Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Gordon Branch]

My sources indicate she could carry an LCM in the well as well as the Mexeflotes attached to her sides.

I assume the new LCM-1Es (when delivered) will fit as well as they appear to have the same footprint as the LCM8.

 

[StobieWan]

Aussienscale, yes it has been an interesting discussion and input by all, especially Abe with his historical knowlege, about where we've come from since the decision to order the CFA's over the County's.

And yes I personally agree that a "dumbed down" AWD seems the sensible choice, at the moment, for the Anzac II's.

I was just trying to make the point that "if ever" the British had a chance again (its now 50 years since the County's lost out to the CFA's) at supplying a new major surface combatant, then the Type 26 is probably going to be that contender.

Be interesting to see what others here think, is there a serious contender?, other than a "dumbed down" AWD?

Type 26 is more of an open box affair than previous offerings have been - it's quite modular in nature and the design team have definitely said they're keen to integrate any customer requirements. In other words, Mk41 VLS, whatever radar is preferred, a choice of machinery. In short, they're making the right sort of noises to attract international customers.

I've a nagging feeling that it's not going to be enough for Australia and we're not having much luck elsewhere (Canada publicly dumped the idea right after a very positive announcement to the contrary in the UK, Brazil may well select Fremm etc etc)

 

[swerve]

There are more similarities between the two paths than you suggest. Sea Slug was very much en par with Terrier (two stage, beam rider) but never received the funding for the second generation though it was developed. Sea Wolf has had multiple developments like Sea Sparrow.

Sea Dart is the equivalent of SM-2 with the UK missing Tartar and SM-1 and it had have a very impressive development path before the Thatcher Government cancelled it just in time for the Falklands War. As a system it has several advantages over Tartar/Standard that were really brought out with the ICWI versions. But the lack of funding for the Mk 2 vertical launch version is what killed it otherwise a Mk 3 version would probably be on the Type 45 with twice the range of Sea Viper.

Yup. Sea Wolf has been continuously developed, with new electronics, VL Sea Wolf, & so on. Sea Dart is the great lost opportunity. There were improvements throughout its life (e.g. the great range increase brought about by guidance improvements, allowing it to fly an efficient initial ballistic path), but as you say, the killing of the VL version & other planned developments stopped it from being our equivalent of Standard. Sad.

There was a missed opportunity for Anglo-French co-operation there. VL Sea Dart would have made a good successor for Masurca & Tartar.

 

[exPrivate]

Talking about replacements, I somehow managed to find this offer for new RAN submarines. It`s astonishing!
US floats nuclear subs option

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Talking about replacements, I somehow managed to find this offer for new RAN submarines. It`s astonishing!
US floats nuclear subs option

It’s also complete bullshit. The US has not offered nuclear submarines to Australia. All that has happened is their Ambassador to Australia has said the two things ambassadors always say: it’s up to the other country and whatever you chose we will help you. For example if Australia was to choose a nuclear solution US assistance could just be the same as US assistance to France and the UK on their current nuclear submarine projects – which have a lot of US technology on-board. Which is a very long way from the US exporting submarine nuclear reactors. Especially their current production reactor the S9G which uses weapons grade highly enriched uranium, enriched to over 93 percent U-235. Which could be turned into several nuclear bombs in a week or two.

 

[Gordon Branch]

Just a few thoughts about buying nuclear submarines:

Economically - It makes sense IF you can buy a Virginia for $2.5 Billion each. What are the operating costs of a nuclear boat compared to a conventional boat?

Operationally - A nuclear powered boat seems to tick the boxes for range, endurance and weapons carrying capacity but I am unsure of whether a Virginia can operate in a littoral environment and what Australian submarine doctrine says about littoral operations. 7500 tons odd seems like a lot of boat to hide in shallow water.

Practically - Can the Navy crew 9(?) nuclear submarines with 135 persons each when it appears to have problems crewing 6 boats with 42 people each? How has the new crewing policy worked? Is the new policy of increasing the crew to build in more slack working? How easy/hard would it be to work up the expertise to operate nuclear boats? How about refitting them? Where does that happen? (See also Political considerations)

Politically - A. Can the existing or future government afford to lose the build phase of the Collins Class Replacement Project to the US? We aren't going to build Virginias in Adelaide. Not a vote winner. If Australia is unable to refit the boats more jobs for the US; less jobs for us.

