RN/RAN capabilities + RAN procurement

[wildcolonialboy]

Hi there,

My first post, I thought I'd roll two into one for the purposes of brevity.

The first is my observation about the appalling prospects for the Royal Navy. I'm a dual British-Australian citizen. I moved to the UK this year, and have taken more of an interest than I previously had.

It has been something of a shock to me to see what appears to be the dismantling of the Royal Navy as a significant force in its own independent right. I was rather startled to see that Britain will be without a carrier force for about a decade. But what is more startling is the decision to procure just one aircraft carrier.

Some years ago, when I was still in high school, I spoke to my grandfather, a former Royal Navy / Submarine Service officer about why Australia hadn't kept an aircraft carrier. And he said that unless you could afford two, it really wasn't worth getting them at all; the day that your one carrier is in dock or refit will be the day the enemy attacks.

Obviously that's a slight simplification, but basically it is pretty useless if your single carrier is in a major refit cycle when a conflict kicks off.

In addition, the major reduction in size of the surface and submarine fleets is also notable. Britain, at present, has 19 surface combatants, to the RAN's 12 (Anzac + Adelaide). The RAN submarine service has 6 attack submarines (admittedly, diesel-electric, and with problems.. but six all the same) to the Royal Navy's 7 (I don't think you can really count Trident/Vanguard.. they're pretty unusable unless someone decided to be reckless with them).

WIth these numbers in mind, it seems quite plausible that the RAN will rival the Royal Navy in the decades to come if Australia does proceed with 12 Collins replacements, all the current procurement plans, and that Royal Navy sticks to its current level of not replacing retiring ships on a one for one basis.

Also, having read the boards a little, it seems like the people who post on here are quite well informed and knowledgeable about defence and the defence industry. I'm hoping that Defence will be as competent in the procurement of all these new submarines and the Canberra class as they have been with the ANZAC class, and interested to hear what your take on it is.

It does seem like Australia is having something of a military renaissance; the evolutionary upgrades of the ANZAC class (to the point where it seems to be quite a capable vessel), their interest in the CEAFAR system (which I think is very exciting in terms of the Australian defence industry's future prospects), acquisition of SM-6, Mk 48 ADCAP CBASS, Wedgetail, the refueling tankers, the Adelaide class SM-2/radar upgrade.. it seems like it has made some quite intelligent procurement decisions.

But it's also a bit patchy (Sea Sprite, the issues with the Collins class, the daunting size of the Canberra class project etc). Do you think Defence and the Australian defence industry will be able to take the lessons of the past years, where they've done poorly, and where they've done quite well, and apply this to future procurement?

 

[Vanguard]

It has been something of a shock to me to see what appears to be the dismantling of the Royal Navy as a significant force in its own independent right. I was rather startled to see that Britain will be without a carrier force for about a decade. But what is more startling is the decision to procure just one aircraft carrier.

Both are being built and as far as I am aware a final decision on their future is likely to be made by whoever is in power for the 2015 SDSR/White Paper.

In addition, the major reduction in size of the surface and submarine fleets is also notable. Britain, at present, has 19 surface combatants, to the RAN's 12 (Anzac + Adelaide). The RAN submarine service has 6 attack submarines (admittedly, diesel-electric, and with problems.. but six all the same) to the Royal Navy's 7 (I don't think you can really count Trident/Vanguard.. they're pretty unusable unless someone decided to be reckless with them).

I would note the RAN is reducing its surface combatants force down to eleven, replacing the four Perrys with only three Hobarts and at present it seems unlikely that there will be any real expansion other than the one-to-one Anzac replacement in about ten years. The current defence policy being ran by Stephen Smith is to get the forces in order before buying new stuff unless desperately needed (i.e. the LSD).

For submarines you can't really look at the Trafalgar/Astutes and Collins class vessels in the same category; the British have SSNs which for there purpose are the best thing as they have long range and have proven to be very multirole capable in operations. The Australians have SSGs which should fit their mission requirements however we haven't really seen that in the past.

