Royal Australian Naval Force Enhancements

J

Jason_kiwi

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Yes, although with the herc upgrades they are having, they will be like new. I think if they are the orions with anti surface missiles, that would make NZ much more capable.
Like in east timor, NZ transported lavs. They will user they some time. although I think 105 is to many.
 
P

perfectgeneral

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

If Australia is planning on two LPH like HMS Ocean soon...

Can I interest you in HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious? They are both of the same hull as HMS Ocean and can be reconfigured as LPHs? The RN plan to replace them with new 60,000 tonne plus aircraft carriers. We may retain HMS Ark Royal as an LPH for when HMS Ocean is in refit.
 
Last edited:
M

machina

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

perfectgeneral said:
If Australia is planning on two LPH like HMS Ocean soon...

Can I interest you in HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious? They are both of the same hull as HMS Ocean and can be reconfigured as LPHs? The RN plan to replace them with new 60,000 tonne plus aircraft carriers. We may retain HMS Ark Royal as an LPH for when HMS Ocean is in refit.
Click to expand...
I think the RAN is after ships with a dock to launch landing craft from, which I don't think the Invincible class has.

Aside from that, I don't think it's a great idea anyway. New design ships would likely be cheaper to man and maintain. Navantia says its 25,000 ton LHD has a crew of 130 and the 27,000 ton strategic projection ship has a crew of 243, while the 21,000 Invincible has a crew of 685 (according to wikipedia). In the long term it probably saves money to get the newer, bigger ship.
 
Last edited:
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

machina said:
I think the RAN is after ships with a dock to launch landing craft from, which I don't think the Invincible class has.

Aside from that, I don't think it's a great idea anyway. New design ships would likely be cheaper to man and maintain. Navantia says its 25,000 ton LHD has a crew of 130 and the 27,000 ton strategic projection ship has a crew of 243, while the 21,000 Invincible has a crew of 685 (according to wikipedia). In the long term it probably saves money to get the newer, bigger ship.
Click to expand...
Traffic out of Russell appears to be heavily in favour of the Spaniard. Its lower crewing demands would lean heavily in its favour assuming that all of the other RFQ's/RFT's were met.
 
P

pepsi

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

As far as LHD's go, would the US Wasp Class ones be too big for us? I quite like them but im not even sure we could man them

Also, India has a few carriers (or will have?), does this influence Australia's decisions at all?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #130
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

perfectgeneral said:
If Australia is planning on two LPH like HMS Ocean soon...

Can I interest you in HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious? They are both of the same hull as HMS Ocean and can be reconfigured as LPHs? The RN plan to replace them with new 60,000 tonne plus aircraft carriers. We may retain HMS Ark Royal as an LPH for when HMS Ocean is in refit.
Click to expand...
How much do you want for them? :D

ON the serious side, Australia's been down that path before, for HMAS Melbourne. The time of Australia buying second hand ships from "Old Blighty" are long I think...

I believe the Spanish IZAR (or whatever it's called this week) design will be chosen and the ships WILL be built downunder...

Jason, Australia operated aircraft carriers (or at least: a carrier) until 1982 when HMAS Melbourne was payed off. An aircraft carrier is a necessity if you wish to be able to realistically project any sort naval power away from home and provide serious protection for your fleet from air attack. Australia is easily able to fund and man an aircraft carrier (or would if the government would fund the ADF PROPERLY)...
 
S

Supe

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

pepsi said:
As far as LHD's go, would the US Wasp Class ones be too big for us? I quite like them but im not even sure we could man them
Click to expand...
That idea has been floated on other forums I've visited and the consensus is always no. Reasons usually given for not buying them are that they are manpower intensive, too old for service in the RAN, previous bad experience with ex USN ships, would require a refit. In essence, not cost effective.

