A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[gf0012-aust]

So in these situations, presumably diplomacy is key to resolving such issues?

Diplomacy is always the preferred first choice...

unfort, IMO the UN is ineffective, and thus you see things like ET happening where the UN was basically desperate for Australia to take the initiative because they had no traction on the issue internally - australia provided a way forward for them (plus australia had anticipated ET going bad and so had prelim organised standup of some forces and had some logistics elements already available due to good timing. Even so, ET could have been ugly.

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers again GF.

In terms of lessons learned from the likes of ET, Fiji, etc, clearly NZ doesn't seem to be thinking in a similar manner to Aus (well perhaps one might be able to say the NZ sealift vessel concept appeared to gain impedous after the 87 Fiji coup), but are you able to comment on one or two areas or capabilities where NZ needs to buildup/enhance/do better, in order to better support a future Aus led intervention in the "near region" if such a need ever arises?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Cheers again GF.

In terms of lessons learned from the likes of ET, Fiji, etc, clearly NZ doesn't seem to be thinking in a similar manner to Aus (well perhaps one might be able to say the NZ sealift vessel concept appeared to gain impedous after the 87 Fiji coup), but are you able to comment on one or two areas or capabilities where NZ needs to buildup/enhance/do better, in order to better support a future Aus led intervention in the "near region" if such a need ever arises?

politically and diplomatically I regard the kiwis as being smarter at working the micronesian neighbours than Oz, so I might cop some flack from my fellow aussies on this.

I do think that they were heading down the right path with their MRV, it was just a bad procurement management process that has let it down.

as for other capabilities, NZSAS are a very very good outfit, the quiet achievers...

my view is if NZ can't commit sharp resources (and I can't see why not, but thats a local politics issue) then they have capability in ISR with the Orions and they can certainly provide trucks (hercs) if needed.

I'm unsure as to whether NZ signed a maritime treaty with France (like Oz did) but that would be something mutually useful.

ie France maritime protection and australian customs vessels have shared jurisdiction rights in overlap territory, and we can hotswap onto each others vessels with approp arresting powers etc....

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers GF (that's a very 'diplomatic' answer ), I'll leave things at that, and seeing this is a "hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN" thread I'd better leave it to get back onto topic. Except in terms of the forthcoming LHD's it would be great if NZ thought about its future capabilities that could tie in (eg should NZ ever consider dedicated recon helos to replace the lost fast air capability, then best ensure the recon helos are marinised and practice operating off the LHD's (and put some crew onboard). Whilst I'm sure ADF has enough Tigers to be able to handle LHD ops themselves, what I mean is, it would seem sensible to me that any NZ rotary asset that could deploy on a LHD for some reason, be capable of so it's not a hinderance and/or would be deemed too troublesome to try and make work etc. As an example the reason for me saying this I have the impression (reading your comments a year ago) that NZ A-4's weren't seriously considered for ET because a) RAAF fast air had everything covered anyway, b) RNZAF A-4's weren't up to spec (lack of ECM, modern targeting sensors and the appropriate standoff weapons which were compatible with ADF doctrines etc); so rather than have NZ try and contribute something "half-arsed" to an LHD in an "emergency situation", which may not fit, best it have the right tools in the first place so to speak.

 

[Jaimito]

What is wrong with using the Australian Army's Tiger ARHs off the LHDs for close air support? Please explain why the LHDs require fighter jets to support the troops with close air support when Tigers are available? Maybe some should research the Tigers capabilities...

Tiger capabilities for ground support are less compared with F35´s:

-just 4 weapons pods, plus a machine gun under nose, 4 pods for another machine gun and 3 antitank missiles, for example. F35b, machine gun, plus has 2 internal missiles plus some bombs (6 small diameter bombs, 8 Gbu53) also internally, and externally another 4 pylons for ground weapons (heavy ones if needed).
-no satcom as F35 has.
-just normal flir compared to the electrooptical target system more capable in F35.
-speed, range multiplied.
-Radar: F35b has an orientable radar totally useful for ground searching combined with the electroptical target system.
-Stealth: if F35b is really stealth, it´s an obvious advantage.

So that you extend greatly the protection for ground forces in terms of weapons, ranges to be deployed the ground forces, speed to be helped asap, orientable ground radar...

