Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

@alexsa Just remember that for the last 18 years USN ASW has slipped quite a bit because its been concentrated on asymmetric warfare in the Middle East. So they have a lot of catching up to do, mostly on the training side. I wouldn't discount the use of flush decks or LPD like vessels with large flight decks in the ASW role, but I agree that it shouldn't be their raison ďetre.

However if you had the available aviation assets to warrant the use of any of the flat decks for ASW then that would be great. I agree that they would require escorting unless you had the appropriate sensors and weapons mounted. I am a fan of the distributed lethality concept that if it floats it fights and imho all amphibs and logistics ships should be fitted with the appropriate sensors and SAMS such as ESSM or Sea Ceptor and NSM or an equivalent. It gives them good self defence capability and an offensive capability if they need it.

Italy's Giuseppe Garibaldi is a tidy little package.
Has both a significant aviation compliment and weapons suite.
However like any vessel, at what point have you tried do too much within a given space.

For LHD's I'd say the first question to ask is if you actually want to employ the F35B off them. ( Post Harrier era )
If yes, then the size of the Juan Carlos is the minimum to to the job.
If not, then much smaller vessels are an option, but for rotary wing only.

In hindsight would the RAN have been better served with THREE smaller Garibaldi sized LHD's for a total tonnage equal to our TWO Canberra's ????

Thoughts

Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

In hindsight would the RAN have been better served with THREE smaller Garibaldi sized LHD's for a total tonnage equal to our TWO Canberra's ????

Small nitpick but Garibaldi is 14,150 tons full load compared to 27500 tons full load for Canberra. The two Canberra's would still have 12,500 tons more then 3 Garibaldi's. Rather it should be a question around the Mistral's as 3 of those would equal out the 2 Canberra's.

 

[ngatimozart]

Italy's Giuseppe Garibaldi is a tidy little package.
Has both a significant aviation compliment and weapons suite.
However like any vessel, at what point have you tried do too much within a given space.

For LHD's I'd say the first question to ask is if you actually want to employ the F35B off them. ( Post Harrier era )
If yes, then the size of the Juan Carlos is the minimum to to the job.
If not, then much smaller vessels are an option, but for rotary wing only.

In hindsight would the RAN have been better served with THREE smaller Garibaldi sized LHD's for a total tonnage equal to our TWO Canberra's ????

Thoughts

Regards S

Small nitpick but Garibaldi is 14,150 tons full load compared to 27500 tons full load for Canberra. The two Canberra's would still have 12,500 tons more then 3 Garibaldi's. Rather it should be a question around the Mistral's as 3 of those would equal out the 2 Canberra's.

Yep I agree that the Garibaldi class isn't large enough being for all intents and purposes half the size of the Canberra class and 3 definitely wouldn't meet the same tonnage. I also remember something said about 7 years ago or so on this thread about the Mistrals. Think GF may have been the one to have made the comment, but something is tugging at the back of my mind about their unsuitability for RAN service. Something to do with the welldock or lack of one. Can't quite remember

 

[oldsig127]

Italy's Giuseppe Garibaldi is a tidy little package.
Has both a significant aviation compliment and weapons suite.
However like any vessel, at what point have you tried do too much within a given space.

For LHD's I'd say the first question to ask is if you actually want to employ the F35B off them. ( Post Harrier era )
If yes, then the size of the Juan Carlos is the minimum to to the job.
If not, then much smaller vessels are an option, but for rotary wing only.

In hindsight would the RAN have been better served with THREE smaller Garibaldi sized LHD's for a total tonnage equal to our TWO Canberra's ????

Thoughts

Regards S

Fantasy fleet comes to mind.

Oldsig

 

[Stampede]

Small nitpick but Garibaldi is 14,150 tons full load compared to 27500 tons full load for Canberra. The two Canberra's would still have 12,500 tons more then 3 Garibaldi's. Rather it should be a question around the Mistral's as 3 of those would equal out the 2 Canberra's.

Probably didn't articulate myself very well.

More a refence to a smaller carrier style ship.

2 X 27500 = 55000 divide by 3 = 18333.t
Realistically as you say a Mistral...........................well done

France seem to get good service from their three of this class.

Still think the Juan Carlos was a good choice though.

