The 'flock' of Elbit Skylarks are Commonwealth owned and fully operated (up to 1st line maintenance) by 20 STA Regt. There have been two additional orders of Skylaks with six systems (18 UAVs) provided in the first order. Additional systems (GCS) have been acquired though the number remains classified and there would have been several losses of UAVs. The Scan Eagles are owned by Boeing and provided operational to the Army but 20 STA Regt now provide most of the operational control (originally Boeing provided the 'pilots').
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Canberra Class SPS we have chosen will never carry and operate 20x STOVl/VTOL fighters even in a "combat overload" situation.
We have chosen 2 of these ships, but to think of them carrying 20x fighter aircraft and still being capable of amphibious operations is to fail to understand exactly how these ships are designed, what they are designed for and exactly how much effort is required to support an entire squadron of strike fighter aircraft at sea.
I "hope" so too, but in reality, I don't see it happening. If it were ever going to happen, the chance passed in November 2007 I'm afraid, with the change of Government...
This assumes that our Navy manning can't improve, when recruiting has improved over the last few years and retention rates have improved at the same time, as outlined in our Defence Annual reports.
They need to continue to do so, yes, but Navy has released a pretty comprehensive plan to help do so in recent weeks.
Economic conditions are more conducive at present too...
C-17's give us this capability too. If we need this fast force, I'd rather additional C-17 capability.
Our dployability will increase enormously when the LHD's are in-service. Personally I'd rather a 3rd LHD to any sort of "fast sea lift ship" but I don't think the coin will be provided.
At best we might get a barely modified civilian Ro-Ro ship to assist the LHD's.
Not ideal, but then it rarely ever is when it comes to Australian Defence capability.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand it, the RAN/ADF has the IP rights to the Hobart-class AWD. With that in mind, as well as the possibility that the Anzac follow-on frigate might share a common hull with the AWD, additional Hobarts could be ordered in the future.
I am thinking of something like a "Flight II" order of an improved Hobart(s) which might appear in the 2020 timeframe, or possibly upon completion of the Anzac follow-on build cycle.
Depending on the situation, additional orders could be placed while the current three are undergoing their build cycle, or if a future need arises the order might get placed later.
OTOH the government of the day might decide that more Hobarts are not called for, and therefore never look at various paths to getting more added to the fleet.
-Cheers
I am thinking of something like a "Flight II" order of an improved Hobart(s) which might appear in the 2020 timeframe, or possibly upon completion of the Anzac follow-on build cycle.
Depending on the situation, additional orders could be placed while the current three are undergoing their build cycle, or if a future need arises the order might get placed later.
OTOH the government of the day might decide that more Hobarts are not called for, and therefore never look at various paths to getting more added to the fleet.
-Cheers
Sorry LPD..... as in dock? Submerge the back end of these things with a dock and it will not be a 'seacat'. Following on from that...
Well part of our area as most HSV bases transport vessels only have seated accomodation for the troops. For island within 12 hours sailing it is quite brilliant at getting troops there fast, however, it needs facilities to unload vehicles and it cannot support them.
Given the cost and operating restrictions (weight, sea state and so forth) of high speed hulls this would this would be a poor use of funds for a navy like the RAN where greater flexibility is required from our platforms.
As such I completely concur with AD
As this will get them there even quicker.
While the high speed ferry worked well with the one of the closest neighboring foreign islands to Australia, their worth wouldn't have been as worthy with Fiji or Samoa. To gain the required range, their high speed would not have been used. A cheaper slow freighter or ro/ro ship would have done the job as well. In my mind the ADF will find slow ro/ro ships more handy overall than fast ferries.
I don't see permanently embarking 20 F-35B's on the LHD as a possibility. However it is possible for a F-35B to fly from a Raaf base, refuel/rearm two or three times off a LHD and then fly back to the airbase. They can significantly extend loitering and patrolling times out at sea. They can have two or three sitting on deck, waiting to be scrambled saving an hour or two flight time in emergency situations and as a deterent.
Its not ideal, but enough to assist in escorting, patrolling, gathering intel and as a short notice strike asset. The 35 sensors are going to be extremely valuable intel gathering, a flight pass of a single F-35 will tell you enormous amounts about the combat situtation, and allow guided 500lb bombs to deactivate bridges, coms, hardend defences, helicopters (missile), heavy vechicals, airfields etc and its stealthy and a naval launched aircraft could come from any direction. However your limited in that you can only operate near Australian land bases, basically in the region.
