Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

Speaking of the Arafura Class, on RAN and wiki sites, it states the range is 4000 nm. I wonder why, since the Brunei version's range is 7500nm.

Any ideas why ours is almost half the range?

Darussalam-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia

Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia


As for the 40mm gun, from what I read, the RAN signed up for the latest mount, which can move the gun at 120 degrees per second. The previous one moved around at 60 degrees per second. Is this right?

Navies often release inaccurate performance figures.

The Hunter class is listed as having a speed in excess of 27 kn while the type 26 is rated as being in excess of 26 kn. The Anzacs have a speed of 27 kn according to Wikipedia but I have heard that the near maxed out Australian Anzacs have a top speed closer to 24 kn. There are speed and range discrepancies between the Hobart and F-100 classes as well.

The HMS Queen Elizabeth has a released speed of 25+ kn while it actually trialled at 29 kn with some speculating that it might be able to reach 32kn.

In the end who knows what the range and speed of these ships actually are. Even the leaks might be fake.

 

[Pusser01]

Navies often release inaccurate performance figures.

The Hunter class is listed as having a speed in excess of 27 kn while the type 26 is rated as being in excess of 26 kn. The Anzacs have a speed of 27 kn according to Wikipedia but I have heard that the near maxed out Australian Anzacs have a top speed closer to 24 kn. There are speed and range discrepancies between the Hobart and F-100 classes as well.

The HMS Queen Elizabeth has a released speed of 25+ kn while it actually trialled at 29 kn with some speculating that it might be able to reach 32kn.

In the end who knows what the range and speed of these ships actually are. Even the leaks might be fake.

Not quite sure how accurate the figures are from Wikki, I remember on my last Anzac we used to cruise around on diesels at low-mid 20's, then needed the GT to kick us up to high 20's. Cheers.

 

[John Newman]

Came across this about a week ago on Defence Connect:

Defence Connect

A very good podcast interview with Rear Admiral Jonathan Mead (goes for a bit over half an hour).

Well worth finding half an hour to listen to it, highly recommended!

Cheers,

 

[hauritz]

Malcolm Davies speculates on whether Australia should follow the Japanese and deploy F-35s at sea.

Should Australia follow Japan and take the F-35 to sea? | The Strategist

One point raised is the question of just how effective Japan's small carriers would be in the face of China's anti-access/area-denial capability. Australia should perhaps be content at this stage to just sit back and see just how effectively the Japanese, British and American are operating F-35B in this region.

Also I guess there is the question of whether it is worth the effort of modifying our existing LHDs. As pointed out they possess a finite capability and operating F-35B would mean trading off its ability to carry out its primary mission. Even then it would be limited in its capability to generate enough sorties to be useful.

I think his conclusion that a third LHD built with an emphasis on air operations and additional frigates and destroyers to support it is perhaps something that could be considered down the track.

This would obviously require an investment level beyond the 2% that has been currently identified but with the possibility of China operating around 5 carriers and perhaps extending its operations well into the South Pacific by the 2030s it is an argument that won't go away anytime soon. Around that time Australia may well need to develop its own A2AD capability and having one or more aircraft carriers could be part of that strategy.

 

[King Wally]

I don't know if it's just me but I wouldn't want an Aussie LHD with or without F35's anywhere near a shooting war with China?

Send up some Subs or Frigates to assist a US Carrier battlegroup but I'd only be moving the LHD's into well controlled waters after the shooting was finished.

In my mind I always saw embarking a few F35's on a LHD as something we may do in a more local situation where the US wasn't rushing to take charge and we would need to take the lead?