Yep I agree that the Garibaldi class isn't large enough being for all intents and purposes half the size of the Canberra class and 3 definitely wouldn't meet the same tonnage. I also remember something said about 7 years ago or so on this thread about the Mistrals. Think GF may have been the one to have made the comment, but something is tugging at the back of my mind about their unsuitability for RAN service. Something to do with the welldock or lack of one. Can't quite remember

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Yep I agree that the Garibaldi class isn't large enough being for all intents and purposes half the size of the Canberra class and 3 definitely wouldn't meet the same tonnage. I also remember something said about 7 years ago or so on this thread about the Mistrals. Think GF may have been the one to have made the comment, but something is tugging at the back of my mind about their unsuitability for RAN service. Something to do with the welldock or lack of one. Can't quite remember

I think one element with the Mistral was as is; their troop accommodation capacity was about half that of the Juan Carlos.
I believe it was to do with Frances need to conduct longer distance operations and the living spaces providing some extra comfort for longer voyages.
Probably not a deal breaker as it was mentioned there Mistral offering could be reconfigured to meet RAN needs.

In the end we got the Canberra Class and that was a good call but for the total number purchased.

Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

Garibaldi was one of the short listed designs to replace Melbourne, it was eliminated leaving the Sea Control Ship and modified Iwo Jima as the final two contenders. This all went out the window when Invincible was offered, accepted, offer withdrawn and entire program cancelled.

Apparently according to cabinet papers the experts from PM&C summarising the expert reports into the carrier replacement advised the government of the day that the Sea Harrier was inferior to the A-4 and F-5 therefore a waste of time, the dunking sonar on the Sea King was inferior to the Barra Sonar Buoys deployed by the P-3C, and the purchase of a second batch of P-3Cs was far more vital to Australian defence than a replacement carrier as they were superior to the entire RAN ASW capability and sonar buoys launched from frigate based helos would be superior to the dunking sonar on the sea king so the RAN would actually have more capability than with a carrier. Besides there would be no need for the RAN to operate out side of RAAF fighter and MPA air cover.

Sadly none of what I have written is fictional or exaggerated, it was the official expert PM&C advice provided to the Def Min who then recommended the carrier program be cancelled in favour of buying more P-3Cs.

I almost wish the RAN had gone for three Vosper Thornycroft Harrier Carriers, if necessary forgetting about fixed wing ASW and even V/STOL / STO/VL, just to keep the sea kings at sea in the ASW role and therefore maintaining the relevance of Ikara, as well as retaining the FAAs skills.

 

[swerve]

...
Looking at how inexpensive HMS Ocean was, something like that would have been great. The RAN could have retained the Sea Kings in the ASW role and Wessex as utility, meaning Lynx or a standard Super SeaSprite could have been acquired for the FFGs, for less money and more capability than the SH-60B and FFG mods to support them.

Ocean wasn't quite as cheap as the headine figure, IIRC: needed extra work done. But still cheap, & excellent value for money. She wasn't meant for a long hard life, but the Brazilians seem content with her.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think one element with the Mistral was as is; their troop accommodation capacity was about half that of the Juan Carlos.
I believe it was to do with Frances need to conduct longer distance operations and the living spaces providing some extra comfort for longer voyages.
Probably not a deal breaker as it was mentioned there Mistral offering could be reconfigured to meet RAN needs.

In the end we got the Canberra Class and that was a good call but for the total number purchased.

Regards S

Troop layout is significantly different. Mistral can only really carry 450. JC1 was designed for ~850, Canberra can embark 1200 troops, feed them, sleep them, etc. Even then we are surging two LHD's and a LPD to give the full amphibious capability.

I recall there was a lot of talk about getting rid of the 2 lhd and going for 4 lpds. But then perhaps we would have struggled with things like MV22/chinooks, and the aviation component was never going to be as strong.

The JC1 really is the sea control ship for the modern age. I think its a great design. Designed and built by people that had previously designed built and operated small carriers, LPD's etc.

 

[ASSAIL]

The RAN went from being almost totally focused on ASW for a generation after the Korean War until the late 1970’s to being focused on AAW and ASuW for the following 30+ years.
This was due to a number of factors: the demise of the Soviet sub forces, the Middle East conflicts, the loss of its CVS, the loss of dipping sonar equipped helos and the changes in basing to the West away from the Oberons and subsequently the basing of all the Collins in the West away from the EAXA’s.
Most tellingly, the choice of the Anzacs was a sub par ASW platform and it just seemed natural to allow ASW skills to atrophy while all the noise was happening elsewhere.

Thankfully the SSK buildup in the Indo Pacific has refocused the capability planners and the T26 and Romeos brings ASW back into balance.
(Scribed by this anonymous ex PWO ASW)

 

[Stampede]

The RAN went from being almost totally focused on ASW for a generation after the Korean War until the late 1970’s to being focused on AAW and ASuW for the following 30+ years.
This was due to a number of factors: the demise of the Soviet sub forces, the Middle East conflicts, the loss of its CVS, the loss of dipping sonar equipped helos and the changes in basing to the West away from the Oberons and subsequently the basing of all the Collins in the West away from the EAXA’s.
Most tellingly, the choice of the Anzacs was a sub par ASW platform and it just seemed natural to allow ASW skills to atrophy while all the noise was happening elsewhere.

