Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Well perhaps limited helicopter capability.

Its unlikely we will have the airframes for a 90 or a seahawk to sit around on an OCV. However we have some capable trainers, and there are several capable rotor UAV. Both of these options would have half (ish) the requirements of a full sized, twin engined naval helicopter and would provide all the benefits of naval air but in a cost effective, peace time way. A large helo should be able to land, but no hangering or magazine.

Size wise, we need something with greater capability than room for 20 people. Room for 50-100 (with greater surge) would be critical, as boats get larger and if you have 50 or 100 people bobing in the water what are they going to do? Leave them there and comeback later.

76mm would seem to be an obvious choice as we will have them spare by the time the OCV's come on line and its a capable calibure. I would like to see space/power provided for a harpoon box, CIWS, mini typhoon mounts, possible space for ESSM, a reasonably capable combat radar perhaps able to take stuff older ships have upgraded from. The OCV ships may never be fitted with these but space is provided. Most things could be provided from a pool of resources (harpoons, CIWS, mini typhoons).

Not every ship would need one, typhoons I would imagine would be operated out of a pool for the other ships. The other ships would really have very little arms (a few 50 cals, a typhoon. But with helo capability, surge of up to 150 refugees (helo pad, perhaps even hanger (fly or ditch helo), larger brigg, rooms seperate from the rest of the ship, seperate galley capability (this may be completely ration pack or only 1 cooked meal per day rest from stores). Fresh water capability, toilets etc. More extensive medical. 5 beds, make shift operating (but decent makeshift), rooms nearby that could be adapted for medical. Really focused on humanitarian missions, aid, refugees, pacific feel good but could also be useful as mini hospital, evacuations, troop movement, administration for police operations etc. These ships could pretty much constantly just go around the pacific, PNG, Timor, constantly.

 

[ADMk2]

Why does it have to be a full sized helo with the associated weight and size issues? Should'nt the RAN investigate the possible aquistion of the US Navy Fire Scout rotary UAV,which could provide the surveillance capabiliy for a smaller patrol vessel, plus incorporate weapons delivery systems ?

Additionally, given that the US forces are looking at payloads of up to 200 kilos, I wonder if it could be fitted to drop sonorbuoys, partially answering the problem of providing an aws module for a larger OCV. Indeed it may be an asset with applications throughout the entire fleet not just in future sea1180 vessels.

The Fire Scout currently has a payload of 600lbs meaning it can carry a FLIR sensor and laser designator or a synthetic aperture radar system or a SIGINT package or a mine detection package or a Comms relay package but only one of each type at a time.

It can also carry the Advanced Precision kill Weapon System (Guided Hydra rockets) for some limited attack roles too.

The Fire Scout requires a significant control package aboard the ship though, including Control stations, Tactical Control Software, Tactical Common Datalink, UAV Common Automatic Recovery System (UCARS) as well as storage options for it's multi-mission payload and work areas to allow the aircraft to be reconfigured and maintained.

It will also require an air weapons magazine and re-arming points as well.

That's quite a bit required to enable Fire Scout operations. Whether FAN will be interested in investing in all that for a lower level vessel (ie: nit a frntlne combatant) remains to be seen.

I'd suggest a light utility helcopter, in a follow-on to the Fennec might be more realistic (if at all).

There's a good overview of the program available here:

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/mq8bfirescout_navy/assets/fs-fact-sheet.pdf

 

[donuteater]

All this talk of the RAN with a light carrier (even thought it won't happen) say we were getting one what would be the reaction be around South East Asia? Every country seems to have something to say about China getting theirs in the water and running around finally, would it be the same for the RAN as well? or does size matter in this instance? a light carrier is acceptable but a heavy one is not?

My thought is that we could purchase harriers and use the LHD's as harrier carriers and even when undertaking an amphibous operation we could use them for CAS( close air support)

 

[ngatimozart]

Australia has never really commanded a multination mission and i dont see it happening in the future.

It has and East Timor was one and IIRC the RAN is charge of one of the IO anti-piracy task forces at the moment with a RNZN XO. Don't belittle your own counrty's defence abilities because they are world class. It's just the polies who stuff everything up. same this side of the ditch.

