Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Crusader2000]

How is that relevant to your desire to prove that you are correct? I know that your desire is to show that Australia should purchase the F-35B.

You should see some of the long posts I write to help people who want to learn get orientated on specific topics. IMO, you want to confirm your preconceived notions. Many people (including moderators) have questioned your reasoning process and attempted to aid it with more information.

I believe that you will believe what you want to believe. We'll see if the RAAF will do that in a few years. Then, at that time, one of us will be right, one of us will be wrong.

Well, first this is just a debate and hardly personal. So, please don't take it as such. Regardless, I am "only" expressing my personal opinion. Which, I "believe" is supported by History and the fact other Navies use STOVL Aircraft in a similar role. (Including the Spain the designer of Australia's forthcoming LHD's)

BTW While I may believe what I want to believe as you say. You also have strong opinions. Which, is fine with me...........But please don't call the "kettle black". As respect goes both ways.

P.S. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

 

[OPSSG]

Well, first this is just a debate and hardly personal. So, please don't take it as such. Regardless, I am "only" expressing my personal opinion. Which, I "believe" is supported by History and the fact other Navies use STOVL Aircraft in a similar role. (Including the Spain the designer of Australia's forthcoming LHD's)

BTW While I may believe what I want to believe as you say. You also have strong opinions. Which, is fine with me...........But please don't call the "kettle black". As respect goes both ways.

P.S. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Let's agree to disagree on this point on the RAN and the F-35B. Thanks.

 

[battlensign]

Okay, let's take this one at a time shall we?

Brett, you should be reading up a little more on the problems of ship to shore maneuver. This way you can have an understanding of the various planning considerations, which would include ISR, CAS, naval gun fire support and attack helicopters, two of which Beagle mentioned in the above post.

Thankyou, but I do know a little about Ship to Shore maneuver.................No Beagle did not cover the implicit point of my comment and I'll show why further below.

If I may be direct, you are looking at the issue from only one dimension.

That's probably got something to do with the fact that CAS is its own dimension............It is not Maritime or Strategic Strike, doesn't (or shouldn't) take hours in response time and does not rely on any dimension other than the Aircraft Carrier, JTACS and the Pilot and aircraft. What Beagle has clearly not understood is the nature of the effects various deployed weapons might create on the battlefield and the advantages of using one munition over another to achieve an objective. A 5-inch shell is not the same as a SDB (or larger) and the effects created differ.

You are also making comparisons without dealing with the differences between the navies and their planning considerations. There are other factors that you need to consider and also the question of context.

I couldn't care less about the contexts of other navies (and I do not care what Muppet-like comparisons are made by others). My comment was limited in scope to the ability of the RAN to support the ADAS force with in theatre organic, fixed wing, CAS in pursuit of the objectives outlined in paras 6.19, 7.6, 7.7, 8.19 and 8.20 of the 2009 DWP.

To get a sense of context, please ask yourself this question.

Q: Can the surface fleet of the RAN operate to insert a landing force without air cover (provided either by allied sources or by the RAAF)?

Please answer the above Qn before we proceed further. I hope you don't mind that I'm asking a question in relation to your question.

The RAN may very well be able to insert a landing force onto an objective having already subjected the target to precision and strategic strike, however I am talking about the ability of the Maritime component to subsequently support those deployed forces ashore in combat against opposition.

I don't mind that your response to my comment is question - I am just not entirely sure your question is relevent.

Brett.

P.S I maintain that my above comments are condition precedent on a 3rd LHD for viability..........

 

[OPSSG]

Okay, let's take this one at a time shall we?

You've done a very good post. I'm really tired and I'm going to bed right now. I try to find some time to respond tomorrow.

 

[battlensign]

You've done a very good post. I'm really tired and I'm going to bed right now. I try to find some time to respond tomorrow.

No worries.........you have had your work cut-out for you tonight!

Brett.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sure sounds like Australia is considering F-35B's to me. At least at some future date........


