Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stampede said:
...Out of curiosity was HMAS Canberra on it's own or escorted when deployed on HADR operations in Fiji assist?

Would be interested to know if this class is permitted to undertake solo independant opertaions in permissive environments.

Regards S
Click to expand...
No other RAN ships mentioned however I am not sure what 'elements of RNZN' means - they would know I guess: http://www.navy.mil.nz/nap/news/media-release.htm@guid={9ddaf66c-98ad-4f00-b30d-4d99f32d55a7}.htm
RAN:
Australian Aid to Fiji After Cyclone Winston: The HMAS Canberra Joins the Effort | SLDInfo
&
HMAS Canberra on operation for the first time | Navy Daily
 
It wasn't a combat situation, so I would assume it wasn't deployed with any escorts, she was on training operations before hand and things had I believe been prepared for.

I think a 3rd LHD is seen as excess as with out all the elements to go into it, its just a big empty ship. Looking at it from the perspective of 2005, a 3rd LHD would seem crazy, many questioned the 2 LHD's, and openly criticized it, the original plan was four smaller amphibious ships.

Of course now, 2 LHD's are looking a bit small, next year we will form an ARG with 2x LHD's and Choules chock full at which point we will probably recognize we need other things. MV-22's, some sort of additional connectors, self protection for the LHD's, plus what ever the army needs, LARCV replacements, beach stuff, armed helicopter of some sort.

Operating the existing LHD's with significant MV-22's and say some sort of LCAC might not be possible, as we modified the original JC1 LHD design to cram more army into it, I believe limiting some of its aviation and related capability.

In other words, if the ARG is a one off and never intend to use that capability fully, what we have now is fine. Choules might not even be replaced and could possibly be disposed.

If we want more then we need to work out how to do that and resource it. A 3rd LHD might be looked at in that context. Your can't just buy another LHD, you will also need to workout whats going into it, how sustainable all that is. The purchase price is actually quite small in that context. Bringing it into service with the RAN is the easy part.
 
I think that around 15 years from now when the Choules comes due for replacement and the two phatships are scheduled for a midlife refit there could be a case made for buying a 3rd LHD
 
40 deg south said:
NZ sent the OPV Wellington and the sea-lift vessel (i.e. modified ferry) Canterbury.
Click to expand...

Thanks all for the feedback.
I often think of the RAAF a decade plus ago. An era still of the clasic hornet / F111,no AWAC or MMTT and uncertainty of what types and structure to statisfy stategic and tactical lift.
To suggest back then that we would get the type and quantity of aircraft we are transitioning to today I'm sure would have being met with some scepticism.
To the RAAF's credit they have thought ahead and road mapped a credible path to transition to a future with what I would consider a very sizeable and well balanced force. Just as importantly they have also being supported with the political will to finance such a quest.
The RAN appears to be on a good path ahead. An inventory planned of a dozen Submarines,destroyers and OPV's is certainly very impressive. It will take time to achieve and I trust the political will stays the distance as with the RAAF to bring this fleet to fruition.
If I have concern it is in the numbers and types of ships for our amphibious and supply needs. For me the balance in the future may not be there.
However impressive our 3 new amphibious ships are and the future 2 Cantabria ships will be, I cannot feel we will be caught short in numbers for the size and balance of the fleet we aspire to create.
Maybe in this context we can reflect on the RAAF's confidence 2000 in thinking big and looking ouside the square and ask: are the fleet numbers of the past relevent to the future?
I feel the Amphibious / supply ships need some friends!

Just a thought

Regards S.
 
I read a book in the early 90s l think it may have been "Power Plus Attitude: Ideas, Strategy and Doctrine in the Royal Australian Air Force, 1921-1991" by Alan Stevens that looked into where the RAAF were going. I just found it on line so will have a read to reboot the old memory, but if I recall correctly it covered long term plans to acquire AEW, listing and describing the options as E-3, Hawkeye, as well as Orion and Hercules conversions. It also covered tankers, the Classic Hornet and discussed the F-111 replacement (F/A-18D Night Attack if I recall correctly). Anyway there were capabilities we have ended up getting that weren't covered but most of it has happened as this was the long term plan going back to the 80s.

