Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A quick rule I have found regarding availability of military/naval assets. Operational assets following a roughly 3:1 ratio. In other words, it takes 3 units to sustain 1 unit operationally, whether that is ships, companies, battalions, aircraft, etc.
Now if a 4th AWD was added, again following the 3:1 ratio, at any given time one AWD would be undergoing maintenance, a second would be conducting sea trials/training while the third would be deployed. The 4th AWD would be available for operations, but not necessarily deployed operationally. Depending on where some vessels were in their respective training or maintenance cycles, a surge deployment could include additional AWD's just coming out of a maintenance or training cycle.
While this does not provide a specific nn-weeks of 'extra' capability, it really is more about what percentage of time certain capabilities are available and in what numbers.
-Cheers
In terms of operational avalibility?
Depends on how long your deployments cycles are. These may not always be the same (training, operations, war etc). So usually what ever your cycle is how long you will have that avalible.
We want 2 LHD's always avalible. We really needed 3 to do that. 2 operational, 1 in refit, or returning, or deploying etc.
However it stuffs up your training (theres no ship to train, intergrate systems etc on) and some ships will need more maintence/improvements etc than others (improved systems - fighting ships need this more than big fat amphibs, missiles/guns referbs etc). If you don't do this then you end up with ships in dry dock of crashing into sydney heads and unavalible when you need them (although not strictly due to the number of ships it certainly hasn't helped).
So when people say "most"/"much" they may mean our of total system of 9 cycles, you may only be able to deploy 2 ships for 5 of those cycles. Those may not be consecutive. So you may only have a 60% chance we will have 2 ships. Things get more complicated when they are overlapping etc as planning trys to get the best deal out of what you have. (ships and crews).
The more numbers you have the more you have flexability in the system.
It becomes much harder when you try to tie in into allies, who also have low numbers and may not want to completely stuff up their systems to try to please you. Or put heavy constraints on you in terms of screening. Ie lend us 3 frigates and a sub to screen for our cruiser. So while a cruiser is a huge asset, you have now tied up a huge portion of your assets to look after one vessel. Nothing for other operations. Now that cruiser may want to sit far away from the action or in the middle of two hotspots. If that cruise is a USN (or major power) asset, it may be difficult to tell the USN where its most needed. Some countries like Japan/germany it might be a very sensitive issue to put in into direct conflict. Everything starts to fall apart.
You cannot rely on allies to lynch pin your plan. They can bulk up forces with what they have avalible but we won't be able to dictate to Japan/Singapore/US/UK/NZ what we want or need. Which is why its critical ships (AWD) will be needed in sufficent numbers.
Depends on how long your deployments cycles are. These may not always be the same (training, operations, war etc). So usually what ever your cycle is how long you will have that avalible.
We want 2 LHD's always avalible. We really needed 3 to do that. 2 operational, 1 in refit, or returning, or deploying etc.
However it stuffs up your training (theres no ship to train, intergrate systems etc on) and some ships will need more maintence/improvements etc than others (improved systems - fighting ships need this more than big fat amphibs, missiles/guns referbs etc). If you don't do this then you end up with ships in dry dock of crashing into sydney heads and unavalible when you need them (although not strictly due to the number of ships it certainly hasn't helped).
So when people say "most"/"much" they may mean our of total system of 9 cycles, you may only be able to deploy 2 ships for 5 of those cycles. Those may not be consecutive. So you may only have a 60% chance we will have 2 ships. Things get more complicated when they are overlapping etc as planning trys to get the best deal out of what you have. (ships and crews).
The more numbers you have the more you have flexability in the system.
It becomes much harder when you try to tie in into allies, who also have low numbers and may not want to completely stuff up their systems to try to please you. Or put heavy constraints on you in terms of screening. Ie lend us 3 frigates and a sub to screen for our cruiser. So while a cruiser is a huge asset, you have now tied up a huge portion of your assets to look after one vessel. Nothing for other operations. Now that cruiser may want to sit far away from the action or in the middle of two hotspots. If that cruise is a USN (or major power) asset, it may be difficult to tell the USN where its most needed. Some countries like Japan/germany it might be a very sensitive issue to put in into direct conflict. Everything starts to fall apart.