Canberra class Landing Helicopter Dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are starting to appear to be trolling to me. You have had a number of people respond to you with proper and approp professional insight. You have people who are aware of the politics, logistics and procedures required to prosecute long distance missions, and yet you choose to promote an article from Wki (which is the least credible source in absentia of verified sources) to make a point.

I am losing the thread of moderation generosity that remains. Make the effort to debate at a real world level or we will close the thread.

This is my last on this. Threads are not created for the entertainment value of blundering down a path of self interest. They have to withstand the rigour of sense and logic.

I have told you once - and am in a position to know - that RAN has no intention of getting stumpy JSF's. It's not planned for future ORBAT, the logistics requirements are not triggered., the training requirements are not triggered, the facilities requirements are not triggered. the doctrine development issues are not triggered. All of which require a 5-10 year lead in. Yet we have officers overseas engaged with friendly forces to look at how we employ these for amphib support and small war operations. No one has been sent off to learn about fixed wing combat issues as a doctrine development vector.

You just don't implement STOVL fixed wing combat requirements without triggering other critical paths of influence.

Edit addendum. This post is closing for a few days pending discussion between the Mods.

I suggest that everyone chill and take a reality pill.

I'd also ask that consideration be taken on how some of you choose to engage in theoretical debate.

If you want to discuss the merits of small LHA's used as "small war" centres of gravity for the delivery of combat aircraft in military conflict, then start another thread in the approp area. If you choose to argue your philosophical beliefs on how the RAN is going to get STOVL fixed wing combat by stealth, then those posts are borderline "Area-51" type arguments which should not pollute what is intended to be a factual thread on extant capability issues.

Robust debate is fine, but some of the posts over the last few weeks are becoming a tad tiresome and are polluting the integrity of the "post de main"

gf

 

[AegisFC]

After discussions with the Mod Team any further discussions in relation to Australia acquiring F-35B for use on the future LHA's will cease, any post made on the subject will be deleted and the user banned for a week.

Please continue to enjoy the site and discuss any defence related topics that appeal to you. Just give this one a rest. All similar discussions will be monitored closely from now on.

 

[PeterM]

That is quite reasonable in my opinion.

Hopefully we can get back to discussing relavent issues such as Future Subs, AWDs, Future Frigates. OPVs, etc etc

Lets get the ball rolling again...Has anyone have any information on the options for the LCH replacements?

 

[Crusader2000]

Already dropped?

Well, if you read post number 2621 and 2622. OPPSSG and I agreed to drop the matter. Personally, I sent OPPSSG a Private Message telling him it was not personal and we both agreed to drop the subject. At which time we both did............

For my part I apologize. My intent was not to start anything or offend anyone. Just expressing my personal opinion on the topic at hand.



Regardless, I consider the matter closed and look forward to moving on to another topic.





Sincerely,

Crusader2000

 

[rockitten]

That is quite reasonable in my opinion.
Lets get the ball rolling again...Has anyone have any information on the options for the LCH replacements?

Doesn't our navy is already going to buy the LCH-8 ???

 

[Crusader2000]

Doesn't our navy is already going to buy the LCH-8 ???

Not to ask a dumb question. Yet, what is a LCH-8???

 

[rockitten]

Not to ask a dumb question. Yet, what is a LCH-8???

Na, I have made a mistake, that is the LC"M"-8 that is already in service.....

But if my remember serve me correctly, they do mention new water jet craft that replace LCH/LCM in some article about the Canberra class LPD.....

 

[aricho87]

First of all i'd like to say "My bad" for opening up that last discussion about the LHD's, looks like it really opened up some real feelings from some of our members.

On another point in regards to the direction the white paper has gone, does anyone else in here think that the direction the government has taken to increase the size of sub force wrong.

While i understand that the sub force at the moment is one of our, if not our most leathal weapon come war time, wouldn't it be better to put the funds invested in the subs towards Frigates, destroyers, LHD's or other amphibious ships.

