Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[agc33e]

well, I heard some stories that Gibbs & Cox used to designed an ACS frigate (a frigate with a PESA/AESA based on a Perry hull) for the Taiwanese navy, which eventually Taiwanese didn't build the ship. G&C furter developed that design and later sell the idea to Spanish and becomes the F100.

The newest issue of the Defence today did mentioned the 4th AWD, a 3rd LPD but not a single word about F-35 on LPD. So if the possibility of the 4th AWD, a 3rd LPD is slim, I will say the idea of F-35 on LPD is very likely long dead. Even I myself is a big fan of that idea2

I doubt on those stories, in all these years i never read nothing about the acs frigate etc. but the other frigates of spanish navy the f80 i think modernised, are perry something, i am sure they are us design.

let me say, i do not repeat myself, i want to give my vote, that if the price of f100 is for example, 400 mill euro, and a burke 500 mill euro, australia saves 300 mill euro for the 3 ships, and a harrier cost for example 35 (probably less) mill euro, australia can buy 5 harriers for examples, and refits to us or uk, for the distances in australian region, the speed, range and capabilities of aircraft for small price, for "special operations", we can imagine to integrate the tomahawk or the missil taurus in the harriers (for example 3 mill euro) and for small price we have a briliiant scalpel, really intimidating, at 2000+ km distance shot in a couple of hours with few meter precission etc, ...ok i could go on more comments about the contras stated by some, human effort is "free", and they have saved some cash, but i prefer to leave it as a vote.
Sorry as you see i am not a professional, i like pc games.
cheers!

 

[agc33e]

to speak about naval aircraft i suppose fits in this naval forum, outside of the topic the camberras with/out aircraft. let me past a couple of things from wiki:

Harrier Armament
Guns: 1× GAU-12U "Equalizer" 25 mm (0.98 in) cannon (left pod) and 300 rounds of ammunition (right pod) (American/Spanish/Italian configuration)
Hardpoints: 7 with a capacity of 13,200 lb (6000+- kgs) (STOVL) of stores, including gravity bombs, cluster bombs, napalm canisters, laser-guided bombs, AGM-65 Maverick or AGM-84 Harpoon missiles, a LITENING targeting pod, up to four AIM-9 Sidewinder or similar-sized infrared-guided missiles. Radar equipped AV-8B+ variants can carry up to four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. An upgrade program is currently fitting airframes with wiring and software to employ 1760 bus-based smart weapons, such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions,

i think the good relationship with the us, could make them to sell some of 99 harrriers they have at very good price, f35b is suppose to be at 60-70 mill euro, a second hand harrier maybe for special allie australia at 20 !?

Taurus Missile:
The missile incorporates stealth characteristics and has an official range in excess of 500 kilometres (311 mi)[4]. Taurus is powered by a turbofan engine at mach 0.8~0.9 and can be carried by the Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen and F/A-18 aircraft.

The double 499-kilogram (1,100 lb) warhead called Mephisto (Multi-Effect Penetrator, HIgh Sophisticated and Target Optimised) features a precharge and initial penetrating charge to clear soil or enter a bunker, then a variable delay fuse to control detonation of the main warhead. The missile weighs about 1,400 kg (3,086 lb) and has a maximum body diameter of 1 metre (3.3 ft). Intended targets are hardened bunkers, command, control and communications; airfield facilities; port facilities; AMS/ammunition storage; ships/submarines in ports and bridges.
The missile also includes counter measures as a self-defence mechanism.
Taurus on ILA air show 2006Mission planners program the missile with the target, air defence locations and planned ground path, then the missile uses a low terrain-hugging flight path guided by INS, IBN, TRN and GPS to the proximity of the target, although it is capable of navigating over long distances without GPS support [5]. Once there the missile commences a bunt (climb) manoeuver to an altitude intended to achieve the best probability of target acquisition and penetration. During the cruise flight a high resolution infra-red camera can support the navigation by using IBN and is also used for GPS-free target attack. The missile attempts to match a camera image with the planned 3D target model. If it can't, it defaults to the other, navigation systems, or, if there is a high risk of collateral damage, it will steer to a pre-designated crash point instead of risking an inaccurate attack with undesired consequences.
"Una vez lanzado, el misil vuela a alturas extremadamente bajas (30 m)": 30 mts altitude flight, could an aegis spy detect it at 30 mts? wondering...i would say yes but i dont know.
Price: 1 mill eur per unit.


