Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

I understand what you are saying and agree.

While the official line is ships such as the LHDs will never go into harms way without an escort of AWDs and FFHs it just goes against the grain to imagine such an important and strategically critical platform being incapable of defending itself against anything more than small, lightly armed boats.

Considering the small size of the ARA vs. what can be carried by just one LHD, let alone the value of the ship as a command platform you would think CIWS and an anti ship missile defence system would be a minimum, with a mine detecting sonar and torpedo defence system also fairly high up the list of priorities.

I imagine 16 Air Land Regiment would be on-board the LHD's should they ever go anywhere remotely dangerous and Phalanx would also be added.

They'd have escorts as we know, but RBS-70 / Bolide / Giraffe AMB, Phalanx Block 1B and 25mm Typhoon isn't the worst air defence structure in the world.

It's better than what Manoora had operationally in the Gulf in 2003...

 

[Volkodav]

I imagine 16 Air Land Regiment would be on-board the LHD's should they ever go anywhere remotely dangerous and Phalanx would also be added.

They'd have escorts as we know, but RBS-70 / Bolide / Giraffe AMB, Phalanx Block 1B and 25mm Typhoon isn't the worst air defence structure in the world.

It's better than what Manoora had operationally in the Gulf in 2003...

I and I am sure the crews as well as the poor passengers would be much happier with ASMD, CEAFAR, ESSM Phalanx 1B and possibly RAM.

On the Typhoon, I am not sure you can really count that as an air defence weapon, I am not sure that the mount is even designed with the capability for it to be used in such a manner. Also while Bolide is a superior missile, bolting an upgraded RBS 70 launcher to the deck is far from a state of the art solution, it has more a ring of, "look we are doing something" than actually being serious about the issue.

 

[ADMk2]

I and I am sure the crews as well as the poor passengers would be much happier with ASMD, CEAFAR, ESSM Phalanx 1B and possibly RAM.

On the Typhoon, I am not sure you can really count that as an air defence weapon, I am not sure that the mount is even designed with the capability for it to be used in such a manner. Also while Bolide is a superior missile, bolting an upgraded RBS 70 launcher to the deck is far from a state of the art solution, it has more a ring of, "look we are doing something" than actually being serious about the issue.

True and I imagine the RAN would be relatively happy having a beefed up defensive solution on all of it's ships, but we get what we can afford... Those 12 subs have to be paid for somehow! I'm not saying it's an ideal solution, but it's affordable and most likely...

As for RBS-70's capability, what was the original solution for the ANZAC Class ASMD "second channel of fire" solution again?

It was a SIMBAD launcher firing MISTRAL from recollection.

Can't see that a pair of RBS-70 launchers firing Bolide missiles, cued by the LHD's Sea Giraffe radar provides that much less capability than that?

 

[Volkodav]

As for RBS-70's capability, what was the original solution for the ANZAC Class ASMD "second channel of fire" solution again?

It was a SIMBAD launcher firing MISTRAL from recollection.

Can't see that a pair of RBS-70 launchers firing Bolide missiles, cued by the LHD's Sea Giraffe radar provides that much less capability than that?

I am so glad that didn't go ahead. SIMBAD, that's a solution for a patrol boat, MCMV or LCH, not a frigate, let alone a 27000ton LHD. At the end of the day it is all based on the assumption that no one is going to shoot at our ships anyway so why spend the money, the LHDs after all are a humanitarian capability not a military one.nfloorl:

 

[ASSAIL]

I am so glad that didn't go ahead. SIMBAD, that's a solution for a patrol boat, MCMV or LCH, not a frigate, let alone a 27000ton LHD. At the end of the day it is all based on the assumption that no one is going to shoot at our ships anyway so why spend the money, the LHDs after all are a humanitarian capability not a military one.nfloorl:

I'm reasonably sanguine about the LHD defences provided there's space and combat system integration capability to upgrade if required and I believe there is both?
The LHD's represent a huge chunk of the naval budget so a little pragmatic trimming under current fiscal circumstances is beneficial.

 

[ADMk2]

I'm reasonably sanguine about the LHD defences provided there's space and combat system integration capability to upgrade if required and I believe there is both?
The LHD's represent a huge chunk of the naval budget so a little pragmatic trimming under current fiscal circumstances is beneficial.

