Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

I think the MU90's are ship launched and the Mk54 are air launched. Ideally we would use one. But there have been a number of projects that have had issues that were going to launch these. There was a reason we initially went with the Mu90's because we weren't happy with the american stuff and thought we could get something more capable.

Obviously in the strategic environment we are now in, we can't afford to not have things operational (for decades?).

The RAN must have some pretty full warehouses. From all the stuff pulled off ships or purchased and then not used, not integrated or purchased until something could be integrated. Guns, torpedoes, radars, sonars, missiles etc. If we ever did want to build a corvette, there is a lot of stuff sitting there. Not sure it can all be intergrated.

From memory the sequence of events started with the plan for MU90 to replace the Mk46 on the FFG, FFH, Orion, the existing Seahawks and be part of the weapons fit for the SH-2G's.

But then when the Seasprites were cancelled and the decision was made to also replace the existing Seahawks with the 24 MH-60R's, then of course the MU90 not being integrated for the MH-60R's, that's why the Mk54's were ordered (and it will also be part of the standard fit for the P-8A's too).

Not defending MU90, but I've also read, that the Mk54 has had it's problems too.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not defending MU90, but I've also read, that the Mk54 has had it's problems too.

with qualification. which is why it received improvements arising out of Mk48 mods developed via CBASS

 

[blueorchid]

I think the MU90's are ship launched and the Mk54 are air launched. Ideally we would use one. But there have been a number of projects that have had issues that were going to launch these. There was a reason we initially went with the Mu90's because we weren't happy with the american stuff and thought we could get something more capable.

Obviously in the strategic environment we are now in, we can't afford to not have things operational (for decades?).

The RAN must have some pretty full warehouses. From all the stuff pulled off ships or purchased and then not used, not integrated or purchased until something could be integrated. Guns, torpedoes, radars, sonars, missiles etc. If we ever did want to build a corvette, there is a lot of stuff sitting there. Not sure it can all be intergrated.

The problem now is that on the ANZAC's both models, MU90 already fitted and the MK54 is to be used for the ROMEO's and will need changes to the Magazine's on all of the ANZAC's

 

[John Newman]

with qualification. which is why it received improvements arising out of Mk48 mods developed via CBASS

Thanks for the extra info, I didn't know what the problems were, just that I'd understood that there had been problems.

It's probably going to be a bit of a pain in the butt with the AWD's and Anzac's being equipped with MU90 but also having to carry stocks of Mk54's for their embarked MH60R's.

I think I remember reading that the AWD's will have to have further modifications (after being commissioned?) to be able to carry and store the Mk54's because they were originally designed to only carry MU90.

Anyway, I think we will probably see both types in service for a while to come yet.

 

[t68]

The RAN must have some pretty full warehouses. From all the stuff pulled off ships or purchased and then not used, not integrated or purchased until something could be integrated. Guns, torpedoes, radars, sonars, missiles etc. If we ever did want to build a corvette, there is a lot of stuff sitting there. Not sure it can all be intergrated.

You would be surprised how much stuff is collecting dust in storage, having walked around Wallengara and Oaklands back in the 90's I was gobsmacked at some of the stuff, a military collectors wet dream.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks for the extra info, I didn't know what the problems were, just that I'd understood that there had been problems.

It's probably going to be a bit of a pain in the butt with the AWD's and Anzac's being equipped with MU90 but also having to carry stocks of Mk54's for their embarked MH60R's.

I think I remember reading that the AWD's will have to have further modifications (after being commissioned?) to be able to carry and store the Mk54's because they were originally designed to only carry MU90.

Anyway, I think we will probably see both types in service for a while to come yet.

damn shame when you consider things like HAAWC

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks for the extra info, I didn't know what the problems were, just that I'd understood that there had been problems.

pulled from an oped on HAAWC, and suitably vague

"The Mk 54 is an all-digital lightweight torpedo that has advanced software algorithms from the larger submarine-launched Mark 48 torpedo."

 

[StingrayOZ]

I can see how its happened. But the end result is the same. We probably have enough of some equipment to equip two fleets.

We will have all the radars and essentially the whole masts off the Anzacs, all the stuff off the FFG'S. Much of it isn't even outdated, just small for our purposes.

I wonder if for the LHD defence upgrade if they utilise some of the soon to be surplus equipment.

 

[John Newman]

I can see how its happened. But the end result is the same. We probably have enough of some equipment to equip two fleets.

We will have all the radars and essentially the whole masts off the Anzacs, all the stuff off the FFG'S. Much of it isn't even outdated, just small for our purposes.

