Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[FutureTank]

There has been so many rumours about F-35's operating from LHD's, but there is the slimmest of chances that it will ever happen. All I've heard is "Categorically no", although "the future" and "the now" are different scenarios, I guess.

Australia has never intended to buy the VSTOL version of the F-35. I'd be very surprised if it ever happened. Most of it related to the fact that:
a) The promise made back in the 80's that we won't ever have aircraft carriers. (wink wink)
and
b) The RAAF would have to undergo a significant training regime to operate from a naval platform. So much so, that it is in the 'too hard' basket. The ADF is very very good at tri-service projects, but they just aren't quite that confident yet.

Me presonally? It'd be pretty cool if we bought 3 LHD's and slapped a wing of F-35 VSTOLs aboard.

Running a project is complex enough. A major project such as the Canberra class, coming on top of a capability analysis which is a direct product of a major Defence policy change puts even greater stress on the project team. Including into the single Service project Joint capability parameters, and a provision for operating what is still a development program (JSF) would have stumped the best of project teams. The RAN goal was to get the Canberra class ships in before the (at the time) possible early elections and a possible change in 'thinking' in the possible new Government on the premise of 'not asking twice' when offered the budget for procurement.

So no wonder the F-35B was never in the original RAN capability requirements, or in the tender specs. It seems to me the governing objective of the purchase was to keep the project decision as simple as possible for the Minister. Probably why the class comes with so few gun/missile systems (initially?).

It will be 2012 before the RAN and Army actually get a chance to get afloat on the Canberra class, and another 2-3 years before they have worked out all the technology and operation 'bugs' out of using the two ships.
By then (just about) F-35B will have probably become operational in the USA (expected 2011-12?), and the Government-in-power will be presented with the possibility of operating Army troops off RAN ships without RAAF cover, when there is a great deal many more faster-then-helicopter aircraft around the globe, and people who are quite willing to crash them into large targets like the LASs. I would imagine a Ministerial request for capability analysis review, and a speedy procurement of perhaps a squadron of B variants, with a flight based on each ship, and another for rotation on shore.

Of course that is what the AWD is for, but IMHO the role of a manned strike aircraft is not easily replaced within the expeditionary TF.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Maybe this is why the seasprites are taking so long? The er, um choice of labour???

Looks like a bunch of plumbers crawling all over it! nfloorl:

 

[FutureTank]

Maybe this is why the seasprites are taking so long? The er, um choice of labour???

Looks like a bunch of plumbers crawling all over it! nfloorl:

Not plumbers, mate....they are gas fitters, because its proving to be an 'ass of a job' ;-)

Obviously someone told them to get their collective fingers out

 

[McTaff]

No. They found large cracks all over the airframe...

:roll:

 

[FutureTank]

No. They found large cracks all over the airframe...

:roll:

nfloorl:
....given the age, there may be more truth to that pun then we may think :unknown

 

[icelord]

Heard story from former officer of HMAS Melbourne. when you went on it(before the FFG upgrade i presume) there would be white circles on the floor of the ship, this was where you should not walk as you would go through the floor. The officer was viewing this a few weeks before they deployed to combat in the gulf.

Also, the HMAS Kanimbla was recently training with Chinese Destroyer(which has crew of 500, and its the about size of Adelaide class...!?!) and NZ navy in Tasman when there were bad seas and the training was abandoned...according to defence media release. Truth is, the Kanimbla broke down while at sea, had to limp back to Sydney.And if this occured while on deployment?

 

[McTaff]

Heard story from former officer of HMAS Melbourne. when you went on it(before the FFG upgrade i presume) there would be white circles on the floor of the ship, this was where you should not walk as you would go through the floor. The officer was viewing this a few weeks before they deployed to combat in the gulf.

To go through a steel deck, it'd have to be completely rusted through. Not to call anyone out, but I suspect this is more than an exaggeration. If any defects existed on that scale, it wouldn't be a secret - that is 100% certain. There is absolutely no way that something like that would be contained.

About the only explanation I can give on that would be during yard work, and that would be accompanied with sentries, barriers and warnings. The RAN are too hardcore on OH&S (trust me on that, I can regurgitate a complete series of OH&S lectures) to let anything like that happen.