If anything plans and procurements mentioned were delayed by the chaos of the mid 90s caused by Keating, then Howard diverging from long term ADF structures and requirements. It seems where we are now and where we are heading is more in line with the structures and capabilities we determined we needed in the 60's, 70's and 80's but never funded, than the hair brain DOA, then under capitalised by Keating, scheme, or the fanciful lean, mean, all teeth and no tail gutted ADF under Howard.
 
Stampede said:
Thanks all for the feedback.
I often think of the RAAF a decade plus ago. An era still of the clasic hornet / F111,no AWAC or MMTT and uncertainty of what types and structure to statisfy stategic and tactical lift.
To suggest back then that we would get the type and quantity of aircraft we are transitioning to today I'm sure would have being met with some scepticism.
To the RAAF's credit they have thought ahead and road mapped a credible path to transition to a future with what I would consider a very sizeable and well balanced force. Just as importantly they have also being supported with the political will to finance such a quest.
The RAN appears to be on a good path ahead. An inventory planned of a dozen Submarines,destroyers and OPV's is certainly very impressive. It will take time to achieve and I trust the political will stays the distance as with the RAAF to bring this fleet to fruition.
If I have concern it is in the numbers and types of ships for our amphibious and supply needs. For me the balance in the future may not be there.
However impressive our 3 new amphibious ships are and the future 2 Cantabria ships will be, I cannot feel we will be caught short in numbers for the size and balance of the fleet we aspire to create.
Maybe in this context we can reflect on the RAAF's confidence 2000 in thinking big and looking ouside the square and ask: are the fleet numbers of the past relevent to the future?
I feel the Amphibious / supply ships need some friends!

Just a thought

Regards S.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we buy more amphibious ships, what exactly we will put on them?

We don't fund, equip or train our reserves to be a deployable force and our regular Army comprises it main force elements as 7 infantry battalions, a single (understrength) Armoured Regiment, 2 Cavalry Regiments (I know, we are moving to 3 ACR's, however that is more or less we what have now grouped, split into 3 separate formations), 3 artillery regiments and some Special Forces units.

With the deployable rule of thirds to take into consideration, we don't have a huge amount that needs to be, or can be (short of some extraordinary emergent situation) deployed by ship.

Wanting a bigger amphibious force is great, but there are two sides to that amphibious force and we are missing (arguably) a large amount of the most important part of it...
 
ADMk2 said:
I wonder if we buy more amphibious ships, what exactly we will put on them?

We don't fund, equip or train our reserves to be a deployable force and our regular Army comprises it main force elements as 7 infantry battalions, a single (understrength) Armoured Regiment, 2 Cavalry Regiments (I know, we are moving to 3 ACR's, however that is more or less we what have now grouped, split into 3 separate formations), 3 artillery regiments and some Special Forces units.

With the deployable rule of thirds to take into consideration, we don't have a huge amount that needs to be, or can be (short of some extraordinary emergent situation) deployed by ship.

Wanting a bigger amphibious force is great, but there are two sides to that amphibious force and we are missing (arguably) a large amount of the most important part of it...
Click to expand...
Well, IMO, a 3rd LHD is more or less just to ensure we have one or 2 LHD always available whenever we need them. The LHDs are still brand new at the moment so it may not apparent yet, but once they are a bit long in the tooth, they may become the dry-dock queen more and more often. Last time we had our ships so worn out, we have no amphibious ships available when we need them desperately.

On the other hand, I always dreaming of a 3rd LHD with F-35s........

