Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

SteveR

Active Member
And just to add to that, technically they are actually under "operational evaluation" so yes a learning curve, a new capability and we are working out how they can fit into the mix

Cheers
Fully agree that the Schiebel is being used for "operational evaluation" and then when the RFT for SEA 129 Phase 5 is released there are a number of other UAV manufacturers waiting to offer their products - as shown at PACIFIC 2019 and earlier (up to 29 responded to the RFI in July 2017):

PACIFIC 2019: Leonardo pitching its AWHERO UAV in Australia - Naval News

See SAAB report in this video: Video: Day 2 at PACIFIC 2019 - Royal Australian Navy Programs - Naval News

Leonardo and Air Affairs team for Navy UAS - Australian Defence Magazine
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
You’re underestimating the extent to which the Anzacs have already evolved.
They now have or will have a world class force AD system and with the Romeos they have a much enhanced ASW capability.
They will certainly remain and will continue to remain effective escorts for ADF CONOPS.

Age on its own doesn’t govern whether a system/platform remains relevant (your term) but rather what has been improved over the life of such a system/platform. eg. You couldn’t argue that the USN CCGs are not “relevant” despite being almost geriatric.

you also must have regard to how they are used. The Anzacs have been and will continue to be ideal vessels for engagement with many of our allies in the Indo Pacific, engagements for which a larger and more complex platform would not be relevant.

Big is not always better, there is always a requirement for a range of capabilities within a Navy just as the ongoing debate Is playing out in the USN.
Thanks Assail for the feed back.
I probably have a different view and expectation for the ANZAC's and how thy fit into our current and future needs.
I'll leave it at that.

Cheers

Regards S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The last of the RANs Adelaide (OHP) class FFGs, HMAS Melbourne decommissioned two days ago.
It seems just a very short time ago that the Directorate of Officer Postings in Canberra gave me the option of being the XO of HMAS Canberra, second of the class in late 1980 to entice me to stay in the service. I reluctantly declined.
These ships served the RAN well at a time when there was not a lot of govt support for things naval.
Like the CFA DDG’s there were many who predicted that these ships would not last, how wrong they were.
In particular it’s said that the two Williamstown ships were a built to a standard well above their Todd brothers so I can only hope they continue to serve for another decade, possibly as reported with Chile.
HMAS Melbourne decommissions, era of the FFG ends
Knew a bloke many years ago who served on the Adelaide.
If I recall he was the youngest member of crew and certainly a bit of a character
He was in the USA as part of the ships new crew in 81 when conducting commissioning trials.
Luckily for myself, many years later when he had left the service, we managed to get a good look over his old ship when it visited Melbourne.
Certainly a good experience to view a working ship away from the general public.
Hard to imagine that the FFG's are no longer in the fleet.
Anyway the baton will continue to be passed to a new generation of ships who I trust will serve us well.


Regards S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Fully agree that the Schiebel is being used for "operational evaluation" and then when the RFT for SEA 129 Phase 5 is released there are a number of other UAV manufacturers waiting to offer their products - as shown at PACIFIC 2019 and earlier (up to 29 responded to the RFI in July 2017):

PACIFIC 2019: Leonardo pitching its AWHERO UAV in Australia - Naval News

See SAAB report in this video: Video: Day 2 at PACIFIC 2019 - Royal Australian Navy Programs - Naval News

Leonardo and Air Affairs team for Navy UAS - Australian Defence Magazine
I think Navy are really not fixed on the UAV outcome at this stage.
They are rightly trailing some some UAV technologies with an open mind as to how they will fit into the fleet.
This is a dynamic process.
Up to recently, they were looking at one system to suite both OPV's and the larger ships; now some consideration that two types may again be acquired of different sizes , which I think was the original intent.
My thought is it could still go many ways, so before suggesting particular types, I think wait and see what broad class of UAV's are on the shopping list.
That said, the layout of the OPV will probably dictate a smallish rotary UAV....................Chatting to some in 822X Sqn, I get the vibe fixed wing ( Scan Eagle size uav's) while having attributes, have a lot of heavy bulky support equipment for deployment on board ships.
A rotary asset may be the way forward

Regards S
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Fully agree that the Schiebel is being used for "operational evaluation" and then when the RFT for SEA 129 Phase 5 is released there are a number of other UAV manufacturers waiting to offer their products - as shown at PACIFIC 2019 and earlier (up to 29 responded to the RFI in July 2017):

PACIFIC 2019: Leonardo pitching its AWHERO UAV in Australia - Naval News

See SAAB report in this video: Video: Day 2 at PACIFIC 2019 - Royal Australian Navy Programs - Naval News

Leonardo and Air Affairs team for Navy UAS - Australian Defence Magazine
The AWHERO looks to be in the same class as the Camcopter & the Skeldar, at least in size & weight.
 

