Too bad Canada didn't follow through with their 12 SSN program in the 80s /90s, you would likely be looking to now join either Astute or Barracuda now to provide the next generation. So close but didn't get over the line, imagine if it had happened 12 Ts or Rubis with the manufacturing and sustainment infrastructure, Canada would be very different now.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess the Cold War needed to continue an extra 5 years and perhaps this SSN fleet might have happened. It would also have kept AECL busy building navy reactors between CANDU builds.
Something I keep coming back to with surface combatants is since WWII we seem always end up with about a dozen irrespective of cruisers, carriers, submarines, strategic requirements, crew sizes etc. we seem to always remain at that figure.
There is a chance, if the FFGs are not life extended and only six FFs are ordered to replace the ANZACs, that the total number of combatants may drop to nine. Probably fair enough if submarine numbers were being increased to twelve but that's highly unlikely now. Could be argued that the LHDs are very big and add to capability but the thing is they are not combatants and need to be escorted to in actual fact, all else remaining the same required an increase in combatant numbers not a reduction.
Looking outside the square if we can order OPVs to replace the PBs that will take some of the load of the majors that are currently required to supplement the BPC efforts where the PBs are not up to scratch. Take it a step further and acquire a class of light frigates similar to the new South Korean Inchon Class
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_FFX_Frigate_Combat_System_SamsungThales_lg.jpg
or the Turkish MILGEM to slot in between the OPVs and majors and they could cover off many of the RANs international obligations far more affordably than the current FFG and ANZAC deployments. Such a ship could be locally design and built and use systems from the ANZACs such as the VLS, 5" Gun, torpedos etc. as well as ensuring it can operate MH-60R (and S
) as well as Firescout etc. The OPVs would ideally share a common hull with the MCM and Hydrographic vessels, whether going for the OCV concept of the previous government or simply progressively replacing like for like using common hull and systems to ensure savings in logistics and training.
This leaves the question of what to do with the majors, the AWDs (we really should start calling them DDGs) form part of that but what to do with the rest? Do we order six (Smith), eight (Rudd), or nine (common sense) new generation GP frigates with high end ASW, air defence and land attack capability or do we look outside the square and go for something different to address the elephant in the room, China. Half a dozen Type 26, FREMM, something indigenous or something cheap and nasty, like fore like?
My thinking is how about we go to the USN and ask how much for three repeat DDG 1002 (steel superstructure fully sorted systems) but with Dual Band Radar as fitted to Gerald R Ford and then go to Japan and ask how much for three repeat Izumo Class DDHs but also fitted with Dual Band Radar. Also look at fitting both classes with AUSPAR in place of DBR. This would more than cover he RANs ASW, land attack and air defence requirements, allowing the formation of three identical task groups to escort the LHDs or participate in international or national operations. Throw in a couple of the light frigate of the OPV based MCMs or survey vessels or even a couple of the LCH replacements as required and you have a flexible task groups that can be tailored as required.
The DDG1002s could be specified with SM-3 and maybe additional VLS in place of the 155mm in "B" position and the Izumo could be equipped with a variety of helos and UCAVs to suit the mission. MH-60 R&S would be a no brainer with Tigers, MRH90 and Chinooks also in the mix but EH101 and Osprey could also be options. A mix that would make sense would be a sqn of ASW helos and detachments of AEW, CSAR, Utility / Assault and MCM helos, as well as UCAVs.
On the LCH replacement an idea that comes to mind is an OPV based APD with a well dock or a ramp premising the launch and recovery of an LCU or a LCM1E and or CB90 type Assault boats with a vehicle deck accessed from the rear ramp but also from side ramps.
There is a chance, if the FFGs are not life extended and only six FFs are ordered to replace the ANZACs, that the total number of combatants may drop to nine. Probably fair enough if submarine numbers were being increased to twelve but that's highly unlikely now. Could be argued that the LHDs are very big and add to capability but the thing is they are not combatants and need to be escorted to in actual fact, all else remaining the same required an increase in combatant numbers not a reduction.