 

[ngatimozart]

My thought is that we could purchase harriers and use the LHD's as harrier carriers and even when undertaking an amphibous operation we could use them for CAS( close air support)

This argument has be overdone and methinks you actually should read the preceding posts in this thread which more than adequately discuss this very point. It has been belaboured a long time.

 

[donuteater]

There seems to be a point which has been missed. The LHD's as already designed could potentially by used as an ASW helicopter carrier. The limitations which the RAN would have in operating the Canberra-class LHD's as such are two-fold.

The first being whether the internal configuration for the LHD's would provide sufficient fuel and munitions stores to sustain helicopter operations.

The second is whether there would be sufficient naval helicopters for an LHD to operate as a helicopter carrier.

According to various sources, a Canberra-class LHD can carry between 16 - 24 helicopters. Depending on the source one uses, a the Cavour can operate up to 30 aircraft while usually operating 8 Harriers and 12 EH-101 Merlins (from wiki...) while another source (Naval Technology) lists the Cavour's aviation complement as an either 8 Harriers/JSF OR 12 EH-101 Merlins...

Either way, unless things change significantly the RAN is only going to have 24 MH-60R Seahawk naval helicopters, in order to ensure that there are 8 naval helicopters available at any given time for deployment. Given that a Canberra-class LHD is a high value purple asset, it would be escorted to, from and in potentially hostile areas. Basically any op where having naval helicopters present would be valuable, there will be surface escorts present to do so. It is certainly possible that one of them (the LHD's) could be carrying additional Seahawks as part of its helicopter complement, but I really cannot forsee the RAN operating one as a helicopter carrier, since that would basically require all other RAN surface assets to be without a naval helicopter.

Given that the future surface fleet is looking like 3 AWD's, 8+ large FFG's, and up to 20 OCV's which might be helicopter-capable, deploying most/all RAN Fleet Air Arm assets aboard a single vessel seems rather risky.

Speaking of the OCV's...

Remember, SEA 1180 is at present supposed to be a providing an Offshore Combatant Vessel... However, it AFAIK has not been mentioned just how combat capable the OCV's are supposed to be.

It is worth looking at the following SEA 1180 Senate submission here.

Basically the submission suggests the possibility of a Role A/B and a different but related Role C/D design, with maximum commonality of systems between the vessels.

Unfortunately what still has to be determined, is just how capable the OCV is desired to be.

My personal preference would be for the OCV would be to have it highly capable in certain fitouts, with it understood that such fitouts would not be 'the norm' across the fleet.

I would start with a basic, steel mono-hulled design of ~100 m length and of ~2,000 tons displacement. Something which would be fairly typical for an OPV, but I would have it designed as a proper warship, and not just as a constabulary vessel. I would require the design to have a dedicated helipad and hangar with helicopter magazine.

The basic design would have some fairly sophisticated sensors, covering navigation and air/surface search radars as well as at least one (preferably more) illuminator, E/O sensors and hull-mounted sonar, SATCOMM and Link 11/Link 16 capability.

My preference in base weaponry would be for a pair of 35mm Millenium Guns, one each fore & aft.

I would also want the design capable of hosting containerized modules, whether these are modules from the USN's LCS programme, or Danish Stanflex modules, would need to be determined. My preference at this point would be for Stanflex modules, but this might be dependent on capability requirements.

AFAIK Stanflex modules cover a 76mm/62 cal. OTO-Breda (or is it -Melara now?) rapid fire gun, 8 Harpoon AShM, Mk 48 Mod 3 VLS for 12 ESSM SAM's, a LWT launcher and minelaying and MCM gear.

At the high end of the range, I could see the value in the OCV mounting four such modules in addition to the base kit. This could allow an OCV to be detailed to a RAN task force to provide MCM, but not require quite as much protection as a Huon-class MHC would against surface and aerial threats. An OCV kitted out with a 'high end' configuration could potentially be used as a close escort for AOR and sealift entering a theatre of operations, with a gun for surface threats, 12-24 ESSM for aerial threats, and LWT for ASW.

What could also potentially be interesting, would be for a mission deck to be included which could fit ISO containers for medical ops, additional quarters for an embarked force, and/or act as a RoRo vehicle deck for lightweight vehicles.

