Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Well I think this is one of the first real opinion peices comming out taking a swipe at AWD and LHD. It was bound to happen. This one really has no traction or effort in it at all. He might as well just have written he didn't like the look of them.

There are three problems with this project. We do not need these ships. If we did need them, we shouldn't be building them in Australia. If we must build them here, we shouldn't be managing the project the way it is being managed.

Firstly the 1st point is rubbish. Australia is an island and we use our navy extensively and we need these types of ships to do that. I can't think of a first rate western nation that isn't building one of these type ships. 2nd point is rubbish, as AD has mentioned. The third, well interesting statement, but this is the one point he doesn't elaborate on at all. He must have completely forgot about it or has nothing to add in any way.

The whole time I read that I could counter every argument with East Timor. The idea of the ships is not to be able to conduct amphibious assaults against hardend targets but perform the exact mission as East Timor without being so reliant on the US (hence have our foreign policy dictated by US avalibility which isn't good for Oz or USA) and being able to handle the situation if things went pear shaped (which was very close to happening in E.T). Was he in a sealed box for 20 years? This whole policy and procurement is borne out of East Timor and Cosgrove and other experiences. Its the most realistic and functional concept in Australian Defence in 50 years. But for the LHD's you can add domestic and international aid, piracy, seabasing, policing, evacuations missions. Surely after Brisbane, NZ quakes this has additional resonance. What about the evacuations out of Lebanon?

I mean, the army, navy and airforce all sharing capability outcomes and working together to achieve something? How outragous (sarcasim). So army vechical A fits inside naval unit B and aircraft C? Deploying and supplying enough ground forces to secure something strategically relevant in the region?

For a professor at ANU his argument is completely unsupported, opinionated trash not even worthy of the Sydney Telegraph celebrity pages. He discredits ANU and his other associated institutions.

 

[ngatimozart]

Well I think this is one of the first real opinion peices comming out taking a swipe at AWD and LHD. It was bound to happen. This one really has no traction or effort in it at all. He might as well just have written he didn't like the look of them.

For a professor at ANU his argument is completely unsupported, opinionated trash not even worthy of the Sydney Telegraph celebrity pages. He discredits ANU and his other associated institutions.

I agree totally with you. He has a BA (Hons) in Philosophy and a BPhil, and I see that he was a Defence advisor to the Hawke Government so he should be aware of the realities. I am also curious how he got to be a professor without a Doctorate or even a Masters, but I could be wrong he might have forgot to list this in his bio at ANU. My next question would be is he a paid up member of APA? Methinks he is an academic removed from the real world and it has significantly changed in the last 20 years from what it was when he was actively involved with Defence.

 

[aussienscale]

Well they have now!! See link below from Defence:

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence Materiel – LHD Watercraft and Enhanced Joint Operations Centre Command and Control Capability Projects Approved


The Government will be ordering 12 LCM-1E's, with the first four to be delivered at the same time as HMAS Canberra in 2014.

Bugger Really disapointed with that decision, too slow and I don't think this style of craft will suit our requirments and our region, we obviously got a super deal on the back of the AWD/LHD buy

 

[icelord]

I will add my insignificant comments. I don't know the validity of Whites costings but I would presume that $1 billion for a brand new fully modernised Arleigh Burke Class Flight III Destroyer with the digital phased array radar and all the ABM capability is very cheap, so I suspect that is for the earlier Flight IIA. I also note that the Flight IIA do not carry CIWS. Also of note the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer has never been exported, is the longest build and most numerous of any one class of ship for the USN. The USN has cancelled the Zumwalt Class build (3 ships built) to concentrate on the Arleigh Burke Class build. Originally the Zumwalt was to replace the Arleigh Burke Class.

The flight IIA carries the CIWS B. AFAIK some might not have CIWS, but from experience and cross decks the IIA has CIWS(ANZACs dont so i make a point of it to our WEE sailors every time we see them...and the 48 other VLS launchers)

Does Australia need a seaborne ABM capability? I think yes because of possible threats to the north and north west. Does Australia need a land based ABM capability? I think the answer to that is also yes and for exactly the same reasons. If the RAN had a chance of obtaining the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer then I think an offer would have been made by the USG to the AUG when the AUG was doing the initial groundwork for the RAN ADF Destroyers. Since I haven't seen any comments of one being made (correct if I am wrong) then Whites argument is invalid because the USG is not going to export the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, well at the moment anyway.

