A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[icelord]

Assuming HMAS PERTH proves to deliver near AEGIS capabilities and the system can be affordably designed and fitted into a 2000 tonne combatant we could find ourselves (potentially) with:
• 20 mini AWDs (OCV with CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT and VLS) supporting
• 8 cruisers (the ANZAC replacement frigates, larger than the F-100s, with better sensors, greater war load and flag facilities), or
• mix of 4 of these cruisers and 4 through deck helicopter carriers / command cruisers, and
• 3 AWD’s providing theatre AD and ABM missile shield.

Kinda pointless have a CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT OCV going up against a 5m fishing boat...waste of money and resoures.
The view of increasing the size of the patrol boat fleets size is for creating a modulised vessel for MCM or Hydro that can change to patrol tasks. They are trying to common hull the MWV fleet to reduce frames and minimize costs.
The armidales are a good size for their current task. The bigger vessel would allow boat people to be detained onboard without the requirement to come alongside quickly(more room for detention, crew for security etc, and longer patrol endurance time on station) an OCV would also allow for a Flightdeck and even hanger for smaller helo to be embarked, say A109 or even firescout(wishful thinking here) that would increase the survellance range.

Its not intended for a missile boat or alike. The patrol boat fleet has a task at hand, to stop fisherman, illegal immigrants and at sea presence in the north. They are not fighting a fictional enemy, we have no threat the requires a large number of missile armed vessels. To crew such a boat would drain the small people we already have, its hard enough getting CSOs or Greenies on ships now, let alone up north with the qualifications needed. Draining the pool further would mean more Major Fleet Units alongside just so 2 OCVs can sail to stop fisherman, which is not what is preffered.

Replace Success, Sirius and the proposed Strategic Sea Lift Ship with something along the lines of Canada’s proposed Joint Support Ship, increasing both underway support and sealift capability.

Replace the LCHs with something along the lines of Singapore’s Endurance Class LST.

Add the 12 Collins class replacements and the 2 LHDs and this is a pretty impressive fleet by any standards, the sort of fleet in which a conventional carrier or two would not be out of place.

Sirius wont be replaced for at least 15-20 years, its a refueller and will remain that way as long as needed. A JSS would be good to replace Success, and the sooner the better. Its a waste of money getting it double hulled when they could have just looked for a new ship to replace it.

The LCH replacement needs to be something smaller then the Endurance, more along the lines of the french BATRAL but more modern, say the South Korean LST.

also, i highly doubt 12 collins replacements...its just not worthwhile. first review will reduce it to 6-8...

 

[t68]

also, i highly doubt 12 collins replacements...its just not worthwhile. first review will reduce it to 6-8...

Would it be worth the hassle of designing a new submarine from scratch only to have a small build of 6 boats? Understand the manning problems faced by the RAN a modified Astute/Virginia or Soryu class might be a better investment.

AG seems to be of the opinion the backup diesel/battery pack in a Virginia is better than what is currently in the Collins now more than capable of supporting the boat without the nuclear power plant, it would seem for such a small number of boats or large in Australian prospective go for a modified off the shelf design with the combat system we are already operate with little retraining except for the boat itself, surely there would be money saved from building a boat from scratch to modifying one of roughly the dimensions and capability we desire.

 

[Volkodav]

Very wrong assumption. AEGIS has about 10 times the volume search capability of CEAPAR/9LV Mk 4 without even counting the increase in scan rate it can handle or cooperative engagement. CEAPAR is however very cheap and could easily be fitted to a 2,000 tonne corvette. Of course even being cheap it would radically increase the cost of the SEA 1180 ship if fitted.

Combat systems arn't my speciallity but that sound fair, "near AEGIS" performance was probably over the top. It would how ever offer significantly better capability to any thing short of an AWD. Any idea what the cost difference would be between CEAFAR / CEA mount vs any MOTS solution (including ESSM capability) that could be used instead?

