Hi Stampede, we had 2x S70B's on-board HMAS Darwin while we at the Solomon Islands during 2001. We did have both of them up in the air on a number of occasions. Cheers
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Thanks Pusser01
Out of curiosity was Darwin on it's own and were you near land
Regards S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Until there is an ASW UAS which has completed testing (and passed...), then I will continue to have some reservations about being able to replace/substitute a UAS for a crewed naval helicopter. The MH-60R Romeo has a number of sensor systems which can be controlled from the back, or the co-pilot's seat. If a UAS was to be kitted with comparable sensors, then the control operator(s) for the sensors would be operating remotely (to drop sonobuoys, lower a dipping sonar, control an E/O turret, etc.) and I would imagine that a fair amount of communications bandwidth would be required to stream the raw, unprocessed data collected by the UAS sensors to the presumably ship-based operators for processing and interpretation.
The communications bandwidth as well as remote interpretation of unprocessed data are presently the two biggest potential weak areas with respect to ASW UAS IMO. In a future battlespace, there is a distinct possibility for it to be electronically 'noisy' for a variety of reasons and the needed bandwidth levels to manage UAS ASW operations might not be available, particularly if hostile forces are using jammers or other EW tools. Similarly, the stream of raw data could be subject to more false positives due to electronic 'noise', or perhaps even worse, actual contacts could deemed 'noise' and get rejected.
With a crewed naval helicopter, I would expect the bandwidth required for communications to be lower, since the data coming from the helicopter over the datalinks would be whatever is required for Link 11/16/22 or whatever datalink system is being used, and would cover things like speed, vector, etc. of a contact as opposed to something like the raw acoustic data which might or might not be a contact. The helicopter crew would have already filtered out the garbage from the raw data. Also the helicopter crew would be getting the data fed directly to them by the sensors aboard their helicopter so outside a direct EA, there is little potential for something to distort sensor readings before an operator could get a look (or listen) at them.
Hawklink is up to 20Mbps (at up to 100 Nautical Miles). But I think the speed and reliability is dependent on the distance from the ship and at its lowest speed is 200kbps.
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=166
I imagine that is where a UAV would be ideal, as a general line of sight distance coverage (at least to the popup level). The manned platform would then look further afield and be scrambled to look at interesting contacts. The hawklink data can even be looked at on the same terminal that is used to control firescouts.
Like most things, UAV won't replace everything, they are much more useful to augment and support manned platforms. IMO.
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=166
I imagine that is where a UAV would be ideal, as a general line of sight distance coverage (at least to the popup level). The manned platform would then look further afield and be scrambled to look at interesting contacts. The hawklink data can even be looked at on the same terminal that is used to control firescouts.
Like most things, UAV won't replace everything, they are much more useful to augment and support manned platforms. IMO.
Pancake
New Member
or they know stuff that you dont because they work in the industry?
Pancake
New Member
The integration issues related to the 20 year crisis embeded in the aircraft not the weapon see anao
Pancake
New Member
Look I am going to expand on this because i have seen this comment innuendo a few times and I am stunned by it
WRT forum and decision making
no one reads it no one cares no one knows about it no one uses it to advocate their product thats the reality its recreation for interested people nothing more nothing less
I hope that puts this to bed
Last edited:
There are many on the Forum who work in Defence Industry, who work in Defence Acquisition and who have operated the various systems at sea.
Making a comment like you have gives the impression that you have worked in the industry and hold others views with contempt.
I hope that's not the case.
If you have such experience you should disclose it so those reading your contributions can make informed judgements.
Pancake
New Member
reall
No ones view is contemptious except on this forum if u dont like F5000 then the world descends actually on here until u agree to act like a F5000 sponsor?
really? go check mods how hard that is?
No ones view is contemptious except on this forum if u dont like F5000 then the world descends actually on here until u agree to act like a F5000 sponsor?
Last edited:
Pancake
New Member
I was not going to respond to this coz it just does not reflect reality and the subject matter is really difficult but given individual posts alot i thought i just better.
firstly most of this is clasified and covered in australias case by anao BUT alot is known about the weapons
USmk50 and MU 90 use completely different propulsion systems with completly different cost cycles to compare them is SILLY. US MK 50 is i believe not manufactured and not available.
