Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
seaspear said:
Towed Arrays and Hydrophone Technology

https://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AAS2013/papers/p21.pdf
The Kariwara is an Australian designed towed array that was developed for the Collins class submarine but was stated to be able to be deployed on the Anzac class
Click to expand...
Agreed - it is a passive array only and thus should only need one reel in-board not like the CAPTAS: see second image of the Type 26 inboard installation here: Royal Navy's Type 26 Frigates to Be Fitted With Thales CAPTAS-4 Sonar 2087 Variable Depth Sonar.

and here: Thales announces the launch of its new compact CAPTAS-4 towed array sonar at Euronaval 2016 71810162
 
SteveR said:
Agreed - it is a passive array only and thus should only need one reel in-board not like the CAPTAS: see second image of the Type 26 inboard installation here: Royal Navy's Type 26 Frigates to Be Fitted With Thales CAPTAS-4 Sonar 2087 Variable Depth Sonar.

and here: Thales announces the launch of its new compact CAPTAS-4 towed array sonar at Euronaval 2016 71810162
Click to expand...
Lets not forget that the Anzacs were to be a Patrol Frigate, basically a 2nd Line Warship. They were supposed to be followed by 8 more capable Warships to replace the Perths and Adelaides. Instead we got the 4 FFGUP Adelaides and upgraded Anzacs.
The RAN is doing what it can with the Anzacs but it is a fairly restricted design and was faced with having to gie them a better AAW capability.
 
And there is no capacity to add the kind of towed array capability that for example the Hobarts have; there would not be enough realestate or displacement and stability margins available for such a mod. The AMD and subsequent work required innovative solutions to those problems as it is.
 
seaspear said:
This is a new towed sonar just released for smaller vessels and has some interesting features
Raytheon: Innovation under the sea - This small, lightweight sonar safeguards against submarines
Click to expand...

OK ..... let be honest this is light weight but not small. There is considerable infrastructure to support this system. And here is the the rub .... it needs to be integrated into the combat system otherwise it is just a sensor that need manual reporting.

The structural requirements for this are not small .... in fact apart from a plain towed array the material requirements are large for any VDS. Even a Towed array with winches on a ship is a large object but more doable. ‘Drones’ with a towed array do not need the same real estate as these are generally very quiet and don’t need the same separation distance from the tow vessel.

My point ..... simply sticking something on a ship is not easy! Cutting a large hole in the back of an ANZAC and moving the winches and associated ancillary equipment is not easy and is probably going to add a lot of weight as it is a retrofit.

I do get fed up when folk decide we can simply attach something to a vessel... this is pure nonsense. The value of an expensive rebuild of the stern structure on 8 ANZACS needs to be balanced against fact the Hunter Class will introduce a multi static system with HMS and VDS (and tail) into the fleet sooner than we could retrofit all the ANZAC. The DDG have a bistatic tail and HMS. My point is a VDS retrofit would come after the current work on the ANZAC as it needs to be designed. Unless there is a compelling reason noting the Hunter will be coming on line ..... why bother.

At best go for a tail .... but even this must be integrated into the combat system
 
Alexsa
I understand your point it is perhaps my confusion over the statement of "fitted for but not with towed array system" led me to believe that there had been design in the architecture of the ship to accommodate this ability when required , if this has changed due to other modifications ok then
 
Speaking of sonar, the Kiwi ANZACS have recently had their sonars upgraded by Thales Australia. Have the Aussie ships had any upgrade work done on their sonars?
 
I've got a question about the AOR Supply Class ordered from Navantia. I can't find it on google, but I recall there was a brief tender between Navantia and South Korea- the Tide Class that the RN have ordered. Based on wikipedia, the Tide Class outperforms the Supply class in every way (though I don't know the purchase prices). If I have remembered the tender correctly, why was the Supply class chosen over the Tide Class?

And a belated thanks to everyone who answered my question about the range of the Arafura Class!
 
76mmGuns said:
I've got a question about the AOR Supply Class ordered from Navantia. I can't find it on google, but I recall there was a brief tender between Navantia and South Korea- the Tide Class that the RN have ordered. Based on wikipedia, the Tide Class outperforms the Supply class in every way (though I don't know the purchase prices). If I have remembered the tender correctly, why was the Supply class chosen over the Tide Class?

And a belated thanks to everyone who answered my question about the range of the Arafura Class!
Click to expand...

The vessel offered was not the Tide Class but the smaller version of the Aegir family (aversion of the Aegir 18 called the Aegir 18A). In this sense the two were pretty close.

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1057880/BMTDSL-Aegir-Brochure.pdf

PRESENTiNg THE AUSTRALiAN AEgiR 18A - ASC - Home | FlipHTML5
 
76mmGuns said:
Ah, thanks mate.

The decision makes more sense now.
Click to expand...

Don’t forget the Tides were purchased to support the carriers and need the additional capacity and capability to undertake that function. The Navantia offering has the carrying capacity of the Aegir and is better in other areas (speed as an example).

The ASC offer had a bonus as they were looking to construct in part in Australia but how that would work was never clearly defined nor the impact it would have on the OPV/DDG and Hunter Class builds
 
One for recent history.

Does anyone know if the old Leopard 1 MBT were ever carried on the LCM 8 Landing craft.
I would suspect they were too heavy but would be interested to know.


Regards S
 
This article although ten years old provides some interesting reading on the tactics
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a497264.pdf
There are newer extended range asw rocket launched torpedoes of thirty kilometres compared to the MU-90 of ten kilometres launched by compressed air from side of ship ,it might be that a Hunter class being stealthier than a Hobart in noise acoustics could get closer to a submarine without detection than a Hobart class so should the Hobart class be equipped with a rocket launched asw weapon to provide the 24 hour coverage when the helicopter is not in the air
 
seaspear said:
This article although ten years old provides some interesting reading on the tactics
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a497264.pdf
There are newer extended range asw rocket launched torpedoes of thirty kilometres compared to the MU-90 of ten kilometres launched by compressed air from side of ship ,it might be that a Hunter class being stealthier than a Hobart in noise acoustics could get closer to a submarine without detection than a Hobart class so should the Hobart class be equipped with a rocket launched asw weapon to provide the 24 hour coverage when the helicopter is not in the air
Click to expand...

“There is a school of thought that says Ship Launched Torpedoes are a weapon of last resort”.
The probability of kill calculation depends on “accurate submarine tracking information.”
Both these quotes from the linked papers are central to any discussion on SLTs and in my view downgrade their importance as a primary weapon. Accurate tracks are rarely possible and airborne assets should keep targets at ranges greater than SLT performance and submarines are using longer range weapons.
SLTs have improved in both range and acquisistion capability over the decades but they will never be a weapon of first choice in ASW and in my view the expense and space could be better allocated.
The RAN will never be at sea without Helo ASW assets embarked across multiple platforms and at least some of these are expected to airborne even if, in adverse weather, operating from a major unit.

the RANs mix of LWTs is also a complication, this totally compromises magazine space and as the Romeos are the prime ASW weapon I would assume that the magazine would contain all Mk45s with 90s only loaded into tubes without any reloading capability?

We should not adopt the RN SLT arrangement for the Hunters for all the reasons above, IMHO naturally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top