Littoral Combat Ship
- Thread starter Jezza
- Start date
Sea State 8 is pretty extreme and more than good enough enough for Australia. The LCS could easily perform the roles of our current frigates and if AEGIS was (which i believe it could) added it could perform the role of our future AWD's.
You wouldn't have to add AEGIS to all the LCS ships either.
The high levels of automation would allow the LCS to perform the basic role of an ANZAC frigate with large reduction in crew size. This in my opinion is the biggest reason the LCS should be considered. You have the option of running a skeleton crew for basic patrolling duties with the ability to fly in extra crew in an emergency.
When crew shortages become a problem for the Navy you have to find a solution. Adding more large ships with huge manning requirements such as the AWD and LHD's are NOT a good option. They are such a bad option that if we did go to war in our region it may come and bite us on the ass.
As with any job if you dont have the crew or equipment you have to outsource. The only solution is Global Hawk and P-3/P-8 aircraft. If Global hawk can reduce the requirement of a single frigate thats 100 sailors that are well needed elsewhere.
Based on the US manning requirements and the extreme automation of the LCS i wouldn't be surprised if it could perform the role of our ANZAC ships with as little as half of the crew considering we train our sailors for multiple roles reducing the crew compared to the US. An LCS with bolt on radar and a few helicopters could perform the role of the AWD with the manning requirements of our current ANZAC frigates.
The LCS using modules allows for upgrades to be performed easily and automation increased which would offset any increase in crew as more useful features get added.
Though I believe Australia only requires a greenwater navy with assistance of RAAF for patrolling larger area's.
Having ships patrolling 1/9th of the worlds ocean is far from effecient. Aircraft can patrol a larger area in a fraction of the time. The high speed LCS design makes a good interceptor if something is detected by the RAAF.
You wouldn't have to add AEGIS to all the LCS ships either.
The high levels of automation would allow the LCS to perform the basic role of an ANZAC frigate with large reduction in crew size. This in my opinion is the biggest reason the LCS should be considered. You have the option of running a skeleton crew for basic patrolling duties with the ability to fly in extra crew in an emergency.
When crew shortages become a problem for the Navy you have to find a solution. Adding more large ships with huge manning requirements such as the AWD and LHD's are NOT a good option. They are such a bad option that if we did go to war in our region it may come and bite us on the ass.
As with any job if you dont have the crew or equipment you have to outsource. The only solution is Global Hawk and P-3/P-8 aircraft. If Global hawk can reduce the requirement of a single frigate thats 100 sailors that are well needed elsewhere.
Based on the US manning requirements and the extreme automation of the LCS i wouldn't be surprised if it could perform the role of our ANZAC ships with as little as half of the crew considering we train our sailors for multiple roles reducing the crew compared to the US. An LCS with bolt on radar and a few helicopters could perform the role of the AWD with the manning requirements of our current ANZAC frigates.
The LCS using modules allows for upgrades to be performed easily and automation increased which would offset any increase in crew as more useful features get added.
Sea State 8 i would classify as bluewater capable.
Though I believe Australia only requires a greenwater navy with assistance of RAAF for patrolling larger area's.
Having ships patrolling 1/9th of the worlds ocean is far from effecient. Aircraft can patrol a larger area in a fraction of the time. The high speed LCS design makes a good interceptor if something is detected by the RAAF.
bluewater capability is not defined by sea state numbers
You're joking?? How the hell would we have intercepted any of the poachers in the last 8 years at the transnational level? Planes can't do VBSS
how the hell is a greenwater navy going to continue to do the long range ISR and patrol that we have to do? (and no, I will not give you mission specifics - but the need for LR ISR still exists)
I suggest that you resarch all our territorial responsibilities and then tell DefMin and Maritime Command how to fix it then.. Better still, tell Alex and he can pass it on.
I guess we gave the Ministers staff dud info at Senate Estimates one year
- You do realise the difference between green and blue water navies?So you'd want to use a high speed BE based for the Indian Ocean or Bass Strait intercepts? Good luck to the crew for that little jaunt. Crikey we almost broke an ANZAC in two doing that recently, a BE based hull trying the same stunt would result in us calling in additional rescue asetss to recover them on the way back.
Patrol is a complimentary role, but you cannot use aircraft for long range management and direct surface assets to intruders, its the RAN, not the USCG or USN where they have greater penant access.