You cannot rely on allies to lynch pin your plan. They can bulk up forces with what they have avalible but we won't be able to dictate to Japan/Singapore/US/UK/NZ what we want or need. Which is why its critical ships (AWD) will be needed in sufficent numbers.
Ahh no. Only three ship sets.
The rule of threes relates to constant deployment. For every three of something you can sustain one in operations 52 weeks a year, year in, year out. The three AWDs will enable two to be available for operations at anyone time. As long as these operations are not enduring you can have two ships at sea shooting up the bad guys.
The role of the AWD is to be the centre of a task group of warships. With 2-3 Anzac class frigates and a Wedgetail AEW&C and using collective engagement capability (CEC) this will be a very powerful task group. More than enough to protect the amibious deployment and sustainment system (ADAS) of two LHDs.
A fourth AWD will enable three task groups at sea each of 1 AWD and 2 Anzacs which is a nice boost but it isn't fundamental. I would rate more naval aviation capability (UAV), additional AEW&C, and an amphibious fire support system far higher than a fourth AWD.
Aussie optimist
Member
Hi all, its been awhile since my last post. Just a quick one, has anyone heard any more movement on the OPV requirement slated to replace the armidale class. I know they say it will be up to 2000t in class and possibly have helicopter facilities. I have searched everywhere for further info regarding possible designs or capibilites required however have not come up with much success. Does anyone know any info or is it simply that it has not been decided yet. I do apoligise if this has already been discussed in a brief search I havent seen anything regarding it.
Cheers
Cheers
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/DCP_DEC10.pdf
Pages 255-257
Its not even due for first pass until at least the 2015-16 financial year.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
It might have been three ship sets and a simulator setup?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,170
While the 1 in 3 argument works if your deploying a AWD, keep in mind we have other ships...we just forget that sometimes.
We wont be rotating just AWDs for operations, especially Gulf of Aden operations(i dont refer to it as anti-piracy for a reason). The AWD would be overkill plain and simple. The yanks utilise thier stripped down FFGs in the area and they are perfect, 76mm for any skiff dumb enough to attack it, as well as 50. cals and 7.62mm all over the place. The DDG seems overkill against a small wooden craft. The LCS deployment will be good to see as their high speeds will allow for fast responses to radio calls(90% false, 10% to little too late).
IF we continue in the GOA when the AWDs are fully capable, the Anzac and eventually Anzac II will be more suited to the area, as they are really an oversized patrol boat...
The Amphib rotation needs to include ships on excercises while others are heading into planned maintance, the biggest problem that came to a head at the end of last year was we sent our amphibs away so much working, they got little to no time alongside or in dock. The LPAs were constantly having their dry dock time halved to ensure it was ready for see ASAP. This led to a low crew morale and poor material state for the ships, as constantly away at short notice is not something the crew can appreciate.
We wont be rotating just AWDs for operations, especially Gulf of Aden operations(i dont refer to it as anti-piracy for a reason). The AWD would be overkill plain and simple. The yanks utilise thier stripped down FFGs in the area and they are perfect, 76mm for any skiff dumb enough to attack it, as well as 50. cals and 7.62mm all over the place. The DDG seems overkill against a small wooden craft. The LCS deployment will be good to see as their high speeds will allow for fast responses to radio calls(90% false, 10% to little too late).
IF we continue in the GOA when the AWDs are fully capable, the Anzac and eventually Anzac II will be more suited to the area, as they are really an oversized patrol boat...