So: pseudo ballistic missile offensive capability (camberra+harrier+taurus), at 30 mts height flight (stealth), for 20 (harrier) + 3 (integration) + 1 (missil) = 24 million euro, it is true! so it is a bargain.



Cheers.

 

[Sea Toby]

well, I heard some stories that Gibbs & Cox used to designed an ACS frigate (a frigate with a PESA/AESA based on a Perry hull) for the Taiwanese navy, which eventually Taiwanese didn't build the ship. G&C furter developed that design and later sell the idea to Spanish and becomes the F100.

The newest issue of the Defence today did mentioned the 4th AWD, a 3rd LPD but not a single word about F-35 on LPD. So if the possibility of the 4th AWD, a 3rd LPD is slim, I will say the idea of F-35 on LPD is very likely long dead. Even I myself is a big fan of that idea2

Frankly, I would rather have a fourth AWD over another LHD/CVS. During East Timor the RAN missed the old Sydney more than the old Melbourne. Its my opinion a small light carrier is no match in any sea battle with a much larger carrier. I would think a navy the size of Australia's would be better off with more submarines than any small light carrier. By the way the direction the RAN seems to be going in....

The smallest carrier I would want in my navy would be the size of the Charles de Gaulle. Anything less is just a waste of funds...

 

[1805]

Is it even a fair comparison, surely a CVS of 30,000t with F35b/c would cost a lot more than one more AWD prehaps as much as 3?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Frankly, I would rather have a fourth AWD over another LHD/CVS. During East Timor the RAN missed the old Sydney more than the old Melbourne. Its my opinion a small light carrier is no match in any sea battle with a much larger carrier. I would think a navy the size of Australia's would be better off with more submarines than any small light carrier. By the way the direction the RAN seems to be going in....

The smallest carrier I would want in my navy would be the size of the Charles de Gaulle. Anything less is just a waste of funds...

It seems you think the only utility of a CV is in a blue water naval battle? The last 60 years of naval warfare point to power projection as the major use of fixed wing carriers, and in this case the ability to deploy and sustain a squadron of quality fixed wing air is indeed extremely useful for a middle power.

In an age of unparalleled US naval dominance, is a midway 2.0 type battle the type of battle that should determine the force structure of a middle power like Australia? Personally I don’t think so.

 

[1805]

I agree that CVs are not just about fighting major naval battles which is very unlikely, but is it ever likely to be the case that Australia would consider major action independent of the USN?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would say the 4th AWD is a lot more important and will go a whole lot further in providing aircover than anything would would get for any sort of simular money in terms of aircraft carrier. We should not concider a carrier until the 4th AWD is built.

Which is IMHO why we got the F100 over the baby burke, 4 ships is better than 3 ships. Plus we will have some very large frigates to go along with out destroyers with a fair bit of commonality between them. This is a really good deal for the RAN and if white paper content becomes reality then Australia will have a extremely capable navy.

I thought the F100 was a branch off the origional european frigate program?

While we will only have 12 front line ships they will be extremely capable. 20 OCV's (or how many we get)will free up these vessels by protecting everything within and around our EEZ.

Do we need a full time carrier? We have long ranged aircraft with long range weapons and quiet a decent refuelling fleet. Harriers are off the market, they are not an option, they are either shagged or not for sale. The us would only concider sale once they have the F-35B's, and by then they will be a poor purchase and not a surviable aircraft (we would be better off getting more tigers).

If we had 3 LHD one could be fitted as more of a carrier and then modules could be made to allow the others as temporary carriers this would be within the relm of possibility. Airwing of 6-12 F-35B would be significant and combined with out land based aircraft be able to do anything we needed to do. It would also improve our amphibious capability as well.

Or we could go for a large carrier. However a dedicated large carrier is never cheap and has crippling costs that even large wealthy nations like UK and France struggle with building, maintaining, operating them. Ideally we would get something that could launch Superhornets. There is no carrier Australia could concider to purchase currently, we have to wait and see what the indian's build, and India's aircraft carrier program demonstrates how expensive it can be.

 

[1805]

I wonder how small a carrier could operate F35c, true in the 60s but HMS Hermes (only 28,000t and not designed for fast heavy jets) operated Buccaneers a similar size

 

[agc33e]

"Do we need a full time carrier? We have long ranged aircraft with long range weapons and quiet a decent refuelling fleet. Harriers are off the market, they are not an option, they are either shagged or not for sale. The us would only concider sale once they have the F-35B's, and by then they will be a poor purchase and not a surviable aircraft (we would be better off getting more tigers)."