In combination with a cavour type carrier (which is only really designed to have 12 F-35 aircraft max 20 would be more like a QE carrier!) or a 3rd LHD (slightly more aviation biased say without a dock), you get the ability to strike from another vector, much further away for much longer periods of time and out of region. You own the airspace where ever it is and makes performing missions at longer distances far safer than through extended refuelling. Sortie rates go through the roof and its a massive force multipler. Australia could then operate completely independantly. Plus you get additional sealift and amphibious capability. While not directly needed now we should build a force that doesn't preclude its inclusion. This role could be filled by an allied ship (USN, USMC, RN, etc). But we should wait and see what we require and what capabilities UAV's will have and if the money/need will be avalible.
With what we are getting (2 LHD) I think 12 F-35B's would be a very useful purchase (take it from the total F-35 purchase). Not to permanently embark on the LHD, but to be used in conjunction with the LHD when they are operating in our region.
As inteligence and patrolling aircraft when the LHD are not operating an amphibious assault would allow Australia to search and scan (and respond in) vast regions of sea and air. 450nm in all directions from each LHD. You could make a 1800nm+ "barrier" in which regular patrols are carried out (every 1 of that 1800nm is flown over every hour).
You can do this without any refueling aircraft so this barrier is in addition to patrols conducted by SH/F35A from bases. This barrier can be beyond 500-600nm off the coast infact building a loop you could easily station it off 900nm from the coast creating a 900nm x 1800nm x 900nm box (or arc) with out a single air refueling asset just using the few measly F-35B and using its combat radius, using the ferry radius in peace time and you can spread things out a whole lot more (say 40% more thats 1300x2500x1300 box or arc). That sort of box would have short sides covering from Brisbane to (nearly) Fiji, the long side would be over 4,500km.This is just on internal fuel, add some drop tanks and .
But the greatest value is you can have aircraft forward based (sitting) on those LHD 24/7 waiting to respond/operate and not have a long flight with refueling needed atleast twice and high sortie rates from those LHD decked aircraft but backed up by land based aircraft doing the hard refuelling runs loaded with tanks.
Add land based F-35A/SH (patrolling the sizes etc) and you can extend this box to be absolutely enormous, with basic refueling it becomes a significant global sized box. You don't need your air refuelling assets sitting way out at sea, flying uneconomical missions, unprotected where every refuel is a life and death mission and hence impossible to regularly patrol or protect or gather hard intel for.
The LHD and F-35B allow us to easily and continously safely operate where it is currently very very difficult for us to currently operate. We can operate in this impossible region everyday, closing the air/sea gap completely.
Well the 4th AWD doesn't have to be ordered NOW. Its quiet feasable to be able to order it in the next term of government. Its still on the cards (although with a slightly lower chance). Given that we are going to build 3 AWD and fit out two LHD's there is enough slack that we can extend the later builds and draw it out longer to make a decision. At that time the budget, recruitment and value may be a lot clearer and the navy can make a stronger argument. The whole idea of the 4th was an incentive build anyway, only to be built if the project was on track. Plus it adds value to ASC. In fact it may be prudent to hold off as by the time the 4th AWD is to be built new technologies may be able to be incorperated or purchased which may be easier if the ship is slight reconfigured or wired during the build.
When the Australians bought the MEKO 200s they were a good general purpose frigate design. When the Norwegians bought their Nassens ten years later they were a good general purpose frigate design, in my opinion better than the MEKOs. I am sure ten years from now there will be another better general purpose frigate design available.
While the Juan Carlos I will be used as a light carrier when their other light carrier is undergoing a long mid-life refit, to do so she will have to undergo a few changes which won't be done on the fly at sea. There is the matter of spare parts storage, maintenance equipment, armament storage and lifts, fueling equipment and storage. Sure the air group crew can use troop accommodations, and aircraft can be hangered on vehicle decks. These changes can not be made at sea on the fly.
Can another ship be built with these changes, yes. Will Australia do so, not at the price. Frankly, an LHD is more usefull than a light carrier. Back in the past I thought the Sydney was more usefull than the Melbourne. Without the Sydney I doubt whether Australia could have done as much as they did during Vietnam.
While its true wars are fought at the front, wars can also be lost at the back end as well. Without well fed and supported troops, troops lose effectiveness. Ask the Germans at Stalingrad.
While the Juan Carlos I will be used as a light carrier when their other light carrier is undergoing a long mid-life refit, to do so she will have to undergo a few changes which won't be done on the fly at sea. There is the matter of spare parts storage, maintenance equipment, armament storage and lifts, fueling equipment and storage. Sure the air group crew can use troop accommodations, and aircraft can be hangered on vehicle decks. These changes can not be made at sea on the fly.
