Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ASSAIL said:
Yes I saw that but it begs the question, once the magazine is converted to the LWT Mk45, where would the MU 90 reloads be kept?
I suspect that standard practice will evolve to only the four tubes being loaded, unless I’m missing something? Is there a ready use magazine near the tubes?
Click to expand...
Shared magazine for Mu-90, Mk-54 and Hellfire. Not sure on the current config of the various ships and understand there is some BS currently about completing Sydney with the full Romeo config or the SH-60B on of the other two, that is, stretch the build and keep the workforce on longer (maybe avoiding some of the valley of death) or sacking them all now and getting the three Hobarts refitted after commissioning.

Makes me angry that talk about the valley of death being averted, its here and the OPVs made no difference what so ever. Osborne is going to be a ghost town for years and is going to have to be started from scratch, at huge expense just like every other ship building project since the early 50s. The idiocy of Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard and Abbott all failing to simply keep existing, expensively earned capability going happening again, I imagine that there will be multiple changes of government through the life of the current projects with each side blaming the other and the industry, inquiries set up to deliver preordained findings and Australian workers and engineers blamed for political decisions. All governments need to do is stick to a frigging plan for longer than an election cycle, or leadership tenure and things will pan out, just never going to happen in a climate where not just the various parties are trying to score political points on each other but the members of these parties are backstabbing their way through their own organisations.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Systems Adict said:
I have to say that having worked in shipbuilding for over 25 years I wan't impressed by the quality of finish on the bulkheads / the issues with the door design that are apparent as they gently try to open a watertight door that has a wall of water behind it.

Finish is 'commercial build quality' at best & the old saying is that you get what you pay for is apparent.

Is it any wonder that many navies look at UK ships that have had 25+ years service & think " that hull would suit our navy" ??
Click to expand...
There was this very discussion in the late 1960s when the RAN acquired their CFA DDGs.
Admiral Burrell was pilloried because he had agreed to a US design over British, the word was out that these fancy “Yank” ships wouldn’t last 20 years.
The truth was they outlasted every Brit design, performed superbly, were worked harder than the rest and lasted 30+ years without drama.
WRT the Hobart class, I’ll stay with the opinions of those who designed and built them.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Volkodav said:
Shared magazine for Mu-90, Mk-54 and Hellfire. Not sure on the current config of the various ships and understand there is some BS currently about completing Sydney with the full Romeo config or the SH-60B on of the other two, that is, stretch the build and keep the workforce on longer (maybe avoiding some of the valley of death) or sacking them all now and getting the three Hobarts refitted after commissioning.

Makes me angry that talk about the valley of death being averted, its here and the OPVs made no difference what so ever. Osborne is going to be a ghost town for years and is going to have to be started from scratch, at huge expense just like every other ship building project since the early 50s. The idiocy of Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard and Abbott all failing to simply keep existing, expensively earned capability going happening again, I imagine that there will be multiple changes of government through the life of the current projects with each side blaming the other and the industry, inquiries set up to deliver preordained findings and Australian workers and engineers blamed for political decisions. All governments need to do is stick to a frigging plan for longer than an election cycle, or leadership tenure and things will pan out, just never going to happen in a climate where not just the various parties are trying to score political points on each other but the members of these parties are backstabbing their way through their own organisations.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong but I understood the different fuel types between MU90 and Mk45 meant that they could not be stored in the same magazine?
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Volkodav said:
I heard from a former Ikara PM that the issue was that to get the best out of Ikara it needed a helo with a dunking sonar and once the Seakings lost this capability (and the navy a carrier to operate them, Ikara lost most of its effectiveness as it relied on the ships own sonar that offered nowhere near the targeting data or detection range required to get the best out of the system. Happy to stand corrected by those more knowledgeable on how the system was used.
Click to expand...
Yes the whole point of Ikara was the data link from the dunkers and if I’d thought through the arguments I wouldn’t have asked the stupid question.
They would have been brilliant with CEC though.
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
hairyman said:
Any chance Australia could re-open the Ikara production line, with a modernised Ikara?
Click to expand...
What the devil for? This is akin to the notion of restarting F-111 production. Anything that came out of it would have to be completely redesigned and would be a totally different product in a niche market that no-one seems to believe is needed. If it WAS needed there would already be an equivalent on the market.