Looking outside the square if we can order OPVs to replace the PBs that will take some of the load of the majors that are currently required to supplement the BPC efforts where the PBs are not up to scratch. Take it a step further and acquire a class of light frigates similar to the new South Korean Inchon Class
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_FFX_Frigate_Combat_System_SamsungThales_lg.jpg
or the Turkish MILGEM to slot in between the OPVs and majors and they could cover off many of the RANs international obligations far more affordably than the current FFG and ANZAC deployments. Such a ship could be locally design and built and use systems from the ANZACs such as the VLS, 5" Gun, torpedos etc. as well as ensuring it can operate MH-60R (and S
) as well as Firescout etc. The OPVs would ideally share a common hull with the MCM and Hydrographic vessels, whether going for the OCV concept of the previous government or simply progressively replacing like for like using common hull and systems to ensure savings in logistics and training.This leaves the question of what to do with the majors, the AWDs (we really should start calling them DDGs) form part of that but what to do with the rest? Do we order six (Smith), eight (Rudd), or nine (common sense) new generation GP frigates with high end ASW, air defence and land attack capability or do we look outside the square and go for something different to address the elephant in the room, China. Half a dozen Type 26, FREMM, something indigenous or something cheap and nasty, like fore like?
My thinking is how about we go to the USN and ask how much for three repeat DDG 1002 (steel superstructure fully sorted systems) but with Dual Band Radar as fitted to Gerald R Ford and then go to Japan and ask how much for three repeat Izumo Class DDHs but also fitted with Dual Band Radar. Also look at fitting both classes with AUSPAR in place of DBR. This would more than cover he RANs ASW, land attack and air defence requirements, allowing the formation of three identical task groups to escort the LHDs or participate in international or national operations. Throw in a couple of the light frigate of the OPV based MCMs or survey vessels or even a couple of the LCH replacements as required and you have a flexible task groups that can be tailored as required.
The DDG1002s could be specified with SM-3 and maybe additional VLS in place of the 155mm in "B" position and the Izumo could be equipped with a variety of helos and UCAVs to suit the mission. MH-60 R&S would be a no brainer with Tigers, MRH90 and Chinooks also in the mix but EH101 and Osprey could also be options. A mix that would make sense would be a sqn of ASW helos and detachments of AEW, CSAR, Utility / Assault and MCM helos, as well as UCAVs.
On the LCH replacement an idea that comes to mind is an OPV based APD with a well dock or a ramp premising the launch and recovery of an LCU or a LCM1E and or CB90 type Assault boats with a vehicle deck accessed from the rear ramp but also from side ramps.
knightrider4
Active Member
Nice wish list their mate. Never going to happen. Reality is that defence GDP will never be raised above 2%. In fact we will struggle to get to 2%. So as it stands we cannot afford what is currently planned let alone what you propose. The DWP will be interesting. I think Land 400 will be savaged. Sea 100 will be halved maybe 8 at the most. I think SEA 5000 will and should be based on the F105 hull. I don't see why we have to reinvent the wheel for the future frigates. If they get AUSPAR or an equivelant system we will be going well.Something I keep coming back to with surface combatants is since WWII we seem always end up with about a dozen irrespective of cruisers, carriers, submarines, strategic requirements, crew sizes etc. we seem to always remain at that figure.
There is a chance, if the FFGs are not life extended and only six FFs are ordered to replace the ANZACs, that the total number of combatants may drop to nine. Probably fair enough if submarine numbers were being increased to twelve but that's highly unlikely now. Could be argued that the LHDs are very big and add to capability but the thing is they are not combatants and need to be escorted to in actual fact, all else remaining the same required an increase in combatant numbers not a reduction.
