They seem to mostly be talking about adapting existing missiles such as the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile ... at least in the short term. Seems to be reinventing the wheel a little since the Norwegians already operate these missiles from mobile launch vehicles.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Thales Australia is looking to make Tasmania the home of a trials and test facility for submarine and surface ship sonar systems.
Thales Australia, the University of Tasmania, Australian Maritime College and AMOG Consulting signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on July 17 to investigate the establishment of the facility.
“Sonar systems are the eyes and ears of our submarines and ships and are key to giving them the edge they need. The Collins class sonar upgrade program is boosting defence industry confidence around Australia,”
Thales Australia advises the use of Tasmania’s deep, cold and acoustically quiet lakes for the proposed acoustic testing capability could enable sonar systems, including those currently delivered by Thales, to be tested to new levels of accuracy.
Australian branches of Thales and Raytheon will be in charge of the A$542 million project to upgrade the fleet of six Royal Australian Navy Collins-class submarines. The upgrades are expected to start this year and the first to be upgraded will be HMAS Waller.
Thales Australia, the University of Tasmania, Australian Maritime College and AMOG Consulting signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on July 17 to investigate the establishment of the facility.
“Sonar systems are the eyes and ears of our submarines and ships and are key to giving them the edge they need. The Collins class sonar upgrade program is boosting defence industry confidence around Australia,”
Thales Australia advises the use of Tasmania’s deep, cold and acoustically quiet lakes for the proposed acoustic testing capability could enable sonar systems, including those currently delivered by Thales, to be tested to new levels of accuracy.
Australian branches of Thales and Raytheon will be in charge of the A$542 million project to upgrade the fleet of six Royal Australian Navy Collins-class submarines. The upgrades are expected to start this year and the first to be upgraded will be HMAS Waller.
The Royal Australian Navy is one step closer to operating their new hyperbaric equipment after the system achieved acceptance and global certification from Lloyds Register.
The system, a transfer under pressure chamber and recompression treatment suite worth AU$19.7 million, can treat the whole crew of an Australian submarine at once, according to JFD – the system manufacturer.
The equipment was delivered as part of an existing escape and rescue contract at its manufacturing headquarters at Bibra Lake, south of Perth.
“Achieving acceptance and global certification from Lloyds Register is a very rigorous and demanding procedure,” said general manager JFD Australia, Toff Idrus. “And what it means for submariners is extremely significant as up to 88 people can now receive life-saving medical treatment in the hyperbaric equipment suite and pressurized transfer chamber at any one time.”
“When you consider that a Collins-class submarine has a crew of 48 – 60, this new capability is very significant and represents an important milestone for submarine rescue in Australia.”
The system, a transfer under pressure chamber and recompression treatment suite worth AU$19.7 million, can treat the whole crew of an Australian submarine at once, according to JFD – the system manufacturer.
The equipment was delivered as part of an existing escape and rescue contract at its manufacturing headquarters at Bibra Lake, south of Perth.
“Achieving acceptance and global certification from Lloyds Register is a very rigorous and demanding procedure,” said general manager JFD Australia, Toff Idrus. “And what it means for submariners is extremely significant as up to 88 people can now receive life-saving medical treatment in the hyperbaric equipment suite and pressurized transfer chamber at any one time.”
“When you consider that a Collins-class submarine has a crew of 48 – 60, this new capability is very significant and represents an important milestone for submarine rescue in Australia.”
Nocookies
For those that cannot access the Australian I will just go over the main points ...
For those that cannot access the Australian I will just go over the main points ...
I am not sure what sort of ship it is or how big it will be but given that the Fijians currently don't operate anything bigger than a patrol boat it could represent a reasonable capability boost to their small navy. Of course the real question is whether or not this will come with any strings attached.
Why would you want to introduce HIMARS into the mix when we have NASAMS coming and you could very easily add NSM/JSM into the mix like Poland ?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Australian Army does have a req for a MRL system in the next Decade and unless a new MRL system is developed that means HIMARS and it more closely matches the Mission profile than NASAMS would. I think the NASAMS would be tied uo to much in defending key assets to be available for use in a ASuW Mission
HIMARS makes more sense.
We will end up with NSM though - on both the F-35 and P-8 - so will have a good suite of ground and air delivered naval strike systems.
Regards,
Massive
Why ? that is a statement not an answer.
Why is that ? once again a statement, not a position or reasons and thoughts behind it ? Explain to me your reasons and any references you have on the pro's and con's Vs requirements of the HIMARS v NASAMS with JSM/NSM integrated into the systems.
Again not saying I am right or wrong or know it all, but this forum is meant to be more than just stated opinion with no back up reference or supporting arguement.
We are already getting NASAMS2, the system has already had NSM integrated by Poland, we are more than likely getting JSM for P8 and JSF, potentially for the Navy too. A lot of what is being done in Defence is about Purple integration and Purple assets.
Bringing HIMARS and the associated systems and missiles into the Army when they are getting NASAMS2 to me makes no sense, if you can expand on that so we can see where you are coming from and the reason behind it we can debate the pro's and con's, much better that outright statements
Cheers
Fair enough.Bringing HIMARS and the associated systems and missiles into the Army when they are getting NASAMS2 to me makes no sense, if you can expand on that so we can see where you are coming from and the reason behind it we can debate the pro's and con's, much better that outright statements
Think that HIMARS is the plan though. Very strong direction from Maj-Gen McLachlan.
