Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[agc33e]

Different systems and most likely on a completely different scale. The ADF has more money to spend then the Spanish Forces, and they will spend it. Speaking with no knowledge, I wouldn't be surprised if the only ships at sea comparable to Canberra's Comm's fitout once they are built will be the US Task Force command ships (Carriers, LHD's and Command ships) along with the UK Albion class and QE class.

When was the last time PdA served as Flagship for a Combined Task Force including USN , MN and RN in an operational (non-exercise) capacity.

The point is the jci, not the pda (1988), the jci will be able to do that, and and pda also has:
"Comunicaciones UHF SATCOM, SECOMSAT, INMARSAT, ICCS-4, LINK-11, LINK-14, radio HF, UHF, VHF."
and now the pda will enter in the yard for the upgrade and the 2 half life cycle, and it will get the same capacities as the jci in many things, so the pda will be able to do it if it cant do it now that i dont know. As other example the Castilla ship that is a galicia type with command and control, is a ship given in the 2000 and can do that (it is a high disponibility headquarter for the nato).

Just i hope the jci doest retard much more with the problems of the engine (they have put a new part or unit and want to finish the trials of all engines by april, i read these engines are proved and similars used in other ships) and the forward pod (similar problem as in the french mistral, that they had to change it).

Cheers.

 

[LancasterBomber]

Imagine a conflict

Imagine indeed!

I'm no naval strategist's left testie but I would bet my shane warne signed cricket bat that RAN would not be launching counter offensive measures 1000's kms away from home withint 24-48hrs of finding an invasionary force in our territory.

Our sub fleet will be running amuck in our own waters though lighting up your skimmers...

Who is this force? Russia? NZ cricket team? Ethiopian pirates? Future Spanish Armada? Australia has some very useful allies and dont underestimate China (if its not China)....they have some very important forward contracts to protect not to mention minority shareholdings in a lot of resources....

so you have about 48 hours before you would face the rain. Heavy rain.

We protect our territory. We are a defence force. We are not interested in killing thousands of innocent people around the other side of the world because some bunghole corrupt govt or military dictatorship shows up on our doorstep looking for a punch on.

That's not what Australia is about and I assume our military strategic methodology would reflect that ethos.

 

[agc33e]

I'm no naval strategist's left testie but I would bet my shane warne signed cricket bat that RAN would not be launching counter offensive measures 1000's kms away from home withint 24-48hrs of finding an invasionary force in our territory.

Also they might not be counteroffensive, australia might want to have a fleet over there, and another country might not want that.

We will be running amuck in our own waters though lighting up your skimmers...

Who is this force? Russia? NZ cricket team? Ethiopian pirates? Future Spanish Armada? Australia has some very useful allies and dont underestimate China (if its not China)....they have some very important forward contracts to protect not to mention minority shareholdings in a lot of resources

so you have about 48 hours before you would face the rain. Heavy rain.

But the heavy rain is not that heavy against hostile subs.

All we have to do is hold them at bay

.
The same did the spanish and the french in trafalgar battle,, when they wanted to go out they couldnt.

 

[agc33e]

Imagine indeed!

I'm no naval strategist's left testie but I would bet my shane warne signed cricket bat that RAN would not be launching counter offensive measures 1000's kms away from home withint 24-48hrs of finding an invasionary force in our territory.

Our sub fleet will be running amuck in our own waters though lighting up your skimmers...

Who is this force? Russia? NZ cricket team? Ethiopian pirates? Future Spanish Armada? Australia has some very useful allies and dont underestimate China (if its not China)....they have some very important forward contracts to protect not to mention minority shareholdings in a lot of resources....

so you have about 48 hours before you would face the rain. Heavy rain.

We protect our territory. We are a defence force. We are not interested in killing thousands of innocent people around the other side of the world because some bunghole corrupt govt or military dictatorship shows up on our doorstep looking for a punch on.

That's not what Australia is about and I assume our military strategic methodology would reflect that ethos.

I know what you mean, i am talking imaginary, can you imagine a 3rd world war, with two sides with different countries each, for example, rusia, north korea, china, iran and venezuela against the others, or a fishermans or petroleoum conflict with australia and other country in the south pole, etc. But australia is looking at weapons like tactoms in awds and subs which are able to bring the war or the action to far territories, so i was continuing that capability because with the awds protection they can do it.

Let me add that in fleet battle, when the subs are run out of torpedos or off, how many ships and how many cannons might win the battle, you might end up jump with the knifes to the enemy´s 2010´s destroyer:unknown

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is going off track.

I suggest that everyone get back on it

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Canberra class are a fair wack more expensive than the JC1 even tho both hulls are built in Spain. I think we can clearly state the Canberra class will have some pretty trick gear and the hull is big enough to operate in this way (more so if you think Australia will deploy 2 at a time). Australia didn't buy the LHD to operate it the same way as Spain would.

