RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Ironic that should the Bay receive the Phalanx's she will have a better armament that the Canberra's.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Newman
The Bunker Group
It is Ironic! But you would assume that "if" the need arises, a couple of Phalanx could be easily installed on the LHD's
The canberras are brisling with mini typhoons and also has space for phalanx and (atleast space alocated for) essm (VLS).
We have just decided not to fit them as they will be sitting in a clear space in the middle of a RAN fleet.
We have just decided not to fit them as they will be sitting in a clear space in the middle of a RAN fleet.
RAN navy clearance divers
I know this doesn't follow the general flow of discussion of this thread but i feel this belongs here, the RAN's clearance divers are a specialized unit. why is that they aren't technically classified as special forces?
they are responsible essentially for maritime EOD and and mine counter measure's, some underwater engineering and battle repair and maintanence. which aren't exactly special forces work. however they are also responsible 'maritime tactical operations' such as clandestine beach reconnaissance and clandestine hydrographical survey of possible landing zones. the ADF's jobs website also states that the clearance divers reconnaissance and tactical operations extend to onshore. they are also responsible for preparation of beaches, removal of obstacles for amphibious landings. they are also responsible for the securing of beachheads in amphibious operations (?arent they?)as well as clandestine demolition.
clearance divers are also apart of tag east which is responsible for counter terror activities.
so why aren't they special forces? they perform sf roles and are apart of an sf unit. but are not called naval special forces.
so what are their real world uses? are all of them qualified for maritime tactical operations. do the roles change on a rotational basis? what is the extent of their reconnaissance and preparation of landing zones?
questions from a tired man.
lopez
I know this doesn't follow the general flow of discussion of this thread but i feel this belongs here, the RAN's clearance divers are a specialized unit. why is that they aren't technically classified as special forces?
they are responsible essentially for maritime EOD and and mine counter measure's, some underwater engineering and battle repair and maintanence. which aren't exactly special forces work. however they are also responsible 'maritime tactical operations' such as clandestine beach reconnaissance and clandestine hydrographical survey of possible landing zones. the ADF's jobs website also states that the clearance divers reconnaissance and tactical operations extend to onshore. they are also responsible for preparation of beaches, removal of obstacles for amphibious landings. they are also responsible for the securing of beachheads in amphibious operations (?arent they?)as well as clandestine demolition.
clearance divers are also apart of tag east which is responsible for counter terror activities.
so why aren't they special forces? they perform sf roles and are apart of an sf unit. but are not called naval special forces.
so what are their real world uses? are all of them qualified for maritime tactical operations. do the roles change on a rotational basis? what is the extent of their reconnaissance and preparation of landing zones?
questions from a tired man.
lopez
Clearance divers are enablers for SF, they are like specialised intelligence operatives, non-badged SF signallers or land based EOD equivalents, they fulfil a very specific role. Their mission is not to close with and kill the enemy but provide critical support so others can. Most units who fall under such roles receive specialist pay and are held in high esteem by their SF peers. Don't fall into the trap of branding every unit 'SF' just because selection is tough and the job difficult.
t68
Well-Known Member
If a RAN deployment did not require either of the LHD, can a Hobart class AWD destroyer or Anzac frigate, fill the role to the same extent as an LHD.
Say for example Australia/New Zealand decided that it would send a small task force to an event that did not require the LHD or they were unavailable for whatever reason.
Anzac task force,
HMAS Hobart (AWD)
HMAS Peth (FFH)
HMNZ Te Mana (FFH)
HMAS Success (AOR)
HMNZS Canterbury (LSD?)
HMAS ?? Bay (LSD)
I suspect the AWD would have the most comprehensive command suite to be the flag, but will the command and control on an AWD be proficiently capable enough for a base line of 6 ships and possibly up to 8 NH-90 or Seahawk helicopter operations. What would be the upper limit that command and control could support on an AWD?
Say for example Australia/New Zealand decided that it would send a small task force to an event that did not require the LHD or they were unavailable for whatever reason.
Anzac task force,
HMAS Hobart (AWD)
HMAS Peth (FFH)
HMNZ Te Mana (FFH)
HMAS Success (AOR)
HMNZS Canterbury (LSD?)
HMAS ?? Bay (LSD)
I suspect the AWD would have the most comprehensive command suite to be the flag, but will the command and control on an AWD be proficiently capable enough for a base line of 6 ships and possibly up to 8 NH-90 or Seahawk helicopter operations. What would be the upper limit that command and control could support on an AWD?
Yeah these guys are just making things up. An AEGIS equipped ship will be designated the air defence commander of the task force but there is no 'flag' element of additional high level commander's and staff embarked onboard. There just isn't the room for one, nor the bandwidth nor the need. Air defence command is just provided via the CIC and integral capabilities.
It all gets down to fleet and mission construct. Frigates have led TF in the MEAO - but the flag status is wherever the TF Commander elects to put his bum at any given point in time
the flags operations team needs to be able to operate out of suitably sized and equipped vessel. a frigate or AWD is a tad inappropriate to do that esp as their task management specialty can be done "off" site.
t68
Well-Known Member
My only assumption is based on a small by line in “wiki” stating that the AWD will have the ability to serve as a task group flagship.