WIth these numbers in mind, it seems quite plausible that the RAN will rival the Royal Navy in the decades to come if Australia does proceed with 12 Collins replacements, all the current procurement plans, and that Royal Navy sticks to its current level of not replacing retiring ships on a one for one basis.

Its really hard to predict this as there are substantial political aspects involved for both of these nations which supersedes any real military requirements. At present the Australian government for example is desperately trying to bring its military into order after all the problems they have faced with faulty equipment, sex scandals and botched procurement policies. As you mentioned this has led to some brilliant results on the procurement field and I for one think that Smith has done a lot of good work since taking the Defence portfolio. If he stayed in office its logical to think that once he's hammered out the big problems that there may be the option for expansion (most likely a fourth Hobart and maybe expanding the Anzac II order to ten) however as you are probably aware there are very few of his peers in government that are doing a very good job and looks likely that in 2013 we will have a Liberal Government back in power with their own defence policy which likely to see an expansion in patrol boats and 'stop the boats' assets as opposed to proper military hardware.

The British are luckier though in that the defence policy is now more of a real issue for elections, not necessarily a major one but its there more than in Australia now, and that could lead to benefits. Whilst I doubt any party are going to be able to come in and strait away start major procurement its likely that they might be able to force up some programs (Numbers of T26/27s etc) to fit in requirements. With Afghanistan finishing its also possible that some army funding may get reallocated for both nations to the navies.

But it's also a bit patchy (Sea Sprite, the issues with the Collins class, the daunting size of the Canberra class project etc). Do you think Defence and the Australian defence industry will be able to take the lessons of the past years, where they've done poorly, and where they've done quite well, and apply this to future procurement?

I think the defence industry will be able to build itself up to a more stable level however again there are political factors that will influence this. None the less its reasonable to state that in the last ten years the defence industry has expanded in leaps and bounds from being at the height of the Collins issue to looking at the construction of three 7,000 destroyers and two LHDs. Not to mention the benefits the likes of Austal have got from going out to America and building US Navy ships.

 

[ComeonBritain]

Seems to me that it's more to do with the current government than a loss of British pride in the navy. France and Spain are arguably in worse situations than Britain but their defense remains largely untouched.

It would make my whole year if UKIP came into power since they actually aim to increase the navy.

Also, as a UK-born Australian citizen I'm excited about the upcoming projects such as the Hobart class.

 

[Sea Toby]

Seems to me that it's more to do with the current government than a loss of British pride in the navy. France and Spain are arguably in worse situations than Britain but their defense remains largely untouched.

It would make my whole year if UKIP came into power since they actually aim to increase the navy.

Also, as a UK-born Australian citizen I'm excited about the upcoming projects such as the Hobart class.

Not to long ago France operated two aircraft carriers. They now have one. So France has seen budget cuts recently.

 

[koxinga]

Both are being built and as far as I am aware a final decision on their future is likely to be made by whoever is in power for the 2015 SDSR/White Paper.

My sense is that the two carriers would face a difficult life, before and even after commissioning. Basically, they will take up a large chunk of RN's operating budget and would be on the targets on anyone's radar wanting to make budget cuts (through early retirement or sale). Just a matter of who is in power.

This is the budget climate that the UK would have to live with over the next decade.

 

[overlander]

Not to long ago France operated two aircraft carriers. They now have one. So France has seen budget cuts recently.