There is a long running story of how the AWD program started, and that was the US offered us 3 Flight I AWD $3billion with support, but defence rejected it to start the AWD project to get Flight IIA(australianised baby burke) as it went on the burke fell less and less out of favour and the spanish F-100 series came out the winner. This has led to most of the arguments against against AWD, as they were all backing the wrong horse and in the end felt like they were being ignored when it lost out...

And one very important factor, is that if the RAN bought DDG-51's and followed USN Manning they would require roughly double the crew of an F-100 derived AWD.

Not quite, our engineering sailors work 4 bits of equipment while US sailors worked on one. the large crews could be cut down a lot by our methods of crewing, as well as only ever having on helo onboard as FFGs have two hangers but rarely have 1 helo let alone 2, so theres room saved from aircrewies, maintainers etc(having worked with them, its a bonus)
The baby burke was crewed at 230, take off a helo and its around 215. 230 is deployment crewing...which is not always achieved when sailing around aus, as alot of bunks are taken up with trainees. so a min manning would look at 190...about same as FFH, while being massively bigger and more capable.

One point i should make, i kind of agree with hugh white in strategic policy in this, as i dont see navys direction going in the right way, from experience we're heading for a brick wall and when we get there, its not going to end well for alot of people in brass more then below decks...but shit rolls down hill as always

Was he in a sealed box for 20 years?

After this, he may just be if he comes within 100yards of a defence establishment...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Bugger Really disapointed with that decision, too slow and I don't think this style of craft will suit our requirments and our region, we obviously got a super deal on the back of the AWD/LHD buy

Apart from LCACs there is nothing out there - at the moment - faster than the LCM-1E. The key thing to remember about the LCM-1E is they are not a replacement for the LCM8. They won't be going to the Army but to the Navy who will use them effectively as small ships of the LHD. That is they will only be doing ship to shore and back to ship. They will not be sailing independently like the LCM8s do.

So their short range and lack of facilities to look after themselves doesn’t matter so much. They are just the LHD’s runabouts and not coastal/riverine logistics assets like the LCM8s.

JP 2048 will not be seeing like for like replacement. The LCH replacements will be bigger and more effective (what the Army originally wanted) and in larger numbers (6 not 3 LSMs) and will be more effective at the coastal cargo role. The LCM8s will be replaced in 10FSB with the tactical littoral craft (TLC) which will carry a lot less cargo than an LCM8 but be capable of more aggressive missions and be available in larger numbers (16-24).

 

[ThePuss]

And one more question, are the LCM-1E's capable of being carried by HMAS Choules?

It will definitely be capable of operating a single LCM1-E or LCM- 8
because they are far smaller than the LCU MK 10 they replace (22.3m x 6.4m v 29.8m x 7.4m)

I doubt the dock is long enough to fit 2 LCM's but you would be able to fit a couple of Raiders as well as the single LCM.

Bugger Really disapointed with that decision, too slow and I don't think this style of craft will suit our requirments and our region, we obviously got a super deal on the back of the AWD/LHD buy

Agreed the LCM-1E are a fairly slow and short legged craft however they ARE NOT a LCM-8 replacement. The ADF does not want to lose these independent operations capable craft until they are a replaced by a joint LCH-LCM-8 replacement.

In addition at one stage the LCM-1E were going to be 50-50 Army-Navy manned but now they will be 100% navy manned.

 

[Sea Toby]

Firstly the 1st point is rubbish. Australia is an island and we use our navy extensively and we need these types of ships to do that. I can't think of a first rate western nation that isn't building one of these type ships. 2nd point is rubbish, as AD has mentioned. The third, well interesting statement, but this is the one point he doesn't elaborate on at all. He must have completely forgot about it or has nothing to add in any way.

The whole time I read that I could counter every argument with East Timor. The idea of the ships is not to be able to conduct amphibious assaults against hardend targets but perform the exact mission as East Timor without being so reliant on the US (hence have our foreign policy dictated by US avalibility which isn't good for Oz or USA) and being able to handle the situation if things went pear shaped (which was very close to happening in E.T). Was he in a sealed box for 20 years? This whole policy and procurement is borne out of East Timor and Cosgrove and other experiences. Its the most realistic and functional concept in Australian Defence in 50 years. But for the LHD's you can add domestic and international aid, piracy, seabasing, policing, evacuations missions. Surely after Brisbane, NZ quakes this has additional resonance. What about the evacuations out of Lebanon?