Quote from “wiki”
Although described as an "air warfare destroyer", with air defence as its primary role, the Aegis combat system is a multi-role system capable of engaging air, surface and undersea targets. As a consequence, the AWD is much more of a multi-role vessel than its Perth class predecessor. In addition to Aegis, it will have underwater sensors, which may include mine and obstacle avoidance sonar. Because of the capabilities provided, AWD will have the ability to serve as a Task Group flagship.
as stated prev, frigates have served as TF flags, but in that instance it was because the host flag did not have a larger vessel available. and because the frigate had enough facilities to undertake the "traffic cop" comms role
you'd be well aware of the dangers of using wiki.
I'd argue anyway that the AWD is not the best vessel to use in this role if you had a line up of ANZAC mod, FFG mod and AWD
A task group is very different to a task force. The task group is a sub element of a task force and will usually consit of similar role units. For example the ships of an ADF Joint Task Force based on the amphibious ready group will likely consist of:
2 LHD
1 LSD
1 AWD
2 FFH
1 AOR
The AWD, two FFHs, embarked naval helicopters and overhead RAAF aircraft (AEW&C, MPA and CAP) will form an escort task group reporting to the joint task force HQ onboard one of the LHDs. The task group commander will likely be the CO of the AWD (not an embarked HQ) who will be responisble for air defence, ASW and ASuW for the amphibious force.
2 LHD
1 LSD
1 AWD
2 FFH
1 AOR
The AWD, two FFHs, embarked naval helicopters and overhead RAAF aircraft (AEW&C, MPA and CAP) will form an escort task group reporting to the joint task force HQ onboard one of the LHDs. The task group commander will likely be the CO of the AWD (not an embarked HQ) who will be responisble for air defence, ASW and ASuW for the amphibious force.
thats not the command vision at all for any RAN force including the LHA;s within the force construct.
Well strike/escort task grouping is on the public release documents to date. And besides I was trying to explain to T68 the difference between a task force and a task group. This is still the way the USN runs things and the RAN is signed up to USN procedures and methods (since 1951). Of course the ADF jumboisation of task force command elements (creating the world's largest Army Bde HQs) may mean the USN way of doing things is put aside to the ADF's contemporary civil service at war approach.
My thinking when suggesting Melbourne and Newcastle for possible conversion in to task force command ships was that they are US designed ships so would likely be compatable with the US sourced systems salvaged from the LHAs, they have recently been extensively upgraded and life extended and with the Mk13 suppressed would have a significant amount of volume freed up for command spaces. They will also be surplus to requirements (as FFGs) upon the delivery of the AWDs.
It wasn't a cunning plan or strategy on my part to usurp the LHDs, rather a what do we have, what can we use it for. I don't know what the conops are but I was assuming that a smaller platform with command capability would / could be useful in situations where the deployment of a purple asset such as an LHD was unviable, unnecessary, unwise, uneconomical etc. Say West Africa, Persian Gulf, North Korea etc. Not so much a purple asset as a destroyer leader with additional command, comms etc and of course space for the commander, their staff and maybe some extras such as intelligence, linguists, AFP? etc depending on the actual task at hand.
The eventual replacement for such a platform would be something along the lines of the Danish Absalon. Like I said I am not privy to what is planned and why but it just seems to be a practical sort of capability to have.
A big issue with using a platform such as the AWD as a command ship is the sometimes incompatability between comms and radars, think HMS Sheffield, you can't afford to be without either your groups primary coms or radar so you put them on seperate platforms.
The FFGs are gone once the AWDs enter service so the money is gone anyway. What I am talking about is finding new roles for the youngest two hulls.
Depending how much you wanted to spend maybe a way could be found to work in a tactical length VLS but would it be worth it on a hull with maybe ten years life left? The USN has been operating OHPs without their Mk 13s for years, at least ours have ESSM in the forward VLS.
I'm confused, how can it be "ADF's civil service at war approach" when the suits have no involvement with determining force composition or command structure?? Although AMPt10 is far better placed to comment on TF/TG structures, so I'd have to defer to his input, esp considering who he works for....
I'm not sure how anyone can argue that the RAN is signed up to USN task force structures when its pretty apparent what roles they're defining for the LHnn's. Its probably closer to USMC composition in contemp terms - albeit without the ARG "punch"
if they're (LHA) in the force mix, they will be the command asset - not the smaller skimmers.
MEAO TF structures were the anomaly with small skimmers leading in the sense that they led when no big assets were avail.
if they don't use the CSS from bill and ben then they'll have to destroy them, I can't see anyone spending money on refurbing smaller assets with the old gear, apart from spares where relevant
they can and have used the skimmers for the command role in TF's, but I can't see them spending money on them anymore
am a big fan of the Absaloms, you can imagine how fat and bloated they'd end up though once some genius decided to "australianise" them...
no shortage of people I know who thing that modified ANZACs are the better leader anyway (over AWD) ie ANZACs in a Kongo role
- Status