Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Bob53 said:
What if they are $1 million each? Or are they just dogs …i thought they were starting to shape up as reasonable ASW platforms. Later version might have some if the bugs ironed out.
Click to expand...
There is fairly long list of equipment not currently used by the RAN, incl
Most of the unique propulsion system.
CMS
Mk 110 57mm Gun
Sea Ram CIWS
Hellfire VLM
Would it really be worth introducing this much new, Trg Streams, Log streams, employment streams for just 2 ships?
 
Redlands18 said:
There is fairly long list of equipment not currently used by the RAN, incl
Most of the unique propulsion system.
CMS
Mk 110 57mm Gun
Sea Ram CIWS
Hellfire VLM
Would it really be worth introducing this much new, Trg Streams, Log streams, employment streams for just 2 ships?
Click to expand...
I could not think of a more horrible outcome for the RAN, even if they were giving them away I would hope it would still be a hard pass.
 
Redlands18 said:
There is fairly long list of equipment not currently used by the RAN, incl
Most of the unique propulsion system.
CMS
Mk 110 57mm Gun
Sea Ram CIWS
Hellfire VLM
Would it really be worth introducing this much new, Trg Streams, Log streams, employment streams for just 2 ships?
Click to expand...
As much as I'm in favour of the RAN moving from Phalanx to SeaRAM, this would quite possibly be the worst way to go about it.
 
devo99 said:
Perhaps something like the RN's Crowsnest helicopter borne AEW would be an option. It is definitely limited by the flight ceiling and range of helicopters compared to fixed wing AEW platforms like E-2 but it's at least significantly better than what we have now, which is diddly squat in terms of Navy AEW. Importantly it can take off and land on the LHDs like any other helicopter so no need for converting anything into a carrier.
Click to expand...

Why not have the best of both worlds? The V-280 looks like it’s going to be very capable in terms of range, speed and payload, and could, I imagine, have a conformal pod like the Peregrine’s mounted.

If:

1) it’ll fit - the Osprey looked like a tight squeeze on the LHDs
2) the integration of a conformal AESA radar is doable - which I’m sure the newly minted public servants at CEA can handle

having 2-4 organic AWACS in a task force would be a hell of a capability uplift.
 
StingrayOZ said:
Nothing about F-35B's. But a lot of questions about where the LHD's fit into the new ADF if they aren't moving the now smaller and lighter army around, its a lot of sailors. The LHD have very limited fixed wing capability, apart from certifying pilots and perhaps to build up capability. It would have to remain under range of land bases. The ADF will never have an organic naval tanker capability from a flattop. Acquiring a dedicated carrier requires an additional ~600 sailors on top of acquisition costs. An ASW platform is way more reasonable, so what would that look like with helicopters and drones. Give the exercises with India, some of the development stuff in drones, Turkeys direction, an helo/drone carrier is a much more suitable role for the ships than fixed wing manned aircraft strike carrier.

Ships no matter how good their sensors, have a horizon, and being based on the surface, the horizon is very much limited. We are well and truely in the age of the long range missile, but how do we get tactical data surface and sub surface? From the main radar on a ship? from the bow sonar? No matter how good these become, they won't have endless range. Inevitably you have to dismount the sensors onto other smaller platforms, and its been happening ever since we have had spotter planes at the start of the 20th century. While Sats and OTHR have their place, they have very well known limitations and are very far away. While they may be able to provide an over all strategic picture, having millisecond tactical data that can provide real firing solutions is a whole other question.

The US has the capability to use a Tomahawk, because they can put in assets that can provide that data for a complete kill chain. Do we have 1500nm+ vision?
Click to expand...
A good post with good questions.

Take F35B's out of the picture and working with what we have or have ordered on the aviation front I think a big part of the Hangar / Light vehicle deck along with the flight deck will be taken up with" flying things".

This will require a significant aviation compliment of personnel ,which will require a lot of bunks, thus reducing the troop compliment embarked.
You work with what space you have, so heavy vehicle deck and landing craft for whatever compliment of vehicles you take supported by around 700 / 750 troops leaving around 300 Pax for aviation.

For aviation - ASW / attack / ISR / Logistics and SAR.
A busy realm to support the troops.

Can't see troops going anywhere against a significant threat without this aviation support.

Our future fleet of Medium and heavy landing craft will be a great asset.


Cheers S
 
Stampede said:
A good post with good questions.

Take F35B's out of the picture and working with what we have or have ordered on the aviation front I think a big part of the Hangar / Light vehicle deck along with the flight deck will be taken up with" flying things".