oldsig
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
A
oldsig127 said:
What the devil for? This is akin to the notion of restarting F-111 production. Anything that came out of it would have to be completely redesigned and would be a totally different product in a niche market that no-one seems to believe is needed. If it WAS needed there would already be an equivalent on the market.

oldsig
Click to expand...
Agree ... you owuel be better of with the long range VLS capable round if you wanted to go down that path. The Ikara was impressive to watch, particularly if the guidance fin detatched.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
It appears on reading of other navies in the Pacific arena Like the U.S.N , China's and Japans that although they have aircraft and submarines capable of providing assistance to surface ships from submarine threat they still equip their ships with rocket launched torpedoes e.g. rum-139 ,is it perhaps philosophical or is there some empirical evidence that this is superfluous
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
seaspear said:
It appears on reading of other navies in the Pacific arena Like the U.S.N , China's and Japans that although they have aircraft and submarines capable of providing assistance to surface ships from submarine threat they still equip their ships with rocket launched torpedoes e.g. rum-139 ,is it perhaps philosophical or is there some empirical evidence that this is superfluous
Click to expand...
Your talking about VL ASROC as part of the load out in a Mk41 VLS.
There is nothing philosophical about that, these are relatively long range ASW weapons and not to be confused with short range Ship Launched Torpedoes.
The USN destroyers have up to 96 slots in their VLS and the weapon mix can be varied depending upon threat and tasking.
In an ideal world where funding is unlimited the RAN would also acquire a this capability. RUM 139VL is another weapon in the complex ASW arsenal but one which is a luxury for a small navy like ours.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I suggested philosophical because the R.N does not use this system nor are the ASW versions Fremms of France and Italy equipped with such , I would hope that the reason does not come down to money because its cheaper to have a 24/7 air coverage
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
seaspear said:
I suggested philosophical because the R.N does not use this system nor are the ASW versions Fremms of France and Italy equipped with such , I would hope that the reason does not come down to money because its cheaper to have a 24/7 air coverage
Click to expand...
Follow that line of thought. If the benefit of a VLS ASROC is an enormously greater range than an SLT, how can it be cheaper when it will still need air coverage to find the target at ranges beyond ship borne detection?

You'll have to find another way to blame political parsimony.

oldsig
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
The RUM-139 has a twenty two kilometre range double the MU-90 range ,A ships sensor depending on the sensor could be expected to pick up subsurface contacts at that range .and be able to quickly launch
I have not suggested parsimony just noted that other navies dont use this system but other navies in the Pacific do ,navies like the R.N and U.S.N may have different ideas in this , perhaps parsimony does play a part in the allocation for resources there
 
aussienscale

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
spoz said:
The magazine ended up becoming a mess deck I think, I didn’t serve in a CFA after it was removed.
Click to expand...
Not sure for Brisbane or Perth, but on Hobart the Port mag was converted to the ships canteen aft and fwd was converted into a TV/Video room for smokers.

Stbd mag was converted to the "Hobart Hilton" aft which was the previously mentioned for Flag Staff, and the front half become the ships gym

Interesting subject though, while Ikara is a dead dinosaur, akin to bringing back Seacat :) I do wonder of the possible utility if a modern VLS version could be developed, especially as Assail mentioned above now that you look at the capability of CEC ?

Cheers
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
aussienscale said:
Interesting subject though, while Ikara is a dead dinosaur, akin to bringing back Seacat :)
There are some old Kiwi salts who can still quote the Seacat manual chapter and verse, but if you want them to go back to sea they want all night in, nana naps during the afternoon watch, their daily tot of squirt, and wakey wakey to be at 7 bells on the morning watch. :):)
Click to expand...
 
