Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Is it true that they won't be equipped with side armaments?
I've heard unofficial rumours that LHD01 is going to trials in the next couple of weeks...
Not too sure on that one, I don't recall seeing anything official at least on how they will be rigged, Abe or Raven might have a better idea on that one ?
I would assume she would be getting close to starting, but have not seen anything indicating a date as yet
Cheers
How? Big, wet and salty. Saw conditions matching where AAvn generally stops now. Didn't reach the full ADF-specified maritime criteria; but met everything that we've done (flying ops; not transit) in the past decade. Arguably the LHD has different pitching and rolling characteristics than the Tonnerre, but they still met every mission and no corrosion has raised its head.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
How would the weather in the Med (sea state etc) compare to the weather in the Indian or Pacific Oceans?
Can be just as bad. I've been in HMS Bacchante (Leander) in some horrific weather south of Toulon where we've just about destroyed every upper deck fitting.
The Mistral can reach nearly cyclonic speeds but usually only lasts for 2 or 3 days.
Absolutley, shallow water and a standing swell are a bad combination.
On a slightly different topic if Australia opts for 6 Type 26 frigates to fill the SEA 5000 requirement the RAN would be returning to their pre Dibb structure of 3 destroyers and 6 high end frigates, i.e the ANZAC replacement would in actual fact be FFG replacements leaving the possibility for the OCV to morph into a light frigate and replace the ANZACs.
Assuming an Australian Type 26 opted for CEAFAR or AUSPAR combined with a suitable CS and replaced Sea Ceptor with additional Mk41 cells there is no reason why they could not be equipped with SM-2 and SM-6 in addition to ESSM. This would be a more than capable FFG replacement.
Assuming an Australian Type 26 opted for CEAFAR or AUSPAR combined with a suitable CS and replaced Sea Ceptor with additional Mk41 cells there is no reason why they could not be equipped with SM-2 and SM-6 in addition to ESSM. This would be a more than capable FFG replacement.
No doubting the capability but 9 hull numbers is way too low to fulfil the various fleet requirements.
Remember it was 3 x CFA, 3 x Daring and 6 x T12 and that was on a population base of 12 million in 1971 and 15 mil in 1986!
I would have thought that 8 Anzac replacements was a minimum unless the OCV morph into a DDL type capability which is highly unlikely unless the concept changes
Volk, we are probably saying something similar on re-reading your post.
Last edited:
I still like the idea of 4 AWD but suspect that is a pipe dream. However, 3-4 AWD, 6 high end ANZAC II and a number of patrol frigates (6 would be good) capabable of self defence, ASW and low level enforcement would be a good mix...... so I quite agree. Lets be honest at the end of their lives the T12's were just capable of low level conflict given the weapons fit.
The rub will be if the RAN can resist over crewing as modern control systems will allow 'peace time patrol' operation s with consideraberly less crew than carried by the ANZAC.
PS: by self defence I mean ESSM/ASMD and guns (50 cal and a 25mm Typhoon with perhaps a 76mm OTO given all are in inventory) in addition to ASW systems. I think they should be capable of launching harpoon (but may not need to carry 8 if the do)........ essentially 'capable' of carrying much of what in on the current ANZAC and some of the systems/equipment could be carried over.
The rub will be if the RAN can resist over crewing as modern control systems will allow 'peace time patrol' operation s with consideraberly less crew than carried by the ANZAC.
PS: by self defence I mean ESSM/ASMD and guns (50 cal and a 25mm Typhoon with perhaps a 76mm OTO given all are in inventory) in addition to ASW systems. I think they should be capable of launching harpoon (but may not need to carry 8 if the do)........ essentially 'capable' of carrying much of what in on the current ANZAC and some of the systems/equipment could be carried over.
The LCH were built for the Army in the first place. Just at the time the RAN finally managed to take over the Army’s long standing water transport division. The Army operated its fleet of coastal transport ships like the merchant navy. So crews were much smaller and ships were commanded by Warrant Officers. The water transport service was highly efficient and would have remained as such except for the Navy’s attempts to destroy it.
When the Navy took over the LCH as they were being delivered they had a significant sea billet shortage for officers. As the force structure became more balanced later on the Navy withdrew many of the LCHs from active service and transferred others to other Navy roles (survey, clearance divers). Leaving the Army without the ships that they routinely used to sail stores and vehicles around the country in. The Army was forced to use more land based transport to make up the shortfall of their capability the Navy and stolen and dismembered.
Apart from the LSM Mk 2/LCH debacle the Army tried to buy a new transport ship to fill a capability gap in the early 1960s. They liked this nice Swedish ferry but the Navy blocked the plan to buy it in the higher defence committee. Because the Army lacked this ship the Government was forced to lease a bunch of merchant ships to support the deployment to VietNam which ended up costing something like 10 times more than the cost of the Army ship.
