Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Australia doesn't really need a carrier that can out range its AEW (which is very long ranged extending into waters near japan, china, India etc) and operate outside the cover of other carrier based AEW. In such unlikely cases it would have too, a AEW helcopter would be adiquate as JORN could pick up targets outside the range much of the time anyway.

The biggest and closest threats (even tho they are unlikely) are well within Australias land based radar, but just outside of most land based fighter/strike aircraft.

Really Australia doesn't need CATOBAR carrier, it has some of the longest ranged radar in the world. Short of Planning a landing into Russia or europe. Its better off with two smaller carriers.

I don't think Australia would ever load 20 F-35B's unless working with US and UK forces on training excises just to show if it could be done. But if pushed into service (say providing some cover while a US or UK ships are in transit) it could be done, for a short while. Around 6-8 on deck, 10-14 or so in hanger and a few in the air.

3-12 F-35B on board at anyone time. With 3, the ship could still be prepped for a large amphibious landing with vechicals, tanks, landing craft, troops etc. This makes sure Australia is always able to meet any threat regionally in any mission.

 

[Markus40]

From the Information i have the BPE will have the following Aircraft Loading Specs:


-1000 troops each.

-Six helicopter landing spots for medium and armed reconnaissance helicopters, and hangar space for 12.

-Each ship transports up to 150 vehicles, including 60 light armoured vehicles such as ASLAVS, or 14 Abrams M1A1.

-Four medium landing craft.

-6-12 STOVL Fighters.

 

[cherry]

Next, having 2 Helicopters is good insurance, but unnecessary. This is another added expense and more recruiting for pilots than would be necessary. If you read my last posts you would see that one helo with all the gears is all it needs for 360 survellience if neccessary although unlikely due to the operational survellience of the Destroyer.

The AWD role is Anti Air threats and Carrier escort. Therefore the one Helo is enough to carry out the tasks thats needed when you have many on the Navantia. Cheers.

"An added expense?" RAN have 16 x Seahawks and 11 x Seasprite. That is 27 helos to share between only 11 x surface ships. We have the pilots to fly them already. The AWD IS a multirole vessel, not just an anti-air and escort vessel.

In 15 - 20 years time there will be plenty of people saying "I told you so" when these new frigates are outdated and out of space for new technology.

 

[Markus40]

If you go and read the specs on the AWD you will soon learn the true role of the AWD is for the Carrier Escort and Anti Air role. Most educated forum members on this panel will tell you that. However in saying so the true role of the AWD for Australia will at sometime in the future have an anti Ballistic Missile capability to add to its ability.

As to the helos, there is absolutely no requirement to add an extra Helo to any of the AWDs, and doing so will put Unecessary competition for space and airspace when they dont need it. The F100 is of "evolutionary" design and can accomodate additional features to upgrade them in the years to come.

Sorry, but your argument is as lame as the Opposition Spokesman for Defence.

"An added expense?" RAN have 16 x Seahawks and 11 x Seasprite. That is 27 helos to share between only 11 x surface ships. We have the pilots to fly them already. The AWD IS a multirole vessel, not just an anti-air and escort vessel.

In 15 - 20 years time there will be plenty of people saying "I told you so" when these new frigates are outdated and out of space for new technology.

 

[cherry]

Educated. Check some of your spelling and punctuation out professor! nfloorl: It has always been touted as a multi-role vessel, anti-air and fleet escort will be its main tasks. My point is, that it will have a more limited role now that the inferior design has been selected. RAN have missed out on the biggest opportunity of the decade to gain some real fire power and growth room for its fleet and, it WILL be regretted in the future.

 

[Markus40]

Yes , im not the best at my spelling at times i agree, thats due to my speed on my keyboard however to the uninitiated i thought i would share with you why i know the Destroyer to be what its designed to be for the RAN. The following i have cut and pasted off the AWD Defence Website:

The RAN’s aims in the AWD project are manifold. In a 2003 presentation, CMDR G.A. McGuire, DDSC, stated the following aims:

* The AWD will be a Air Control combatant.

* The AWD would be for Task Group Defence not Own-ship Defence and for Protection for Forces Deployed Ashore.

* The vessels would provide for an Electronic Attack capability to supplement RAAF assets, and provide Protection of Supporting Air Assets.

* The vessels would have a strike capability using a longrange gun system such as the ERGM, but the BGM-109 Tomahawk was described as
unaffordable.

* ASW and ASuW are described as non-primary roles for the AWD.

* Capability aims are to include low inservice support costs, survivability,
recoverability, [Low] signature levels, troops, crew under 180 (incl flights), +30% margin of accommodation.

