Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

The evolved Burke seems like a nice ship. However it appears the Burkes would cost more to buy and operate. It had greater risk with it as well. The F-100 design is also most likely to be used on the Anzac replacements.

Getting the F-100's is completely justified if we get 4 of them. At that stage you get a whole lot more capability because you can now sustain 2 ships on deployment, surging 3 at times.

96 verse 64 cells, greater radar covereage with two ships, greater redudancy, greater missile coverage (close in systems and long range), greater shore bombardment with 2x5". Greater ASW, greater air unit capacity (2 helo and 2 UAV). Basically RAN gets the ability to provide a proper escort to its ships, greater flexability with two ships. The F-100 has some features that make it stand out even in comparison to an miniburke. Better radar placement (greater range?), rooming that is more to the RAN liking (but the miniburke was ment to be highly flexable in this design.

Moving from a 3 ship navy to a 4 ship navy gives singificant benefits for this type of ship. With 3 ships we are still dependant on other navies (w AEGIS) to perform proper escorting of ships like the LHD. With 4 we can do this ourselves (just). We can train, test and evaluate a working AEGIS navy.

The crewing requirements are only slightly higher with 4 F100 verse 3 miniburkes. With multiple ships this can be a bit more flexable than it may seem. 60 additional personel is not a whole lot more (eg. aviation personel may not have to be deployed on both ships if your escorting a LHD for example).

But possibly greatest of all is that we will have 8 other frigates built off the same design, most likely looking very simular to the AWD (but with Auspar and several other system differences, which are proberly not going to be too far off the AWD capabilities and very completemetary) and possibly upgradeable to AEGIS if so required.

That would put the RAN very high up in terms of combat ship tonnage and capability. (Comparing favourably with Japan, Spain, France, UK). There have been a fair number of rather silly aquisitions in the ADF in recent memory, I don't believe the F-100 fits into that category. It just fits into the "get a whole lot of good ships rather than a few really good ships".

If we get those ships. The problem is only 3 ships is a done deal. Anything above that is intangible.

 

[rockitten]

I think the Mirage III was significantly superior to the MiG 21 IMO, both as an aircraft and as a weapons system. And lets remember in 1965 the Mirage represented a comparable capability edge to the Hornet in 1985. And as far as allied nations having superior platforms to the Mirage III, remember the JASDF was flying F-15J's while we were happy with the Hornets.

Again my point was relative to the threat the introduction of the F/A-18A in the mid 90's was comparable to the introduction of the Mirage III in the mid 60's. True BVR capability was as much of a capability edge as the ability to get to Mach 2 + all aspect engagement. The only real difference is it took a little longer for regional air forces to acquire a comparable BVR capability through AIM-7, AIm-120 and R-27.

The overarching point is does the generational replacement of a platform constitute a genuinely new capability or the maintenance of a capability edge? IMHO the F/A-18A, the ANZAC, the Collins, the F-88, ASRAAM, AIM-120 all constitute the maintenance of a capability edge. JORN, Vigilaire, a new ISR sat are all genuinely new additional capabilities.

Well, no offence to french weapon supporters, but the "superiority" of Mirage III to Mig-21 is not that much, mostly because the reliability and technology of the French weapons..... So if F-4 phantom II is a 1st tier fighter at that time, then Mirage III & MIG-21 are 2nd tier fighters. And since the late 1970s, ADF has already loss the "arm race" with JSDF already, mostly due to the size of the defence budget. So comparing with Japan is not really that meaningful unless we want to pay heavier tax.

RAAF actually nearly get the F-15, but the diplomatic "pressure" from neighbours and the multi-role requirement makes F/A-18 being selected. Compare with F-16, F/A-18A is actually a 1.5th tier fighter with better radar, BVR and ECM suit, so it isn't that bad unless you are comparing with F-14 and F-15.