Can another ship be built with these changes, yes. Will Australia do so, not at the price. Frankly, an LHD is more usefull than a light carrier. Back in the past I thought the Sydney was more usefull than the Melbourne. Without the Sydney I doubt whether Australia could have done as much as they did during Vietnam.
While its true wars are fought at the front, wars can also be lost at the back end as well. Without well fed and supported troops, troops lose effectiveness. Ask the Germans at Stalingrad.
Last edited:
The LHD is a massively valuable asset and something we have needed for a long time. With out the LHD we have no useful amphibious assets.
The great thing about the JCI is that it can land, refill and launch a F-35B. Sure it can't operate them when its loaded to the gills as an amphibious ship pre assault, and it doesn't have all abilities of a carrier. But in terms of refueling, launching, landing and storing say 3 or 4 planes 1000 nm at sea it can do that fairly easily with minimal modification. It doesn't have the fuel bunkerage to do this for many planes (maybe 1 or 2) in its current form but it can do it and you get more options than A2A refueling. You would need a fleet oiler following the LHD around for amphibious missions or carrier missions, I think we should also think about additional fleet oilers.
Acting as a lillypad for F-35B should be feasable. All maintence, inspection, etc will occur on a land base. The JC1 does have a weapons lift. Even as a pure LHD, weapons will need to be stored on ship (minimal for an fixed wing aircraft however).
If used with its limitations in mind, F-35B's can be used in conjunction with the LHD's. We don't need many, 12 F-35B's would be great, but 8 would still be useful. 2 in maintence, 6 avalible. Not assigned to the LHD but refueling and landing on them from time to time yes. Not just F-35B's but operating UAV's from them will allow better patrol of the waters off Australia.
Can't wait until we get them, will be pride of our fleet.
Lillypading a land based F-35B off a LHD is far LESS efficient than using in-flight refueling of an F-35A. Even factoring in the ability to reload weapons the loss of flexibility, the waste of fuel burnt for landing and takeoff and the limitations it places on the LHD far outweigh any advantages. This is a system (LHD aircraft carrier) in search of a mission.
battlensign
New Member
Totally agree.
In relation to F-35 enabled LHDs: Love the idea - unsure of the mission.
12 Tigers would be more effective, to my mind. It is hard to envisage a scenario where 12 F-35Bs are the answer. Anything in the region (or beyond) requiring that type of coercive airpower would be subject to strategic strike. Anyone not concerned by 12 Tigers is not going to be a purely expeditionary target of the AASG and SCFEG (or whatever the new merged structure will be in the NGN), it will be a national strategic target and so the RAAFie chappies will likely be along for the ride. 'Overpasses' of Fiji as demonstrations of power may be fun, but are expensive and would achieve little. It's fundamentally for that reason I believe that the 'full' 100 JSF (and ideally 120) are necessary, with additional MRTTs (3) - despite current pilot shortages.
I agree Australia needs a Light Carrier (CVL) but it needs to be either in the form of an Extra LHD specifically configurable for such a role or an extra ship of Cavour type. Anything less merely detracts from the LHDs ADAS (and Support) role. I see such a carrier as being necessary to ensure the ability of the RAN (in deploying the ADAS force) to eject opposition from bases in the region used by external powers, in conjunction with strategic/precision strike from the RAAF and RAN Tomahawks. I envisage such a force as part of a powerful 'fleet in being' alongside and enlarged SSG force (12). However, the pollies are not going to fund all of that and Tigers from the LHD can provide a close-support role ordinarily the task of carrier airpower. Let us be clear about this. The CVL type ship, if ever acquired would be primarily concerned with the support of the ADAS force objective of taking the ground and subduing hostile forces present. The role of any such base (either for Air or Maritime power projection) would be left for strategic strike to counter. Any ancillary benefits of having a CVL with F-35B airpower (carrier strike etc) would be just that and purely fortuitous only.
Brett.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I can see a limited number of scenarios where having a few (between 1-4) F-35Bs embarked upon an LHD being more effective than relying upon land-based F-35As from mainland Australia and AAR. These generally revolve around situations where some form or air interception or interdiction is needed, which would take entirely too long for an aircraft to fly from Australia. The other situation which comes to mind is if airstrikes or CAS were sometimes needed using either larger, or more specialized munitions than those which the Tigers can utilize.
