Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

I've been on the Blue Ridge whilst it was in HK prior to 97. For Australia it would be massive overkill, why not simply build in the C&C capabilties in both LHD's for the all-arms commanders They will be catering for and accommodating a puple headshed so it makes sense to add the appropriate C4ISR suite to coordinate land, sea and air operations.

Blue Ridge might be a good idea to replace Australian Parliament House but not an ADF deployable joint task force.

PS They completely replaced the internal system in the 2000s. In 2005/06 when I visited it had the most amazing WAN and computer fitout.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If various ships share the role as flag and command and control, is it worth considering a dedicated command ship(s) similar to the US Blue Ridge class command ship.

I have stated on here before, the phatships are the aust equiv of the mission and task force leader that Blue Ridge does for the USN

there has been discussions about the requirement and tasking similarities - obviously at the abstract level.

they are a floating version of B1 (Purple)

 

[Volkodav]

Just an idea, if there is a requirement for a task force command platform to supplement the LHD, what about using Melbourne and Newcastle?
They are younger than the other FFGs, recently refurbished and upgraded, are US designed and equiped ships (so should be compatible with any systems salvaged from the LPAs) and, if the Mk13 was suppressed, would have plenty of space and weight for additional command and control spaces.

 

[Raven22]

Er, why don't we just use the more than sufficient command facilities on the LHD. I dare say the capability to provide command and control for a brigade plus, while simultaneously commanding a naval task force will be more than enough for the ADF. Why cannibalise a frigate just to command the remaining 11?

 

[Volkodav]

Er, why don't we just use the more than sufficient command facilities on the LHD. I dare say the capability to provide command and control for a brigade plus, while simultaneously commanding a naval task force will be more than enough for the ADF. Why cannibalise a frigate just to command the remaining 11?

Its all in my first sentance, "if there is a requirement.... to supplement". Basically, assuming it was decided that something was needed in addition to the LHDs, why not make use of existing hulls as they are superceded in their primary role. i.e. after the AWDs replace them.

 

[Jhom]

Its all in my first sentance, "if there is a requirement.... to supplement". Basically, assuming it was decided that something was needed in addition to the LHDs, why not make use of existing hulls as they are superceded in their primary role. i.e. after the AWDs replace them.

I cant see how the RAN could possibly need more C4ISR, given the capabilities of the LHDs... maybe there is some underrating on the capabilities for commad and control of the LHDs, to put thing rigth I must say that each LHD has three times the C4ISR capabilities of the Castilla, wich is more of a commad ship that an LDP and has taken the control of several NATO naval groups

As it is said upwards, a dedicated C&C ship ship will be a temendously overkill, the LHDs will provide enought C4ISR to a fleet two times bigger than the RAN, with room to spare...

Some australians seem to really dont understand the badassery of the ships you are going to recieve...:duel

 

[StingrayOZ]

But we have all the very expensive equipment from the Kanimbla class. All we need is a hull to bolt it into (essentially).

Actually we have more command space than most people think because the two LHD's are designed/deployed to work together. So I suppose we could have one commanding all naval/air operations and one commanding all army operations.

I suppose the situation that comes it mind is something like East Timor. Where there is a fleet twice the size of the RAN. A hogepodge of RN, USN, USMC, NZ, Singapore, Spain, France, ireland, germany, Japan, India, etc ships and systems.

Do we have the capability to merge and C4 all those resources together? Is it worth have a specific ship that has Uk (from Largs) and US (from Kanimbla/Man) systems to glue everything together. Such a ship would be a very useful asset independant of the LHD's, being able to be deployed where any large multinational effort is being conducted.

 

[spoz]

Commanding a Naval task group is one of the reasons for the existence of the AWD. Having the ability to command a joint force is what the LHDs do. Each performs its own roles - you wouldn't mix and match if you can avoid it and together they certainly give us more than enough C2 capability in all the probable environments.

 

[Milne Bay]

As it is said upwards, a dedicated C&C ship ship will be a temendously overkill, the LHDs will provide enought C4ISR to a fleet two times bigger than the RAN, with room to spare...