If us has 99 harriers i am sure they do not mind to have such a valuable allie like australia (for differente reasons, many) with 5 harriers for example, for us harriers are auxiliary in the sense the big stuff is for their carriers, special marine operations require capable equipment, and us have used in real operations them many times so they are very capable, they are in service with the us today, so they work. 99 or 94 it is the same for the us, for their auxiliary/emergency role, and in hands of australia it raises some "numbers".
If f35b is not good, us can make a run of new harriers.
you can compare characteristics of harriers and tigers in the internet, i cannot enter in more details, i will have to look, but an aircraft capability is superior in many things to an helicopter, in this case for example the harrier has the radar of the f18 hornet or superhornet....and many more things.
a littele problem with harriers is their life, but if for example you have 3 in one camberra, and the other 2 in land in garage, rotating in action, together with a good set of spare parts, you double or triple the lifecicyle of the aircraft.

Let me correct the accuracy of the taurus, in the trials with the spanish air force, the accuracy was absolute, in the center of the goal, launched hundreds of kms away.

Apologies.
Cheers.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The harrier is not re-entering production. The US and partner nations have invested too much into the F-35B program. The UK is building super carriers designed around the F-35B. The F-35B program is now back on track and there are already several early builds flying around.

The harrier is a subsonic aircraft. There are so few avalible that the UK can even get one with a radar and can barely keep what they have flying. They are training with Spain and the US so they can keep pilots and ground crews trained on how to fly them. So a sub sonic aircraft with no radar, no fancy targeting, limited range, no stealth (infact one of the most massive RS of all time), no networking, limited capacity for arms. We might as well buy spitfires.

The F-35B is many times a better aircraft and fighting machine. A single F-35B would be able to mission kill a whole carrier airwing of Harriers with ease. The F-35B has very few compromises over a top of the line 5th generation multirole fighter.

While the USN may concider the Harriers as "backups" Im sure the USMC might see it differently as front line CAS. The US made no attempts other than training to assist the UK out of its little harrier problem. They are not going to release the harriers until the F-35B's are there and they will get rid of the oldest, most shagged airframes first if for nothing else but safety concerns. Look at the harrier safety record, 5 harriers wouldn't last very long.

3 harriers would not offer the RAN anything viable other than training.

As for tigers verse harriers, well I think for the ADF they would make a much more sensable buy for CAS and would be better at it and more deployable.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I agree that CVs are not just about fighting major naval battles which is very unlikely, but is it ever likely to be the case that Australia would consider major action independent of the USN?

In a defence of Australia or regional conflict then absolutely the RAN would act without US intervention (although US intervention would always be welcomed). In a regional peace enforcement scenario the RAN does act alone regularly, and in a high end intervention in say Fiji the RAN would likely act without major US contribution.

As far as power projection on a global level, then I doubt there would be a realistic scenario where the ADF would have to deploy without US involvement.

Now would the RAN ever engage in an extra regional blue water naval action with a great power without the USN? Unlikely I would think.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I wonder how small a carrier could operate F35c, true in the 60s but HMS Hermes (only 28,000t and not designed for fast heavy jets) operated Buccaneers a similar size

I would assume even an invincible class sized vessel could feasibly operate the F-35B, as long as the hanger, deck and elevators were rated for the weight. The runway length needed should be identical and the platforms size shouldn’t be that much larger than the harrier.

 

[zhongweijie16]

i like Australia , it is so beautiful . i hope she has a strong air army !

 

[StingrayOZ]

Now would the RAN ever engage in an extra regional blue water naval action with a great power without the USN? Unlikely I would think.

It is possible. Highly unlikely. The US was slow to support E.T as I remember, as it was a much more complicated matter for them than for other allies. It is possible that other simular situations could arise where Australian and US interests aren't completely in the same bucket or an administration drags feet making a decision while we build a coalition of the willing.

Before WWII we always thought the RAN would live under the unbrella of the Royal Navy, and that didn't exactly work out. Particularly when a strong global power starts to wind down its overseas interests and gets distracted with a much larger conflict elsewhere.

However given that the UK will have two sizeable carriers, anything that isn't covered by US interests would most likely be covered by UK interests and she can act independantly of the US (particularly with other allies). Something that outscopes all of that is getting pretty hard to realistically fathom. Even more so where we are going it alone outside of our own land based aircraft with no other nearby friendly airbase (eg butterworth but you could include French bases, and other nations with have defence pacts with). If you look at SH and F-35 range it covers a long way out, add refuelling assets and we cover the region reasonably well.

