Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

The irony of the secretary's stance is the RANs desire for larger, more flexible ships is driven directly by what is required to do the job the CoA requires them to do.

The RAN could do their job with a larger number of ships of various sizes and capabilities, i.e. a small number of very large, very capable destroyers, supported several general purpose air defence capable, guided missile frigates, several lower end self defence capable patrol frigates and a dozen or so self defence capable missile corvettes. This is what was desired by the RAN and government but not funded, the alternative requires larger numbers of intermediate ships between the large destroyer and FFG in size, i.e. F-100/Hobart and capability.

The selection of the F-100 for AWD combined with a significant reduction in planned numbers meant the RANs desire of a balanced fleet with a small number of high end ships providing a protective umbrella for a larger number of less capable ships, as Japan and South Korea do, became unworkable. However the RAN is still expected to deliver the same effects this larger, more flexible force was intended to, this requires then that the smaller less capable FFGs and Patrol Frigates be increased in size and capability.

So the situation is by selecting the F-100 over the Baby Burke, or more to the point a Flight IIA or evolved Burke (again like Japan or South Korea) and reducing the planned numbers, the CoA has forced the need to increase the size and capability of the ANZAC replacements. As such I believe Richardson's criticism was unfair and out of order.

 

[ADMk2]

Isn't $301m divided by 80 equal to 3.7625m, how'd it drop to 700k ?

Fwiw, Australia –SM-2 Block IIIB STANDARD Missiles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency states $216m for the 80 sm2's plus 15 guidance sections. So about 2.7m each (less the guidance section purchases). How did that drop down to 700k?

I never said they did, others did...

However there is a range of SM-2 capabilities available. We have bought the Block IIIB model which is at the pointy end of the SM-2 capability, not the lower end which are likely to be cheaper...

 

[r3mu511]

^Ah ok, I thought what you meant by "just a tad above" was "just a little above", lol.

Yup, in an earlier post of mine I asked the original poster w/c version of sm2 that $700k price referred to, as this latest purchase cited from dsca.mil seems to show a sm2-blk3b price in the ~2.7m or so range.

 

[Boagrius]

Thanks for the clarification @ADMk2. I imagine it would make sense for the ANZAC replacements to carry SM6. Even if they lack a radar of SPY6's ilk, the future of things like CEC w/ E7, Hobarts, F35 etc could make them valuable contributors to the AAW picture regardless.

 

[ADMk2]

^Ah ok, I thought what you meant by "just a tad above" was "just a little above", lol.

Yup, in an earlier post of mine I asked the original poster w/c version of sm2 that $700k price referred to, as this latest purchase cited from dsca.mil seems to show a sm2-blk3b price in the ~2.7m or so range.

Yep, just a bit of poorly worded sarcasm on my behalf... Mea culpa.

 

[t68]

I'm just looking for a bit of clarification on future fixed wing operations from the LHD with most saying that they have limited ability to lily pad F35B.

But on rereading David Baddams piece on "F-35 strike fighters for the Canberra-class?" he states that,

Right now, the known requirements at refit for F-35Bs are a precision landing light called a HIHAT

would that still be required even for lily pad operations?

 

[oldsig127]

Right now, the known requirements at refit for F-35Bs are a precision landing light called a HIHAT

would that still be required even for lily pad operations?

I was under the impression that the F-35B and C would use JPALS, rather than anything as old fashioned as a landing light system. JPALS works by using the aircraft and shipboard GPS in real time and a datalink to automate the direction of the aircraft on to a specific spot on the moving deck.

I'm confident that our LHDs don't have it fitted, but that doesn't mean I'm right!

oldsig127

 

[gf0012-aust]

Before we wander back into wally world territory about JSF, RAN and fixed wing ops,

there is a vast difference between landing on a fixed or floating piece of real estate at sea intermittently - and structured ops where its a regular and trained for occurrence

None of the requirements to do the latter exist in the RAAF or at the JOINT level - not even basic requirements needed for consideration are in place - so even if things were waved over by the pixie dust wand of the Minister it would take 5-10 years to be realised

you just can't start flopping fixed wing aircraft onto something just because it looks and can act as a defacto aircraft carrier

 

[Volkodav]

Before we wander back into wally world territory about JSF, RAN and fixed wing ops,

there is a vast difference between landing on a fixed or floating piece of real estate at sea intermittently - and structured ops where its a regular and trained for occurrence

None of the requirements to do the latter exist in the RAAF or at the JOINT level - not even basic requirements needed for consideration are in place - so even if things were waved over by the pixie dust wand of the Minister it would take 5-10 years to be realised

you just can't start flopping fixed wing aircraft onto something just because it looks and can act as a defacto aircraft carrier

The proof of this is the difficulty the ADF is currently having certifying the MRH90 to operate from Canberra and Adelaide. As it stands one and possibly two spots may not be possible for the Taipans to use, potentially reducing the anticipated single lift by a third. Factor in that Australian Defender is also reporting that ergonomics has reduced the number of fully equipped troops each helicopter can lift in assault mode from eighteen to ten, the assumed lift from a Canberra has reduced from 108 fully equipped troops to only 40.

