The Mk41 Loadout for the RAN T-26 is classified and will be released in due course if it is selected, the capabilities will not be fully recognised until the full design plans are released.There has been some interesting discussion in the previous posts regarding the possible need for the RAN to enhance its anti-aircraft and anti-missile defences by providing more effective close-range weapons for the LHDs and Choules, along with the future AORs and OPVs. Whilst I agree that this is an area that needs close attention in future planning there is another area where I believe there is a glaring weakness in the RAN’s order of battle that needs to be addressed in future planning; namely the number of deployable helicopters.
It has been interesting to follow Exercise Ocean Explorer 2018, which has now moved into Bass Strait. With 10 ships (including 1 RN and 1 RNZN) and 2 submarines involved it is certainly large scale by RAN standards. One of the things that stands out, however, is the comparatively small number of helicopters that can be observed in the video and photographic images made available so far. With HMAS Canberra spearheading the force it is a pity, IMO, that the navy seems unable to take advantage of her aviation capacity at times when she does not have a sizeable amphibious force and supporting army helicopters embarked. This of course is not the fault of the navy but comes down to the small number of helicopters available for deployment. With just 6 – 8 MRH-90s assigned to the FAA and 24 (or is it now 23?) MH-60Rs, there just doesn’t appear to be enough available to enable the fleet to operate to its potential.
Way back in the Vietnam war era HMAS Sydney used to carry a detachment of 4 Wessex helos on some of its supply runs. I hope that the RAN is looking at the future possibility of deploying MH-60Rs from the LHDs as even a small detachment would be a huge force multiplier to any task group, in ASW, anti-shipping, surveillance and logistical roles. However, to stand up even one flight of 3 – 4 Romeos for this role, it is apparent that additional units would need to be ordered. The present inventory is required just to support the 8 deployable single helicopter flights that are currently planned.
If 3 helos are required for every 1 at sea, I just can’t see how an inventory of 6-8 will enable the navy to provide an adequate number of MHR-90s for the new AORs, as well as Choules and the LHDs.
The other requirement that is emerging is the need to be able to provide light helos able to operate, when required, from the OPVs. I know that at this stage the RAN has no publicly declared plans to permanently embark manned helicopters on these ships, but they will have flight decks and it would seem sensible to maintain at least a small number of LUHs under naval control that could be deployed if required. With the withdrawal of the Squirrels and the replacement EC-135s being assigned to the HATS program, there must be uncertainty as to whether any of these helicopters would be able to be deployed operationally (as happened in emergencies in the past with the Squirrels).
Obviously, the procurement of additional naval helicopters is unlikely in the short term as it would fall outside projects approved under the present White Paper. It will also need to be considered against other long-term desires, but it does seem to me that it is an area where an increase in deployable numbers is needed to enable the currently planned fleet to operate to its full potential.
Tas
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The Mk41 Loadout for the RAN T-26 is classified and will be released in due course if it is selected, the capabilities will not be fully recognised until the full design plans are released.
The number of cells being offered by the competing designs possibly, and the number to be fitted to whichever design is selected certainly, will be released. The actual load out, which in any case would be likely to be varied from mission to mission and indeed within missions will remain classified.
Pardon me you misinterpreted my language, I meant that the actual number of cells is classified at the current time and will be released in due course. As you said, of course, the missile loadout will be classified.
Tas, I am totally agree with you, but I think LHD would be an excellent "mother ship" for UAV, USV or USuV as well.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The number might be currently classified, but we can make some educated guesses on the likely range of cell numbers the future frigate will have.