Politically - B. What percentage of the Australian population would find the Navy operating nuclear powered vessels unacceptable?

Politically - C. What are our neighbors going to think about an Australia equipped with what is perceived as a potent strike weapon system? What are our neighbors going think as we tie ourselves even more tightly to the US's apron strings? How would buying Virginia's be seen as obligating us to a US view of the world by the US and others?

As much as people might complain about "politics" influencing military decisions the fact is the Defence Force is a tool of goverment, not the other way around and political motivations always have to be taken into consideration.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Nothing would make me happier than nuclear submarines, because nuclear submarine essentially mean an entire nuclear industry. As a Physicist that one of my personal goals to promote nuclear energy.

Mining, processing, enrichment, reactors for power, military reactors for submarines and other uses etc. To do this there would have to be a massive investment in organisations like ANSTO, CSIRO etc. Your talking about, I dunno say $25 billion and 10 years just in infrastructure, training, education to set it up, then a few civilian nuclear power station to make the whole thing viable (help offset some of the cost). Only after all that could we then think about nuclear subs (costs and operation are additional). I doubt it can be done in a tighter time frame than before we have to start retiring Collins.

Personally I think it should be our priority and where we should be spending our mining profits. Laser enrichment has completely rewritten the game in terms of a nuclear industry making it more efficient, less energy, safer with less waste products. No centrifuges or hideous uranium hexafluoride and truck loads of hydrofluoric acid. As a side effect it would be relatively easy to expand the plant to include isotope refinement for many other uses (semiconductors, solar cells, research, science, medical etc).

With some shiney new nuclear power reactors to add base load capability we could power things like a high speed train network from Newcastle to Canberra. We could also offer cheap power to aluminium smelters and ore processing on the east coast of Australia without spewing carbon emissions everywhere. Forget about a carbon tax if Australia could power its aluminium smelting by carbon free power, we would meet all our harshest kotoyo emission targets.

So apart from fixing a whole bunch of civilian problems it would also be handy for submarines. But its not a quick solution. Requires massive investment. Society as a whole would have to say yes lets do it. With the green hating nuclear as much if not more than coal and old growth logging I don't see it happening in the current climate.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Even before we get into sustainability issues of nuclear power and political/legal issues of acquiring HEU to power something like a Virginia we should ask do we need nuclear power? Nuclear power is great for sustained transit speeds but part of the success of the Collins class is that they are not nuclear powered. Being able to combine long range so the other guy never knows where you are going to be with a big sensor footprint with ultra-quiet battery power has been part of the reason they are so highly considered. Acquiring a nuclear submarine could very well undermine the whole reason we want and need submarines in the first place.

And then the other things nuclear submarines bring to the table is ASW escort and hold at risk of other guy nuclear submarines. While an Australian SSN could alleviate the USN’s demands for hold at risk it is not really an Australian strategic mission. Nor is the submarine threat so high to our surface task forces that they need a submarine ASW escort. These missions are no where near as important as the stealthy acquisition of intelligence that the Collins provides us. If we go nuclear and can no longer sneak into the places we sneak this will be a major loss.

I’m all in favour of developing a civil nuclear power industry but changing the needs of the RAN to assist that is like using Army units as regional city pioneers. They Army has been burdened with APIN (1 Brigade in Darwin) to boost the NT’s economy by 25% and it costs the Army every year in reduced training, higher turnover and higher sustainment costs. Making the Navy buy nuclear submarines that could compromise their core intelligence mission just to help kick start a civil nuclear industry is just as bad Defence planning. Besides far from help the civil nuclear industry a Naval nuclear requirement would probably be very competitive with it.

Then of course there are the legal issues. The NPT provides a loop hole for acquisition of HEU for military power plant purposes. But no one has ever done it though Brazil and South Korea both played around with it a bit to great international outrage. The nuclear fuel for a Virginia class and Astute class submarine can be turned into nuclear bombs. Australia enriching this ourselves or buying or leasing from America is likely to be extremely politically sensitive. As countries that promote nuclear disarmament this would be a very complex and difficult option for Australia. LEU fuel like that used in French submarines is an entirely different manner but could only be acquired alongside a full submarine nuclear fuel industry unlike the long life HEU reactors.

