Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

I repeat, the former carrier Australia recently has missed the most is the Sydney with its generous sealift capability, not the Melbourne and its small number of fighters... Something Australia will not only fix once, but twice...

and to reinforce this.

the LHA's were purchased as a direct lessons learnt of the mistakes from East Timor. They were not bought as carriers - they were bought in the spirit of the capability that we lost when Sydney went to the breakers.

The fatships were a purple (joint and tri-service) decision, driven by Army - driven by the Chief (Cosgrove) and supported by both Navy and RAAF because we learnt how close ET came to be a logistics and command cluster.

They are theatre C3 assets with other support roles. nobody is putting JSF's or fixed wing combat aircraft on them for anything but ferry work. there are no fixed wing combat jets in any of the vignettes, and we don't have any staff overseas wrt to fixed wing expeditionary training off this class of vessel

Finally, there is no doctrine in place or being developed to do any of the above.

in closing, we've been around this buoy so many times its not funny. any off topic comments are going straight to the sin bin.

enough is enough

 

[MrQuintus]

Iowa? Nah, lets build a 200,000t ship with a carriers flight deck and the armament of a battleship!

I think we need to give out a bunch of links from the previous 3 dozen times this was discussed and force people to read them.....

I don't think this is a completely stupid idea, not 200k tonnes, but I'd love to see something like a Super jeanne d'arc, with enough room for a few f35bs, Helicopters, a couple of CB90's on davits and a twin mount 155mm/52 cal main armament.

Full spectrum combatant?

 

[StevoJH]

I don't think this is a completely stupid idea, not 200k tonnes, but I'd love to see something like a Super jeanne d'arc, with enough room for a few f35bs, Helicopters, a couple of CB90's on davits and a twin mount 155mm/52 cal main armament.

Full spectrum combatant?

If it was a good idea, someone would be making them. Eitherway, this is off the topic of the RAN.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't think this is a completely stupid idea, not 200k tonnes, but I'd love to see something like a Super jeanne d'arc, with enough room for a few f35bs, Helicopters, a couple of CB90's on davits and a twin mount 155mm/52 cal main armament.

Full spectrum combatant?

One significant problem with having a "full spectrum combatant", apart from such a vessel being hideously expensive and complex both to design, build and operate, is that it puts all the eggs as it were, into one basket.

If such a vessel were sunk, damaged, undergoing maintence or a training cycle, the impact of the vessel's unavailability would be felt much significantly more than with a less concentrated naval vessel/force. As an aside, how often any navy actually require the full spectrum of capabilities? Unless there was regular use for the full range, then the vessels would have excess capability which would often go used. While this in and of itself is not necessarily a problem, it would likely mean that there was/is additional design and operational costs for such capability which is essentially going to waste.

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

I don't think this is a completely stupid idea, not 200k tonnes, but I'd love to see something like a Super jeanne d'arc, with enough room for a few f35bs, Helicopters, a couple of CB90's on davits and a twin mount 155mm/52 cal main armament.

Full spectrum combatant?

There was a reason for the fad for Jeanne d'Arc style ships not lasting long, or being adopted by many navies, & nobody ever seeking to operate Harriers or Yak-38s off them. It's not a good idea. Those navies which did build one or two cancelled plans to build more.

 

[ThePuss]

There is an interesting article in the latest Army news magazine Army - The Soldiers Newspaper : June 24th 2010, Page 1 - Defence Newspapers | The Soldiers Army on page 9 called "Setting a new course" about the SAD or Ships Army Detachment on the LHD (mind you in the article said that will a redundant term on the ships).

80 army personnel form part of the 243 permanent crew which is a large proportional increase on the current 20 SAD out of a crew of 240 on a LPA. The Army really seem ready to shoulder a large part of the burden of manning the ships, which really makes a lot of sense as they are primarily being acquired to support the Army. They really will be "Purple" ships with even the airforce coming to the show, as I understand that they will provide Aircraft Traffic Controllers for these ships (They already handle this role on behalf of the navy at NAS Albatross).

It looks like the four landing craft will be permanently embarked which again makes a lot of sense. Though not stated here I understand the crewing for the craft will be 50/50- Army/Navy which is another change from the current LPA model where their landing craft are not permanent embarked. This is another example of "Purple" cooperation with this time the Navy willing to help shoulder the burden of crewing the landing craft, as opposed to the Tobruk model where the army operate the LCM-8 and the Navy operates the LCVP's.