It is conceivable that an evolved CEA system could provide superior performance to AEGIS in an ANZAC replacement. Also I would assume as the ANZAC replacements come on line the AWDs would be inline for upgrades to enable an ABM capability with SM3.

Rather than try and stretch capability of each hull within the current DCP – which would drive up cost anyway – if you want a more powerful fleet you need to build it. 3 AWDs and 8 frigates is going to provide you with two flotillas of a single AWD and three frigates supported by a Wedgetail AEW&C available for sea duties on any given day. Each one of these flotillas will be able to provide AAW/ASW/ASuW coverage against a quite high threat level over more than enough area of sea for as big a convoy or task group Australia could ever put together. One of these task groups could be the two LHDs and extras and the other a high value merchant convoy or whatever. This is a lot of capability. Do we need more? Not unless we have more of a mission.

The deficient areas are in MIO [Maritime Interdiction Operations], shaping strike/land attack/NGS [Naval Gunfire Support] and in sustainment. If anything the patrol element of SEA 1180 needs to be boosted for MIO/NGS. Certainly being able to operate a naval helicopter like MH-60R will take care of MIO. But some kind of deep missile magazine for strike would be a very nice modular element.

Agreed, I would definately like to see those capabilities on the OCVs. Idealy the modular capabilities would only relate to the survey, oceanographic, and mine warfare capabilities with the sensor suit and armament being pretty much standard. In fact the containerised modules should be developed in such a manner that they could be deployed on a variety of RAN platforms as required of even on civilian craft of opportunity in an emergency.

 

[Volkodav]

Sirius wont be replaced for at least 15-20 years, its a refueller and will remain that way as long as needed. A JSS would be good to replace Success, and the sooner the better. Its a waste of money getting it double hulled when they could have just looked for a new ship to replace it.

I have heard 2018 or 2020 for Sirius and 2015 for Success, going for a JSS and a third hull could actually result in an overall cost saving, both in acqisition and through life.

I haven't worked outhow to split quotes yet so please bear with me.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The LCH replacement needs to be something smaller then the Endurance, more along the lines of the french BATRAL but more modern, say the South Korean LST.

The best replacement for the LCH would be the ship the Army planned to build until the Navy started meddling and insisted they not build and build the LCHs in its place. The rest of this sad story of the 1960s also saw the Navy destroy the Army’s replacement cargo ship plan so that the Govt. had to spend ten times more chartering and eventually commissioning merchant cargo ships to support the deployment in VietNam. Then of course the Navy was able to hijack the LCHs and subsequently re-rolled them from Army logistics to naval roles or storage. Anyway the Navy’s destruction of the Army’s use of water to move Army cargoes is perhaps the saddest story of post WWII service politics in Australia.

But the ship in question was the Mk II Landing Ship, Medium (LSM) designed by Burness Corlett (now Burness Corlett Three Quays). It built upon the LSMs excellent beaching and cargo lifting capability with an enclosed tank deck, finer lines, helo pad aft and cargo deck fwd.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I haven't worked outhow to split quotes yet so please bear with me.

You need to use a tiny bit of HTML.

At the beginning of the quote you wish to separate enter

.

At the end of the paragraph you want to separate enter /quote] with the "open" bracket placed before the forward slash mark.

Note, these brackets [ and ] must be entered on the correct side of "quote" and "/quote" every time you wish to quote a section or your quoting facility won't work properly.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

AD

 

[justsomeaussie]

I think we are losing a bit of perspective here. The CEAFAR radar on HMAS Perth is primarily providing an Anti Ship Missile Defence role (that's why the program is called the ASMD upgrade). It's not there to provide primary VSR. To have an ASMD radar you need it need to be quite high, (See HMS Daring for example). You need that "down angle" to discriminate targets against the surface of the ocean.

When talking radars are you talking about the SPY-1 radar not AEGIS, AEGIS is entire system. As I've said before SPY-1 is incredibly heavy and power hungry, so it can't be mounted high, hence poor ASMD capability.

