Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I was under the impression that the initial discussions had begun, or were set to begin shortly (in the next year or two). Looking back at the SEA 4000/AWD project, Phase 1 (Project Definition) was completed some time prior to November 24th, 2004 as that was the cutoff date for submissions (RFP?) to Phase 2 (Design) for consideration. Given that the RAN/ADF/DMO would have needed to come up with criteria to be met in an RFP, and that the designers who made submissions would have needed time to develop or modify designs to meet Australian requirements, I could easily see the very beginning of Phase 1 having started a year or more before (ie. early 2003). In effect, a decade or more before the expected launch of the first in class vessel.
I have a vague recollection of an old thread discussing Oz defence industry and shipbuilding which suggested that there was a roughly 12-14 year gap between when a major vessel replacement programme would be initiated and the commissioning of the first in class. Judging by the history of the AWD so far, that estimate seems to be reasonably accurate to me.
With that in mind, and that the first Anzacs are likely to come due for replacement in the 2020-2022 timeframe, now would be about the time to start discussing just what will replace the Anzac.
-Cheers
t68
Well-Known Member
I am not sure we could as it is in the production slots we have been allocated.
Super’s were to replace F111 not hornets, if it could be done it might be the better way to go, first flight of c model not till 2009 sometime.
All would be a moot point if there’s no carrier to put them on and depending on how mush further and load out it could carry for the extra $$
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
HMAS ANZAC turns 25 in 2021, that means construction of its replacement has to begin in 2018 or 2019.
In regards to the LHD's, regard them as successors to HMAS Sydney, while Sydney was originally of the same class as the melbourne, it kepts it axial deck and other WW2 era stuff rather then being modernized with angled deck etc like the melbourne was. While sydney had a flat deck, that didn't mean she could operate as an aircraft carrier in the 1960's or 70's. However she WAS used in the vietnam to transport troops, think LPH here guys.
The other thing to remember is that the Tigers that will operate from the LHD's probably actually carry a similar level, if not more fire power then the skyhawks that Melbourne carried ever did. And there is nothing to stop the LHD's being used as platforms for ASW helicopters if the RAN ever buys enough (that was the primary role of the Melbourne with its S-2's and Sea Kings anyway).
The only thing i don't like about them is that they have a maximum design speed of 20 knots.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
True except AFAIK Sydney could never deploy an armored battle group ala Canberra. You need a dock for that, and an LCAC ect. These babies are plenty more capable, hence the term LHD (Dock) rather than LPH.
2 small issues with the above:
- AFAIK the A-4G was optimized for the fleet air defence role
- Firepower needs to be viewed in the contemporary threat environment. You need more firepower to have the same target effects nowadays.
t68
Well-Known Member
agree
but it think it should be debated in the RAAF thread if carriers are not built.
I found this thread when i was looking for answers on the capabilty of the F35C
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5711
throws up some good arguments for and against
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Sorry Ozzy, didn't represent myself well.
Sydney was acting like the LPH, not Canberra, though the primary method of moving men will always initially be aviation orientated on the Canberra anyway, since it is limited in the number of landing craft it carries.
In regards to the A4G, it had 4 under wing pylons for carrying the AIM9B. Early sidewinders like the AIM9B were rear aspect only, and by the 1970's a lot of the likely enemy aircraft had semi-active radar guided missiles which could be fired at a frontal aspect. The A4 had to hope it could get in behind the enemy to get a shot in, or use its guns.
Sydney was acting like the LPH, not Canberra, though the primary method of moving men will always initially be aviation orientated on the Canberra anyway, since it is limited in the number of landing craft it carries.
In regards to the A4G, it had 4 under wing pylons for carrying the AIM9B. Early sidewinders like the AIM9B were rear aspect only, and by the 1970's a lot of the likely enemy aircraft had semi-active radar guided missiles which could be fired at a frontal aspect. The A4 had to hope it could get in behind the enemy to get a shot in, or use its guns.
Hmmm, How many and what size landing craft do you think the LHD will carry. I think the BPE capacity in this regard may be greater than you expect.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
4 LCM-8 is not a trivial capability. Each one can put an Abrams on the beach, or a platoon. A Canberra can put a company on the beach every (depending on the position of the LHD's) half an hour. I would expect that is comparable to the aviation component.
AFAIK the only western carrier fighter/interceptor which could operate a SARH missile (AIM-7) was the F-4, and that baby was waaaay to big for 'Little M'. Anyhoo before the R-27 was introduced Russian beam riding/SARH missiles were pretty piss poor. Even though technically it gave them an all aspect capability, i don't think they rendered the A-4G useless. In a clear air mass, an A-4G would gave given a MiG-21 a run for its money (with an RAN pilot) and was defiantly odds on vs a MiG-17. In any case as a fleet air defence role meant the primary threat in those days was a bomber, not tac air.
t68
Well-Known Member
I came across this model that was built for ASC, I did bit of a search but could not find anything about it.
