Crusader2000
Banned Member
Sorry, sounds like two debates going on at once.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, sounds like two debates going on at once.
Japan, South Korea, and France don't. Spain will only when their other small carrier is in a mid life refit. Outside of the US I can't think of another LHD with Harriers. The UK, Italy, India, and Spain use Harriers on small carriers designed to be carriers.Thailand don't, and they have a small carrier.
The only country I know of that uses Harriers with LHDs is the US, and their LHDs are larger.
As I said before, there is much much more to a carrier than a flat top....
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I personally can't see how we can man more than 8 boats without a dramatic increase in staffing in the RAN and without having any knowledge of the simulations and strategic reasons behind a decision to attempt to run 12x boats, I can't really see why such a comparatively large force is necessary when similar increases in capability in other areas of the ADF apparently aren't required...
Any such increase in boats to ALSO involve nuclear power would require a similar increase in domestic nuke power generation capability, attempting to run nuclear powered subs without the domestic capability to support them, would be sheer folly.
The development of a local nuclear power industry even if politically acceptable, (which it is not) would be beyond the capability of Australia to develop in time for these boats, leaving conventionals as the only viable option, IMHO...
In 25-30 years time, we might see half the "12x" number in-service. The rest? God knows. Some of us might not even be around to comment, if they even eventuate...
My Chief Regulator who is a Birdie (ATA) just got his Federation Star clasp to his Defence Long Service medal (40 years service), Perhaps we could couch him from behind his desk with the promise of Chocolate Digestives and team him up with the current CAF as they are probably the only two guys left in the ADF with carrier experience.:lol3
The white paper seems to be pretty optimistic.
12 subs is a huge upgrade on what we have. Labour was aiming for 8 and got 6, I got a feeling the 12 might be a target but we might end up with 8-10. What sort of submarines? What size? Are they all manned. How many crew?
For all we know, through mass automation, minimal crewing, technology etc crewing could be down to ~16. No diesel engine all electric, selfloading or dismounted weapon systems, no stewards, prepackaged food, etc. Drastic but within the relm of possibility.
Maybe its 6 manned and 6 unmanned subs. Of the same design but completely automated and sometimes they go forth with no crew (how I have no idea).
As for carriers, how long are real carriers going to be around for? There may be much of a need for them in the future. If we need carriers the LHD's would be able to conduct training and assessment exercises and when allies deploy carriers, the is the opportunity to cross deck etc. If we don't want carriers we lose nothing, as the LHD's are the best amphib we could buy.
Honestly I don't think we need our own carrier, atleast now. We will be able to operate SH or F-35 almost anywhere in our region. Throw in a couple of friendly bases (butterworth, christmas is etc) and there would not be any major problem we couldn't deal with. Certainly we would be better off throwing our resources into the RAAF than establishing our FAA again (it pains me to say). Anything further afield Allies like the US and the UK (Spain, Italy and France too) have that covered, who can provide escorts for ships as well.
12 subs is a huge upgrade on what we have. Labour was aiming for 8 and got 6, I got a feeling the 12 might be a target but we might end up with 8-10. What sort of submarines? What size? Are they all manned. How many crew?
For all we know, through mass automation, minimal crewing, technology etc crewing could be down to ~16. No diesel engine all electric, selfloading or dismounted weapon systems, no stewards, prepackaged food, etc. Drastic but within the relm of possibility.
Maybe its 6 manned and 6 unmanned subs. Of the same design but completely automated and sometimes they go forth with no crew (how I have no idea).
As for carriers, how long are real carriers going to be around for? There may be much of a need for them in the future. If we need carriers the LHD's would be able to conduct training and assessment exercises and when allies deploy carriers, the is the opportunity to cross deck etc. If we don't want carriers we lose nothing, as the LHD's are the best amphib we could buy.