Also, the HMAS Kanimbla was recently training with Chinese Destroyer(which has crew of 500, and its the about size of Adelaide class...!?!) and NZ navy in Tasman when there were bad seas and the training was abandoned...according to defence media release. Truth is, the Kanimbla broke down while at sea, had to limp back to Sydney.And if this occured while on deployment?

Not unusual for things to break at sea. In fact, that is just part and parcel of running aging ships into moving masses of water. Kanimbla is an old duck, and even looking at her you can see some oddities here and there. The Manoora front end is all out of alignment, too... just stand on the fo'c'sle and look at it - the Mk 1 Eyeball reveals all.

I'm not too concerned though, it might seem like they "limp home in a barely serviceable condition", but usually that is a negative spin, and simply they are returning to fix something which would be low priority if they were on deployment (read: not essential to operations). Seeing as they are not deployed they have the time to fix it, and so they do.

This is not to say it wasn't something major or otherwise, but typically the rumors start flying as soon as something goes wrong, and I've personally heard the most misconstrued stories about things I actually witnessed.

 

[Pusser01]

Heard story from former officer of HMAS Melbourne. when you went on it(before the FFG upgrade i presume) there would be white circles on the floor of the ship, this was where you should not walk as you would go through the floor. The officer was viewing this a few weeks before they deployed to combat in the gulf.

Hmm, not sure about this one. I spent a week at sea on Melbourne a in 2005 and don't recall any white circles on the deck anywhere. I will ask some mates who are on Melbourne now if they know anthing about it.
Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

Heard story from former officer of HMAS Melbourne. when you went on it(before the FFG upgrade i presume) there would be white circles on the floor of the ship, this was where you should not walk as you would go through the floor. The officer was viewing this a few weeks before they deployed to combat in the gulf.

I agree with McTaff, that sounds like a sea-story. I've heard some of the US OHP's had problems with hull cracking where the steel met the aluminum but that was fixed awhile ago.

Also, the HMAS Kanimbla was recently training with Chinese Destroyer(which has crew of 500, and its the about size of Adelaide class...!?!) and NZ navy in Tasman when there were bad seas and the training was abandoned...according to defence media release. Truth is, the Kanimbla broke down while at sea, had to limp back to Sydney.And if this occured while on deployment?

OHP's don't have much redundancey, but they are pretty easily fixable. If deployed and something breaks the part would probably be airlifted to them or perhaps borrowed or bought from an allied country.

 

[octopus7]

Just saw this on the headlines and thought it might interest some of us here. It's about the Audit office jumping up and down about the cost of the FFG upgrades.

THE national audit office has slammed the navy's guided missile frigate upgrade, with the last ship set to be returned to service four-and-a-half years late.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) said the number of vessels upgraded had been reduced from six to four.

It said there had been long-running design review, test program and verification problems.

"Considerable risk remains to the delivery of contractually compliant capabilities to navy given the maturity of these systems," it said.

Under the $2.097 billion upgrade scheme launched in 1999, the navy's six FFG guided missile frigates were to be completely modernised with new radar, sonar, weapons and combat systems.

By the middle of this year 83 per cent of the project funds had been spent. In 2006 the Government changed the contract so only four vessels would be upgraded with the older pair to be withdrawn from service.

The first of the refurbished vessels HMAS Sydney was handed back to the navy in April 2006 but the fourth will not be returned until June 2009.

ANAO said technical difficulties with integrating the complex systems had resulted in significant delays with the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) having little leverage within the contract to encourage better performance by the prime contractor, defence company ADI, now Thales.

"This audit highlights some of the challenges defence faces in acquiring advanced capabilities for the Australian Defence Force," it said.

"The FFG upgrade project demonstrates that once major defence capital equipment contracts are entered into, the prospects of DMO overcoming inadequate provisions are fairly limited."

Defence said HMAS Sydney successfully test fired the first of the new Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles in August, providing additional confidence the warship systems were working as they should.

From the website:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22680381-29277,00.html

 

[McTaff]

Just saw this on the headlines and thought it might interest some of us here. It's about the Audit office jumping up and down about the cost of the FFG upgrades.

From the website:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22680381-29277,00.html

One of the first big points was that the Contractor provided their 'own test data' which was outside the scope of the contractually agreed testing arrangements. The RAN was expected to just accept this and take the HMAS SYDNEY back without the correct testing to be complete.