There are so many complexities tied up with nuclear submarine power and the advantages nebulous it really isn’t worth it. Unless we actually want to acquire nuclear weapons and the like. Which if we were to do it would be much better to do so like South Africa in the 70s and 80s through a full covert program.

 

[alexsa]

Are there any plans to swap the LPA cranes onto Choules replacing the 30 ton incumbants thereby giving her an LCM 8 option? Anyone?

The increased lift mass and weight of the units themselves may have some pretty significant structural requirments. Not imposslble but not simple.

 

[ASSAIL]

The increased lift mass and weight of the units themselves may have some pretty significant structural requirments. Not imposslble but not simple.

We changed the structual integrity of the LPA's in order to give them the capacity to lift 2 x LCM's. IMHO we now have a vessel with a vast increase in both cargo and personnel capacity yet it can only embark 1 LCM. The capacity to improve that to 2 or 3 units and the capacity to lift 40tonne TEU's must surely rate consideration by the planners. ( No I haven't forgotten the Mexiflotes)
There has been some mention of the LCM 1E's for choules but with only 12 units these would be all taken by the LHD's, training and maintenance. This gets back to the ancient although still sound LCM 8's. Surely worth a thought.

 

[aussienscale]

We changed the structual integrity of the LPA's in order to give them the capacity to lift 2 x LCM's. IMHO we now have a vessel with a vast increase in both cargo and personnel capacity yet it can only embark 1 LCM. The capacity to improve that to 2 or 3 units and the capacity to lift 40tonne TEU's must surely rate consideration by the planners. ( No I haven't forgotten the Mexiflotes)
There has been some mention of the LCM 1E's for choules but with only 12 units these would be all taken by the LHD's, training and maintenance. This gets back to the ancient although still sound LCM 8's. Surely worth a thought.

Don't forget though, the number of LCM 1E's was decided prior to the Choules, so it would more than likely be changed to accomodate the increased capability, I would be guessing now 16+ ? They have already taken up a fair bit of deck space with the "temporary" hangar located in a space intended for containers.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

We changed the structual integrity of the LPA's in order to give them the capacity to lift 2 x LCM's. IMHO we now have a vessel with a vast increase in both cargo and personnel capacity yet it can only embark 1 LCM.

When you bought the LPAs you didn't have two great big LHDs building, & which would take on all the amphibious assault duties when complete. They're the replacements for Kanimbla & Manoora. Choules isn't.

The Bay class isn't meant for amphibious assault. It's primarily for logistics. The dock is small to maximise cargo space.

A Bay can deploy a couple of Mexeflotes, each capable of carrying something like 200 tons, & which can be loaded from the stern ramp - and you bought some to go with Largs Bay. Those Mexeflotes can be put together to make a floating jetty so vehicles can drive straight off the ship & onto a beach without getting wet.

 

[Todjaeger]

When you bought the LPAs you didn't have two great big LHDs building, & which would take on all the amphibious assault duties when complete. They're the replacements for Kanimbla & Manoora. Choules isn't.

The Bay class isn't meant for amphibious assault. It's primarily for logistics. The dock is small to maximise cargo space.

A Bay can deploy a couple of Mexeflotes, each capable of carrying something like 200 tons, & which can be loaded from the stern ramp - and you bought some to go with Largs Bay. Those Mexeflotes can be put together to make a floating jetty so vehicles can drive straight off the ship & onto a beach without getting wet.

Actually the LHD's are supposed be replacements for one of the LPA's and Toobroken, with now Choules and whatever the 'real' replacement will be set to replace the other LPA. Choules itself though is AFAIK intended more as a gap-filler/augmentation for RAN amphibs and provide sealift support.

-Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

More than one LCM makes very good sense for disaster relief in places with very poor infrastructure and exposed coastlines

 

[Abraham Gubler]

More than one LCM makes very good sense for disaster relief in places with very poor infrastructure and exposed coastlines

But one LCM is better than no LCM. Also the secondary support ships like the Windermere and its JP 3033 repalcement all have big cranes and decks to carry additional LCMs.

The sealift ship (Choules) only needs a well dock for a single LCM because it will only be unloading in the presence of an LHD with another four LCMs. Of course having the sealift ship operate as the primary amphibious ship until the LHDs are ready places an additional burden for more LCMs. Hence the civil support ship.