This will require a significant aviation compliment of personnel ,which will require a lot of bunks, thus reducing the troop compliment embarked.
You work with what space you have, so heavy vehicle deck and landing craft for whatever compliment of vehicles you take supported by around 700 / 750 troops leaving around 300 Pax for aviation.

For aviation - ASW / attack / ISR / Logistics and SAR.
A busy realm to support the troops.

Can't see troops going anywhere against a significant threat without this aviation support.

Our future fleet of Medium and heavy landing craft will be a great asset.


Cheers S
Click to expand...

Yes, if both the light vehicle deck and hangar are used, the LHD's can embark up to 18 medium helicopters. However, there is a potentially large problem in expecting to do so for a deployment lifting and landing troops. Using the light vehicle deck to embark more helicopters then keeps it from being used to lift/land light vehicles, and also reduces by more than half the area available to embark vehicles. Currently an LHD can lift up to 110 vehicles depending on configuration, but with additional helicopters aboard using up nearly 60% of the deck space for vehicles, that could certainly cause problems for a deployment.

Similarly, if attempting to cover the roles of ASW, ground attack, ISR/AEW, airlift and SAR with helicopters, plus support a landed force of 700 - 1k personnel, then 18 helicopters just might not be enough. Especially if helicopters are having to be used for troop lift and movement in lieu of ground vehicles because not as many vehicles can be lifted.

Having the flexibility to change around what the vehicle and aviation loadout is IMO a good thing, but it does seem to be a recurring theme that people want to have the LHD's carry out a whole host of functions, which it likely could just not all at the same time. Or at times it seems as though posters wish to have the RAN run the LHD's like how the US operates their LHD's and LHA's. Unfortunately, the US LHD's and LHA's are significantly larger (like ~50% greater displacement) which enables more to be done with and from the vessels.
 
Is there a reason the R.A.N cannot design and develop drones that meet its goals and operate off the Canberra class ships ,in theory they should be cheaper and have a smaller footprint
 
Bob53 said:
Isn’t just all a moot point. It’s been decided that we won’t be doing this several times over I thought…has something been suggested in official circles that F35B is back on the table?
Click to expand...

Nope. In no way is the F-35B seriously being considered.

StingrayOZ said:
Nothing about F-35B's. But a lot of questions about where the LHD's fit into the new ADF if they aren't moving the now smaller and lighter army around, its a lot of sailors.
Click to expand...

Questions from where? Neither the RAN nor ARA see the use or need for LHDs decreasing; and they would have to be some of the most used ships bigger than the patrol boats.

All the talk of converting them to carriers miss the fact that every hour as a carrier is an hour less as an amphib; and they were bought and are well used as the latter.

I grant you, having one as an ASW carrier for convoy escort would be excellent (assuming we have the # of Sea Hawks and other ASW aircraft), but again, the opportunity cost of that would have to be considered very carefully. I'd suggest you'd only see that during war (I mean, how often does any Western Navy treat convoy escort seriously?)
 
seaspear said:
Is there a reason the R.A.N cannot design and develop drones that meet its goals and operate off the Canberra class ships ,in theory they should be cheaper and have a smaller footprint
Click to expand...

Yup

Cost and institutional barriers. 129-5 was meant to buy a UAV for the RAN - the greatest barrier to that project wore blue suits. Gosh, the greatest barrier to MQ-28 wore blue, it had to be saved in 2020 by two mid-ranked green suiters....

In regards to the former, we have to assume that the DSR is correct and all these cuts have been made to save money (because it doesn't appear to deliver anything faster). So, there's no spare cash - what are you going to cut to pay for the R&D? Noting you can use the SPH/IFV cuts - but that money is mid-30s onwards, so your drone isn't coming until 2038 at the earliest.

You could rely on industry to design and build on risk...but, seeing how Defence has treated industry with this DSR, would they? I mean, we've left the ship building plan for another review, we've killed $15 b of AFV production (which may come back) for what? $2-5 bn of EO (more specialised and localised than AFV or ships and pending another review). We have stuffed around (see above institutional barriers) with MQ-28....so if you were industry - would you trust us?
 
The RAN LHDs acting as light carriers with F-35B? No, can’t see it.

If the cover of combat aircraft is required, one would hope the LHDs are part of a much larger USN task group providing that air combat cover.

The RAN being able to operate an LHD as a light ASW carrier? Yes.

Firstly, I support 100%, the continuation of the two LHDs in their primary amphibious role.

But...