The DMO is not well placed to exert influence over the Prime Contractor performance at this time due to the nature of the original contract, and the extent of funds already advanced. The project’s liquidated damages
provisions for delayed delivery are capped at less than one per cent of the contract price, and so are unlikely to provide an effective deterrent measure.

Correct me if I'm wrong - this paragraph pretty much reads "The DMO has contractual impotence"?

No-one had (or was willing to exert) the clout to get it back on track when it ran behind on schedule. Funnily enough, this is far from an isolated incident of this happening. If only the gov't would just re-employ the Navy to build Navy stuff, and stop outsourcing vital Defence activities.

Re-baselining projects because of contractor inability to meet what they signed off to do it NOT the way to business. They need to learn from their bad behaviour, and be penalised. If they have something to lose, they wouldn't quote in such a frivolous way.

 

[FutureTank]

One of the first big points was that the Contractor provided their 'own test data' which was outside the scope of the contractually agreed testing arrangements. The RAN was expected to just accept this and take the HMAS SYDNEY back without the correct testing to be complete.



Correct me if I'm wrong - this paragraph pretty much reads "The DMO has contractual impotence"?

No-one had (or was willing to exert) the clout to get it back on track when it ran behind on schedule. Funnily enough, this is far from an isolated incident of this happening. If only the gov't would just re-employ the Navy to build Navy stuff, and stop outsourcing vital Defence activities.

Re-baselining projects because of contractor inability to meet what they signed off to do it NOT the way to business. They need to learn from their bad behaviour, and be penalised. If they have something to lose, they wouldn't quote in such a frivolous way.

Look through Defence positions, and there are LOTS of project managers wanted, as are in the commercial world. But try to get education in project management, and its $4,500 for a 5 day course. There is now an overall and drastic shortage of project managers in Australia, and its going to stay that way.

 

[octopus7]

Look through Defence positions, and there are LOTS of project managers wanted, as are in the commercial world. But try to get education in project management, and its $4,500 for a 5 day course. There is now an overall and drastic shortage of project managers in Australia, and its going to stay that way.

No wonder we have skills shortages when it costs so damn much to get the skills in the first place. I will be joining the navy next year but not as a project manager, just as a storeman. And i'm told by a navy recruiter that they are even having shortages in the stores category.

 

[FutureTank]

No wonder we have skills shortages when it costs so damn much to get the skills in the first place. I will be joining the navy next year but not as a project manager, just as a storeman. And i'm told by a navy recruiter that they are even having shortages in the stores category.

All services are advertising for stores and logistics people now. This profession has become one of the most important in the ADF because of the complexity and number of systems being used, and the global nature of the supply and logistics both in terms of deployments and suppliers.

 

[enghave]

Funnily enough, this is far from an isolated incident of this happening. If only the gov't would just re-employ the Navy to build Navy stuff, and stop outsourcing vital Defence activities.

Re-baselining projects because of contractor inability to meet what they signed off to do it NOT the way to business. They need to learn from their bad behaviour, and be penalised. If they have something to lose, they wouldn't quote in such a frivolous way.

I liked Hugh White's explanation in this opinion piece:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-real-battle-is-far-from-the-battlefield/2006/05/24/1148150325445.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Who is responsible for the army not meeting its recruiting targets, and who is in charge of fixing the problem? Who is responsible for suddenly deciding to spend $2.2 billion on four giant C-17 transport aircraft, or $700 million on new tanks? Who is responsible for making sure that the new warship project does not turn into another giant disaster like the Seasprite helicopters? Who is responsible for fixing military justice? The reviewers will get no clear answers.

Managing a big organisation isn't rocket science. There are a few really basic rules: make sure that everyone knows exactly who is responsible for what; make sure the person responsible for any task has the authority to make decisions, and make them stick; keep people in the job long enough to deliver; set real deadlines; reward those who succeed and punish those who fail.

These are the rules that Defence breaks every day. The reason is, in a way, rather surprising. Defence has a chronic, systemic leadership deficit. You might expect that an organisation infused with military culture would be, if nothing else, strongly led. The reality is just the opposite. Once you get off the battlefield, no one in Defence has the authority to decide anything important, so no one can take responsibility.

The problem is that the Defence chief and the secretary lack the authority to really manage the organisation - to take responsibility themselves and allocate responsibility to others. In a very simple sense, they are not in charge of the organisation they are meant to run.