The defence budget cuts in France have been simbollic and small compared to the british, the defence budget cuts in Britain have been massive and with non sense.
You can be sure, France will operate 2 carriers in 10-12 years, anyway right now the french navy has a nuclear carrier and a fleet air arm of around 80 super etendard and rafales, right now the royal navy has 0 strike carriers and 0 fighters.
Its, much more probable that the French navy will build another carrier in the medium term that the royal navy operate in the future 2 carriers simultaneously and with the decks full of squadrons, they 2 carriers are being built simply because cancellation contracts make more expensive to cancel than to build them but if not the carriers would have been cancelled and I suspect that without other alternative.
The french navy has improved the amphibious capability with the 3 mistral class vessels. the royal navy has deccommissioned 1 strike carrier, 1 AOR Rfa Fort George, all the harrier squadrons, 1 LSD rfa Largs Bay, the nimrod patrol aircraft and 6 escorts.
I think you will see the difference between one country in wich politicians still consider defence as a priority and the other in wich politicians consider it as a secondary matter with sensibility in defence close to zero.
And when The withdrawal of Afghanistan is complete british politicians instead to waste this extra money to cover the previous gaps in the armed forces they have made with these wild cuts it,s possible they will make even more cuts especially in the air force and the army, salami slicing is the priority for british defence planners.
The problem of british defence is that as we have seen in these recent massive cuts
for politicians of Britain there are no red lines concerning to the cuts in defence and in the medium term when the next defence review wich in Britain is equal to more cuts they can leave the air force with only 100 fighters or the navy with just 12 escorts, defence is totally secondary for them, in the other side french politicians they have very strong red lines never to be surpassed, you never will see France without carrier strike capability, cutting the air force to unacceptable levels or leaving the french army with just 150 leclerc main battle tanks as british have right now.

 

[swerve]

You can be sure, France will operate 2 carriers in 10-12 years,

No, we can't be sure at all. France has been cancelling or postponing PA2 projects one after another for over ten years, has cut planned Horizon numbers from 4 to 2 (vs the UK cutting T45 numbers to 6), cut planned FREMM numbers from 17 to 11, & redesignated the light La Fayette patrol frigates as full frigates to pretend it will still have 18 first rank escorts. Which would you rather have? 2 Horizon, 11 FREMM & 5 La Fayette, or 6 Type 45 & 13 Type 26/upgraded Type 23? Pretty obvious, isn't it?

Yes, three Mistrals is nice - but the MN has retired Jeanne d'Arc & agreed to sell Foudre while building Dixmude, & Siroco is expected to be sold before long. Overall, that's a reduction in tonnage, & probably capacity. France started & ends with fewer amphibious ships than the UK, less tonnage, & less carrying capacity - and dependent on commercial leases for ro-ro capacity. Did you know France has leased a British Point class at least once?

Your hatred of the UK, & your obsession with proving that everyone else in Europe has better armed forces, is extraordinary. Have you noticed what Mariano Rajoy has said about the Spanish defence budget, for example? It isn't enough to pay for the equipment that's currently being delivered. The MoD has a large debt for equipment and supplies delivered but not paid for, & that debt is increasing fast because of penalties for late payment & interest charges. The MoD is frantically trying to pay the biggest bills before the dates which trigger new penalties, robbing one supplier to pay another. The MoD is collapsing. That's not rumour, it's what's been officially stated by the government. Yet you have claimed that everything's fine in Spain, much better than in the UK.

 

[wildcolonialboy]

My sense is that the two carriers would face a difficult life, before and even after commissioning. Basically, they will take up a large chunk of RN's operating budget and would be on the targets on anyone's radar wanting to make budget cuts (through early retirement or sale). Just a matter of who is in power.

This is the budget climate that the UK would have to live with over the next decade.

I thought that they'd already tentatively decided that they would sell one of the carriers (and the RAN, flush with cash, was a mooted buyer if I recall correctly)? That or coming to some kind of carrier sharing arrangement with the French. With no firm announcements but speculation not being discouraged by the gvoernment, it would seem they are just deferring this political liability until a later date.

My concern about having enormous carriers sailing about is that many of the destroyers that will be escorting them might have a capacity for 100 missiles, or less (won't the

Many ships will not even have that many VLS cells, but let's do a hypothetical there; say you have a robust air defence of 180 missiles, housed on three to six destroyers and frigates, protecting the carrier.

If the opposing country can exceed that number in SSMs and then provide a margin that will allow the remaining missiles (assuming a 100% success rate for the air defence missiles) to approach simultaneously from enough vectors that the ships will not have enough CIWS to engage them, and possibly won't even be drawing a bead on some missiles as they slam into the carrier.

