A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

[Jaimito]

"The technology of the Twin Propeller, in which thrust is generated by two propellers rotating in the same direction on a single shaft, also served as a model for the Siemens-SCHOTTEL Propulsor (SSP), with power ratings up to 20 MW. This pod drive is designed for sea-going ferries, supply vessels, tankers, and container ships, for example, and has proved reliable in RoPax ferries of the TT-Line, heavy-lift transporters of the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), and chemical tankers of the Swedish Donsötank Reederi. Due to its good experience with the SSP, Donsötank recently decided to have a fourth chemical tanker built employing this innovative propulsion concept."


The Ssp is the system in the Lhd´s, with permanent excited magnet motors.

If Schottle says the twin prop is less noisy.
If Siemens says the Ssp (magnet motor) is less noisy.
If the Spanis Navy says the whole pod system is less noisy.
And Abraham says is "extremely noisy".

I don´t know who to believe.

 

[gf0012-aust]

"The technology of the Twin Propeller, in which thrust is generated by two propellers rotating in the same direction on a single shaft, also served as a model for the Siemens-SCHOTTEL Propulsor (SSP), with power ratings up to 20 MW. This pod drive is designed for sea-going ferries, supply vessels, tankers, and container ships, for example, and has proved reliable in RoPax ferries of the TT-Line, heavy-lift transporters of the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), and chemical tankers of the Swedish Donsötank Reederi. Due to its good experience with the SSP, Donsötank recently decided to have a fourth chemical tanker built employing this innovative propulsion concept."


The Ssp is the system in the Lhd´s, with permanent excited magnet motors.

If Schottle says the twin prop is less noisy.
If Siemens says the Ssp (magnet motor) is less noisy.
If the Spanis Navy says the whole pod system is less noisy.
And Abraham says is "extremely noisy".

I don´t know who to believe.

right, lets just believe the internet and marketing and ignore someone who's a maritime engineer and at least 3 people who deal with acoustics at a warfighting level.....

you don't understand basic cavitation concepts and yet insist on presenting marketing and "throw away" statements as valid?

good grief....

you're at the 11:59 o'clock mark my friend

 

[StingrayOZ]

If the RAN couldn't even justify a sqn of F-35Bs for the LHDs, how much more can they justify a multi-$b vessel?

The opportunity cost of a QE is easily a couple of sqns of F-35As. I think the RAAF would rather more F-35As than the carrier. There's a lot of competing priorities higher up on the scale for the military $ budget.

We could get an another squad of F-35A's, plus a bunch of refuelling aircraft, plus a bunch of additional Tigers. If the Tigers can deliver, then I think thats what we really need on the LHDs. It has hellfires which will cut up most stuff we would come across anyway.

And we can provide that 24/7 not just when 1 carrier is avalible. Which is kinda pointless anyway because the US has signficant carrier presence in our region anyway. (Usually 2 operational with a 3rd nearby).

While they will be operating over some water, they won't be continously flying around the ocean during seastate 5 while the LHD is cutting its way through at 25kt. The Tiger shares some parts with maritime helos, is twin engined, mostly composite so should fair well operating off a 30m high LHD slowly trawling around. I don't think there are any fundemental flaws with it.

Folding rotors for the Tiger and the Chinook would be proberly the best thing in terms of marinisation. Although the tiger can be hangered without blade removal anyway.

DT story on the apache maintence is interesting. ~9 weeks on ~9 weeks off. Add travel time (C-17 or ship?). I would imagine operating over salt water would require simular maintence as per a dusty enviroment?

Looking back to East Timor to where we are heading, what a huge leap we are making. We will end up with some serious amphibious capability, possibly best in region. While US carrier power is usually local, marines are not always. Also airpower can deploy quickly if the situation worsens, while placing troops on the ground can not (particularly if things go bad).

Amphibious and ASW is what Australia needs to focus on. I think there is a stronger argument for a 3rd LHD and a 4th AWD in combination with LACA (or atleast get into the STSC program) which should be able to move a tank and troops and some other lighter vechical in a single 40kt movement.

Far more relevant and useful (if less prestigious) than a fixed wing carrier. If all you want is show, we will just invite the USMC to operate some F-35B off our ships for a demo. Bingo instant carrier media credibility.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If Schottle says the twin prop is less noisy.
If Siemens says the Ssp (magnet motor) is less noisy.
If the Spanis Navy says the whole pod system is less noisy.
And Abraham says is "extremely noisy".

I don´t know who to believe.

Judging by the crap you constantly post I’m sure you have all sorts of belief problems. But here again you’ve just displayed your monumental ignorance and willingness to draw massive wrong conclusions from limited information.

There is a difference between ship noise and acoustic profile. When Siemens and co. are saying the SSPs are less noisy they are referring to the noise in the ship. Pods are fantastic for reducing ship noise and vibration. If you’ve ever been to sea on a ship – which I greatly doubt – you’ll notice as soon as you turn a few knots you get a lot of noise in the ship from vibration to do with the motors and propulsion system. By placing these elements outside the ship in a pod the SSP reduces noise within the ship.