The key to military operations is logistics. Notice recently the Irish sent UN/EU peacekeepers to Chad. It took their equipment more than a week to get loaded in Ireland, and more than a month to get to Chad, all on the back of a rust bucket leased at the last moment. The Chad government was so unimpressed by the UN/EU peacekeepers, they asked for them to leave as they were a burden, not help. That is what you get with White's thinking.

What I find disturbing is that the Irish government have no plans to buy any sealift or additional airlift capability. They see no need to show up anywhere within a month outside of their country although they have had to do so four times in the past 12 years.

While their army has been deployed abroad, they have done so without any support from either their navy or air force...

 

[ThePuss]

Apart from LCACs there is nothing out there - at the moment - faster than the LCM-1E. The key thing to remember about the LCM-1E is they are not a replacement for the LCM8. They won't be going to the Army but to the Navy who will use them effectively as small ships of the LHD. That is they will only be doing ship to shore and back to ship. They will not be sailing independently like the LCM8s do.

So their short range and lack of facilities to look after themselves doesn’t matter so much. They are just the LHD’s runabouts and not coastal/riverine logistics assets like the LCM8s.

JP 2048 will not be seeing like for like replacement. The LCH replacements will be bigger and more effective (what the Army originally wanted) and in larger numbers (6 not 3 LSMs) and will be more effective at the coastal cargo role. The LCM8s will be replaced in 10FSB with the tactical littoral craft (TLC) which will carry a lot less cargo than an LCM8 but be capable of more aggressive missions and be available in larger numbers (16-24).

Ooops looks like Abraham was writing his response at the same time as i was and he beat me to the post!

 

[ADMk2]

Well I think this is one of the first real opinion peices comming out taking a swipe at AWD and LHD. It was bound to happen. This one really has no traction or effort in it at all. He might as well just have written he didn't like the look of them.

Unfortunately not. This is just his latest swipe at any defence policy that he wasn't involved in creating 25 years ago.

He has previously attacked the LHD and AWD programs publicly.

 

[Volkodav]

Unfortunately not. This is just his latest swipe at any defence policy that he wasn't involved in creating 25 years ago.

He has previously attacked the LHD and AWD programs publicly.

I had never seen a photo of him before his article today and I think his appearance says it all. Have you ever seen a more stereotypical Baby Boomer Peacenik, former dope smoking hippy, high school english / humanities teacher type?

I am sorry but actually seeing what he looks like gave me flash backs to a former teacher of mine whose letters to the editor still pop up demanding this that or the other be banned. The type of person whose entire psyche is based on the premise, "I am a school teacher therefore I know!" or “How dare you disagree with me you little worm…..stuff merit, performance and intellect (and the fact you are right), you have just failed the semester!”

Is he a professor because that’s where people like him gravitate to, they get to stand up in front of the class and be the centre of attention, the undisputed dictator, lord captain general, the boss, the chief, the sensei? Unlike in the real world where they are small of character, if not stature and really don’t matter in any significant way.

Rant over.

 

[jeffb]

I don't get the blind hate for Hugh White.

So he is critical of the AWDs & LHDs and favours a stronger sub force and Air Force, that is a fair point to make all things considered. People always complain about the poor standard of Defence journalism yet are willing to beat up anything which doesn't perfectly fit their views even if the opinion is important to consider.

He has written extensively about Australia's role in SEA, perhaps you should read some more instead of just basing your opinions off his profile pic.

 

[ADMk2]

I don't get the blind hate for Hugh White.

It's not limited to him, I hate Paul Dibb with an equal passion... In fact all of these rarified academics who throw their opinions out without a care in the world, completely oblivious to fact and reality AND completely un-willing to get in harms way themselves, but more than willing to tell everyone who does so, what they should and should not be doing and what they should and should not be equipped with...

So he is critical of the AWDs & LHDs and favours a stronger sub force and Air Force, that is a fair point to make all things considered. People always complain about the poor standard of Defence journalism yet are willing to beat up anything which doesn't perfectly fit their views even if the opinion is important to consider.