Seems Spanish is done with LHD now, so if we are really ordering a 3rd LHD, may be we have to build them in Turkey.
 
rockitten said:
Well, IMO, a 3rd LPD is more or less just to ensure we have one or 2 LPD always available whenever we need them. The LPDs are still brand new at the moment so it may not apparent yet, but once they are a bit long in the tooth, they may become the dry-dock queen more and more often. Last time we have our ships so worn out, we have no amphibious ships available when we are desperately need them.

On the other hand, I always dreaming of a 3rd LPD with F-35s........

Seems Spanish is done with LPD now, so if we are really ordering a 3rd LPD, may be we have to build them in Turkey.
Click to expand...
Cobber hopefully a typo, they are LHDs with through deck flight decks, not LPDs.
 
ADMk2 said:
I wonder if we buy more amphibious ships, what exactly we will put on them?

We don't fund, equip or train our reserves to be a deployable force and our regular Army comprises it main force elements as 7 infantry battalions, a single (understrength) Armoured Regiment, 2 Cavalry Regiments (I know, we are moving to 3 ACR's, however that is more or less we what have now grouped, split into 3 separate formations), 3 artillery regiments and some Special Forces units.

With the deployable rule of thirds to take into consideration, we don't have a huge amount that needs to be, or can be (short of some extraordinary emergent situation) deployed by ship.

Wanting a bigger amphibious force is great, but there are two sides to that amphibious force and we are missing (arguably) a large amount of the most important part of it...
Click to expand...


Won't happen of course but that's where an expansion of Army comes in with a fourth brigade (Marine) plus its enablers
 
rockitten said:
Seems Spanish is done with LHD now, so if we are really ordering a 3rd LHD, may be we have to build them in Turkey.
Click to expand...
The Turks plan to build the Spanish design, with Spanish help. The yard that built the Spanish & Australian ships is still there, & Navantia still lists the design on its website. I'm sure it'd be very happy to build another one for you.
Navantia military ships
 
Any 3rd LHD based on the Navantia design or a derivative of it if ordered (I view it as being unlikely) would more likely be built from an existing production line if one exists. If none exists then Spain is most likely place.

That being said with any production likely to take place around 2030 there is not that great a chance of joining into an existing production run, thus we are likely to pay a premium for any one of ship acquisition (New workforce to be acquired, trained etc etc).

If we do decide in future to acquire a ship to operate F-35B's from then I'd like to see us look into a cost comparison of a one off Canberra class build compared to joining South Korea and adding a 3rd ship to their planned 2 ship production run of Cavour type aircraft carriers.

As to needing a 3rd ship to fill in gap's later in life for the Canberra's and the comparison to our former amphibious fleet what needs to be taken into account as at that point the 3 ships where 35 - 40 years old, Any respectful navy retires a ship at 30 years of age or sooner, keeping them longer and you are just asking for them to break down as occurred.
 
Navantia is building ships in Spain all the time. There's no production line for the LHDs, but the shipbuilding workforce stays in place, building other ships, e.g. the 5th & 6th BAMs for the Armada, AORs for the RAN, Suezmax tankers, etc.
 
Ah Ok, fair enough. Still, Would like to see a cost comparison down the road if we are to go for a larger ship capable of F-35 operations. If we can acquire something more capable and suited to the role I'd prefer that over acquiring a third ship that we are unlikely to have the troops to fill with.

At this stage we have 650 men and women becoming our amphibious force, While stated as being the core of a future amphibious force implying future growth I have not seen any mention as to how much it will grow by or where those numbers will come from.

When you consider that standard load capacity is 1,046 personnel per a ship, Between the 2 LHD's we will have over 220% extra capacity, At overload the excess capacity is 392%.
 
swerve said:
Navantia is building ships in Spain all the time. There's no production line for the LHDs, but the shipbuilding workforce stays in place, building other ships, e.g. the 5th & 6th BAMs for the Armada, AORs for the RAN, Suezmax tankers, etc.
Click to expand...