The Rand Corp have already conducted a simulation where they have shown that a US carrier group in an area like the strait of Hormuz could be significantly impacted (read carrier taken out) by as little as 20 FACs. This is due to the SPY-1's inability to handle multiple small targets (only one radar face works at a time) effectively . CEAFAR having 6 faces all working simultaneously doesn't have this problem. (also need to think about having 4 CEAMOUNT missile illuminators as AESA as well rather than STIRs).

The US is still fighting large sea battles against large warships, that's why all the technology now is being pushed into small targets in the littorals (coastal).

The SPS-49 radar on the top of the CEAFAR cupola provides the VSR and that's being replaced very soon anyway.

As for the CEAFAR on an OPV the technology can be done, but don't think you'll see that mast on there, it's far too large and is huge overkill. It would look something like this, I imagine:

Google "CEAFAR Minor War Vessel Radar (CEAFAR MWVR)"

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Rand Corp have already conducted a simulation where they have shown that a US carrier group in an area like the strait of Hormuz could be significantly impacted (read carrier taken out) by as little as 20 FACs.

Like most such simulations it’s no doubt worthless. Because they only assess one part of the myriad of interrelating systems. How many FACs do you need to deploy to get 20 within firing range of a CSG? 100? 200? Because the carrier air wing is going to devastate any fleet of FACs.

As to even a barrage of 160 sea skimming missiles overwhelming a CSG I find that hard to believe with cooperative engagement (CEC) linking Hawkeye and multiple AEGIS systems. The last 10-15 years of AEGIS production has been of a much improved littoral discrimination system to provide sea skimming target detection and tracking. Further many AEGIS ships (including the Hobart class) have a SPQ-9 radar integrated to provide enhanced X Band horizon crossing scanning.

This is due to the SPY-1's inability to handle multiple small targets (only one radar face works at a time) effectively . CEAFAR having 6 faces all working simultaneously doesn't have this problem. (also need to think about having 4 CEAMOUNT missile illuminators as AESA as well rather than STIRs).

That’s a very misleading statement and conclusion. On a DDG-51 only one face out of four transmits at any one split second (CG two out of four) but the system power shares the four arrays so they are each doing many multiple scans per second. CEC enables radar measurement sharing between multiple platforms which is much better than radar measurement sharing between two arrays on a single ship. The AEGIS don’t have STIRS they have Mk 99 weapon system illuminators which are far more powerful than any CEAMOUNT and trainable so more than ¼ or ½ can face any engagement angle. The advantage of CEAMOUNT is its much cheaper and requires far less maintenance.

The US is still fighting large sea battles against large warships, that's why all the technology now is being pushed into small targets in the littorals (coastal).

Total BS.

 

[StevoJH]

Google "CEAFAR Minor War Vessel Radar (CEAFAR MWVR)"

I assume you are talking about this?

CEAFAR is not really comparable to SPY-1 and Sampson in the versions that it have currently developed. While it is stated in that link that the save of each array is scalable, if you scaled it up large enough to have the same capability as SPY-1 you would presumably have similar weight and power requirement problems to face. I like sampson, its an AESA, and its rotating, this means its powerful enough to not require large panels, and because its rotating you only need two faces. Because it weighs a lot less it can be placed much higher up on the ships superstructure, giving much longer range against sea skimming targets while not greatly sacrificing range against targets at higher altitude.

CEAFAR on the other hand sacrifices overall range in order to keep the array light enough so that it can be placed nice and high for optimal coverage against sea skimming targets. At the end of the day, CEAFAR may be more capable then SPY-1 (at least the larger versions currently in service) in this role as the extra height made possibly by its light weight gives it a much larger engagement envelope against sea skimming targets.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Good point Abe, Rand studies are usually useless and put together by a bunch of hobos. Lord knows why the US govt pays them millions to conduct studies. I'd be interested to know how all those Hawkeye and AEGIS systems work when you are transiting past Bandar Abbas when it's being reported that Iran is producing hundreds of FAC. Sounds like Falklands all over again. (hint that's why they did the study)

No one's suggesting that CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT are alternatives to AEGIS. AEGIS a fine system, just has a very large power and weight budget, and it still isn't digital.

