Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[spoz]

Have you stopped to consider why there are not really other design teams working on developing a ship-based ABM capability? I suspect the reasons have to do with the perceived risk/value, especially when compared to the cost/complexity of developing such a capability.
.

Um, not quite true. ASTER 30 Block 1 NT apparently has some capacity against ballistic missiles; and it would be a bold person who would definitively state what Russia or China, or indeed any one of a number of others, was developing, possibly out of the public view. This is particularly so given China has had terminal intecept capability for some time and tested land based exo atmospheric in 2010, Russia has had a land based terminal system for effectively years, India is working on one, as is Taiwan.....

 

[StingrayOZ]

Um, not quite true. ASTER 30 Block 1 NT apparently has some capacity against ballistic missiles; and it would be a bold person who would definitively state what Russia or China, or indeed any one of a number of others, was developing, possibly out of the public view. This is particularly so given China has had terminal intecept capability for some time and tested land based exo atmospheric in 2010, Russia has had a land based terminal system for effectively years, India is working on one, as is Taiwan.....

There are levels of ballistic missile defense, I would not be surprised if Aster 30 offers significantly less capability than SM-6. Maybe the same as SM-2 IV.

Not sure how useful Aster 30 would be given its flight envelope in a North Korean context.

 

[vonnoobie]

Way I see it Australia has 2 options in regards to a BMD capability. One is joint security in which we upgrade the Hobarts to such capability allowing them to fit in with the US and possibly Japanese and Korean ships but we should not put such a capability on the SEA5000 platform (What ever design it may be) as it will be adding cost (Risking the entire program of future cuts by a future government), risk (Making ships more complex thus more risky in an already tight time frame) and taking the ships away from there true mission set hunting submarines. With the prolifiration of submarines they are a far greater threat to Australia then any nation armed with an ICBM.

The other option and probably more long term, more risk, cost? not sure. Expand the research into scramjet engines enabling us to one day field a hypersonic missile that could be used to take out such threats before they are launched or who knows maybe even one day be able to use a hypersonic weapon to intercept an ICBM well away from our shores.

The later I view as unlikely in the short to medium term, However long term who knows. it is something we are already actively researching so maybe.

 

[ADMk2]

This has got me wondering what type of air defence any of our major city's have, I am aware that for Sydney our defence will come from f/a 18's from Williamstown and a few Army RBS' with reliance on our Jorn and radar systems.

None whatsoever. Our Army has a solitary and not particularly capable very short ranged air defence system, that equips a single Regiment based in Adelaide. Current RAN major fleet assets have competent local and 'some' area air defence capability, but of course they aren't much use unless deployed appropriately and drilled well in advance. The RAAF provides our only effective air defence capability and that can only be done properly in a handful of places simultaneously, due to the force limitations size.

My question is that fast jets with dirty bombs could only take a few hours from a rouge state (Nth Korea) to fly here with support.

No fast jet can fly from Korea to Australia in a few hours, even with support... A B-1B Bomber would be flat out doing so and North Korea has nothing like a B-1B. It does seem however to have missiles that could potentially reach the Northern parts of Australia.

I am not aware of any 24/7 defence plans for a rouge perpetrator and unlike WW2 I don't think Australia has any coastal and air defence contingency's.

ADF elements are held at various readiness levels. They keep alert fighters at RAAF Tindal in the Northern Territory at various levels of readiness. They would be the first to be able to respond, along with Army elements, some of which are kept at very high levels of readiness.

I would like to hear from the boy's in service, if we are better protected than what I think.

Cheers Chris

We aren't. We have the level of defence that our politicans have decided we can afford. We could afford to do much better, but then we as a nation are addicted to welfare spending and we prefer to have our national treasure spent on that instead of a credible level of defence, rather than an artificially chosen level of defence against arbitrary 'likely threats' that are so chosen and articulated to the masses in order to meet a particular budgetary level.

 

[ADMk2]

Way I see it Australia has 2 options in regards to a BMD capability. One is joint security in which we upgrade the Hobarts to such capability allowing them to fit in with the US and possibly Japanese and Korean ships but we should not put such a capability on the SEA5000 platform (What ever design it may be) as it will be adding cost (Risking the entire program of future cuts by a future government), risk (Making ships more complex thus more risky in an already tight time frame) and taking the ships away from there true mission set hunting submarines. With the prolifiration of submarines they are a far greater threat to Australia then any nation armed with an ICBM.