And since the end of WWII, RAAF is never buying the top class (F-86 vs Metor, F-100 vs Aussie F-86, F-104/F-4 vs Mirage III, F-15 vs F/A-18) fighters, but instead buy a less top one and then upgrade it to be as close to a top class as possible.

Anyway, bringing the topic back to "RAN discussion", while most of the discussion of the "fat ships" are around the F-35B, just wonder if the FAA's NH-90 or army will "permanently" deploying a section of their rotatory wing units on board of the LPDs ? Or just deploy if needed and usually staying on "concrete frigates"?

 

[riksavage]

Anyway, bringing the topic back to "RAN discussion", while most of the discussion of the "fat ships" are around the F-35B, just wonder if the FAA's NH-90 or army will "permanently" deploying a section of their rotatory wing units on board of the LPDs ? Or just deploy if needed and usually staying on "concrete frigates"?[/QUOTE]

One must assume NH90's will be deployed for extended periods to get both ground, aircrews and RAN supporting personnel used to tri-service operations at sea. There's a big difference between the two (land/sea), particularly when cycling through intensive ship to shore deployments. Restricted space coupled with complex sortie rate planning can't be duplicated ashore to the same level. I would have thought selected maritime support helo sqn's would have to spend at least 3-4 months at sea to qualify each year before taking aprt in an annual maritime ex?

 

[gf0012-aust]

RAAF actually nearly get the F-15, but the diplomatic "pressure" from neighbours and the multi-role requirement makes F/A-18 being selected.

Sorry that is completely incorrect. The decision to not get the F-15 was due to development and capabilty issues on RAAF needs at the time. It had zero to do with neighbours, let alone pressure from neighbours.

The Hornet evaluation has been discussed before on here, and the official supporting documents have also been sourced as part of that debate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And since the end of WWII, RAAF is never buying the top class (F-86 vs Metor,

What? Have you bothered to read any of the action reports on Meteors vs Migs and F-86's vs Mig 15's. A good start would be the specific comments made by the Nth Korean defector No Kum-Sok who specifically indicated that the Soviets would not go up and meet them one for one due to superiority issues. The meteor had no claims to air superiority over the sabre and was clearly outclassed. The RAAF can attest to overall Mig-15 platform dominance over Meteors. Pilot training was the only thing that a Meteor pilot could basically rely on.

F-100 vs Aussie F-86,

The Supersabre was never considered because it wasn't available at that procurement npoint in time - the F100 was closer to the Mirage 111 cycle, and was actually a less capable aircraft than the Mirage 111C

F-104/F-4 vs Mirage III

Again your timelines are skewed. F-104 had a less than stellar reputation and was nicknamed the widowmaker by the Germans due to the number of catastrophics it generated. The F-104 was for a different tactical job as well. The F-104 could not have multi-roled like the Mirage 111 and had less ability to carry the warload required. You are aware of the rack record of the Mirages in Israeli hands - and you are aware that the Israelis could have selected US aircraft if it suited their needs? They did indeed select Mirages and Phantoms for their own needs, they never considered F100's or F-104s. This is a real time warfighting user. We dodged a bullet by not getting the F-104.

, F-15 vs F/A-18) fighters,

Nonsense, read the evaluations or Andrew McLachlans substantial history of the Hornet and its quite detailed as to what and why planes were included. The F-15 was eliminated early due to development issues and assessed risk against our timeframes. You do understand that the F-15 and F/A-18 are fundamentally service selected aircraft in a US context, and their roles and capabilities are geared around those requirements? The F/A-18's were more flexible multi-rolers than the F-15's and the Eagles would not multi-role for over a decade in real terms. The main contender was the F-16 as it was a beter multi-role fit. The Eagles were not multirole and were never serious contenders due to operational and doctrine reqs. RAAF reqd a multirole asset. The Eagles were not such a beast at the time and the USAF was not intending for them to be so either

but instead buy a less top one and then upgrade it to be as close to a top class as possible.