Also interesting is that it states that they do plan to operate the Tigers (and Chooks) from the LHD so that is at least a possibility.

As I understand, it they will also have a company of light infantry and a flight of four MRH-90 embarked on routine deployments. This is so they can respond to disaster relief / emergency evacuation type scenarios a lot quicker than being have to sail back to Australia to embark the troops and head back "Up Top". “Jack” might start to feel a little outnumbered with 250/300 Army onboard routinely!

On another note the Navy announced recently that they will be raising or rather re-raising a non-technical aviation (Birdie) branch. I am not sure of the title but basically they will be aircraft handlers who will also look after things like flight deck fire fighting. It’s good to see that the navy is looking ahead and realises that these ships are just to aviation centric for these roles to be fulfilled by non aviation ships company as an ancillary duty. If I had my time over and was looking to join up as a young kid I think it would be an interesting branch to be in (Hard work I Know!)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also interesting is that it states that they do plan to operate the Tigers (and Chooks) from the LHD so that is at least a possibility.

The tigers will be aspirational for a while yet - they might embark on quango demonstrations, but they they're not ready for a real conflict by some margin (as in expeditionary sympathetic)

although it wouldn't surprise me to see them embarked for a future talisman event...

 

[ThePuss]

The tigers will be aspirational for a while yet - they might embark on quango demonstrations, but they they're not ready for a real conflict by some margin (as in expeditionary sympathetic)

although it wouldn't surprise me to see them embarked for a future talisman event...

I agree that it is unlikely to see Tigers on LHD's anytime soon. In fact in the same edition of "Army News" there is an article on how the Army has only just brought online one troop of three Tigers and only for low intensity operations. I’m just glad the Army has not written off the future possibility of Tigers flying off LHD's. As I have said before I really do not see any reason why they can't or should not be if the tactical situation dictates (Certainly not an everyday situation).

Also there is an article on two Ex British army Apache pilot's each with 20 years service experience. I think 161 SDN is very lucky to have two "Old Hands" onboard (one was the pilot who famously flew Marine Commandos into a Taliban camp strapped onto side of his Apache to recover a fallen comrade) with experience in comparable aircraft as its role has changed greatly since the Kiowa’s days.


Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also there is an article on two Ex British army Apache pilot's each with 20 years service experience. I think 161 SDN is very lucky to have two "Old Hands" onboard (one was the pilot who famously flew Marine Commandos into a Taliban camp strapped onto side of his Apache to recover a fallen comrade) with experience in comparable aircraft as its role has changed greatly since the Kiowa’s days.


Cheers

which edition?

I must confess to not getting the army one, I tend to pick up the Navy first, then RAAF...

 

[ThePuss]

which edition?

I must confess to not getting the army one, I tend to pick up the Navy first, then RAAF...

Pick it up online at Army - The Soldiers Newspaper : June 24th 2010, Page 1 - Defence Newspapers | The Soldiers Army Page 24

 

[gf0012-aust]

Pick it up online at Army - The Soldiers Newspaper : June 24th 2010, Page 1 - Defence Newspapers | The Soldiers Army Page 24

even more embarassing, its sitting on my desk and I just haven't bothered to read it yet....

my excuse is it was folded up...

 

[icelord]

There is an interesting article in the latest Army news magazine Army - The Soldiers Newspaper : June 24th 2010, Page 1 - Defence Newspapers | The Soldiers Army on page 9 called "Setting a new course" about the SAD or Ships Army Detachment on the LHD (mind you in the article said that will a redundant term on the ships).

80 army personnel form part of the 243 permanent crew which is a large proportional increase on the current 20 SAD out of a crew of 240 on a LPA. The Army really seem ready to shoulder a large part of the burden of manning the ships, which really makes a lot of sense as they are primarily being acquired to support the Army. They really will be "Purple" ships with even the airforce coming to the show, as I understand that they will provide Aircraft Traffic Controllers for these ships (They already handle this role on behalf of the navy at NAS Albatross).

It looks like the four landing craft will be permanently embarked which again makes a lot of sense. Though not stated here I understand the crewing for the craft will be 50/50- Army/Navy which is another change from the current LPA model where their landing craft are not permanent embarked. This is another example of "Purple" cooperation with this time the Navy willing to help shoulder the burden of crewing the landing craft, as opposed to the Tobruk model where the army operate the LCM-8 and the Navy operates the LCVP's.