It's too late now, but I wonder if a modified WASP class could have been designed for RAN manning requirements. They are very capable ships.
 
gf0012-aust

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

pepsi said:
As far as LHD's go, would the US Wasp Class ones be too big for us? I quite like them but im not even sure we could man them
Click to expand...
The Wasps were rejected in the early evaluations. They're unsuitable for a number of reasons

pepsi said:
Also, India has a few carriers (or will have?), does this influence Australia's decisions at all?
Click to expand...
Nope. India is not perceived as a competitor or a threat to any Australian interests.
 
E

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

I have another use for the HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious, convert to arsenal ships. Install 10 64 cell mk41 strategic vls's running down the flight deck. There is enough space to do this on the hangar deck. Cut out the flight crew plus some of the ships crew that are no longer required. One 64 cell launch with say 32 ESSM quad packs, 24 Harpoon Bk2, 8 Asroc, 3 launchers carrying 192 Sm-2's, 6 carrying 384 Tac Tommies, plus install a 155/52 howitzer in front of the bridge for long range artillery. There ya go, 2 uberships.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #134
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

EnigmaNZ said:
I have another use for the HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious, convert to arsenal ships. Install 10 64 cell mk41 strategic vls's running down the flight deck. There is enough space to do this on the hangar deck. Cut out the flight crew plus some of the ships crew that are no longer required. One 64 cell launch with say 32 ESSM quad packs, 24 Harpoon Bk2, 8 Asroc, 3 launchers carrying 192 Sm-2's, 6 carrying 384 Tac Tommies, plus install a 155/52 howitzer in front of the bridge for long range artillery. There ya go, 2 uberships.
Click to expand...
And they'd probably only cost a mere $10 billion each...
 
E

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Interesting info on Australian defence, it does reason out why Oz has a tendency to follow the US even when it seems folly to do so, and the credibility of someone invading Australia, and the real threats facing Oz.

For an introduction to current “Real World Threats†to Australia, the Australian Strategic Policy Institutes’ paper “Beyond Bali: ASPI’s Strategic Assessment 2002â€.

http://aspi.org.au/

The author here makes some interesting points regarding the make up of the defence forces, and the policies Oz has choosen to follow.

The "Tomorrow" Series is a story told against the backdrop of a present day, high intensity invasion and occupation of the Australian mainland.
Please keep in mind that this invasion is simply a mechanism via which the author can create the situations the stories address (which is where the true power of this series lays) and so it does not really matter how plausable such an invasion is. That said, Australians know very little about the threats Australia faces and so this page (and its companion "Real World Threats") have been put together to explain a little about where Australia stands militarily.
So, how reasonable is this premise? To paraphrase Ellie "Excuse me while I choke on my cornies". (1) To be blunt, the invasion of Australia put forward in the "Tomorrow" series is about as credible as an invasion by Aliens.

http://www.rsimpson.id.au/books/tomorrow/explore/invasion.html
 
E

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

This is actually what I was looking for when I ran across the information in my last post, funny how that happens. I was going to comment that if it hadn't been for the Falklands war, Australia would probably be operating the ex RN carrier Invincible today.
The Fraser Coalition initially yielded to navy pressure (to replace the retired carrier Melbourne) and decided to acquire a second-hand UK carrier, HMS Invincible. But when after the 1982 Falklands war, the British asked to retain Invincible, and so the carrier capability was lost to the Australian forces.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2104
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Actually the Brits offered us the brand new Ark Royal (then under construction) as a replacement for Invincible. In the interim the ALP came to power, rejected that ofer, paid of Melbourne and did everything they could to get rid of navy fixed wing air power as quickly as possible.
 
E

EnigmaNZ

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Thats sounds very familiar, what is it with Labour governments and airpower, haven't they learnt the lessons of the '30's.
 
J

Jason_kiwi

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Yea, thats the case here. When NZ's labour party got into power they scrapped the air combat force.
 
N

nz enthusiast

New Member
Re: Royal Australian Navy force enhancements

Sounds like this frser coalition is did the same sort of thing to Australia has what the NZ Helenie government is doing now. Thing is they try to say their is no threat to justify having certain military potential but did anyone in 1929 know that in 10 years time the greatest conflict in human history was about to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top