 

[StevoJH]

Choules also has a nice big flight deck that can be used as well.

Plus those two nice big cranes.....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Plus those two nice big cranes.....

They aren't big enough which was why Assail had brought up this topic about refitting the LPA's cranes onto the Choules.

 

[John Newman]

We changed the structual integrity of the LPA's in order to give them the capacity to lift 2 x LCM's. IMHO we now have a vessel with a vast increase in both cargo and personnel capacity yet it can only embark 1 LCM. The capacity to improve that to 2 or 3 units and the capacity to lift 40tonne TEU's must surely rate consideration by the planners. ( No I haven't forgotten the Mexiflotes)
There has been some mention of the LCM 1E's for choules but with only 12 units these would be all taken by the LHD's, training and maintenance. This gets back to the ancient although still sound LCM 8's. Surely worth a thought.

All this discussion about possible modifications to Choules is interesting, but seriously, I can't see it happening for years to come.

If we look back just 18mths ago we had two broken LPA's and a very sick LSH, the Navy couldn't respond to natural disasters and the like.

And at the same time the Brits were reducing their LSD fleet, so here we are 18mths later, we have the "almost" new Choules and Tobruk back in service too, we were lucky to get her as soon as we have.

So having said that, why would we be thinking of major mods to Choules now?

Yes in 4 or 5 years time when we have two operational LHD's in service, the heat is off the Navy and Choules is due for a major refit, then that would be the time that any "major" mods would probably be considered.

I just can't see the Navy / Government taking the risk of a modification that may be planned to take a month or two, which most likely turns into 6-12 months, leaving it without a capability that we have missed over the last 18 mths.

Anyway, thats just my opinion!!

 

[MickB]

It also makes me think about when the "future" OPV's that are proposed for the 2020's to replace the Armidale's, Minehunter's, etc, what "size" of helicopter could eventually and effectivly operate off them?

Would it open the door again to a Lynx size aircraft?

Could the Harbin Z9EC be a contender for this role. The initial cost should be less than a Lynx, plus I beleve that China would offer very favorable terms to see its product used by a western navy. Think of a RAN deployment on a U S carrier.

Z9s are currently used by China and Pakistan as ASW helicopters.

It would bring some additional capabilities not now available to the RAN. The TL-10 lightweight anti shipping missile (same class as Sea Skua). Also the TY-90 AAM, designed from the outset for helicopter to helicopter combat.

Not as many have been built as the Lynx, but this is a big program in China and by the time the OPV is in service the Z9 will be a mature design.

As an amature I have no idea how difficult it would be to intergrate with Australian systems.

 

[John Newman]

Could the Harbin Z9EC be a contender for this role. The initial cost should be less than a Lynx, plus I beleve that China would offer very favorable terms to see its product used by a western navy. Think of a RAN deployment on a U S carrier.

Z9s are currently used by China and Pakistan as ASW helicopters.

It would bring some additional capabilities not now available to the RAN. The TL-10 lightweight anti shipping missile (same class as Sea Skua). Also the TY-90 AAM, designed from the outset for helicopter to helicopter combat.

Not as many have been built as the Lynx, but this is a big program in China and by the time the OPV is in service the Z9 will be a mature design.

As an amature I have no idea how difficult it would be to intergrate with Australian systems.

Mick,

Honestly, the chances of a naval helicopter, or any military equipment, that is not US or Western European, ending up in Australian service is zero.

Just won't happen. The Harbin is a "copy" of a Eurocopter Dauphin anyway, I just can't see us ever going down that path, regardless of what good "deal" we would be offered.

The question that I raised about the Lynx in that earlier post, was because when the Government was thinking about the Tenix OPC's it needed a helicopter to fit that size of vessel, (and also use on the Anzac's too). Two of the choices were the Lynx or the Seasprite.

And we know what happened there.

When it comes to the future fleet of 20 OPV's, will they require a Lynx "size" helicopter? who knows.

Maybe they will think about that and design the OPV's with a large enough deck and hangar for a Seahawk size.

At the end of the day it will all come down to what they want the OPV's to do and what capabilities they want the helicopters that will/can operate off them to do too.