Also interesting is that it states that they do plan to operate the Tigers (and Chooks) from the LHD so that is at least a possibility.

As I understand, it they will also have a company of light infantry and a flight of four MRH-90 embarked on routine deployments. This is so they can respond to disaster relief / emergency evacuation type scenarios a lot quicker than being have to sail back to Australia to embark the troops and head back "Up Top". “Jack” might start to feel a little outnumbered with 250/300 Army onboard routinely!

On another note the Navy announced recently that they will be raising or rather re-raising a non-technical aviation (Birdie) branch. I am not sure of the title but basically they will be aircraft handlers who will also look after things like flight deck fire fighting. It’s good to see that the navy is looking ahead and realises that these ships are just to aviation centric for these roles to be fulfilled by non aviation ships company as an ancillary duty. If I had my time over and was looking to join up as a young kid I think it would be an interesting branch to be in (Hard work I Know!)

Wow 80 SADs, add to that the speculation (buzz) that there will be 70 bosuns, and we have a very interesting make up of crew without ATA,ATV and pilots.
As always, shitbuzzes are going around in regards to LHD, as very few people have been saying much about the program, and with no billets called for yet, no one knows much. Several people have been saying bosuns would also be doing aircraft handlers on the flight deck,as a sort of qualification much in the way of Nav Yeo, SE in the branch now, but a stand alone rate would not be surprising. I know a few old firefighters that are still around as POB CPOB at the moment have looked into the FF branch, and are eagerly awaiting news. I wonder if they will run the Landing craft similar to NZ, where the embarked craft has a POB incharge, with a small crew to drive also.

I would think RAN ASACs would be worthwhile, and there was a request going around Navy requesting officers for Aircraft Controller, my understanding was it would be a different role to the current AIC onboard a ship. So RAAF may start the control, with navy beside learning and ironing out issues to allow them to take the full weight of the job.

Im still cautious on news 80 SADs, plus infantry company and army helos, Navy would want to make up good portion of the crew, and once you break it down, 243 inclusive of army is little polite really, as stokers, greenies numbers would be of a good size, then officers cooks all add numbers. Would be good to have a stand by crew of cooks and few others for when they deploy with large numbers of army, these would see less strain placed on the crew already onboard, but that would mean looking at Fleet Support Unit, and that place has too many problems assisting the current fleet properly let alone supporting 2 ships.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It will be very interesting to see how the RAN and the ADF as a whole crew and operate the LHD given they are significatly different from any previous asset we have operated in living memory. They will fundemetally change the forces, how they operate and deploy.

I think we should head toward a "minimarines" role for the army with numbers also comming from the navy. While still attached to their primary service to really train and be experts in operating off the LHD and really perfect the SOP for these vessels.

Whats going to be the killer is trying to deploy them at the same time and relieve crews. Sustaining and operating effectively will be interesting.

These two ships fully loaded will represent a significant majority of the ADF power.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It will be very interesting to see how the RAN and the ADF as a whole crew and operate the LHD given they are significatly different from any previous asset we have operated in living memory. They will fundemetally change the forces, how they operate and deploy.

we've had people deployed to and with a few sister navies and corps for the last few years. the doctrine for through life usage and assoc doctrine is being defined now in anticipation

 

[spoz]

[80 army personnel form part of the 243 permanent crew ]

My understanding is that the present proposals are for a larger number than that; and that the Army personnel are integrated across the entire ships company as well as heading up, and forming the major proportion of, the amphibious department

 

[sandman]

Wow 80 SADs, add to that the speculation (buzz) that there will be 70 bosuns, and we have a very interesting make up of crew without ATA,ATV and pilots.
As always, shitbuzzes are going around in regards to LHD, as very few people have been saying much about the program, and with no billets called for yet, no one knows much. Several people have been saying bosuns would also be doing aircraft handlers on the flight deck,as a sort of qualification much in the way of Nav Yeo, SE in the branch now, but a stand alone rate would not be surprising. I know a few old firefighters that are still around as POB CPOB at the moment have looked into the FF branch, and are eagerly awaiting news. I wonder if they will run the Landing craft similar to NZ, where the embarked craft has a POB incharge, with a small crew to drive also.

AVN support will be its own category in its own right. Not a BM spin off. it is official and has been signalled. Check the DRN.

