I readily do compare online data on various options
one thing they don't show is the approximate cost, which is a major factor in any procurement.
I think you have certainly emphasised your point though, the HSV is not a viable option for the ADF
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
one thing they don't show is the approximate cost, which is a major factor in any procurement.
I think you have certainly emphasised your point though, the HSV is not a viable option for the ADF
Actually it is. You guys are just trying to fit its square peg into a round hole. For the sustainment of the ADAS (the sealift ship role) the HSV type (fast catamaran) is not appropriate. For coastal transport as a replacement for the Balikpanan LCH? Yes it is appropriate.
Bear in mind that the US forces requirement for JHSV does not require much in the way of amphibious (ie over beach) deployment because it is to be a 'fast connector' between different regional ports and ports and sealift ships. However the catamaran design can support a range of over the beach systems including bow ramps.
A have a few questions as to what you are suggesting in regards to ramped operations with high speed craft but I will PM you on the issue.
Define efficent. Do you mean lower cost, lower risk, less fuel used in total, low cost per hour of refuelling. Yes, a F-35A will get a lot further from AAR than a F-35B lillypadding. Thats not the point. In maintaining a persistant presence in a region things are more complicated. One use would be to create a secure zone where we know exactly (more accurate than JORN) everything is, can eye ball situations and can respond with force with in that zone. The AOR would be there supporting ships (AWD, frigates and patrols) anyway. The LHD would be a command post. This is a very likely situation with a very real mission. Take a look at the pirates recently, the huge international naval presence has been ineffective. You simply can't cover that much area. You need aircraft. Im not saying plink pirates with F35's, but it highlights the limitations that can arise.
To AAR in a region say 1000+nm 24/7 from the coast you are going to need several AAR aircraft. You are going to need more maintence and aircraft to keep 3-4 F-35A flying in that region, continously. Eventually it would be more efficent and lower cost to put a LHD there (assuming it is avalible for such a role) and a AOR next to it.
Im not saying its our major priority. Its down the bottom, but we should make aquisitions and plan to be able to develop such capacity. If we ever want a carrier, we can't just buy one. You need to develop skills, processes, know what you need etc.
We need additional Tigers, we need Chinooks, we need a 4th AWD, additional sealift (RoRo + other) we need to sort out so many other issues. However it does not mean we should ignore and rule out any other improvements for the future. Atleast plan for them, planning is cheap. The right time to assess the F-35B is when we have the LHD's and escorts and the F-35B is a known value. Then we can train with forces with the F-35B and find out if they will fit in our force. They may not, there may be more suitable UAV's.
The US Navy has the luxury of buying HSV vessels. They have requirements of ferrying troops and vehicles at Okinawa with Japan, Guam with the Marianas, and throughout the Hawaiian islands, among others. More for civilian/military services than for amphibious assault.
The Hawaiian Super Ferry closed. Those two ships will be leased by the US Navy as well.
Combat presence for resources expended.
Actually what you are talking about is basing F-35Bs on the LHDs. That's not lillypading. Lillypading is a technique mostly used by frigate/destroyers to support maritime helicopters where the helicopter will go to the nearest flight deck (not it's mother ship) to refuel and if need be rearm and continue the mission.
There are very good reasons for not basing F-35Bs on Canberra class LHDs unless the LHD is fully committed to a carrier role and equipped as such.
Yes the description I recently gave more closer to basing, and yes, the more basing you do, the more prepped the LHD has to be as a carrier. The previous is more about lillypadding. If you are talking about covering wide areas of sea and air then lillypadding using the LHD as only refueling points (possibly as rearming points) uses fewer resources because each aircraft can perform its mission without one or several AAR to get back to a airbase. We do not have many airbases, and locations are widely known.
Forward basing of resourcing (not lillypadding) and being able to scramble aircraft reducing flight time to minutes and from hours and thus not having to have aircraft continously in the air.
I still think there is value in being able to lillypad fixed wing aircraft using the LHD. I think there are situations where you get greater combat presence for less expended resources.
We don't have to commit anything at the moment, we should wait until the RN/USMC have F-35B and we can operate with their aircraft to see how feasable the whole project is.
I just think we shouldn't preclude the idea completely.
Forward basing of resourcing (not lillypadding) and being able to scramble aircraft reducing flight time to minutes and from hours and thus not having to have aircraft continously in the air.
I still think there is value in being able to lillypad fixed wing aircraft using the LHD. I think there are situations where you get greater combat presence for less expended resources.
We don't have to commit anything at the moment, we should wait until the RN/USMC have F-35B and we can operate with their aircraft to see how feasable the whole project is.
I just think we shouldn't preclude the idea completely.
This is the point I tried to make, this actually uses more resources than in flight refueling.