Was it something off a wish list for more work or did RAN look in to the idea of a fast attack boat?
Here is a model built for ASC
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/ASCKrait.asp
Was it something off a wish list for more work or did RAN look in to the idea of a fast attack boat?
Here is a model built for ASC
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/ASCKrait.asp
From a naval perspective the difference between a F-35B and F-35C is not as huge as it may initally seem.
The range is not usually a massive issue because the carrier can be relocated closer to combat areas, and could have the fuel advantage (even with smaller tanks) than land based aircraft. A carrier can even be located to make use of favourable winds etc. With 3 LHD's it might even be possible to operate F-35b's off two at the same time. With aircraft performing a sortie and returning to the nearest LHD instead back to its take off point. This can also be used in conjunction with land bases in this fashion to increase the sortie rate while minimising costs, flight hours, fuel, pilots and aircraft.
Many missions won't require our 100 F-35's to carry maxium payloads of heavy iron bombs or carpet bombing runs. There aren't that many hardend targets (generally) where we would be tasked to take them out. Hardend targets are a better job for land based aircraft anyway as hardend targets are the stationary kind that are a known quantity. Carpet bombing has also disapeared. Even if that is required of them a F-35B taking off from a land base could "possibly" carry a heavier payload if required (TBC).
The F-35B's is excellently suited to precision guided munitions and A2A. If you look at direct energy weapons the F-35B would also be advantagous.
The UK sees this so even tho it is building two carriers easily capable of CATOBAR, it is still choosing the F-35B which offers other benifits. As are the marines who look like using the F-35B on the USN supercarriers. Sure if your the USN then the C varient becomes ideal but for everybody else the B varient looks to be the ideal choice. (UK, Marines, Italy, Spain, etc)
The F-35C I belive is more expensive than the A and simular price to the B.
16 F-35B's won't make a significant increase in the purchase, and would only provide +'s for australia.
Getting back to the point 3 LHD's provides real capabilities for Australia and her allies. To the point the entire defence force would operate more effectively. They are very flexable ships. If a particular amphibious operation is best done by the air they can deliver substanical numbers very quickly (shy of a Wasp better than a Mistral or other type of vessels). If they need to use the LCM's they can do that very effectively as well. 3 LHD's if surged could land a battalion or battlegroup in an hour. One could be optomised for air operations, and the other two for water operations or combinations there off. I belive it is impossible to operate aircraft while the LCM's are in use? Confirm?
The range is not usually a massive issue because the carrier can be relocated closer to combat areas, and could have the fuel advantage (even with smaller tanks) than land based aircraft. A carrier can even be located to make use of favourable winds etc. With 3 LHD's it might even be possible to operate F-35b's off two at the same time. With aircraft performing a sortie and returning to the nearest LHD instead back to its take off point. This can also be used in conjunction with land bases in this fashion to increase the sortie rate while minimising costs, flight hours, fuel, pilots and aircraft.
Many missions won't require our 100 F-35's to carry maxium payloads of heavy iron bombs or carpet bombing runs. There aren't that many hardend targets (generally) where we would be tasked to take them out. Hardend targets are a better job for land based aircraft anyway as hardend targets are the stationary kind that are a known quantity. Carpet bombing has also disapeared. Even if that is required of them a F-35B taking off from a land base could "possibly" carry a heavier payload if required (TBC).
The F-35B's is excellently suited to precision guided munitions and A2A. If you look at direct energy weapons the F-35B would also be advantagous.
The UK sees this so even tho it is building two carriers easily capable of CATOBAR, it is still choosing the F-35B which offers other benifits. As are the marines who look like using the F-35B on the USN supercarriers. Sure if your the USN then the C varient becomes ideal but for everybody else the B varient looks to be the ideal choice. (UK, Marines, Italy, Spain, etc)
The F-35C I belive is more expensive than the A and simular price to the B.
16 F-35B's won't make a significant increase in the purchase, and would only provide +'s for australia.
Getting back to the point 3 LHD's provides real capabilities for Australia and her allies. To the point the entire defence force would operate more effectively. They are very flexable ships. If a particular amphibious operation is best done by the air they can deliver substanical numbers very quickly (shy of a Wasp better than a Mistral or other type of vessels). If they need to use the LCM's they can do that very effectively as well. 3 LHD's if surged could land a battalion or battlegroup in an hour. One could be optomised for air operations, and the other two for water operations or combinations there off. I belive it is impossible to operate aircraft while the LCM's are in use? Confirm?
winnyfield
New Member
BAE Mark 45 127mm/62cal gun for the AWDs (no surprise) - http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:17db6661-3131-4e8e-a8d4-8511bf58d8ae
If long range precision ammunition (GPS guided >70km) were available, does that change the ship-to-shore fire support debate?
If long range precision ammunition (GPS guided >70km) were available, does that change the ship-to-shore fire support debate?
Well, its hard to say until the RAN has a round of that type in service. I would imagine yes. But it depends on what you are trying to do. Sometimes there is no substitute..