As a sub force is either a deterrant force or a weapon in war, while the surface fleet is more than just a deterreant and weapon in war, they help in disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, goodwill tours (i've never known of a sub entering an enemy harbour as a sign of goodwill, even with tensions between countries). Since for as long as i can remember RAN has been increasingly active in disaster relief in the South West Pacfic and devoating more and more time to this task it seems every year!!!

While Subs are a deadly tool, i believe a surface force is better suited for Australia's needs given the other duties required of them.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well you have to look at the whole picture.

Australia will get:

3-4 AWD completely loaded
2 x LHD
1 x sealift ship yet to be identified
8x 7,000t frigates which we all imagine to be F-105 hulls with AUSPAR/Seamount style radar (ie quiet good)
20 x OCV (~2,000t) Something I would imagine pretty darn good for the EEC area. Not sure but we may keep some/all of our current patrol boats as well.

Plenty of surface vessels there. Plus we can always pair up with NZ, Japan, singapore, USN, RN for additional surface vessels if required.

That seems to be quiet an increase. 12 subs in the context of that force would make it a complete blue water force, able to perform any mission required. We can't borrow subs in the same way to complete their mission as we can with surface ships. Of the subs we will be getting we will be the only ones in the region (except maybe japan) with something that capable.

 

[uuname]

But if my remember serve me correctly, they do mention new water jet craft that replace LCH/LCM in some article about the Canberra class LPD.....

There will be LCMs of some type to go inside the Canberras (And possibly sealift ship- 9.24). These will replace existing LCM-8 and LCM-2000s.

I'm guessing the RAN will go with the Navantia LCM-1e, simply because they are already going to be used in the Juan Carlos. Anything is possible, though.


There will also be 6 new heavy landing craft, which will have longer range and good seakeeping (White paper, 9.25)

There hasn't been much official word, but a lot of people are assuming something much larger than the existing Balikpapan class.

 

[Todjaeger]

First of all i'd like to say "My bad" for opening up that last discussion about the LHD's, looks like it really opened up some real feelings from some of our members.

On another point in regards to the direction the white paper has gone, does anyone else in here think that the direction the government has taken to increase the size of sub force wrong.

While i understand that the sub force at the moment is one of our, if not our most leathal weapon come war time, wouldn't it be better to put the funds invested in the subs towards Frigates, destroyers, LHD's or other amphibious ships.

As a sub force is either a deterrant force or a weapon in war, while the surface fleet is more than just a deterreant and weapon in war, they help in disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, goodwill tours (i've never known of a sub entering an enemy harbour as a sign of goodwill, even with tensions between countries). Since for as long as i can remember RAN has been increasingly active in disaster relief in the South West Pacfic and devoating more and more time to this task it seems every year!!!

While Subs are a deadly tool, i believe a surface force is better suited for Australia's needs given the other duties required of them.

From what I recall of earlier discussions in the thread, the consensus was a bit of disagreement with having a 12 subs in the fleet. Given the current crewing issues with just the 6 Collins, as well as the limitations inherent in subs, IIRC it was felt that doubling the future sub fleet was too great an increase. Again, IIRC it was felt that increasing the number of subs would be sensible (there had at one point been options for 2 additional Collins...) the ideal number was felt to be 8-9 Collins replacements.

This would allow Australia to have a few in for maintenance, a few doing work ups, and 2-3 subs that would be unaccounted for as far as any potential adversaries are concerned. Of course if there were 12 subs instead, that would mean there was just that many more subs potentially lurking about. As mentioned though, it would likely mean a decrease in the number of surface warships, which have a great deal more flexibility than a submarine.

IMO the best general arrangement of forces for the RAN starting ~2020 would resemble something like this.