The other option and probably more long term, more risk, cost? not sure. Expand the research into scramjet engines enabling us to one day field a hypersonic missile that could be used to take out such threats before they are launched or who knows maybe even one day be able to use a hypersonic weapon to intercept an ICBM well away from our shores.

The later I view as unlikely in the short to medium term, However long term who knows. it is something we are already actively researching so maybe.

There are plenty of BMD options. We could order Patriot PAC-3 MSE systems tomorrow and obtain a BMD capability. We could order THAAD, Land based AEGIS / SM-3, naval based SM-3 and AEGIS Baseline 9.1 (BMD) for the Hobart Class or invest in the US Ground-Based Mid-Course Interceptor program.

Of course which of these would be in anyway affordable is a completely separate question, but there ARE options...

 

[Hazdog]

There are plenty of BMD options. We could order Patriot PAC-3 MSE systems tomorrow and obtain a BMD capability. We could order THAAD, Land based AEGIS / SM-3, naval based SM-3 and AEGIS Baseline 9.1 (BMD) for the Hobart Class or invest in the US Ground-Based Mid-Course Interceptor program.

Of course which of these would be in anyway affordable is a completely separate question, but there ARE options...

The Ground-based Mid-Course Interceptor program has currently cost around the figure of $40.926~ billion, currently costing around an average of $892 million a year. A figure that is able to be lowered by the increase in technology used and demand for capability. If Australia pursued this BMD system it would be a potent defence system.

Does JORN have the potential to track Ballistic Missiles and guide Interceptors to them? That would be a great use of the already existing equipment if possible. :sniper

 

[t68]

There is minimal immediate direct threat to Australia in my view.
.

Agree, any attempt would most likely be to knock out joint comm/SigInt facilty such as PG and NCSHEH

 

[hauritz]

The Ground-based Mid-Course Interceptor program has currently cost around the figure of $40.926~ billion, currently costing around an average of $892 million a year. A figure that is able to be lowered by the increase in technology used and demand for capability. If Australia pursued this BMD system it would be a potent defence system.

Does JORN have the potential to track Ballistic Missiles and guide Interceptors to them? That would be a great use of the already existing equipment if possible. :sniper

I would have thought that Jorn would be limited by the ionosphere. It in fact only works because it bounces high-frequency waves off the ionosphere.

Perhaps it could track a missile in its terminal phase ... if it were pointed in the right direction. I am imagining that the final trajectory of a ballistic missile would be a near verticle plunge so it may be to the south of Jorn before it re-enters the atmosphere.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Does JORN have the potential to track Ballistic Missiles and guide Interceptors to them? That would be a great use of the already existing equipment if possible.

No. GF and others have said many times it can't be used for targeting. As I understanding it you will have a heading and some sort of velocity but positioning isn't its strong suite so you will have a vague idea (a big box of more than a few km's) where it is or something is happening. JORN is bet used as an alert. That an launch is occurring and that other assets should be activated.

Australia won't be at risk of a NK launch. If someone is launching at Australia, it will be a major power trying to cripple the US's sensors and communications, which are located in remote places in Australia. While important, no one has so many ICBM's that they would spend them taking those out.

Australia has lots of space tracking capability. It's not focused on incoming ICBM's.

No Cookies | The Courier Mail

If Australia is interested in BMD, then put it on ships and protect our key allies that are at real risk. The US, South Korea, Japan etc.

 

[Hazdog]

No. GF and others have said many times it can't be used for targeting. As I understanding it you will have a heading and some sort of velocity but positioning isn't its strong suite so you will have a vague idea (a big box of more than a few km's) where it is or something is happening. JORN is bet used as an alert. That an launch is occurring and that other assets should be activated.

Australia won't be at risk of a NK launch. If someone is launching at Australia, it will be a major power trying to cripple the US's sensors and communications, which are located in remote places in Australia. While important, no one has so many ICBM's that they would spend them taking those out.

Australia has lots of space tracking capability. It's not focused on incoming ICBM's.

No Cookies | The Courier Mail

If Australia is interested in BMD, then put it on ships and protect our key allies that are at real risk. The US, South Korea, Japan etc.