 

[SpazSinbad]

[SHOULD NOT THESE 'LHD' Posts be in the LHD thread?] Fair comment 'King Wally' - I don't believe we plan to go against China except in some amazing task force with the LHDs in the background. Davies quotes from a 'report' which I mistook to be official however it is just another naysayer report from the STRATEGOs. Davies does seem to have understood what an F-35B brings to PLANs Jericho and Pelorus. However I must object to him thinking the old MELBOURNE was converted into a casino by the Chinese. Last paragraphs get the message with earlier para hints:

"...Using the F-35B to enhance the warfighting potential of the LHD’s escorts is an interesting prospect that needs to be explored further. There’s significant potential for force multiplication if the F-35B is used in conjunction with platforms like the E-7A Wedgetail and unmanned aerial vehicles also based on the LHDs, to act as both intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets and networking nodes. Looking further ahead, an even more intriguing option would using the LHD to house unmanned combat aerial vehicles. The strategic outlook now is far more dangerous than the 2016 defence white paper predicted, and that demands a rethink of Australia’s force structure... & a third LHD with a wing of between 12 and 16 F-35Bs, supported by a larger feet of destroyers and frigates, is an option that should be on the agenda in any force structure debate...."

 

[ngatimozart]

Malcolm Davies speculates on whether Australia should follow the Japanese and deploy F-35s at sea.

Should Australia follow Japan and take the F-35 to sea? | The Strategist

I don't know if it's just me but I wouldn't want an Aussie LHD with or without F35's anywhere near a shooting war with China?

Send up some Subs or Frigates to assist a US Carrier battlegroup but I'd only be moving the LHD's into well controlled waters after the shooting was finished.

In my mind I always saw embarking a few F35's on a LHD as something we may do in a more local situation where the US wasn't rushing to take charge and we would need to take the lead?

[SHOULD NOT THESE 'LHD' Posts be in the LHD thread?]

[B]@hauritz[/B] and [B]@King Wally[/B] are you two characters asking for a short holiday from here? It can be very easily arranged. Spaz is right when he said this: [SHOULD NOT THESE 'LHD' Posts be in the LHD thread?] and that was what was stated. No more warnings. Do it again and on holiday you go.

 

[hauritz]

[B]@hauritz[/B] and [B]@King Wally[/B] are you two characters asking for a short holiday from here? It can be very easily arranged. Spaz is right when he said this: [SHOULD NOT THESE 'LHD' Posts be in the LHD thread?] and that was what was stated. No more warnings. Do it again and on holiday you go.

Apologies ... but I wasn't really just arguing a case for additional LHDs or F-35Bs. I am actually more interested in what the navy's future force structure should be going into the 2030s and beyond. Certainly an aircraft carrier is one option, but I think a role has to be defined for it and of some question as to whether it would even be the best option.

How should Australia defend itself against a rising China?

I think one of the issues that should be addressed in the future is to what degree we support allied efforts in the South China Sea and whether we should direct our interests more to our immediate region. Perhaps it is possible to do both.

It is a remote possibility that we may be thrown under a bus and our strongest allies might decide that withdrawing from the region is in their best interests. We may have to deal with the Chinese fleet in our own region and perhaps with greatly reduced ally support. Australia may have to develop our own A2AD strategy which will perhaps involve making changes to the structure and role of the airforce and navy.

Would it be conceivable for a small, technologically advanced country like Australia to develop an effective anti-access/area denial capability and what changes would be needed to our current navy and airforce?

 

[John Newman]

However I must object to him thinking the old MELBOURNE was converted into a casino by the Chinese.

Yes I saw that comment by Malcolm Davis this morning too, thought, what the??? (I'm surprised he would make such a silly mistake, maybe a researcher did it, and not properly proof read??).

But... from memory, I vaguely remember that before the former HMAS Melbourne was sold for scrap to China, there was a group here in NSW that did want to turn it into a floating casino (that was a time when we didn't have a casino here in Sydney/NSW). As for old carriers in China, there are two of the old Russian Kiev class used for amusement purposes.

Anyway....

Nothing wrong with discussions about the LHD's here in the RAN, as long as it is 'reality' based, such as this article from AA just before Christmas:

Ship shape – Army amphibious air operations cleared for duty - Australian Aviation

As for the 'other stuff', let's leave that in the LHD thread until if and when it does become Government policy (which I'm not holding my breath on).