BTW. in excess of 90% of our trade is conducted by sea - that means that we have a complelling need to project to protect our SLOCs. Air cannot do it. a greenwater navy has no hope of fulfilling tnat role
You can't add AEGIS, For crying out loud, read the posts of people who actually have been involved in integration projects.
In that case, forget the surface warfare role and just make them fisheries inspection vessels. Better still, if thats the job, then turf them altogether and get a mission specific asset to do it instead. If Lab get in then expect a coastguard and more Roebucks - not an LCS legacy asset
Maybe you should listen to some of the RAN and USN guys who have explained the minimum manning levels and why they exist.
And your maritime doctrine and threat assessment for this is based on what?
Funnily enough, when Coastwatch and the contractor had to put in their submissions 3 weeks ago, they made it pretty clear that air cannot do the job. BAMS and LR-ISR/ASW defacto GMTI does not provide the solution. They are comlimentary solutions
You can't manage bluewater territories with BAMs
So, now you want to remove redundancy, fire teams etc because you think that we can halve the crews? we already know that 180 is the base achievable figure before the risk curve goes in the other direction. We di not want minimum citadel based teams for a reason, we don't want minimum "below the waterline" manning levels either. The number 180 hasn't been pulled out of a hat - it took a number of years to prune it down - and at the same time the USN was also looking at achieving similar levels, they decided that for a given mission requirement, that they couldn't either. Reduced manning achievements between RAN and USN for similar vesels is not relevant as they have different manning requirements.
You can't retro a cat hull. It has to be factored in at centreline or you start to screw up vessel flexibility.
I've got Austals hull design and schematics for the legacy vesels, you just can't mix and match the hull components like a dinner suit. Its a warfighting asset, not an advert for Ikea.
There is a reason why we don't have COTS in the navy to the extent that you suggest. Its the Navy, not the Pacific Princess. (For a lesson on how going to a COTs mentality can effect overall performance, look at the Kongos.)
Or for that matter, the start of the western COTS mantra was with the OHP's.
The radar, computers, support equipment (cooling skids, 400hz power, ect) and missile launchers will still be hard mounted on the ship and not in modules.
I have no duobt that SPY-1F can be put on LCS with modifications (after all it was designed for Frigates and other small ships) but like you said the super structure will have to be redesigned and performance sacrificed.
Their is no point in mounting the radar and have the rest of the required equipment as modules.
Cargo carrying capacity and fire power? The designs has a DWT in the order of 400 tonnes and mission package weight of just 180 tonnes for the GD design and 220 tonnes for Lockheed. Using the same hull any additional equipment has to be supported wihtin this DWT (or other gear is removed) as the vessels havelimited cpacity to accept a deeper draft if they are to perfor as expected and to avoid overstressing the lightweight structure. Lets not confuse length with displacement noting the LOA of 127m for the GD design means there are not small ships they are just lighter than contempory steel vessel of the same size.
As I noted in a previous post a small container vessel of 100m or so will have a DWT in the order of 6000 to 8000 tonnes and a speed between 17 and 21 knots depending on configuration. A better comparsiion may be the proposed MEKO MRV for Ireland:
Length, overall 121.00 m
Length, DWL 109.00 m
Beam 17.00 m
Draught 4.40 m
Displacement 3,900 t
Range 8,000 nm
Both LCS designs have a displacement in the order of 2500 tonnes on 127m for GD and 115m for Lockheed. This is 1100 tonnes less than the comparibly sized ANZAC and 1400 tonnes less than the MEKO MRV. This has an impact on both range and uplift.
As far as fire power is concnered the standard fit on LCS is spartan (57mm gun, SeaRAM, HMG's) but is improved by mission packages. The mass of these must be deducted from the mission package allowance (noting that includes ammunition, stores, mission package fuel, helicopters, RHIB's, extra crew/troops and so forth).
Rather than being a compromise the LCS design has a focus on speed in calm littorial waters hence the two hull desings selected. This has a consequent impact in maximum DWT whihc limits weapns fit hence the need to use mission moduels to adapt the selected missions,
Yes it would be slower (fastest MEKO 200 varaint can reach 30knots) but sustained cruising speed would be the same and the heavier vesel is laikley to have longer legs. Dont for get the max speed of LCS is only achieveable in sea state 3 and is a 'sprint'. The LCS will burn the fuel its fuel very quickly at high speed as the cunsumption is basically logrithim at higher speeds even wiht a high speed hull.