Given the increasing instability around the globe, and specifically in or between areas of interest to Australia, as well as the proliferation of AShM (including their employment by non-state actors) and other air threats, then it is not surprising that there has been interest in the Future Frigates having a greater air defence capability. Since it has already been set for the Future Frigates to include the Aegis Combat Management System, then IMO it would be foolish for the Future Frigate to not also include enough VLS cells to make effective use of that combat system. With that in mind, I would expect the Future Frigate to be kitted out with (or at least fitted for if not with) 32 Mk 41 VLS cells on the low end, up to 48 or even 64 Mk 41 VLS cells. If the Future Frigate only has a small number of VLS cells, that would effectively preclude the frigate's missile load out from having longer-ranged missiles like SM-2, or in the future SM-3/6, as current practice AFAIK is to fire two missiles to intercept each inbound. If the Future Frigate was fitted with only 16 or 24 strike-length Mk 41 VLS cells, that would permit a maximum of 8 or 12 possible intercept, assuming the cells had SM-2/3/6 missiles. By the same token, if the cells only were loaded with ESSM, any intercepts beyond 50 km would be out of reach which would limit the Future Frigate's ability to support or replace/cover the role of a Hobart-class AWD.
A bit of history.
Agree with the concern regarding helicopter numbers and the need for LUHs to be used as required.
A wish list for sure and not in the DWP forecast, but for myself increased aviation at sea is a need not a whim.
A question, what is the most helicopters numbers ( Any Flavour in ADF inventory ) any one of the Canberra class LHD has taken to sea?
My guess is its only about half a dozen, but I may be wrong.
These are bloody big ships with an impressive capacity to store and service both in the hangar and light vehicle deck, not to mention the massive fight deck itself.
I appreciate we are still learning how to operate these ships and all that they embark, but given we are a few years in now I have not scene any aviation Pics or read any information that suggest an impressive show of force.
Any thought or assistance.
Regards s
Hopefully someone may have better first hand knowledge than me as my visits to Canberra and Adelaide have been limited to their visits to Hobart during cold latitude helicopter trials.Based on news reports and info available to the public 3 MRH-90s were embarked on Canberra during Operation Fiji Assist in 2016 where they joined 4 more that were transported to Fiji by RAAF C-17s. There is also a series of photos on the Government Defence website which show 5 MRH-90s and 4 landing craft deployed. That remains the largest number of helicopters I have seen deployed at any one time on one of the LHDs. If I recall correctly Canberra carried a single Seahawk and 2 MRH-90s the only time I have been on board.
Image from Australian Government Dept of Defence website
Tas
T
They were the sort helicopter numbers form deployments I was aware of up to now.
I guess I must accept we are in the crawl phase of crawl ,walk and run.
However, I must confess that I would have expected a much greater number of helicopters to have being deployed, even if it was to just get the aircraft movement skills up for deck handling across the flight deck, lifts and internal hangar spaces.
Its one thing to move a helicopter between decks, but another to conduct the same sort of operation when packed to capacity with like aircraft and stores.
Surely some of this training could be conducted in port.
If anything the LHD's are a great multi service recruitment asset which look to most eyes much more photogenic with aircraft aboard than with out.
As they say a picture says a thousand words
I appreciate there is complexity in flying stuff off big floating things but these LHD's will be such a go to asset for so many scenarios that I have reservations as to there rate of effort. I will watch to see how this subject progresses in the future as I'm sure others in the region will watch and gauge are true LHD capability.
When do we walk and crawl?
Regards S
Thanks Tasman
They were the sort helicopter numbers form deployments I was aware of up to now.
I guess I must accept we are in the crawl phase of crawl ,walk and run.
However, I must confess that I would have expected a much greater number of helicopters to have being deployed, even if it was to just get the aircraft movement skills up for deck handling across the flight deck, lifts and internal hangar spaces.
Its one thing to move a helicopter between decks, but another to conduct the same sort of operation when packed to capacity with like aircraft and stores.
Surely some of this training could be conducted in port.
If anything the LHD's are a great multi service recruitment asset which look to most eyes much more photogenic with aircraft aboard than with out.