The story of the Navy destroying the Army’s water transport capability in the 60s and 70s is a pretty bleak one.
The big difference between operating conditions is the quality of the air and water. In particular ‘up top’ the air is hotter and dirtier than around Europe and the water more full of debilitating micro organisms. There is quite some RAN history of naval aircraft that operated fine in European waters struggling with south east Asian waters.
It remains to be seen however if the NH90/MRH/Ciaman/Taipan/Wombat has these problems.
The ADF MRH90 is fitted with up to 20 seats in the rear and two side guns firing through the windows aft of the side doors. The seats are modular and can be pulled in and out allowing for cargo to be carried on the floor when the seats aren’t fitted. There are quite a few different seat configurations that have been flown.
But for most of their life they were capable ASW escorts which fitted well with the ASW Hunter Killer Task Group which was the RAN (S2's, Wessex/Seaking/Ikara).
In that role they were equal to any but when Melbourne retired and the force structure changed they became an anachronism.
No arguement there. The only real upgrade the first 4 got was M22 and Muloka (not all were mad keen on the latter). In Yarra the 'upgrade' was in name only and cost of the work on the other three did not really add a lot of capability.
Still they were good seaboats and rugged.
The Type 12/River class would have been more capable if a few missile systems had been upgraded or evolved. For example the 1960s Shorts proposal for the Sea Cat 2 missile which would have replaced the subsonic Sea Cat missile with a new sleek Mach 2.0 missile. Same guidance system but as demonstrated in the Falklands the Sea Cat was often too slow to successful engage fast jets. Also the anti-ship missile for the Ikara launcher would have provided a lot more flexibility to these ships. Suddenly the Type 12 in the 1980s doesn’t look so bad with an anti-ship missile and far more viable anti-air capability.
Of course the best possible ‘upgrade’ for the RAN River class was just not to have built the last two and in their place brought the fourth DDG. Plus one of the various follow on class proposals actually going ahead like the GPE or DDL or even the full scale Australian Frigate Project. The later – which resulted in the two Australian built FFGs – was originally scoped for 4-6 units to replace the first four River class with deliveries beginning in the late 1980s.
Of course the best possible ‘upgrade’ for the RAN River class was just not to have built the last two and in their place brought the fourth DDG. Plus one of the various follow on class proposals actually going ahead like the GPE or DDL or even the full scale Australian Frigate Project. The later – which resulted in the two Australian built FFGs – was originally scoped for 4-6 units to replace the first four River class with deliveries beginning in the late 1980s.
There is more to the demise of Army's water transport than the above.
Most of the tasking in the 60's and early 70's involved Water Transports roles in support of the Vietnam effort and extensive operations in PNG.
When these ended in the 70's and combined with the block obsolescence of the LSM's and the terrible ALC 50's and the post Vietnam downsizing, the result was inevitable IMHO.
There is a very good personal account of the rise and fall in Peter Bayliss' "The Forgotten Fleet"
http://www.32smallshipsqn.org.au/Forgotten%20fleet.pdf
Sure but not much of it is generous to the Navy. Like the Navy’s input into various plans to acquire an amphibious ship vs sealift at this time.
ADF capability would be a lot better off today if the Army had sustained its water transport capability including the planned Scania motor ferry and four LSM Mk 2s in the 60s and 70s.
So because the deployments ended the Army no longer needed its capability? Why didn’t the Army then get rid of its tanks, artillery and rifles? Capability needs to be sustained in peace time so it’s available for operational use. Waterborne logistics remains a vital part of sustaining the Australian Army in any regional operation.
These craft were being replaced by the LCH. And would have been replaced by the more suitable LSM Mk 2 if the Navy hadn’t intervened. The LSM Mk 2 being basically the same type of ship as specified by JP 2048 Phase 5 to replace the LCH. Just because a particular item of equipment is obsolete doesn’t mean the entire force element needs to be disbanded or transferred to another service.
There is an even much better account in “Paving the Way, Volume IV: The Royal Australian Engineers 1945 to 1972” by Brig. P.J. Greville, CBE, BE who was Director Tansport at this time (60s) so no doubt much more informed about these issues than an Army coxswain.
I've transcribed some of this book in relationt to the LSM Mk 2 here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?reportsent;topic=11452.msg126606#msg126606
the road runner
Active Member
Abe just wondering if you have any "on line" links regarding Collins 2 future technologies?
GF was saying you may have written some informed articles on our future subs?
Sorry not trying to derail the topic at hand
Cheers
GF was saying you may have written some informed articles on our future subs?
Sorry not trying to derail the topic at hand
Cheers
- Status