Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[lopez]

Why would Australia buy F-35B aircraft for their new LHDs being built? Their LHDs won't have the fuel and/or bomb bunkerage to operate them for long. On the other hand Australian Air Force bases have both aplenty. Any shore close air support for the troops can easily be done with a few Tiger helicopters aboard the ship. I seriously doubt whether Australia needs a carrier, with the Australian Air Force having force multipliers.

And outside Indonesia, I don't see much of an air threat in the Southwest Pacific either. From an Air Force point of view, they would be better off striking Indonesian air bases than attempting to provide a CAP above the fleet. I would rather be downing Indonesian aircraft over their air bases than over the Aussie fleet.

Frankly, I don't see any Australian landings in the Southwest Pacific without air superiority. The Aussie Air Force would eliminate the threat before the Aussies engage in any opposed landings. To do otherwise would be foolish....

the design for our LHDs are from a Spanish aircraft carrier surely the Spanish would of thought of the issues of this when they built them for themselves.i also think having any ship cable of operating fixed wing aircraft couldn't hurt. the carriers would not be used high intensity carrier based air campaigns this is not what the design is intended forthey are more so for fleet defense and limited ground support missions


and as for the denials of whether they will get planes for them it isn't the first time this type of thing has happened for example the invincible class aircraft carriers were originally sold to the public and government as anti submarine cruisers (strictly for helicopters ) which explains their traditional cruiser names. they then decided it would only be common sense to put te harrier on them if only for self defense...

 

[Bonza]

There are several good reasons why an F-35B acquisition is not going to happen. Just go back a few pages in this thread if you wish to find them.

I might add the last time this topic came up, it got out of control and the thread got locked... just something to bear in mind, so it doesn't happen again.

 

[riksavage]

Why would Australia buy F-35B aircraft for their new LHDs being built? Their LHDs won't have the fuel and/or bomb bunkerage to operate them for long. On the other hand Australian Air Force bases have both aplenty. Any shore close air support for the troops can easily be done with a few Tiger helicopters aboard the ship. I seriously doubt whether Australia needs a carrier, with the Australian Air Force having force multipliers.

And outside Indonesia, I don't see much of an air threat in the Southwest Pacific either. From an Air Force point of view, they would be better off striking Indonesian air bases than attempting to provide a CAP above the fleet. I would rather be downing Indonesian aircraft over their air bases than over the Aussie fleet.

Frankly, I don't see any Australian landings in the Southwest Pacific without air superiority. The Aussie Air Force would eliminate the threat before the Aussies engage in any opposed landings. To do otherwise would be foolish....

Do the Aussie Tigers have folding rotor blades? That was one of the spec's applied to the UK Apache buy (that and more powerful engines) they came with folding rotors, otherwise you have to keep removing them completely to stow them below decks which is a right royal pain.

 

[Sea Toby]

the design for our LHDs are from a Spanish aircraft carrier surely the Spanish would of thought of the issues of this when they built them for themselves.i also think having any ship cable of operating fixed wing aircraft couldn't hurt. the carriers would not be used high intensity carrier based air campaigns this is not what the design is intended forthey are more so for fleet defense and limited ground support missions


and as for the denials of whether they will get planes for them it isn't the first time this type of thing has happened for example the invincible class aircraft carriers were originally sold to the public and government as anti submarine cruisers (strictly for helicopters ) which explains their traditional cruiser names. they then decided it would only be common sense to put te harrier on them if only for self defense...

I repeat, if the Air Force have cleared the skies already of any opposing fighter aircraft, bombed the opposition's runways. and destroyed all of the opposition's aircraft on the ground, are the F-35Bs necessary? Keep in mind it takes much more than one or a few F-35Bs to provide a sufficient CAP twenty four hours, seven days a week.

I would rather have the LHD carry more army personnel, equipment, and supplies than one F-35B and its train of supplies and personnel....

A LHD is designed to sea lift the army and its supplies over a beach, not to act as a mini aircraft carrier. A Tiger helicopter has plenty of firepower to support the troops...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Do the Aussie Tigers have folding rotor blades? That was one of the spec's applied to the UK Apache buy (that and more powerful engines) they came with folding rotors, otherwise you have to keep removing them completely to stow them below decks which is a right royal pain.

I don't believe they do. They well and truely preceeded the LHD buy.

But the LHD are very large and we don't have many helos. They can be lifted with rotors in place so we might just keep them on.

Australia doesn't really need F-35B's. We certainly don't need them right NOW!. But we shouldn't have haven't precluded them in the future (ie by lopping off the skijump). If we need them, then we can get them (and atleast 1 proper carrier for them).