I wonder if it may not actually prove quicker and easier to certify the F-35B, AV-8B (B+) MV-22, Super Stallion, Yankee and Zulu, etc. than our own types. A bit cheeky, but how much worse / how many more problems before it becomes more sensible / economic to replace the MRH90 than to continue sorting issues.

On Australian Defender, they really don't like ASC do they? They list a litany of issues with a range of projects, ignore or mid appropriate blame for others but specifically hammer ASC in the editorial and two separate articles in a single issue, even stating that BAE and Forgacs are more successful and deserving of future contracts than ASC. They have obviously fallen for the politically inspired ASC bashing hook line and sinker, not realising that they are simply parroting the narrative of the DFAT/WA Mafia Soryu MOTS Japan build. They must have missed the fact that the only Defmins who had an issue with ASC were Sand Gropers who were being wined and dined by ASCs competitors, companies who infact were found by international experts to have performed well below par and have caused the majority of the delays to the AWD project.

 

[t68]

Before we wander back into wally world territory about JSF, RAN and fixed wing ops,

there is a vast difference between landing on a fixed or floating piece of real estate at sea intermittently - and structured ops where its a regular and trained for occurrence

None of the requirements to do the latter exist in the RAAF or at the JOINT level - not even basic requirements needed for consideration are in place - so even if things were waved over by the pixie dust wand of the Minister it would take 5-10 years to be realised

you just can't start flopping fixed wing aircraft onto something just because it looks and can act as a defacto aircraft carrier

Not my intension to get back into the debate whether or not ADF needs fixed wing aircraft for the LHD, just curious as what systems are needed or what the LHD needs even to accommodate third party fixed wind aircraft (USMC most likely)

just a little confused on what is needed for fixed wing operations I would have thought they would still need a precision approach radar even for the most casual visit.

 

[vonnoobie]

A bit cheeky, but how much worse / how many more problems before it becomes more sensible / economic to replace the MRH90 than to continue sorting issues.

I know you don't mention it in all seriousness (Well not completely) but seeing as we have already taken the step's to scrap the Tiger in favor of a new build aircraft is there any sliver of possibility that we could relegate the MRH90's to land based operations and acquire a handfull of MH-60S?

Logically speaking allow's us to acquire a more suitable force of aircraft that fit's into the navy supply chain with there Seahawk's while allowing us to keep from scrapping the MRH90's and throwing all that investment away for nothing. Bit of a win win when you consider you would only need a little over a dozen.

 

[hairyman]

From Volkodaf.
"The proof of this is the difficulty the ADF is currently having certifying the MRH90 to operate from Canberra and Adelaide. As it stands one and possibly two spots may not be possible for the Taipans to use, potentially reducing the anticipated single lift by a third."

Is this the fault of the helicopter or of the ship? In other words these one or two spots may be unsuitable for any helicopter. Anybody know the situation?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not my intension to get back into the debate whether or not ADF needs fixed wing aircraft for the LHD, just curious as what systems are needed or what the LHD needs even to accommodate third party fixed wind aircraft (USMC most likely)

just a little confused on what is needed for fixed wing operations I would have thought they would still need a precision approach radar even for the most casual visit.

In an ideal world then they would need the requisite systems in place to assist - but anyone qualified needs to be able to do so without instruments as well. UK Army helo qualifications spring to mind where their apache drivers literally get blindfolded to remove the last vestiges of spatial awareness. not suggesting that RAAF FW pilots need to drop in blind - but am emphasising the rigours of qualification.

The clue for any ADF interest in using JSF on the phatships is when RAAF pilots get attached to a USMC or USN JSF squadron for bleed in training.

None of that is happening - JSF training is strictly limited to USAF exchange.

Considering that attachment to these squadrons for bleed in training is usually 3-4 years ahead of IOC - let alone FOC, then one can see that JSF on the phatships as a considered requirement is an absolute fairy story - its not happening and is not even in the long view as there are a few score plus some of ordinary fixed wing pilots to qualify - and to reinforce, the combat trainers and instructors are only involved with USAF - not USN or USMC.

and the above is also not factoring other training and integration issues that would also need to be visible for it to be considered "in consideration"

there needs to be a reality check triggered on these conversations - and I guess thats why I may make these unpopular statements and pixie dust killer statements every now and then

 

[oldsig127]

From Volkodaf.
"The proof of this is the difficulty the ADF is currently having certifying the MRH90 to operate from Canberra and Adelaide. As it stands one and possibly two spots may not be possible for the Taipans to use, potentially reducing the anticipated single lift by a third."