However this conversely massively increases the acoustic profile of the ship since all the noise is outside the ship in the water not inside it. So it makes it much easier for sonars to detect, identify and localise the pod propelled ship. Which is what this argument is all about. You debating attempts do not change this reality.

I doubt you’ll pay much attention to this post. You appear to be one of those particular types of internet forum fools who simply try and craft limited information to fit preconceived ideas. Since you contribute little of value to this forum and constantly fill up the Australian centric threads with long winded posts about nothing please continue with you SSP fantasy posts so hopefully one of the moderators deletes your account. We’d all be better off without you.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I think the chooks already have foldable blades.

The Boeing CH-47 Chinook helicopter - Folding the Rotor Blades.

It would be a great draw + marketing boost for a F-35B to take off from a canberra. I might even take a trip down-under just for that...

 

[JPiper]

Conventional carrier is best suited

A conventional powered version of the Charles De Gaulle or ever the USS America LH-6 would be interesting. Once India completes its own carrier this would also be an option. These maybe not that expensive to buy if you swapped some of your RAAF F35a for b or c's. Although you still have to crew the ship. The RAN would probably not need another AWD as the F35 would provide additional air defence.

"I do believ that a conventional carrier design using the F35C would be best and also some E2D hawkeye's to give more protection and cover. However is the Navy up to this considering its many problems and failures in the past.??

 

[StingrayOZ]

Didn't know the folding rotors were avalible, AFAIK they arent but those photos are very interesting. Ive heard E models (some) had folding rotors.. Hmm.

 

[alexsa]

Didn't know the folding rotors were avalible, AFAIK they arent but those photos are very interesting. Ive heard E models (some) had folding rotors.. Hmm.

I seem to remember seeing few shots of the blades folded but it is a manual system. Have been looking around but only found this and no better pictuers except this on what appears to be a USN LHD

Otherwise the data sheets indicate a manual folding system is fitted..

Chinook Fact File United States Army

description of blade system states:

"three manual-folding blades per hub"

According to Boeing this appears to be the case for teh D and F models

Boeing: CH-47D/F Chinook -- Specifications

 

[Kirkzzy]

Hey just wanted to know in the event of a strike mission in some place like Fiji (or any other place we happen to need to take out). To take our military targets like battalion HQs, Armouries.. etc... And it was out of range of the Australian mainland for a JSF. What would the navy do in this event if the mission was designed to cripple the countries military so that Australian forces can move in sustaining only minimal casualties compared to what they would have when fighting a full force and not a splintered one in the event of a strike.

Just wanted to know, as I don't think the Tigers would be able to carry out a strike mission getting fired upon by RPGs and such, it would be much better suited for a strike aircraft.

But yeah, just curious. It wouldn't hurt to even have just a couple of JSF for this? For the sake of protecting troops on the ground (not with CAS necessarily but striking the country before it can mobilise its forces).

EDIT: They don't even have to be there all the time, only for these specific missions when they are specifically required. All it would take is about half a dozen aircraft MAX. For a strike mission on some corrupt random island nation like I was proposing. (another Fiji coup)

 

[SASWanabe]

Fiji is a very bad example... 3500 active troops 6000 reserve, No AT, Arterilly, no SAMs of any sort, no armor..

Tobroken could probably take on the whole country with her 3 helicopters.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hey just wanted to know in the event of a strike mission in some place like Fiji (or any other place we happen to need to take out). To take our military targets like battalion HQs, Armouries.. etc... And it was out of range of the Australian mainland for a JSF. What would the navy do in this event if the mission was designed to cripple the countries military so that Australian forces can move in sustaining only minimal casualties compared to what they would have when fighting a full force and not a splintered one in the event of a strike.

i seriously doubt anyone is going to discuss scenarios in here. You shouldn't make assumptions about the Fijians either, they're a solid outfit and they have more UN blue hat experience over time than any other country - including the US. they're top of the list when it comes to people sought after by the PMC's and they're very very highly regarded when attached to other special forces.

Fiji might seem small, but on home ground they're not a pushover by any means.

Just wanted to know, as I don't think the Tigers would be able to carry out a strike mission getting fired upon by RPGs and such, it would be much better suited for a strike aircraft.

why not? they can stand off and kill anyone with an RPG with relative impunity. The Tigers are perfectly suited to this kind of work.

But yeah, just curious. It wouldn't hurt to even have just a couple of JSF for this? For the sake of protecting troops on the ground (not with CAS necessarily but striking the country before it can mobilise its forces).

no. of course they could do the job, but using JSF is a woftam as there would be other priorities in play well before this.

 

[justsomeaussie]

i seriously doubt anyone is going to discuss scenarios in here. You shouldn't make assumptions about the Fijians either, they're a solid outfit and they have more UN blue hat experience over time than any other country - including the US. they're top of the list when it comes to people sought after by the PMC's and they're very very highly regarded when attached to other special forces.