I would imagine there is. They've already got a reasonable 3D air search radar installed in terms of Sea Giraffe AMB, Link 16, ESM, EO/IR surveillance systems plus Nulka will be installed and they will have cannon and HMG based, basic air defence capabilities so the basis of an overlapping air defence system is already there.

I would imagine that adding Phalanx Block 1B and perhaps a RAM launcher wouldn't be the most extensive undertaking the RAN has ever engaged in, IF an operational deployment came along.

 

[rjtjrt]

I take all the points mentioned about what is affordable given the predicted scenarios.
However, the person writing the obituary is talking of real world experience again is that was of a conflict that came effectively with no warning, no time to prepare or beef up capability (see below*), and against a modestly equipped enemy, not at all dissimilar to the capability in our region.
So the thought that you would have sufficient warning to prepare under equipped ships, that you would not be likely to face significant air threat unless it was against a more modern first world force, and there would be sufficient available escorts in time of a real threat proven to be a dangerous assumption.
It seems to me we are gambling a LOT on the current assumptions (a San Carlos or Bluff Cove scenario may well occur). An awful lot of capability and lives on a full LHD.
John

*I realise that the UK was able to do some remarkable upgrades in the weeks before the shooting started, but we don't have the industrial depth to do anywhere near what they managed.

 

[ADMk2]

I take all the points mentioned about what is affordable given the predicted scenarios.
However, the person writing the obituary is talking of real world experience again is that was of a conflict that came effectively with no warning, no time to prepare or beef up capability (see below*), and against a modestly equipped enemy, not at all dissimilar to the capability in our region.
So the thought that you would have sufficient warning to prepare under equipped ships, that you would not be likely to face significant air threat unless it was against a more modern first world force, and there would be sufficient available escorts in time of a real threat proven to be a dangerous assumption.
It seems to me we are gambling a LOT on the current assumptions (a San Carlos or Bluff Cove scenario may well occur). An awful lot of capability and lives on a full LHD.
John

*I realise that the UK was able to do some remarkable upgrades in the weeks before the shooting started, but we don't have the industrial depth to do anywhere near what they managed.

We have the depth of capability to add upgrades as needed though. The upgrades needed to bring the LHD to a reasonable level of air self defence capability, are as straightforward as bolting on Phalanx Block 1B and potentially a system such as the Rolling Airframe Missile system (albeit RAM would need to be integrated into the Combat System) unless we opt for the SeaRAM system in future years, which like Phalanx would be a straightforward bolt-on, bolt-off option.

Either option (along with the previously mentioned RBS-70 option) would see our Amphibious Warfare vessels as well protected as they have ever been by their indigenous capability against air threats and they will be better protected against surface threats than any Amphibious vessel we've ever had.

I really think we're starting to get a degree of handwringing over this issue here. The ships haven't been finished yet and as we've seen with other relatively straightforward ADF platform upgrades ahead of operational deployment, they can be acquired and integrated quickly.

Other Navies seem to agree with this approach too. Even the USN has equipped it's latest Amphibious vessels, with nothing more than a pair of 30mm cannons, some HMG's and Phalanx in it's initial build configuration. The RN has HMS Ocean with Phalanx and a pair of 30mm guns, The French Navy has her Mistral class equipped with a pair of twin round MISTRAL launchers and a couple of 20mm guns.

When we deploy our vessels on operations, they take a full range of weapon systems and self-defence capabilities. In peace-time, they usually don't carry them all.

The LHD's will be exactly the same.

 

[RobWilliams]

The RN has HMS Ocean with Phalanx and a pair of 30mm guns,

*puts on pedant hat*

HMS Ocean has

• 3 x Phalanx
• 4 x 30mm guns

 

[Bonza]

I would imagine there is. They've already got a reasonable 3D air search radar installed in terms of Sea Giraffe AMB, Link 16, ESM, EO/IR surveillance systems plus Nulka will be installed and they will have cannon and HMG based, basic air defence capabilities so the basis of an overlapping air defence system is already there.

I would imagine that adding Phalanx Block 1B and perhaps a RAM launcher wouldn't be the most extensive undertaking the RAN has ever engaged in, IF an operational deployment came along.