Thankfully the SSK buildup in the Indo Pacific has refocused the capability planners and the T26 and Romeos brings ASW back into balance.
(Scribed by this anonymous ex PWO ASW)

The reality for a nation with Australia's geography is that we need to be able to do pretty much everything in the maritime environment and do this over great distances.
Certainly a challenge for any medium sized navy. I can understand priorities change over the decades, but you still need the range of vessel types to meet any challenge.
I can see the push for naval platforms having greater flexibility within their design to swap modules for specific tasks at hand.
The Arafura and Hunter Class will cater for this evolution. The Canberra Class with their inherent large flexible spaces can certainly accommodate the equipment to meet a wide range of contingency's.
This ship in particular will evolve in the decades ahead.
Navatia's Joint Support Ship concept is another that has merit. In this case both Supply and Amphib.
While may not like the jack of all trades concept; sometimes flexibility over speciality has a place.
I feel the RAN has this need for some of the fleet

Realistically medium sized navy's can only do so much, even if so, so much more is always asked of them.



Regards S

 

[DMcRae]

Yep I agree that the Garibaldi class isn't large enough being for all intents and purposes half the size of the Canberra class and 3 definitely wouldn't meet the same tonnage. I also remember something said about 7 years ago or so on this thread about the Mistrals. Think GF may have been the one to have made the comment, but something is tugging at the back of my mind about their unsuitability for RAN service. Something to do with the welldock or lack of one. Can't quite remember

The Mistrals definitely do have a welldock, but there were a number of reasons why we chose the Spanish design over the French. For starters, the Canberra class is larger...can carry more heavy equipment, troops for an ambhip operation etc.
And we needed to be able to use larger landing craft so we can haul our heavy armour.

BTW, came across this story about an ex-RAN getting up to no good in the news today. Do remember seeing his name over the journey but thought others who may have known him might be interested to know about it.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Mistrals definitely do have a welldock, but there were a number of reasons why we chose the Spanish design over the French. For starters, the Canberra class is larger...can carry more heavy equipment, troops for an ambhip operation etc.
And we needed to be able to use larger landing craft so we can haul our heavy armour.

BTW, came across this story about an ex-RAN getting up to no good in the news today. Do remember seeing his name over the journey but thought others who may have known him might be interested to know about it.

Thanks.

There are some sick units about.

 

[Goknub]

If we're talking amphibs I think the govt/ADF needs to be looking at the other end of the capability spectrum. The LHDs are great vessels but they lack raw lift capacity. A brigade-sized lift requires every ship be available which isn't sound planning. The army needs to be able to move in our region as a heavy force, in scale. I would argue what is more urgently needed are heavy RORO-type transports, ideally a pair to match the LHDs. This would provide a more tangible deterrent to potential adversaries and a broader range of options to government.
The RN Point class ships are the type I believe are needed, something to bring all the logistical and support forces needed for a modern military operation.

 

[Sideline]

I don't know about a brigade-sized lift /tangible being a deterrent to potential adversaries there is only one semi-realistic adversary in the whole Indian-Pacific region. In any form of real shooting war, every man, woman and offensive item in Australia might just slow them down for a day or two, why compete in that race (when we a happy to sell them most of what the want).

The security of Australia is tied to the pacific security in general, preventing a pacific refugee situation, stopping outside political and financial influence, maintaining employment and saving the fishing from exploitation. A fleet of 3 JSS design Pacific support, HDR & outreach ship for the RAN/Dfat (Joint funded) and 4 medium amphibious ships (Sea Transport's SLV design?) Army/Dfat (Joint funded), and more MQ-4C Tritons. The JSS design has 70% lane/stores capacity of HMAS Choules and 70% of the fuel capacity of the old HMAS Success AOR.

The IMHO real focus should be on preventing a security/shooting situation:
1) Climate change disasters and refugees = HDR Ship, economic support, otherwise it will become an internal AUST/NZ issue
2) Foreign political, economic and fishery exploitation influence in the south pacific creating a defacto "22 dash line" ie: Solomons/Vanuatu = consistent outreach via HDR Ship/s, economic support, otherwise again it will become an internal AUST/NZ issue
3) Fixed and relocatable Anti-Sub sound Surveillance fields, around the South Pacific and East Indian ocean = New subs and UUV ASAP
4) Increase in ASW and southern ocean fisheries surveillance and enforcement (aerial and on the water) = Southern ocean capable fisheries & patrol vessels and MORE MQ-4C Tritons
5) Increased investment in JORN over-the-horizon radar
6) Investment in a Naval Base at Lombrum and a shared Aust/NZ UAV landing strip/port in the central Pacific

 

[buffy9]

I don't know about a brigade-sized lift /tangible being a deterrent to potential adversaries there is only one semi-realistic adversary in the whole Indian-Pacific region. In any form of real shooting war, every man, woman and offensive item in Australia might just slow them down for a day or two, why compete in that race (when we a happy to sell them most of what the want).

