Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Ozzy Blizzard]

OK lets analytically look at the usefullness of say 6 F35'Bs for supporting ground troops going ashore.

Firstly anything that we will go ashore without colalition support is either close enough for our land based fighters (eg timor region) or big enough 6 F35B's would not suffice (eg say Malaysian sized airforce) in air denial, so it would purley be a CAS role.

I agree, the primary utility of a flight of F-35B's would be in the CAS role.

Lets think about the effectiveness of 6 F-35B's in CAS. What can 6 F-35B's do that can't be done by the Tiger? Drop bombs! Now given the limited sortie rate and air coverage that 6 F35B's can undertake thats max six aircraft say 24 SDB's(given AUS can even get them) Thats 144 SBD bombs allowing for a 2 hour sortie. Thats 72 SDB's per hour. Now lets look at how much NGS an ANZAC can provide (you will have upto 3 availible 5 inch guns). Max 16-20 r/min with a mag of say 475 rounds lets average the fire rate out to 5 r/min. Thats 95 mins to exhuast the Mag. Therefore 14.25 tonne per Frigate down range vs 16.3 for the entire F-35B's. The frigate can provide sutained fire over an extended amount of time in more controlled amounts, while the F-35B's are restricted by fuel consumption. Therefore on a usefullness front in terms of CAS, I would go a cheap frigate with a 5 inch gun over the F-35B's in terms of bang for buck...... or just mount a 5 inch on the LHD's.

I have some issues with this analysis, firstly fixed wing and rotary CAS are not really directly comparable. They fulfill different roles. There are plenty of options the F-35B provides a deployed force that rotary CAS simply can not do. Forget about a 5 inch, its not even in the same ballpark. Its a little more complicated than numbers of weapons delivered per hour. The F-35B will be by far more capable in the BID role, will be much more survivable to low level GBAD (trash fire, MANPADS and your SA-6 esk low levels SAM's), will be a more potent tac ISR asset than anything currently in the ADF, will have a far greater radius of action and significantly greater firepower.

5 inch doesn't have the range, speed of response or in most cases ISTAR to provide anything other than direct fire support to units in contact within range. In any case you may as well argue that M777 will provide better fire support to deployed forces because it will put more ordinance on target, and thus we don't need the ARH. Anyway wont the ANZAC's be there anyway one way or the other?

Fact is fixed wing CAS is a VITAL part of part of both high and low intensity conflict. You cant replace it with rotary or arty.

That being said I'm not saying F-35B's are essential to the ADF right now.

Basically if anybody we can stop, wants to attack Australia, any airfield will be within Australia's own strike land based assests(Tankered). The LHD's are only going to be used offensively if its within range of our own land based assets or under colaition air cover.

So your assuming any conflict scenario that isn't the Solomon on steroids will only be task force vs entire enemy air force? The white paper states that in the event of a major conflict and an enemy advance into Indonesia/Oceania or SEA the ADF will deploy forces to prevent said enemy form achieving basing in the area. Again forward deployed F-35B's will be extremely useful in the CAS and BID roles, not to mention an on the spot CAP. Operating in Indonesia or Oceania may indeed be within "range" of land based air power, but said assets will be of very limited value in the CAS role because of the distance to base.

Furthermore the reason the RAN will definately not get the F35B is that the RAN is set up for Sea denial NOT Sea control. Sea control is the reason other nations have their limited carriers, this is not what the RAN is about. If you don't believe this go read through the white paper in particular the strategic paragraphs and specifically think about why 12 subs were chosen.

I think the RAN of force 2030 will be capable of both Sea denial and Sea control. The AWD's are themselves primarily tools of sea control are they not? Anyway I'm pretty sure the white paper clearly states the RAN will be able to gain Sea control over specific geographical areas.

The F-35B would be extremely useful to the ADF in the expeditionary role in my opinion, just maybe not deployed on the LHD's with a battle-group on board. It just may be a long way down the list of capabilities the ADF needs.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

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.

Personally I'm very happy with the new force structure. The 12 subs are great, the only thing we need is one more AWD.

 

[the road runner]

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

I read in THE NAVY LEAGUE that the government is looking at something like the French Champlain class at replacing the Balikpapan LCH.The Govt wants the LCH to compliment the LHD and strategic sea lift vessels.

French Auxiliaries

Just scroll down on above link and have a look at the FNS Francis Garnier

FNS Francis Garnier
Displacement= 800t
Length= 80 meters
Speed = 16 kts
Range=3,500 nm

It can carry 140 troops and 12 armoured vehicles,and has a helicopter flight deck.