Honestly I don't think we need our own carrier, atleast now. We will be able to operate SH or F-35 almost anywhere in our region. Throw in a couple of friendly bases (butterworth, christmas is etc) and there would not be any major problem we couldn't deal with. Certainly we would be better off throwing our resources into the RAAF than establishing our FAA again (it pains me to say). Anything further afield Allies like the US and the UK (Spain, Italy and France too) have that covered, who can provide escorts for ships as well.
Good old Scooter, never lets facts get in the way of an argument.
Only one country has ever operated STOVL aircraft off LHDs - the USA, off much larger LHDs. Only one other country is planning to, & only as a back-up for a dedicated STOVL carrier - Spain. That is not "many".
Seeing as how our swain tells Vampire warries, im sure theres more out there that were on a carrier, im pretty sure our MEO was onboard melbourne...hell he could have been on Parrmatta Mk 1 for all i know
He's scooter of Key Publishings? That would explain quite a lot......
There's actually quite a few of us left who operated Melbourne; and we will be around for a while yet even if increasingly senior and old and infirm. It'll be 5-10 years before the last of us who served in her are given the flick from the Reserves; and (hopefully) at least 30 before we've all shuffled off this mortal coil. However, if you want to pick our brains about how to do it the sooner the better given that old men forget..... (or at least forget that they haven't forgotten)
We can do enough with the LHD to keep information/training somewhat alive. In several ways they will operate like carriers. Just not fixed wing jet fighter carriers.
The Tigers can certainly perform missions simular to what fixed wing aircraft do. The number of aircraft and operations will be somewhat simular to a carrier. Scheduling, maintence, traffic control, moving aircraft. managing a flattop etc are all things we haven't really had to deal with for a long time.Not quiet the same as operating a full carrier, but much closer than anything else in the past ~25 years.
Talking about training, how many personel are on LHD with the USN/Spanish navy or on HMS Ocean?
The Tigers can certainly perform missions simular to what fixed wing aircraft do. The number of aircraft and operations will be somewhat simular to a carrier. Scheduling, maintence, traffic control, moving aircraft. managing a flattop etc are all things we haven't really had to deal with for a long time.Not quiet the same as operating a full carrier, but much closer than anything else in the past ~25 years.
Talking about training, how many personel are on LHD with the USN/Spanish navy or on HMS Ocean?
HMS Ocean Statistics
Displacement: 22,500 tonnes
Length: 203.4m / 667.2ft
Beam: 35m / 114.8ft
Speed: 18 kts
Complement: 285 + 206 Aircrew (Maximum 1275 - made up with Royal Marines)
Armament: 3 x Phalanx (CIWS) 2 x 20mm Close Range guns Passive Decoys
Aircraft/Landing Craft: 12 x Sea King HC4 Medium Support Helicopters 6 x lynx AH7 Helicopters or 15 x Sea Harriers (Ferry Role)
Sensors: Radar 996 (Combined Air/Surface) Radar 1007 (Navigation and Helicopter Control) UAT Electronic Support Measures
Propulsion: 2 x Diesel motors, 2 shafts
I'm still not convinced the RAN will want to store Tigers below deck with rotors fixed. Even a slightly damaged rotor leads to the flying status being suspended until a full inspection can be completed. Imagine trying to move airframes around below decks with fully open main rotors in anything but completely calm sea?
There is a great photo of HMS Ocean on-line (link below) with her main hold chock-a-block with a full compliment of Lynx, Gazelle & SeaKing (three abreast), all with main rotors folded. You would be lucky to fit a quarter of the same number below deck with main rotors fully extended, and still be able to maneuver the airframes around, and more importantly on and off the lifts. One Tiger with rotors open would take-up the same amount of space as three abreast SeaKing - this can't make operational sense?
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ocean/ocean7.html
How many helo's in the Aus military inventory come with folding blades? Failure to deal with issue will waste a great deal of space on the planned LHD's, it seams crazy that the RAN will invest in large platforms and then sacrifice their full potential by not adapting their primary attack/recce rotary platform for maritime operational usage.