As far as cargo space is concerned the GD LCS has space to burn but it cannot lift much mass given 182 tonne mission package limit. The designs are limited by this fact.
Sorry to be trite but we are talking about earth I assume. This is nonsense. If you get a copy of ocean routes of the world you will not it has charts showing the percentage frequency of wave height. For much of the year north of 20N and south of 20S you have greater thana 10% chance of waves exceeding 3.5m (the greater ocean area in the southern hemisphere). However, even the areas either side of the equatorial zone are subject to the extremes of of weather as these are the cyclone/hurricane zones. The intertropical convergance zone is calm (it alos moves) but this is only a limited area.
It is also worth noting in so far as bang for buck is concerned the LCS is not cheap with the lead ship costing as much as the lead FFG7 (thanks Galrahn) which is a lot of money to put a 57mm gun, SeaRAM, and a couple of helicopters to sea. The core of the LCS is the adaptable mission packages whihc allow it to be tailored to roles. The fits the USN intent but it is not a multi role vessel and cannot do the job.
For all the reason above I completely disagree. How can a 2500 tonne light weight vessel hope to compete with the persitance and uplift offered by the LHD. You wouel need 6 just to carry the 12 troop lift helecopters.
Again the LCS is not a multi role escort and it is designed to operate with supprot form other assests which make it unsutable for a navy like the RAN.
I assume you are recommending the GD design so don't forget that 180 tonne limit. To do the AWD job it will need AEGIS (even if newer systems are lighter), associated FC radars and the VLS themselves. Loaded with SM2 a Mk41 VLS moduel weights in at 25tonnes. Sea sparrow is 26tonnes and I believe the ESSM quad pack load is quite a bit more. (Sea sparrow launch weight is 225kg and ESSM is 280kg and there are 4 of them)
So even if you don't carry ESSM the SM2 load will use up 100 tonnes for 32 cells. Add to that two helos for 20 tonnes (noting including ther fuel or weapons) you have just 60 tonnes left for:
AEGIS
FC radars and other associated systems such as optronics
Sonar
CIWS (since you are not able to carry ESSM)
Decoys
SLT's
helicopter weapons, fuel, spares and maintenance equipment
And don't forget we are still only talking about a 57mm gun so NGS will be a bit limited, particularly if you take the ANZAC out of the picture. Then there is the issue that it is highly likely the operating limits of the vesssl are likely to be exceeded for much of the year around the Australian coast.
The GD design has a lot of bouyancy aft IWO the outriggers but the mass sesms to be concentrated near what appears to be the longtitudinal center of floatation looking at the superstructure. I have to assume that the designers have looked at LCF when considering module configuration and in any case it is not hard to produce a stability package that allows the vessel condition in respect of its static and dynamic stability to be determined for any given load out. Almost all cargo ships are equipped with computerised stability systems.
The issue for these vessel is they will not be able to use ballast to resolve any stability or stress issues as is the case with cargo ships but given the low masses involved (mission package allowance is less than 10% of displacement) this should not cause a hugh problem unless thers is a design fault or someone moves the goal posts.
The ferry design is a plus here the vesel must be capable of supporting a variable loaded condition depending on who wants to travel and what they are driving. I think the lockheed design might be a bit more of a challenge in this regard but again the issue should not be insumountable if the design has factored this in.
I have always had a lot of time for Austal as they are quite innovative in there hull configurations (mind you I am not a fan of the Armidale).
It is not actually smaller being larger than ANZAC (127m verse 118m LOA). It is just a lot lighter and this has implications in respect of the vessel structure.
According to austal the ferry approval for the Austal hull is based on 4.5m significant wave height which is Beufort state 6 edging into 7. This only causes a moderate degratation of safety. Anything over 4.5m it must be assumed the risk increses. The Southern oceans, North sea and North Altantic are likley to exceed 6m seas over 10% of the time much of the year.
The Load Line conventionis a useful tool for looking at sea conditions as this assigns vessel free board depending on seans on expected weather conditions
http://realdistance.com/Downloads/Loadline.xls
The tropical zone is genrally considered the most benign and there are seasonal tropical zones covering cyclone/hurricane season (noting there still may be cyclonic activity in the tropical zone). The tropical zone would appear to be the areas where a light weight design like the LCS would be most useful (while noting it has limited uplift in mass and has to be mission adapted). Given the tropical zone area contains a significant proportion of of archelagic and enclosed waters this may explain the US thinking in respect of the LCS concept.