This type of LCH would be a great asset for the ADF.

The first Balikpapan is due to retire in 2016,so we are cutting it pretty fine on its replacement.

 

[PeterM]

I read in THE NAVY LEAGUE that the government is looking at something like the French Champlain class at replacing the Balikpapan LCH.The Govt wants the LCH to compliment the LHD and strategic sea lift vessels.

I am not that sold on the Champlain class (from the limited information I have been able to find)

L 9030 FS Champlain - in service 1974
L 9031 FS Francis Garnier - in service 1974
L 9032 FS Dumont D’Urville - in service 1983
L 9033 FS Jacques Cartier - in service 1983
L 9034 FS La Grandiere - in service 1987

the newest of these ships are already 20 years old, and the oldest ones are a similar age to the LCH. The MPV designs are CNIM's proposals to replace the Champlain class.

 

[PeterM]

Looking further it seems that CNIM has a 60m design called MPC2 (in between the 30m LCAT and 90m MPV) that seems like a reasonable option for LCH.

MPC 2 info (reportedly)

• - dimensions 60m x 17m
• - displacement 600 tons
• - max speed 30 knots
• - cargo capacity 200 tons / ~160 lane meters
• - cargo deck loadable from front and back
• - helo platform for medium helo,
• - fully beachable for amphibious insertion

another possible option is
Naval Technology - BMT?s New Caimen-200 Fast LCT Offers Speedier Amphibious Ops

Caimen-200 info

• - Main Dimensions - Length (overall): 68.5m, Breadth (waterline): 10m, Depth Mld: 6.3m,
• - Mean draught: 2.3m, Deep Displacement: 840te
• - Standards SOLAS, IMO, NATO Naval Ship Code
• - Capacities Vehicle Deck Capacity: 200te, Payload Deck Area: 400m2, Fuel: 156m3, FW: 190m3, SW Ballast: 380m3
• - Accommodation Crew: 25, Troops (on vehicle deck): 260
• - Speed: 16+ knots at full load
• - Range: 1075 nautical miles at maximum speed
• - Power and propulsion - 2 x MTU 16V 4000 M71 Engines, 2 x 250kW Diesel Generators, 2x FPP
• - Amphibious Capability: Hydraulically operated active bow ramp,2 x Stockless dual purpose kedge winch anchor arrangement
• - Communications: Fully net centric capable combat system, satellite communication, VHF, HF, X band radar with ARPA capability
• - Armament: 2 x 12.7mm heavy machine guns, 2 x 25mm guns

 

[Blue Streak]

An Australian SSN?

I asked this question on this forum about 18 months ago, and received some very well qualified arguments mostly against the development of an Australian SSN capability.

However, in light of continuing regional developments and the 2009 Australian Government's Defence White Paper, I'm interested to know if anything has changed?

Thus, the question for forum members again is should Australia develop/purchase an SSN capability?

 

[PeterM]

I read in THE NAVY LEAGUE that the government is looking at something like the French Champlain class at replacing the Balikpapan LCH.The Govt wants the LCH to compliment the LHD and strategic sea lift vessels.

According to Janes (2007) Australia has been looking at the larger CNIM vessels
from IDEX 2007 - Novel L-Cat bridges the gap

A scaled-up L-Cat 2, 42m in length, has also been the subject of design work. It would be able to carry a payload of 200 tonnes (sufficient for three main battle tanks). CNIM is in talks with a number of other interested parties regarding the L-Cat concept. These include Australia, which is studying its needs for a new amphibious connector.

Since then CNIM have developed the MPC, MPC (60m) and MPV (90m) designs.

This could easily be due diligence, I imagine other options would have been explored as well, but I haven't been able to find any information on them.

 

[PeterM]

Thus, the question for forum members again is should Australia develop/purchase an SSN capability?

I personally don't believe nuclear powered submarines are a realistic option; imho it will be likely ruled out due cost, the lack of nuclear-power infrastructure and political factors.

I expect they will look at other power options, most likely some form of air-independant propulsion system for the Collins replacement.

 

[LancasterBomber]

First new submarine contract awarded - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I find this somewhat peculiar on a number of levels but particularly with regard to the comment 'we have hired 20 engineers'.

When in the purely adaptive technological evaluation phase why would you not go completely outside of your prospective sub contractor base to engage the utmost of objectivity in terms of sourcing relevant existing technology and likely availability of potential future technology.