CEC is just a link (just a very expensive box) remember, it could be used with any system.

A SPY-1 single face alone is 3^2 meters compared to CEAFAR is 1.2^2 meters. Even the Israeli MF-STAR EL/M 2248 (the only radar comparable radar to CEAFAR) is a 3^2 meter array. So they simply don't compare as they perform different functions.

Yep, forgot not being STIRs, but it's still a trainable array, limited mechanically.

It's all about why this program exists (since I can't post links google it):

AMDR-Competition-The-USAs-Next-Dual-Band-Radar-05682/]AMDR[ Competition: The USA’s Next Dual-Band Radar

But its power budget is estimated at 20MW and 20 tons if I remember correctly. Not something Australia is going to be able to provide.

CEAFAR technology is still providing the lightest and best bang for buck. It would be interesting to see if they can model it at a SPY-1 array size.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I am not a radar boffin, but I do know that when one of the radar "gods" Eli Brookner says that the technology being developed in Australia and Israel is an "amazing breakthrough" I listen up.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

CEAFAR is not really comparable to SPY-1 and Sampson in the versions that it have currently developed. While it is stated in that link that the save of each array is scalable, if you scaled it up large enough to have the same capability as SPY-1 you would presumably have similar weight and power requirement problems to face.

That’s not quite true. There is another issue in all this other than weight and power and that is heat. CEAFAR can be scaled for antenna size but not for power. Each transmitter can not handle the same power as a SPY-1 transmitter. Which is why there is the AUSPAR program with the US to develop the CEAPAR tech to handle these high power, high heat loads.

The whole point of CEAPAR tech is it’s much lighter, cheaper and more flexible than older phased array designs like SPY-1. Plus of course by using multiple RF sources it is an AESA compared to the PESA nature of SPY-1’s centralised RF source. However like all AESAs it is more complex than a PESA and scaling up for power is more difficult.

I like sampson, its an AESA, and its rotating, this means its powerful enough to not require large panels, and because its rotating you only need two faces. Because it weighs a lot less it can be placed much higher up on the ships superstructure, giving much longer range against sea skimming targets while not greatly sacrificing range against targets at higher altitude.

CEAFAR on the other hand sacrifices overall range in order to keep the array light enough so that it can be placed nice and high for optimal coverage against sea skimming targets. At the end of the day, CEAFAR may be more capable then SPY-1 (at least the larger versions currently in service) in this role as the extra height made possibly by its light weight gives it a much larger engagement envelope against sea skimming targets.

Well none of that is accurate. Its clear you don’t know enough about radar in general or these types of radars to be making any kind of rational analysis.

I just don’t understand why its so easy for people to publicly express such strong and definitive opinions about things they know nothing about. Trying to analyse the capabilities of these radars based on what they look like compared to each other is really, really inaccurate.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Good point Abe, Rand studies are usually useless and put together by a bunch of hobos. Lord knows why the US govt pays them millions to conduct studies. I'd be interested to know how all those Hawkeye and AEGIS systems work when you are transiting past Bandar Abbas when it's being reported that Iran is producing hundreds of FAC. Sounds like Falklands all over again. (hint that's why they did the study)

RAND is a big organisation and the quality of output is a wide range. As to your scenario it still doesn’t reduce the fact that even small waterways are big and there is lots of opportunity to shape the enemy before they launch missiles. Anyway we aren’t talking about a RAND study you haven’t provided the source. We are talking about your version of it. And I find the idea of 20 FACs taking out a USN CSG at sea in the Gulf (so at a high readiness state) fanciful.