Looking outside the square if we can order OPVs to replace the PBs that will take some of the load of the majors that are currently required to supplement the BPC efforts where the PBs are not up to scratch. Take it a step further and acquire a class of light frigates similar to the new South Korean Inchon Class
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_FFX_Frigate_Combat_System_SamsungThales_lg.jpg
or the Turkish MILGEM to slot in between the OPVs and majors and they could cover off many of the RANs international obligations far more affordably than the current FFG and ANZAC deployments. Such a ship could be locally design and built and use systems from the ANZACs such as the VLS, 5" Gun, torpedos etc. as well as ensuring it can operate MH-60R (and S
This leaves the question of what to do with the majors, the AWDs (we really should start calling them DDGs) form part of that but what to do with the rest? Do we order six (Smith), eight (Rudd), or nine (common sense) new generation GP frigates with high end ASW, air defence and land attack capability or do we look outside the square and go for something different to address the elephant in the room, China. Half a dozen Type 26, FREMM, something indigenous or something cheap and nasty, like fore like?
My thinking is how about we go to the USN and ask how much for three repeat DDG 1002 (steel superstructure fully sorted systems) but with Dual Band Radar as fitted to Gerald R Ford and then go to Japan and ask how much for three repeat Izumo Class DDHs but also fitted with Dual Band Radar. Also look at fitting both classes with AUSPAR in place of DBR. This would more than cover he RANs ASW, land attack and air defence requirements, allowing the formation of three identical task groups to escort the LHDs or participate in international or national operations. Throw in a couple of the light frigate of the OPV based MCMs or survey vessels or even a couple of the LCH replacements as required and you have a flexible task groups that can be tailored as required.
The DDG1002s could be specified with SM-3 and maybe additional VLS in place of the 155mm in "B" position and the Izumo could be equipped with a variety of helos and UCAVs to suit the mission. MH-60 R&S would be a no brainer with Tigers, MRH90 and Chinooks also in the mix but EH101 and Osprey could also be options. A mix that would make sense would be a sqn of ASW helos and detachments of AEW, CSAR, Utility / Assault and MCM helos, as well as UCAVs.
On the LCH replacement an idea that comes to mind is an OPV based APD with a well dock or a ramp premising the launch and recovery of an LCU or a LCM1E and or CB90 type Assault boats with a vehicle deck accessed from the rear ramp but also from side ramps.
Its not going to happen but it is affordable. OPVs for instance are larger and more expensive than PBs but cheaper to use in BPC than frigates, last longer and are easier and cheaper to maintain than PBs, they can deploy for longer, cover more area and have a much greater surveillance capability. Overall they are more capable, last longer and much better value for money meaning a lower cost of ownership than PBs over a 25 to 30 life assuming you buy the same number of hulls. In truth because of the greater capability you could probably get buy with fewer hulls for a greater saving say 10 or 12 instead of 14 hulls. Platform share with the next generation MCM and Hydrographic vessels and you increase the savings and add another 10 to 12 hulls to the build, saving on logistics and training. 25 to 30 year life, 20 to 24 (26 if 14 OPVs) hulls, one ship every 12 to 18 months for ever, that's one yard in constant production for decades. Over all a cost saving
6 LCH, planed to be replaced but has disappeared from last WP. Going for a OPV based but with well dock or launch ramp from mission deck Synergies with OPVs, Can surge to support BPC, can do everything current LCH can do but beach, that is what the embarked LCU / LCM is for. More capable, more deployable, probably cheaper than proposed LCH replacement for a much lager medium LST, maybe 4-6 (8 would be nice). Cost saving ?
The only addition I made was the light frigate although this could be subtracted from the OPV numbers. Lets say the RAN combines the MCM and Hydrographic missions so instead of 6 of each they have 8 with switchable mission modules and lets say instead of 10-14 OPVs the RAN goes for 8, this will leave 4 -10 hulls (ideally 8) that could be light frigates designed specifically to use hand me down systems from the ASMD upgraded ANZACS, the CEAFAR, the Mk41, the Mk45, torpedo tubes, Vampir, Mini Typhoon etc. in a small high performance hull with a much smaller crew. Low cost of ownership, can support the OPVs in BPC but can also do the OS deployments of the ANZACs, the Persian Gulf, East Africa, Indian Ocean, Red Sea etc. 8 OPV, 8 OPV based MCM / Hydrographic Multi Mission (capable of surging in BPC roles as current Fleet can, has and does), 6 OPV based APDs (capable of being surged in BPC roles), 8 Light Frigates. Another cost saving.