Anywhere marked winter this ship should not go and it is very likley to be constrained in the summer zone due to conditions.
spsun100001
New Member
I'm just not sure what the capability gap is that these vessels are being built to close.
Surely the most effective platform for littoral warfare is the helicopter. You don't require very specialised ships to deploy these - any basic frigate design will do!
In the first Gulf War there was significant naval combat in the littoral against small Iraqi vessels. This was successfully prosecuted by helicopters armed with air to surface wepaons (such as the Lynx and Sea-Skua combination).
Surely you don't want a put a ship in the littoral (almost certainly in range of enemy shorebased ssm's and aircraft) and therefore designing one to operate there is pointless. Don't you want to hold the threat off your ships using your helicopter and SSM's which are especially designed for littoral operations (such as the RBS 15 Mk3 3)?
It seems to me that a modern frigate using its helicoper(s), SSM's and main gun can do most of the things the LCS offers whereas an LCS can't do most of the things that the frigate could.
Seems a lot of money for such a specialist platform.
Surely the most effective platform for littoral warfare is the helicopter. You don't require very specialised ships to deploy these - any basic frigate design will do!
In the first Gulf War there was significant naval combat in the littoral against small Iraqi vessels. This was successfully prosecuted by helicopters armed with air to surface wepaons (such as the Lynx and Sea-Skua combination).
Surely you don't want a put a ship in the littoral (almost certainly in range of enemy shorebased ssm's and aircraft) and therefore designing one to operate there is pointless. Don't you want to hold the threat off your ships using your helicopter and SSM's which are especially designed for littoral operations (such as the RBS 15 Mk3 3)?
It seems to me that a modern frigate using its helicoper(s), SSM's and main gun can do most of the things the LCS offers whereas an LCS can't do most of the things that the frigate could.
Seems a lot of money for such a specialist platform.
If you want to consider a trimarian Design for the RAN then the UKs Pre-2004 Future Surface combatants are worth a look.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/fsc.htm
A pre design to the GD LCS. The ACV Triton currently in service was built as a demonstrator for the FSC trimarian design, and is used by customs as a "prison ship" as some media have dubbed it, in Northern Border protection.
This appears to be where the interest on Trimarians for High speed combat ships started, in the UK of all places! The USN and UK took part in the Studys on the Triton and according to the source a joint report written by senior USN and RN officers in early 2002 on the Triton trials was positively glowing about the results
The Trimarian pictures of Air craft carriers look amusing at present but a posibilitly for the future perhaps as a launching platform for combat aircraft.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/fsc.htm
A pre design to the GD LCS. The ACV Triton currently in service was built as a demonstrator for the FSC trimarian design, and is used by customs as a "prison ship" as some media have dubbed it, in Northern Border protection.
This appears to be where the interest on Trimarians for High speed combat ships started, in the UK of all places! The USN and UK took part in the Studys on the Triton and according to the source a joint report written by senior USN and RN officers in early 2002 on the Triton trials was positively glowing about the results
The Trimarian pictures of Air craft carriers look amusing at present but a posibilitly for the future perhaps as a launching platform for combat aircraft.
I met some of the UK maritime engineers at DERA involved with the Triton at PACNAV 2000. Contrary to popular perception, the baseline Triton was apparently a refurbed Russian design that DERA acquired from the Russians in the 90's. They also had copies of plans for 60,000 tonne+ STOVL trimaran aircraft carriers (which weren't regarded as viable for a variety of reasons)
The other thing I find curious about the "glowing reports" is that it contradicts what was said at the subsequent PACNAV 2002, the feedback was not that glowing. (certainly the impression I got from the same DERA staffer and a couple of blokes from NAVSEA who were working on HSV and TSV projects)
Apparently it was not regarded as inherently any more stable at certain sea states over a monohull.
(By association and in conjunction with some PACNAV presentations, RAN was intimately aware of Triton as a FFG alternative solution)
Triton is a very different beast to the Austal HSC Ferry hull. It is mild steel and the vessel itself was not particualry fast compared to LCS. It also has a different configuration essentually being a stabalized monohull but with the outriggers located amidships. I have also heard the concept did not live up to expectations and would certainly take GF's word on that. It did provide a lot of data for consideration and was trialed for the US for a while.