PS the Falklands was a walk in the park compared to the Persian Gulf. And the RN would have not suffered any serious ship losses if Hermes knew how to operate Sea Harriers.

No one's suggesting that CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT are alternatives to AEGIS. AEGIS a fine system, just has a very large power and weight budget, and it still isn't digital.

LOL read back in this forum, lots of people are!

CEC is just a link (just a very expensive box) remember, it could be used with any system.

No it can’t. To be a co-operator you need the link but you need an AEGIS at the centre to make it all work. Also one can’t play wishy washy hypothetical’s with defence tech. Sure you can stick CEC in an Armidale patrol boat but has anyone? Will anyone? No so let’s talk about where CEC exists: AEGIS ships, Hawkeye and Wedgetail. Everything else is hypothetical.

A SPY-1 single face alone is 3^2 meters compared to CEAFAR is 1.2^2 meters. Even the Israeli MF-STAR EL/M 2248 (the only radar comparable radar to CEAFAR) is a 3^2 meter array. So they simply don't compare as they perform different functions.

That means nothing. Any phased array radar can be scaled for antenna size.

But its power budget is estimated at 20MW and 20 tons if I remember correctly. Not something Australia is going to be able to provide.

Except that’s what AUSPAR is working towards. No reason why Australia (helped along no small about by Northrop) can produce a high power active phased array. Israel does (Green Pine) and its not rocket science ;-)

 

[foxdemon]

Kinda pointless have a CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT OCV going up against a 5m fishing boat...waste of money and resoures.
The view of increasing the size of the patrol boat fleets size is for creating a modulised vessel for MCM or Hydro that can change to patrol tasks. They are trying to common hull the MWV fleet to reduce frames and minimize costs.

Its not intended for a missile boat or alike. The patrol boat fleet has a task at hand, to stop fisherman, illegal immigrants and at sea presence in the north. They are not fighting a fictional enemy, we have no threat the requires a large number of missile armed vessels. To crew such a boat would drain the small people we already have, its hard enough getting CSOs or Greenies on ships now, let alone up north with the qualifications needed. Draining the pool further would mean more Major Fleet Units alongside just so 2 OCVs can sail to stop fisherman, which is not what is preffered.

I am inclined to agree with Icelord's view. The current fleet of patrol boats and survey vessels seem most suitable for preforming peacetime (ie: most of the time) missions economically. If the requirements for the OCV's are too ambitious, those ships will end up being frigates. I can't see the point of the OCV program.

Getting back on topic, I doubt anyone would disagree that carriers are the ultimate "man'o'war" in this day and age, and as such would vastly enhance the RAN's capabilities. But economics rules out such a possibility. Given the US already has a substancial capability in this area, and furthermore, the RAN would be cooperating with the USN in any senario requiring carriers, I can't see why we would need to go to the expensive to duplicate such capability. If the government had some money it wanted to spend on military projects, I would suggest investing it into a missile production capacity. In the event of a general war, we can plan around US carriers, but I am nervous about the avaliability of missiles as the US might need everything they can produce for their own forces.

Note: I don't expect anyone to comment about missile numbers. I'm just saying there are better things to spend money on that a carrier force.

 

[icelord]

I am inclined to agree with Icelord's view.

Thats dangerous thinking there...

I would suggest investing it into a missile production capacity. In the event of a general war, we can plan around US carriers, but I am nervous about the avaliability of missiles as the US might need everything they can produce for their own forces.

Note: I don't expect anyone to comment about missile numbers. I'm just saying there are better things to spend money on that a carrier force.

