Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Oldbeagle]

I believe the Turkish Company Aselsan produce a 25mm programable air burst round the Atom 25. I have no idea the sensors needed nor changes to the Typhoon 25mm mount, as well as ammunition storage required, to utilise these rounds. However, I believe that it would be a worthwhile exercise for defence as a whole to investigate them, as it seems that it at least presents the possibility of considerably. increasing the effectiveness of the 25mm bushmasters in a variety of roles

 

[Bob53]

On face value this seems like an insane waste of money.

Didn’t the infrastructure at Osborne cost an order of magnitude less than that? And wasn’t that infrastructure primarily for the benefit of ASC, a government owned entity?

I presume that the CoA will be charging market rents to the private occupants of Henderson to generate a return on this investment?

it won’t be an insane waste just yet as construction is not slated to commence until late 2028 and the full $12 billion is estimated out to 2040…so roughly an extra $1billion a year …but I suspect the gov is throwing it around to keep the Americans happy. Possibly highly inflated numbers …either that or they are getting vic CFMEU involved in the build.

 

[SammyC]

Makes me question if our Frigates are tasked with SLOC duties, would our OCV and Patrol boats even be able to defend against the Chinese (so called) fishing fleet?

It might be useful to understand how a patrol boat intercepts a civilian vessel.

In the first case it approaches, observes and will make contact with the vessel. More often than not it just issues a move on order, or allow the vessel to continue. Probably well over 70% fall into this category.

If it considers that there is an illegal activity onboard, such as fishing, smuggling ect, then it will look to board and inspect.

If it views that a boarding is required it will assess whether the boarding will be compliant or not (i.e will the vessel personnel resist). In most cases boardings are compliant and an armed boarding party of about 8 people is sent over. The patrol boat will stay close by for support. 25% fall into this category.

If it is non compliant, then a boarding party will not be sent and the patrol boat will remain at a safe distance. I should note here that fishing boats are generally slow and not armed, but they may have people onboard with personal weapons. Its also difficult to climb onto a vessel that is deliberately being obstructive. These are less than 5% of the cases, if that.

In these cases they will hold and call for support. Each scenario is different. In my time on frigates where we had non compliant boardings we would use the helo as overwatch, bring the frigate right in close and call in other ships to help. We would often use multiple boarding parties and have extra people on the water ready for rescue. There were also times where we would use a special forces boarding party to replace the ship's boarding party, and there was a range of other tactics that went with that. Patrol boats would take a similar approach. Call in back up and maintain the scene until they arrive. They will not engage.

I should also note that a patrol boat is rarely rocking up blisfully unaware of the vessel it is intercepting. It will have been despatched after the vessel had already been assessed by another asset (such as a Triton, P8 or satellite). If the vessel was considered a potential threat then something different would have been sent to intercept in the first place.

So, in the case of the hostile militia fishing boat fleet, then the patrol boat is not the asset that would be dealing with it. A frigate would have been despatched with a lot of support. If for some reason the patrol boat ended up in this, it would withdraw to a safe distance and radio in.

The end point is patrol boats and OPVs deal with the 95% of cases that are compliant. Their main weapon is their boarding party, not the fitted gun.

Perhaps in the future hostile fishing boats become more common. The response is possibly likely to be more capable boarding parties rather than larger guns fitted to ships. Perhaps the Arafuras start taking SAS detachments and we look at light helo solutions for them.

If we reach the point of actual conflict with China, then I think the fshing boats will be more worried about prowling ghost sharks with torpedos.

 

[spoz]

We’re getting 30mm on the Hunters because that’s what the design came with. We got 30mm on the Huons because that is what the design came with. We got 25mm for the Hobarts because that is what the design (F105) came with. The calibres were already in service with the ADF in other guises so there didn’t seem any point in changing what is essentially a weapon for engaging small craft at short ranges, with some limited capacity against close in, slow and low flying air threats.