-Cheers

Firstly as I said earlier in this thread we need harriers on our LHD's for close air support during amphibious operations. Also if the ship is being escorted by ANZAC class frigates, in some cases the frigates will not be able to destroy an enemy ship launching cruise missles at the task force. So the harriers can undertake an anti- shipping strike. Harriers will also be perfect because they can carry more weapons than the F-35B assuming that the f-35 is only carrying weapons internally, they are cheaer than the F-35 and also the LHD's have a ski jump so whats the point of them having ski jumps. Its even cheaper to buy an LHD without a ski-jump. Also if a missile is coming at the LHD what is a 30mm gun going to to. If there is a war, this will be a prime target, so we need more, 4 Phalanx's and 2 harpoon boxes.

 

[SASWanabe]

Firstly as I said earlier in this thread we need harriers on our LHD's for close air support during amphibious operations. Also if the ship is being escorted by ANZAC class frigates, in some cases the frigates will not be able to destroy an enemy ship launching cruise missles at the task force. So the harriers can undertake an anti- shipping strike. Harriers will also be perfect because they can carry more weapons than the F-35B assuming that the f-35 is only carrying weapons internally, they are cheaer than the F-35 and also the LHD's have a ski jump so whats the point of them having ski jumps. Its even cheaper to buy an LHD without a ski-jump. Also if a missile is coming at the LHD what is a 30mm gun going to to. If there is a war, this will be a prime target, so we need more, 4 Phalanx's and 2 harpoon boxes.

NO, NO, NO, NO
you dont seem to be listening to anything anyone is saying.

1. Cas will be provided by the Tigers.
2. Enemy ships will be sunk by submarines/Harpoon.
3. why compare a dirty Harrier to a clean F-35 its Apples and Oranges.
4. No it would not of been cheaper to buy the LHDs without a Ski Jump.
5. they will have 4 25mm bushmasters. but i agree on needing a MK 41 or atleast a couple Phalanx's. Harpoons, No

 

[Tasman]

My thought is that we could purchase harriers and use the LHD's as harrier carriers and even when undertaking an amphibous operation we could use them for CAS( close air support)

As was stated previously this suggestion has been discussed repeatedly and many good reasons have been given as to why it is impractical.

Besides which I doubt any Harriers would be available for purchase even if we wanted them. My understanding is that the UK has sold its Harriers to the USMC who will use them for spare parts to keep sufficient of its fleet operational until the F35B is available.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

No one intends to operate harriers against any ship or airforce. The only reason why they are still flying is that it keep pilots qualified and in the air, and would be mildly useful fighting light rifle armed insurgents.

US already has its first F-35B operating of her LHD's. The harrier is dead I wouldn't be suprised if the parts supply starts to dry up as production parts and warehouses EOL everything to do with it. Spain, india and Italy are nursing the things along, bare minium flight hours etc. Uk gave it up entirely and they were making the bloody things.

If you look at how capable a F-35A is, with in flight refueling and long ranged munitions it covers pretty much everything we need. For everything else we will get TLAM (and harpoons, ESSM, SM2/6 and PAC3) for the AWD and most likely the future frigates. On top of that we can operate tigers off the LHD. Everything cued and watched by wedgetails and JORN looking at the entire planet with us most likely getting info from american space assets, drones etc.

We don't need a carrier. It would be pissing money up against a wall on crap we don't need.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Firstly as I said earlier in this thread we need harriers on our LHD's for close air support during amphibious operations. Also if the ship is being escorted by ANZAC class frigates, in some cases the frigates will not be able to destroy an enemy ship launching cruise missles at the task force. So the harriers can undertake an anti- shipping strike. Harriers will also be perfect because they can carry more weapons than the F-35B assuming that the f-35 is only carrying weapons internally, they are cheaer than the F-35 and also the LHD's have a ski jump so whats the point of them having ski jumps. Its even cheaper to buy an LHD without a ski-jump. Also if a missile is coming at the LHD what is a 30mm gun going to to. If there is a war, this will be a prime target, so we need more, 4 Phalanx's and 2 harpoon boxes.