Phalanx and RAM would certainly make me happier than anything involving RBS-70. I just can't see that system, given it must have an operator in the loop, having the capacity to track and destroy some of the potential threats a high value naval asset could come across.

As you say though, there is perhaps some handwringing going on, and while above I'm talking from a naval defensive systems standpoint, I understand the LHDs aren't going to be going in to World War III or operating far outside the umbrella of friendly anti-air/anti-missile systems. And you make a good point about the protection levels other navies have seen fit to use on similar vessels.

I think in an ideal world I would like to see ESSM in some form or another, but I understand this a) isn't a priority, b) would require several changes both hardware and software-wise to implement and c) could potentially cause issues when undergoing flight ops with numerous helos. That and I have perhaps too much of a soft spot for ESSM, given its performance and dual-role nature

 

[Volkodav]

Phalanx and RAM would certainly make me happier than anything involving RBS-70. I just can't see that system, given it must have an operator in the loop, having the capacity to track and destroy some of the potential threats a high value naval asset could come across.

As you say though, there is perhaps some handwringing going on, and while above I'm talking from a naval defensive systems standpoint, I understand the LHDs aren't going to be going in to World War III or operating far outside the umbrella of friendly anti-air/anti-missile systems. And you make a good point about the protection levels other navies have seen fit to use on similar vessels.

I think in an ideal world I would like to see ESSM in some form or another, but I understand this a) isn't a priority, b) would require several changes both hardware and software-wise to implement and c) could potentially cause issues when undergoing flight ops with numerous helos. That and I have perhaps too much of a soft spot for ESSM, given its performance and dual-role nature

Well our soon to be ex defence minister has indicated that there will only be 6 ANZAC replacements, this leaves two complete ASMD systems including VLS. Assuming space and weight can be found and there are not deal killing structural issues this could be a very interesting upgrade path for the LHDs.

On the 6 for 8 FFHs I have no issue with this so long as the 6 new ships are high end FFGs and at least some of the PB replacements are FFLs or missile corvettes.

 

[ADMk2]

Phalanx and RAM would certainly make me happier than anything involving RBS-70. I just can't see that system, given it must have an operator in the loop, having the capacity to track and destroy some of the potential threats a high value naval asset could come across.

Me too. A 3D air search radar, Link 16, EO/IR surveillance systems, ESM/EA, Nulka, RAM and Phalanx Block 1B with an integrated combat system, should be a baseline air self defence capability for ALL our major surface combatants IMHO, but I'm sure as with Manoora, having RBS-70 on board is far better than no missile systems at all, which is presently the case.

As you say though, there is perhaps some handwringing going on, and while above I'm talking from a naval defensive systems standpoint, I understand the LHDs aren't going to be going in to World War III or operating far outside the umbrella of friendly anti-air/anti-missile systems. And you make a good point about the protection levels other navies have seen fit to use on similar vessels.

I think in an ideal world I would like to see ESSM in some form or another, but I understand this a) isn't a priority, b) would require several changes both hardware and software-wise to implement and c) could potentially cause issues when undergoing flight ops with numerous helos. That and I have perhaps too much of a soft spot for ESSM, given its performance and dual-role nature

ESSM would be great, but presents other issues with mid-course guidance requirements, fire control illuminators and so on. It would be a far more serious (not to mention expensive) upgrade, one arguably more suited to purpose built vessels - frigates and the like.

 

[ADMk2]

*puts on pedant hat*

HMS Ocean has

• 3 x Phalanx
• 4 x 30mm guns

I never said how many Phalanx...

But okay, you got me on the DS30B's!

 

[ASSAIL]

I take all the points mentioned about what is affordable given the predicted scenarios.
However, the person writing the obituary is talking of real world experience again is that was of a conflict that came effectively with no warning, no time to prepare or beef up capability (see below*), and against a modestly equipped enemy, not at all dissimilar to the capability in our region.
So the thought that you would have sufficient warning to prepare under equipped ships, that you would not be likely to face significant air threat unless it was against a more modern first world force, and there would be sufficient available escorts in time of a real threat proven to be a dangerous assumption.
It seems to me we are gambling a LOT on the current assumptions (a San Carlos or Bluff Cove scenario may well occur). An awful lot of capability and lives on a full LHD.
John

*I realise that the UK was able to do some remarkable upgrades in the weeks before the shooting started, but we don't have the industrial depth to do anywhere near what they managed.