First of all the F-35B needs to fly to the LHD which has limited options for where it will be (ie in the ocean). The LHD then needs to stop doing whatever it was doing in terms of deploying amphibious forces to land on the F-35Bs. The F-35Bs themselves need to burn a lot more fuel in VTOL mode to land. Then the LHD needs to have the fuel to provide to the F-35B which then needs to burn lots of fuel to takeoff and get back to altitude. Then the LHD can return to its mission.
On the other hand the F-35A only needs to run to the tanker and then take onboard fuel while remaining at altitude and at a low cruising speed. It can then fly back to the mission. Since the F-35A carries more weapons and fuel than the F-35B (which sacrifices them for VTOL) it needs to tank less than an F-35B would need to lillypad (though IFR would be better for the F-35B even if it was based on the LHD).
It is also much easier to deploy a tanker than an LHD because they are much cheaper and far more mobile. Also IFR is their primary role so you are not diverting a system from what it was intended to do (like an LHD which is there to deploy soldiers over the beach).
There is a reason IFR is a lot more popular with strike fighters than lots of FRAPing (aka lillypading on land). Gravity is a bitch.
Well actually we do. If we want any F-35Bs before 2018 then you really need to order them now. Also the lead times required to train in the capability (VTOL, fixed wing ship landings, ship operation of fixed wing, etc) all would require action to have started a few years ago if you want LHDs operating F-35Bs before 2020ish.
Then of course there is actually nothing to learn from the RN or USMC actually operating F-35Bs. There is no secret that will be revealed when the F-35B goes VTOL. All the parameters are well understood by the F-35 project and the services in question. This information has also been analyzed by the ADF who have rejected operating small groups of F-35Bs from LHDs.
Both of these services (the RN and USMC) are acquiring or have asked for much bigger ships to operate F-35Bs from. The RN will acquire a ~75,000 tonne carrier and the USMC wants the USN to acquire a new LHA that is either much lengthened from the current design (LHD Plug Plus) or has a dual tram flight deck.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lha-r-dual-plug-line1.gif
Plug Plus F-35B LHD
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/lha-r-dual-tram-image124.jpg
Dual Tram F-35B LHD
That they are not interested in flying F-35Bs from a *small* Canberra class LHD is indicative of the kind of consumables support (fuel, weapons) a big, high rate of effort, highly capably platform like the F-35B will burn through compared to the relatively unimpressive Harrier.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,090
don't be too surprised if they send major ships back on OP Resoloute for anti-immigration, with FFGs being main ships deployed, FFH for the gulf, FFG for the North. Our Bookies taking bets on it now. That would be another waste when a OPV/ Corvette could be used for a "mothership" to co-ordinate ACPB in the region and carry when people are picked up, much like customs had with Triton
I was thinking post 2020. Given we would need both our LHD's, and have master the amphibious mission they are going to perform a majority of the time. We will be lucky to have the Tigers operating off the LHD as part of an Amphibious group by 2018. We will be lucky to have our 3 AWD by then.Abraham Gubler said:
They are impressive ships. Looks like the USMC wants something CVF sized.
Slightly off topic but I am at a loss as to how they 'plug' an existing ship in this manner. If the ship had not been built your can certainly stretch the design, however, where a ship si built it is normal to extend the hull amidships at its widest point. Ths means the plug does not interupt the lines of the hull. If you were to plug in the sweep to the bow and sweek and rise to the stern you would end up with an ugly (and weak as far as hull continuiety) zig zag in the lines of the hull.
I and only asume it i a design mod..... anyway back OT
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Here is a RAN-related idea I had, that I wonder about the feasibility and viability of.
Would it be possible and practical for the RAN to have a HSV constructed which would belong to Australia and be able to conduct beach landings with minimal modification when needed, but be largely operated as a civilian ferry?
What I am thinking of is sort of the reverse of what was done with the Jervis Bay when it was STUFT.
The objective of the idea is to have available to Australia a somewhat specialized HSV that under the proper circumstances can provide a useful capability without requiring it to be continuously maintained by the RAN and can also deliver useful service to Australia (and possible revenue via fees, leases, etc) when not required by the RAN.
What I am not certain of is whether or not the required design modifications to enable beaching would prevent worthwhile civilian service and whether the purchase cost would be too high relative to the potential service.
The other key thing behind this idea is that it would not be done to fufill the third vessel replacing the RAN's current amphibious capability. If done, this would be just to be something extra available on an as-needed basis.
-Cheers
Would it be possible and practical for the RAN to have a HSV constructed which would belong to Australia and be able to conduct beach landings with minimal modification when needed, but be largely operated as a civilian ferry?
What I am thinking of is sort of the reverse of what was done with the Jervis Bay when it was STUFT.
The objective of the idea is to have available to Australia a somewhat specialized HSV that under the proper circumstances can provide a useful capability without requiring it to be continuously maintained by the RAN and can also deliver useful service to Australia (and possible revenue via fees, leases, etc) when not required by the RAN.
What I am not certain of is whether or not the required design modifications to enable beaching would prevent worthwhile civilian service and whether the purchase cost would be too high relative to the potential service.