SteveR

Active Member
The AWHERO looks to be in the same class as the Camcopter & the Skeldar, at least in size & weight.
Here is another website with specs on the AWHero - note in the photo it has a conventional nose mounted radar though at Pacific 2019 it was shown with an optical radar with 360 degrees coverage:

AWHERO Unmanned Helicopter - Naval Technology

Leonardo’s AWHERO Remotely Piloted Helicopter To Be Certified In 2019

As indicated in the second link it has been selected for the European OCEAN2020 trials.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I saw in last months DTR October 2019 - Defence Technology Review
Discussion about a larger number of large landing craft as an alternative to a single larger pacific support ship. I am interested, what do the pro,s here think of this? To me it has some merit.

Having skimmed thru the DTR article, it is obvious as to why the design / technology hasn't really been advanced in the last 80 years. Each nation will have varying requirements on what they actually want to do with their amphibious forces. Tonnage carried / hull speed / sea keeping / capability to beach, etc. So while a 'generic' design, larger pacific support ship, with standard bow & stern ramp capability would sound like a great idea, the limitations on loading / beaching would soon become a factor to limit other aspects.

Multiple / smaller landing craft may seem like the way to go, but again, operational tempo / physical requirement of load & beaching capability would mean a likely reduction in loading to maintain capability, thus requiring more vessels to achieve the task.

As an outsider looking in, an Island nation (such as Australia), within the Pacific, should have this capability to conduct beach landings, for humanitarian support, over war fighting capability (as it'll be a more common thing if the last 30 years have taught us anything). However, the bean counters & the navy themselves would have to weigh this against the fact that such vessels are quite specialised, are expensive to build, maintain & support & that costing would have to be offset against a reduction in other capabilities, such as overall ship numbers or specific equipment.

Most nations therefore look at 'normal' vessels, with specialisms being limited / a rarity in the fleet, unless some specific advantage is required to conduct operations (eg the US's 'maintenance' of their LCAC capability & LSD's, as they wish to continue to be able to be all things to all nations across the globe)

SA
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The RAN’s LADS (Laser Airborne Depth Sounder) flight has ceased after 26 years of operation and vast areas of surveys completed in areas considered too difficult or inconvenient for surface survey vessels.
Much of the Hydrographic Branch is being privatised in-line with the DWP directions and this includes any future LADS operations.
BZ for the great innovative work over the past 26 years.

Final LADS flight - a job well done
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
The Full Schiebel Camcopter S-100 system including two air vehicles, the control station, payload, ground equipment, training, and logistics package will cost around US$2+ million, (Wikipedia | NOTE the $2mil price is from 2005 so its wrong) It's engine can be interchangeably avgas or heavy-fuel (So It can use the ships fuel) and will require a crew of 3.
Rotor diameter: 3.4 m, Height: 1.12 m, Max takeoff weight: 200 kg, Endurance: 6 hours (extendable to over 10 hours with optional external AVGAS fuel tanks fitted) SEE PHOTOS & VIDEO
Personally I think the Schiebel is a great option.

The system will evolve over time, with improved sensor options and the addition of armament choices.

Regards,

Massive
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I saw in last months DTR October 2019 - Defence Technology Review
Discussion about a larger number of large landing craft as an alternative to a single larger pacific support ship. I am interested, what do the pro,s here think of this? To me it has some merit.
I'm not a defence Pro, but part of the answer may lie in the current edition of DTR

https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-nov-2019/flipbook/14/

Does the navy want a ship to shore connector or a shore to shore platform.
This article deals with the replacement of the LCM-8.