I don't think that the FI scenario is relevant for the following reasons;
1. The LHD would not be involved in a "hot war" situation without the presence of the US.
2. The RN's only capable AD ships were far away protecting the high value units and the capability (lack of) of the escorting units close ashore was abysmal. ALL Australian escorts have or will have at least ESSM.
3. Our amphibious doctrine involves "Sea Basing" where the amphibs are away from confined waters and well protected.

On this and other forums we are guilty of discussing preparations for another FI amphibious scenario but we live in a different and changed world where doctrine and capability have far outstripped the past.

The LHD's may well be dealing with low level insurgencies (as per the statements of capability) and in these cases the current minimal armaments suffice.
Cheers

 

[rjtjrt]

I don't think that the FI scenario is relevant for the following reasons;
1. The LHD would not be involved in a "hot war" situation without the presence of the US.
2. The RN's only capable AD ships were far away protecting the high value units and the capability (lack of) of the escorting units close ashore was abysmal. ALL Australian escorts have or will have at least ESSM.
3. Our amphibious doctrine involves "Sea Basing" where the amphibs are away from confined waters and well protected.

On this and other forums we are guilty of discussing preparations for another FI amphibious scenario but we live in a different and changed world where doctrine and capability have far outstripped the past.

The LHD's may well be dealing with low level insurgencies (as per the statements of capability) and in these cases the current minimal armaments suffice.
Cheers

This could be written as:
1. The LHD CAN'T be involved in a "hot war" situation without the presence of the US.
3. Our amphibious doctrine MUST involve "Sea Basing" where the amphibs are away from confined waters and well protected.

As for:
"On this and other forums we are guilty of discussing preparations for another FI amphibious scenario but we live in a different and changed world where doctrine and capability have far outstripped the past."
Same changed and improved capability for any potential opposition force.

Dangerous to fail to learn from history, and when I hear the term 'this time it's different', I get worried. Comes from age creeping up on me, I suppose. (I know the latter term has not been written here recently - it is just a generic term/quote.)

Still, I will discontinue my "hand wringing" and luxuriate in the concept that 'there there dear, it has all been taken care of by the professionals'.

 

[hairyman]

1. The LHD CAN'T be involved in a "hot war" situation without the presence of the US.


I think that this is a dangerous assumption nowadays, with the US economy as it is. Already the US is considering reducing its carrier force from 11 to 8. Who knows what the situation will be in a few years time. We may at sometime in the future have to go it alone. I dont think we can afford to rely on the US forever.

 

[Todjaeger]

As for:
"On this and other forums we are guilty of discussing preparations for another FI amphibious scenario but we live in a different and changed world where doctrine and capability have far outstripped the past."
Same changed and improved capability for any potential opposition force.

Dangerous to fail to learn from history, and when I hear the term 'this time it's different', I get worried. Comes from age creeping up on me, I suppose. (I know the latter term has not been written here recently - it is just a generic term/quote.)

Yes, a failure to learn from history is dangerous indeed. However, from an Australian perspective what sort of scenario exists that resembles the British situation in the Falkland Islands in 1982? IIRC the Australian territory furthest from the mainland which could potentially be invaded (apart from the Antarctic claims) would be Heard & the McDonald Islands which are uninhabited. Hypothetically South Africa could mount an invasion, but why?

Of the inhabited Australian island territories that are not near the main(ish) to the mainland, you have a choice of Christmas Island, Norfolk Island, Lord Howe Island, or the Keeling Islands. All of which are considerably closer to Australia than the Falklands are to Great Britain.

Secondly, what nation which is again close(ish) to any of those islands would realistically be in a position to invade them? Of these, what nation has an interest in the islands and does not or would not continue accepting Australia's claims to them? Again remember the distance between the Falklands and Argentina was within ~200 miles at the closest point, so it was relatively easy for the Argentina to get its armed forces there.

Lastly, how much/what sort of surveillance assets could the UK direct on and around the Falklands in 1982, and what does the ADF have available for the above islands?