See page 2.
http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/NewsPapers/Army/editions/1368/1368a.pdf
I am strongly of the view that keeping NASAMS focussed on its AD role makes more sense.
Regards,
Massive
ragingsheep
New Member
Apologies if this has already been covered but what's the reasoning for the Hunter Class being designated as a frigate when it's a slightly larger ship compared to the Hobarts?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your enquiry.
From the 2016 DWP PDF page 98
4.53 "The Government will enhance the Armys Firepower with a new Long Range Rocket System in the mid 2020s to complement Armys existing Artillary capability. The new system will be capable of providing fire support to defeat threats to our personnel at ranges of up to 300kms.
As far as i am aware HIMARS is the only system on the Market that Australia would look at, others being of Russisn, Chinese or Unacceptable Exporters.
My thinking is that the ASuW Launcher Australia would select would be either NASAMS or HIMARS and that the Trg req to operate the HIMARS is closer to the ASuW mission than the AAW mission.of the NASAMS.
At present the RAA breaks down to 2 different employment streams, one for the Howitzers and one for the AD Regt, with the possibility of a MRL in the future that will probably become 3, the next question is where will the ASuW fit, a 4th stream or part of the MRL stream? If it is part of the MRL stream than having the same Launcher would mean a simplification of Trg. If it is a completly different stream than it may well be NASAMS.
Sorry if i sounded like i was stating fact, didn't mean to and as you say JSM/NSM should be the very strong favourite and it already being integrated will certainly help its cause
From the 2016 DWP PDF page 98
4.53 "The Government will enhance the Armys Firepower with a new Long Range Rocket System in the mid 2020s to complement Armys existing Artillary capability. The new system will be capable of providing fire support to defeat threats to our personnel at ranges of up to 300kms.
As far as i am aware HIMARS is the only system on the Market that Australia would look at, others being of Russisn, Chinese or Unacceptable Exporters.
My thinking is that the ASuW Launcher Australia would select would be either NASAMS or HIMARS and that the Trg req to operate the HIMARS is closer to the ASuW mission than the AAW mission.of the NASAMS.
At present the RAA breaks down to 2 different employment streams, one for the Howitzers and one for the AD Regt, with the possibility of a MRL in the future that will probably become 3, the next question is where will the ASuW fit, a 4th stream or part of the MRL stream? If it is part of the MRL stream than having the same Launcher would mean a simplification of Trg. If it is a completly different stream than it may well be NASAMS.
Sorry if i sounded like i was stating fact, didn't mean to and as you say JSM/NSM should be the very strong favourite and it already being integrated will certainly help its cause
Last edited:
Appreciate the reply and follow up info, also appreciate your reply Redlands.
Massive I will have a good look through the PDF you posted tonight, but appreciate the link, had not seen that one before. But I did have a quick look at page 2 as you suggested and see what you are pointing to, interesting that he also says "These will be similar to the HIMARS rockets many of our soldiers will have seen in use by the US Marine Corps in Afghanistan"
But typical for these guys to not commit to a specific system until announced by Government..
Totally understand that the NASAMS, at least initially, is purely focused on the AD role, was just pointing out with common systems, in particular, Poland using the NASAMS Command and Weapons Control systems for their coastal NSM Battalions, and Aus more than likely getting JSM, just looks like a very flexible system than can have a lot of synergies across a number of requirements that could make NASAMS very adaptable and easy to re configure to different roles ?
Cheers
Edit: we should probably pull this discussion across to the Army thread
Last edited:
Pretty much it, once upon a time size/displacement was a big factor, but it is role based. It is like the old argument that the Canberra's are aircraft carriers, of course they are because they are flat tops right ?
it is all about how they are emplyedCheers
I’m not aware of the flight profile oh the HIMARS missiles - can anybody elighten me? Do they, for example, have terrain following and/or terminal guidane, or are they just fired @ a 45 degree angle and then travel ballistically with little or no terminal manoeuvrability? Supersonic or high or low subsonic?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I sort of assumed they are a short range Ballistic missile along the lines of Iskander but smaller with a corresponding shorter range.
I’m assuming they would be good against a non-peer opponent, less good against someone with a short to medium range SAM linked into a decent radar network.
I’m assuming they would be good against a non-peer opponent, less good against someone with a short to medium range SAM linked into a decent radar network.
Near enough unless they use ATACMS which has INS/GPS guided versions and ranges out to the legal limit (300km?? I think). The US Army is developing a new missile to replace it with a range in the 500km order. Not sure how it gets to have double the range without hitting the same treaty limits though.
oldsig
Looks like HMAS Success is coming to an end of her service life.
One last RIMPAC for Battle Tanker
Do we have any news updates re the replacement supply ships ( AOR ) HMAS .Supply and Stalwart.
My understanding is they enter service in 2020 and 2022.
When will HMAS Success finish service
Interested
Regards S
One last RIMPAC for Battle Tanker
Do we have any news updates re the replacement supply ships ( AOR ) HMAS .Supply and Stalwart.
My understanding is they enter service in 2020 and 2022.
When will HMAS Success finish service
Interested
Regards S
- Status