However, Phalanx is the weapon of choice for engaging close in air targets, and both Hunter and Hobarts are fitted with that - so why change the design when you don’t need to (and weren’t allowed to - Military off the shelf - for Hobart). I know that’s a bit radical in ADF procurements - not tampering with a design - but there it is. ANZACs get by with 50 cal for the purpose (SRSD) btw.

Now, you might think that Phalanx is not up to the job. If so, for air targets including drones, that is the weapon that needs to be addressed, not the close in surface defence weapon.

 

[SammyC]

it won’t be an insane waste just yet as construction is not slated to commence until late 2028 and the full $12 billion is estimated out to 2040…so roughly an extra $1billion a year …but I suspect the gov is throwing it around to keep the Americans happy. Possibly highly inflated numbers …either that or they are getting vic CFMEU involved in the build.

From the media releases, my reading is that the expenditure is over the 10 year period of the existing IIP (so through to 2034). I could be wrong, information is very scant. I'm thinking it is also likely to be weighted to the back end, rather than the forward estimate, so perhaps $2-4B per year over these later years. That might be why the government was coy on stating its impact on %GDP as it could give away the schedule.

It seems this is expenditure that they have elected to pull forward, so work originally planned for post 2034. Perhaps that is the interest for the Americans, in that the facility is available for their needs earlier than we need it for our submarines.

 

[iambuzzard]

it won’t be an insane waste just yet as construction is not slated to commence until late 2028 and the full $12 billion is estimated out to 2040…so roughly an extra $1billion a year …but I suspect the gov is throwing it around to keep the Americans happy. Possibly highly inflated numbers …either that or they are getting vic CFMEU involved in the build.

Nah, if the Vic CFMEU were involved it would be twice that amount. Keep our ferals out of it.

 

[ADMk2]

I believe the Turkish Company Aselsan produce a 25mm programable air burst round the Atom 25. I have no idea the sensors needed nor changes to the Typhoon 25mm mount, as well as ammunition storage required, to utilise these rounds. However, I believe that it would be a worthwhile exercise for defence as a whole to investigate them, as it seems that it at least presents the possibility of considerably. increasing the effectiveness of the 25mm bushmasters in a variety of roles

They could but the Army is about to retire it's entire fleet of 25mm Bushmaster armed ASLAV's and the weapon is not otherwise in use within Army, leaving only RAN as the sole user. I suspect as has already been mentioned RAN is keen over time to move to the 30x173mm calibre which accords with the direction Army is headed in as well, as evidenced by the Typhoon Mk.30C being selected as the medium calibre gunnery system for the Hunters.

If there is to be additional investment in ammunition natures, I'd be pushing for a calibre with a long term future in ADF service, not one seemingly on the way out. Any new round is going to go through a certification process and the weapon and perhaps targeting / fire control systems would need upgrades too. I'd suggest a program to standardise on a medium calibre gunnery solution would be the better investment at this time (ie: consolidating on 30x173mm and the Mk.44 Bushmaster and an appropriate weapon station / fire control system for example). Co-incidentally I would suggest that Mk.30C Typhoon is probably the upper end of what we'll ever get for the Arafura Class as a permanent gunnery solution, so there might be some synergies there...

The frustration expressed here, appears to be that RAN doesn't seem to be prioritising making that same leap forward for existing vessels and is just happy with the status quo with the existing 25mm capability.

 

[ADMk2]

We’re getting 30mm on the Hunters because that’s what the design came with. We got 30mm on the Huons because that is what the design came with. We got 25mm for the Hobarts because that is what the design (F105) came with. The calibres were already in service with the ADF in other guises so there didn’t seem any point in changing what is essentially a weapon for engaging small craft at short ranges, with some limited capacity against close in, slow and low flying air threats.

However, Phalanx is the weapon of choice for engaging close in air targets, and both Hunter and Hobarts are fitted with that - so why change the design when you don’t need to (and weren’t allowed to - Military off the shelf - for Hobart). I know that’s a bit radical in ADF procurements - not tampering with a design - but there it is. ANZACs get by with 50 cal for the purpose (SRSD) btw.

