Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[knightrider4]

Agreed. The Soryu class sounds like a great fit for the RAN. But is it worth the risk of destroying our economy? China can quite easily buy its raw materials from other sources such as Brazil and Africa. It's easy to talk tough now but if Australia suddenly lost 30% of its exports the social and political repercussions would be devastating. All of this over a submarine that is still inferior to the Virginia class.

Perhaps, but they have a lot of investments here in mining infrastructure. It works both ways. Besides China has a potentially devastating credit bubble to deal with. Whether we buy submarines from Japan will barely raise an eyebrow. And besides all things being equal, wouldn't you prefer your enemy to have a conventional submarine as opposed to a nuclear boat???

 

[Monitor66]

And UK CVF just has 1b - horses for courses and more a case of making decisions as to where you spend your money. Every penny you spend on defending the Amphibs takes a penny out of the rest of the budget. I'm assuming some of the defence professionals did the sums and decided Nulka on the amphibs plus the layers of systems on the Hobarts made more sense.

That touches on one of the points I raise - providing reasonable self-defence armament for the LHDs need not be an expensive exercise.

I am not advocating a VLS for these ships, which would certainly be costly, but simply an ability for these very large ships - complete with their massive thermal, radar and electronic signature - to defeat ASMs that may get through an escort screen or which may be launched at them during an operation where that threat was perhaps not thought to exist. Even a pair of Millennium guns will suffice.

There are some very smart and capable people in Defence and the DMO as well, but I do believe they dropped the ball on this issue.

What makes our intended use of the LHDs and the threats they may face different to that of the US, UK, Sth Korea or Japan which would warrant such a limited self-defence capability?

 

[swerve]

Agreed. The Soryu class sounds like a great fit for the RAN. But is it worth the risk of destroying our economy? China can quite easily buy its raw materials from other sources such as Brazil and Africa. It's easy to talk tough now but if Australia suddenly lost 30% of its exports the social and political repercussions would be devastating. All of this over a submarine that is still inferior to the Virginia class.

China can refuse to buy Australian raw materials - if China wants to add a 'China premium' to its import costs.

Australia wouldn't lose most of those exports. They'd be redirected to the customers shut out of Brazil, etc, by China paying top dollar to corner their markets.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There are some very smart and capable people in Defence and the DMO as well, but I do believe they dropped the ball on this issue.

are you aware of the design requirements cycle?

I am loathe to comment on an open forum, but there are others in here who have had more direct involvement and who are sufficiently removed in the current climate to pass platform comment

in a number of these discussions I sense that there is a lack of understanding of how the design requirements are processed and what hurdles they go through before being signed off and commencing to the next stage of the procurement cycle

 

[Monitor66]

are you aware of the design requirements cycle?

I am loathe to comment on an open forum, but there are others in here who have had more direct involvement and who are sufficiently removed in the current climate to pass platform comment

in a number of these discussions I sense that there is a lack of understanding of how the design requirements are processed and what hurdles they go through before being signed off and commencing to the next stage of the procurement cycle

I am aware. That's what puzzles me.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am aware. That's what puzzles me.

so, you're aware that the platform design is based around the conops and the conops is informed by the combat capability scenarios?

its the uniforms that drive the requirement and end design.
the CCS covers everything from single localised to multiple and integrated.

in deliberately simple terms, DMO can't and wouldn't tell the uniforms how to do their job - and the uniforms sign off on the end design as they're the end users. If I was stupid enough to tell a uniform what they should buy to do their job, then I would expect them to basically get on my bike and get another job - that however is different from a suit project manager/engineer suggesting other options so as to test the flexibility of delivery/capability options. eg DMO may well be aware of other technical options that can be considered "instead of" - that's normal as other agencies have a responsibility to flag other emerging capabilities for consideration - it does not mean that those agencies would tell the uniforms on what to buy or what to do. That would be just plain dumb (and I am being excessively polite) The uniforms would be quite justified in telling non uniforms to go and find the nearest obelisk and use it for a suppository.