Well actually their workforce was decimated post GFC when the majority of staff over the age of forty were made redundant Mk, the loss of corporate knowledge was very damaging. It saved some money short term but caused issues throughout their organization that will take years to address, when new projects kick off old hands are retained or, if possible, lured out of retirement, Navantia have apparently been struggling with this.
 
rockitten said:
Well, IMO, a 3rd LHD is more or less just to ensure we have one or 2 LHD always available whenever we need them. The LHDs are still brand new at the moment so it may not apparent yet, but once they are a bit long in the tooth, they may become the dry-dock queen more and more often. Last time we had our ships so worn out, we have no amphibious ships available when we need them desperately.

On the other hand, I always dreaming of a 3rd LHD with F-35s........

Seems Spanish is done with LHD now, so if we are really ordering a 3rd LHD, may be we have to build them in Turkey.
Click to expand...

We have a 3rd amphibious platform already in HMAS Choules, a 4th? Hmmm...
 
ADMk2 said:
We have a 3rd amphibious platform already in HMAS Choules, a 4th? Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Well actually we had nine, now three. We have replaced Bill, Ben and Tobroken but not the LCHs, a not so sexy but still very valuable and versatile capability that I would think would be higher priority than a third LHD.

The only way I can see a third LHD is as an eventual replacement for Choules which will likely be, even if it has a through deck, a new design. I imagine technology would have advanced be the time we are looking for this ship so it will be more advanced and tailored for changed, evolved requirements.
 
Volkodav said:
Well actually we had nine, now three. We have replaced Bill, Ben and Tobroken but not the LCHs, a not so sexy but still very valuable and versatile capability that I would think would be higher priority than a third LHD.
Click to expand...

Referring to the majors obviously, but I haven't yet ruled out an LCH replacement albeit, it doesn't seem like a high priority...
 
SpazSinbad said:
Perhaps this is the 25 Mar 2008 story by Ian McPhedran News.Com.au?
Click to expand...

I'm not telling you what to think, but personally I think one should have reservations about articles penned by Mr McPhedran. I'm just an enthusiast and even I find some of his errors glaring and in stark contrast to every informed opinion I come across. I suspect the reason is that he has a brief he's begun to resent. Certainly his prior form has been woeful, sometimes outright malicious, and you can verify that with any of the Australian blues on here if you wish.

Re this talk of a 3rd LHD, if it's gonna come out of RAN's pot then what happens to the submarines and ANZAC replacements referred to in the White Paper? Wouldn't a 3rd LHD, paid for by the RAN, have the potential to distort all the other naval future force planning in place?

Not talking to you specifically here Sinbad, just asking the question generally as I think it's very relevant to any discussion regarding an additional amphib...
 
Bonza said:
I'm not telling you what to think, but personally I think one should have reservations about articles penned by Mr McPhedran. I'm just an enthusiast and even I find some of his errors glaring and in stark contrast to every informed opinion I come across. I suspect the reason is that he has a brief he's begun to resent. Certainly his prior form has been woeful, sometimes outright malicious, and you can verify that with any of the Australian blues on here if you wish.

Re this talk of a 3rd LHD, if it's gonna come out of RAN's pot then what happens to the submarines and ANZAC replacements referred to in the White Paper? Wouldn't a 3rd LHD, paid for by the RAN, have the potential to distort all the other naval future force planning in place?

Not talking to you specifically here Sinbad, just asking the question generally as I think it's very relevant to any discussion regarding an additional amphib...
Click to expand...

Perhaps the date in 2008 says it all? Reporters are what they are, I cannot comment on McPhedran. Here is a 'no name no court-martial' article about potential of having F-35Bs on the LHDs from Aug 2007 so no need for a third LHD. However it must be clear from all the 'negative' press about this idea and no mention of it in the recent White Paper (despite request for it to be considered in said White Paper by the former PM Abbot) that there will be no such 'Bs on LHDs' for some time: Navy keeps very quiet while it waits for the last laugh - World - smh.com.au
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top