The RAN could operate East and West Fleet with the ships they are going to get. But I don't think it will be a strict as say the USN system. Oz won't run a offence and defence fleet. The OPV's combined with air support will be enough to be defence and coast guarding.

Given Australia's predicted fleet strength in 2020 and beyond, there are very few players who could offer say 2:1 superiority to the Australian fleet to allow any sort of even remotely successful (by any measure including sea denial etc) engagement. With almost 11-14 front line war ships, backed up by 20x2000t OCV's, 6-12 subs, 14 blue water patrol boats, plus aux, oilers, sealift and 3x amphibious/sealift assets. Australia would not conduct wars individually in far off lands. Australia is regionally focused, and would significantly work with allies beyond the region.

Let me add that in fleet battle, when the subs are run out of torpedos or off

Run out of torpedos? 22 each. Say 2 to engage each target. 10 sunken targets per sub. We have 6 subs. Whos going to be left fighting if 10 major surface combatants are sunk? Even the USN couldn't sustain that damage in a swift hit. The issue with subs is not that they "run out" of munitions.

 

[t68]

The Canberra class are a fair wack more expensive than the JC1 even tho both hulls are built in Spain. I think we can clearly state the Canberra class will have some pretty trick gear and the hull is big enough to operate in this way (more so if you think Australia will deploy 2 at a time). Australia didn't buy the LHD to operate it the same way as Spain would.

In what way are you saying the Canberra will be different to the Spanish Juan Carlos, in coms fit out or in other way’s?

I understand the doctrine behind the difference in use between the two but majority of the systems would be the same?

 

[gf0012-aust]

In what way are you saying the Canberra will be different to the Spanish Juan Carlos, in coms fit out or in other way’s?

comms fit out for a start

I understand the doctrine behind the difference in use between the two but majority of the systems would be the same?

canberras are a legacy of lessons learnt from East Timor, the 2004 tsunami and the TF158 (eg) experience in the Gulf where Kanimbla and Manoora were flag ships for the int'l task force.

eg they will be the only CRBN fitted and kitted capabilities in australia.

the only similarity is that they both have flat decks

 

[StingrayOZ]

In what way are you saying the Canberra will be different to the Spanish Juan Carlos, in coms fit out or in other way’s?

I understand the doctrine behind the difference in use between the two but majority of the systems would be the same?

Radar, coms, systems, layout, consoles, personel numbers, cabin layout, mess are all different. What exactly I don't know. But the fit out is occuring in different countries for 2 different navies with different needs and capabilities several years apart. Australia seems to be spending a lot on the LHD's. They will cost about the same as Italy spent on its new carrier.

Australia only built the hulls in Spain because, really Australia doesn't have the facilities to easily build hulls of that size in Australia, quickly and profitably. Australia was always looking for more capability. The competing Mistal design was going to be 10-20m longer than the ones France has built. That gives you an idea of the sort of modifications Australia was concidering. The origional LHD also had the jump removed for an extra helo spot as well ("costs" excluded that from happening). All the paper work seems to imply the Canberra/hobarts will have greater displacement than simular ships in the Spanish navy.

Australia does not intend to use the LHD as single units at a time. It intends to deploy both units at the same time for amphibious landings. Australia did concider getting a Wasp ship because thats the capability we wanted, but operating two LHD was a more feasable and better idea for the RAN.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Australia does not intend to use the LHD as single units at a time.

It does. They won't be operating as pairs for a number of roles.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It does. They won't be operating as pairs for a number of roles.

That statement is more accurate. It demonstrates different application to that of the Spanish Navy.

 

[battlensign]

Given Australia's predicted fleet strength in 2020 and beyond, there are very few players who could offer say 2:1 superiority to the Australian fleet to allow any sort of even remotely successful (by any measure including sea denial etc) engagement. With almost 11-14 front line war ships, backed up by 20x2000t OCV's, 6-12 subs, 14 blue water patrol boats, plus aux, oilers, sealift and 3x amphibious/sealift assets. Australia would not conduct wars individually in far off lands. Australia is regionally focused, and would significantly work with allies beyond the region.

Two things:

1) In relation to the current debate generally - the Spanish BPE was regarded, for all practical purposes, to be a show-pony. Australian modifications can be expected to be significant.

2) Australia fleet strength won't reach that highlighted until something like 2035. Also, if there are ~ 20 OCVs in operation, then the 14 Armidales are gone. Similarly, we will only have 11 Surface Combatants (12 if the 4th AWD is ordered). What I find curious about the DWP 09 is that in terms of time and money the force is affordable based on where Australia is now, so why can't the force be larger and more appropriate for Aus's 30 mil pop by then?

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

1) In relation to the current debate generally - the Spanish BPE was regarded, for all practical purposes, to be a show-pony. Australian modifications can be expected to be significant.