I wonder if for the LHD defence upgrade if they utilise some of the soon to be surplus equipment.

I would imagine that the first of the Anzacs are still going to be in commission for another 10 or so years, probably have to wait till then to see what's going to happen (that's if we don't 'gift' them complete to some of our near neighbours!)

The FFG's on the other hand, well yes there's the 6 x 76mm guns, 4 x VLS, the triple torpedo tubes, any minor guns such as mini Typhoon and Phalanx too (but I'd imagine that systems such as mini Typhoon and Phalanx will go into the 'pool' or be reused/upgraded for AWD's and Future Frigates.

For the LHD's, I'd imagine that the first thing that could be recycled from the FFG's is Nulka (which I understand the LHD's are 'fitted for, but not with' currently).

If there was space and weight (I'd imagine weight is not a problem on the LHD's), then there is the VLS for ESSM from the FFG's too.

The next question would be, if Phalanx or SeaRAM was to be fitted, where would they go?

Maybe enlarge the Sponson near the Port bow area (just near the start of the ski ramp), remove the 25mm Typhoon and install either Phalanx or SeaRAM, that would provide a pretty good arc of fire covering most of the Port side of the ship.

Same could be done too for where the two Typhoon mounts are located near the stern, or maybe Sponsons (similar to the ones on the stern of HMS Ocean) might need to be fitted to give a greater arc of fire.

And that leaves the Starboard bow area, again, replace the Typhoon and install either Phalanx or SeaRAM.

 

[Pusser01]

The problem now is that on the ANZAC's both models, MU90 already fitted and the MK54 is to be used for the ROMEO's and will need changes to the Magazine's on all of the ANZAC's

Not much change will be required to the magazine regarding the torpedos, they are pretty much the same size & would use the same racking. Remember, the Anzac's are not capable of re-loading the torpedo tubes at sea, thus they are loaded during ammunitions alongside a wharf. The magazine in the hanger is normally only used for carrying the old mk46's for the older Seahawks.
The main upgrade to the magazine is to make it capable of carrying the Hellfires.
The magazines did receive an upgrade during the mid-2000's to enable the carrying of Penguins, which obviously isn't required anymore.
Cheers

 

[Pusser01]

The FFG's on the other hand, well yes there's the 6 x 76mm guns, 4 x VLS, the triple torpedo tubes, any minor guns such as mini Typhoon and Phalanx too (but I'd imagine that systems such as mini Typhoon and Phalanx will go into the 'pool' or be reused/upgraded for AWD's and Future Frigates.

From memory, only Darwin, Melbourne & Newcastle were fitted for mini-typhoon. They and the Anzacs normally only carry them when on operational deployment. I would imagine there are only a few ship sets that are shared around depending on requirement. It is similar to the Anzacs only carrying Harpoon on occasion.

 

[rockitten]

I would imagine that the first of the Anzacs are still going to be in commission for another 10 or so years, probably have to wait till then to see what's going to happen (that's if we don't 'gift' them complete to some of our near neighbours!)

The FFG's on the other hand, well yes there's the 6 x 76mm guns, 4 x VLS, the triple torpedo tubes, any minor guns such as mini Typhoon and Phalanx too (but I'd imagine that systems such as mini Typhoon and Phalanx will go into the 'pool' or be reused/upgraded for AWD's and Future Frigates.

Taiwan is getting (2+2 optional) 2nd hand "castrated" Perry FFG from USN, if our MK-13 and towed array are available for "transfer/sale", they will want them.

 

[Volkodav]

From memory the biggest difference magazine requirements wise between the Mk-54 and MU90 is the54 is Oto fuel and the 90 is battery. Ironically the F-100 magazine was designed for Mk-46 and Hellfire, modified in the AWD for MU90 and Penguin, then Penguin was dropped and is is being modified again for 54, 90 and Hellfire. Great coats on, great coats off, lets blame ASC for the schedule slip and cost over runs resulting from all the fluffing about, even though the question was asked back when Seasprite and the Seahawk upgrade were cancelled.

 

[AegisFC]

Taiwan is getting (2+2 optional) 2nd hand "castrated" Perry FFG from USN, if our MK-13 and towed array are available for "transfer/sale", they will want them.

For parts maybe, all the under deck equipment is still there and as part of the transfer process the arm will be refitted.

 

[John Newman]

Taiwan is getting (2+2 optional) 2nd hand "castrated" Perry FFG from USN, if our MK-13 and towed array are available for "transfer/sale", they will want them.

I can't imagine that we would ever sell or give Taiwan any military equipment, just can't see that happening.