When you don't get the procurement eval and history details correct in the first place, then you are on shakey ground from that point on. I suggest that you start showing citations - and read the original eval assessments before making such bold claims.

Anyway, bringing the topic back to "RAN discussion", while most of the discussion of the "fat ships" are around the F-35B, just wonder if the FAA's NH-90 or army will "permanently" deploying a section of their rotatory wing units on board of the LPDs ? Or just deploy if needed and usually staying on "concrete frigates"?

Squadrons will assign flights to the fatships. It is their primary job, they will of course rotate elements in and out as the entire squadron does not need to be based at sea - this is the same as has happened in the past with the Shawks and Skings.

 

[Todjaeger]

Squadrons will assign flights to the fatships. It is their primary job, they will of course rotate elements in and out as the entire squadron does not need to be based at sea - this is the same as has happened in the past with the Shawks and Skings.

A question I do have regarding this is what sort of assignment is felt appropriate for the LHDs? With the announcement from Government that a total of 24 Future Naval Helicopters was required in order to meet 8 in service at one time, would two of those operation be embarked on a LHD? By my tally, the RAN is likely to only have 8-9 skimmers operational at any one time, not including any patrol boats, MHC, or OCVs if they are ordered.

Is the current expectation that the Future Naval Helicopter pool would just provide for the skimmers, or would there be occasions when the skimmers do not have helis embarked or they are not counted towards 8 total operational?

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

A question I do have regarding this is what sort of assignment is felt appropriate for the LHDs? With the announcement from Government that a total of 24 Future Naval Helicopters was required in order to meet 8 in service at one time, would two of those operation be embarked on a LHD? By my tally, the RAN is likely to only have 8-9 skimmers operational at any one time, not including any patrol boats, MHC, or OCVs if they are ordered.

Is the current expectation that the Future Naval Helicopter pool would just provide for the skimmers, or would there be occasions when the skimmers do not have helis embarked or they are not counted towards 8 total operational?

-Cheers

I'd have to speak to someone on the project, but my clear understanding to date is that they're expected to cross deck for expeditionary work.

bear in mind that sole source for the romeos has now been thrown out, and so the gates are open

 

[knightrider4]

Future Naval Helicopter

I'd have to speak to someone on the project, but my clear understanding to date is that they're expected to cross deck for expeditionary work.

bear in mind that sole source for the romeos has now been thrown out, and so the gates are open

Hello gf, just how capable a machine is the NFH and how valid is the argument that the SH 60R is favoured by the RAN due to commonality with the USN?

 

[icelord]

Hello gf, just how capable a machine is the NFH and how valid is the argument that the SH 60R is favoured by the RAN due to commonality with the USN?

Speaking with some birdies the other week, mechanically there are a few hiccups with the NFH that are driving some of them up the wall, but this could be because its a new system to the RAN. Like all new babys teething problems are expected, which is why the ADF had 2 built in europe ahead of the Australian production line so that any issues could be sussed out ahead of time. Gf might have a head office POV, but im hearing of headaches from ATA and ATVs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Gf might have a head office POV, but im hearing of headaches from ATA and ATVs.

Have heard from overseas partners as well that its a problem asset, so its looking to be a common theme...

 

[icelord]

Have heard from overseas partners as well that its a problem asset, so its looking to be a common theme...

with any hope its something to overcome, otherwise it will end up being nothing but a pain in the arse purchase. With ADF getting over 40 and looking into NFH, it will all come down to whether they can fix the errors, other wise "you can be my romeo"

 

[ThePuss]

with any hope its something to overcome, otherwise it will end up being nothing but a pain in the arse purchase. With ADF getting over 40 and looking into NFH, it will all come down to whether they can fix the errors, other wise "you can be my romeo"

God I hope we do not buy the Romeos!. Take a Seahawk airframe and put a dipping sonar in it and you have a grand total of ONE spare seat. It is not like it is a quick (or even a shipborne achievable) solution for you to rip out the ASW systems out of a Romeo so you can use it in the much more common role an Australian FFG/FFH embarked helicopter, which are utility and boarding party insertion, So If we went down the Romeo path, I believe would be a travesty. The NHF-90 has teething problems as all new platforms do. But we already have invested in a production line for the airframe and it is big enough to carry the ASW load out AND concurrently carryout the utility and boarding party insertion roles. It has also been proven recently to fit into the smallest hanger found on an RAN ship, so the size of the airframe is not an overriding issue.