Some australians seem to really dont understand the badassery of the ships you are going to recieve...:duel

I think the point of concern is exactly that - the ships we are going to receive....
These won't be in service until 2014 at the earliest.
In the meantime it would appear that Manoora is to be de-commissioned and Kanimbla is unserviceable.
The worry therefore is that we will have lost this capacity for up to 3-4 years.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I cant see how the RAN could possibly need more C4ISR, given the capabilities of the LHDs... maybe there is some underrating on the capabilities for commad and control of the LHDs, to put thing rigth I must say that each LHD has three times the C4ISR capabilities of the Castilla, wich is more of a commad ship that an LDP and has taken the control of several NATO naval groups

and what do you know about australias future CSS requirements out to 2040? esp when its not in the public domain?

quite frankly what your stating is just abject nonsense - esp when you start quoting ratios - esp when trying to draw a relationship to NATO capability,

As it is said upwards, a dedicated C&C ship ship will be a temendously overkill, the LHDs will provide enought C4ISR to a fleet two times bigger than the RAN, with room to spare...

and that would be based on what evidence that you have? so you are familiar with the vignettes and conops defined and run for future capability? that would be interesting as none/NONE of it is available in the public domain.

before you make grand claims about overkill it would be far more sensible if you attempted to understand these vessels roles - and especially when force capability is based on 20-30 year projections - none of which will be available in the public domain, and none of which will be released when the 30 yr rule lapses for decisions made re these vessels in 2040

Some australians seem to really dont understand the badassery of the ships you are going to recieve...:duel

I reckon there are a fair few in here that do - esp those involved with procurement and those already involved in the assessments.

I'm wondering what you understand about australian requirements when nothing of significance is even permitted to be in the public domain
'
you're making a few wild assumptions yourself
feel free to articulate what the badassery is that we don't know about and how it meets the requirements

 

[StingrayOZ]

In the meantime it would appear that Manoora is to be de-commissioned and Kanimbla is unserviceable.

I suppose technically Kanimbla is avalible, even if they have to tow her out and about. Perhaps we could call up the bros and get the gear fitted to HMNZS Canterbury? Or maybe they can tow Kanimbla with Canterbury.

I don't suppose there is much we can do. The LHD are ahead of schedule I believe, so we may have some IOC sooner rather than later.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The worry therefore is that we will have lost this capacity for up to 3-4 years.

How? Largs is here by the end of the year assuming that it passes final review

we have portable systems that can be deployed to enhance extant capability, and we can use any number of other skimmers to bring a more than competent battlespace management system to the table.

what assets outside of the USN, and JMSDF have a bluewater capability and C2 equivalency?

there is no "lost" 3-4 year capability

 

[Todjaeger]

I suppose technically Kanimbla is avalible, even if they have to tow her out and about. Perhaps we could call up the bros and get the gear fitted to HMNZS Canterbury? Or maybe they can tow Kanimbla with Canterbury.

I don't suppose there is much we can do. The LHD are ahead of schedule I believe, so we may have some IOC sooner rather than later.

My understanding is that part of the issue is not just with Kanimbla's machinery, but also the state of the hull itself. In short, it might be able to be towed out, but might also spring a leak as well.

I have a different suggestion (snark) instead. The RAN should lease the MV Blue Marlin, and 'strap' Kanimbla aboard if/when a command presence is needed.

-Cheers

 

[Trackmaster]

I'd like to see that!!

 

[StingrayOZ]

I have a different suggestion (snark) instead. The RAN should lease the MV Blue Marlin, and 'strap' Kanimbla aboard if/when a command presence is needed.

Haha (wipe tear of laugher), Im sure that would make a bold impression at Rimpac or the gulf.

 

[Jhom]

and what do you know about australias future CSS requirements out to 2040? esp when its not in the public domain?

quite frankly what your stating is just abject nonsense - esp when you start quoting ratios - esp when trying to draw a relationship to NATO capability,



and that would be based on what evidence that you have? so you are familiar with the vignettes and conops defined and run for future capability? that would be interesting as none/NONE of it is available in the public domain.

before you make grand claims about overkill it would be far more sensible if you attempted to understand these vessels roles - and especially when force capability is based on 20-30 year projections - none of which will be available in the public domain, and none of which will be released when the 30 yr rule lapses for decisions made re these vessels in 2040



I reckon there are a fair few in here that do - esp those involved with procurement and those already involved in the assessments.