MU90 is selected because of many reasons including shallow water not deep water capability.
range is a fuction of speed over time and sonar range - see MU 90 see oh its a MK 50 it costs too much lol? The reality is if the threat dont change the weapon doesnt
I doubt very much that you have worked in any related industry at all ! Put up or shut up, pretty simple, the members of this forum with blue tags are vetted and verified Defpro's with related Service and Defence industry experience.
Stop being a smart .... ! you make the claims, you back it up, it is not our job to verify your claims for you. If you have supplied the required proof to the mods, they have not said so, your belligerent attitude and engagement style will do you no favours !
Last edited:
This is a final warning. You either change you posting style as well as provide sources for your claims and provide bona fides to one of the moderators about your industry involvement within 24 hours or you will be gone from here. You have until 1200 Z 2 Jun 18 to comply. Zulu time is GMT / UTC.
IEP is not appropriate for ASW due to the noise factor. CODLOG enables for diesel electric to run silently when hunting subs and then GT for when you need speed.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Hadn't heard this before. How much louder is a turbine producing electricity than a diesel doing the same thing. In any event an IEP vessel can use its diesels or turbines or both to power its electric propulsion motors.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
My take on where naval helicopters would be operating in the 'middle zone' based off the 2000 article I linked, is that for ASW ops the helicopters can/will be 10's of km's from their embarked ship and that line of sight would be problematic, especially if dropping sonobuoys or using a dipping sonar. Hence the concern about bandwidth and integrity of the signal carrier when broadcasting the raw data from either UAS-dropped sonobuoys or a dipping sonar.
HMmm..
I just went hunting for details on your 'supposition' about IEP & have struggled to find anything that backs the comment up.
The following ASW frigates use the propulsion set up listed, albeit that some of them are a little long in the tooth...
T23 / Duke Class = CODLAG Type 23 Duke Class Frigate - Naval Technology
FREMM = CODLOG or CODLAG, dependant on who is running what variant FREMM multipurpose frigate - Wikipedia
Gepard 3.9 = CODOG https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gepard-39-class-frigates/
The article below seems to imply the opposite (i.e IEP is QUIETER), but the fact that T26 will be CODLOG, I believe is more down to costs, both in initial purchase, mixed with thru-life support.
Integrated electric propulsion - Wikipedia
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
That’s my understanding as well wrt to the Type 26. Had the Type 45’s IEP been trouble free, I think IEP’s advantages would have justified their use in the Type 26 despite the higher cost. Not sure what the cost difference would be. Complicated gear and transmission arrangements aren’t exactly inexpensive.
Really ?
I beg to differ on that opinion.
Going off the thread topic completely - the whole scenario of how things can be influenced can be summed up in two words
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA
The allegations laid at the door of that company, from a major cyber influence (i.e. Facebook) & the continued implication that the Russians were 'involved' in attempting to effectively influence the outcome of the US elections can draw parallels to the content on many forums across the internet.
You may scoff, laugh or even call me an idiot, but there are people who are paid to produce Blogs / Vlogs & generally post 'good' comments advocating x1 company, while slamming a second in forums such as this.
Depending on the number of website hits (which can be rigged using simple algorithms), little sites can carry a lot of influence as policy makers & governments use hit data & content from search engines such as google to help create 'soundbites' for politicians to review & use, when discussing topics that they are not experts on.
So by putting content on an obscure forum, creating multiple hits & over-enthusing the content & conversations, people can be led astray.
As a Defence Pro, I often look at many forums to garner knowledge on equipment used in other parts of the world, to find out about new technology (not necessarily in military forums) and generally educate myself, so that when I am asked for an opinion, or if I'm aware of a particular equipment or system & the technology/engineering behind it, I can make comment.