 

[gf0012-aust]

and as for the denials of whether they will get planes for them it isn't the first time this type of thing has happened for example the invincible class aircraft carriers were originally sold to the public and government as anti submarine cruisers (strictly for helicopters ) which explains their traditional cruiser names. they then decided it would only be common sense to put te harrier on them if only for self defense...

here's a serious clue.

we don't have any uniforms currently overseas looking at fixed wing management on our partners light carriers or through deck expeditionary assets

we do have and have had said uniforms overseas looking at how our partners run expeditionary capabilities

we don't have any changes in our doctrine to have any development regarding doctrine with respect of ship mounted fixed wing supporting ground forces - we do with rotors

if we intended getting fixed wing for RAN in even 5 years time we would be rotating people now into other allies force elements so that they could upskill etc... unlike the Shornets, the fatships were a considered decision and based upon the fact that Cosgrove had a halo after East Timor. He could basically get what he wanted after giving the Govt a safe and respectable sir for the media. what we and he wanted after ET was an expeditionary capability for us to be able to more effectively deal with issues like East Timor or heaven help us, Fiji. navy was happy to get these ships because they also had the backing of army. RAAF never objected becasue it meant that they didn't have to worry about a fixed wing FAA coming back into play.

We aren't getting JSF stumpys on the fatships. All the theory in the world won't alter what is actually happening in the planning and development space.

when and if we decide to get fixed wing air then there wil be other clues being triggered. a fat ship alone is not even remote proof of life that we're up for it.

 

[Jezza]

how about air to air missles on the tigers to clean up anything left over

 

[Sea Toby]

how about air to air missles on the tigers to clean up anything left over

I would think Evolved Sea Sparrow and SM-2 or 3 surface to air missiles could do this trick. CIWS as the last resort. Plus the Army has anti-air missile systems as well.

Many want to claim the British use Harriers on their Invincible and Hermes during the Falklands. Considering the number of ships sunk, one would not describe the CAP very effective. Keep in mind the British had over 20 Harrier aircraft on the two carriers. How effective do you think 1 or 4 or even 12 aircraft will do? Any better? You will notice the British did use their special forces to deal with the small planes on Pebble Island before the landing... They didn't want their troops straffed either...

The Tigers should be enough to provide the troops close air support...

 

[lopez]

thank you...
i appreciate it when people crash test my theories.
it helps expose their faults and flaws.
much appreciated Lopez
but surely if the need arises in the future we may be able lob some f35bs on the lhds?

 

[swerve]

the design for our LHDs are from a Spanish aircraft carrier ...

Juan Carlos 1 is not an aircraft carrier. She is an LHD with an auxiliary aircraft carrier role, & needs to go into port & have extra equipment fitted to enable her to perform that auxiliary aircraft carrier role. She is not designed to perform both amphibious & carrier roles at once. Strictly one at a time.

The carrier role is only to provide cover while the main carrier is in refit or under repair.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We don't need carriers. 5 years? Could we even get a single F-35B by then and wouldn't we want our hornets replaced first?! If we want carriers its a question we can answer before the end of the F-35B production (which will be forever). The LHD we bought does not exclude F-35B's, but that in no way means we will ever get them.

The LHD will be much better served as an amphibious ship. The tigers will be able to deal with anything in our region that is flying by the time we come to conflict. There are only single digits of aircraft that would be able to challenge them, and our large F-18 fleet would cut them off and we now have the refuelling assets to do that at range or use or AWD to remove them from the air if they become threatening.

Crosgrove was right. His vision was a bloody good one and one we can obtain. One in which all the services work together.

 

[StevoJH]

Many want to claim the British use Harriers on their Invincible and Hermes during the Falklands. Considering the number of ships sunk, one would not describe the CAP very effective. Keep in mind the British had over 20 Harrier aircraft on the two carriers. How effective do you think 1 or 4 or even 12 aircraft will do? Any better? You will notice the British did use their special forces to deal with the small planes on Pebble Island before the landing... They didn't want their troops straffed either...

The fact that they had no AEW aircraft until the Sea King AEW's arrived after the shooting stopped had an impact. As did the fact that the Harriers only had Sidewinder at that stage.

 

[Sea Toby]

We don't need carriers. 5 years? Could we even get a single F-35B by then and wouldn't we want our hornets replaced first?! If we want carriers its a question we can answer before the end of the F-35B production (which will be forever). The LHD we bought does not exclude F-35B's, but that in no way means we will ever get them.