I don’t think it would be shortsighted if, on appropriate occasions, one or other, of the LHDs be capable to be operate as an ASW carrier.

Let’s assume...

Somewhere in the future a coalition task group includes a large number of RAN assets, DDG, FFH/FFG, LHD, LSD(A), AOR, etc.

One LHD could be outfitted in its primary amphibious role, troops, armour, vehicles, utility watercraft, utility aircraft such as UH-60M, CH-47F and maybe AH-64E too.

The other LHD loaded with MH-60Rs to provide the task group with a large platform capable of ASW operations, and a mothership/maintenance platform for the MH-60Rs from DDG/FFGs too.

What modifications would need to be done? Maybe it would only need some sort of modular weapons and fuel storage that could occupy the heavy vehicle deck.

Maybe that would be enough for a ‘part time’
ASW capability.

If there was a ‘full time’ requirement, then add a dedicated ASW Carrier.

Hmmmm??
 
Takao said:
Yup

Cost and institutional barriers. 129-5 was meant to buy a UAV for the RAN - the greatest barrier to that project wore blue suits. Gosh, the greatest barrier to MQ-28 wore blue, it had to be saved in 2020 by two mid-ranked green suiters....

In regards to the former, we have to assume that the DSR is correct and all these cuts have been made to save money (because it doesn't appear to deliver anything faster). So, there's no spare cash - what are you going to cut to pay for the R&D? Noting you can use the SPH/IFV cuts - but that money is mid-30s onwards, so your drone isn't coming until 2038 at the earliest.

You could rely on industry to design and build on risk...but, seeing how Defence has treated industry with this DSR, would they? I mean, we've left the ship building plan for another review, we've killed $15 b of AFV production (which may come back) for what? $2-5 bn of EO (more specialised and localised than AFV or ships and pending another review). We have stuffed around (see above institutional barriers) with MQ-28....so if you were industry - would you trust us?
Click to expand...
This is all feeling very familiar, 1996/7 familiar.

Some stuff cut, lots of plans delayed, announcements about how bad the previous government was. Projects that served no purpose (following other cancellations) proceeding, only to be cancelled later. Needed cababilities being wound back only to be increased again later at much greater cost but with less local industry involvement.

The most damaging part was the hollowing out through "savings", combined with curtailing follow-on projects, failing to replace aging capability, continuing with poor value for money acquisitions, upgrades and life extensions while delaying the capabilities the extensions were meant to bridge to.

Then there was the multiple IP stuff ups, damage to relationships etc.
 
John Newman said:
The RAN LHDs acting as light carriers with F-35B? No, can’t see it.

If the cover of combat aircraft is required, one would hope the LHDs are part of a much larger USN task group providing that air combat cover.

The RAN being able to operate an LHD as a light ASW carrier? Yes.

Firstly, I support 100%, the continuation of the two LHDs in their primary amphibious role.

But...

I don’t think it would be shortsighted if, on appropriate occasions, one or other, of the LHDs be capable to be operate as an ASW carrier.

Let’s assume...

Somewhere in the future a coalition task group includes a large number of RAN assets, DDG, FFH/FFG, LHD, LSD(A), AOR, etc.

One LHD could be outfitted in its primary amphibious role, troops, armour, vehicles, utility watercraft, utility aircraft such as UH-60M, CH-47F and maybe AH-64E too.

The other LHD loaded with MH-60Rs to provide the task group with a large platform capable of ASW operations, and a mothership/maintenance platform for the MH-60Rs from DDG/FFGs too.

What modifications would need to be done? Maybe it would only need some sort of modular weapons and fuel storage that could occupy the heavy vehicle deck.

Maybe that would be enough for a ‘part time’
ASW capability.

If there was a ‘full time’ requirement, then add a dedicated ASW Carrier.

Hmmmm??
Click to expand...
All this talk of buying off the shelf capability to fill gaps with people suggesting stuff that we are quite literally capable of building the same or better here, when the obvious gap filler would be a light carrier.

Go to Japan or Korea and ask how much for a light carrier. Built there with compatible systems to those used by the RAN, initial outfit for ASW but designed for UCAVs and even F-35B in the future. Supplement the LHDs in an LPH config as required, primary role, task force command, ASW, ISR (mothership for ISR capability). Can cross deck allied F-35Bs, if needed operate Australian ones.

Get two or three of them I won't care if the cut the Hunters to six, or even five. That is of course assuming the upcoming review recommends a reasonable number of GP frigates of Type 31 size, not specifically saying that type 31, maybe Mogami, improved Inchon or similar.