Well I didn't think it was that bad, but all sources point to fairly significant modifications. For what the Spanish wanted (General purpose do all, highlighting a low cost, low risk build) it does that. They already have a carrier and several amphibious ships, of which the LHD was never going to replace, only suppliment. Certainly just looking at the numbers Australia want to stuff on it shows that in use they are going to be different.

Those numbers were in respect to some hypothetical threat, at which point we might keep the patrol boats instead of retiring them (what are we actually going to do with them, given them to NZ and pacific islands, some wont even be 15 yo in 2020 having been built 2 years ago?) and build a few additional hulls.

Australia has left the door open to additional expansion. With the AWD and frigates sharing the same hull, Australia could continue to build ships of either type well into the future. Additionally aquiring another LHD or simular would also be an easy fit in the future ~2030. Submarine capability also seems wide open. OCV production seems to go on for ever if we space builds out to 1 a year. Building them as we want.

We have made firm commitments to make a sizeable navy, and naval industry yet this navy can be expanded and strengthend significantly. We even have yards overseas that can make F-100 to speed aquisition. However we will have a pretty good navy by 2020 and peak around 2035 with the ability to expand past that date.

 

[StevoJH]

Those numbers were in respect to some hypothetical threat, at which point we might keep the patrol boats instead of retiring them (what are we actually going to do with them, given them to NZ and pacific islands, some wont even be 15 yo in 2020 having been built 2 years ago?) and build a few additional hulls.

Use them to replace the boats donated under the pacific patrol boat program. Though something along the size of Customs Bay class might be more ideal for that.

 

[StingrayOZ]

They would be worthy pacific patrol boats. I would think we would take the gun off them, replace maybe a large manual gun? Something the locals could afford to,maintain, train and fire yet still effective.25 or 30mm.

It would be the sort of gift that would deter chinese naval bases in the region. The existing PPB program will see boats live around 2027 at which point they will start to die off. So timeframe wise there is some syncing that would allow the handoff.

Its well spent money. Gives us hard intel on the region where frankly no one would know whats going on.

 

[agc33e]

With respect the price of the jci i know it was 360 mill euro but that is probably the hull, the lifts, maybe engines, but many important thing are apart, even the wiring was paid with different budget addition, progressively they will pay a bigger amount than 360 mill euro, i dont know the figures for the canberra. But also many systems are home made, they will be cheaper, some of them, because other might be more expensive, also as first client to buy them they can be cheaper, i dont know.

I think i have to correct with respecgt to the beach boat lcme1, some post ago i pasted the figure of 100 tonnes as maximum load, but in the minister site they say the maximum total weight including load is 111 or 114 tonnes so i suppose the lcme1 doesnt weight dry 11 tonnes..anyway for a leopard and abrahams at least.

 

[lopez]

so what was it that the navy was getting exactly?

2x Canberras
3x AWDs
8x anzacll
20x MRVs
12x new subs
new refuel/replenishment vessel(s)
new sealift ship LPD?
new landing craft

(hope i haven't missed anything)

could you guys please confirm, expand and explain this list for me?

(mainly interested what form the last three will take)

many thanks

lopez.

 

[LancasterBomber]

Not sure if this is worth posting (maybe everyone has poured over it already) but I just finished reviewing the SIEV 36 incident.

You can read the RAN review here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/coi/reports/SIEV_36_redacted.pdf

You can read the coroner's report here:
http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/NT_Coroner%27s_Report.pdf

Both reports need to be read in parallel and cross referenced in particular areas to extract the best situational awareness in review.

Its very disappointing stuff on a number of levels.

 

[Aussie Digger]

so what was it that the navy was getting exactly?

2x Canberras
3x AWDs
8x anzacll
20x MRVs
12x new subs
new refuel/replenishment vessel(s)
new sealift ship LPD?
new landing craft

(hope i haven't missed anything)

could you guys please confirm, expand and explain this list for me?

(mainly interested what form the last three will take)

many thanks

lopez.

The landing craft will be the LCM-1E built by Navantia.

Here is the ADF announcement:

Australian Government, Department of Defence - The Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP Media Release

and a photo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/LCM-1E_L602.jpg

The other 2 questions remain to be decided.

Cheers

AD

 

[uuname]

new refuel/replenishment vessel(s)

The white paper only mentions replacing one, although Sirius will be due for replacement ~2020.

Also the RAN is actually planning to upgrade Success:
Conversion of HMAS Success to International Maritime Organisation Compliance - Royal Australian Navy

Seems odd if it's only expected to last another ~6 years, especially considering it would be out of service for a year for the modifications...
It makes me wonder if they won't try to keep both Success and Sirius around longer, and delay any replacements.

Frankly, with all the new (larger) ships planned, I would have thought buying three new replenishment vessels of the same type was the way to go, but I guess the money is needed elsewhere.

new landing craft

In addition to the LCMs for the Canberras, there's going to be 6 "heavy landing craft with improved ocean-going capabilities".
No idea what they will be, but the allocated budget suggests something more than just a straight replacement for the Balikpapans.