The Amphib rotation needs to include ships on excercises while others are heading into planned maintance, the biggest problem that came to a head at the end of last year was we sent our amphibs away so much working, they got little to no time alongside or in dock. The LPAs were constantly having their dry dock time halved to ensure it was ready for see ASAP. This led to a low crew morale and poor material state for the ships, as constantly away at short notice is not something the crew can appreciate.
Well I would hope that the proposed OCVs would be capable of deploying to undertake the counter piracy patrols etc. leaving the ANZAC IIs for higher risk coalition deployments and supporting the AWDs in task force roles.While the 1 in 3 argument works if your deploying a AWD, keep in mind we have other ships...we just forget that sometimes.
We wont be rotating just AWDs for operations, especially Gulf of Aden operations(i dont refer to it as anti-piracy for a reason). The AWD would be overkill plain and simple. The yanks utilise thier stripped down FFGs in the area and they are perfect, 76mm for any skiff dumb enough to attack it, as well as 50. cals and 7.62mm all over the place. The DDG seems overkill against a small wooden craft. The LCS deployment will be good to see as their high speeds will allow for fast responses to radio calls(90% false, 10% to little too late).
IF we continue in the GOA when the AWDs are fully capable, the Anzac and eventually Anzac II will be more suited to the area, as they are really an oversized patrol boat...
The Amphib rotation needs to include ships on excercises while others are heading into planned maintance, the biggest problem that came to a head at the end of last year was we sent our amphibs away so much working, they got little to no time alongside or in dock. The LPAs were constantly having their dry dock time halved to ensure it was ready for see ASAP. This led to a low crew morale and poor material state for the ships, as constantly away at short notice is not something the crew can appreciate.
Amen to that, and hopefuly they will not be aluminium lightweights.
You don't spend a few hundred million on an AEGIS system for simulation. The CoA has only purchased three systems. It is possible some might be confusing the multiple and varied FMS requests made in relation to AEGIS and AEGIS related systems with actual purchases. As part of the White Paper evalutions a quote for a 4th AEGIS was sourced but not acted upon.
I do remember hearing something about a fourth system being ordered some time ago but havent heard anything since. It is irrelevant though as there has been nothing done towards a fourth ship on the platform side of things.
One of the selling points of the AF-100 over the G&C was four AF-100s came in cheaper and earlier than three G&Cs. Irrespective of individual capability, four good enough AEGIS ships beats three better than good enough AEGIS ships every time. By not ordering the fourth hull we have blown the only real advantage the AF-100 had over the G&C.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,175
Bahaha!!! we're lucky to deploy FFG without people freaking out in HQ.
As much as OPV would make sense, i strongly doubt any government would allow them to deploy to the middle east in any sense.
2 Patrol boats would do really well in the area able to bounce between boardings and a aussie or foreign frigate in the area as top cover with constant work available and a base of operations either Diego garcia with stop overs in oman, refuels able to be done with just a garden hose, it sounds great and all, but "iran" might attack everyone and thats how we get frigates in the region
On most forums I have been to, there is a general consensus that the Austal MRV would go nicely as a possible design. Although IIRC (not entirely sure on this one) Austal offered a smaller version of its USN LCS as the basis to the OPV/Corvette.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6,177
The look in FBE atm should make you cry, Flight I and Flight IIA Areligh Burkes of the USN parked between FFH...how the fleet Should be.
The US did offer cheap burkes after we retired our DDGs, but we didnt take them up on it and instead went with tender for G&C And F-100...missed chances...:roll2
They could operate from the Seychelles and not even need to sail overnight to find trade. With a Seychelles coast guard officer onboard to do the arresting they will even contribute to solving the problem as the Seychelles is sending all the pirates they pick up to jail for 10 to 20 and not practising catch and release.
Not this one.
There was no order. Just a request for a price tag so it could be considered by Government. They said no.
I didn't hear that the price tag was 4 to 3. More like 3.3 to 3. The big problem for the Evolved AWD was the schedule. Though the extra time in design may have meant that the build wouldn't be so badly screwed...
- Status