The LHD's are larger than the Melbourne. They do have lifts that can move a F-35B, and a deck that can launch and retrive. The Melbourne was a flawed carrier, Im sure with lots of money we could turn a perfectly good LHD into a flawed carrier too.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It is possible. Highly unlikely. The US was slow to support E.T as I remember, as it was a much more complicated matter for them than for other allies. It is possible that other simular situations could arise where Australian and US interests aren't completely in the same bucket or an administration drags feet making a decision while we build a coalition of the willing.

Before WWII we always thought the RAN would live under the unbrella of the Royal Navy, and that didn't exactly work out. Particularly when a strong global power starts to wind down its overseas interests and gets distracted with a much larger conflict elsewhere.

However given that the UK will have two sizeable carriers, anything that isn't covered by US interests would most likely be covered by UK interests and she can act independantly of the US (particularly with other allies). Something that outscopes all of that is getting pretty hard to realistically fathom. Even more so where we are going it alone outside of our own land based aircraft with no other nearby friendly airbase (eg butterworth but you could include French bases, and other nations with have defence pacts with). If you look at SH and F-35 range it covers a long way out, add refuelling assets and we cover the region reasonably well.

The LHD's are larger than the Melbourne. They do have lifts that can move a F-35B, and a deck that can launch and retrive. The Melbourne was a flawed carrier, Im sure with lots of money we could turn a perfectly good LHD into a flawed carrier too.

I just cant see the US allowing any great power to engage in a conflict with one of its close allies, especially a naval conflict. It undermines the validity of the US's entire alliance system and thus its global position. They would either intervene or veto the whole thing. And lets be frank, no one does anything in blue water without the USN's say so. Remember ET was a peace enforcement mission, hardly a conflict with a great power.

That’s not to say Australian interest couldn’t intersect with another middle power somewhere outside the region where Washington desires to remain neutral, and in such a situation I'm sure pocket carriers would be extremely useful as they were in the Falklands. Additionally I think its realistic to think that Australia may wish to act against an small power outside the region in a reaction to a mass hostage taking or the like i.e. Grenada. These are realistic possibilities IMO.

The real question is whether the risk justifies the cost. Is that sort of capability (multiple carriers, the crew and aircraft needed to man them, the required escort capability) worth having the option of such action on a global scale? Personally I don’t think so.

 

[Sea Toby]

Even if Australia decided upon a carrier, I would at least expect two of them at any size to have any chance of having one available for action at any given time. Its one of the reasons why Australia is buying two LHDs, the British buying two Queen Elizabeths, and France wishing to buy another carrier. Increasing the requirement to two does add considerably to the costs of having a carrier....

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Even if Australia decided upon a carrier, I would at least expect two of them at any size to have any chance of having one available for action at any given time. Its one of the reasons why Australia is buying two LHDs, the British buying two Queen Elizabeths, and France wishing to buy another carrier. Increasing the requirement to two does add considerably to the costs of having a carrier....

Absolutely, the bare minimum is two vessels, realistically you would need three. And if you are going to use these assets as true power projection tools you will need the ability to deploy at least one constantly, which means you have to deploy a battlegroup. That equates to an AWD and 2 frigates at a minimum. Then you need the fleet oilers to sustain a deployed battlegroup, which would be 1.5 deployed per group at any one time I would think.

That leaves the need for 3 AWD's, 6 to 9 frigates and 5 fleet oilers, just to maintain a single deployed battlegroup. Even without the carriers you are looking at comparable capability to the entire RAN surface fleet as of now. Realistically you would need all of that capability on top of the current force level if the current requirements are to be met i.e. 6 AWD's, 12~14 Frigates, 3 Carriers, 2 LHD's, 7 Fleet oilers & 12 submarines. That level of capability would elevate Australia to a 1st tier naval power comparable to the UK. It is a truly massive investment requiring serious justification, which IMO is simply not there.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Absolutely, the bare minimum is two vessels, realistically you would need three. And if you are going to use these assets as true power projection tools you will need the ability to deploy at least one constantly, which means you have to deploy a battlegroup. That equates to an AWD and 2 frigates at a minimum. Then you need the fleet oilers to sustain a deployed battlegroup, which would be 1.5 deployed per group at any one time I would think.

That leaves the need for 3 AWD's, 6 to 9 frigates and 5 fleet oilers, just to maintain a single deployed battlegroup. Even without the carriers you are looking at comparable capability to the entire RAN surface fleet as of now. Realistically you would need all of that capability on top of the current force level if the current requirements are to be met i.e. 6 AWD's, 12~14 Frigates, 3 Carriers, 2 LHD's, 7 Fleet oilers & 12 submarines. That level of capability would elevate Australia to a 1st tier naval power comparable to the UK. It is a truly massive investment requiring serious justification, which IMO is simply not there.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Its about time that somebody got this and articulated this again in he clear. Its been said before, but needed to be said again.