What country do you think Australia would be going to war with that would require the Army to conduct opposed amphibious landings aided by RAN/RAAF Harriers? I hope it is one that isn't a superpower, because the Army only has 3 brigades to devote to this enemy (1 brigade if it is a sustained operation).

And on what corner of the globe is this conflict going to occur that is out of range of tanker refuelled Super Hornets and why is Australia going to war on its own there?

If there is a requirement that such a landing needs to be done, and there aren't any friendly allies involved in the conflict who could supply CAS (ie. the US), then there are three alternatives; Tiger, NGS and lift some 155mm M777 howitzers in by Chinook. Any such military operation should have an objective to capture an airfield, which you could then use to base Hornets or Hawks.

CAP over a fleet is a different matter, and yes, it would provide valuable protection. But do you think the ADF should spend a good portion of the defence budget on such a capability? The LHDs won't be going anywhere there is risk of a saturation attack by ASCMs, and I would argue that Australia shouldn't be sending the AWDs into such a situation. If it is just a few ASCMs, then I would expect that a combination of SM-2/ESSM/Phalanx/Nulka/SRBOC and fleet EW measures could deal with the threat.

Australia isn't a superpower, so why is there a requirement to acquire equipment for all possible situations just in case the ADF might want to operate in a distant corner of the globe?

 

[t68]

What country do you think Australia would be going to war with that would require the Army to conduct opposed amphibious landings aided by RAN/RAAF Harriers? I hope it is one that isn't a superpower, because the Army only has 3 brigades to devote to this enemy (1 brigade if it is a sustained operation).

And on what corner of the globe is this conflict going to occur that is out of range of tanker refuelled Super Hornets and why is Australia going to war on its own there?

If there is a requirement that such a landing needs to be done, and there aren't any friendly allies involved in the conflict who could supply CAS (ie. the US), then there are three alternatives; Tiger, NGS and lift some 155mm M777 howitzers in by Chinook. Any such military operation should have an objective to capture an airfield, which you could then use to base Hornets or Hawks.

CAP over a fleet is a different matter, and yes, it would provide valuable protection. But do you think the ADF should spend a good portion of the defence budget on such a capability? The LHDs won't be going anywhere there is risk of a saturation attack by ASCMs, and I would argue that Australia shouldn't be sending the AWDs into such a situation. If it is just a few ASCMs, then I would expect that a combination of SM-2/ESSM/Phalanx/Nulka/SRBOC and fleet EW measures could deal with the threat.

Australia isn't a superpower, so why is there a requirement to acquire equipment for all possible situations just in case the ADF might want to operate in a distant corner of the globe?

Some time ago a certain foreign Minister urged the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, with support from our own Prime Minister, but this is the same FM/PM did not want contributed to a no-fly zone, Australia is also part of the international community; if you’re not prepared to put in don’t expect other to pick up the slack.

Yes the RAAF was just as capable of deploying to Italy with tanker support, but from reading the RN thread it cost a lot of extra $$ compared if the RN still had Harrier in its inventory. 75 Squadron also deployed to the Middle East in support of the Iraq War in 2003, all RAAF deployments in its rich history have been to friendly airbases.

Australia is never going to be a superpower nor are Italy and Spain, but they do have ASW carriers capable of limited strike ops, they have could just as easily have built there current shipping as helicopters carriers only but instead they still built into their spec the ability for fixed wing ops, they are in Europe closer to more allied bases than Australia, Japan also is building larger helicopter destroyers from all reports F35B can be used as well.

From memory the book Phoenix Squadron had a section which went into detail on the amount of tanker aircraft was needed for the RAF to provide air support to the fleet on exercise in the Atlantic, the RAF just had enough to cover the ex. Australia only has five MRTT not enough to sustain fleet defence to the RAN.

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Squadron-Rowland-White/dp/0593054504"]Phoenix Squadron: Amazon.co.uk: Rowland White: 9780593054505: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YDf5HqBfL.@@AMEPARAM@@51YDf5HqBfL[/ame]

 

[kev 99]

Australia is never going to be a superpower nor are Italy and Spain, but they do have ASW carriers capable of limited strike ops, they have could just as easily have built there current shipping as helicopters carriers only but instead they still built into their spec the ability for fixed wing ops, they are in Europe closer to more allied bases than Australia, Japan also is building larger helicopter destroyers from all reports F35B can be used as well.