I already know what I am going to get from an existing (or previously utilised) sub contractor - that is the best possible solution that can reasonably be materialised at their production facilities.

That is distinctly different to the most strategically appropriate solution to meet our needs in 2030.

Granted they may be best placed to tie analysis of broader battery technologies to the specificity of the venture but this is far too early for that analysis given everything is still on the table from a form factor perspective (in my opinion).

This isn't early criticise per say but merely a raised eyebrow. That is to say I generally prefer to maintain clear separation between those mapping the technological scope of a project from those tendering for the project specific implementation (where feasible).

Regardless, my optimism is maintained and I believe it will be a great project.
Something I will be very proud to follow as it unfolds!

 

[aricho87]

Personally I'm very happy with the new force structure. The 12 subs are great, the only thing we need is one more AWD.

Don't get me wrong i'm happy with the increased size of the navy, however i just think it is going in the wrong direction.

While it does address the navy's primary role and that is to defend Australia and its assets. I think these days we are seeing the navy commonly tasked with hummanitarian/disaster relief duties that subs simiply can not do.

While my thinking might be old school and i do agree that in a all out war with a large country our sub force would be the deadliest tool in our shed but how often do World War's break out?

 

[Crusader2000]

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.

Would something like the "Fridtjof Nansen class" be a good match as a Frigate Replacement. One that would work very will with the forthcoming AWD's?


Also, regarding submarines. Is it possible that Australia could just license produce the US Virgina Class. As the US is already going to give Australia aid in the development of its next class of submarines. Clearly, a SSN would be the ideal choice for the RAN.


Well, just food for thought.

 

[the road runner]

Thus, the question for forum members again is should Australia develop/purchase an SSN capability?

I would think the start up cost would be a burden on Australia.........

Also the question comes up,where will we store nuclear waste,spent fuel rods ect?
No one wants nuclear waste as a neighbour in Oz.

I think the cost,but more so the political fallout of purchasing a Nuclear sub would be damaging to whatever party backed the nuclear project....

PeterM its good to know the government is looking at a number of suitable replacements for the LCH,
I for one would not want them putting all there eggs in one basket......

Dose anyone know when we will have a shortlist of the companies involved in the LCH replacememt?Has the project gone to tender yet?

 

[Crusader2000]

I would think the start up cost would be a burden on Australia.........

Also the question comes up,where will we store neuclear waste,spent fuel rods ect?
No one wants neuclear waste as a neighbour in Oz.

I think the cost,but more so the political fallout of purchasing a Neuclear sub would be damaging to whatever party backed the neuclear project....

PeterM its good to know the government is looking at a number of projects to replace the LCH,
I for one would not want them putting all there eggs in one basket......

Dose anyone know when we will have a shortlist of the companies involved in the LCH replacememt?Has the project gone to tender yet?

Oh, I think a deal could be struct for the US to take back the spent Nuclear Fuel. Also, if Australia designs a totally new submarine. (i.e. re-inventing the wheel) Its going to be extremely expensive a take many many years. Which, is why I suggested just constructing the American Designed Virgina Class SSN's in Australia. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if such a deal would be cheaper and far quicker to get into service.

 

[PeterM]

Oh, I think a deal could be struct for the US to take back the spent Nuclear Fuel. Also, if Australia designs a totally new submarine. (i.e. re-inventing the wheel) Its going to be extremely expensive a take many many years. Which, is why I suggested just constructing the American Designed Virgina Class SSN's in Australia. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if such a deal would be cheaper and far quicker to get into service.

The Australian governement has decided to build an indigenous submarine desgin rather than going with an off the shelf design such as the USN Virginia class or the RN Astute class.
Frankly by the time the new submarines will be in service these will be dated designs.

To be honest I don't see the need for nuclear power. The RAN will get very capable conventially powered submarines albeit with using new technologies.

I think the new Collins-replacement design will end up being larger and considerably more capable than the new Soryu class just entering service with the Japanese MSDF.

 

[the road runner]

Oh, I think a deal could be struct for the US to take back the spent Nuclear Fuel. Also, if Australia designs a totally new submarine. (i.e. re-inventing the wheel) Its going to be extremely expensive a take many many years. Which, is why I suggested just constructing the American Designed Virgina Class SSN's in Australia. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if such a deal would be cheaper and far quicker to get into service.