C

capmal

New Member
oldsig127 said:
What the devil for? This is akin to the notion of restarting F-111 production. Anything that came out of it would have to be completely redesigned and would be a totally different product in a niche market that no-one seems to believe is needed. If it WAS needed there would already be an equivalent on the market.

oldsig
Click to expand...
On the market - Milas from Italy. Vertical Launch ASROC from USA, with Japanese, Russian and Chinese copies
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
ASSAIL said:
There was this very discussion in the late 1960s when the RAN acquired their CFA DDGs.
Admiral Burrell was pilloried because he had agreed to a US design over British, the word was out that these fancy “Yank” ships wouldn’t last 20 years.
The truth was they outlasted every Brit design, performed superbly, were worked harder than the rest and lasted 30+ years without drama.
WRT the Hobart class, I’ll stay with the opinions of those who designed and built them.
Click to expand...
And the alternative the County Class only had an average life Span in the RN of approx 18 years. Late 60s I dare say that there would still be some Old Salts who tended to think of the RAN as part of the RN and be totally against anything not British.
 
B

beegee

Active Member
capmal said:
On the market - Milas from Italy. Vertical Launch ASROC from USA, with Japanese, Russian and Chinese copies
Click to expand...
You forgot South Korea's Red Shark.

Everyone is talking about range, but that's not the main strength of such systems, it's speed. They put a weapon on target faster than any other delivery method.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
aussienscale said:
Not sure for Brisbane or Perth, but on Hobart the Port mag was converted to the ships canteen aft and fwd was converted into a TV/Video room for smokers.

Stbd mag was converted to the "Hobart Hilton" aft which was the previously mentioned for Flag Staff, and the front half become the ships gym

Interesting subject though, while Ikara is a dead dinosaur, akin to bringing back Seacat :) I do wonder of the possible utility if a modern VLS version could be developed, especially as Assail mentioned above now that you look at the capability of CEC ?

Cheers
Click to expand...
Ikara was finished as a system once ASROC obtained in flight guidance sometime in the 90s. Ikara’s advantage over the box mounted ASROC was just that, as early ASROC was purely ballistic. Further Ikara’s magazines were huge pieces of real estate so once a similar capability was designed into a VLS and when major upgrades were required to the weapon guidance system, it’s demise was assured.
There’s no advantage gained by Ikara that can’t be replicated in ASROC VL.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
seaspear said:
The RUM-139 has a twenty two kilometre range double the MU-90 range ,A ships sensor depending on the sensor could be expected to pick up subsurface contacts at that range .and be able to quickly launch
I have not suggested parsimony just noted that other navies dont use this system but other navies in the Pacific do ,navies like the R.N and U.S.N may have different ideas in this , perhaps parsimony does play a part in the allocation for resources there
Click to expand...
In the grand scheme of things, an extra ~20 km for a ship-launched LWT is of somewhat limited value in many (perhaps even most) circumstances. I am fairly certain that at points earlier in this thread I posted links to various western ASW operations papers, which showed a 3-layered response in ASW ops. The third or final/inner ASW layer was where ship-launched weaponry could be used to directly engage possible sub contacts. Even with the increase in range something like ASROC-VL could provide, the span of that third layer is dwarfed by the dozens of km's a hostile sub would need to penetrate the outer and middle layers, where fixed and rotary-wing aircraft operate to detect and engage sub contacts, before a hostile sub could potentially detect and engage shipping.

As a practical matter, if something like ASROC-VL were to be effectively used, a hostile sub would need to have managed to penetrate two layers of the ASW screen, and be close enough to the launching ship that the sub could already have fired sub-launched heavyweight torpedoes (which usually out-range the max range of ASROC + the LWT) and/or AShM which can certainly be much longer ranged.

If the rest of the ASW screen for a task force is working properly, then a hostile sub should have been engaged well before the escort could utilize ASROC. With that in mind, I would much rather have a RAN vessel fill one of their limited in number VLS cells with either an air defence or strike missile loadout as they would present a greater range of employment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top