Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grandstrat

New Member
I can't post the URL yet, but in the Australian...

Mark Dodd - Defence must arm up for 'Asian threat'
A MASSIVELY restructured Australian Defence Force equipped with a fleet of 400 advanced combat aircraft and 30submarines could be needed to provide for the nation's security and counter the rise of Asian powers, a former senior defence official has recommended.

In a paper published in the latest edition of the Kokoda Foundation Security Challenge series, Ross Babbage - a former senior defence official and now adviser to Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon - recommends a home-grown military capability that could "rip the arm off" any threatening Asian power.

The paper, based on comments made at a forum late last year, warns that Australia's most pervasive challenge is likely to be the rise of major Asian powers.

Professor Babbage says the primary challenge for the Rudd Government's coming defence white paper - designed to map out Australia's defence needs and possible threats - is how to shape the nation's security approach for the next 40 years.

Australia would need to be able to stand its ground among its Asian neighbours, he warned, citing the rise of Indonesia, India and China.

"Nevertheless, despite the myriad uncertainties, the seemingly irresistible strategic tide with which Australian defence planners will need to come to terms is that the country will be walking among giants, some of whom may not be friendly," Professor Babbage says.

One option would be a modernised version of the current ADF, capable of modest independent operations in partnership with the US.

Professor Babbage says that makes sense only if the strategic environment of 2025-40 is similar to that of today.

"A strong case can be made that, in the markedly altered future we seem likely to face, Australian governments will want rather more from the defence organisation," he says.

In the post-Vietnam War 1970s, Australia's military doctrine was one of self-reliance, with an emphasis on protecting the country's northern maritime approaches.

But the 1999 intervention in East Timor - a half-island territory lying just 600km from Darwin - highlighted the ADF's acute logistical problems, notably the inability of the air force and navy to move large numbers of troops and military equipment.

It spurred a sharp response by the Howard government and a welcome revamp of the ADF's depleted military inventory, including the purchase of new warships, planes and tanks.

The current strength of the all-volunteer ADF is about 71,000, including reservists, with plans to expand the full-time force from about 51,000 to 57,000.

The Government has ordered 100 Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to fill the role of the soon-to-be retired F-111 bomber fleet and F/A-18 Hornets.

At a cost of $16billion and rising, they are not expected to arrive until 2018, and 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets have been ordered to bridge the looming defence capability gap.

The Babbage plan for 30 submarines comes at a time when the crew-strapped Royal Australian Navy can barely keep three Collins Class subs operating out of a fleet of six.

Mr Fitzgibbon said Professor Babbage's article highlighted "the complex questions we need to ask ourselves as we develop the new white paper".





Now that's optimistic.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Or better:idea3 , use all three as LHDs, and after unloading, fly a carrier air group to one, switching one to a carrier. :D or three carrier air groups to all three, switching all three to carriers.:D :D :D FLEXIBILITY! Three does sound better than two. :lol2
You're taking the mickey, aren't you?

An alternative approach might be to point out that in order to support the fixed-wing air group, you need equipment, aviation fuel, munitions & specialised personnel aboard, which would get in the way of the amphibious role, & that the helicopters, landing craft & other stuff needed for the amphibious role but not for the carrier role would be in the way when operating as a carrier. Which is, of course, why the Spanish plan to use JC1 as either an LHD or a carrier, with a spell in port in between, to offload what isn't wanted & load & fit what is, including specialised mission modules for the carrier role) No swing-role, no switching roles when deployed, no sailing equipped for both: strictly one role per deployment.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
that article is a load of bollocks. I've never seen so many people giggling at how far of base it was...

now we're going to have to put up with not only people quoting it as fact, but we'll have a series of gems for the next 4 years.

- 400 fighters (ROFLMAO - sure thing, esp since we've got the efficiency dividends to deal with - and big ticket items are now highly vulnerable - let alone building an airforce the size of Sth Koreas...)
- Aircraft carriers? LOL see above
- F-22's? sure thing, just don't tell people that it has to go through congress for an Obey change, State Dept for ITARs issues and has to be made within 5 months so that they can change the prod line requirements - and lets not forget the USAF needs theirs first.
- export F-22's? ROFLMAO. Yeah, lets ask for an F-22 with export rated arrays, what a bargain
-30 subs? we can't even crew 6

broadsheet journos in australia are first class muppets

some bright spark still hasn't worked out that even if they get rid of all the suits and just have the uniforms, that they still wouldn't reach the efficiency dividend. guess what will happen then???

give me strength.....
 