Lots of speculation on forums, as far as I'm aware I've only seen one report (and that was from a somewhat dubious source) stating that F35b could be operated if the ships were modified.

 

[swerve]

Firstly as I said earlier in this thread we need harriers on our LHD's for close air support during amphibious operations. Also if the ship is being escorted by ANZAC class frigates, in some cases the frigates will not be able to destroy an enemy ship launching cruise missles at the task force. So the harriers can undertake an anti- shipping strike. Harriers will also be perfect because they can carry more weapons than the F-35B assuming that the f-35 is only carrying weapons internally, they are cheaer than the F-35 and also the LHD's have a ski jump so whats the point of them having ski jumps.

Where are you going to buy Harriers? Out of production, & none on the secondhand market since the UK sold all its GR9s to the USMC.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Some time ago a certain foreign Minister urged the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, with support from our own Prime Minister, but this is the same FM/PM did not want contributed to a no-fly zone, Australia is also part of the international community; if you’re not prepared to put in don’t expect other to pick up the slack.

So unless you have the boots to go around kicking heads, keep your mouth shut and keep your opinions to yourself?
I remember a lot of countries had opinions about East Timorese independence and they didn't feel the need to contribute to INTERFET.

Yes the RAAF was just as capable of deploying to Italy with tanker support, but from reading the RN thread it cost a lot of extra $$ compared if the RN still had Harrier in its inventory. 75 Squadron also deployed to the Middle East in support of the Iraq War in 2003, all RAAF deployments in its rich history have been to friendly airbases.

The RN had an aircraft carrier designed and built for carrier operations. Australia would have LHDs designed and built for helicopter and seacraft amphibious operations with occasional STOVL aircraft operations conducted by a not very enthusiastic RAAF. It is still not a compelling reason to invest large sums in such a capability.

I would think the RAAF would have been very unhappy about being deployed to any unfriendly airbases, and I don't think the current residents would have been too thrilled either!

Australia is never going to be a superpower nor are Italy and Spain, but they do have ASW carriers capable of limited strike ops, they have could just as easily have built there current shipping as helicopters carriers only but instead they still built into their spec the ability for fixed wing ops, they are in Europe closer to more allied bases than Australia...

Some people drive their Ferraris and Lamborghinis to have coffee in Lygon Street, while other people drive their Minis. Who had the better coffee? Who got there faster? More importantly, who had the biggest penis?

Good luck to Spain and Italy on their continued carrier operations, but back to the RAN...

...Japan also is building larger helicopter destroyers from all reports F35B can be used as well.

Which has nothing to do with the argument at hand and is irrelevant until Japan acquires or announces an intent to purchase STOVL aircraft.

Japan also has a constitution that prohibits the possession of offensive weapons (as opposed to weapons that are to be used for defensive purposes). Japan would have to argue that a JMSDF aircraft carrier is for defensive purposes. That would be quite some fancy lawyering if they pulled that off!

Australia only has five MRTT not enough to sustain fleet defence to the RAN.

No kidding. Five is a training capability, not for sustained operations.

However, nowhere did I suggest that tankers + Hornets should be used for sustained fleet defence. If you look at what I wrote, I said that tankers+Hornets could be used for CAS during the landing phase of an amphibious operation.

 

[SASWanabe]

Finaly! someone who knows what their talking about has commented on the Collins class replacement

We should build on our 30-year submarine expertise

if only all articles from The Australian were to that standard

 

[gf0012-aust]

That would be quite some fancy lawyering if they pulled that off!

hence why the Hyugas are destroyers and not carriers.... thye former being able to easier portray as defensive assets

 

[t68]

The RN had an aircraft carrier designed and built for carrier operations. Australia would have LHDs designed and built for helicopter and seacraft amphibious operations with occasional STOVL aircraft operations conducted by a not very enthusiastic RAAF. It is still not a compelling reason to invest large sums in such a capability..

That’s correct but I am not are not taking about using the LHD as ASW carrier, I am talking a purpose built ASW carrier. RAN has a need for such a platform if AusGov ever decides to go down that path, might as well make it extremely flexible.