Now, you might think that Phalanx is not up to the job. If so, for air targets including drones, that is the weapon that needs to be addressed, not the close in surface defence weapon.

The Hunters didn't come with a Typhoon Mk.30C? That was decided upon by RAN. That gun is not used (or intended) for any other Type 26 base design...

Word is the Phalanx is gone on the Hunters as well, so the philosophy about not "tampering" with the design, seems to be replaced with some new philosophy at least as far as that design is concerned.

Also the 40mm being binned on the Arafura suggests this philosophy might be somewhat more widespread than first thought...

 

[Volkodav]

Without wanting to create controversy, because the WA lobby within the Federal Government is stronger than the SA. The constant provision of work to, and apparent favouring of, Austal is part of that. I’ll leave Volk to describe how good a shipbuilder Austal actually is.

They have very good publicists and lobbyists. As for the rest, the most positive thing I can think of is they do run lean, perhaps too lean though.

 

[Stampede]

It might be useful to understand how a patrol boat intercepts a civilian vessel.

In the first case it approaches, observes and will make contact with the vessel. More often than not it just issues a move on order, or allow the vessel to continue. Probably well over 70% fall into this category.

If it considers that there is an illegal activity onboard, such as fishing, smuggling ect, then it will look to board and inspect.

If it views that a boarding is required it will assess whether the boarding will be compliant or not (i.e will the vessel personnel resist). In most cases boardings are compliant and an armed boarding party of about 8 people is sent over. The patrol boat will stay close by for support. 25% fall into this category.

If it is non compliant, then a boarding party will not be sent and the patrol boat will remain at a safe distance. I should note here that fishing boats are generally slow and not armed, but they may have people onboard with personal weapons. Its also difficult to climb onto a vessel that is deliberately being obstructive. These are less than 5% of the cases, if that.

In these cases they will hold and call for support. Each scenario is different. In my time on frigates where we had non compliant boardings we would use the helo as overwatch, bring the frigate right in close and call in other ships to help. We would often use multiple boarding parties and have extra people on the water ready for rescue. There were also times where we would use a special forces boarding party to replace the ship's boarding party, and there was a range of other tactics that went with that. Patrol boats would take a similar approach. Call in back up and maintain the scene until they arrive. They will not engage.

I should also note that a patrol boat is rarely rocking up blisfully unaware of the vessel it is intercepting. It will have been despatched after the vessel had already been assessed by another asset (such as a Triton, P8 or satellite). If the vessel was considered a potential threat then something different would have been sent to intercept in the first place.

So, in the case of the hostile militia fishing boat fleet, then the patrol boat is not the asset that would be dealing with it. A frigate would have been despatched with a lot of support. If for some reason the patrol boat ended up in this, it would withdraw to a safe distance and radio in.

The end point is patrol boats and OPVs deal with the 95% of cases that are compliant. Their main weapon is their boarding party, not the fitted gun.

Perhaps in the future hostile fishing boats become more common. The response is possibly likely to be more capable boarding parties rather than larger guns fitted to ships. Perhaps the Arafuras start taking SAS detachments and we look at light helo solutions for them.

If we reach the point of actual conflict with China, then I think the fshing boats will be more worried about prowling ghost sharks with torpedos.

Thanks for the detailed post.

Arming / not arming patrol vessels appears a perplexing mixed bag.

Attack, Fremantle and Armidale class had a decent gun up front. Capes No

So if what you say is correct, then no main gun needed for the Arafura’s or alternatively we follow the past and have a main gun on all patrol vessels; Capes and the OPV’s.
The former I understand can carry the 30mm Typhoon.

Better to have than not have I say.

Navy is not really flush with majors for the next decade


Cheers S

 

[spoz]

The Hunters didn't come with a Typhoon Mk.30C? That was decided upon by RAN. That gun is not used (or intended) for any other Type 26 base design...