Is this the fault of the helicopter or of the ship? In other words these one or two spots may be unsuitable for any helicopter. Anybody know the situation?

Video of Chinooks and Ospreys using all six spots on JC1 suggest the answer.

And they're easy to find on youtube too.

oldsig127

 

[oldsig127]

there needs to be a reality check triggered on these conversations - and I guess thats why I may make these unpopular statements and pixie dust killer statements every now and then

I couldn't agree more BUT...

The original question was whether the LHDs could even lilypad an F-35B of some allied force without additional work.

So far, no-one cares to answer with anything but arguments for and against US using them.

oldsig

 

[gf0012-aust]

I couldn't agree more BUT...

The original question was whether the LHDs could even lilypad an F-35B of some allied force without additional work.

So far, no-one cares to answer with anything but arguments for and against US using them.

oldsig

If they've qualified to land then you'd have to load the odds that they can land on any NATO partners JSF rated landing asset

they can land them on any real estate if trained to do so.
by extension, they can land them on any untreated deck (which will start to include a lot of VSTOL/STOL pads) - the issue about unrated or untreated decks specifically against the hot thrust of the JSF V/STOL is frequency of the event before its a risk and impacts on overall availability and mission req of that platform. eg unless its a hail mary issue I can't see see any unrated asset taking them on as eventually it impacts on its core mission availability. (I'm referring to receiving host, not the plane)

if its about the capacity to do so then any qual'd for environment pilot will be able to land them wherever

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would imagine their will be a number of people watching what the Turks do with a JC1 LHD, as they intend to operate it as a light carrier/amphib.

She is the only operator that is clearly on the record that it wants the LHD (which is currently being constructed, first steel was cut last month) and F-35B and will operate them together.

Plenty of ifs and buts. It seems they are intending to it, so I would imagine the Spanish and the Australians might watch as Turkey no doubt paves some new ground and addresses operation and integration issues no doubt with people already in the US getting training. Given the state of the Mediterranean and states around Turkey, I would expect this to be funded through to completion.

Its really not worth talking about until Turkey does it (just a few years away). After they do it, costs, risks, time, compromises would all become readily known.

I actually find what Australia is trying to do more interesting, the level of amphibious capability we are trying to squeeze out of our ships/equipment/army by next year. The thought that we might do anything else interesting but not essential until we get this capability firmly within the ADF gasp seems very distant.

Its like trying to land on the moon but then deciding wouldn't it be great to also go to mars on the same mission at the same time, because it would be nice to do that.

To that end I think its more likely we would be concerned about operating Ospreys than F-35 jumpers. Seeing more allies acquire the JC1 design is a good thing, as you don't have to plan, integrate, test, analyse, assess etc all options yourself.

 

[swerve]

The Spanish designed JC1 specifically to enable the operation of F-35B (ski-jump, lift capacity, deck length, etc.), & planned to buy F-35B to replace AV-8B. That's been put on hold (& Principe de Asturias disposed of) purely for financial reasons, but the Armada still wants to get F-35B when it can, & makes no secret of it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I actually find what Australia is trying to do more interesting, the level of amphibious capability we are trying to squeeze out of our ships/equipment/army by next year. The thought that we might do anything else interesting but not essential until we get this capability firmly within the ADF gasp seems very distant.

this

To that end I think its more likely we would be concerned about operating Ospreys than F-35 jumpers. Seeing more allies acquire the JC1 design is a good thing, as you don't have to plan, integrate, test, analyse, assess etc all options yourself.

and this:

12 months ago I would have seen V22's in RAAF colours as a 2025-2030 option.if at all

I'm not so sure now. but the expeditionary and joint capability is way ahead of any other opportunity.

there are far too many planning headaches re JSF on the phatships, and other priorities have far more clout

RAN staff attached to the USN ARG's aren't focused on JSF ops, they're focused on the expeditionary construct

 

[DaveS124]

RAAF pilots will be flying F-35Bs with the Marines at MCAS Beaufort from next year.

Public confirmation was reported in RAAF News of May 19, under the heading 'I hate the word game changer, but it just is.'

LTGEN Jon Davis, USMC: "I've just signed the paperwork to transition that F/A-18 exchange to an F-35B billet starting in 2017. So we'll have Australians flying F-35Bs with the USMC in the near term."

Link to RAAF news pages here - http://airforcenews.realviewdigital.com/?iid=141903#folio=2