The intent for Triton as a concept demonstrater is different to the Austal LCS as the former was intended as a frigate design (with hope for growth potentila into other roles) while LCS has a signficant focus on speed. As such to say that the interest in trimarans started with Triton in the UK is not valid as the Austal design was slected for performacne reason (noting Lockheed opted for a monohull).
Austal have a long history of high speed multihull vessels and the 127m trimaran was an evolutionary development for them.
I still believe the LCS is a good design for Australia. The waters north of Australia are usually calm like you said and the waters around Indonesia would definitely be classed as littoral.
You dont need a advanced combat ship to patrol the soutern oceans. The whaling ships dont require harpoon missiles to take them out.
I am 100% certain that any threat to Australia will come from the north and we will be fighting in the tropics. The LCS with a lightened AEGIS system would pack all the punch u need. That might prevent that ship from performing other roles due to weight restriction but other LCS ships will not have an AEGIS or anti sub systems fitted. You could even have one or two LCS loaded full of cruise missiles. The enemy wont know what to expect from any individual LCS ship as they could be set up for anti-ship, anti-air or amphig transport.
Jezza
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #54
I like the look of the stretched River Class OPV
To be used up north especially if it could carry a small lightly armed
helo like the squirrell chopper.
Or would this be too small for LCS type of ship?
RIVER CLASS OPV
EXPORT VARIANT
VT has designed an export version of the River Class for deployment in a wide range of operations connected with Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) protection, including disaster relief, anti-pollution, firefighting, rescue work and interception.
The flexibility of the OPV design allows an overall increase in length by insertion of a midship section to accommodate additional crew, equipment and facilities. By making special provision to put the ship's propulsion and electrical machinery aft and all the normal crew accommodation in the forward section, the increase in overall length is achieved without a significant re-design.
The baseline export vessel includes a flight deck for land-based small / medium helicopters. The aviation facilities can be enhanced to handle larger helicopters or to provide storage and maintenance facilities for helicopters.
HMS Clyde (P257) is the ninth ship in the Royal Navy to bear the name. She was launched on 14 June 2006 in Portsmouth Naval Base by VT Group shipbuilders in Portsmouth, England and is the fourth vessel of the River class and the first of a lengthened variety with a displacement of 1,850 tonnes and a 30mm Oerlikon KCB gun in place of the 20mm gun fitted to other River class ships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257)
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/river_class/
To be used up north especially if it could carry a small lightly armed
helo like the squirrell chopper.
Or would this be too small for LCS type of ship?
RIVER CLASS OPV
EXPORT VARIANT
VT has designed an export version of the River Class for deployment in a wide range of operations connected with Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) protection, including disaster relief, anti-pollution, firefighting, rescue work and interception.
The flexibility of the OPV design allows an overall increase in length by insertion of a midship section to accommodate additional crew, equipment and facilities. By making special provision to put the ship's propulsion and electrical machinery aft and all the normal crew accommodation in the forward section, the increase in overall length is achieved without a significant re-design.
The baseline export vessel includes a flight deck for land-based small / medium helicopters. The aviation facilities can be enhanced to handle larger helicopters or to provide storage and maintenance facilities for helicopters.
HMS Clyde (P257) is the ninth ship in the Royal Navy to bear the name. She was launched on 14 June 2006 in Portsmouth Naval Base by VT Group shipbuilders in Portsmouth, England and is the fourth vessel of the River class and the first of a lengthened variety with a displacement of 1,850 tonnes and a 30mm Oerlikon KCB gun in place of the 20mm gun fitted to other River class ships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257)
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/river_class/
contedicavour
New Member
IIRC there has already been some success in export orders for this OPV class : Trinidad&Tobago ordered a OPV which seems to me almost identical.
I think though that this ship is too limited in size and speed to be comparable to a LCS, which remains a FFG. Nowadays FFGs are minimum 3,000t in order to carry the big AAW radars that go with the latest VLSs. A River couldn't carry a Sampson or a Herakles/Empar...
cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I have to disagree here, for a number of reasons.
The main patroling for Australia for EEZ enforcement in the Southern Ocean is the Oceanic Viking, a 105 m contracted vessel armed with 0.50 cal. HMG. If one or more OPV(H)'s were felt needed, then it might just be easier to order Otago-class(?) from Tenix, since they are already under construction for the RNZN. To be honest though, not sure how great a need is felt for OPV in the RAN.