The AWDs we already have.
SEA 5000, firstly I would not touch the F105 hull for this at all for the simple reason most of the systems on board the basic ship are no longer available and many of the OEMs have actually gone out of business, the AWD project has actually suffered from this issue already. A redesign of the F-105 would, counter intuitively actually be more difficult and risky than a fresh design or a current build MOTS such as FREMM or Type 26. Far better off selecting a new platform with new systems and looking for synergies elsewhere.
Also on SEA 5000 this will be very expensive, these ships on paper will need to be larger than the AWDs, ASW, land attach cruise missiles, highly capable self defence systems, two helicopters minimum 6 hulls. One for one for the ANZACS is 8 hulls, 10 if replacing Newcastle and Melbourne as well 12 if replacing all current FFGs and the AWD is a DDG replacement, 14 if the government intends returning to planned pre cuts fleet and replacing the original 6 FFGs (all of which were supposed to still be in service) and the 8 ANZACs. Very expensive even if it is just 6 Australianised hulls to fit the actual requirement at the bare minimum.
My proposal is for 6 basically MOTs platforms that cover everything we need very well Izumo come in at US$1.1Billion that is cheaper than our LHDs and much much cheaper than we expect of SEA 5000 ships to cost. DDG1002 is fully sorted last off the line, order 3 from BIW and you can pretty much guarantee a very sharp i.e. cheaper than AWD price. With 20 to 30 OPV based vessels and light frigates being built locally we could afford to buy the DDGs and DDHs from their parent yards, possibly with local outfit if we had capacity, this would likely be a cost saving over SEA5000.
Like I said on the original post I am looking outside the square. As an aside I sincerely hope LAND 400 is left alone as the Army has ben lumbered with some pretty crappy equipment over the years and even to good stuff is either worn out or has been procured in insufficient quantities. Probably belongs on the Army thread but I read somewhere the other day that the budget to upgrade our M-1A1 AIM SEPs is actually sufficient to replace the entire fleet (with enough money left over to buy an additional Squadron or two worth of vehicles) with speced up new production M1-A2 SEPs or is we wait a couple of years M-1A3s. In a nutshell we are spending more to own a second rate capability than a top tear capability would cost because it has been decided we are aiming for sufficient to do the job (maybe) not over match. Pretty much the same reason SPGs and MLRS / HIMARS have been ruled out, game changing capabilities, affordable and in some cases cheaper than current capabilities but are seen as over match so not needed.
An interesting phrase used by the PM in today's press conference to announce the order for another 58 F-35 aircraft.
Commenting on whether 72 would be the full purchase, he added that it was possible sufficient more to establish another squadron would be ordered after the 72 have been received up to another 28, but that no decision had been made yet about the number or type of F-35
If it's a mis-speak, it's a very interesting one.
Commenting on whether 72 would be the full purchase, he added that it was possible sufficient more to establish another squadron would be ordered after the 72 have been received up to another 28, but that no decision had been made yet about the number or type of F-35
If it's a mis-speak, it's a very interesting one.
They will be the F-35A. We might see a follow up order ... but that will probably be a long time down the track. The Super Hornets will be in service for maybe another 20 years.
If you are suggesting the F-35B model ... there doesn't seem to be a lot of official interest. The F-35B hasn't got the range or payload of the A model.
Personally I think a flight of F-35Bs ... 8 to 12 aircraft could be a valuable asset.
Sorry, but they should undoubtedly be the F-35A on the basis of everything said to date, the only thing interesting was that he said anything at ALL about "what type".
He DID say it'd be a long time off, after the original 72 are delivered.
There doesn't seem to be any official interest at all yet he still made an unnecessary comment that suggests - if you want to interpret it that way - that there may have been some discussion along the lines that I carefully didn't actually suggest but you guessed.
Your response is exactly what I would have expected of many in this forum.
One other comment - lower range and payload can be mitigated by moving the airfield.