I doubt any country would fire off that many Sunburns, but the Chinese seem to be churning out a new Silkworm variant every year, many of which are notably unimpressive in range and speed. But presumably they would be cheap. In fact, if I were an adversary of the west, I would purchase a reasonable number of high performance missiles, and manufacture thousands of missiles that could fly straight in the designated direction. Launch a thousand missiles, you'd probably soak up a couple hundred air defence missiles before they cottoned on and ignored the decoys or shot them down with cannon or gun.

Undoubtedly adversary nations do consider how they could realitically defeat a carrier battle group. If I were the adversary nation, I would also launch a lot of cheap drones, radar balloons, confusing EM signals and misinformation to spook the carrier into conducting around the clock flight operations, and then strile when they were at the point of lowest efficiency and least able to get planes into the air to contribute their AAMs to fleet air defence.

. A few hundred cheap subsonic SSMs making an attack on a carrier battle group to soak up their air defence missiles, followed by a serious attack with weapons like Brahmos, Klub, maybe even a few AS-4s to clutter the environment even more... I would not rate a carrier's chances in that environment.

I do seriously wonder about carrier survivability in the modern age, and its utility considering that many of the functions it used to do to clear a path for invasion fleets is done by landbased bombers and cruise missiles, the direct amphibious assaults can be done perfectly acceptably by Marine LHDs, and the most effective and versatile platform is the submarine, which can carry out much of what surface ships used to do.

 

[StevoJH]

I thought that they'd already tentatively decided that they would sell one of the carriers (and the RAN, flush with cash, was a mooted buyer if I recall correctly)? That or coming to some kind of carrier sharing arrangement with the French. With no firm announcements but speculation not being discouraged by the gvoernment, it would seem they are just deferring this political liability until a later date.

The RAN bought a Bay class LSD, they have no intention of buying a QE class. The RN has not mentioned selling a carrier.

My concern about having enormous carriers sailing about is that many of the destroyers that will be escorting them might have a capacity for 100 missiles, or less (won't the

What enemy will have more missiles than that to throw at the task group?

Many ships will not even have that many VLS cells, but let's do a hypothetical there; say you have a robust air defence of 180 missiles, housed on three to six destroyers and frigates, protecting the carrier.

If the opposing country can exceed that number in SSMs and then provide a margin that will allow the remaining missiles (assuming a 100% success rate for the air defence missiles) to approach simultaneously from enough vectors that the ships will not have enough CIWS to engage them, and possibly won't even be drawing a bead on some missiles as they slam into the carrier.

I doubt any country would fire off that many Sunburns, but the Chinese seem to be churning out a new Silkworm variant every year, many of which are notably unimpressive in range and speed. But presumably they would be cheap. In fact, if I were an adversary of the west, I would purchase a reasonable number of high performance missiles, and manufacture thousands of missiles that could fly straight in the designated direction. Launch a thousand missiles, you'd probably soak up a couple hundred air defence missiles before they cottoned on and ignored the decoys or shot them down with cannon or gun.

They need to be able to launch them all at once first, oh, and it needs to be done as part of a co-ordinated strike or they'll just be defeated by ECM.

Undoubtedly adversary nations do consider how they could realitically defeat a carrier battle group. If I were the adversary nation, I would also launch a lot of cheap drones, radar balloons, confusing EM signals and misinformation to spook the carrier into conducting around the clock flight operations, and then strile when they were at the point of lowest efficiency and least able to get planes into the air to contribute their AAMs to fleet air defence.

If you say so.

. A few hundred cheap subsonic SSMs making an attack on a carrier battle group to soak up their air defence missiles, followed by a serious attack with weapons like Brahmos, Klub, maybe even a few AS-4s to clutter the environment even more... I would not rate a carrier's chances in that environment.

What would you define as a "cheap" SSM? Are your launch platforms going to have to come within AEW range of the carrier to launch them? How are you going to detect the carrier?