These aims have been amplified by Defence Minister Robert Hill to include a capability to provide ballistic missile defence to protect amphibious landing sites and other high value assets, ostensibly using a SPY-1 Aegis derivative radar and evolutions of the RIM-66/67 Standard Surface to Air Missile
(SAM) family.

Educated. Check some of your spelling and punctuation out professor! nfloorl: It has always been touted as a multi-role vessel, anti-air and fleet escort will be its main tasks. My point is, that it will have a more limited role now that the inferior design has been selected. RAN have missed out on the biggest opportunity of the decade to gain some real fire power and growth room for its fleet and, it WILL be regretted in the future.

 

[cherry]

<P>

Yes , im not the best at my spelling at times i agree, thats due to my speed on my keyboard however to the uninitiated i thought i would share with you why i know the Destroyer to be what its designed to be for the RAN. The following i have cut and pasted off the AWD Defence Website: <BR><BR>The RAN’s aims in the AWD project are manifold. In a 2003 presentation, CMDR G.A. McGuire, DDSC, stated the following aims:<BR><BR>* <B>The AWD will be a Air Control combatant.</B><BR><BR>* <B>The AWD would be for Task Group Defence </B>not Own-ship Defence and for Protection for Forces Deployed Ashore.<BR><BR>* The vessels would provide for an Electronic Attack capability to supplement RAAF assets, and provide Protection of Supporting Air Assets.<BR><BR>* The vessels would have a strike capability using a longrange gun system such as the ERGM, but the BGM-109 Tomahawk was described as<BR>unaffordable.<BR><BR>* <B>ASW and ASuW are described as non-primary roles for the AWD.</B><BR><BR>* Capability aims are to include low inservice support costs, survivability,<BR>recoverability, [Low] signature levels, troops, crew under 180 (incl flights), +30% margin of accommodation.<BR><BR>These aims have been amplified by Defence Minister Robert Hill to include a capability to provide ballistic missile defence to protect amphibious landing sites and other high value assets, ostensibly using a SPY-1 Aegis derivative radar and evolutions of the RIM-66/67 Standard Surface to Air Missile<BR>(SAM) family.<BR>

<BR>You are spot on!&nbsp; The "destroyer" is not a multi-role vessel.&nbsp; With the 127mm gun, harpoon missiles, SM-2, SM-3, ESSM, electronic warfare equipment, torps, an armed helo, possible Tomahawk or ship launched JASSM (oops,&nbsp;no room&nbsp;for them&nbsp;on the F100), it's an "air warfare destroyer."&nbsp; I wish I was as smart as you.&nbsp; Perhaps one day I can become an "educated forum member", maybe this is something I can&nbsp;aspire to.&nbsp;&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>This vessel is only half a step ahead of the OHP frigate and the Government has made the wrong choice.</P>

 

[Markus40]

Yeah, well i knew it. You must be a member of Rudds Juevenile labor union primer class that doesnt know what a Navy is. My advice is to stay out of defence politics at least until you learn something about Defence.

<P><BR>You are spot on!&nbsp; The "destroyer" is not a multi-role vessel.&nbsp; With the 127mm gun, harpoon missiles, SM-2, SM-3, ESSM, electronic warfare equipment, torps, an armed helo, possible Tomahawk or ship launched JASSM (oops,&nbsp;no room&nbsp;for them&nbsp;on the F100), it's an "air warfare destroyer."&nbsp; I wish I was as smart as you.&nbsp; Perhaps one day I can become an "educated forum member", maybe this is something I can&nbsp;aspire to.&nbsp;&nbsp;</P>
<P>&nbsp;</P>
<P>This vessel is only half a step ahead of the OHP frigate and the Government has made the wrong choice.</P>

 

[diggumsbang]

I really hope that the government jumps on and gets the optional 4th destroyer... 2 on the west and 2 on the east would be a good result for mine.
The idea of puttin one of the anzac class frigates in reserve is also a solid point, but instead of putting it in reserve, why not loan/give it to someone like the coastguard or customs until it was required again?? no doubt it wouldnt have to be armed to the teeth... but its just an option i could see as a possibility
any ideas on this??
i also believe that the new LHD's are a very good move and clearly shows our commitment in providing the cutting edge equipment to our defence forces.

fast forward 10years please

 

[Markus40]

Yes, a good suggestion i made sometime ago was to pass the ANZAC onto the RNZN to plug the operations gap. Its been well known that 2 ANZACs in the RNZN is way short of what it should be, considering deployment to the middle east or exercises leaving the other one in dry dock for repairs or on other Maritime commitments. This has put considerable strain on leave options and crewing to a degree, and having another ANZAC would plug this gap.