No it is NOT a fair point. The LHD's aren't being bought because they're on somebody's wishlist. They are being bought because of sensible, rational analysis that has determined that these are what are required to allow our Defence force to the job it exists for.

These needs are supported by observable FACT, through test, analysis and war-gaming of what it takes to do the job that our Government expects our defence force to do. His opposition is ideological based. It is NOT based on operational reality But the people who have to go into harm's way get put there by people like him without the things they need to do their job because it doesn't fit with his ridiculous mindset.

He believes that Australia shouldn't be deploying overseas and he wants to prevent us from effectively doing so by ensuring we don't acquire the tools to do it. Again, all he's doing is endangering the troops who ARE going to be deployed at Government's whim, whether he agrees with it or not, through his misguided efforts.

AWD likewise. If it were up to him, we'd be acquiring a new class of frigate armed with a short ranged medium gun of no real tactical value, obsolete surface to air missiles and "fitted for but not with" anything that will allow the vessel to actually be useful to us.

He has written extensively about Australia's role in SEA, perhaps you should read some more instead of just basing your opinions off his profile pic.

I have furthermore I've engaged him in person to person offline conversations about this and other stuff.

Suffice to say, these public comments are rather tame compared to his private ones...

He doesn't like tanks because "our region's bridges can't cope with them."

He doesn't like self-propelled artillery because "they're too heavy" and so on.

 

[icelord]

I have furthermore I've engaged him in person to person offline conversations about this and other stuff.

Suffice to say, these public comments are rather tame compared to his private ones...

He doesn't like tanks because "our region's bridges can't cope with them."

He doesn't like self-propelled artillery because "they're too heavy" and so on.

he doesnt like soldiers as they consume food and water, which is a drain on resources that could be used for nimbin festival...

hes obviously never spoken to anyone in the navy, the level of anticipation for the AWD and LHD is beyond awesome. Signals are seeking personnel to train for the LHD now and people are jumping over each other to get in on it, for the first crew for Nuship Canberra, 3 more full crews will be ready to replace them if need be...
The LHD will be a massive change in the way ADF runs operations, and will be much more beneficial for the region, such as humanitarian operations. Considering it will be the largest amphib in South East Asia and the pacific, it will see Australia take on a bigger role and engagment within the region.
If this guy doesnt get it, how the hell are the "winning" Ministers going to go...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Any news on a 3rd LHD.. or additional sealifter?

I agree with you icelord, I think they are super important assets not just for Australia, but for the region. Unlike smaller versions that Japan and Korea have ours have a amphibious dock and are more than just helicopter operations. Ours will be deployed much further afield than either the JP or the SK ships. They are the only ships regionally that can do what they will do. Its the equipment we need to be able to forfill our role regionally.

The AWD will also provide the principle cover for any task force based around the LHD's, with SK, JP, US ships all being able to blend seemlessly to strengthen the force.

 

[ADMk2]

he doesnt like soldiers as they consume food and water, which is a drain on resources that could be used for nimbin festival...

hes obviously never spoken to anyone in the navy, the level of anticipation for the AWD and LHD is beyond awesome. Signals are seeking personnel to train for the LHD now and people are jumping over each other to get in on it, for the first crew for Nuship Canberra, 3 more full crews will be ready to replace them if need be...

Of course not. What would mere minions know about what they need to do their jobs?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I don't get the blind hate for Hugh White.

Its not blind hate but rather a reasoned rejection of the defence policies he advocates. The rage comes into it because for about a decade there these policies were implemented and caused immense harm to the ADF and our operational capability. This was brought to the crux in East Timor where hundreds of people were killed and thousands abducted because the ADF was unable to deploy fast enough because White and co. had emasculated out expeditionary deployment capability.

So he is critical of the AWDs & LHDs and favours a stronger sub force and Air Force, that is a fair point to make all things considered. People always complain about the poor standard of Defence journalism yet are willing to beat up anything which doesn't perfectly fit their views even if the opinion is important to consider.

It is a very narrow requirement focusing heavily on the high end of potential warfare situations. Which also doesn’t seem to understand that expeditionary capabilities like AWDs and LHDs are also very useful fighting in high end battles. White rejects this argument because we can only deploy a battalion group via the LHDs and of course China and other regional nations can deploy multi division corps into the field. Simple arithmetic? Or armchair general stupidity?