The LHD will be much better served as an amphibious ship. The tigers will be able to deal with anything in our region that is flying by the time we come to conflict. There are only single digits of aircraft that would be able to challenge them, and our large F-18 fleet would cut them off and we now have the refuelling assets to do that at range or use or AWD to remove them from the air if they become threatening.

Crosgrove was right. His vision was a bloody good one and one we can obtain. One in which all the services work together.

While Lockheed Martin will be running all three aircraft through the same production line, all of the B versions will be built early in a very long run. Seems the nations that use Harriers want to replace them first. Only about 300 or so will be B versions, most of the 3000 planned F-35s will be A and C versions.

 

[battlensign]

We don't need carriers. 5 years? Could we even get a single F-35B by then and wouldn't we want our hornets replaced first?! If we want carriers its a question we can answer before the end of the F-35B production (which will be forever). The LHD we bought does not exclude F-35B's, but that in no way means we will ever get them.

The LHD will be much better served as an amphibious ship. The tigers will be able to deal with anything in our region that is flying by the time we come to conflict. There are only single digits of aircraft that would be able to challenge them, and our large F-18 fleet would cut them off and we now have the refuelling assets to do that at range or use or AWD to remove them from the air if they become threatening.

Crosgrove was right. His vision was a bloody good one and one we can obtain. One in which all the services work together.

Agreed.

To be honest, I would prefer that any additional money that the government saw fit to provide the services in support of JP2048 and ADAS were directed in three ways.

First into a Bay Class style of Sealift ship (and get it now.......not leave it, as is the plan now, for government consideration beyond 2019) . Ideally two..........crewing solution for 2 Kanimbla Class LPAs and a Tobruk LSH is ~ 585 people and yet the solution for 2 LHDs and 2 Bay Class is ~ 606. This would save the LHDs from having to be used for every contingency (i.e Solomon Islands type Company strength scenarios) and allow for less stress on the AASG FEG (or whatever the new name now will be).

Second, I would like to see more Tiger ARHs to enable the sustainable deployment of 8. In many cases this may mean 4 per LHD.

Third, this NLOS missile seems like it may be useful for precision strike by the fleet on inland targets but with an alternative weapon to the Mk 62 5-inch gun.

Brett.

 

[stoker]

First into a Bay Class style of Sealift ship (and get it now.......not leave it, as is the plan now, for government consideration beyond 2019) . Ideally two..........crewing solution for 2 Kanimbla Class LPAs and a Tobruk LSH is ~ 585 people and yet the solution for 2 LHDs and 2 Bay Class is ~ 606. This would save the LHDs from having to be used for every contingency (i.e Solomon Islands type Company strength scenarios) and allow for less stress on the AASG FEG (or whatever the new name now will be).

Why not opt for a 3rd LHD in lieu of the 2 Bay class type ships.

This would standardise on hulls,machinery, combat systems, etc.

LHD's are far more versatile then the Bay class.

I would opt for at least 12 more Tigers, these would provide all the Air to Ground fire power we would need in the small scale actions we are likely to face.

We will never buy F35B's for the LHD's, basically because we don't need that sort of capability. On our own we will only become involved in Solomn Is/Fiji type operations in our local neighbourhood. If we get in to a major fracas in the future it will be alongside our best mates the USA, they will provide all the Air Defence coverage.

 

[battlensign]

First into a Bay Class style of Sealift ship (and get it now.......not leave it, as is the plan now, for government consideration beyond 2019) . Ideally two..........crewing solution for 2 Kanimbla Class LPAs and a Tobruk LSH is ~ 585 people and yet the solution for 2 LHDs and 2 Bay Class is ~ 606. This would save the LHDs from having to be used for every contingency (i.e Solomon Islands type Company strength scenarios) and allow for less stress on the AASG FEG (or whatever the new name now will be).

Why not opt for a 3rd LHD in lieu of the 2 Bay class type ships.

This would standardise on hulls,machinery, combat systems, etc.

LHD's are far more versatile then the Bay class.

I would opt for at least 12 more Tigers, these would provide all the Air to Ground fire power we would need in the small scale actions we are likely to face.

We will never buy F35B's for the LHD's, basically because we don't need that sort of capability. On our own we will only become involved in Solomn Is/Fiji type operations in our local neighbourhood. If we get in to a major fracas in the future it will be alongside our best mates the USA, they will provide all the Air Defence coverage.

I'd say that the biggest issue here is one that many members of this forum are now beginning to realise, after assistance from the DefPros - which is that extra investment in one area (beyond actual need) in a world of finite dollars usually leads to another area/s being insufficiently resourced.