The security of Australia is tied to the pacific security in general, preventing a pacific refugee situation, stopping outside political and financial influence, maintaining employment and saving the fishing from exploitation. A fleet of 3 JSS design Pacific support, HDR & outreach ship for the RAN/Dfat (Joint funded) and 4 medium amphibious ships (Sea Transport's SLV design?) Army/Dfat (Joint funded), and more MQ-4C Tritons. The JSS design has 70% lane/stores capacity of HMAS Choules and 70% of the fuel capacity of the old HMAS Success AOR.

The IMHO real focus should be on preventing a security/shooting situation:
1) Climate change disasters and refugees = HDR Ship, economic support, otherwise it will become an internal AUST/NZ issue
2) Foreign political, economic and fishery exploitation influence in the south pacific creating a defacto "22 dash line" ie: Solomons/Vanuatu = consistent outreach via HDR Ship/s, economic support, otherwise again it will become an internal AUST/NZ issue
3) Fixed and relocatable Anti-Sub sound Surveillance fields, around the South Pacific and East Indian ocean = New subs and UUV ASAP
4) Increase in ASW and southern ocean fisheries surveillance and enforcement (aerial and on the water) = Southern ocean capable fisheries & patrol vessels and MORE MQ-4C Tritons
5) Increased investment in JORN over-the-horizon radar
6) Investment in a Naval Base at Lombrum and a shared Aust/NZ UAV landing strip/port in the central Pacific

FSP lists only two JSS vessels as a replacement for HMAS Choules with an budget of approximately four to six billion, to enter service out to the early 2030s. The PSS on the other hand is listed as having a budget of approximately 180 to 280 million and is set to enter service sometime between now and 2025. It can be gauged that the PSS is a more urgent but smaller capability, to be separate from the JSS vessels. I imagine DFAT will want to have a role in the PSS, though it is not as well funded as Defence and will likely require re-allocation of resources, barring additional funding.

Devaluing DFAT

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has long got the short end of the stick. Why?

www.lowyinstitute.org

 

[spoz]

Yes, certainly; but it’s unlikely that’s why they’d want to control the South Pacific,; that would seem likely to be more about access denial.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think in the next 20~40 years future it will by about
Food & Mineral Resources and an EEZ will mean very little

It will be about fresh water, food, energy and mineral resources. An EEZ will matter a lot because they will be at the centre of international disputes over resources. That's what the SCS is about and what is happening in the Eastern Mediterranean with Turkey being aggressive about its claims.

 

[ASSAIL]

Construction of the Osborne South Naval Shipyard has been completed, reported in ADM today.
This is the yard to be leased to BAE for the Hunter build programme.
Let’s hope it runs as smoothly as those computer generated images showed over a year ago.


http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/osborne-south-shipyard-completes-construction?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ADM Headlines - 13 Oct 2020&utm_content=ADM Headlines - 13 Oct 2020+CID_34935dccf5200bb4d0e97ab9eb64fdbf&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_term=Osborne South shipyard completes construction

 

[alexsa]

Construction of the Osborne North Naval Shipyard has been completed, reported in ADM today.
This is the yard to be leased to BAE for the Hunter build programme.
Let’s hope it runs as smoothly as those computer generated images showed over a year ago.


http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/osborne-south-shipyard-completes-construction?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ADM Headlines - 13 Oct 2020&utm_content=ADM Headlines - 13 Oct 2020+CID_34935dccf5200bb4d0e97ab9eb64fdbf&utm_source=Email marketing software&utm_term=Osborne South shipyard completes construction

I remain frustrated with the paucity of information provided by defence (and ANI) about this project and the Arafura class OPV. A few images and announcements from defence would let folk know what their defence budget is going on.

On a side issue can I suggest the subject of the impact of EEZ's etc go under the ADF geopolitical tread ... it seems more suited as the factors have a wider impact than just the RAN. I also suggest that the mechanism of determining territorial seas and EEZ's for coastal states who are archipelagic states needs to be considered in this discussion. Article 46 of UNCLOS is relevant

UNCLOS - Part IV

.... it makes quite a difference and a lot of pacific states can apply this rule.
(PS: I am not recommending Wikipedia as a definitive source on this)

Archipelagic state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The attached image provides an indication of the application of article in respect the baseline ... even before you start looking at territorial sea and EEZ.

archpalagic states unclos - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com