Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Thanks for the reply Volkodav. I do realise that the Collins class have had their fair share of problems but these have been blown out of all proportions by the mainstream media. Too many men on the street regard the Collins as a total failure. You only have to read the posts on this board and respectable Defence publications by well informed people like yourself to know this is simply not true.

The tendency was to blame the design and designer, the builder and maintainer, and especially the party that was in government when the project was signed off. The truth is since the initial mediation, that is pretty much expected on any new class of submarine, the issue became funding and micro management by the customer and owner, the Commonwealth of Australia. It is simple, if you don't spend enough on maintenance and you don't follow the advice of experts things will go pear shaped.

This wasn't just the Collins class, look at the amphibs, supply shops, frigate upgrade, etc. It was all being done atrociously long before it crashed and burned under the previous government. Yes they should have done more sooner but the rot was well underway before they took office.

 

[hairyman]

The Norwegian anti ship missile that we put money and some design into,, will the RAN eventually have them on our ships? I know the RAAF will have them on the F35. I see all talk about new naval missiles but they are all from the USA.

 

[aussienscale]

With regards to an ASM system, I think Raven's post has pointed us in the right direction here, everyone has concentrated on that one paragraph (4.46), but the following paragraph's after that tell more of the story in my mind, certainly a work in progress !

"Other Strike Capabilities
4.46 The Government will ensure that our maritime and land forces have
improved strike capabilities. This will include acquisition of new
deployable land-based anti-ship missiles to support operations to
protect deployed forces and vital offshore assets such as oil and natural
gas platforms.
Missile Defence
4.47 The Government is concerned by the growing threat posed by ballistic
and cruise missile capability and their proliferation in the Indo-Pacific
and Middle East regions. While the threat of an intercontinental
ballistic missile attack on Australia is low, longer-range and
submarine-launched ballistic and cruise missiles could threaten
Australian territory, and shorter-range ballistic and cruise missiles pose
a threat to our deployed forces.
4.48 Australia is committed to working with the United States to counter
the ballistic missile threat. Australia and the United States have
established a bilateral working group to examine options for potential
Australian contributions to integrated air and missile defence in the region. Australia’s priorities for the working group are to develop a
more detailed understanding of options to protect our forces which are
deployed in the region from ballistic missile attack.
4.49 The Government will upgrade the ADF’s existing air defence surveillance
system, including command, control and communications systems,
sensors and targeting systems, which could be used as a foundation
for development of deployed, in-theatre missile defence capabilities,
should future strategic circumstances require it. The Government
will also acquire new ground-based radars from around 2020 and
will expand Australia’s access to situational awareness information,
including space-based systems."

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ocean Protector is to be operated as a Naval Auxiliary under the Naval Flag Administration so this is another first as well.

have they sorted out who's pay structure they come under? (mil or commercial)

 

[ASSAIL]

Now that's an interesting possibility, rather than choke points, most of which would require deployment of the capability into the sovereign territory of one or more of our neighbours, we could instead be talking defence of Australian territories that would be under threat because they are being used as forward operating bases. Even then, would it not be cheaper to stand up another squadron or two of F-35s, or keep the SHs for longer?

The way the capability is listed in the Program is confusing. The deployable ASuMs are listed in the naval section and funded with a new naval strike missile to the tune of $1-2b. This may indicate that they may be carried to offshore platforms or strategic choke points and operated by ship based detached crews???

 

[gf0012-aust]

The way the capability is listed in the Program is confusing. The deployable ASuMs are listed in the naval section and funded with a new naval strike missile to the tune of $1-2b. This may indicate that they may be carried to offshore platforms or strategic choke points and operated by ship based detached crews???

I can't see where RAN is structured to do this. It's either a "marines", big army (woodside) type role, it could even be a RAAF ADG crewing role (at a stretch)

too much detail is missing to form a picture

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can people please check the layout of their posts before moving on....

"quotes" are a bit of a lottery in some cases and it means that Mods are following up and having to clean up the threads

doing one or two is ok, doing a bakers dozen across the forums in 12 hrs can challenge the disposition

 

[rand0m]

A few questions that I'm confused on re the white paper;

Q. Are we getting an additional 3 Hobart class AWD's?

Q. F-35B's completely ruled out?

Q. Is there any size re the OPV's & how soon can we expect the start building them?

 

[Boagrius]

A few questions that I'm confused on re the white paper;

Q. Are we getting an additional 3 Hobart class AWD's?

Q. F-35B's completely ruled out?

Q. Is there any size re the OPV's & how soon can we expect the start building them?

1. Nope, just the three that were already planned. The ANZACs will be replaced by 9 new ASW optimised vessels, bringing the total number of Frigates and DDGs in the fleet to 12.

2. Pretty much, or at least for the foreseeable future. There are probably smarter ways to invest scarce defence dollars anyway.

3. Not sure, I'll leave that one for the interpretation of the resident experts.

 

[vonnoobie]

Deployable anti-ship missiles
4.34 Defence will acquire a new deployable land-based anti-ship missile
system from the mid-2020s. This new capability to engage ships from
land will enhance sea control and force protection for ADF deployments.
It could also contribute to protecting vital offshore assets such as oil and
natural gas platforms.

Seeing as its in the RAN section I'd have to say it's almost a garauntee that RAN personnel will be the ones to operate them, Though they are most likely to be operated off of the LHD's and Choules in organisation with the Army.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Q. F-35B's completely ruled out?

They were never in

 

[John Newman]

Q. Is there any size re the OPV's & how soon can we expect the start building them?

See below:

4.37 The acquisition of a class of patrol vessels with greater capacity than
the Armidale Class should enable the destroyer and frigate force to
concentrate on higher tempo, higher risk tasks beyond Australia’s coastal
areas. These larger patrol vessels of around 70–80 metres in length will
be able to embark unmanned aerial, underwater and surface vehicles and
operate larger sea boats than the existing Armidale Class.