As they say a picture says a thousand words
I appreciate there is complexity in flying stuff off big floating things but these LHD's will be such a go to asset for so many scenarios that I have reservations as to there rate of effort. I will watch to see how this subject progresses in the future as I'm sure others in the region will watch and gauge are true LHD capability.
When do we walk and crawl?
Regards S
It looks like Austal isn't certain to be part of the project to build Australia's new OPV. In fact the government seems to be back peddling by saying that Austal role in the program was not guaranteed and that it is up to Lurssen to decide who will be its primary contractor.
That being the case I would assume that Lurssen would prefer Civmec.
PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News
That being the case I would assume that Lurssen would prefer Civmec.
PressReader.com - Connecting People Through News
Hardly back peddling. The contract is with Lurssen and they were always free to choose who to partner with, so long as it was done in Perth. Assumptions that that meant Austal were all the work of Austal and the so called WA Mafia
oldsig
Trackmaster
Member
And I note that an economics writer in The Australian who now presents himself as having defence expertise wrote an article referring to the OPV contract earlier in the week.
He lost credibility with me when he kept referring to an organisation called "Austral".
With the RAN's new submarine having 'pump jet' propulsion IMHO it would make sense to install this technology when overhauling one of our "Collins Class' submarines.
This would enable any problems with the 'pumped jet' system to be worked upon on a known platform as well as training operators in the use of the new system?
Cheers
Pussertas
This would enable any problems with the 'pumped jet' system to be worked upon on a known platform as well as training operators in the use of the new system?
Cheers
Pussertas
Maybe for any Flight II version. But his name is already on a Collins class, which suggests it wouldn't be amount the early names on the Barracudas.Since no sailor in the RAN has ever been awarded a VC would it be possible to name the forthcoming Barracuda 1A submarines the 'Sheean Class?
Pussertas
If the Barracudas do continue the Collins naming scheme I'd put my money on one or more of the following before COllins class names start getting recycled:
Hudspeth, after Lieutenant Ken Hudspeth, won the DSC for his actions during a midget sub attack on the Tripitz, subsequently bagged two bars to the DSC for midget sub operations in the lead up to D-Day.
Howden, after Captain Harry Howden, commander of HMAS Hobart 1939-42.
Walker, after Lt. Commander Jefferson Walker, captain of HMAS Parramatta, KIA when the sloop was sunk on the Tobruck supply run in 1941.
Crace, after Vice Admiral Sir John Crace, commander of the Australian Squadron 1939-42 including command of a cruiser force at Coral Sea. Australian by birth but an RN officer...
I wouldn't read too much into the advertised ranges. "Range" has many different definitions.
Physically, ESSM out of VLS ignites its motor, clears the launcher, then burns energy turning into the target. While Sea Ceptor is smaller, it uses soft launch, and it points at the target before rocket motor ignition. Hard to quantify the result, but different methods to accomplish essentially the same goal.
That said, ESSM out of trainable Sea Sparrow launchers is a different animal.
There is a Kiwi navy VC holder. Maybe you could borrow himSince no sailor in the RAN has ever been awarded a VC would it be possible to name the forthcoming Barracuda 1A submarines the 'Sheean Class?
Pussertas
The added size and weight of a pumjet onto the back of a Collins would have it bobbing up and down in the water like a pogo stick, just not that simple, and big power requirements, something the Collins it not going to cope with.
Small chance an ex RAN Tug/Minesweeper will end up in the Lakes down in Victoria. One of my customers is currently bidding on one of the old Bandicoot class boats.
circa 1982 Ex Navy Minesweeper Auxiliary Auction (0001-10002427) | GraysOnline Australia
circa 1982 Ex Navy Minesweeper Auxiliary Auction (0001-10002427) | GraysOnline Australia
It will be a money pit if the systems have been left to rot. The survey report does not inspire confidence given the quoted speed (sorry 20+ knots ..... just stopped laughing. Designed for around 10) and the fact the surveyor could not identify the country of build.
Pity, they were pretty good little vessels but are old and worn now.
- Status