I would think RAN ASACs would be worthwhile, and there was a request going around Navy requesting officers for Aircraft Controller, my understanding was it would be a different role to the current AIC onboard a ship. So RAAF may start the control, with navy beside learning and ironing out issues to allow them to take the full weight of the job.

AIC is gone (going). The new call was for officers (and CPOCSMs) willing to commit to the replacment Fighter Controller (FC) qualification. Which is the same job but will be much more closely alligned with RAAF Air Combat Officer competencies and requires a 3 year commitment to a posting to RAAF Williamtown for consolidation of Air Battle Managment course and volunteer for AWACs aircrew. Its all aimed at having Air Warfare specialists for the AWDs, not for ACing on the LHDs.
Again theres a big page of it on the DRN Navy warfare community page

 

[agc33e]

It will be very interesting to see how the RAN and the ADF as a whole crew and operate the LHD given they are significatly different from any previous asset we have operated in living memory. They will fundemetally change the forces, how they operate and deploy.

I think we should head toward a "minimarines" role for the army with numbers also comming from the navy. While still attached to their primary service to really train and be experts in operating off the LHD and really perfect the SOP for these vessels.

Whats going to be the killer is trying to deploy them at the same time and relieve crews. Sustaining and operating effectively will be interesting.

These two ships fully loaded will represent a significant majority of the ADF power.

And you dont include the 3rd ship that is suppose to come, or they are looking at, that is another amphibious sealift as well, and the size of it, f.e. "bay" class it gives a sealift for vehicles very big, maybe bigger than the heavy deck of the canberras, i woulndt be surprised to see the 3 fatships in the same action, as somestated "it will be fixed no once but twice", sorry 3ice.

 

[Todjaeger]

And you dont include the 3rd ship that is suppose to come, or they are looking at, that is another amphibious sealift as well, and the size of it, f.e. "bay" class it gives a sealift for vehicles very big, maybe bigger than the heavy deck of the canberras, i woulndt be surprised to see the 3 fatships in the same action, as somestated "it will be fixed no once but twice", sorry 3ice.

The reality is that with three sealift ships, of two different types/classes, only two of them will likely be available due to maintenance and training needs. It might, just might, be possible for a surge deployment of both the Canberra-class LHD's, plus have the third vessel (likely somthing like a Bay-class) either present or enroute. However, in addition to just the issues of having that many of the fatships available for operational deployment, the ADF as a whole would need to have the resources available for deployment to make having the vessels present be worthwhile.

In the case of both Canberra- class LHD's being present, that would be ~2 battalions being deployed, in addition to whatever resources the third liftship can transport. IIRC the ADF is planning on being configured to support separate operational deployments of a battalion and company level forces simultaneously. Now, if it were to be a single deployment, then a battalion + additional company could certainly be sustained, however I am not so certain that a 2 battalion+ force could be deployed and sustained in any fashion, apart from if Oz moved to a wartime footing.

-Cheers

PS Since I am currently drawing a blank on possible choices for the third sealift ship, does anyone care to list the potential candidates for me? Thanks.

 

[swerve]

PS Since I am currently drawing a blank on possible choices for the third sealift ship, does anyone care to list the potential candidates for me? Thanks.

The official statement has been quoted on this forum, probably in this thread. As I recall, the stated requirement is a rather good fit for a ship like the logistically-oriented Bay-class LSDs, or maybe a variant of the Galicia/Rotterdam class. It might be possible to meet it with a militarised ro-ro like the Point class.

10-15000 tons was mentioned. Depending on whether it's DWT, full load, or whatever, all the ships mentioned above could fit, plus others.

[Edit]I should have said, of course, that the Bays & Galicia/Rotterdam share a basic design, all being derived from the Damen Schelde Enforcer family.

 

[PeterM]

The official statement has been quoted on this forum, probably in this thread. As I recall, the stated requirement is a rather good fit for a ship like the logistically-oriented Bay-class LSDs, or maybe a variant of the Galicia/Rotterdam class. It might be possible to meet it with a militarised ro-ro like the Point class.

10-15000 tons was mentioned. Depending on whether it's DWT, full load, or whatever, all the ships mentioned above could fit, plus others.

The Bay class or a variant of the Galicia/Rotterdam class seem to be the main options at this stage.

Another option could be a bigger enlarged version of HMNZS Canterbury.

I wonder if instead of a single sealift ship, the RAN might be better off with two of the smaller Canterbury MRVs. That would enable them to be teamed with an LHD, ensuring the RAN has one LHD and one MRV are available at all times.