But really its dealing with much more .The question is really what range of vessels does Navy / Army want to do the logistics stuff.
My 2 bob's worth is that the recent work with the LLC's to get them to carry MBT sized vehicles from ship to shore will have an influence on future craft.
If the LLC by default becomes the LCM-8 replacement, what do we actually need?
If the LCM-1E can comfortably fulfil the range of tasks as a connector for the Canberra Class.
Do we get a larger LCU to fit within the Canberra s well deck, or do we get a much larger LCH replacement?
A vessel that can sail independently and still have a beaching ability.
If so, how large would such a vessel be, and how many would we need.

Its guess work as to which way we should go, but I feel the LCH replacement is the way forward in conjunction with the LCM-1E.


Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
OK, Let's compare the Meerkats,

The Full Schiebel Camcopter S-100 system including two air vehicles, the control station, payload, ground equipment, training, and logistics package will cost around US$2+ million, (Wikipedia | NOTE the $2mil price is from 2005 so its wrong) It's engine can be interchangeably avgas or heavy-fuel (So It can use the ships fuel) and will require a crew of 3.
Rotor diameter: 3.4 m, Height: 1.12 m, Max takeoff weight: 200 kg, Endurance: 6 hours (extendable to over 10 hours with optional external AVGAS fuel tanks fitted) SEE PHOTOS & VIDEO

The Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout platform ALONE will cost US$14.6mil, (wikipedia) I can't find a price on the Control gear but it's designed to be compliant with ALL the Pentagon's standard UAS Control Segment (UCS) architecture (View link) , for all current and future U.S. military unmanned vehicles. (which makes me think a LOT of money and really big ships) Rotor diameter: 8.4 m, Height 2.9 m, Max takeoff weight: 1,430 kg Endurance: 8 hour with a 170 lb payload SEE PDF & VIDEO

TLDR
  • Firstly one is the size of a 650cc motorcycle and the other is the size of a Toyota Prado
  • The Schiebel $2-3mil per system (with two airships), and it fit's into a shipping Container
  • The Fire Scout $20~30mil + (I cant fine a price on the control station, payload, ground equipment, training, and logistics package etc) but it will require a hanger

PS there is no hangers on the RAN OPV, but there is room for a few shipping Container under the helideck

LINKS ADDED
Thank you @Sideline Please note we do not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source. With regard to UAV pricing I would suggest that you read the thread on aircraft pricing in the Air Force & Aviation forum. It will give you a good understanding of the issues obtaining valid figures and how to try to avoid some of the pitfalls.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Copied from the ADF discussion thread.

Been reading "The Impact of the Charles F. Adams Class Guided Missile Destroyers on the Royal Australian Navy" by Dr David Shackleton, AO Vice Admiral (RAN Retired).
https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/defau...ct_of_charles_f_adams_class_on_ran.pdf#page=9

Very interesting on the acquisition side of things, well frightening actually, the very successful procurement was more by accident than design, with government policy, the appearance to be a good ally, and the RANs desperation to get anything at all, over riding the capability required to achieve stated objectives. In a nut shell the Adams Class got up because it was American and the cheapest option, had there been a cheaper option, even if it was basically useless, it would have been selected instead.

Still have a long way to go but interesting statements about the apparent complete lack of understanding of the design compromises necessary in 60s vintage warships by the RAN, let alone the politically classes, the almost total reliance on the RN telling us what we needed and why, and most disturbingly the reason what the construction of the final two River Class DEs was such a mess, have been very informative.

On the Rivers, Swan and Torrens were constructed without even a formal contract, let alone a fixed design, they were sorted out as they were built. I had no idea that things were so amateurish in the decade before I was born.

I suppose this explains the romantic desire for simpler less complex times when a person with authority could sell a "bright idea" without any real need to "jump through hoops", it how it actually used to work. Put your idea forward, if it fit the government of the days narrative and was affordable with the money made available, then pretty much anything could get up, whether it fit the actual needs of the ADF or not, is how it actually used to happen. It explains a lot of the waste and inconsistency seen post war.
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Royal Australian Navy ranks grow by 1,000 personnel in less than two years | Jane's 360

“Navy is currently rolling out 45 retention initiatives, including financial bonuses for key sailor and officer categories, flexible workplace arrangements for uniformed members as well as outplacement programmes to improve professional development for technical sailors,” said Reynolds, pointing out that the initiatives are the result of a RAN-wide consultation programme that resulted in 600 suggestions from members of every rank.
Online forums obsess over equipment (I'm as guilty as anyone) but initiatives like this are far more important.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Copied from the ADF discussion thread.