Last edited:
I agree, and I would think the Australians would too. I believe their new NH-90 helicopter purchases will include folding rotors. Acquiring folding rotors for Tiger helicopters would be a wise investment. Helicopters without folding blades can have their rotors removed and stored while hangared. Recently the Kiwi Iroquois helicopters rotors were removed and stored for their exercise abroad on the Canterbury.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bXqbxVtblU]YouTube - Navy Ship Gets Huey Choppers[/ame]
Good video, but what a hassle, then again what option do you have? They are handling the rotor head like a box of fresh eggs, which shows just how careful you have to be with such critcal items. Damaged rotors and the helo is gounded full-stop. Imagine reversing that drill whilst the ship is underway in even the mildest of sea states?
Last edited:
The Blackhawks have foldable rotors. Someone posted a photo on T5C (JimWH?)
There are also photos of Tigers with folded rotors over there, but since I'm being lazy the following link has an image of a french tiger with folded Rotor's.
ROTOR on line - A publication of Eurocopter - Navalisation
MRH-90 has folding rotor's as well.
Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Rotorocraft Report: Australia Picks NH90 for AIR 9000 Program
There are also photos of Tigers with folded rotors over there, but since I'm being lazy the following link has an image of a french tiger with folded Rotor's.
ROTOR on line - A publication of Eurocopter - Navalisation
MRH-90 has folding rotor's as well.
Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Rotorocraft Report: Australia Picks NH90 for AIR 9000 Program
Im not sure if we had the fore thought to get folded rotors. Chinooks no, Tiger can be but do ours?, NH-90's can be, should be, but is it? Army is running most of those purchases so army ones may not have folding rotors.
Folded rotors would be ideal, Chinook I think would either be carried on deck or rotors removed. Thats not a tiny little thing (two sets of large rotors). I believe the UK was looking into having folding rotors for Chooks but never heard how it ended. That would make it a much better naval helo, but I'm not sure how likely it will be for us.
Im impressed the Tiger has folding rotors. I don't think the apache does. I think the tiger will be a good buy when we get them all operational. We may not have a FAA, but Tigers operating off the LHD are definately a very good thing. The long range, radar, hellfires etc will make them attractive as naval/amphib units. I would imagine they would be very useful for things like anti piracy/EEZ/hostile boardings where you want to cruise for long periods but have the firepower to deal with situations, at a distance where your in control.
Anyone know what the RAN is looking at using for moving things around on deck and around lower decks? Merlos? What about aircraft handling?
Folded rotors would be ideal, Chinook I think would either be carried on deck or rotors removed. Thats not a tiny little thing (two sets of large rotors). I believe the UK was looking into having folding rotors for Chooks but never heard how it ended. That would make it a much better naval helo, but I'm not sure how likely it will be for us.
Im impressed the Tiger has folding rotors. I don't think the apache does. I think the tiger will be a good buy when we get them all operational. We may not have a FAA, but Tigers operating off the LHD are definately a very good thing. The long range, radar, hellfires etc will make them attractive as naval/amphib units. I would imagine they would be very useful for things like anti piracy/EEZ/hostile boardings where you want to cruise for long periods but have the firepower to deal with situations, at a distance where your in control.
Anyone know what the RAN is looking at using for moving things around on deck and around lower decks? Merlos? What about aircraft handling?
The rear lift on the JCI/Canberra is sized to fit chinooks with blades attached from memory.
The WAH-64 version of Apache purchased by the UK has folding blades and more powerful engines then the US version of the Apache.
The picture of the Tiger I saw on T5C was an Australian Tiger with folded rotors being loaded up into a C17.
Defense Department press release notifying of the MRH-90 purchase said they would have folding rotors, so we can only assume they do, especially since 6 are earmarked for the Navy as a Sea King replacement.
The WAH-64 version of Apache purchased by the UK has folding blades and more powerful engines then the US version of the Apache.
The picture of the Tiger I saw on T5C was an Australian Tiger with folded rotors being loaded up into a C17.