Mayee,but wouldnt that mean that the US would have more control over the use/rights/upgrade path of the Virginia class of sub?.I dont know the answer to this that is why i am asking this question.......

I read the Collins Class Story,and at the end of the book there was point made by the author,That if Electric boat or any other US company was to become involved in(or purchase ASC) the future construction of Australian subs,would it be in Australias intrest to follow this path?

The author left me with the impression that it would be wiser to use joint technology, both US and Oz share the development costs,and intergrate the tech into each nations Subs.


Im sure some Senior member can answer if SSN would be feasable for Oz
I think it would be political suicide for what ever party gave the go ahead for a Nuclear Sub in Australia..

Regards

 

[PeterM]

PeterM its good to know the government is looking at a number of projects to replace the LCH,
I for one would not want them putting all there eggs in one basket......

Dose anyone know when we will have a shortlist of the companies involved in the LCH replacememt?Has the project gone to tender yet?

I have no idea of what is has actually being looked at for the LCH; I just came across the Jane's article in my travels.

The LCH replacement is phase 5 of JP2048

First pass for the LCH is not until FY2012/13 to FY2014/15 - so there is a little time yet. I am curious about the various emerging options, capabilities and technologies that are being developed, there seems to be quite a bit of work going on.
The fact that the RAN have at least looked at the L-Cat design means they are looking at various options.

The RAN seem to be looking for cosiderably more capability that traditional designs

from DCP2009:

Phase Scope
Phase 5 will acquire six new heavy landing craft with improved ocean going capabilities able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores and people. It will provide a capability to conduct independent small scale regional amphibious operations or to support the CANBERRA Class as part of an Amphibious Task Group.

from White Paper

9.25 The Government will also introduce six new heavy landing craft with improved ocean-going capabilities, able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores and people in intra-theatre lift tasks to augment the larger amphibious vessels.

budget wise the DCP has estimated - Level 2 High $500m-$1500m (Towards the lower end of the band). That gives a reasonable cost ballpark of $85m to $250m per unit for discussing the various options and capabilities to replace the 6 Balikpapan class.

I guess the next question is what is the approximate/estimated costs for systems such as:

• - JHSV
• - MPV
• - MPC2
• - Caimen-200

 

[the road runner]

I am not that sold on the Champlain class (from the limited information I have been able to find)

L 9030 FS Champlain - in service 1974
L 9031 FS Francis Garnier - in service 1974
L 9032 FS Dumont D’Urville - in service 1983
L 9033 FS Jacques Cartier - in service 1983
L 9034 FS La Grandiere - in service 1987

the newest of these ships are already 20 years old, and the oldest ones are a similar age to the LCH. The MPV designs are CNIM's proposals to replace the Champlain class.

Mate i have to agree with you there, after more research,and your links provided ,im showing technology that is 20 years old

A bit more research on my behalf i thinks

 

[PeterM]

Mate i have to agree with you there, after more research,and your links provided ,im showing technology that is 20 years old

A bit more research on my behalf i thinks

To be fair, I think they were refering to similar capabilities to these vessels rather than simply aquiring these (or similar ships).

There is alot of new designs and techology emerging at the moment. I am curious to see these designs (and there are likely others) as more information becomes available.

One thing is certain, the RAN certainly won't be devoid of interesting options to consider.

 

[Todjaeger]

Oh, I think a deal could be struct for the US to take back the spent Nuclear Fuel. Also, if Australia designs a totally new submarine. (i.e. re-inventing the wheel) Its going to be extremely expensive a take many many years. Which, is why I suggested just constructing the American Designed Virgina Class SSN's in Australia. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if such a deal would be cheaper and far quicker to get into service.

Honestly, I do not think this is a viable option. There are two (count 'em, 2) shipyards in the US rated to build nuclear submarines, and either 2 or 4 yards rated to do maintenance and repair work on them. Not sure about those since there had been plans to consolidate sub maintenance facilities which I am not sure was ever actually done since it caused a number of political (and defence) problems.

At present, Australia has none of this infrastructure in place, nor is there any training schools to educate the crew how to operate the nuclear powerplant, which is quite different from a conventional diesel-electric system.

This effectively means that if Australia were to resolve any political issues (and they might be significant...) Australia would then need to decide if the SSN were to be built domestically or in the US, which IMO would be cheaper. If US construction was chosen, it might be possible for the RAN to use USN facilities to carry out maintenance on the SSN, however, this would mean that RAN subs would need to be sent to the US for some of the more significant maintenance and repair work. Also, the needed US facilities would need to be available to the RAN for use, which in the event of a disagreement between the US and Australia, or if the US had some incident or conflict of their own, might not be the case.