3 Canberra-class LHD
3 Hobart-class AWD
9 Anzac Follow-on FFG
9 Collins Follow-on SSG/K
3 Success/Sirius Follow-on AOR
24+ Advanced Naval Helicopters
21+ OCV

For the Naval Helicopters, I would want at least some of them able to operate in some form of AEW role, not unlike how RN Sea Kings or Italian Merlins operate. For the OCV, I would want them to have modular systems, with a base configuration able to operate armed helicopters from, as well as sufficient systems so that with combat modules some can operate in moderate threat environments independently.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

I am of the belief that the government will be pleased with the size of the surface fleet when the LHDs and the third sea lift ship arrive. If the navy is going to grow much more with more population and tax revenues, it appears the government wishes to enlarge the submarine force. Considering the fleet increases of India and China, submarines may be the best ticket to deny or defend Australian seas....

The one positive thing about submarines are their small crew sizes as compared to many surface warships. Considering the recruitment shortage of sailors, an expanded submarine navy may be the only way to enlarge the fleet.

 

[aricho87]

My Preference for a future fleet as at 2020.

1 LHA (Similar to America class, Aviation orrientated)
2 LHD
6 - 7 AWD
12 Future ANZAC's
8 Subs
1 Ro/Ro Ship
2 Replenishment Ships
15 Armidale replacements

This gives RAN a true blue water/amphibious assult capability and able to carry out any future responsibilities within our region and beyond.

 

[PeterM]

There will also be 6 new heavy landing craft, which will have longer range and good seakeeping (White paper, 9.25)

There hasn't been much official word, but a lot of people are assuming something much larger than the existing Balikpapan class.

The replacement options for the landing craft for the 6 Balikpapan class LCH is very interesting

I am curious about the possible options

the french company CNIM are reporterdly looking into a larger version of their L-Cat design

and there is their MPC - multipurpose patrol craft which has some intriguing capabilities
CNIM - Landing Craft and Multipurpose Patrol Craft - Naval Technology

MPC - multipurpose patrol craft
The MPC is designed for combined sea and land operations as a patrol craft with all the equipment, range and autonomy that is expected from an up to date vessel. She can land a police unit with vehicles on the shore immediately upon detection of any suspicious activity, thus ensuring a quick law enforcement action, and can launch up to four RIBs at sea for rapid response.

The MPC’s main characteristics include:

• Maximum speed of 27kn
• Autonomous capability of up to seven days
• Minimum draft 1.2m
• Landing: beach gradient ≤ 2 %, wharf ≤ 1 m
• Loading capacity 60t
• Accommodation: crew 13 + 13 passengers
• Armament: 2 x 20 mm + 2 x 12.7mm LMGs
• MPV – multipurpose projection vessel

The design of CNIM's MPV – Multipurpose Projection Vessel is a new concept of LST. It allows to change the shape of the ship from catamaran in cruise mode to flat-bottom ship for loading/unloading. The diversity of the MPV means that it can be utilized in a wide variety of missions, ranging from logistics, transportation and support to special operations, coastal law enforcement and maritime warfare.

The MPV comprises of an NH90 helicopter platform and hangar, a garage and two well decks for operation of high speed boats.

Main characteristics of the MPV include:

• Length: 90m
• Width: 24.5m
• Deadweight max (loaded): 1,050t
• Deadweight max (patrol): 650t
• Crew: 26
• Engine power: 10 MW
• Cruise speed (empty): 25kn
• Cruise speed fully (loaded): 20kn
• Speed in landing mode: 12kn
• Autonomy: 10,000Nm
• Navigation: Sea state 6
• Safe: Sea state 7

I would like the RAN to get JHSV to replace the LCH, but I am not sure that is really practical. Perhaps something like the MPV is a more viable option?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

agree. eg The F-117's did a transoceanic flight from the US midwest to Saudi Arabia and then went straight into a mission. That was 6 flight inflight refuels for an aircraft never intended to undertake transoceanic missions.

Personally i think there are real problems with using tac air in the inter-continental strategic role. I mean its possible to get a tac air asset far enough with adequate AAR, but those platforms are not designed for that sort of thing. There's crew, platform and logistical issues, its hardly ideal. In any case TACTOM will fulfill that role at any range from CONAUS anyway.

You forward deploy tac air in this context for two reasons, air defence/offencive counter air and CAS. You cant do either of those things after 3 AAR's and a 8 hour transit flight.