Sure China could deploy divisions into a battle and a single ADF battalion would not make much difference. But those Chinese army divisions can’ swim. Our region is an island chain full of complex littorals and the level of forces potential aggressors can bring into effect beyond their own internal highway system is a tiny fraction of their overall force. Suddenly that battalion (or brigade it will be the lead element of) don’t sound so puny.

 

[AegisFC]

I will add my insignificant comments. I don't know the validity of Whites costings but I would presume that $1 billion for a brand new fully modernised Arleigh Burke Class Flight III Destroyer with the digital phased array radar and all the ABM capability is very cheap, so I suspect that is for the earlier Flight IIA.

There is almost no public data about the Flight III other than it will have AMDR and possibly the same plant set up as DDG-1000 and there is no way in hell they will come in at $1 billion a ship.

I also note that the Flight IIA do not carry CIWS.

Yes they do. Some were built "fitted but not with" and got them added later, some just had a forward mount but got an aft mount later and some were built with both.

Also of note the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer has never been exported

However the design has been adapted by both the South Koreans and the Japanese.

is the longest build and most numerous of any one class of ship for the USN.

Longest build would be the Nimitz's and the most numerous are the Fletcher and the Gearing classes, however yes the Burke is the most numerous modern build ship.

Originally the Zumwalt was to replace the Arleigh Burke Class.

The Zumwalts were supposed to replace the Sprucans that were decommed early, not Burkes.

Does Australia need a seaborne ABM capability? I think yes because of possible threats to the north and north west. Does Australia need a land based ABM capability? I think the answer to that is also yes and for exactly the same reasons. If the RAN had a chance of obtaining the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer then I think an offer would have been made by the USG to the AUG when the AUG was doing the initial groundwork for the RAN ADF Destroyers. Since I haven't seen any comments of one being made (correct if I am wrong) then Whites argument is invalid because the USG is not going to export the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, well at the moment anyway.

Unless you want Australia to buy a used Flight I you won't be getting a BMD capable ship. BMD is currently only available on the computer suite of the Flight I Burkes and the later COTS baselines won't be getting it for several reasons.

Not quite, our engineering sailors work 4 bits of equipment while US sailors worked on one. the large crews could be cut down a lot by our methods of crewing, as well as only ever having on helo onboard as FFGs have two hangers but rarely have 1 helo let alone 2, so theres room saved from aircrewies, maintainers etc(having worked with them, its a bonus)
The baby burke was crewed at 230, take off a helo and its around 215. 230 is deployment crewing...which is not always achieved when sailing around aus, as alot of bunks are taken up with trainees. so a min manning would look at 190...about same as FFH, while being massively bigger and more capable.

Even before "minimal manning" you'd be hard pressed to find Burke with the fully allotted number of crew on board. Most of the time we had 250-260ish.

 

[StevoJH]

Unless you want Australia to buy a used Flight I you won't be getting a BMD capable ship. BMD is currently only available on the computer suite of the Flight I Burkes and the later COTS baselines won't be getting it for several reasons.

Its the ANZAC II's (most likely fitted with AUSPAR) that are to get the BMD capability, not the Hobart class as far as I am aware.

 

[colay]

Its the ANZAC II's (most likely fitted with AUSPAR) that are to get the BMD capability, not the Hobart class as far as I am aware.

defenseindustrydaily.com/serious-dollars-for-aegis-ballistic-missile-defense-modifications-03091/
The Hobart and her sisters can be upgraded to an ABM configuration in the future if necessary.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

defenseindustrydaily.com/serious-dollars-for-aegis-ballistic-missile-defense-modifications-03091/
The Hobart and her sisters can be upgraded to an ABM configuration in the future if necessary.

Some webpage does not make fact out of fiction. BMD is not mentioned on any of the AWD presentos I've been too. Land attack missile capability is mentioned as a growth option but that's it.

There has been some discussion in the Aus govt. and DoD about BMD capability but it is focused on a tactical BMD capability to defend the amphibious capability and beach-head like SBMSE (VLS launched PACIII missile) not SM3s and interdicting missiles being fired across the Pacific. So this is a very different BMD capability compared to that rolled out by the USN/JSMDF in CG 47s, DDG 51s and Kongos. It may not event be ship based. Though the AEGIS system does provide a very good base for it.

But there isn't even a DCP project for BMD and still a range of issues about the Govt. going down that path.