But for well identified targets then it should make them much more formidible. If its just providing fire to an area, then no. But the LHD's with Tigers and hellfires + gun would be ideal in that situation.
I would be also interested in what needs to be updated for these guns to fire these new rounds. And how quickly a round can be programmed and the impact on rate of fire. If they can be programed quickly they might be very useful at sea when striking a not very agile target (ie larger shipping). But shore bombardment at specific targets should be greatly improved.
But for well identified targets then it should make them much more formidible. If its just providing fire to an area, then no. But the LHD's with Tigers and hellfires + gun would be ideal in that situation.
I would be also interested in what needs to be updated for these guns to fire these new rounds. And how quickly a round can be programmed and the impact on rate of fire. If they can be programed quickly they might be very useful at sea when striking a not very agile target (ie larger shipping). But shore bombardment at specific targets should be greatly improved.
wrt the 4th awd, here's some encouraging news
http://www.australiandefence.com.au...objectID/77D52D19-5056-8C22-C9670033C878C126/
"Australian naval build-up flagged
19 Sep 2008
Hot on the heels of news that price and availability for a fourth Aegis system shipset had been sought from US authorities, the Prime Minister has foreshadowed a dramatic expansion of the RAN to counter a military build-up
in the Southeast Asia region.
Addressing the national congress of the Returned Services League, Mr Rudd said nations across Asia were modernising their military forces particularly with more powerful jet fighters and submarines, and that Australia must
respond with its own upgrade.
“We see a substantial arms build-up over time. We need to be aware of the changes taking place. And we must make sure we have the right mix of capabilities to deal with any contingencies that may arise in the future.”
Considering that ASPI has pointed out numerous times how Defence cannot afford its current shopping list in the DCP, this build-up is an interesting plan. Bring on the White Paper!"
*************************************************
Not only might there be financial constrictions, there's also a little matter of crewing. Although I am encouraged that Defence has finally seen fit to start addressing that issue.
I hope that the quality of the new awd's defences are not compromised purely to pay for a fourth.
according to
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/awd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm
"...These capabilities ensure the AWDs have the layered defensive and offensive capability..."
As far as publicly available information - this means SM-2 and ESSM for surface to air. No word on whether something like RAMS will be added to the mix (which I would like to see). I've heard that a lot of modelling has been done to see whether ESSM is good enough to negate the need for a third SAM system. But I don't think that the Hobarts will carry enough ESSMs, unless they squeeze a second MK-41 VLS in somewhere.
rb
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
In regards to the financial aspect, last time i looked, the budget surplus for the coming financial year was expected to be large enough to double the ADF budget and then some.
I'd argue that political imperative is not that it's a Lab state, but that the end game is the value of ASC when it goes for sale.
The other ADF projects aren't getting killed by the AWD's and ASC - they're getting killed for other reasons.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
They will be available in the timeframe the AWD's are being constructed in and yes, they will make a HUGE difference to RAN's NGS capability.
Much like Excalibur has made a HUGE difference to Artillery capability. People don't realise just how inaccurate un-guided artillery/naval guns are. What formerly would have taken dozens, if not hundreds of rounds, now takes 1 or at worst 2 Excalibur rounds.
Naval NGS will be no different...
Building the 4th AWD will almost pay for itself with the sale of ASC. You lock in mainence contracts and a upcomming new generation of submarines and frigates after the AWD and the LHD's and it starts to look like a viable little business. Frigates may have export opportunities with atleast NZ, and the subs I imagine would be export possibilities for Canada and several other countries.
Particularly if the buyer is a well respected defence company, which as a state oddity ASC would have never been considered for. Exports of submarines could be a big winfall.
The 4th AWD has to be built for so many reasons. It makes ASC more attractive, more viable, more valuable. Australia gets a massive boost in the number of avalible AWD's at any one time. The overall number of cells australia would have (particularly useful for SM3/6). The redundancy, the fleet possibilities, etc.
I think the RAN will be very happy if it gets 2 x LHD's, 4 x AWD's, some sort of "sealift ship" to add to its 6 x subs and 8x frigates. That is a decent small blue water navy. A bigger issue is crewing...
Re the 127mm gun. Will there be a smoothbore varient?
Particularly if the buyer is a well respected defence company, which as a state oddity ASC would have never been considered for. Exports of submarines could be a big winfall.
The 4th AWD has to be built for so many reasons. It makes ASC more attractive, more viable, more valuable. Australia gets a massive boost in the number of avalible AWD's at any one time. The overall number of cells australia would have (particularly useful for SM3/6). The redundancy, the fleet possibilities, etc.
I think the RAN will be very happy if it gets 2 x LHD's, 4 x AWD's, some sort of "sealift ship" to add to its 6 x subs and 8x frigates. That is a decent small blue water navy. A bigger issue is crewing...
Re the 127mm gun. Will there be a smoothbore varient?
- Status