 

[SASWanabe]

Tiger capabilities for ground support are less compared with F35´s:

-just 4 weapons pods, plus a machine gun under nose, 4 pods for another machine gun and 3 antitank missiles, for example. F35b, machine gun, plus has 2 internal missiles plus some bombs (6 small diameter bombs, 8 Gbu53) also internally, and externally another 4 pylons for ground weapons (heavy ones if needed).
-no satcom as F35 has.
-just normal flir compared to the electrooptical target system more capable in F35.
-speed, range multiplied.
-Radar: F35b has an orientable radar totally useful for ground searching combined with the electroptical target system.
-Stealth: if F35b is really stealth, it´s an obvious advantage.

So that you extend greatly the protection for ground forces in terms of weapons, ranges to be deployed the ground forces, speed to be helped asap, orientable ground radar...

your understating the tiger massively mate, out tigers seem to carry 52 od unguided missiles + 30mm cannon and since a tiger can get in close the fact their unguided doesnt matter

 

[Kirkzzy]

The Tiger is great for ground support (and the Apache is better... but I am unsure about its maritime capabilities) and will be suffice. What GF said has pretty much changed my mind about a carrier, as if we were using our LHDs in a medium to high intensity conflict, we could just position our strike aircraft at a neighbouring country. Cost and compromise is too much IMO.

I'd rather an F35A then F35B any day.

 

[Jaimito]

your understating the tiger massively mate, out tigers seem to carry 52 od unguided missiles + 30mm cannon and since a tiger can get in close the fact their unguided doesnt matter

The pods that you use for the unguided rockets are not as effective in range as specialized antitank guided missil.
If you are in an helo, your main threat is the ground to air missiles, typically in manpads or armoured vehicles, with a range of like 5 kms, guided. Can a round of unguided small rockets destroy a heavy armoured vehicle moving at 40 kms/h 5 kms away of it? I don´t know but the air to ground guided missiles can do it, so i count that weapon better than the unguided rockets.

If you have just Tigers or Seahawks don´t expect to guarantee success in front of manpads or armoured vehicles. But if you have some F35b, manpads are no problem because they fly high and F35b stealth and missil warning system and pilot ejection. If they have armoured vehicles then no problem either as F35b has a combined radar-electroptical targeting...

But utility in sea is different, this is ground support.

 

[SASWanabe]

the tiger can carry ~16 hellfires? and still 12+ unguided rockets

not to mention its probably one of the hardest Helicopters to lock onto with MANPADS, i.e it was designed to be

 

[Jaimito]

the tiger can carry ~16 hellfires? and still 12+ unguided rockets

not to mention its probably one of the hardest Helicopters to lock onto with MANPADS, i.e it was designed to be

Ah sorry, pods can carry more than 1 missile, for Australian Arh is 8 antitank missiles (hellfires) in 2 harder pylons, and 2 exterior pylons which can´t carry antitank missile. Possible some rockets in the 2 ext pylons (not hydra).

Anyway is always more risky to send helos that have to face ground to air missiles than F35bs and also F35b has a higher situational awareness or identification and targeting, from my understanding.

Of course they will know what can do or not. But never know when a sudden 3rd world war or reginally asiatic extended war commences and apperar a case similar to East Timor where they think better would have been to have autonomous F35b support.

We hope all this capabilities to not use them ever, it is just war theoretical capabilities, not necessarily justified by a practical probability.

Edit: Tigers are hard to destroy but a against missiles which similars destroy tanks of 40 or 50 tonnes..
Edit: what i mean maybe manpads are 15 kgs missiles but missiles carried in armoured vehicles might be heavier.

 

[Jaimito]

But for F35b air to ground missiles:
-they say the Brimstone for the F35b (at least that reference), which shares airframe with Hellfire, and for Uk Raf is 3 Brimstone per pylon with a good range of 12 kms. So if similarly to Raf Tornados or Harriers, just the 4 heavier external pylons of the F35b give 12 antitank missiles, apart some more inside, so it might almost twice the Tiger in antitank missiles.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But utility in sea is different, this is ground support.

The Tigers will be embarked at sea to be used for expeditionary and "over the beach" events

that means they are onboard to conduct and assist in CAS.

We have been through this before, can you NOT make claims which are wrong and present them as fact.