My 2 cents over ope

 

[spoz]

"Fit in", yes. "Maintainable in", much more questionable.

 

[icelord]

God I hope we do not buy the Romeos!. Take a Seahawk airframe and put a dipping sonar in it and you have a grand total of ONE spare seat. It is not like it is a quick (or even a shipborne achievable) solution for you to rip out the ASW systems out of a Romeo so you can use it in the much more common role an Australian FFG/FFH embarked helicopter, which are utility and boarding party insertion, So If we went down the Romeo path, I believe would be a travesty. The NHF-90 has teething problems as all new platforms do. But we already have invested in a production line for the airframe and it is big enough to carry the ASW load out AND concurrently carryout the utility and boarding party insertion roles. It has also been proven recently to fit into the smallest hanger found on an RAN ship, so the size of the airframe is not an overriding issue.

My 2 cents over ope

parra boys tell me she fits in an Anzacs hanger. but its like parking a mack truck in the shed, it fits all well and good, now how the bloody hell do you get around the thing, very close fit. And considering how the seasprite was meant to be utilised on Anzacs with 3 spare seats, i dont see that as a negative from fleet HQ. The planning envisioned for them gave little in regards to boarding Ops.

Im with you though, i see the NFH90 as most likely choice for ADF, especially when they want a common airframe across ADF to reduce the different models.

 

[Todjaeger]

Im with you though, i see the NFH90 as most likely choice for ADF, especially when they want a common airframe across ADF to reduce the different models.

Honestly I am not certain... The impression I was left with by Semaphore issue 15, specifically the comment:

As a matter of urgency, the Government will acquire a fleet of at least 24 new naval combat helicopters to provide eight or more aircraft concurrently embarked on ships at sea.

makes me wonder if Government and/or the RAN can wait long enough for the NFH-90.

Has anyone heard anything more (that they can mention) about what the latest acceptable date for IOC is, and what date IOC would be expected if an Aussie NFH-90 or MH-60R was chosen?

As a matter of preference, I would like to see the future RAN Naval Helicopter be an Aussie-built NFH-90 kitted out with the MH-60R mission systems, but I know that would likely do bugger all to the IOC and FOC dates, nevermind costs and programme risk...

-Cheers

 

[ThePuss]

parra boys tell me she fits in an Anzacs hanger. but its like parking a mack truck in the shed, it fits all well and good, now how the bloody hell do you get around the thing, very close fit. And considering how the seasprite was meant to be utilised on Anzacs with 3 spare seats, i dont see that as a negative from fleet HQ. The planning envisioned for them gave little in regards to boarding Ops.

Im with you though, i see the NFH90 as most likely choice for ADF, especially when they want a common airframe across ADF to reduce the different models.

I was on Warra years ago when we came over to Sydney for landing and hanger trials for the Seasprite. we were all pissed off as we had to berth on the oiler wharf so we didn't piss of Mr Crowe and his mates on the Finger wharf with the annoying helicopter sounds. It made the walk to the pub all that much longer!

Anyway I was surprised how much of a tight fit it was to get the thing in the hanger. As it was being dragged in there where some very worried looking birdie types hanging of it to make sure the bottom of the hanger door was not going to rip off the top of the rotors. (you would think they may of thought of measuring the two things a tad earlier, but I suppose they are only birdies and not that smart).