Cheers,

 

[buffy9]

Apologies ... but I wasn't really just arguing a case for additional LHDs or F-35Bs. I am actually more interested in what the navy's future force structure should be going into the 2030s and beyond. Certainly an aircraft carrier is one option, but I think a role has to be defined for it and of some question as to whether it would even be the best option.

How should Australia defend itself against a rising China?

I think one of the issues that should be addressed in the future is to what degree we support allied efforts in the South China Sea and whether we should direct our interests more to our immediate region. Perhaps it is possible to do both.

It is a remote possibility that we may be thrown under a bus and our strongest allies might decide that withdrawing from the region is in their best interests. We may have to deal with the Chinese fleet in our own region and perhaps with greatly reduced ally support. Australia may have to develop our own A2AD strategy which will perhaps involve making changes to the structure and role of the airforce and navy.

Would it be conceivable for a small, technologically advanced country like Australia to develop an effective anti-access/area denial capability and what changes would be needed to our current navy and airforce?

As a hypothetical, let's say a permanent Chinese naval presence is established in the South Pacific - including submarines and a visiting carrier strike group.

A long-range strike capability would be priority. The ability to damage China's naval/aerial infrastructure out in the islands and to create a buffer zone around Australia's East coast (our population core) would be exceptional. Platforms could be bombers, cruise missiles (air, land or sea) or even land based systems. The P-8 can carry some cruise missiles and would be suitable for the role - if only a mediocre solution.

A second would be an increased submarine presence. The Attack-class will likely make use of naval mines, multirole cruise missiles, unmanned systems and advanced electronic warfare systems in addition to special forces and torpedoes. An ideal force projection platform that would always keep China on it's toes and of which would be well placed to respond in the event of a sudden conflict. Only problem, it is a long-term solution at this stage.

Idealy, prevention is the best step. Increasing our influence and outright preventing a Chinese expansion there is better than investing in costly capabilities that may not even have the size to defeat China, let alone deter it.

As the topic is carriers and this is a naval thread, any such platform would be well suited to project force into the South Pacific with potent aviation assets and a dedicated command ship. In the South Pacific it may exceptionally useful, as China may not be able to project an exceptional naval force beyond Guam and Manus Island bases - a key reason for these establishments in my view, as they prevent direct Chinese military expansion in this direction. Whether the LHDs are suited for this is best left to another thread.

Finally there is the use of paratroopers and marines to potentially remove Chinese facilities in the event of a conflict. Assuming neutralisation or destruction via air, sea and electronic means then the facilities and personnel may still need securing via land forces. Commando company groups (CCG) could quickly do this and do this well with regular forces brought up in the rear. If the presence is anything company level or smaller then this would work. However if anything battlegroup sized is based in the region (which is currently unlikely) then a larger dedicated marine force would be needed.

In such a case, considering our small size, it might be worth convincing the USMC and USN to station some force elements in East Australia. Considering Manus Island is already set to be joint facility with the US then this may already end up being the case.

 

[SpazSinbad]

'buffy9' said: "...In such a case, considering our small size, it might be worth convincing the USMC and USN to station some force elements in East Australia. Considering Manus Island is already set to be joint facility with the US then this may already end up being the case."

USS America Will Head to Japan to Serve as Next Forward-Deployed Amphibious Flagship - USNI News
I'm waiting for the USS America (soon to replace USS Wasp in our region) to come visit USMC troops stationed in Darwin. I'm waiting for the F-35B videos of the event. I'm always waiting. However Malcolm Davies may have 'seen the light' that an F-35 brings to our networking strategy, which was a good to wait for event.

 

[buffy9]

USS America Will Head to Japan to Serve as Next Forward-Deployed Amphibious Flagship - USNI News
I'm waiting for the USS America (soon to replace USS Wasp in our region) to come visit USMC troops stationed in Darwin. I'm waiting for the F-35B videos of the event. I'm always waiting. However Malcolm Davies may have 'seen the light' that an F-35 brings to our networking strategy, which was a good to wait for event.

Will keep my eye out, no doubt a few of the Australian guys will get a tour and a show off of the ship and the F-35s.