The end point will be kicking of a program to replace the Hobart's with proper destroyers. Hobart was ordered in 2007, from a program kicked off in 2004, and commissioned in 2017. Based on that the replacement program should be kicking off next year.
 
I find this LHD issue completely counter-intuitive.

I do totally agree with the requirement for amphib capability.
However I’m wondering just how many amphib operations could be achieved?
We might not engage in actual opposed beach landings, but if Falkland landings are an indication without counter-air coverage the deployed positioned assets are just as vulnerable regardless.

I see, when not securing SLOC, RAN surface units will endeavour to operate in task groups.
I see, if SLOC is the priority, then the key capability will be ASW, so in this instance I see the LHDs operating as ASW carriers.
If it comes to SLOC security, do we see us conducting an amphib op in such a precarious time, I don’t.

So alternately I see the surface task groups being tasked.
The same fleet units that have ->*LIMITED*<- VLS magazines, & by nature likely a long way from home.

*The ‘easiest‘ way to increase anti-air/anti-AshM defence (other than building & crewing an extra escort ship) & therefore increasing fleet resilience and persistence on mission to even remain in the AO, is longer range counter-air layer with reloadable Missile rails. …..or am I missing something?

*I see the requirement for the fleet/task group to have long range OTH AEW capability, this is relevant even today, isn’t it?
So isn’t the F35 a network enabled ISR platform? ……am I missing something here?

*Longer range CAP may even deter or meaningfully degrade an action against the task group occurring in the first place.

Coincidentally in the fictional scenario the US is also engaged in a dispute with a significant peer adversary, so I’m unsure they will be available to do these tasks for us. Without them then, will army really put all that kit onboard a juicy LHD?
I’m doubtful there will even be a amphib op in this situation.

When the LHDs were acquired, I’m tippin no one thought the US won’t also be there, well in a peer brawl, they probably won’t be?
If we say “any amphib op will only occur with the US”, then who escorts the Australian package from Australia to the staging point? - and without the US the LHDs won’t even be doing Amphib ops they were acquired for. Correct?

This is all utter conjecture, it’s only relevant because there has been plausible talk of a number of ‘corvette’ type vessels & converting LHD will likely be less than even one of these, & coincidentally we have another squadron of F35s as options. Providence has also already given us two ships to exploit.

For the sake of vastly improving not only the amphib mission, but also naval projection capability, what make adapting a LHD to accommodate a flight of F35s so absurdly implausible?
is it just dogma?
im obviously missing something quite basic here!
 
John Newman said:
The RAN LHDs acting as light carriers with F-35B? No, can’t see it.

If the cover of combat aircraft is required, one would hope the LHDs are part of a much larger USN task group providing that air combat cover.

The RAN being able to operate an LHD as a light ASW carrier? Yes.

Firstly, I support 100%, the continuation of the two LHDs in their primary amphibious role.

But...

I don’t think it would be shortsighted if, on appropriate occasions, one or other, of the LHDs be capable to be operate as an ASW carrier.

Let’s assume...

Somewhere in the future a coalition task group includes a large number of RAN assets, DDG, FFH/FFG, LHD, LSD(A), AOR, etc.

One LHD could be outfitted in its primary amphibious role, troops, armour, vehicles, utility watercraft, utility aircraft such as UH-60M, CH-47F and maybe AH-64E too.

The other LHD loaded with MH-60Rs to provide the task group with a large platform capable of ASW operations, and a mothership/maintenance platform for the MH-60Rs from DDG/FFGs too.

What modifications would need to be done? Maybe it would only need some sort of modular weapons and fuel storage that could occupy the heavy vehicle deck.

Maybe that would be enough for a ‘part time’
ASW capability.

If there was a ‘full time’ requirement, then add a dedicated ASW Carrier.

Hmmmm??
Click to expand...

It may still be an issue of numbers. With two LHD, training for ASW is a challenge when one is likely to be in maintenance and the other is required to undertake the majority of training and operational lift - including the amphibious role (inc HADR) and engagement activities. The JSS could help here - taking some strain off of the amphib role and reducing the LHDs tempo - but there is no certainty whether the review will kill the program.

Generating enough escorts (in general or for the LHD w/ Seahawks) may be the other. Right now we have 11, so with rule of three maybe four available sustainably - with likely only one being a modern DDG. Under the current plan that would bring us to 12, with the same rule yielding four available - all modern FFG/DDG able to contribute to several of the critical operational capabilities the DSR prioritises (undersea warfare, enhanced IAMD, long-range strike), alongside a more lethal Navy. The risk now is that three of these may be cut, reducing the escort fleet to nine vessels with three vessels available. Small, especially considering the importance the DSR states on ensuring our connection with the region and our alliances/partnerships.