The other key thing behind this idea is that it would not be done to fufill the third vessel replacing the RAN's current amphibious capability. If done, this would be just to be something extra available on an as-needed basis.
-Cheers
I have issue wiht the viability of over beach operations for these vesel andy way. However, most of these ferrys are tailored to specific markets types and any modification the diminished capacity woul dmke then less attractive even from and operating cost perpective.
Add to this the disincentive of having vessel taht will only operate a shuttle route liable to be taken out of trade and the owners need at short notice makes it even less attractive. For the RAN there are very few routes in Australia that use HSC so you may be looking at a long redelivery from somewhere lie the Med. This again reduces utiltiy.
There are enough of these things in the workd for charter andas such I don't see the need to spend 100 to 200million on 900 tonnes (at best) of carring capacity.
the road runner
Active Member
An Article from the Weekend Australian may shed some light on what future platforms,the White Paper brings to the ADF.
D these articles always come out during ANZAC day)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25383010-601,00.html
Future Naval Capability for ADF
No 4th Air Warefare Destroyers
12 new Subs to replace Collins
8x7000 Tonne ships equipped with ballistic missile defence systems similar to the three air warfare destroyers already on order that will eventually replace the Anzac frigates.
A new class of 1500-tonne corvette-size patrol boats able to take a helicopter is slated to replace the Armidale-class vessels from the mid-2020s.
27x Anti Submarine helicopters
8xP-8 Maratine Patrol aircraft and up to 7x Global Hawks UAVs
I am very intrested in the future replacement for the ANZAC Frigates,and have read a few times of a common hull with the AWD.Could this be what we will see in the White Paper?
A replacement of the Armidale Patrol boats with a Corvette-sized patrol boat(with helicopter) will give a greater capability.Is this the right capability?Comments welcomed
The Article was in todays The Weekend Australian
If true the Future White Paper is looking good for the ADF and RAN
D these articles always come out during ANZAC day)http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25383010-601,00.html
Future Naval Capability for ADF
No 4th Air Warefare Destroyers
12 new Subs to replace Collins
8x7000 Tonne ships equipped with ballistic missile defence systems similar to the three air warfare destroyers already on order that will eventually replace the Anzac frigates.
A new class of 1500-tonne corvette-size patrol boats able to take a helicopter is slated to replace the Armidale-class vessels from the mid-2020s.
27x Anti Submarine helicopters
8xP-8 Maratine Patrol aircraft and up to 7x Global Hawks UAVs
I am very intrested in the future replacement for the ANZAC Frigates,and have read a few times of a common hull with the AWD.Could this be what we will see in the White Paper?
A replacement of the Armidale Patrol boats with a Corvette-sized patrol boat(with helicopter) will give a greater capability.Is this the right capability?Comments welcomed
The Article was in todays The Weekend Australian
If true the Future White Paper is looking good for the ADF and RAN
Probably something similar to the Norway's Nansens is ideal at the moment to replace the Anzacs, maybe not with the same sensors. I prefer the layout of their armaments, down low on the main deck and not up high on top of the superstructure. This should help considerably with top weight issues.
It is a nice ship but if we are building F-100 hulls, irrespetive of top hamper, why change.
We would be well placed to evolve the same hull.
The White Paper leak in the Oz says a 7000 tonne ship with BMD capability. This is a full blown Arleigh Burke AEGIS destroyer not a mini Burke (evolved AWD), not a baby Burke (F100) and a fetal Burke (Nansen). So the SEA 5000 Next Generation Combatant (NGC) will be bigger than the AWD not smaller.
battlensign
New Member
battlensign
New Member
On a technical note......
I do not see any difference in combat systems and sensors in the Baby Burke (a 7000 tonne vessel) and ordinary Arleigh Burke Flight IIA's. A BMD capability does imply long range sensors and weapons (i.e an AWD), but my understanding is that if we wanted to spend the (US$200m/6) on upgrading the systems of such a vessel then there was nothing stopping us from having such a capability from a Baby Burke.
Brett.
P.S am I the only one who thinks it doesn't make sense to ignore the 4th AWD and then claim a NGSC of 7000 tonnes with BMD systems? Doesn't this merely imply that 12 Baby Burkes would have been better (possibly along with ~ 20 LCS?)?
I do not see any difference in combat systems and sensors in the Baby Burke (a 7000 tonne vessel) and ordinary Arleigh Burke Flight IIA's. A BMD capability does imply long range sensors and weapons (i.e an AWD), but my understanding is that if we wanted to spend the (US$200m/6) on upgrading the systems of such a vessel then there was nothing stopping us from having such a capability from a Baby Burke.
Brett.
P.S am I the only one who thinks it doesn't make sense to ignore the 4th AWD and then claim a NGSC of 7000 tonnes with BMD systems? Doesn't this merely imply that 12 Baby Burkes would have been better (possibly along with ~ 20 LCS?)?
- Status