I am not sure I agree with you on that extra equipment. The first is that, yes, a 3rd LHD is the ideal world solution but the cost is prohibitive and would require a crew of 730 which is 150 more than that required for the present three ships. The RAN already has issues with crewing and the smaller Bays alow for deployments that do not need a full LHD. Second, as an example of the opportunity cost I was talking about before, it is difficult to envisage a scenario where your 4 extra Tiger ARHs (over and above even what I was suggesting with a total force of 30) would be more useful than say another 2 or three CH-47Fs.

Brett.

 

[PeterM]

First into a Bay Class style of Sealift ship (and get it now.......not leave it, as is the plan now, for government consideration beyond 2019) . Ideally two..........crewing solution for 2 Kanimbla Class LPAs and a Tobruk LSH is ~ 585 people and yet the solution for 2 LHDs and 2 Bay Class is ~ 606. This would save the LHDs from having to be used for every contingency (i.e Solomon Islands type Company strength scenarios) and allow for less stress on the AASG FEG (or whatever the new name now will be).

Why not opt for a 3rd LHD in lieu of the 2 Bay class type ships.

This would standardise on hulls,machinery, combat systems, etc.

LHD's are far more versatile then the Bay class.

As far as I am aware, there is no plan for 2 strategic sealift ships, it is just one. Thete are many potential options, one of which is the Bay class.

Also don't discount the LCH replacement. There are some very capable options available for consideration almost all of which have sustantial capability increases over the current vessels. These vessels should be able to support company level deployments.

As far as the timing, I am sure in an ideal world that would happen sooner rather than later. But there is details of being able to afford them. IF the strategic sealift ship is fast tracked then something else would have to give. It is also worth remembering the significant lead time for projects of this size. If a decision was made today to procure a particular design (perhaps with first pass approval), it likely wouldn't be in service until at least somewhere around 2015-16.

 

[StevoJH]

As far as I am aware, there is no plan for 2 strategic sealift ships, it is just one. Thete are many potential options, one of which is the Bay class.

Also don't discount the LCH replacement. There are some very capable options available for consideration almost all of which have sustantial capability increases over the current vessels. These vessels should be able to support company level deployments.

As far as the timing, I am sure in an ideal world that would happen sooner rather than later. But there is details of being able to afford them. IF the strategic sealift ship is fast tracked then something else would have to give. It is also worth remembering the significant lead time for projects of this size. If a decision was made today to procure a particular design (perhaps with first pass approval), it likely wouldn't be in service until at least somewhere around 2015-16.

Hopefully the LCH replacement will be sea worthy enough and have enough endurance that it can can be deployed overseas in the company of either he larger amphibious ships or a supply ship.

 

[PeterM]

Hopefully the LCH replacement will be sea worthy enough and have enough endurance that it can can be deployed overseas in the company of either he larger amphibious ships or a supply ship.

going by the defence white paper:

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.

Some of the potential options are extremely capable vessels.

At the top end is the JHSV. but there are other options
The JHSV (112.6m) has a range of 1200nm @ 35kn with 600t load. But it isn't capably of "over the beach" operations (and probably too expensive).

The french will be replacing the BATRAL/Champlain class in the near future. CNIM have a couple of interesting new designs with the MPV (90m) and smaller MPC2 (60m).
The MPV will be a very strong contender to replace BATRAL; it has a range 12.000 nm @ 12 knots, cruise speed 20 knots, max speed 25 knots
It has similar capacity to the BATRALs (up to 300 troops or those 120 men with 20 vehicles (160 lane meters / 500 m² 5-m-roof flex deck) and has a hanger for a helicopter (it lists NH-90).

There are more traditional new designs like the Caimen-200 (68.5m) which has a range of 1075nm, a max speed of 16kn and a load of 200t.
But I don't think these have significantly improved seagoing capabilities over the current Balikapapan class.

budget wise the DCP has estimated - Level 2 High $500m-$1500m. That gives a reasonable cost ballpark of $85m to $250m per unit for discussions of possible options.

Personally I think that either of the CNIM options MPV/MPC2 would good options for the ADF (depending on which end they prefer). Something like the MPV seems ideal for the smaller scale missions within our region.

 

[uuname]

budget wise the DCP has estimated - Level 2 High $500m-$1500m. That gives a reasonable cost ballpark of $85m to $250m per unit for discussions of possible options.

It sounds like you could get quite a lot of ship at the higher end, especially if you kept a lid on the armament and electronics.

Didn't ST Marine recently sell an Endurance LST (LPD) for $SGD 200m? That works out at around $AUD160m...