As for the Anzacs, well maybe they might have a future life elsewhere in our region, I'm sure Indonesia, for example, would be a candidate if we were going to 'gift' them to anyone, and possibly the Philippines too.

Anyway, long way to go yet for the Anzacs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I can't imagine that we would ever sell or give Taiwan any military equipment, just can't see that happening.

If its FMS related then it doesn't become our problem.

effectively any on sale of FMS gear goes back to State Dept. So if we disposed of it the US could set the disposal parameters

ie they might request that the platform be physically disposed of to remove any opportunity for recovery, or they might ask for US FMS gear to be destroyed and we can then do what we want with the hull, or they might ask for the platform to be returned to CONUS at which point its their asset and they can do what they want with it.

Notionally when FMS gear is decommissioned its still under FMS and ITARs provisions and is subject to those disposal and decommissioning provisions

any on-sale to a country such as Taiwan for FMS tagged gear is a US issue, not an AustGov issue as we are bound by those constraints wrapped around original acceptance

 

[ASSAIL]

The tale of the engineering woes of the T 45 in the RN should be a salutary lesson for the RAN when selecting SEA 5000 and shows the benefits of a MOTS solution. the newest kinkiest and shiniest is not always the best solution, surely we learnt that lesson with torpedoes and helos.

The £6bn gamble on risky engines for navy’s fleet of destroyers backfired admits defence chief - Portsmouth News

 

[Volkodav]

The tale of the engineering woes of the T 45 in the RN should be a salutary lesson for the RAN when selecting SEA 5000 and shows the benefits of a MOTS solution. the newest kinkiest and shiniest is not always the best solution, surely we learnt that lesson with torpedoes and helos.

The £6bn gamble on risky engines for navy’s fleet of destroyers backfired admits defence chief - Portsmouth News

The thing I find astounding is the RR Marine Spey, used in the final several Type 22, all sixteen Type23 and the Dutch M Class frigates is still being used in new build destroyers by the JMSDF. It was a powerful, reliable, well sorted GT, as was the Olympus before it but they didn't start that way. What the RN used to do was conduct extensive trials using converted older platforms, specially built trials platforms or small numbers of proven existing designs built with the new equipment if the level of confidence was high. They virtually never incorporated unproven equipment into critical new platforms.

Part of the problem was the short sighted decision to delay replacement of the existing cold war fleet in the early 90s. The USN continued building Arleigh Burkes but the RN programs led to no new construction at all which resulted in the urgent need to replace the Type42 in one hit, with no time for evolving and improving a platform through a series of batches as the used to do. There is no doubt in my mind that had the RN been able to secure a batch of new destroyers in the 90s (design sketches at the time were not dissimilar to the Type 45) the would have spent less money overall, built more ships and had fewer problems.

I disagree that the issue is new technology specifically, but believe it to be more a case of trying to do too much in too little time with cost being the driving concern. An earlier, more evolutionary program would have been smarter, but as in Australia in the mid 90s there was no inclination to invest in major defence capability and life extensions and upgrades were the name of the game.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I imagine with Rolling builds this is much easier to do. As you don't have to put all your risk in your first vessel.

I hope with an establish rolling builds for the surface and sub fleets the RAN won't run into the same sort of problems.

I think a rolling build might work well for Australia.

As for the Anzacs, well maybe they might have a future life elsewhere in our region, I'm sure Indonesia, for example, would be a candidate if we were going to 'gift' them to anyone, and possibly the Philippines too.

If we were to get rid of the Anzacs I think Indonesia would probably be most interested and worthwhile end target. I would imagine the US would be pretty supportive of such a move, particularly as it would cost them jack and they would most likely sell more munitions and draw each of these closer to them, both of which have had way ward moments (in very different contexts). For Indonesia it would be developing a deep partnership with Australia, strengthening ties with the US. I wouldn't think it would easy or even likely, but could be possibilities that may take many years to even get to a point of offering.

If Australia could pull that off then we would start to look like the glue in the region. Pulling nations that would have a very strained relation, get along for a common aim. If Australia could bring the five powers (FPDA) + Indonesia together that would be a massive change.

China might be the issue that finally brings the five powers and Indonesia onto the same side of the table, if thats even possible. That would be a big change in the region long term.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If Australia could pull that off then we would start to look like the glue in the region. Pulling nations that would have a very strained relation, get along for a common aim. If Australia could bring the five powers (FPDA) + Indonesia together that would be a massive change.

China might be the issue that finally brings the five powers and Indonesia onto the same side of the table, if thats even possible. That would be a big change in the region long term.

has been proposed before in recent times and rejected by immediate neighbours