I really hope that the government jumps on and gets the optional 4th destroyer... 2 on the west and 2 on the east would be a good result for mine.
The idea of puttin one of the anzac class frigates in reserve is also a solid point, but instead of putting it in reserve, why not loan/give it to someone like the coastguard or customs until it was required again?? no doubt it wouldnt have to be armed to the teeth... but its just an option i could see as a possibility
any ideas on this??
i also believe that the new LHD's are a very good move and clearly shows our commitment in providing the cutting edge equipment to our defence forces.

fast forward 10years please

 

[108]

ANZACs

Can someone inform this malcontent as to what "lancing" the Anzacs means. It doesnt seem to be a positive. I think I can recall an Anzac coming back from a foray into the Southern Ocean some years ago with some hull cracking? Is this somehow related. People whom sail into oceans with waves bigger than the ships their on are either brave or strange. Im not sure which?

Chow

Agree, what does "lancing" the ANZAC mean? AFAIK the only cracking has been superficial and the ANZACs have seen some rough weather. The original design/configuration has been (and continues to be) upgraded with additional weapons and sensors. The ships appear effective with a very high operational availability. Seems to be to be a success story. Other opinions?

108

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The only problem i see with the ANZAC's are the stuff they put in them and the lack of room for more. ESSM and Harpoon Block II help but annother 8 cell (16 would be great if theres room) VLS with SM2, CIWS a towed array adn a helo with a dipper and i'd be happy with them. There seems to be some limitations in the design for new kit though, seems to be a reccuring theme in the RAN with the F100 purchase.

 

[Markus40]

No i dont know what that means really sorry. The ANZACs are operating at the edge of their envelope as far as further upgrades and additional weaponary is concerned. Thats fine, because they were never intended to be built with large amounts of weaponry on board. They are after all a Guided Missile Frigate based on the Meko 200 design. They are multi purpose in their design with Harpoon and ESSM vertical anti Missile and Anti Aircraft systems.

As for the F100, this is a different story where we see these assets as being fleet Escorts and Air Warfare. The F100 design is "evolutionary" in its makeup and therefore has a far bigger scope for upgrades and additional hardware in the future such as the SM-3. Its a perfect solution for the RAN, based on cost and all round ability and Technological superiority. Much sentimnt has been expressed over the AB design but in the end the ADF has got a very good Destroyer thats going to serve well in the Navy for a very long time.

Agree, what does "lancing" the ANZAC mean? AFAIK the only cracking has been superficial and the ANZACs have seen some rough weather. The original design/configuration has been (and continues to be) upgraded with additional weapons and sensors. The ships appear effective with a very high operational availability. Seems to be to be a success story. Other opinions?

108

 

[Markus40]

Im not too sure what you mean by "the stuff they put on them". The ANZAC is also a very good Guided Missile Frigate which has very good systems and Weapons. I do agree that after loading them with more hardware like the Harpoon and Typhoon, that they are operating at the edge of their design envelope.

I am aware that the VLS Launcher on the ANZAC is capable with an upgrade to launch the Tomahawk if needed, but to extend the number of VLS to 16 is simply inconceivable due to its design. The ESSM is a part of the ANZAC overall delivery system having 8 cells and this was how the design of the frigate was made in the first place.

As well a Seasprite armed with the Penguin i do think that the ANZAC is very much capable for the time being until better and smarter weapons become available. The F100 is a giant leap in capability and its great to see the ADF and the Government making good on the capabilities the F100 has, and for its future potential in incorporating newer and smarter systems in the future.

The only problem i see with the ANZAC's are the stuff they put in them and the lack of room for more. ESSM and Harpoon Block II help but annother 8 cell (16 would be great if theres room) VLS with SM2, CIWS a towed array adn a helo with a dipper and i'd be happy with them. There seems to be some limitations in the design for new kit though, seems to be a reccuring theme in the RAN with the F100 purchase.

 

[knightrider4]

Lancing

I would assume that lancing refers to the removal of sections of the superstructure in order to find space and weight to add further equipment.

 

[swerve]

If the ADF acquires a squadron of F-35Bs I think the following airgroups would be realistic:

1. Operating as a pair in an amphibious operation I can envisage one ship operating 12x MRH-90s and 4x Tiger ARHs with the other operating 6x F-35Bs, 6x MRH-90s and 4x S-70B Seahawks. Maybe a couple of CH-47Ds would also be attached.

2. Operating in a sea control role one ship might operate 8-12x F-35Bs, 4x S-70B Seahawks and 2-3x AEW version of MRH-90.

As well as hangar and deck space the airgroup that can be effectively operated will be limited in size by aviation maintenance facilities, aviation fuel capacity and weapon storage capacity.