Edit: I realised I had left out the distances... The distance where I can see this begining to occur is operations some 1500-2000+ n miles from Australian bases.
As a practical matter though I do not see the situation coming up too often. I would expect that if the situation were such that some form of CAP was required, the RAN/ADF would make up a contigent of a larger multi-national coalition task force. Such a force IMO would certainly involve the US and/or the UK and they could arrange for the required fixed-wing air contingent.
The other situations which come to mind where the ADF would want/need fixed wing air support would likely be dealt with by Army establishing ground control of sufficient facilities to act as an airfield or air base. Having achieved this, a RAAF contingent could then operate in theatre.
Being something of a traditionalist, as well as restoring some historical units, it would be nice if the RAN could get a 12 fighter sqd for F-35Bs to restore the fixed wing FAA.
-Cheers
Last edited:
And what does this have to do with lillypading? Nothing... So please remove the quote of my comment from your post as it makes it appear your comment is in response to mine about lillypading.
battlensign
New Member
LHD's
The LHD's as i was hoping would have this fixed wing component on them even if it is 4 -12 F-35B's it would enable a major force amplifier both in being able to provide SEAD, CAR, CAS and over the horizan fleet air - defence/offense. Even in limited number embarked on a LHD the flight times from a conflict are dramitically reduced and the requirement from ground forces for air-strikes could be co-ordinated from the LHD's.
While Tiger helicopters are very capable, there is no substitue for fixed wing aircraft, if the opposition has a capable SAM platform.
I think using the LHD's as a re-arming/fueling station would be useless, its not efficent enough to have the fuel/ammo and parts if needed. My vision for the LHD's is for large helicopter number of both attack and support but also to have this F-35B complement in enough number (ideally 8 - 12) to provide Fleet air defence/offensive strike capability and to support the troops on the ground.
The Seacat or HSV ship would be ideal in the Southeast pacific thearter however its capability beyond this is limited. But i still believe we need some sort of other amphibious ship (preferably fast) to support our LHD's and increase our amphibious capability to be able to land and support a battalion of troops.
The LHD's as i was hoping would have this fixed wing component on them even if it is 4 -12 F-35B's it would enable a major force amplifier both in being able to provide SEAD, CAR, CAS and over the horizan fleet air - defence/offense. Even in limited number embarked on a LHD the flight times from a conflict are dramitically reduced and the requirement from ground forces for air-strikes could be co-ordinated from the LHD's.
While Tiger helicopters are very capable, there is no substitue for fixed wing aircraft, if the opposition has a capable SAM platform.
I think using the LHD's as a re-arming/fueling station would be useless, its not efficent enough to have the fuel/ammo and parts if needed. My vision for the LHD's is for large helicopter number of both attack and support but also to have this F-35B complement in enough number (ideally 8 - 12) to provide Fleet air defence/offensive strike capability and to support the troops on the ground.
The Seacat or HSV ship would be ideal in the Southeast pacific thearter however its capability beyond this is limited. But i still believe we need some sort of other amphibious ship (preferably fast) to support our LHD's and increase our amphibious capability to be able to land and support a battalion of troops.
HSV-1 Swift
Displacement: 1,668 tons full, 940 tons standard
Length: 321.5*ft (98.0*m)
Beam: 88.6*ft (27.0*m)
Draught: 11.15*ft (3.40*m)
Propulsion: Caterpillar 3618 marine Diesel engines
Speed: Max: 53+ mph (85+ km/h or 45+ knots)
Operating: 34+ mph (55+ km/h or 30+ knots)
Range: 4,000+ miles (6,500 kilometers/3,500+ nautical miles)
Capacity: Approximately 605 tons (615 metric tons); approximately 28,740 sq ft. (2,670 square meters) cargo deck, 890 lane meters
Complement: Approximately 42; berthing for 107 with additional temporary berthing for 87 when seating is converted
L-421 Canterbury
Displacement: 9000 tonnes (full load)
Length: 131 metres
Beam: 23.4 metres
Draft: 5.4 metres
Propulsion: CODADE (Combined Diesel and Diesel Electric) consisting of 2 Wartsila Engines @ 4.5MW, 3 x Auxiliary diesels, 2 x Bow Thrusters
Speed: Baseline speed 19.60 knots Economical speed 16 knots
Range: 8000Nm at 16 knots
Boats and landing craft carried: 2 x medium landing Craft (23 m) Displacement: 55 tonnes (empty) 100 tonnes (full load),[2] Crew: 3
2 x RHIB (7.4 m), 300 HP, Range: 130 NM[3] Speed: 35 knots or
2x special forces RHIB (11 m) as optional cargo
Vehicle deck: 403 lane meters
Complement: 360[4]
Core crew: 53 Naval, 10 Air Force, 7 Army; 35 trainees, 4 gov. agency
Troop lift: 250 troops
Armament: 1 x Remote Controlled MSI DS25 Stabilized Naval Gun with 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon; 2 x .50 calibre machine guns; Small arms
Aircraft carried: 1 x SH-2G Seasprite helicopter; 4 x NH90 helicopters
----------------------------
Which ship would you prefer if they were the same price?