I do seriously wonder about carrier survivability in the modern age, and its utility considering that many of the functions it used to do to clear a path for invasion fleets is done by landbased bombers and cruise missiles, the direct amphibious assaults can be done perfectly acceptably by Marine LHDs, and the most effective and versatile platform is the submarine, which can carry out much of what surface ships used to do.

A carrier is fairly safe from all but submarines. And submarines are about the *least* versatile naval platform.

 

[wildcolonialboy]

The RAN bought a Bay class LSD, they have no intention of buying a QE class. The RN has not mentioned selling a carrier.

Your statement is confusing. The SDSR specifically raised the possiblity of selling one as an alternative to keeping it in an "advanced state of readiness". I mentioned the RAN had been mentioned as a possible buyer; it has, in several publications. I don't make any claim as to the RAN's willingness to buy (in fact, it seems the RAN has a pretty firm grasp on the utility, or lack thereof, of a single carrier).

I hasten to add, the Bay class is hardly the equivalent of a carrier, I would imagine the RAN's lack of interest may be more related to the Hobart class.

If it's a semantical argument in relation to the sale being raised as a possibility by the SDSR and not the RN itself, that's ever so slightly irrelevant unless the navy has some miraculous means to pay for its own equipment, and/or not be accountable to the government which is their ownly legitimate source of funds. When did the Treasury ever listen to professional soldiers about what they thought was militarily necessitous?

What enemy will have more missiles than that to throw at the task group?

Considering that missiles are fairly simple to manufacture, you could mass produce very basic decoy missiles with a cheap intertial guidance system and no warhead, as long as it can fly towards the carrier, or close enough that the escorts can't be sure if it's not terminally guided or is simply flying by waypoint or hasn't yet switched on terminal guidance. Until navies acquire technology that would allow them to determine what's inside the missile, they would almost certainly shoot at or shoot down every decoy launched against them.

They need to be able to launch them all at once first, oh, and it needs to be done as part of a co-ordinated strike or they'll just be defeated by ECM.

I am sure that Western ECM is quite sophisticated, but personally, I wouldn't put my faith in a single technology. The West seems remarkably good at understimating its adversaries since WW2. I don't think it's implausible to foresee an HMS Sheffield situation; sure, build the ship out of unrealiable aluminium, take 2,000 tons off the tonnage to save money so you have a situation where they were storing munitions and fuel exposed on the deck for lack of storage space. Their faith in the system protecting the ship meant they ignored lessons that seem to relearned every time we fight a major war.

When was the last time the West faced a capable maritime opponent?

If you say so.

Or do you prefer to believe that whoever you have in mind is just extraordinarily stupid, that they won't take measures to offset Western conventional superiority, that the US Navy was trying to flatter the Iranians' egos when they released the results of a study showing that the Iranians could actually be quite effective.

If the West cannot subdue the most economically and educationally backward country in the world, why should it be so confident with the unpleasant but pragmatic Iranians or North Koreans. The West has underestimated both countries before. Pride goeth before a fall.

What would you define as a "cheap" SSM? Are your launch platforms going to have to come within AEW range of the carrier to launch them? How are you going to detect the carrier?

Everywhere in the Persian Gulf is in range of the coast, and the launch platforms (like modified civilian trucks) can just drive up to the coast, take a final bearing from HQ and set the missiles, and away you go. The decoys can be pretty basic; all they need to do is draw the fire of the escorts for them to be effective. i suspect any mid-tier university in Asia, the Middle East or Europe could manufacture that kind of drone-decoy for $20,000 or $30,000.

In terms of detection, if the fleet wants to use its air defence missiles, it will need to switch on its radars (unless it is usinjg AWACs and SM-6s, and even then I do not think the US is intending for the SM-6 to displace the SM-2 entirely).. But even assuming radio silence, the Persian gulf is small enough to provide other options (like using fishing boats owned by Shia on the western side of the Gulf to provide data, setting up a large passive sonar array underwater, or even just send a large number of cheap UAVs. The distances are small enough that if just one UAV detected the fleet, this would be sufficient to provide coordinates to launch the missiles in a way that would probably be interpreted as threatning by the fleet and cause them to expend missiles on shooting them down.