Defense Department press release notifying of the MRH-90 purchase said they would have folding rotors, so we can only assume they do, especially since 6 are earmarked for the Navy as a Sea King replacement.
The UK Apache's have folding rotors, that was part of the design specification along with more powerful engines, hence they spend time aboard Ocean - a very sensible decision. Also with Army/RN & RAF helo's now pooled together you would think all future airframes would have folding rotors specificied as standard, not just for LHP use, but also for moving in a C17.
If you look at the Ocean photo liked previously, each helo is mounted on its own wheeled trolley. The deck is also fitted with fixing points to secure the helo & trolley when not in use. I'm convinced the RAN will have officers on long-look stationed aboard both the UK & USMC LHD/P's and will opt for the optimum system they have had the chance to study. The trolley system looks cheap and adaptable and will allow for a myriad of different airframes to be slotted in and fixed to the evenly distributed floor securing points. They probably already have computer modelling software, which has every single airframe type incorporated allowing for the automated positioning of all possible chopper combinations maximising the available space inside the hanger. The Tasman sea can be vicious, so what ever they select it must robust enough to keep the helo's locked-down in heavy weather.
The new QE class is using a roof mounted system, similar to a modern warehouse allowing stores to be moved from bunkerage areas to loading points very quickly, I'm sure the RAN LHD designers will be looking at similar concepts to reduce manning requirements.
I know marinising helo's can prove very expensive, but I'm sure fitting folding rotors is a pretty straight forward application.
It would interesting to see how Helo's are stacked inside the WASP and MISTRAL, does anyone have any phots?
Agree to a degree. There is likely to be a comprehensive re-writing of roles in the generational shift in hardware on the new platform. We will do more with less (as others have mentioned).
Aussie Digger said:
I am not sure I agree with this is a particularly strong argument. The strategic reasoning could well centre around our sovereign geography and the relative degree of defensibility of our shoreline against landings. Furthermore the acquisition of knowledge pertaining to the tactical operations of a broader fleet ought not be outside our capabilities.
Aussie Digger said:
At the heart of the Australian Defence Force is the the defence of the nation. There is no better defence than comparative advantage on the battlefield. No platform represents a greater unmitigated threat to a hostile force than our sub fleet. (IMO)
Aussie Digger said:
I am going to disregard this simply because there is no evidence to suggest its relevent to the Sea 1000 project. Any attempt to directly associate the expansion of the sub fleet with an expansion in nuclear power in Australia is disingenuous hyperbole IMO. Unless there is hard evidence to be presented then any such discussion or comments should be redacted.
Aussie Digger said:
Agreed.
Aussie Digger said:In 25-30 years time, we might see half the "12x" number in-service. The rest? God knows. Some of us might not even be around to comment, if they even eventuate...
I think in many ways 12 is an arbitrary number in so far as it reflects an expansionary expectation of the fleet from a policy perspective. What is probably more relevent, and certainly more likely to be classified, is the concept of to what degree we wish to expand our operational capacity/versatility and depth of 'operational coverage'.
So in this sense the magic number we get will be a marrying of the technological/design development that is available at the time with future operational expectations. (I am choosing to ignore budgetary pressures as a factor as I see this project as potentially falling under 'nation building'.)
For example we may only end up with 4 motherships (UUV capable) carrying human capital and fork off the sea 100 project to develop a further 40-50 UUVs with varying payloads/utility/operational capabilities. Conversely we may go to the other end of the scale - all dependent upon the speed with which certain technologies develop.
So at this time I don't see the number 12 as all that illuminating (despite its white paper reference) any more so than the number 4 or the number 17 etc etc. That is just my view but it is highly possible I am way off the mark! :crazy
One thing I can say for sure is this: I will be around in 25-30 years time. I will know the strategic value of the fleet. I will know the operational and tactical relevance of the fleet. I will also have the fleet heavily oversubscribed. We will get there!
Last edited:
one of my colleagues is an ex melbourne aviation mech, he'd love to get back into the business.
- Status