Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Monitor66]

So where would you mount the SeaRam ? you will still have coverage and launch issues with it.

Space and weight for VLS has been reserved in the design in the superstructure, I don't see that an 8 cell VLS with say 4 quad packed ESSM and VL-ASROC etc is overkill, you are after all arguing for the need for defensive weapons for a large high value asset

Cheers

That's my whole point. There's no obvious provision. Forward starboard quarter alongside ramp? I don't know.

I am arguing for a modicum of self-defence capability. Recognising that a balance must be struck between cost, capability, available space, supportability etc, SeaRAM is an ideal choice.

Going from just four Typhoons to ESSM is a massive step up, and most unusual for the RAN in the way it has armed its amphibs. If space and weight for VLS with ESSM etc has in fact been provided in the design then that's fantastic and welcome obviously.

 

[Monitor66]

Actually just to clear that up there's several of us who have no interest in "pontificating" about the F-35 and would rather see the whole topic go the way of the dinosaur - maybe you could bear that in mind before you start making generalisations.

Those who did not pontificate would surely know I was not referring to them.

 

[Volkodav]

That's my whole point. There's no obvious provision. Forward starboard quarter alongside ramp? I don't know.

I am arguing for a modicum of self-defence capability. Recognising that a balance must be struck between cost, capability, available space, supportability etc, SeaRAM is an ideal choice.

Going from just four Typhoons to ESSM is a massive step up, and most unusual for the RAN in the way it has armed its amphibs. If space and weight for VLS with ESSM etc has in fact been provided in the design then that's fantastic and welcome obviously.

My understanding is the basic combat system installed is the SAAB 9LV similar to that on the ANZACs. Now Assuming the Australian baseline LHD retained provision for the VLS then maybe the ANZAC ASMD upgrades could also be retro fitted to the LHDs down the track. The change would be transformational.

 

[Monitor66]

My understanding is the basic combat system installed is the SAAB 9LV similar to that on the ANZACs. Now Assuming the Australian baseline LHD retained provision for the VLS then maybe the ANZAC ASMD upgrades could also be retro fitted to the LHDs down the track. The change would be transformational.

That would be something, if it's technically feasible, for a midlife upgrade maybe.

It would be interesting to learn if there is simply design space provisions for a VLS (i.e on paper only), or if the structural provisions are already built in. If the latter then the VLS container could be craned into the space, connected up and wired into the control room for plug and play (simplified install procedure obviously).

If it's a paper provision only then install will be no small matter and take months to plan, approve and then more months to execute. How compatible in a short warning contingency that would be is unclear.

 

[alexsa]

That's my whole point. There's no obvious provision. Forward starboard quarter alongside ramp? I don't know.

I am arguing for a modicum of self-defence capability. Recognising that a balance must be struck between cost, capability, available space, supportability etc, SeaRAM is an ideal choice.

Going from just four Typhoons to ESSM is a massive step up, and most unusual for the RAN in the way it has armed its amphibs. If space and weight for VLS with ESSM etc has in fact been provided in the design then that's fantastic and welcome obviously.

Given the Stbd bow and both port and stbd quarter are on structural decks (as in part of hull continuaity) I would expect that SeaRAM or CIWS woould not pose a problem from a weight perspective. Not sure about the Typhoon platform on the port bow.

The bow section is set down and away from the flight deck so the discharge fromthe the back fo ther mount may not be a hugh issue in that location.

Cannot see why the RAN would go with Sea Ceptor given we have ESSM. SeaRAM I can see given the 20mm CIWS is prettty much a Hail Mary solution and this provides a easy retorfit for the CIWS fitted ships.

This being said....... in the current budget this is all sematics

 

[Monitor66]

Given the Stbd bow and both port and stbd quarter are on structural decks (as in part of hull continuaity) I would expect that SeaRAM or CIWS woould not pose a problem from a weight perspective. Not sure about the Typhoon platform on the port bow.

The bow section is set down and away from the flight deck so the discharge fromthe the back fo ther mount may not be a hugh issue in that location.

Cannot see why the RAN would go with Sea Ceptor given we have ESSM. SeaRAM I can see given the 20mm CIWS is prettty much a Hail Mary solution and this provides a easy retorfit for the CIWS fitted ships.

This being said....... in the current budget this is all sematics

Hell, I'd be happy with two Millennium 35mm gun systems in place of two 25mm Typhoons (one at the starboard bow and the other at port quarterdeck. Plenty of space available in each location (6sqm required per mount). All-up weight 3,200kg.

Using the outstanding AHEAD ammunition, keep out ranges for the Millennium gun are 1,500-3,500m, with each round dispensing 152 tungsten sub-projectiles. Rate of fire is 200rpm against surface and 1,000rpm against airborne threats such as ASMs. On mount ammo capacity of 250 rds is sufficient for 10-20 engagements.

In terms of cost, a European navy this year ordered two Millennium gun systems complete with spares, technical support and training for under AUD$20 million. Absolute peanuts.