The old Melbourne, designed as a dedicated carrier, generally carried an airgroup of less than 20. Typically it carried 6-8x Skyhawks, 4-6x Trackers, 4x Sea Kings and 2x Wessex, so I think it is unrealistic to talk about airgroups of 24 F-35Bs, even if the ADF had that many available to deploy, which is unlikely even in a best case scenario (based on past experience it would need a total of at least 48 aircraft in its inventory to be able to operate 24 at sea other, perhaps, than for a specific mission of limited duration).

Cheers

All I can add to that is that the BPEs vehicle deck provides lots of space for storage. I don't know details of the lifts from there to the hangar, but I would expect there to be some. Weapon storage should be no problem. In theory, one could use the vehicle deck for extra fuel storage, but you'd need piping, & removable tanks, & I don't know if the ships will have either.

BTW, you can't just decide a BPE will be an LHD today & a carrier tomorrow. Switching Juan Carlos from LHD to dedicated carrier mode takes some work. Weeks? It's clear from what the Armada has published that it's envisaged conversion would be for long spells, while PdA (or her successor) is in refit, not something one would do for a particular operation.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Im not too sure what you mean by "the stuff they put on them". The ANZAC is also a very good Guided Missile Frigate which has very good systems and Weapons. I do agree that after loading them with more hardware like the Harpoon and Typhoon, that they are operating at the edge of their design envelope.

Verry good guided missile frigate???? When they were built they had 8 Sea Sparrow's thats it. No other air defence capabilities. The perry haz on the other hand comes stock with CIWS and 36 SM1's. Thats a guided missile frigate. Now with ESSM they at least have a decent self defence capability against AShM's but they cant protect any other assets. And as for as ASW is concerned their a pretty poor performer, only hull mounted sonar and no dipping Helo. Without the Pery Haz they are going to be our primary ASW platform, espcially as the F100's only have room for 1 helo. It may be multi role but but it lacks some serious teeth. And i thought they built them with enough room for annother set of 8x VLS.

I am aware that the VLS Launcher on the ANZAC is capable with an upgrade to launch the Tomahawk if needed, but to extend the number of VLS to 16 is simply inconceivable due to its design. The ESSM is a part of the ANZAC overall delivery system having 8 cells and this was how the design of the frigate was made in the first place.

I'm pretty sure they built it with SM1/2 in mind aswell. they only had sea sparrow when they were built not ESSM and they chose 8x VLS because its the smallest you can get. They have no CIWS/Point defence system, the RAN ANZACS anyway, i heard the RNZN ANZACS will be fitted with phallanx soon. I thought they designed it with room for more warfighting stuff like more VLS but did the el cheapo and only put the bare essentials on it. The ANZAC warfighting upgrade was suppose to include such systems.

As well a Seasprite armed with the Penguin i do think that the ANZAC is very much capable for the time being until better and smarter weapons become available. The F100 is a giant leap in capability and its great to see the ADF and the Government making good on the capabilities the F100 has, and for its future potential in incorporating newer and smarter systems in the future.

With the Harpoon Block II the ANZACs have a decen't surface reach and ESSM helps negate the AShM missile threat to some extent, but she cant defend any other asset against an air threat, and has no answer if the ESSM misses. Its ASW capabilities are pretty pittifull, so without the adelaides the ASW capabilities of the AWD's become quite important.

Thats what i mean by the stuff they put on it. the ANZAC is a decent design, although it lacks room for growth, but it wasn't given any teeth. It lacks some serious capabilities which have more to do with the systems theyput, or didnt put, on the thing.

 

[swerve]

Australia doesn't really need a carrier that can out range its AEW (which is very long ranged extending into waters near japan, china, India etc) and operate outside the cover of other carrier based AEW. In such unlikely cases it would have too, a AEW helcopter would be adiquate as JORN could pick up targets outside the range much of the time anyway.

....

There's a big difference between the range of an AEW aircraft, & how far from base it can actually operate. Flying out & back is not an option: it has to spend time on station. You're doing it again: confusing the maximum with the usable.

 

[RubiconNZ]

I heard the RNZN ANZACS will be fitted with phalanx soon.

Just a small correction, they have always been fitted with Phalanx the soon to come upgrade will most likely take them to Block 1B status.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

There's a big difference between the range of an AEW aircraft, & how far from base it can actually operate. Flying out & back is not an option: it has to spend time on station. You're doing it again: confusing the maximum with the usable.

Spot on mate. persistance is the name of the game for AEW. I would definatly be investing in some Helo based system, even though it will be much less capable than the Wedgetail, for an expeditionary campaign. Plus your AEW&C aircraft are under incresed threat in transit. And what happens if we need to deploy indipendantly outisde of effective wedgetail cover. The south pacific and indian anre mighty big places. Not a great idea IMO.