 

[Boatteacher]

[QUOTE="

But... from memory, I vaguely remember that before the former HMAS Melbourne was sold for scrap to China, there was a group here in NSW that did want to turn it into a floating casino ,[/QUOTE]

My recollection is that the proposal was for a museum ship.
I remember some minister dismissing the idea with talk of "little old ladies fallen in a heap at the bottom of ladders".

 

[Redlands18]

[QUOTE="

But... from memory, I vaguely remember that before the former HMAS Melbourne was sold for scrap to China, there was a group here in NSW that did want to turn it into a floating casino
@Boatteacher
My recollection is that the proposal was for a museum ship.
I remember some minister dismissing the idea with talk of "little old ladies fallen in a heap at the bottom of ladders".

They struggle to find the funds and volunteers to keep the 3000t Vampire in shape how did they think they could keep a 20,000t Carrier?

 

[hauritz]

As a hypothetical, let's say a permanent Chinese naval presence is established in the South Pacific - including submarines and a visiting carrier strike group.

A long-range strike capability would be priority. The ability to damage China's naval/aerial infrastructure out in the islands and to create a buffer zone around Australia's East coast (our population core) would be exceptional. Platforms could be bombers, cruise missiles (air, land or sea) or even land based systems. The P-8 can carry some cruise missiles and would be suitable for the role - if only a mediocre solution.

A second would be an increased submarine presence. The Attack-class will likely make use of naval mines, multirole cruise missiles, unmanned systems and advanced electronic warfare systems in addition to special forces and torpedoes. An ideal force projection platform that would always keep China on it's toes and of which would be well placed to respond in the event of a sudden conflict. Only problem, it is a long-term solution at this stage.

Idealy, prevention is the best step. Increasing our influence and outright preventing a Chinese expansion there is better than investing in costly capabilities that may not even have the size to defeat China, let alone deter it.

As the topic is carriers and this is a naval thread, any such platform would be well suited to project force into the South Pacific with potent aviation assets and a dedicated command ship. In the South Pacific it may exceptionally useful, as China may not be able to project an exceptional naval force beyond Guam and Manus Island bases - a key reason for these establishments in my view, as they prevent direct Chinese military expansion in this direction. Whether the LHDs are suited for this is best left to another thread.

Finally there is the use of paratroopers and marines to potentially remove Chinese facilities in the event of a conflict. Assuming neutralisation or destruction via air, sea and electronic means then the facilities and personnel may still need securing via land forces. Commando company groups (CCG) could quickly do this and do this well with regular forces brought up in the rear. If the presence is anything company level or smaller then this would work. However if anything battlegroup sized is based in the region (which is currently unlikely) then a larger dedicated marine force would be needed.

In such a case, considering our small size, it might be worth convincing the USMC and USN to station some force elements in East Australia. Considering Manus Island is already set to be joint facility with the US then this may already end up being the case.

I think this video does a reasonable job of outlining just how quickly our strategic situation is deteriorating and frankly doesn't paint a particularly rosy future for Australia.

Australia's management of strategic risk in the new era.

In the shorter term we probably need to concentrate on defending our Northern approaches. I think Chinese submarines represent a bigger threat than its carriers do at this stage and certainly, Australia does look like it will be beefing up its anti-submarine capability. Australia is also expanding its submarine capability. In fact as you go through the white paper it does seem that it has already addressed a lot of these problems. Additional ASW aircraft, ASW frigates, improved surveillance, mobile landbased anti-ship missile batteries all seem to tick the right boxes.

In my opinion, the problem is that many of the programs are running too slowly. We may no longer have the 10 to 15 years warning time we used to have.

 

[SpazSinbad]

They struggle to find the funds and volunteers to keep the 3000t Vampire in shape how did they think they could keep a 20,000t Carrier?