Some people drive their Ferraris and Lamborghinis to have coffee in Lygon Street, while other people drive their Minis. Who had the better coffee? Who got there faster? More importantly, who had the biggest penis?

Good luck to Spain and Italy on their continued carrier operations, but back to the RAN....

So the Italian Navy has ASW carrier(fixed wing/helo ops) and also plus ASW Frigates/AWD which makes for a better balanced navy capability of supporting the Italian Armed Forces. Don’t know how that equates to comparing Ron Jeremy to John Holmes.

Which has nothing to do with the argument at hand and is irrelevant until Japan acquires or announces an intent to purchase STOVL aircraft.

Why bother enlarging the design if it only going to be a ASW helicopter carrier, unless you intended to make it more flexible.

No kidding. Five is a training capability, not for sustained operations.

However, nowhere did I suggest that tankers + Hornets should be used for sustained fleet defence. If you look at what I wrote, I said that tankers+Hornets could be used for CAS during the landing phase of an amphibious operation.

If the Hornets are using tanker support for CAS in the landing phase they are a fair way from a friendly allied base, how long will the Hornets be able to stay on call before having to fly away to meet the MRTT refuel, there is a lot Hornets and extra MRTT in that operation when you can have a floating base nearby

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Good luck to Spain and Italy on their continued carrier operations, but back to the RAN...

There is a reason they have carriers and it’s nothing to do with looking cool at Lygon Street. It’s to provide layered air defence, shaping strike and enhanced ASW. Both are instrumental to providing survivability for a deployed fleet. Which was kind of reproven in the Falklands. An Italian or Spanish naval task force that to most purposes would be identical to a RAN one except the presence of a single light carrier would be far more survivable. Even if the RAN task force has SM6 and LACM and the Italian/Spanish one doesn’t.

No kidding. Five is a training capability, not for sustained operations

No it isn’t. Five tankers is about the number needed to support four squadrons of strike fighters.

 

[Volkodav]

Finaly! someone who knows what their talking about has commented on the Collins class replacement

We should build on our 30-year submarine expertise

if only all articles from The Australian were to that standard

I should hope he knows what hes talking about, he is the current CEO of ASC. Not say I disagree with what hes saying, quite the opposite, just thought I should point out who he is.

 

[Volkodav]

There is a reason they have carriers and it’s nothing to do with looking cool at Lygon Street. It’s to provide layered air defence, shaping strike and enhanced ASW. Both are instrumental to providing survivability for a deployed fleet. Which was kind of reproven in the Falklands. An Italian or Spanish naval task force that to most purposes would be identical to a RAN one except the presence of a single light carrier would be far more survivable. Even if the RAN task force has SM6 and LACM and the Italian/Spanish one doesn’t.



No it isn’t. Five tankers is about the number needed to support four squadrons of strike fighters.

Carriers in the RAN, opposed to spotting a half dozen F-35B on an LHD, is a hard one. While the LHD option would degrade a required capability for very little return, a purpose designed carrier (even a very small on carrying no more than 8 F-35B and a couple of helicopters) is an entirely different matter. I don't believe it can be successfully argued that there is some other identified capability that we could do without to cover the cost of, not so much of the carrier platform, but the airgroup. The cost of maintaining even a deployable half squadron of F-35B on a single carrier would likely be higher than replacing and maintaining the proposed ANZAC replacement class(rough assumption on my part but it sounds feasable).

A fixed wing carrier capability for the RAN is down to funding, if we can't afford to drop any other capabilities then there has to be extra money (which there isn't). Now if we did have this sort of money to spend should it go on a carrier? Maybe instead on a new stealthy medium bomber capability for the RAAF (assuming the US eventually gets something happening in this area), or maybe the army could justify expanding the Bersheeba CAV Regiments in each Brigade to full US Army style (Brigade sized) Armoured Cavalry Regiments?

I should add that personally I believe there is justification for a carrier capability in the RAN and that I also believe we should have had a more substantial capability in this area that we have ever had and earlier as well. The issue is I can not see any of the alternative governments available in Canberra providing the necessary direction and funding.