Thanks, Mate!
I wasn't quite sure about its capability. How would you suggest that Australia deal with the threat of ICBM's targeting South Korea, Japan and other Allies? Have you other links for Australian Space Tracking capability? I do not have access to that link.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Thanks, Mate!
I wasn't quite sure about its capability. How would you suggest that Australia deal with the threat of ICBM's targeting South Korea, Japan and other Allies? Have you other links for Australian Space Tracking capability? I do not have access to that link.

There are many, this topic is very detailed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_stations_in_Australia

Australia tracks a lot of satellites, US, Europe, Japan and France all have agreements with Australia.

Combined with Australia's other radar systems, we are a very significant player. Not all of these are interconnected of course. Or designed around targeting. Of course with no suitable interception capability there is no point.

Ideally for protection:
* SM-3 capability for the AWD (systems and say 8 missiles)
* SM-3 capability for the first 3 F-5000 aegis based frigates (systems).
* SM-6 for the AWD and the first 3 F-5000 frigates, but compatible with the entire Sea5000 ships.

That would give us 6 very capable ships. Anywhere we need a ballistic missile shield, SM-3 doing high end, mid course intercepts, SM-6 for terminal intercepts.

Really it costs an AWD system upgrade (inevitable anyway) and 8 missiles.

With 6 ships, that is going to allow a reasonable capability. US is of course going to do all the heavy lifting, but in many cases it might be seen as escalating the conflict to have US ships doing the heavy work.

In that case having a situation like Australia/South Korea and Japan able to enforce a no fly zone.Combined with other allies like Spain or the dutch (who have contributed data to a SM-3 launch) there are then other options.

That sort of capability would also be a deterrent in any MRBM/LRBM/ICBM race occurring in SEA.

 

[DaveS124]

One for ASSAIL: story from the ABC about CO ARROW returning to Darwin.


Cyclone Tracy survivor tells of HMAS Arrow's deadly sprint back to Darwin wharf

By Mitchell Abram


Robert Dagworthy was captain of the attack-class patrol boat HMAS Arrow when Cyclone Tracy decimated Darwin in 1974.

Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin in the early hours of Christmas morning, almost entirely destroying the city.

Of the 66 people killed, 53 were on land and 13 at sea. Two of those were Mr Dagworthy's men.

Article here - Cyclone Tracy survivor tells of HMAS Arrow's deadly sprint back to Darwin wharf - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[ASSAIL]

One for ASSAIL: story from the ABC about CO ARROW returning to Darwin.


Cyclone Tracy survivor tells of HMAS Arrow's deadly sprint back to Darwin wharf

By Mitchell Abram


Robert Dagworthy was captain of the attack-class patrol boat HMAS Arrow when Cyclone Tracy decimated Darwin in 1974.

Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin in the early hours of Christmas morning, almost entirely destroying the city.

Of the 66 people killed, 53 were on land and 13 at sea. Two of those were Mr Dagworthy's men.

Article here - Cyclone Tracy survivor tells of HMAS Arrow's deadly sprint back to Darwin wharf - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I knew Bob Dagworthy well Arrow lost cooling on one engine due to heavy rolling. The Attack class had two inlets for their sea water cooling system, one near the waterline for shallow water ops and the other near the keel. In harbour the waterline was usually used and it appears Arrow failed to change over.
Once he lost an engine he decided to lay alongside the wharf and get his crew off and all but 2 managed. His Buffer (Chief Bosuns Mate) helped all others off but failed to get clear and was drowned. Bob was the last off but was unable to climb the ladder and surfed through the wharf pylons where he was quite severely lacerated by barnacles.
I was in a party who recovered the Buffers body several days later.

My Chief and engine room department were highly competent and despite a worrying night we continued to run and after several hours in the harbour I managed to get the boat to sea. Previous attempts to do so were dangerous because of the wind and sea direction and I put the ship on her beam ends on a number of times before giving up and running a racetrack before the eye passed and the wind direction changed. We survived with no damage apart from all the paint on the superstructure being blasted off by the wind and rain and a life raft being torn from its cradle.

It was an interesting Christmas.

 

[ASSAIL]

One for ASSAIL: story from the ABC about CO ARROW returning to Darwin.


Cyclone Tracy survivor tells of HMAS Arrow's deadly sprint back to Darwin wharf

By Mitchell Abram


Robert Dagworthy was captain of the attack-class patrol boat HMAS Arrow when Cyclone Tracy decimated Darwin in 1974.

Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin in the early hours of Christmas morning, almost entirely destroying the city.

Of the 66 people killed, 53 were on land and 13 at sea. Two of those were Mr Dagworthy's men.

Article here - Cyclone Tracy survivor tells of HMAS Arrow's deadly sprint back to Darwin wharf - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I knew Bob Dagworthy well Arrow lost cooling on one engine due to heavy rolling. The Attack class had two inlets for their sea water cooling system, one near the waterline for shallow water ops and the other near the keel. In harbour the waterline was usually used and it appears Arrow failed to change over.
Once he lost an engine he decided to lay alongside the wharf and get his crew off and all but 2 managed. His Buffer (Chief Bosuns Mate) helped all others off but failed to get clear and was drowned. Bob was the last off but was unable to climb the ladder and surfed through the wharf pylons where he was quite severely lacerated by barnacles.
I was in a party who recovered the Buffers body several days later.

My Chief and engine room department were highly competent and despite a worrying night we continued to run and after several hours in the harbour I managed to get the boat to sea. Previous attempts to do so were dangerous because of the wind and sea direction and I put the ship on her beam ends on a number of times before giving up and running a racetrack before the eye passed and the wind direction changed. We survived with no damage apart from all the paint on the superstructure being blasted off by the wind and rain and a life raft being torn from its cradle.

It was an interesting Christmas.

 

[Volkodav]

I knew Bob Dagworthy well Arrow lost cooling on one engine due to heavy rolling. The Attack class had two inlets for their sea water cooling system, one near the waterline for shallow water ops and the other near the keel. In harbour the waterline was usually used and it appears Arrow failed to change over.
Once he lost an engine he decided to lay alongside the wharf and get his crew off and all but 2 managed. His Buffer (Chief Bosuns Mate) helped all others off but failed to get clear and was drowned. Bob was the last off but was unable to climb the ladder and surfed through the wharf pylons where he was quite severely lacerated by barnacles.
I was in a party who recovered the Buffers body several days later.

My Chief and engine room department were highly competent and despite a worrying night we continued to run and after several hours in the harbour I managed to get the boat to sea. Previous attempts to do so were dangerous because of the wind and sea direction and I put the ship on her beam ends on a number of times before giving up and running a racetrack before the eye passed and the wind direction changed. We survived with no damage apart from all the paint on the superstructure being blasted off by the wind and rain and a life raft being torn from its cradle.

It was an interesting Christmas.

Thanks for that Chis, it was an intense enough night huddling in the kitchen with my parents and siblings, can't imagine what it was like in the water, responsible for almost twenty other lives and away from your family. Ever thought of putting your account into writing or maybe even a recorded oral account for the museum cyclone exhibit?

 

[ASSAIL]

Thanks for that Chis, it was an intense enough night huddling in the kitchen with my parents and siblings, can't imagine what it was like in the water, responsible for almost twenty other lives and away from your family. Ever thought of putting your account into writing or maybe even a recorded oral account for the museum cyclone exhibit?

No mate, my account is in my ROP (Report of Proceedings ) which I wrote for the month of Dec 1974 and it's in the ships history section on the naval website.

Luckily my family survived even though my house was totally demolished.

 

[ASSAIL]

Duplicate post

 

[t68]

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1420337?image=1

for those interested, from the AWM collection

 

[ASSAIL]

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1420337?image=1

for those interested, from the AWM collection

Time takes its toll! My report was submitted in Jan 1975. Things were a bit hectic at the end of December and is at the last few pages of the above.

 

[DaveS124]

New DDG Hobart berthed FBE recently. A couple of videos linked below.

Probably a minority of one in this, but unimpressed with current RAN pennant number MO: that is, the LHDs with the numbers of FFGs for no reason, and ditto the DDGs.

Also profoundly miffed, and that's putting it mildly, with the name CHOULES. That came from former PM Gillard's office, not Navy. Should have been, and was supposed to be, and quite rightly, JERVIS BAY.

Still, no-one asked my opinion. They should have.

Anyway, new Hobart videos;

(1) Entering Sydney here - https://youtu.be/qYFIi41kCKc, and
(2) Channel 9 report here - https://youtu.be/65YQABjoOtQ