We have a split force for Navy (well 3, but subs are an independant command). Mirroring capability means 3 capital vessels of the same capability else one force is compromised.

We do not and will not have the capacity to support 2 fulltime carrier groups with the attendant raise train and sustain costs that accompany such capability. and if we want to permanently structured expeditionary groups at maximum availability, then we need a 3rd like minded and "like built" vessel. This is NOT happening

Govt has made this palpably clear,

We are NOT getting 3 defacto carriers. we are not paying for 3 defacto carriers. we are purchasing expeditionary support assets to enable us to deal with issues like East Timor in a more constructive and approp fashion.

 

[rockitten]

I would say the 4th AWD is a lot more important and will go a whole lot further in providing aircover than anything would would get for any sort of simular money in terms of aircraft carrier. We should not concider a carrier until the 4th AWD is built.

Which is IMHO why we got the F100 over the baby burke, 4 ships is better than 3 ships. Plus we will have some very large frigates to go along with out destroyers with a fair bit of commonality between them. This is a really good deal for the RAN and if white paper content becomes reality then Australia will have a extremely capable navy.

I thought the F100 was a branch off the origional european frigate program?

While we will only have 12 front line ships they will be extremely capable. 20 OCV's (or how many we get)will free up these vessels by protecting everything within and around our EEZ.

Do we need a full time carrier? We have long ranged aircraft with long range weapons and quiet a decent refuelling fleet. Harriers are off the market, they are not an option, they are either shagged or not for sale. The us would only concider sale once they have the F-35B's, and by then they will be a poor purchase and not a surviable aircraft (we would be better off getting more tigers).

If we had 3 LHD one could be fitted as more of a carrier and then modules could be made to allow the others as temporary carriers this would be within the relm of possibility. Airwing of 6-12 F-35B would be significant and combined with out land based aircraft be able to do anything we needed to do. It would also improve our amphibious capability as well.

Or we could go for a large carrier. However a dedicated large carrier is never cheap and has crippling costs that even large wealthy nations like UK and France struggle with building, maintaining, operating them. Ideally we would get something that could launch Superhornets. There is no carrier Australia could concider to purchase currently, we have to wait and see what the indian's build, and India's aircraft carrier program demonstrates how expensive it can be.

Well, the first time I heard about Taiwanese's ACS frigate is from Norman Friedman's US destroyer book, which was published before F100, for those who don't have the book, some part of the story is available on golbal security website: Tien Tan Advanced Combat System [AEGIS] - Republic of China [Taiwan] Navy

And if you have a look what does that Taiwanese ship looks like from this website:
Taiwanese Military Thread Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines and others - Page 21 - Military Photos
it does really looks like a F100, so the story may have some ground of it.

By the way, regarding to the F-35 on LPD issue, one of my friend told me that during the defense white paper public hearing nearly 2 years ago, some people do mentioned that idea, and one of the "answering board" actually said that the navy was also suggested/requesting exactly that a few weeks ago.........So I suppose that it is not our navy doesn't want to have the F-35 on LPD, it is the reality to not letting them to do so........

 

[gf0012-aust]

By the way, regarding to the F-35 on LPD issue, one of my friend told me that during the defense white paper public hearing nearly 2 years ago, some people do mentioned that idea, and one of the "answering board" actually said that the navy was also suggested/requesting exactly that a few weeks ago.........So I suppose that it is not our navy doesn't want to have the F-35 on LPD, it is the reality to not letting them to do so........

I'd suggest that your friend has had no involvement in the white paper or the blue paper (Navy 10 year plan)

and a cut and paste from another response I made elsewhere:

"It's not in Plan Blue, never been in Plan Blue (the 10 year Strategic Plan for Navy) and never appeared in Plan Green either.

RAN is fundamentally disinterested in (naval) fixed wing combat air because there are other projects which are far more important - and because the Minister (Snr and Jnr) have made it palpably clear about what we will be getting.

More to the point, it was never submitted in any of the draft White Papers which Govt eventually signed off on and what we are bound to.

We bought the fatships due to Army reqs based on what we learnt in East Timor, they were never purchased to get the combat FAA up again, and RAAF certainly were not signing off on it as we needed Joint agreement on the purchase anyway. "