 

[Volkodav]

UN says go
have carrier,
have JSF,
decap enemy C2,
insert force,
recover civilians
recover foreign dignitaries
recover foreign nationals
kill bad guys,
hold ground until main force arrives etc....
wait for UN to stay stop

Sounds like a perfect scenario to be laid out in a Power Point.

Nothing quite matches Power Point for delivering that overwhelming false sense security that you actually know what you are doing no matter how complex the issue or how far off the mark you are.

I suppose thats why professionals such as Brigadier General McMaster (USArmy) have banned its use in operational matters and conversely why MBAs and management consultants love it and use it for everything. It all comes down to whether you are the person who is responsible for getting the job done or just the person paid to tell someone else how you think it should be done but aren’t actually accountable for the result.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sounds like a perfect scenario to be laid out in a Power Point.

Thats why its called "death by powerpoint"

 

[Volkodav]

Thats why its called "death by powerpoint"

I saw a good one on CM the other day, made me want to run away and join the circus, at least there you can tell the clowns by the way they dress and can avoid having to listen to them.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I suppose thats why professionals such as Brigadier General McMaster (USArmy) have banned its use in operational matters and conversely why MBAs and management consultants love it and use it for everything.

Powerpoint has its place, but its not everywhere. Too many people rely on it for 100% of the communication. NASA has also looked at restricting its use. Complex and technical are not its forte and using it for such should be criminal (in some cases it is). It also breeds a culture of news bite style presentations lacking substance.

But I've lost context of where Volkaodav quoted that from? This thread?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

But I've lost context of where Volkaodav quoted that from? This thread?

V. was referring to gf's quote on pg 48. Point form = powerpoint fodder.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

F-35A can't match F-35B's ability to sustain sorties 2000nm away from Australian coast unless foreign air bases are sought in which case logistics is just as critical.

500/1000lb-ers are sometimes required eg flatten hostile buildings. Tigers are the next best thing.

Read "apache dawn". It'd give a good understanding of the flexibility of atk helo use and when fixed air support is called. Apaches were sending 30mm/hellfires through windows in buildings. When things got too hot ie too many windows, a Mk-38 JDAM completes the job more efficiently. In army's case, excalibur PGM support will probably be needed.

Bigger bang option is to get the himars or MLRS with the GMLRS. A single GMLRS could also do the job.

 

[icelord]

Thanks for that GF, although I still personally have a concern for their maritime suitability, but having said that realistically how often will we see them on the LHD's ? So timeline wise are we roughly on track for the certifications along with the LHD's etc ? And where are they at with weapons certifications ? IIRC they were having some troubles there as well ?

Just as a side question, has there been any real interest (other than forum/blog) shown in the Bay Class ?

Thanks

Defence requested info on lease/purchase outright of the bay(believed to be Largs Bay) and further info on the purchase, its like asking a dealer for more info while he sells the car...just bloody well buy the damn thing and dont screw up the contract!!!

 

[aussienscale]

Defence requested info on lease/purchase outright of the bay(believed to be Largs Bay) and further info on the purchase, its like asking a dealer for more info while he sells the car...just bloody well buy the damn thing and dont screw up the contract!!!

Thanks mate, I saw the media release about a day or 2 after, Largs Bay seems to be the common name coming up. You would hope they don't stuff up the contract I would prefer to see us buy rather than lease, I noted in the press release that they only mentioned that it was a gap fill measure until the LHD's arrive ? no mention of the proposed Sealift Ship, so is this still on the cards I wonder?

 

[Sea Toby]

Thanks mate, I saw the media release about a day or 2 after, Largs Bay seems to be the common name coming up. You would hope they don't stuff up the contract I would prefer to see us buy rather than lease, I noted in the press release that they only mentioned that it was a gap fill measure until the LHD's arrive ? no mention of the proposed Sealift Ship, so is this still on the cards I wonder?

If Australia buys or leases the Lars Bay, she will be the third sea lift ship... What is nice about the Lars Bay is that she more or less fulfills all of the specs Australia had for a third sea lift ship...

Instead of buying a new one later, Australia will end up with a cream puff, a recently built ship for less cost and getting her earlier than planned... Its not as if Australia is buying an unwanted and unplanned ship...