Been reading "The Impact of the Charles F. Adams Class Guided Missile Destroyers on the Royal Australian Navy" by Dr David Shackleton, AO Vice Admiral (RAN Retired).
https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/defau...ct_of_charles_f_adams_class_on_ran.pdf#page=9

Very interesting on the acquisition side of things, well frightening actually, the very successful procurement was more by accident than design, with government policy, the appearance to be a good ally, and the RANs desperation to get anything at all, over riding the capability required to achieve stated objectives. In a nut shell the Adams Class got up because it was American and the cheapest option, had there been a cheaper option, even if it was basically useless, it would have been selected instead.

Still have a long way to go but interesting statements about the apparent complete lack of understanding of the design compromises necessary in 60s vintage warships by the RAN, let alone the politically classes, the almost total reliance on the RN telling us what we needed and why, and most disturbingly the reason what the construction of the final two River Class DEs was such a mess, have been very informative.

On the Rivers, Swan and Torrens were constructed without even a formal contract, let alone a fixed design, they were sorted out as they were built. I had no idea that things were so amateurish in the decade before I was born.

I suppose this explains the romantic desire for simpler less complex times when a person with authority could sell a "bright idea" without any real need to "jump through hoops", it how it actually used to work. Put your idea forward, if it fit the government of the days narrative and was affordable with the money made available, then pretty much anything could get up, whether it fit the actual needs of the ADF or not, is how it actually used to happen. It explains a lot of the waste and inconsistency seen post war.
Thanks for the heads up.
I was one of that DDG cohort of which DS mentions in his intro. I was a year behind him both in enlisting and in our respective PWO courses in the UK and subsequent exchange service, I also lived next door to him in Sydney.
The DDGs opened our eyes, they were so far advanced from the old, their communications were better, their sensors, weapons, in fact their lethality so far surpassed anything we had before and yet there were downsides.
Their accommodation and messes/mess decks were crap, they were no gin palaces and although there were many in the RAN who detested them because of this, there were those of us who wore it as a badge of honour, we knew we were a superior warship.
Most of all their effect was to change the culture of the RAN. As Shackleton says, before the CFAs we were an adjunct, a minor sibling to the Royal Navy, after them we matured into an “Australian” navy with a more open and inquisitive view of things naval.
It’s also true that the introduction and service of these ships coincided with the rapid decline of the RN, the withdrawal from East of Suez and the demise of the RN Far East Fleet and these events probably accelerated the change in culture and maturity of the RAN.
Well done Dave Shackleton for writing this tome, I look forward to reading it in detail.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Australian ice breaker Nuyina is taking shape in Romania (Damen) and the Antarctic Division has released some internal pics of her progress.
She has been delayed apparently due to some difficulties with fabrication thicker steel than is normal for the yard (NoCookies | The Australian) but the delay will not incur any extra expense for the Oz govt.

Icebreaker's internal fit-out shapes up

Not strictly RAN but not sure where else to post. Mods please move if required?
 
Last edited:

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Australian ice breaker Nuyina is taking shape in Romania (Damen) and the Antarctic Division has released some internal pics of her progress.
She has been delayed apparently due to some difficulties with fabrication thicker steel than is normal for the yard (details can be found on the Divisions website) but the delay will not incur any extra expense for the Oz govt.

Icebreaker's internal fit-out shapes up

Not strictly RAN but not sure where else to post. Mods please move if required?
Looking good, but jeez a lot of open wasted space !! Just saying :(
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Looking good, but jeez a lot of open wasted space !! Just saying :(
Except that it is a commercial ship and the Maritime Labour Convention applies. There are specific requirements for accomodation and recreation areas for seafarers (this does not include 'special personnel' who can be stored in cabins with bunks) which means you do get some space. This is not particularly palacial for a merchant vessel designed to carry the numbers she will carry.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Looks great, I know many in this thread have been following this ships construction in detail. Fantastic ship. Right timing too, Australia's southern claim is under some pressure, and this will increase as we get closer to treaty expiration in 2048.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top