If they decide to be clever and not shoot them down, they'd probably find half a dozen real C-801s in the midst of the decoys and take some hits. There are solid, logical reasons why the US Navy is unsettled by the prospect of a conflict with Iran.

A carrier is fairly safe from all but submarines. And submarines are about the *least* versatile naval platform.

Really? Because they can actually do almost everything carriers used to do, and the things they can't do can be done by other assets. Calling them the least versatile platform seems a bit... bizarre?

A single SSN, properly maintained and run by an American or British crew, could single-handedly wreak havoc on a shipping lane ir the operations of a small or medium sized navy, launching TLAMs on ground targets, laying mines, torpedoing merchant and auxiliary shipping, collecting intelligent, and launching Harpoons at surface naval vessels.

I'm quite surprised to hear someone say that about submarines, honestly.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Your statement is confusing. The SDSR specifically raised the possiblity of selling one as an alternative to keeping it in an "advanced state of readiness". I mentioned the RAN had been mentioned as a possible buyer; it has, in several publications. I don't make any claim as to the RAN's willingness to buy (in fact, it seems the RAN has a pretty firm grasp on the utility, or lack thereof, of a single carrier).

Look, I'm not going to intrude on this discussion but.. could you do me a favour and send me a credible link that mentions the RAN as a potential buyer? Thanks.

 

[gf0012-aust]

send me a credible link that mentions the RAN as a potential buyer? Thanks.

there is none.

the RAN has no interest and has not expressed any interest in a QE.

Govt has NO interest in getting a carrier due to a number of factors, one of which is how the neighbours would react, then there are the raise train and sustain costs not just for the platform itself, but for the airwings and support group elements which would be pulled from other requirements.

Never was under consideration except by those not even remotely involved with AustGov and/or ADO

ie commonly referred to in the trade as "good idea fairies"

 

[Kirkzzy]

there is none.

the RAN has no interest and has not expressed any interest in a QE.

Thought so.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thought so.

The rumour is that we are going to australianise 75 Rafales in lieue of JSF slipping to the UCAV IOC of 2025.

 

[Kirkzzy]

The rumour is that we are going to australianise 75 Rafales in lieue of JSF slipping to the UCAV IOC of 2025.

:haha Don't forget the lasers.

 

[rand0m]

The rumour is that we are going to australianise 75 Rafales in lieue of JSF slipping to the UCAV IOC of 2025.

Should I insert my F22 vs F35 questions here? hehe

BTW off topic, how did the Wedgetail go over CHOGM?

 

[gf0012-aust]

BTW off topic, how did the Wedgetail go over CHOGM?

its a glorious sight seeing them all lined up at willy....

my understanding is that people are quite happy...

 

[jeffb]

Really? Because they can actually do almost everything carriers used to do, and the things they can't do can be done by other assets. Calling them the least versatile platform seems a bit... bizarre?

A single SSN, properly maintained and run by an American or British crew, could single-handedly wreak havoc on a shipping lane ir the operations of a small or medium sized navy, launching TLAMs on ground targets, laying mines, torpedoing merchant and auxiliary shipping, collecting intelligent, and launching Harpoons at surface naval vessels.

I'm quite surprised to hear someone say that about submarines, honestly.

How is this magic submarine of yours going to provide aid during a humanitarian crisis? What about air superiority? Command and control?... etc...

Versatility of a platform has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a platform in its primary role. There is little point responding to anything you've written as 1. It has already been covered in the relevant threads 2. You just won't listen. 3. The hypothetical fantasy stuff is just boring, much like alluding to Afghanistan to try and make a point in a Naval forum...

If you really want to be a part of this community then stop twisting peoples words to try and make some inane argument.

 

[StevoJH]

its a glorious sight seeing them all lined up at willy....

my understanding is that people are quite happy...

Might have to drive up on the weekend and have a look if they are within sight of the road.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Might have to drive up on the weekend and have a look if they are within sight of the road.

usually in their own open house revetment next to the main runway. usually stacked 3 abrest and the other(s) line astern...