I'm all for six GP frigates in place of three of the Hunters - fundamentally it is more numbers and could help us maintain the two shipyards in the long-term - provided we can crew them and that they remain operationally capable, including in distance. The additional vessels will use more manpower, and will not be as capable (individually) as the Hunters or Hobarts. Assuming a fleet of 3;6;6 (15 total) achievable in the long-term, it is more capable than we have been in a long-time and could, in theory, benefit from an ASW carrier, assuming it can be meaningfully generated (although I'm skeptical it can be achieved without sacrificing the amphibious force).

Its hard to say what the review of the surface fleet will yield, beyond delay and uncertainty in the interim. Hopefully there is some information in the May budget.
 
Last edited:
buffy9 said:
It may still be an issue of numbers. With two LHD, training for ASW is a challenge when one is likely to be in maintenance and the other is required to undertake the majority of training and operational lift - including the amphibious role (inc HADR) and engagement activities. The JSS could help here - taking some strain off of the amphib role and reducing the LHDs tempo - but there is no certainty whether the review will kill the program.

Generating enough escorts (in general or for the LHD w/ Seahawks) may be the other. Right now we have 11, so with rule of three maybe four available sustainably - with likely only one being a modern DDG. Under the current plan that would bring us to 12, with the same rule yielding four available - all modern FFG/DDG able to contribute to several of the critical operational capabilities the DSR prioritises (undersea warfare, enhanced IAMD, long-range strike), alongside a more lethal Navy. The risk now is that three of these may be cut, reducing the escort fleet to nine vessels with three vessels available. Small, especially considering the importance the DSR states on ensuring our connection with the region and our alliances/partnerships.

I'm all for six GP frigates in place of three of the Hunters - fundamentally it is more numbers and could help us maintain the two shipyards in the long-term - provided we can crew them and that they remain operationally capable, including in distance. The additional vessels will use more manpower, and will not be as capable (individually) as the Hunters or Hobarts. Assuming a fleet of 3;6;6 (15 total) achievable in the long-term, it is more capable than we have been in a long-time and could, in theory, benefit from an ASW carrier, assuming it can be meaningfully generated (although I'm skeptical it can be achieved without sacrificing the amphibious force).

Its hard to say what the review of the surface fleet will yield, beyond delay and uncertainty in the interim. Hopefully there is some information in the May budget.
Click to expand...
In terms of options for a GP frigate the ones I have noted are as follows:
- MEKO A200*
- PF-4923
- Type 31
- 30DX (Mogami-class)*
- PPA (Thaon di Revel-class)
- BAE Adaptable Strike Frigate
(*= limited to tactical length VLS cells)

One of the criteria I used for picking these options was that they be able to fit a minimum of 2 Mk 41 VLS modules (16 cells). This way getting 6 of them will mean no loss in total fleet cell count if 3 Hunters are cut. Unfortunately I could not find range and complement size for all of them but for those I could the minimum range criteria was 5000 NMI and the maximum crew was 150 excluding aircrew.
I believe it is a good mix of built and proven designs (MEKO A200, PPA, Mogami, PF-4923 hull) and newer unbuilt designs (Type 31, BAE ASF).
I am not suggesting any of these are better or worse than the others, although some have notable benefits, this is just for the purpose of provoking discussion around the topic.
 
seaspear said:
I would argue the Hunter class are the most effective asw platforms Australia has in a theatre that has the heaviest numbers of submarines ,cutting these back to just have an increase of generic ship numbers that dont have the same capability is more expensive
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see if the UK’s T-31 comes in on budget and what the actual difference is between the T-31 and T-26 will be after both programs have built 3-4 ships. How much extra money is needed to upgrade the T-31’s ASW capability to some extent?
 
Morgo said:
Why not have the best of both worlds? The V-280 looks like it’s going to be very capable in terms of range, speed and payload, and could, I imagine, have a conformal pod like the Peregrine’s mounted.

If:

1) it’ll fit - the Osprey looked like a tight squeeze on the LHDs
2) the integration of a conformal AESA radar is doable - which I’m sure the newly minted public servants at CEA can handle

having 2-4 organic AWACS in a task force would be a hell of a capability uplift.
Click to expand...

The V-280 does not fold up like a MV-22.
Please do not reply with anything about a model of a "maritime V-280" that was displayed at some defense trade show.
That was a model.
The V-280 does not fold up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top