Sea Toby

New Member
I am sure if the Aussie's wanted to pull off such a stunt, previous planning would have provided container ships which could carry the multi-mission container, fuel would be off-loaded and loaded with barges, and cranes could be provided by crane ship. Remember WWII Normandy's landings and the Mulberry ships to provide a harbor. While I was being silly, never say never. If you can't bring the ship to a drydock, drydocks can be tugged to the LHDs. You have heard of floating drydocks?

Of course, I don't think the Aussie's would ever think of doing such a stunt. But the rest of us can dream?
 
Last edited:

Sea Toby

New Member
Probably cuts across the board, from personnel to new equipment programs. Do enough cutting and you'll eventually reach your spending goals. The suits will never cut themselves out of the picture.

I only hope the suits don't cut out transports, whether in the air, sea, or land based.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Or better:idea3 , use all three as LHDs, and after unloading, fly a carrier air group to one, switching one to a carrier. :D or three carrier air groups to all three, switching all three to carriers.:D :D :D FLEXIBILITY! Three does sound better than two. :lol2
I dont think so mate. What you can do if you have an air group large enough to rotate is keep one on station and rotate the lot, just like every other multiple carrier force on the plannet & what spain intends to do (of cource this would hurt the whole sea lift capability, LHD thing). If we decided to buy 40x F-35B's, 9x NH-90 AEW's and all the other bits and pieces then we could run 3 concurrently (we would if Ross Babbage has anything to do with it, & the other 6~8 escorts & 3~4 fleet oilers needed to run 3 battlegroups:D ).

Anyway the most likely use of the LHD aviation support vessel would be in the brigade+ deployment into a real, no kidding shooting war (not nessisarily state on state). The firepower & flexibility F-35B brings to the theater should not be taken lightly. Apart from provideing fleet air defence the CAS capability alone is prcatically worth the investment IMO. 155mm arty is great but theres nothing like a precicely delivered Mark 84 warhead to ruin ones appitite for a fight!
 

Ragusian

New Member
How 'bout a stripped Cavour class CV to supplement the 2 Cannberras, if RAN really wants an aircraft carrier? They're roughly the same size, and Cavour can carry vehicles(and unload them) and marines in an secondary LPH role.
 

Grandstrat

New Member
that article is a load of bollocks. I've never seen so many people giggling at how far of base it was...

now we're going to have to put up with not only people quoting it as fact, but we'll have a series of gems for the next 4 years.

- 400 fighters (ROFLMAO - sure thing, esp since we've got the efficiency dividends to deal with - and big ticket items are now highly vulnerable - let alone building an airforce the size of Sth Koreas...)
- Aircraft carriers? LOL see above
- F-22's? sure thing, just don't tell people that it has to go through congress for an Obey change, State Dept for ITARs issues and has to be made within 5 months so that they can change the prod line requirements - and lets not forget the USAF needs theirs first.
- export F-22's? ROFLMAO. Yeah, lets ask for an F-22 with export rated arrays, what a bargain
-30 subs? we can't even crew 6

broadsheet journos in australia are first class muppets

some bright spark still hasn't worked out that even if they get rid of all the suits and just have the uniforms, that they still wouldn't reach the efficiency dividend. guess what will happen then???

give me strength.....
I don't think it is the australian's fault, Babbage wrote this in in the Kokoda Foundation Security Challenge series. I know the canberra times reported it too, expressing similar scepticism.

You wonder about the people advising the government.
 
Just a query as to the Canberra Class LHD and the armament it will have...
why is the RAN moving away from major surface combatants having CIWS? i know that it has been touched on previously by tas i believe... but are 4 x 25mm navalised bushmaster going to be enough for the new LHD? seems a bit strange for mine that the RAN is placing such faith on the new Hobart AWD to provide cover, but there will be times when the LHD wont have the protection of the AWD?
maybe i am missing something here... but if we are going to spend such large amounts of money on key defence assets would it really hurt to slap a few Phalanx CIWS or RAM CIWS on the new LHD??
if someone could let me know exactly how good the 25mm bushmaster actually is that would be great, having a bit of trouble finding info.