Yes - before MELBOURNE the carrier sold for scrap for CHINOISERIE some groups in Sydney (or Oz) had plans for both a casino or museum. How the old VAMPIRE in the Sydney Maritime Museum is relevant to this thread escapes me. Today is not relevant to something that did not occur some 35 years ago SHIRLEY. You have probably cottoned on to why the old wreck was NOT made into a museum. I was surprised the old girl survived the tow to China; although she did spit the dummy around Brisbane. An F-111 on a recce took some nice overheads (I guess near there).

https://www.faaaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Mystery-Photo-39.jpg
&
https://www.faaaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Melbourne-13.jpg

 

[DaveS124]

As noted elsewhere in this thread, one of the RAN T26s is to commission as FLINDERS (II).

Well, some timely news from London regarding the great man himself - as part of the work on the London-Birmingham high-speed rail, a graveyard has been found, and his remains unearthed and conclusively identified.

It would, I think, be most appropriate for the Australian government to play a part in whatever happens next. Perhaps a joint RN-RAN service, ideally run by the padre in QUEEN ELIZABETH (that guy rocks). Of course, final decisions would be entirely up to the Flinders family.

ASSAIL won't thank me for reminding him that Flinders once - back in the Flintstones era - adorned the Australian 10-shilling note. Money actually looked like money back in the stone age.

Anyhoo, good report on the grave news by the Guardian (yes, I know, The Guardian, but still...) here - Grave of explorer Matthew Flinders unearthed near London station

 

[ngatimozart]

As noted elsewhere in this thread, one of the RAN T26s is to commission as FLINDERS (II).

Well, some timely news from London regarding the great man himself - as part of the work on the London-Birmingham high-speed rail, a graveyard has been found, and his remains unearthed and conclusively identified.

It would, I think, be most appropriate for the Australian government to play a part in whatever happens next. Perhaps a joint RN-RAN service, ideally run by the padre in QUEEN ELIZABETH (that guy rocks). Of course, final decisions would be entirely up to the Flinders family.

ASSAIL won't thank me for reminding him that Flinders once - back in the Flintstones era - adorned the Australian 10-shilling note. Money actually looked like money back in the stone age.

Anyhoo, good report on the grave news by the Guardian (yes, I know, The Guardian, but still...) here - Grave of explorer Matthew Flinders unearthed near London station

He should be reburied under a plinth at Australia House with full naval honours from the RN & RAN. That would be an absolute fitting memorial. So says this Kiwi.

 

[JBRobbo]

Unsure if this has been discussed previously, but the French have just bought 14 EDA-S landing craft from CNIM (marketed as 'Landing Craft Assault' for export) which seems to be a very strong contender for LAND 8710 and at long last a solution to our landing craft issues re: the M1A1 Abrams. Other possible contenders i.e. Caimen-90, L-CAT, LCAC etc. are all too wide to fully utilize the Canberra LHD's split well dock however the 'Landing Craft Assault' shares the same 6.4m beam as the LCM-1E but is 6m longer, has an increased max. cargo capacity of 80t at the same loaded speed, has longer range and can operate up to sea state-5.

France orders new EDA-S landing craft | Jane's 360
LCA Landing Craft Assault | CNIM

 

[Stampede]

Unsure if this has been discussed previously, but the French have just bought 14 EDA-S landing craft from CNIM (marketed as 'Landing Craft Assault' for export) which seems to be a very strong contender for LAND 8710 and at long last a solution to our landing craft issues re: the M1A1 Abrams. Other possible contenders i.e. Caimen-90, L-CAT, LCAC etc. are all too wide to fully utilize the Canberra LHD's split well dock however the 'Landing Craft Assault' shares the same 6.4m beam as the LCM-1E but is 6m longer, has an increased max. cargo capacity of 80t at the same loaded speed, has longer range and can operate up to sea state-5.

France orders new EDA-S landing craft | Jane's 360
LCA Landing Craft Assault | CNIM

Interesting craft.
Appears on paper to have comparability with the Canberra class.
Just playing with paper figures, but there may be some space for one of these EDA-S in tandem behind one in service LCM1e. If you utilise the reserved RHIB space behind the current craft in the docking well it should just fit!!!!

Just a speculative thought

Regards S