Not sure what that is meant to mean, but anyway
Tony being Tony and the way he speaks who know's what it could mean ? Could just be the way he said it and taking it too literally ? Could be a slip ? Conjecture is pretty simple with only a couple of options:
He could be alluding to an F-35B purchase down the track, it could be useful on a number of levels, LHD's of course, but as you mentioned austere operations in the outback ? island hopping etc depending on what scenario's you would like to throw in, but as you mentioned this option has been put to rest numerous times at all levels, not to say they could change their minds though.
The earlier talk of a 2 seater EW variant ? But the thing is EW systems and capability is, as GF has mentioned, coming along in leaps and bounds and the need for a second seat is quickly dwindling. but a single seat based on the A ? time will tell
Cheers
Mods, merge with RAAF Thread is you wish ?
The internet is a medium where losses in translation are easy to trigger, so I'm honestly perplexed at the comment and am unsure as to message, tone and intent.
rather than assume that you are having a crack or dig at other individuals, can you please clarify your response for I would assume others (as well as my) edification
gf
gf, I most assuredly wasn't having a dig at you or anyone on this site. My comment that your response was what I'd expected goes to the moderately frequent discussion here of the possibility of some fixed wing aviation assets for the LHDs, and the impossibility of reading the PM's comment any other way that that there might at some point be a decision enabling F-35B aircraft to be added.
After all, what other choice is there? The only other remaining "model" of F-35 is the "C" and I don't see an obvious reason to choose that over the "A"
Anyway, you proved that I wasn't the only one to interpret the comment in that fashion.
os
C has a slightly larger wing and thus internal fuel load compared to both variations (which despite airframe strengthening for carrier operations still leads to an increased combat radius*), but yeah, it'll always be more expensive than the F-35A simply down to production figures.
*But the difference is only about 5% or so and we're talking to the order of ~600nm
*But the difference is only about 5% or so and we're talking to the order of ~600nm
no probs, sometimes its difficult to pick up intonation
I always assume that any ministerial comment by an individual who is an ex lawyer or ex journo will be couched in ambiguity
Yes that's pretty much as I understand it too, its a shame but it is a fact so an F-35B buy would not be of use for the RAN unless they acquire an appropriately designed and outfitted ship to operate them. Not impossible but unlikely to the point of near certainty it wont happen.
Basically the only way it would happen is if we were slapped in the face in a manner that indicated for the world to see the only answer was a carrier and the slap then left us with enough time to rectify the situation before it was followed with a punch.
So really near enough to never ever going to happen.
Complete change of topic, would the Frank S Besson Class logistic support vessel be a suitable replacement for the RANs LCHs?
Is it too large and expensive or would the SSGT Robert T Kuroda (LSV 7) sub class pretty much fit the bill of what we need to support the LHDs and Choules, not to mention the army with all the new AFVs proposed to come on line?
Should they remain RAN or would it be better to paint them Green and assign them to the Army?
Is it too large and expensive or would the SSGT Robert T Kuroda (LSV 7) sub class pretty much fit the bill of what we need to support the LHDs and Choules, not to mention the army with all the new AFVs proposed to come on line?
Should they remain RAN or would it be better to paint them Green and assign them to the Army?
Just curious what changes you think have been done to the Canberra Class that are different to the JC1 that would stop it from operating B's like Spain does ?
The first big "tell" that would trigger that there is an interest to buy B's would be that a small cohort of pilots and maintainers would be rotating out to do a "learn, practice and play" on the platforms of allied partners who already have the capability (STOL/STOVL) and who are going to travel down that path with the B's
That normally happens 2-3 years before platforms come into service so that the "centurions" can come back trained up early and start training the next cohort.
There's not even a remote sign of that happening.
Plus the CONOPs and extant training would need to be reviewed, revised and modfied in advance of the above and at latest, during etc....
none of that is happening
Yep, agree, just to clarify what I was asking, Volk and Oberon were alluding to the fact that the Canberra's were built differently to the JC1 that would preclude them from operating the B's in the same way as Spain.
What changes do they think were made to the Canberra Class configuration compared to the JC1 ?
Cheers
- Status