cheers
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Just a query as to the Canberra Class LHD and the armament it will have...
why is the RAN moving away from major surface combatants having CIWS? i know that it has been touched on previously by tas i believe... but are 4 x 25mm navalised bushmaster going to be enough for the new LHD? seems a bit strange for mine that the RAN is placing such faith on the new Hobart AWD to provide cover, but there will be times when the LHD wont have the protection of the AWD?
maybe i am missing something here... but if we are going to spend such large amounts of money on key defence assets would it really hurt to slap a few Phalanx CIWS or RAM CIWS on the new LHD??
if someone could let me know exactly how good the 25mm bushmaster actually is that would be great, having a bit of trouble finding info.

cheers
I couldn't agree more about the need for ESSM and/or RAM on the Canberras. I don't understand the RAN's reasons for apparently moving away from CIWS for its surface combatants other than speculating that it may involve cost, manpower or topweight issues. However, one of the Phalanx mounts has received funding to be upgraded so this may indicate an intent to recycle the nine existing mounts in the RAN inventory.

AFAIK the ships will have four x 25mm Typhoon (with the 25mm Bushmaster cannon) along with the Toplite system. Toplite is a 'highly stabilized, multi-sensor, electro-optic targeting & observation payload used in the search and tracking of naval and airborne targets during the day, at night and in all weather conditions. The Toplite originates from the well-known Litening navigation and targeting pod.'

I am confident in the ability of Typhoon to deal with threats from small waterborne targets and it should have some capability against airborne targets like helos and light aircraft. However, I don't know how effective it would be against modern jet strike aircraft or missiles.

Have a look at the following site for more info:

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/typhoon/Typhoon.html

Tas
 

Sea Toby

New Member
The Typhoons will give the LHDs plenty of fire power against limited threats: small boats and helicopters. Their escorts RAMs, ESSMs, and SM-3s, among others, I would not underestimate their capabilities. The Aussies do have a number of Phalanx CIWS that they easily and quickly distribute and install to deploying ships. I am sure the Aussie's will include the Canberra LHDs. At a later date, the Aussies may order more Phalanx CIWS, or RAMs eventually to install on more ships. As I recall either Australia or New Zealand, or both, did not acquire new Mk 32 ASW torpedo tubes for their Anzac frigates, using old ones removed from earlier Leander and River class frigates. I think many of us are Monday morning quaterbacking the RAN.

It has also been my experience the Phalanx CIWS is turned off when in home port. Too many cases of innocent birds have been shot down. It is best to turn them on at sea.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Tasman, you are right about the gun on HMAS Perth, this unit was installed at Williamstown for crew training for all of the other vessels of the class.
As Perth was the last of the class it was installed on it after crew training.
They also have a Mk45 Mod2 installed at the Anzac training centre over here at Stirling. It has been here since 2005, not sure where it came from before that.
Cheers.
 

rossfrb_1

Member
I couldn't agree more about the need for ESSM
snip
Have a look at the following site for more info:

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/typhoon/Typhoon.html

Tas
Actually there is a GSA (gun + SAM {mistral ?}) version listed in that link. You would like to think that it would be a relatively easy upgrade from the gun only version.
I do not know. But it would certainly provide a bit more clout as a CIWS.
Also referring back to post #973 by Alexsa
"It will be interesting to sea what happens to the Mk41 launchers off the
FFG frigates one they are replaced noting the LHD will have the same SAAB
combat system as the ANZAC and has space for Mk41
(according to the Navantia web site at least)."

I like that way of thinking.

here's one link listing some of the Canberra's proposed featutes
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-canberra-class-lhds-03384/
If this article is accurate, then there will be the saab 9LV combat management system and Sea Giraffe AMB radar.
although

"...Though they will share Saab’s 9LV combat system with the ANZAC Class frigates, their Sea Giraffe AMB radars will be slated for aviation control, not missile or naval targeting. This situation could be improved in future by mounting phased array CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT radars..."


rb
 
Last edited:

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why do we have to question the Navy Chief who wants a bigger stronger navy, what we back the guy whose happy with just a coast guard?
Strange feeling across base with the budget cut announcement, alot of ppl worried bout our future and could end up guards....Yay!....
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Why do we have to question the Navy Chief who wants a bigger stronger navy, what we back the guy whose happy with just a coast guard?
Strange feeling across base with the budget cut announcement, alot of ppl worried bout our future and could end up guards....Yay!....

the uniforms are protected from cuts
 
I couldn't agree more about the need for ESSM and/or RAM on the Canberras. I don't understand the RAN's reasons for apparently moving away from CIWS for its surface combatants other than speculating that it may involve cost, manpower or topweight issues. However, one of the Phalanx mounts has received funding to be upgraded so this may indicate an intent to recycle the nine existing mounts in the RAN inventory.