If it involoves shooting off more missiles each year rather then once every downgrade or Rimpac, then hell lets go for it. Currently there are a lot of missiles in stock, the issue is they do have a shelf life and use by date, once you pass it, time to rebuy. Not much use having large numbers or missiles and ability to manufacture when they may just end up being thrown. At least buying US purchase you know they will shoot more then they need too, so theres already a production line.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What makes you think we don't have a missile production capability? Some 20% of each RIM-162 ESSM is built in Australia and all of the Nulka decoy vehicle system side. In the case of a national mobilisation of industry Australia could easily build a range of guided missiles. Also American missile production capability is massively underutilised. Its pure fantasy to image a situation where America could not supply all the guided missiles Australian forces could ever manage to shoot.

 

[weasel1962]

Its not just expensive missiles.

I would also add that Melbourne/Benalla has an aircraft bomb manufacturing facility and also manufactures army and naval gun munitions. With kits like the JDAM-ER developed by AU, there's definitely independent sustainability on the stand-off munitions front without having to rely on 3rd party suppliers.

I doubt if naval vessels will need that many missiles.

 

[foxdemon]

What makes you think we don't have a missile production capability? Some 20% of each RIM-162 ESSM is built in Australia and all of the Nulka decoy vehicle system side. In the case of a national mobilisation of industry Australia could easily build a range of guided missiles. Also American missile production capability is massively underutilised. Its pure fantasy to image a situation where America could not supply all the guided missiles Australian forces could ever manage to shoot.

That is reasuring to know.

I regret having offered an alternative to spending money on a carrier force. I should have just said that it would stretch resources too far and let it at that. It would seem to be a pretty difficult task to meet on going costs as well as taking on all the current projects, let alone a new big project, with the current budget.

Actually I was thinking a bit beyond naval missiles. Missile production would be part of building up an areospace industry. I am very impressed with Japan's efforts in space exploration, particularly the Ikaros solar sail mission. We could do that sort of thing too. I suppose it is just a wishful thinking as the carrier idea, given the government is more interested in subsidising middle class life style than anything else. There are a lot of worthwhile activities around the country that are starved for funds. Our antartic missions are an example.

I appologise for distracting the discussion with my silly suggestion.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I appologise for distracting the discussion with my silly suggestion.

Its not a silly suggestion. I like most posters here agree with you that carriers are not high on the ADF's needs agenda. Its just missile production is not high on the alternatives agenda.

 

[Volkodav]

The best replacement for the LCH would be the ship the Army planned to build until the Navy started meddling and insisted they not build and build the LCHs in its place. The rest of this sad story of the 1960s also saw the Navy destroy the Army’s replacement cargo ship plan so that the Govt. had to spend ten times more chartering and eventually commissioning merchant cargo ships to support the deployment in VietNam. Then of course the Navy was able to hijack the LCHs and subsequently re-rolled them from Army logistics to naval roles or storage. Anyway the Navy’s destruction of the Army’s use of water to move Army cargoes is perhaps the saddest story of post WWII service politics in Australia.

But the ship in question was the Mk II Landing Ship, Medium (LSM) designed by Burness Corlett (now Burness Corlett Three Quays). It built upon the LSMs excellent beaching and cargo lifting capability with an enclosed tank deck, finer lines, helo pad aft and cargo deck fwd.

Australian & New Zealand Warships Since 1945 by Ross Gillett 1988.
In addition to the Landing Ship Medium MkII and the Logistic Ship it also outlines the DDL and Protector class AOE.

The National Archives have a fair bit of info on the DDL project, including the fact it started out as requirement for a large class of ships not dis-similar to the OCV. The idea was for these ships to free up the frigate and mine sweepers that were being seconded to the sea control mission in SEA. They were to have a medium calibre gun, helicopter facilities and a self defence anti aircraft capability. They would have been useful but unfortunately scope creep saw them evolve into an unaffordable DDG.

Also in the National Archives and closer to the original thread were the RANs unsuccessful attempts to acquire a strike carrier during the 60s. Options analysed includer the prefered option of an upgraded Essex, a new build Essex and the CVA 01. The nominated airgroup was Phantoms, Trackers and Tracers. The new build Essex is the option that I find most interesting.