Impressive live fire footage below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiMMZ8RzeIg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfyNz2I02Vs

 

[Todjaeger]

Given the Stbd bow and both port and stbd quarter are on structural decks (as in part of hull continuaity) I would expect that SeaRAM or CIWS woould not pose a problem from a weight perspective. Not sure about the Typhoon platform on the port bow.

The bow section is set down and away from the flight deck so the discharge fromthe the back fo ther mount may not be a hugh issue in that location.

Cannot see why the RAN would go with Sea Ceptor given we have ESSM. SeaRAM I can see given the 20mm CIWS is prettty much a Hail Mary solution and this provides a easy retorfit for the CIWS fitted ships.

This being said....... in the current budget this is all sematics

Depending on future planning and developments for the RAN, Sea Ceptor/CAMM might provide more options and better flexibility. ESSM for the LHD's IMO might have too great a negative impact on operations, both in terms of needing a clear path for the missile and exhaust to leave the VLS without damaging any antennas or sensors, and the need for illuminators whose RF emissions could de-sensitize some of the comms.

A Sea Ceptor/CAMM VLS likely would not have as great an impact on launch, and then does not need illuminators for guidance.

Where Sea Ceptor might be of future interest to the RAN is the potential to mount the VLS launcher on platforms which ordinarily might be too small to carry SAM's. Whatever gets selected as the LCH replacements, an OPV-type replacement for the ACPB's, etc. SeaRAM, like the Phalanx, requires a reinforced mounting point to connect to, and a clear firing arc. Depending on the vessel, those two requirements might be hard to arrange.

As for the Millenium Gun, I had thought that there was through-deck penetration, unlike the SeaRAM and Phalanx. Can anyone check and confirm that or not?

-Cheers

 

[rand0m]

Just to open a can of worms

The chief also revealed that the military was working on an option to possibly equip the navy’s new 27,000-tonne Landing Helicopter Dock ships (LHDs) with ‘jump-jet’ versions of the strike fighter.
The Abbott Government strongly favours buying the Short Take Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 used by the US Marine Corps for the final squadron of RAAF jets to be purchased after 2025.
While the original Spanish design LHD was capable of carrying the fighter jet, the Australian versions have been completed without the equipment necessary to operate fixed-wing aircraft.
“It’s got its challenges and that is what we will work through over the next few months is to articulate what those challenges are, what’s the additional costs, if that’s the way somebody wanted to go,” Air Marshal Brown said.

RAAF chief hits out at defence bureaucracy, warns F-35 fighter may not be properly integrated | News.com.au

 

[weegee]

Just to open a can of worms



RAAF chief hits out at defence bureaucracy, warns F-35 fighter may not be properly integrated | News.com.au

I find it interesting hearing the RAAF boss talking about the B's for the Canberras. I am getting excited about the white paper to see which direction the Libs will take us.

 

[Monitor66]

Depending on future planning and developments for the RAN, Sea Ceptor/CAMM might provide more options and better flexibility. ESSM for the LHD's IMO might have too great a negative impact on operations, both in terms of needing a clear path for the missile and exhaust to leave the VLS without damaging any antennas or sensors, and the need for illuminators whose RF emissions could de-sensitize some of the comms.

A Sea Ceptor/CAMM VLS likely would not have as great an impact on launch, and then does not need illuminators for guidance.

Where Sea Ceptor might be of future interest to the RAN is the potential to mount the VLS launcher on platforms which ordinarily might be too small to carry SAM's. Whatever gets selected as the LCH replacements, an OPV-type replacement for the ACPB's, etc. SeaRAM, like the Phalanx, requires a reinforced mounting point to connect to, and a clear firing arc. Depending on the vessel, those two requirements might be hard to arrange.

As for the Millenium Gun, I had thought that there was through-deck penetration, unlike the SeaRAM and Phalanx. Can anyone check and confirm that or not?

-Cheers

No deck penetration required for Millennium gun. It's just bolt-on. Self-contained and self-powered (does not need ship's power supply to operate). Hooks into the ship's existing search and track radar and fire control system.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I find it interesting hearing the RAAF boss talking about the B's for the Canberras. I am getting excited about the white paper to see which direction the Libs will take us.

it means that abbott is doing a rudd - as at no stage have navy looked at JSF for the phatships

procurement by direction

 

[TheRealist]

As for the Millenium Gun, I had thought that there was through-deck penetration, unlike the SeaRAM and Phalanx. Can anyone check and confirm that or not?

According to the Rheinmetal site, virtually no deck penetration is required. Sounds like a fairly straight forward installation.

 

[Todjaeger]

No deck penetration required for Millennium gun. It's just bolt-on. Self-contained and self-powered (does not need ship's power supply to operate). Hooks into the ship's existing search and track radar and fire control system.