AFAIK the ships will have four x 25mm Typhoon (with the 25mm Bushmaster cannon) along with the Toplite system. Toplite is a 'highly stabilized, multi-sensor, electro-optic targeting & observation payload used in the search and tracking of naval and airborne targets during the day, at night and in all weather conditions. The Toplite originates from the well-known Litening navigation and targeting pod.'

I am confident in the ability of Typhoon to deal with threats from small waterborne targets and it should have some capability against airborne targets like helos and light aircraft. However, I don't know how effective it would be against modern jet strike aircraft or missiles.

Have a look at the following site for more info:

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/typhoon/Typhoon.html

Tas
thanks tas :) you always can be relied upon for great info - makes my uni study breaks much more exhilirating :p

yeh it does look like a very capable system, no doubt about that - seems to be a fairly popular theme with a number of modern navies to employ these systems albiet combined with other forms of layered defence.

while we are on the topic of the LHD - what kind of helo mix would be expected to be utilised from them? i am talking in terms of standard peacetime operations - surely there would be a desired type and quantity of helo's on board at any given time to maintain flexibility and functionality?

correct me if i am wrong, but the demise of the Sea Sprite program will leave quite a substantial hole in the ANZAC capability until a suitable replacement is found (NH-90, or is the RAN going to pursue alternative options??)...

what would the helo mix be on board a Canberra Class LHD that was partaking in say a middle east style deployment similar to Manoora and Kanimbla in 2003?

cheers
anthony
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Quite a bit more than the LPAs. The Wiki says 16 helicopters, with 6 landing spots. Each Canberra Class LHD ship will have the ability to carry 1,221-1,403 personnel (243 crew, 978 troops, up to 36 additional crew and/or 146 troops), with 6 helicopter landing spots and a mix of troop lift (S-70 Blackhawk or NH90 TTH), naval (NH90 NFH) and armed reconnaissance (Eurocopter Tiger ARH) helicopters carried inside. By comparison, the Kanimbla Class LPAs carry 450 troops and can accommodate only 4 helicopters.

I would think 12 NH-90s or Blackhawks, with 4 Tigers as the standard mix. Possibly more with flight deck parking.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
while we are on the topic of the LHD - what kind of helo mix would be expected to be utilised from them? i am talking in terms of standard peacetime operations - surely there would be a desired type and quantity of helo's on board at any given time to maintain flexibility and functionality?

correct me if i am wrong, but the demise of the Sea Sprite program will leave quite a substantial hole in the ANZAC capability until a suitable replacement is found (NH-90, or is the RAN going to pursue alternative options??)...

what would the helo mix be on board a Canberra Class LHD that was partaking in say a middle east style deployment similar to Manoora and Kanimbla in 2003?

cheers
anthony
I think Sea Toby's guess of an army air group made up of a mix of 12 x MRH-90s and 4 x Tiger ARHs would be close to the money for an LHD deploying to an operational area, if it is transporting and sustaining an army battle group. A couple of CH-47D Chinooks or naval S-70B Seahawks (to provide organic ASW protection) might be carried instead of some of the MRH-90s. A ships flight of 1-2 naval MRH-90s would most likely also be embarked.

The air group could be tailored to suit other roles such as disaster relief (for example 4 - 6 MRH-90s and maybe 1- 2 CH-47D Chinooks).

In peacetime I would expect the number of army helos would be varied to suit particular training missions. For a major exercise I would expect the mix to be close to what would be embarked for an operational deployment.

Re the Seasprite cancellation and its effect on the Anzacs it will just mean a continuation of present practice until either the NFH-90 or MH-60R has been ordered and delivered. They will have to continue to share the 16 x S-70B Seahawks with the FFGs. As a result I expect that we can expect to see ships not on deployment sailing without a helicopter on most occasions. It’s rare to see a helo on either an FFH or FFG nowadays when they visit Hobart whereas a few years ago an FFG almost always seemed to have one on board.


Tas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top