Fiji might seem small, but on home ground they're not a pushover by any means.

why not? they can stand off and kill anyone with an RPG with relative impunity. The Tigers are perfectly suited to this kind of work.



no. of course they could do the job, but using JSF is a woftam as there would be other priorities in play well before this.

I think you are giving the Fijians a bit too much credit. They do a lot of UN missions as the UN pays their salary so the Fijian government doesn't have to. I've personally worked with them in East Timor and they are good outfit but nothing to write home about. There were certainly a few small fijian babies getting about in East Timor who somehow popped out of nowhere.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think you are giving the Fijians a bit too much credit. They do a lot of UN missions as the UN pays their salary so the Fijian government doesn't have to. I've personally worked with them in East Timor and they are good outfit but nothing to write home about. There were certainly a few small fijian babies getting about in East Timor who somehow popped out of nowhere.

So you're aware of the ADF assessment when there was a need to consider going in a few years back?

If you're ex service and have something to confirm it I'm happy to discuss offline

 

[justsomeaussie]

So you're aware of the ADF assessment when there was a need to consider going in a few years back?

Yes I do and I remember our brethern from Perth getting caught on the landing strip. Anyone defending their homeland is tough and the Fijians are tough guys.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes I do and I remember our brethern from Perth getting caught on the landing strip. Anyone defending their homeland is tough and the Fijians are tough guys.

well, you'd appreciate what the levels of confidence were (with the forces available at the time). in the first round in 97 there was next to zero confidence about extracting ex pats without it going to custard - they not only had the firepower, but as quite a few of their squad commanders had trained in aust at both reg and special level, they knew what our limits were. I'm not going to speak about events since then for obvious reasons.

the prev OP was somewhat trivialising of their ability, and thats a dangerous thing to do

they're not numptys, they have some very good squad level and small force command capability, and they're on home ground.

 

[recce.k1]

GF, I appreciate it's a very sensitive subject (Fiji situation), but from what you appear to be saying is one of the main considerations (against intervention) the safety of ex-pats and the like?

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, I appreciate it's a very sensitive subject (Fiji situation), but from what you appear to be saying is one of the main considerations (against intervention .. at present) the safety of ex-pats and the like?

when you run vignettes against a scenario they usually have basic concepts which then escalate in complexity as the threat and the competency of the other force goes up.

all countries start at the basic level which is "we have "nn" citizens and expats in this loc, how do we extract them before things go bad" this is compounded by the fact that we also may need to pull out other nationals if requested, eg we might be regarded as best placed to extract kiwis, canadians, indians, chinese as there's some concern about whether the country in question might use them as hostages, or hold them as bargaining chips etc in a standoff

the vignettes increase in complexity and as they increase in complexity then force application mix also changes.

The LHD's are legacies of lessons learnt for ET and places like Fiji where force insertion and holding at range is unattractive. etc etc..............

 

[Kirkzzy]

Please understand I meant no disrespect and did not want to offend. I just used Fiji as an example for any unstable country in our region, them especially due to their large amount of coups in the last few decades.

I was just wondering what the ADF were going to use for strike missions far from the Australian mainland for normal aircraft to reach, that would be able to scatter a countries military before the main force moved in.

 

[recce.k1]

Cheers GF, that makes perfect sense.

So in these situations, presumably diplomacy is key to resolving such issues? If so, able to comment on international efforts because I've not heard a thing in the last couple of years or so ... how much longer must this saga draw out?

Another reason for me asking such a question is, I'm sure "we all" could do with the assistance of the RFMF troops on stabalisation missions (as I believe we had in the Solomons intervention several years ago).

Edit: Kirkzzy, I'm sure RAAF could deploy to other PI states if regional basing is required (the RNZAF used to regularly deploy to Fiji, Cooks, and Samoa, once upon a time when we had the A-4's).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Please understand I meant no disrespect and did not want to offend. I just used Fiji as an example for any unstable country in our region, them especially due to their large amount of coups in the last few decades.

no harm, no foul, so no harm done.

I was just wondering what the ADF were going to use for strike missions far from the Australian mainland for normal aircraft to reach, that would be able to scatter a countries military before the main force moved in.

not trying to be a prat, but when scenarios are wargamed they are really quite complex, and I'd argue that its beyond what a few people would be prepared to say on an open forum.

the context is always about what the other side has on ground, can sustain, can escalate to in "nn" hours and what the windows of opportunity are against those timelines.

it then gets down to objectives. ie is it to recover nationals, ex pats? is there a need to extract foreign nationals where requests have been made,, is it about removing a specific threat like an individual commander, is it about forcing regime change, is it australian only, australian coalition led, its is australian and other non aligned, is it other country led, does it involve a need for the application of deadly force etc....

each scenario is complex and triggers other force and governance application issues

ie, what I'm saying is that this is not as easy as saying:

UN says go
have carrier,
have JSF,
decap enemy C2,
insert force,
recover civilians
recover foreign dignitaries
recover foreign nationals
kill bad guys,
hold ground until main force arrives etc....
wait for UN to stay stop