No, they come with DS30Ms. But the footprint is much the same, so it seemed better to go with the Typhoons for commonality.

You change what you have to change; you don’t change anything else. In Hunter, we have had to change quite a lot that is way more significant than the SRSD. If Phalanx is now one of those, that’s what happens.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the detailed post.

Arming / not arming patrol vessels appears a perplexing mixed bag.

Attack, Fremantle and Armidale class had a decent gun up front. Capes No

So if what you say is correct, then no main gun needed for the Arafura’s or alternatively we follow the past and have a main gun on all patrol vessels; Capes and the OPV’s.
The former I understand can carry the 30mm Typhoon.

Better to have than not have I say.

Navy is not really flush with majors for the next decade


Cheers S

Umm... I suppose it depends on what one considers a 'decent' gun to be. The Attack-class PB's were armed with a Bofors 40 mm/L60 gun which IIRC was largely manually operated, much like the WWII-era Bofors 40 mm guns. The FCPB's had the same gun in a heavy duty Australian mounting which was supposed to be very good/stable and might have been the same mounting used with the earlier patrol boats. However, the mounting location on the FCPB had originally been intended for a 76 mm gun, so the FCPB could have been armed with something really capable of ASuW/NGFS had it become necessary. The ACPB OTOH has (only ~three still in commission) has the 25 mm Bushmaster in a Typhoon mounting. Likely adequate vs. smallcraft and probably able to damage larger fishing or merchant vessels with sustained firing, but it is still the gun a number of people are having issues with the RAN not already moving to replace with a larger 30 mm gun...

 

[Stampede]

Umm... I suppose it depends on what one considers a 'decent' gun to be. The Attack-class PB's were armed with a Bofors 40 mm/L60 gun which IIRC was largely manually operated, much like the WWII-era Bofors 40 mm guns. The FCPB's had the same gun in a heavy duty Australian mounting which was supposed to be very good/stable and might have been the same mounting used with the earlier patrol boats. However, the mounting location on the FCPB had originally been intended for a 76 mm gun, so the FCPB could have been armed with something really capable of ASuW/NGFS had it become necessary. The ACPB OTOH has (only ~three still in commission) has the 25 mm Bushmaster in a Typhoon mounting. Likely adequate vs. smallcraft and probably able to damage larger fishing or merchant vessels with sustained firing, but it is still the gun a number of people are having issues with the RAN not already moving to replace with a larger 30 mm gun...

Good overview

“Gun up front” as opposed to the principal weapon on the Capes being a 50 cal.

ie we seemed to want/ need something bigger in the past

What has changed?

Thanks for the post. S

 

[Todjaeger]

Good overview

“Gun up front” as opposed to the principal weapon on the Capes being a 50 cal.

ie we seemed to want/ need something bigger in the past

What has changed?

Thanks for the post. S

My impressions (take that for what is it worth...) are that both the Attack-class and Fremantle-class patrol boats were acquired by the RAN to serve and provide an actual combat capability, similar in some ways to the HDML's which had preceded them.

Changes in both the threat/security enviro as well as in naval/air kit and capabilities OTOH then led to their relevance in terms of direct combat being significantly reduced and they and their follow-on designs shifted more towards a policing/constab and much less a direct combat role. After all, how well could a gun-armed patrol boat even one armed with a 76 mm/62 gun, stop or deter a hostile vessel armed with a couple of AShM. Even the short-ranged Penguin AShM could deliver a crippling or fatal blow to a patrol boat long before getting into 76 mm gun range.

 

[iambuzzard]

No, they come with DS30Ms. But the footprint is much the same, so it seemed better to go with the Typhoons for commonality.

You change what you have to change; you don’t change anything else. In Hunter, we have had to change quite a lot that is way more significant than the SRSD. If Phalanx is now one of those, that’s what happens.

Spoz, what is replacing Phalanx?