As for the RAN making use of, or switching to LCS, I don't see that as being effective. Currently, an LCS costs some US$300 mil, not including ancillary equipment and additional weapons modules, never mind additional equipment like an Aegis system. In order to equip the LCS to be sufficiently useful to the RAN, would only bloat the price further.
Couple that with the potential suitability for operations... Australia and consequently the RAN, has wider interests than just the Coral Sea and Timor Sea. One of the things the RAN wanted ships with seakeeping and endurance. At present, it isn't clear how an LCS will perform compared to a traditional monohull but the thought seems to be that it will have less range/endurance, and not able to operate as well in heavy seas. If then RAN only operated around northern Australia and Indonesia or Malaysia, it might not matter, but RAN ships also deploy outside the area, or have to transit open ocean (to get to Fiji, etc.) as wel.
-Cheers
Different ship for a different role. Clyde is a very offshore PV. O for Oceanic.
Excellent range, for a ship of her size, great endurance & superb seakeeping. But not fast.She's off to become the South Atlantic patrol ship soon, based in the Falklands. Built like the proverbial brick depositary for faecal matter, capable of taking pretty much anything the ocean can throw at her. It gets rough down there. She's not meant to carry long-range radar or heavy armament, though she could comfortably take a medium-range radar & rather more weapons than the 30mm gun & couple of MGs she has.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5955
It is a lot of money for limtied capability in so far as the RAN structure is concnered. LCS could only be procured at the expense of ANZAC hulls, or their replacements, or AWD hulls. It is a poor swap in sor afr as the RAN is concnerned as we have a limited number of hulls for both manning and cost reasons.
Again you completely miss the issue on weight. Current LCS has a payload of 185 tonnes (assuming you mean austal) wiht the ship fitted only with 57mm gun, 4 HMG's, SeaRAM and current sensors (as far as I cna tell no sonar is included in the basic kit nor ary SLT tubes).
Now we start with deductions.
2 Seahawk (11 tonnes each MTOW)
payloade fuel for seahawk up to 85 tonnes
Mk 41 VLS wiht SM2 25 tonnes per moduel laoded
Mk 41 VLS wiht Seasparrow 26 tonnes per module loaded (ESSM is apparantly much heavier)
So if you are looking at SM-2 only then it is 100 tones for 24 cells laoded.
So far we have not looked at the weight of AEGIS (sensor and system), SOnar, SLT's, helo weapons etc and we ahve already blown the 185 tonnes by quite a margin. the only way to claw this back is by:
1. Reducing payload fuel (hence helo operations)
2. reducing ship fuel (hence range which is not great at present)
3. Reduce structure...... this is already built to HSC code so this is really not an option I would propose.
You end up wiht a poor compromsie for our area of operations with a ship that is limited in sea state and range and weapons (the AEGIS version of the GD LCS is not a patch on the AWD in so far as capabiliyt is concerned .... not to mention it is a paper ship at present).
Finally using an LCS based option as our main surface combatant ignores one fundamental issue for Australia, we realy on our SLOCs. Why bother attacking Australia directly when you can choke trade or close of waters where our trade passes. You don't even have to declare war simply threatern or close trade roputes and the insurance cost will do the rest. The ANZAC admitedly was built under armed but it has one significant feature in its range for a ships its size. With anticpated upgrades will provide a very effective escort able to operate in adverse conditions (particualry compared to an LCS hull) and remain on station for prolonged periods.
During the Cold War, most of our uninvited guests were trawling around the south west, south and south east.
98% of our trade is by sea - LCS is not a good SLOC attendant - and certainly not that good an option for organic ASW in bluewater scenarios.
One of the DefPros did a transit evaluation of Jervis Bay during East Timors fracas in 99. Maybe he will pop up and pass comment on transit competency perceptions etc....
Speaking of threats against Australia, the most realistic seems to be Indonesia with its shaky political scene and brewing Islamic movement. China at the moment cannot form a credible threat due to its inability to project power beyond its own territorial waters. There isn't anyone capable of choking Australia sea lanes as far as I can tell. The cost of LCS is expected by the Pentagon to drop once it hits production. Given the relatively "weak" naval forces in the region, maintaining a large navy for Australia seems like a bit of an overkill.
With that in mind, wouldn't a fleet consist of LCS and frigates make sense to RAN, both militarily and financially? Of course, you'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong since I am a complete noob in this matter.
With that in mind, wouldn't a fleet consist of LCS and frigates make sense to RAN, both militarily and financially? Of course, you'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong since I am a complete noob in this matter.