In short, apart from someone invading the Falklands again, using that sort of scenario for other areas is an apples to oranges comparison.

Were some lessons learned? Absolutely. But to feel that history is repeating itself because the LHD's are entering service without the maximum armament they could possibly have with current kit is IMO a bit much.

They are supposed to be armed with Typhoon mounts vs. close-in small boats. It looks as though there will be a pool of Mk 15 CIWS which could be drawn upon if/when an LHD would be deployed to areas of higher threat. There is the potential for them to mound RAM/SeaRAM in the future and IIRC they might also have space to take a Mk 41 VLS and ESSM.

Some of this kit would drive up programme cost while near-term programme benefit would be minimal. Some of the kit would also cause interference in operations (a la the Mk 41 VLS w/ESSM). IMO the piece of kit which they do not at present have nor have plans been announced or suggested it for the future would be some sort of AEW capability. Rather than 'uparm' the LHD to defend itself vs. leakers or even augment the firepower of the escorts, it would be better to provide aerial early warning to allow target detection and queuing when inbound hostiles are further out. I feel this was one of the most important lessons learned by the RN operating in San Carlos Water, since there was so little time between when the Argentinian aircraft were detected and them actually engaging the vessels.

-Cheers

 

[John Newman]

.... At the end of the day it is all based on the assumption that no one is going to shoot at our ships anyway so why spend the money, the LHDs after all are a humanitarian capability not a military one.nfloorl:

Yes the Government certainly does like to focus on the ‘humanitarian’ aspect of certain ADF hardware.

Here's an idea, let’s have the Government divert a couple Billion dollars of foreign aid annually to the, 'ADF humanitarian' equipment budget.

That would buy us an extra LHD, that's 'H' for Humanitarian, 6 new large LCH, again H for Humanitarian, half a dozen more CH-47F's, and again, H for Humanitarian, and of course Def Min Smith has always been a big fan of the humanitarian capabilities of the C-17, so a couple more of them too!!

Ok, sorry, back to reality.....


As for Air Defence systems for the amphibious fleet, both LHD's and Choules too, sure it would be nice if the budget was there to equip them appropriately from day one, but I can't see that happening anytime soon, I’m just glad that we actually have those ships in service or coming in to service soon, better to have them now and worry about fitting them out with AD systems later on.

Unlike the situation the UK found itself in with Argentina over the Falklands, I’m scratching my head to come up with a situation, in the near or medium term, where Australia might be forced to go it alone against another country.

None of our Pacific or South Pacific neighbours have combat aircraft or other capabilities that could cause an Australian amphibious fleet any serious threat, and I certainly can’t see any issues with our good cousins across the ditch either.

The only near neighbour that I can think of, would be Indonesia, in the extremely unlikely possibility that they might decide to occupy Christmas Island or the Cocos Islands for example, and we attempt to take them back using military force, but our relationship with Indonesia these days is very good, so I’ll cross that one off the list too.

That leaves North Asia or the Middle East, and if there ever was a situation where our amphibious fleet was involved in a conflict in both of those areas, it would no doubt be part of a much larger US led coalition force that you would assume would also contain AWD’s and Carriers too.

Anyway, at the very least, let’s hope that Defence and Navy do have clear and precise plans safely tucked away in a draw somewhere, that in the event the amphibious fleet ever had to venture into a hot environment, that whatever modifications and equipment required could quickly and efficiently be accessed and installed.

If the equipment, such as sufficient quantities of Phalanx, etc, wasn't available in an RAN pool, that the necessary arrangements were already in place with our good American friends for quick and trouble free access to such equipment as and when needed.

 

[rjtjrt]

Todjaeger
Good points and I take them onboard.
Healthy debate, even if revisited.
In all this concentration on the LHD, we should not forget HMAS Choules, and her potential to be forward of the main protected by escorts LHD force.

 

[ASSAIL]

Todjaeger
Good points and I take them onboard.
Healthy debate, even if revisited.
In all this concentration on the LHD, we should not forget HMAS Choules, and her potential to be forward of the main protected by escorts LHD force.

There is no "potential" for Choules to be ahead of anything.
She is and always will be a support asset although within the RAN context she may be part of the escorted amphibious group.
Even so, added CIWS would apply.