Does it require more or less mounting reinforcement than the Phalanx? AFAIK the Phalanx in service is also bolt-on, with some quick connects for cooling and ship power. No throughdeck penetration (unlike Goalkeeper) but the deck does need some reinforcement to handle the additional weight and vibration during firing.

If the mountings are compatible, I would be in favour of retiring the Mk 15's and the Typhoons, as the Millenium Gun is IMO a more versatile and capable weapon.

-Cheers

 

[John Newman]

it means that abbott is doing a rudd - as at no stage have navy looked at JSF for the phatships

procurement by direction

Procurement by direction, yes indeed!

Every time a new DWP is produced I am always in two minds about the accuracy and legitimacy of such a paper.

On the one side, the 'eternal optimist' in me says that a new DWP should reflect the true position we are in and that the recommendations/direction set by the DWP reflect our position in the world and the recommendations reflect the monies needed to be spent are accurate.

On the other side is the complete and 100% cynic in me (which is more dominant as I get older, greyer and grumpier!), a new DWP is only a reflection of the political bias of the particular party in Government AND how much they are prepared (or not) to spend on Defence.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle(?), not that I'll every get the chance to see it, but I'd love to see the actual difference between the classified version of a DWP and the public DWP on what defence and the Government 'actually' recommends what we need to spend to achieve that goal.

Anyway, if the Government of the day want's F-35B's, we will get them (if they are in power long enough), is that right or wrong? Well that's an entirely different question!!!!

 

[Volkodav]

With the current thought bubble we gain F-35B at sea in a limited fashion but lose the lift of one or both LHDs in exchange around 2023. Assuming that an ARG is set in concrete then we either need additional amphibious lift or a dedicated platform for the Lightnings by that time.

 

[Monitor66]

Does it require more or less mounting reinforcement than the Phalanx? AFAIK the Phalanx in service is also bolt-on, with some quick connects for cooling and ship power. No throughdeck penetration (unlike Goalkeeper) but the deck does need some reinforcement to handle the additional weight and vibration during firing.

If the mountings are compatible, I would be in favour of retiring the Mk 15's and the Typhoons, as the Millenium Gun is IMO a more versatile and capable weapon.

-Cheers

Way less. The entire mount is only 3,200kg, about half of Phalanx. Requires no coolant or ship's power supply.

Critically, Millennium's effectiveness against ASMs (35mm gun; AHEAD air burst ammo) is vastly superior to Phalanx.

Agree with moving on from Phalanx. Technology has evolved and it is now a legacy system that has been left behind by new gen naval gun systems such as Millennium.

 

[SouthernSky]

Well at least we now have a couple of capital ships to argue over. I certainly won't be getting my knickers in a bunch over it's configuration at launch though.

 

[gf0012-aust]

a carrier is just plain dumb for our force structure. there's a reason why the PACRIM will hold the largest number of subs in any of the major oceans by 2025

theres a reason why the fastest and largest build up of vessel type are subs (ironically closely followed by aviation capable assets)

12 subs was a figure that everyone assumed would get pruned, but Rudd was more prescient than given credit for. As I understand it wasn't a thought bubble in isolation, he did seek advice

In the case of JSF jumpers, it goes against all the advice and will just screw the defence budget for decades as all the flow on and collateral costs (let alone sustainment) will be gi-normous

 

[hauritz]

I find it interesting hearing the RAAF boss talking about the B's for the Canberras. I am getting excited about the white paper to see which direction the Libs will take us.

It will all come down to politics in the end. The white paper will say whatever the Abbott government wants it to say.

Decisions like this are not made purely for military reasons. There is the prestige factor of operating an aircraft carrier ... even if it is a second rate one. Then there is appeasing our allies, specifically the US. They would probably welcome the idea of a few more allied shipborne fighters in the region. Such a decision would also send a message to any potential foes.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It will all come down to politics in the end. The white paper will say whatever the Abbott government wants it to say.

when Lab was in it was rumoured to have boomeranged a minimum of 3 times until the Govt was happy

Decisions like this are not made purely for military reasons. There is the prestige factor of operating an aircraft carrier ... even if it is a second rate one. Then there is appeasing our allies, specifically the US. They would probably welcome the idea of a few more allied shipborne fighters in the region. Such a decision would also send a message to any potential foes.

i recall reading somewhere recently that in a perfect world the USN wanted a minimum of 30 x ARG/ESG task forces - ie separate to the 10-11 CBG's.

the collapse of the 1000 ship navy idea makes them all the more receptive to neighbours in the PACRIM developing an expeditionary capability.

I suspect that they would be quietly jolly that the principle militaries in region are all buying new subs, all either have or will have flat decks of some form or fashion, and that 4 of them now have JSF jumpers under active consideration.

as opposed to europe where the GFC and an optimistic outlook on world relations resulted in a drawdown and reduction in absolute capability, the USG has had no need to have the defence mantra speech in the PACRIM as all are gunning up with minimal prompting. although there has been some rapid rethinking in europe since events in Ukraine