I'm wondering what you understand about australian requirements when nothing of significance is even permitted to be in the public domain
'
you're making a few wild assumptions yourself
feel free to articulate what the badassery is that we don't know about and how it meets the requirements

As I have said before, I actually work for Navantia, so maybe, and only maybe there is a possibility of knowing some things about the LHD that you dont know...

I have taken part in the Juan Carlos I and Canberra construction, and talking from what i have seen in the JCI is what gives me the confidence to say what I have said, so no nonsense here, I know perfectly what im talking about because Im part of the team wich builds the ships you are going to recieve.

Im only saying that a dedicated command ship will be an overkill, and I maintain it, but I dont know much about what the RAN might want for the 2040s, but certainly now I cant see the necesity of a ship of that kind.

 

[jack412]

you would have an intimate knowledge about the contracted stuff, but like me, other than whats on wiki, I dont know how you know what our tech fitout will be, let alone all the operational stuff. when aus is doing it ourselves, when spain delivers what was contracted

 

[StevoJH]

Jhom,

gf works for the government department that wrote the requirment for the ship including the comm's fitout.

Regards,
Stephen

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I have said before, I actually work for Navantia, so maybe, and only maybe there is a possibility of knowing some things about the LHD that you dont know...

BS that you know anything about the capability - and I say that with a high level of confidence.

For a start Navantia is building the hull - she is not involved with the fitout - and the spanish do not even know what some of the comms and CSS fitout is - thats a fact.

I have taken part in the Juan Carlos I and Canberra construction, and talking from what i have seen in the JCI is what gives me the confidence to say what I have said, so no nonsense here, I know perfectly what im talking about because Im part of the team wich builds the ships you are going to recieve.

You're the builder, what part of the design team are yoiu on? whos your boss? I ask again because people I work with and part of my project deals with the LHA's - I know for a fact what you get for info. At the warfighting design level you see ZIP

Im only saying that a dedicated command ship will be an overkill, and I maintain it, but I dont know much about what the RAN might want for the 2040s, but certainly now I cant see the necesity of a ship of that kind.

ands a completely different issue from your other grand claims which are a nonsense.

I would bet quite a bit of money that there are at least 3 people in here who have an operational detailed understanding of whats in the ships far greater than what you as the builder sees - in fact I know what you are permitted to see. It has almost zero relevance to end state fitout. saying that you know about the capability fitout is akin to some in here seeing a ferrari in a car yard, looking through its windows and then telling everyone that you drove it and know how it handles

if you are going to reply, then look at what has been said by others rather than extrapolating your assumptions. the capability intent is not about a dedicated role - its about mission capability and their primary purpose.

your comment about it not being a dedicated command asset demonstrates no comprehension of what the RAN has clearly planned for, and is clearly planning for because of fitout designing issues here. They are and will be the floating purple command centre - ie the command asset in theatre. the design intent is based on real world experience over the last 12 years working in task force lead roles and working in distressed circumstances.

The Spanish in a buiild and box flog role would not see any of the critical fitout deal - and NONE of the function and development intent. All they are doing is making a widget that will be finished off in australia for a number of security reasons.

as a builder you see squat, zip nada zilch. as the builder of the hull you don't get to see any of the critical systems and subsystems - you certainly don't get to see any of the conops material - I know you don't because you're not even remotely cleared to see anything in the design that impacts on security and national interest.

my suggestion, stop pretending that you do, as its more than just me in here who has more than a passing familiarity with the asset and knows what you get to see.

 

[riksavage]

Pic of RFA Cardigan Bay inbound Gib, on Cougar '11.

edit: attachment didn't work.

See the picture here
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/operations/auriga/news/gibraltar_supports_r.htm

You can see clearly the phalanx arrangement.

I can only assume this is the preferred option based on ease of installment, rather than trying to fix one on the superstructure looking aft and one on the bow. On return and transfer of role to another Bay, the two Phalanx units can be unplugged and simply lifted off using the adjacent crane.