Note my comment about being proportional to RN.
eg USN has larger crews as they single task and they tend to have greater fat on issues such as damage control parties.
RAN is closer to RN philosophy - hence proportional
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
eg USN has larger crews as they single task and they tend to have greater fat on issues such as damage control parties.
RAN is closer to RN philosophy - hence proportional
Offshore Combatant Vessel (OCV)...
Certainly seems to put to rest the concerns about the F-100 being selected for the AWD and not having enough capability. As a fleet the RAN should be able to take as much as we can afford. If this is really the case.Abraham Gubler said:
Of course if we had just one more AWD we would be able to properly escort with much greater radar coverage and greater redundancy.
Also while SBMSE is good, I would perfer to have some SM-3 (or atleast be able to aquire it later and have the systems to use it while still having SBMSE) as well. Its quiet possible not everything we need to do is going to be terminal interception. Sm-3 you get the capability to disable Sats and ICBM's before they are directly above you where even a disabled missile is still going to KE kill something. However the cost is prohibitive, we should at least not rule out getting it at a latter stage.
How are they going to save the money? Binning upgrades? More use of simulators? Less operations? Less exercises?
Ah. I misunderstood the comment about the RN.
There seems to be a split in Europe, with France, Denmark & Norway following the same route as the RN/RAN. The larger crew of the F100 in Spanish service shows a different philosophy.
1.I don't know if kilos will be a threat to RAN in the future.
2. India's foreign policy/doctrine is based mostly on non alignment.India will do what is best for its security rather than form an alliance just because the alliance is against china.
246 crew is the max number in F-101 to 104, including fleet command crew onboard, additional marine infantry, and so. Normal number is around 200 people (F-101 made the voyage to Australia with more or less 200 people)
AWD and F-105 crew will be around 180, with a max number of, more or less, 230.
Regards
Not much difference, then. A large part of the apparent difference is due to reporting capacity in one case, & normal crew in the other. We should take care with that in future, as there is often a significant difference between normal crew & capacity, e.g. the Type 45 has accommodation for 60 more than its standard crew.
I've also noticed that aviation crew is sometimes reported separately, & sometimes as part of normal crew. Another potential pitfall.
I've also noticed that aviation crew is sometimes reported separately, & sometimes as part of normal crew. Another potential pitfall.
from Defence Minister outlines Darwin's role - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
If so this makes strategic sense. Most of the key areas for likely deployment are to the north, this would reduce costs and transit times
Darwin habour is more than adequate, there is already considerable defence instrastructure in the area and more importantly where 1st Brigade is based.
It seems the Canberra LHDs will be operate on a regular basis from Darwin (despite likely having Sudney and Perth as home ports); presumably this infrastructure will include facilities for supporting assets. Is this a major change in strategic deployment by basing substantial naval forces in the north?
If so this makes strategic sense. Most of the key areas for likely deployment are to the north, this would reduce costs and transit times
Darwin habour is more than adequate, there is already considerable defence instrastructure in the area and more importantly where 1st Brigade is based.
Last edited:
If you check the White Paper Chapter 9.12 you will find that the 4th AWD has not been ruled out, it is still may get up.
Nomad
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Excellent at using up RAN's fuel allocation in a VERY short amount of time perhaps.
That's about the extent of the excellence, I fear...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Spanish LCM-1E seems to be the LCM of choice for the LHD's...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
So let me get this straight. The ONLY reason for RAN having a surface combatant is to escort it's LHD's, is that right?
One wonders what the RAN frigate has been doing in the Gulf all these years...
By some. I'd wager plenty of those same people think the Typhoon is the most stunning achievement in air combat aircraft, too...
They won't be based in Darwin or Townsville. The facilities are so the two fat ladies can rock up and onload all the vehicles and cargo of the Army landing force. Because Brisbane has major port infrastructure already (the location of the other Army brigade) there is no need for LHD compatible funding there.
Have to disagree with you there. LCACs offer several advantages over LCMs. They do burn a lot more fuel but so do jet fighters compared to prop fighters...
Fuel and load comparison model: the two LHDs are located 25 NM offshore and need to load 1,300 tonnes (between them) to the beachhead.
With four LCACs it will take less than 10 hours and all the cargo will be delivered over the beach dry to solid ground. They will burn 130 tonnes of diesel to do it.
With eight LCMs it will take about 20 hours and all the cargo will be delivered to the beach wet and have to transit the beach zone before making it to solid ground. They will burn 20 tonnes of diesel to do it.
The other key difference is during the 10 hour LCAC mission the LHDs will be free to manoeuvre at their top speed. On the other hand with LCMs the LHDs will be limited to around 2-3 knots as the well dock is flooded down. The flood/dry cycle takes about 2 hours. So the LHD will be a fat juicy target for 20 hours...
At the cost of 110 tonnes of extra fuel per unloading cycle the ADF gets stuff ashore twice as fast, massively increased survivability for the LHD and the assurance that the over the beach deliverables end up useable and not bogged out in the surf.
For a significant increased cost of the LCAC, the LHD will still be a duck for ten hours. The LCAC burns much more fuel compared to a LCM. Whether the LHD is traveling 4 knots or 20 knots isn't going to be much of a factor against missiles. Does the army require the ten hours of savings to unload the LHD's cargo? Does the navy?
Its amazing how engineers embrace expensive toys, whereas the bean counters are more interested in the bottom line and value....
I would like to see the French L-CAT and US LCU (R) designs currently under development be considered as possible options
LCAC would be nice, but I am not sure it is really a great option from an operational cost point of view; mind you I had similar concerns regadring the aquisition of the Abrams over the Challenger and Leopard II options. I guess a case could be made that if there is enough capability enhancement to justify the higher costs of LCACs, but personally I think it is unlikely.
Are you for real? The difference in speed has a huge impact on survivability. With the well dock flooded the LHDs are basically stationary for 20 hours. The enemy can fix its location with a reconnaissance asset and then attack at their leisure. Even keeping 'close' to the shore with a 25 NM stand off the ability to sail at 20 knots enables the LHDs to change their position so if they are detected they will need to be shadowed in order to allow a directed attack.
As to the time savings maybe its not so important in an administrative landing where you are just sending peacekeepers ashore. But for amphibious manoeuvre when you are trying to avoid having the enemy counter attack it is hugely important.
Who cares what the engineers and bean counters 'like'. Its the end user who has to take the combat system into the line of fire. Just about every single weapon, including the LCAC, has been conceived by an operational user.
We can sail ashore in an LCM8 because it was cheap and easy to acquire but one day we might have to pay the butchers' bill... That could be an LHD sunk with 500 people on board, all for the cost of 130,000 litres of diesel per landing cycle (which is under $50,000 to the Government).
I don't doubt their military advantages, I doubt their value for the dollar. During the early 1990s they cost US $22 million each whereas LCM-8s run around US $2 million each.
Being coast guard retired, ten hours is a lot of time near a landing zone. I understand 20 hours is longer, but ten hours isn't a blink either. For much reduced cost in landing craft and fuel, LCMs do the same job although using much more time.
Being coast guard retired, ten hours is a lot of time near a landing zone. I understand 20 hours is longer, but ten hours isn't a blink either. For much reduced cost in landing craft and fuel, LCMs do the same job although using much more time.
If they get a fix in 20 hours what difference dose 10 hours less make.
LCAC are also maintenance pigs they are expensive tricky and complex to maintain unlike landing craft which much simipler
- Status