Generally, I also do research by visiting company websites & asking for data downloads, or brochures, but looking at forums is generally my starting point.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
And as we know, this crap works effectively on public opinion and especially pollies.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
For those interested, the ANAO report can be found here. As I mentioned, and the report noted in item 17, it seems that Defence thought it was selecting an in-service LWT when the MU 90 was still in development, which would naturally cause problems and increased the costs associated with adding and integrating the MU 90 into the ADF. As the report also noted, the original plan was to integrate the MU 90 across the ADF on five platforms, which ended up getting scaled back to just the surface vessels (FFG and FFH IIRC) and integrating onto those platforms still cost about what the original estimate was to integrate the MU 90 across the ADF. The ANAO report also noted that due to technical and cost 'pressures' integrating the MU 90 aboard RAAF AP-3C Orion MPA and RAN S-70-B2 Seahawks was dropped, as was integration aboard RAN SH-2G(A) Super Seasprites, since those had been taken out of RAN service.
Elsewhere ANAO report also makes mention of the Seahawk replacement, the MH-60R, and the P-8A Poseidon will not be fitted with the MU 90, but instead will use the US Mk 54 LWT which itself was developed using elements of the previous Mk 46 and Mk 50 LWT's, principally the propulsion system of the Mk 46 and the seeker and most of the electronics from the Mk 50, albeit some of the Mk 50 electronics had become obsolete and were therefore replaced up more up to date components.
Agreed and I never stated otherwise. The MU 90 and Mk 50 both have completely different propulsion systems, and both systems are themselves different from and provide different capabilities than the propulsion system used in the Mk 46 and Mk 54 LWT's. More specifically, the MU 90 uses an Aluminium-Silver Oxide (AgO-Al) seawater battery to enable operations without a degradation in performance at depths in excess of 1,000 m. As I understand it, the AgO-Al propulsion system is one of the reasons why the MU 90 torpedoe was/is so expensive, and in that respect it is much like the Mk 50 LWT which used a different propulsion system to achieve deep water operations. AFAIK the propulsion systems used on both the MU 90 and Mk 50 LWT's were significantly more expensive than the system used by the Mk 46 and Mk 54 LWT's.
With respect to the US and the Mk 50 and Mk 54 LWT's, it was a combination of the cost of the Mk 50 and the projected need for some of the Mk 50 capabilities changing that led to the Mk 54 as a lower costing alternative.
In a report on France's 2013 Defence budget, the MU 90 had a unit cost of €1.6 mil. in 2012, which at the time worked out to a unit cost of just under USD$2.1 mil. (specifically USD$2,073,440 according to currency values at the time). Compare and contrast that pricing with these US DSCA releases from 2010 and 2013, the first for 200 Mk 54 all-round up + 10 Mk 54 dummy + 6 Mk 54 ground handling LWT's for USD$169 mil. (avg price ~ USD$782k) and the second for 100 Mk 54 all-round up + 5 recoverable exercise LWT's for USD$83 mil. (avg price ~USD$790k) and these prices also included associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support.
At present, it does not seem as though Australia has any interest in integrating the MU 90 onto either the P-8A Poseidon, or the MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawk and will instead maintain two different stockpiles of LWT in service. As an outside observer, that suggests very strongly to me that the difficulties and costs to integrate, stock and sustain the MU 90 across the entirety of the ADF outweigh whatever capability advantages it might have (if any) over the Mk 54. Given that aboard the ANZAC-class FFH and the Hobart-class DDG, stocks of both MU 90 and Mk 54 LWT's can be found aboard, that would seem to reinforce the idea that the cost of establishing and maintaining a Mk 54 LWT stockpile was significantly less, enough to the point where it costed less to have two different torpedoe types aboard the same vessel.
Looking at what seem to be both the current, and likely future sub threats to Australia and Australian interests over the next 20+ years, there does seem to be little need for deep diving 1,000+ m capable LWT, which seems to be the major advantage the MU 90 has over the Mk 54.
I would be very interested to see what LWT is to be fitted and integrated with the Future Frigate, once the SEA 5000 decision is made. If the Future Frigate is only to be fitted with the Mk 54 which IMO is a very real possibility, then I would expect the MU 90 would be replaced aboard the DDG's once the FFH's are decommissioned and the DDG's go through a major docking cycle around 2030 or so.
- Status