Why is this? Because successive defence ministers have not given them that responsibility, and have not supported them in the exercise of their authority. For many years the relationships between the leaders of Defence and their ministers has been dysfunctional. Watching Nelson stand by scowling last week while Houston apologised was an uncomfortable reminder of a lot of other similarly bad events over recent years.

 

[t68]

H iguys

I was wondering how many f35b aircraft would fit on the proposed LHD,
and would the number of aircraft on it really make a diffrence with such a low number as from what i can see the f35b is more of an air Superiority platform.


If we were to get the third LHD would it be better to get a smaller plane that could support the troops on the ground as in close air support role
iam no expert on the matter but i am thinking of the lines of barra on the ADF
getting the f35b as pigs might fly.


How much longer would we see the hawk inflight trainer in service for
and is the hawk a purly a trainer or do they make a guned up version of the aircraft as i was thinking with this already in service we could have one squadron to train them in and one that could serve on the LHD and do air to ground training/operations then move onto the front line fighters this would keep us from getting to many diffrent types of aircraft .

This might sound like a stupied idea but would like your thoughts on it.



regards

tom

 

[FutureTank]

I was wondering how many f35b aircraft would fit on the proposed LHD, and would the number of aircraft on it really make a diffrence with such a low number as from what i can see the f35b is more of an air Superiority platform.

10-20 AV-8B Harrier IIs canbe carried on the Large Amphibious Ships of the Canberra Class. However these aircraft are getting old and are no longer in production, and there is no possibility of purchasing them. Nor is there a need with F-35B becoming available. Even 6 F-35Bs would make a difference in an environment where a credible fixed wing threat was possible as was evident during the Falklands war.

If we were to get the third LHD would it be better to get a smaller plane that could support the troops on the ground as in close air support role i am no expert on the matter but i am thinking of the lines of barra on the ADF getting the f35b as pigs might fly.

Ah well, but pigs do fly and soon will be replaced by super bugs
There is no alternative to F-35B for operating fixed wing off the Canberra Class

How much longer would we see the hawk inflight trainer in service for and is the hawk a purely a trainer or do they make a gunned up version of the aircraft as i was thinking with this already in service we could have one squadron to train them in and one that could serve on the LHD and do air to ground training/operations then move onto the front line fighters this would keep us from getting to many different types of aircraft .

The Hawks are getting long in the tooth, but the greatest problem is that they are not configured to operate from ships. Its not as simple as just hoisting the aircraft onto the deck and 'giving-it-a-go'
However, the Hawks can be used in COIN and close air support roles, and pilots that train on them also get to fire stuff from them before they get a go at the Hornets.

 

[Tasman]

Hi Tom

I think Future Tank has given pretty good answers to your questions.

We will get a chance to see how well the amphibious ships can operate VSTOL aircraft when the Spanish carrier Príncipe de Asturias goes in for refit and is relieved in the carrier role by the LHD Juan Carlos I.

No doubt the ADF will keep an interested eye on future Spanish operations of the JSF from Juan Carlos I and operating the F-35B from the Australian ships remains an option for the future. At this stage, however, there has been no interest expressed by the navy, army or airforce in operating VSTOL aircraft from the LHD's. It seems that ADF planning does not currently envisage the LHD's operating in situations where embarked fighter aircraft would be required.

Re the use of a navalised Hawk from an LHD, this would require the fitting of arrestor wires and a catapult which would greatly interfere with the ship's primary role of amphibious transport. I agree with FT that the F-35B is the only realistic option if it is ever decided to embark fighters.

Tas

 

[FutureTank]

Re the use of a navalised Hawk from an LHD, this would require the fitting of arrestor wires and a catapult which would greatly interfere with the ship's primary role of amphibious transport. I agree with FT that the F-35B is the only realistic option if it is ever decided to embark fighters.

Tas

Tas, would Hawks need anti-corrosive treatment? I tried to find out what kind of possible minimal runway length Hawks need, but couldn't. Most operated from large runways used by larger aircraft because they are usually used in training roles. I did find mention of operation from "reduced length runways" whatever that means.

 

[kato]

I did find mention of operation from "reduced length runways" whatever that means.

I've seen 2000 ft minimum for landing stated. With brake chute, at not-quite-full-weight. At full weight, otherwise same conditions, about 2300 feet.