the wild card in all of this is government direction and the government procurement process which is also outside the influence of DMO, Services, other agencies etc.....

if the uniforms want to change the design outcome or capability elements then it goes through a review cycle of various other players. DMO act at the direction of entities such as CDG, or if CDG has been bypassed then the Service managing entity itself

Nobody can implement a design change after initial agreement without the blessing of Govt via the various steering groups or DefMIn

there would be defensible reasons within the wisdom of the parent service as to why the weapons fitout has been signed off

if cost is a driver, then one would normally see a "fitted for but not with" within the body of the build docs

if capability is the driver then its the CONOPs driving the outcome and then associated risk against the CCS

 

[Monitor66]

so, you're aware that the platform design is based around the conops and the conops is informed by the combat capability scenarios?

its the uniforms that drive the requirement and end design.
the CCS covers everything from single localised to multiple and integrated.

in deliberately simple terms, DMO can't and wouldn't tell the uniforms how to do their job - and the uniforms sign off on the end design as they're the end users

the wild card in all of this is government direction and the government procurement process which is also outside the influence of DMO, Services, other agencies etc.....

if the uniforms want to change the design outcome or capability elements then it goes through a review cycle of various other players. DMO act at the direction of entities such as CDG, or if CDG has been bypassed then the Service managing entity itself

Nobody can implement a design change after initial agreement without the blessing of Govt via the various steering groups or DefMIn

there would be defensible reasons within the wisdom of the parent service as to why the weapons fitout has been signed off

if cost is a driver, then one would normally see a "fitted for but not with" within the body of the build docs

if capability is the driver then its the CONOPs driving the outcome and then associated risk against the CCS

Yes, precisely why I'm amazed that the ships are entering service with the level of self-defence armament they have. How did this issue get through the process to the point where four 25mm guns are signed off as adequate?

If the combat scenarios and subsequent CONOPs are telling navy all the ships need is 4 Typhoons then how does that gel with conducting amphibious assault in contested environments? To me there is a disconnect there. On the one hand the ships are equipped to deal with the odd watercraft menace but on the other the land forces they carry are gearing up for combined arms high intensity combat against (at the upper end of the scale) a like adversary.

Such operations may very well represent a small proportion of the operations that the LHDs (and Army) will be involved in but the ships still have to be able to undertake those missions, as will Army.

If, in fact, the ski jump has been retained on the ships for future operation of RAAF or other's F-35B then the combat scenarios requiring those aircraft are also at the higher end of the conflict spectrum.

And yes we have AWD and ANZAC with ASMD upgrade to provide escort and a protective screen but how does that differ from other navies with a serious amphib capability, navies which see the merit in providing reasonable self-defence capabilities? What are we planning to do with the LHDs that is special or different?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, precisely why I'm amazed that the ships are entering service with the level of self-defence armament they have. How did this issue get through the process to the point where four 25mm guns are signed off as adequate?

for a number of reasons I'm not comfortable on discussing on how the CCS might be addressed with respect to LHA's - esp in a public forum

 

[swerve]

Yes, precisely why I'm amazed that the ships are entering service with the level of self-defence armament they have. How did this issue get through the process to the point where four 25mm guns are signed off as adequate? ...

The RN, after operating the Invincible class for 15 years & a couple of wars, removed the Sea Dart SAMs. After the first war, CIWS was added for close-in defence - three of 'em on the last-built ship.

So, after war experience, what it was thought they needed was three CIWS & softkill systems. Area air defence was deleted.

With added experience from another war, CVF is getting the same CIWS & some light guns.

 

[Monitor66]

The RN, after operating the Invincible class for 15 years & a couple of wars, removed the Sea Dart SAMs. After the first war, CIWS was added for close-in defence - three of 'em on the last-built ship.

So, after war experience, what it was thought they needed was three CIWS & softkill systems. Area air defence was deleted.

With added experience from another war, CVF is getting the same CIWS & some light guns.