It opens it up for a whole range of OPV designs, for example the Damen OPV 1400 is 72m in length:

Ideal Patrol Vessel for marine safety and humanitarian tasks

On the other hand if they could 'stretch' a bit over 80m, then that would open the door for the Damen OPV 1800 (83m) or 1800 Sea Axe (85m) for example:

Patrol Vessel has 4 diesel engines & 2 controllable pitch propellers

Offshore Patrol Vessel 1800 Sea Axe

And of course there are many other designs, the above gives some examples of what's on offer between 70m-80m and a little bit over.


Edit:

As to when they are going to start on the OPV's?? That info has been in the public domain for a while now.

Cutting of steel for the OPV's is planned for a start in 2018 (and while we are at it, cutting of steel for the Future Frigates is planned for a start in 2020).

All your answers are out there, just got to Google it!

 

[RobWilliams]

Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Australia, New Zealand deploy amphibious ships on relief mission to Fiji | IHS Jane's 360

First outing for Canberra, HADR work for Fiji with 3 MRH-90 aboard.

 

[alexsa]

have they sorted out who's pay structure they come under? (mil or commercial)

Blended crew with civilian, navy and border force onboard. an interesting mix.

 

[ASSAIL]

OPVs
3. Not sure, I'll leave that one for the interpretation of the resident experts.

The only indication was between 70 and 80 mtrs
Sorry folks didn't see John Ns post

 

[Stampede]

It's also worth pointing out that land based anti ship missiles isn't just some brand new concept that the White Paper writers thought up on the spot, the capability has been talked about for a long time. It's just that most of the talking has been internal defence planning, not the sort of thing that gets much public attention (although ASPI have written papers about it)

I also think that everyone is thinking the capability will be much bigger and more expensive than it will be in reality. I doubt we will see a large anti-ship missile such as Harpoon or NSM or whatever bought. I think the capability will be more along the lines of an ATACM with an anti-ship seeker head fired from a HIMARS launcher. Essentially, taking an existing capability such as HIMARS (that will by then be in service anyway) and giving it an anti-ship capability as a supplement to its land fires role. Such a capability wouldn't be designed for sinking Chinese aircraft carriers, but more as a supplement to other capabilities to deny the littoral approaches to certain places.

Such a capability would be an order of magnitude smaller and simpler than what I think most people are envisioning.

I could be completely wrong though.

Thanks Raven

Will be interesting to see what transpires.

S

 

[rand0m]

See below:

4.37 The acquisition of a class of patrol vessels with greater capacity than
the Armidale Class should enable the destroyer and frigate force to
concentrate on higher tempo, higher risk tasks beyond Australia’s coastal
areas. These larger patrol vessels of around 70–80 metres in length will
be able to embark unmanned aerial, underwater and surface vehicles and
operate larger sea boats than the existing Armidale Class.


It opens it up for a whole range of OPV designs, for example the Damen OPV 1400 is 72m in length:

Ideal Patrol Vessel for marine safety and humanitarian tasks

On the other hand if they could 'stretch' a bit over 80m, then that would open the door for the Damen OPV 1800 (83m) or 1800 Sea Axe (85m) for example:

Patrol Vessel has 4 diesel engines & 2 controllable pitch propellers

Offshore Patrol Vessel 1800 Sea Axe

And of course there are many other designs, the above gives some examples of what's on offer between 70m-80m and a little bit over.


Edit:

As to when they are going to start on the OPV's?? That info has been in the public domain for a while now.

Cutting of steel for the OPV's is planned for a start in 2018 (and while we are at it, cutting of steel for the Future Frigates is planned for a start in 2020).

All your answers are out there, just got to Google it!

Interesting, the Damen 1400 OPV's hanger isn't rated for the MRH90. Hopefully if they went down that track they'd go with the 1800 or redesigned 1400.

I wasn't aware that info was out there, when will a design be confirmed?

 

[John Newman]

I wasn't aware that info was out there, when will a design be confirmed?

When the Def Min makes the announcement!

But seriously, it's now early 2016 and the plan is to start cutting steel in 2018, so it would be a reasonable bet a lot sooner than later.

The CEP for the OPV's (and Future Frigates) was started 'late-ish' last year, be a reasonable bet that the decision on the OPV's would have to be this year some time (early next at the extreme latest!).

 

[Oberon]

Interesting, the Damen 1400 OPV's hanger isn't rated for the MRH90. Hopefully if they went down that track they'd go with the 1800 or redesigned 1400.

I wasn't aware that info was out there, when will a design be confirmed?

I think the requirement is for the OPVs to be capable of deploying UAVs. And for MRH90s for vertrep and medevac, but not to be hangared.

 

[alexsa]

I think the requirement is for the OPVs to be capable of deploying UAVs. And for MRH90s for vertrep and medevac, but not to be hangared.

I would not get too caught up on 80m be a drop dead length that cannot be exceeded. There are a number of lengths used for ships. For commercial vessels there is

• "measured length" or "load line length" which is used for application of conventions and actually less than the length overall.
• "length overall' (LOA) which is just that and includes any fitted device hanging off either end
• "waterline length"
• "length between perpendiculars" ..... and so forth

Noting the measured length generally excludes bow and stern flare then it is possible that a few additional meters may not be an issue.

for your reading pleasure.....

http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/projecto-navios-i/en/sd-1.2.2-load_lines.pdf
http://www.pfri.uniri.hr/~bknez/Ship’s measurement.pdf

The standards Damen 1800 is 83m LOA which would be a measured length under 80m.