker or do the helicopters now have some emergency flotation gear for such a contingency.
I think this was talked about when a Blackhawk crash landed on the flight deck of a frigate and went over board.

Regards S
It was actually the Manoora,
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hopefully not a silly question.

Would the recent MH-60R Seahawk helicopter ditching in the Philippine Sea have sunk like a lead sinker or do the helicopters now have some emergency flotation gear for such a contingency.
I think this was talked about when a Blackhawk crash landed on the flight deck of a frigate and went over board.

Regards S
The Romeo's actually had the emergency flotation device removed that was in previous models, so would have sunk pretty quickly.


Cheers
 

Aussie Coms

New Member
ASW is a combined operation and the days of a single ship searching for submarines is gone.
Within the TF there will be a number of options, plenty of helos and a sprinkling of ASROC if the USN is involved.
If we are being hunted by submarines we are involved in a hot war (see RAN CONOPS) and we are part of a multi National TF So the scenario is not “a single point of failure” and even if we were engaged in an national ARG there will be back up.
In any case, the Hobarts will be involved as the primary AAW asset and as such they will be much closer to the HVU, other escorts including the Hunters will be further away in the ASW screen
Can’t you just dial up a P8, or a loyal wingman or 2, with a few Mk46 ?
And , in the future, won’t we have UAV‘s on most, if not all ships, including Arafura OPV, which could drop a few sonobuoys
So, network effects, loss of one asset doesn’t denigrate the network
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The reason the Hunters will be so important will be the level of redundancy and the range of options it will offer. It will come with a mission bay packed with UAV, USV and UUVs. ASW helos are a vital asset right now but circa 2030 it will just be one of many options that will be available to the fleet.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can’t you just dial up a P8, or a loyal wingman or 2, with a few Mk46 ?
And , in the future, won’t we have UAV‘s on most, if not all ships, including Arafura OPV, which could drop a few sonobuoys
So, network effects, loss of one asset doesn’t denigrate the network
No.
Fixed wing aircraft such as the P8 conduct their searches well away from a task group either ahead along the line of advance or in focal choke points.
Sonar buoys need to be dropped in patterns and then monitored, in the case of a P3B (I’m not current with a P8) the search area can cover 30000 square miles, the MHR-60s considerably less (again I’m unaware of their search patterns)
UAV’s won’t have the payload or monitoring sensors and OPVs will not be equipped for ASW and even if they were they are I’ll suited to TF operations. Being a truck for a few sonar buoys is useless.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Article on the first test block for the Hunter class.

Interesting that they mention 24VLS and Sea Ceptor. Did someone mix up the T26/CSC or have Australia changed their tune on loadout?
I think the mix up is more likely going on that article, the quotes on the weapons fit sounded more generic to the Type 26 and the Author is still quoting the 8800t and 150m, when we have confirmation that the Hunter will be bigger.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I think the mix up is more likely going on that article, the quotes on the weapons fit sounded more generic to the Type 26 and the Author is still quoting the 8800t and 150m, when we have confirmation that the Hunter will be bigger.
Agreed. Also the article is 3 years old so it definitely does not reflect current planning by the RAN.

Tas
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
No.
Fixed wing aircraft such as the P8 conduct their searches well away from a task group either ahead along the line of advance or in focal choke points.
Sonar buoys need to be dropped in patterns and then monitored, in the case of a P3B (I’m not current with a P8) the search area can cover 30000 square miles, the MHR-60s considerably less (again I’m unaware of their search patterns)
UAV’s won’t have the payload or monitoring sensors and OPVs will not be equipped for ASW and even if they were they are I’ll suited to TF operations. Being a truck for a few sonar buoys is useless.
Just as an aside to this, the Anzacs were in the process of getting an upgrade just as I was leaving in 2011, to allow them to receive & monitor data from sonar-buoys. I don't know if this has been rolled out onto the Hobarts, cheers.
 

Trackmaster

Member
My point is that the linked article referring to the VLS and Sea Ceptor was written 3 years ago. I am not disputing that the main article is recent.
Tas
To me, the VLS and Sea Ceptor paragraph was a straight copy and paste out of a document referring to the Royal Navy version. Again, to me, looks like lazy work from someone in the "Communications" Department.
 

Massive

Active Member
And a reminder that the RAN has many other missions to build and train for that does not involve hauling the Army's gear from point A to point B. Just sayin'.
The ARG looks a lot like a whole of ADF effort - and that is for a battlegroup centred on a single battalion (4 maneuver elements).

Which shows how hard it is to generate this kind of capability - and how few countries are likely to be able to do so.

Regards,

Massive
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The ARG looks a lot like a whole of ADF effort - and that is for a battlegroup centred on a single battalion (4 maneuver elements).

Which shows how hard it is to generate this kind of capability - and how few countries are likely to be able to do so.

Regards,

Massive
The scenario that interests me the most is a landing force based on a single LHD with escorts.
The premise is that the flight deck and combined hangar / vehicle deck are aviation focused.
Should be about 24 helicopters with around 350 Pax in support.

This would leave approximately 700 bunks for Army and whatever combination of vehicles you would want to deploy housed within the heavy vehicle deck and landing craft.

As a maneuver force of influence in the littoral environment, I can envisage many scenarios for it's deployment.
A small combat team with large maritime and aviation support.

Not an insignificant package.

Regards S
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
The contractual structure was quite normal for a capability acquisition of this complexity. If you’re involved as customer or supplier, you need to have a very clear understanding of the contractual position at all times, and what that implies in respect of how it constrains, or does not constrain, the other party.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Not strictly an RAN post but a valuable asset to Australia's maritime security, the Australian Antarctic Division's new icebreaker, RSV Nuyina, arrived in her home port of Hobart for the first time a few moments ago.

Unfortunately, she arrived on a bleak, cloudy, windswept morning during the first lockdown in Tasmania this year so the nearest I could get for a photo opportunity was the deck of my house several kilometres away.

Tas

Nuyina entering her home port of Hobart for first time 161021.JPG
 

Joe Black

Active Member
Hey folks, just a question about painting the mast black. I have noticed that they have painted the mast on the Canberra class black, and now it appears that HMAS Ballarat has a main mast painted black as well. I wonder what would be the reason to do so.

As a reference, here's a new RAN video just posted a day ago:
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hey folks, just a question about painting the mast black. I have noticed that they have painted the mast on the Canberra class black, and now it appears that HMAS Ballarat has a main mast painted black as well. I wonder what would be the reason to do so.

As a reference, here's a new RAN video just posted a day ago:
It's probably either in homage to Joe Black, DT member, or more likely to hide the mess that exhaust from the funnels makes.

oldsig
 

seaspear

Active Member
Is there any possibility the LOTE program for the Collins class undertaken by SAAB could involve cutting in half the submarine to add further compartments and actually lengthening the submarines?
There are articles SAAB has performed this on the Gotland class to add further capability,is this an opportunity to add further capabilities to this class
 
Top