Be more than happy with CIWS actually. Never advocated missiles of any sort.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Be more than happy with CIWS actually. Never advocated missiles of any sort.

CIWS are in storage - and they're non-intrusive mounts so can be fast track fitted pre-deployment if needed

 

[Monitor66]

CIWS are in storage - and they're non-intrusive mounts so can be fast track fitted pre-deployment if needed

Am aware there is a pool of Phalanx upon which to draw, but my question is where would they go? I simply cannot see the space provisions.

 

[hairyman]

Are'nt the Phalanx pretty old hat now? I realize they would have or could be upgraded and modernised, but are they still the most suitable weapon for the RAN?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are'nt the Phalanx pretty old hat now? I realize they would have or could be upgraded and modernised, but are they still the most suitable weapon for the RAN?

no, still highly relevant, like most contemp CIWS the upgrades tend to be software.

eg the last major vessel based conops review for the use of the system resulted in software gates being applied (or lifted)

 

[Volkodav]

They all being upgraded to 1b or is it only the AWD getting them? No weight reserves for them on the ANZACs either, funny as I remember the original, fanciful, model way back when that had Phalanx fore and aft, 2x vls, Harpoon forward off the funnels.

 

[ancientcivy]

Phalanx ciws

They all being upgraded to 1b or is it only the AWD getting them? No weight reserves for them on the ANZACs either, funny as I remember the original, fanciful, model way back when that had Phalanx fore and aft, 2x vls, Harpoon forward off the funnels.

Defence project Sea 1357 to upgrade the stock of Phalanx to 1b standard appears to be waiting 1st pass approval. Though professionals on the forum may have more information.

 

[Monitor66]

Are'nt the Phalanx pretty old hat now? I realize they would have or could be upgraded and modernised, but are they still the most suitable weapon for the RAN?

Some would view Phalanx as a legacy system. It is still effective but range is limited and the 20mm rounds must hit the target to achieve a kill.

I can see Phalanx on Choules as appropriate, although 2 or 4 Typhoon 25mm systems is also appropriate for that ship.

But SeaRAM or Millennium gun for mine are ideal for the LHD.

 

[Ships in Port]

Defending themselves? Do you not understand what the purpose of an escort is, & why it is called an escort?

Hint: they try to position themselves between the thing they're escorting & any threat. Why do you think that might be?

My point was if involved in a conflict with a major power the fleet would be saturated by enemy missiles and aircraft and if the escorts are destroyed it leaves the LHD a sitting-duck. The future Replenishment-ships should also have the same armament I suggested for the LHD's. Navy will always have a small number of hulls so each ship should have a capable defence. I won't even mention the LHD's should have had four (4) AV8B Plus II each; sorry, I just did.

 

[Volkodav]

My point was if involved in a conflict with a major power the fleet would be saturated by enemy missiles and aircraft and if the escorts are destroyed it leaves the LHD a sitting-duck. The future Replenishment-ships should also have the same armament I suggested for the LHD's. Navy will always have a small number of hulls so each ship should have a capable defence. I won't even mention the LHD's should have had four (4) AV8B Plus II each; sorry, I just did.

Nope, I'd go the other way and suggest that the LHDs probably could have been smaller, not have a ski jump,possibly not have a through deck but still retain the core capabilities and be more effective overall in the long run because no one would be trying to turn them into battleship-aircraft carriers. Every bit of kit and capability that is added to them has the potential to dilute or degrade their ability to do the job they were bought to do. Far better to have had a visually less impressive LPD, or similar, that people and politicians would be happy just to leave alone.

If fleet defenses are swamped to the degree that AEGIS and ASMD ships can't cope the LHD is a goner anyway and the task group should not have been deployed in the first place. If you want STOVL combat aircraft and an amphibious capability, buy a Wasp or a pair of specialist ships. Just don't stuff up the needed capability the ships were actually bought to fill by trying to make it do things it wasn't intended to do when ordered.

 

[gf0012-aust]

we seriously need a like button