I agree that the Seasprite was unsuitable in the utility and boarding party insertion role. It didn't even have an aircrewie which was a huge mistake in the first place. However the decision to buy that lemon was made many years ago. We should not make the same mistake again.

For sure it’s going to be a tight fit though, Time to break out the lube!:smash

 

[icelord]

I was on Warra years ago when we came over to Sydney for landing and hanger trials for the Seasprite. we were all pissed off as we had to berth on the oiler wharf so we didn't piss of Mr Crowe and his mates on the Finger wharf with the annoying helicopter sounds. It made the walk to the pub all that much longer!

been there,done that. apparently a FFG during the nite is too loud in summer as its the first time they've opened there doors all year, after 5 complaints in one nite, i found it amusing that we berthed darwin outboard of us...double the fun!

Anyway I was surprised how much of a tight fit it was to get the thing in the hanger. As it was being dragged in there where some very worried looking birdie types hanging of it to make sure the bottom of the hanger door was not going to rip off the top of the rotors. (you would think they may of thought of measuring the two things a tad earlier, but I suppose they are only birdies and not that smart).

I agree that the Seasprite was unsuitable in the utility and boarding party insertion role. It didn't even have an aircrewie which was a huge mistake in the first place. However the decision to buy that lemon was made many years ago. We should not make the same mistake again.

For sure it’s going to be a tight fit though, Time to break out the lube!:smash

the great question here is, do the people up the food chain learn from their mistakes?

 

[t68]

Reading the latest edition of the Navy magazine there is an interesting article about the Boeing OV-10 Bronco.

Navy mag is all in favour getting a small amount F35B in the CAS role aboard the LHD; it came up with an option of the OV-10 as a cheaper alternative to F35B.

Navy mag makes a interesting case for the OV-10 as it requires no catapult or arrester wires to recover the aircraft, it can carry up to three tons of external ordnance and has longer loiter times than a Tiger ARH. It also takes up no more space than an MRH helo.

With its high set props it does not have a problem with being launched of the ski jump and the props hitting the deck. According to the article it will provide better support than the Tiger ARH.it also is capable of landing and take of from unimproved sites, carry 1500kg of cargo and five paratroopers or two litter patients and an attendant.

Boeing is planning to build a new variant called the OV-10x it will have a new glass cockpit, intelligence sensors and be capable of droppings so called smart bombs.
Could this be a possible solution to the problem compared to an expensive F35B?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Navy mag is all in favour getting a small amount F35B in the CAS role aboard the LHD; it came up with an option of the OV-10 as a cheaper alternative to F35B.

It certainly didn't come from the head shed. Assets are evaluated on likely scenarios and I can't ever recall seeing any that gave consideration for running small props off the fatships.

Not much merit in it from my perspective anyway....

 

[icelord]

Reading the latest edition of the Navy magazine there is an interesting article about the Boeing OV-10 Bronco.

Navy mag is all in favour getting a small amount F35B in the CAS role aboard the LHD; it came up with an option of the OV-10 as a cheaper alternative to F35B.

Navy mag makes a interesting case for the OV-10 as it requires no catapult or arrester wires to recover the aircraft, it can carry up to three tons of external ordnance and has longer loiter times than a Tiger ARH. It also takes up no more space than an MRH helo.

With its high set props it does not have a problem with being launched of the ski jump and the props hitting the deck. According to the article it will provide better support than the Tiger ARH.it also is capable of landing and take of from unimproved sites, carry 1500kg of cargo and five paratroopers or two litter patients and an attendant.

Boeing is planning to build a new variant called the OV-10x it will have a new glass cockpit, intelligence sensors and be capable of droppings so called smart bombs.
Could this be a possible solution to the problem compared to an expensive F35B?

best your going to get in current climate is the V-22 Osprey perhaps, but that opens yet another bag of worms that even the debate on a certain type of aircraft on a certain type of ship would again kick start:duel