HSV-1 Swift US $160 million
L-421 Canterbury US $110 million.
The HSV may have a speed advantage, with everything else the Canterbury has the advantage. While it appears the fast ferry has more vehicle space, when you include the Canterbury's hangar and flight deck her vehicle space doubles at the cost of her helicopters.
And Austal employees wonder why the Kiwis bought the ship built by Tenix/Merwede?
Displacement: 1,668 tons full, 940 tons standard
Length: 321.5*ft (98.0*m)
Beam: 88.6*ft (27.0*m)
Draught: 11.15*ft (3.40*m)
Propulsion: Caterpillar 3618 marine Diesel engines
Speed: Max: 53+ mph (85+ km/h or 45+ knots)
Operating: 34+ mph (55+ km/h or 30+ knots)
Range: 4,000+ miles (6,500 kilometers/3,500+ nautical miles)
Capacity: Approximately 605 tons (615 metric tons); approximately 28,740 sq ft. (2,670 square meters) cargo deck, 890 lane meters
Complement: Approximately 42; berthing for 107 with additional temporary berthing for 87 when seating is converted
L-421 Canterbury
Displacement: 9000 tonnes (full load)
Length: 131 metres
Beam: 23.4 metres
Draft: 5.4 metres
Propulsion: CODADE (Combined Diesel and Diesel Electric) consisting of 2 Wartsila Engines @ 4.5MW, 3 x Auxiliary diesels, 2 x Bow Thrusters
Speed: Baseline speed 19.60 knots Economical speed 16 knots
Range: 8000Nm at 16 knots
Boats and landing craft carried: 2 x medium landing Craft (23 m) Displacement: 55 tonnes (empty) 100 tonnes (full load),[2] Crew: 3
2 x RHIB (7.4 m), 300 HP, Range: 130 NM[3] Speed: 35 knots or
2x special forces RHIB (11 m) as optional cargo
Vehicle deck: 403 lane meters
Complement: 360[4]
Core crew: 53 Naval, 10 Air Force, 7 Army; 35 trainees, 4 gov. agency
Troop lift: 250 troops
Armament: 1 x Remote Controlled MSI DS25 Stabilized Naval Gun with 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon; 2 x .50 calibre machine guns; Small arms
Aircraft carried: 1 x SH-2G Seasprite helicopter; 4 x NH90 helicopters
----------------------------
Which ship would you prefer if they were the same price?
HSV-1 Swift US $160 million
L-421 Canterbury US $110 million.
The HSV may have a speed advantage, with everything else the Canterbury has the advantage. While it appears the fast ferry has more vehicle space, when you include the Canterbury's hangar and flight deck her vehicle space doubles at the cost of her helicopters.
And Austal employees wonder why the Kiwis bought the ship built by Tenix/Merwede?
Last edited:
And Austal employees wonder why the Kiwis bought the ship built by Tenix/Merwede?
???...where did austal wonder why?
I compared most likely the worst ship option to a HSV, and its better than a HSV. Never-the-less I keep reading how great it would be if the nation of Australia bought a HSV......
Canterbury isn't a much larger ship, has nearly twice the range, load and unload over a beach with landing craft, not to mention she can house helicopters and more troops.
Your welcome to use Wiki and compare others yourself. Copy and paste.
Canterbury isn't a much larger ship, has nearly twice the range, load and unload over a beach with landing craft, not to mention she can house helicopters and more troops.
Your welcome to use Wiki and compare others yourself. Copy and paste.
Last edited:
Where in the "SE Pacific" do you see this happening. The fact is the troops have as the weight penalty for fitting sleeping accommodation for longer voyages means a lot less troops. HSV carft are severely restricted in carrying capacity in mass given their design.
So if your are looking at 12 hours fram a base in Asutralia to the port of unloading the range is severely restricted.
It is just not worth the money for such a niche capability when we can charter these things when we need them.
- Status