As others have mentioned, there would be a political cost to deciding to use nuclear powered submarines, I am not so sure that is where the breaking point would be in terms of such a decision. Given the amount of industry and infrastructure which would need to be built and setup in order to support such an Australian capability, and then the difficulties which Australia would most likely have in maintaining those capabilities, I do not see it happening.

For those who disagree, I would recommend examining the problems the UK and Royal Navy have been experiencing in maintaining their domestic nuclear sub production facilities and industry. The UK already has nuke subs, and has more of them than Australia is likely to ever have at one time and has a population base over three times that of Australia, with an industrial and economic capacity to match. If the UK is having an issue maintaining a capability, I do not see how Australia would be able to sustain it, short of massive funding injections, which would either cause an increased tax burden on Australians, or through cuts to other sectors of the ADF budget...

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Honestly, I do not think this is a viable option. There are two (count 'em, 2) shipyards in the US rated to build nuclear submarines, and either 2 or 4 yards rated to do maintenance and repair work on them. Not sure about those since there had been plans to consolidate sub maintenance facilities which I am not sure was ever actually done since it caused a number of political (and defence) problems.

At present, Australia has none of this infrastructure in place, nor is there any training schools to educate the crew how to operate the nuclear powerplant, which is quite different from a conventional diesel-electric system.

This effectively means that if Australia were to resolve any political issues (and they might be significant...) Australia would then need to decide if the SSN were to be built domestically or in the US, which IMO would be cheaper. If US construction was chosen, it might be possible for the RAN to use USN facilities to carry out maintenance on the SSN, however, this would mean that RAN subs would need to be sent to the US for some of the more significant maintenance and repair work. Also, the needed US facilities would need to be available to the RAN for use, which in the event of a disagreement between the US and Australia, or if the US had some incident or conflict of their own, might not be the case.

As others have mentioned, there would be a political cost to deciding to use nuclear powered submarines, I am not so sure that is where the breaking point would be in terms of such a decision. Given the amount of industry and infrastructure which would need to be built and setup in order to support such an Australian capability, and then the difficulties which Australia would most likely have in maintaining those capabilities, I do not see it happening.

For those who disagree, I would recommend examining the problems the UK and Royal Navy have been experiencing in maintaining their domestic nuclear sub production facilities and industry. The UK already has nuke subs, and has more of them than Australia is likely to ever have at one time and has a population base over three times that of Australia, with an industrial and economic capacity to match. If the UK is having an issue maintaining a capability, I do not see how Australia would be able to sustain it, short of massive funding injections, which would either cause an increased tax burden on Australians, or through cuts to other sectors of the ADF budget...

-Cheers

The Greens would put a stop to any nuclear submarines with scare tactics. The US government wants to build a storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Unfortunately, its close to Las Vegas. The environmentalists have the citizens of Nevada belittled over water tables in a former mountain mine in the middle of a desert. The likelihood of the water table rising is next to none. But when it comes to the word nuclear, it seems any logical thinking don't exist. One cannot argue with one word logically, could.... notice I didn't say the word would....

Nevermind that nuclear waste loses its radioactivity considerably in a hundred years to the point of being less radioactive than uranium dug from the ground. You will hear some isotopes last for thousands of years. Nevermind uranium is shipped throughout the USA not just to weapon plants and steam electric stations, but radioactive nuclear wastes are shipped from hospitals in major cities. And nevermind that a hundred years of radioactive wastes wouldn't add up to a mass of a football pitch one foot high.

After the Greens the government will have to face the economics of building the facilities to use nuclear power safely. We are talking in billions of dollars, not millions. If a government can't find a hundred million dollars to buy defence equipment, that government will have a hard time convincing the taxpayers to spend billions.

Despite these costs, in the USA there are those who wish to build nuclear propelled surface warships for destroyers and cruisers. Simply put, uranium fuel is cheaper to burn than petroleum based fuels despite the extra nuclear facilities costs. And we all know we'll have petroleum shortages....

Eventually nuclear power plants require trained personnel to operate them. This training is expensive. Schools are limited. Its this cost which keeps nuclear propulsion limited to just submarines for the US navy.

Back to the Greens. They had enough clout in New Zealand which literally led to the termination of the ANZUS pact with the USA. The so called nuclear free zone in the south Pacific.