Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

I haven't read any detailed info on the theory so stand to be corrected but this "sea-basing" idea as thought up by the ADF seems to be in lala land.

Anything other than a small scale/short term deployment will fall on its ass as soon as it gets tried anywhere outside a TS exercise. Leaving the commander on the ship could have a comms advantage but would make face-to-face reporting a nightmare.
And logistic support would be far more difficult needing to move every supply convoy off and on the LHD. And with no "rear area" they would effectively have to be able to fight their way ashore for every trip.

Logistically this just doesn't seem to stack up and thats to put it nicely.

Is there any published info on the details behind this?

Sea basing: logistical implications for the US Army. - Free Online Library

From my understanding of the sea basing concept is an evolution from tactics used since WWII, where once large amounts of troops would be airdropped in at an important strategic/tactical forward location by the airforce, under sea basing troops can be airlifted straight from the LHD to the location (it could be 50km inland), but their will still be a requirement for a beachhead depending on the level of force needed for the operation and only if heavy equipment cannot be airlifted such as MBT/SPG.

Sea basing is exploiting manoeuvre from the sea if no beach head is required in the initial stages of the operation blue force can dictate from which direction the assault can take place from, freeing up resource that would have been a requirement at a beach head, all command and control is applied from the LHD with modern communications drones the task force commander will have a better situational awareness than ever before all from the safety hopefully out of harms way.

Australia/New Zealand doctrine is placing emphases on joint amphibious operations RAN with HMAS Choules and Nuship Canberra and Adelaide, New Zealand with HMNZS Canterbury, but to be truly independent amphibious task force RAN needs additional infrastructure to shape or soften up their intended objective.


Defence Capability Plan 2011 - Section 2: Defence Policy [Ministry of Defence NZ]

A Vision of Navy's Amphibious Future - Royal Australian Navy

 

[a4skyhawk1]

Aircraft Carriers

I'm new and can't be bothered reading over 550 pages to see if this has been discus sedso please be kind......

a couple of things;

1. Now that the Brits have reverted to the F-35B STOVL version of the JSF (due to the cost of the new launch/recovery systems) I see the cost benefits of increased numbers making them quite attractive to Australia for use on the new flat-tops (which were/are designed primarily for Air Ops - see Navanti a website).

If we are not looking at the F-35B then why the heck did we keep the ski-jump at the expense of an additional helo Spot plus a significent weight saving?

2. HMAS Choules (bay class) is one if the uggliest things afloat - the Brits used to make "pretty" ships but not any more --- the Type 45's are just strange looking, with no aesthetics at all.

3. If we can't keep the Collins Class Sludgemarines fully manned then how the hell are we going to keep 12 "Future Subs" manned???

 

[icelord]

I'm new and can't be bothered reading over 550 pages to see if this has been discus sedso please be kind......

a couple of things;

1. Now that the Brits have reverted to the F-35B STOVL version of the JSF (due to the cost of the new launch/recovery systems) I see the cost benefits of increased numbers making them quite attractive to Australia for use on the new flat-tops (which were/are designed primarily for Air Ops - see Navanti a website).

If we are not looking at the F-35B then why the heck did we keep the ski-jump at the expense of an additional helo Spot plus a significent weight saving?

2. HMAS Choules (bay class) is one if the uggliest things afloat - the Brits used to make "pretty" ships but not any more --- the Type 45's are just strange looking, with no aesthetics at all.

3. If we can't keep the Collins Class Sludgemarines fully manned then how the hell are we going to keep 12 "Future Subs" manned???

Click on any of the 450 pages which covers point one or three. As for point 2, practical doesnt always look pretty.

 

[Bonza]

I'm new and can't be bothered reading over 550 pages to see if this has been discus sedso please be kind......

Make the effort to read the thread for yourself. The topics have been done to death.

 

[MickB]

There won’t be a conventional rear area ashore with the various combat teams operating independently. All of their logistics will stay at sea with ‘in time’ resupply and the like. A huge cultural change so don’t bank on it but supposedly possible.

Yes a huge change, this concept could work very well if the only mission was to out manouver engage and defeat an enemy combat force. But past military interventions often involve area denial and protection for civilion population and inforstructure.

The area denial mission could be carried out by moblie patrols resupplied from ths sea but but the rest seems to imply a fixed semi permermanant basing.

This also seems to be a fight with what you bring concept, if the ships are standing offshore they are not returning to Australia (or forward resupply bases) for additional troops and supplies.

Also no airhead and no COD style aircraft on the LHD limit medevac options. I realise that the LHD has an extensive medical setup but is it as good as a mainland truama centre.

 

[Volkodav]

This also seems to be a fight with what you bring concept, if the ships are standing offshore they are not returning to Australia (or forward resupply bases) for additional troops and supplies.

As far as I am aware thats what the Strategic Sealift Ship is for and if we are smart the replacements for Success and Sirius will have a secondary logistics capability. If we are really smart the LCH replacement will be large and capable enough to fill a regional transportation role as well.

 

[t68]

As far as I am aware thats what the Strategic Sealift Ship is for and if we are smart the replacements for Success and Sirius will have a secondary logistics capability. If we are really smart the LCH replacement will be large and capable enough to fill a regional transportation role as well.

So what we should we look for in suitable replacement of the current LCH, what we need is something which could be used around the Pacific Island nation but also do trans ocean voyages be used to supplement the strategic sealift vessel, at a minimum something like Runnymede class large landing craft or as large as Frank S Besson class LSV.But for operations at a fair distance from Australia we need is that third LHD to rotate in/out of the AO or a second Bay Class or both. I wonder if any one has come up with a very small LPD design about the size of a Kanimbla class wonder if that would have any benefits over a large LSV with a small well dock suitable for LCM-1E.

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/89/TheLandingCraftHeavy.pdf

BMT Group Ltd - News - BMT’s new Caimen-200 fast LCT offers speedier amphibious ops

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/army.htm

 

[ASSAIL]

http://media.bmt.org/bmt_media/resources/89/TheLandingCraftHeavy.pdf

It makes me mad as hell when the C'wealth/RAN spend many thousands of $ employing a consultant to produce a "Safety Management System" for a generic/current LCH. They have enormous resources capable of DIY.:mad

In contrast, those of us that operate vessels under the NSCV legislation MUST produce our own SMS or not pass survey!
I have an office staff of 4 and my 80 page document was produced with much midnight oil and research, something that surely defence could do for themselves.
I'm positive that AMSA could correct their work.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Also no airhead and no COD style aircraft on the LHD limit medevac options. I realise that the LHD has an extensive medical setup but is it as good as a mainland truama centre.

The advantage of having a medical set up on the LHD is helos will always be travelling there to outposts, depots etc. They can be stabilised and moved onto a large airbase to ship them back home in a few hours. From what I can remember it was going to be at least 2 or 3 full featured surgical theatres and substantial triage/care areas. Significant, particularly the equipment they could keep on board.

I believe the sea basing is a pretty good idea. However there will still be a beach head, no doubt airports and seaports that will be secured and part of the basing that occurs at the LHD. The LHD will have Mw levels of power, all the greatest coms, water, food, fuel, all the helo's, space for maybe 1,500 troops+ surge and equipment.

I believe once the LHD's are deployed they stay in theatre (perhaps both of them). Until relieved by another ship (or suitable land base is secured). This ensures there is always somewhere to fall back to, operate from etc. You use your navy power to secure the area. Unlike a land base where you can have any old civilian/milta walking or driving in, or armed force cutting supply lines, it takes a whole other USN level to do that with a ship based force just over the horizon.

I too think the RAN really needs 3 x LHD to forfil the sea basing dream. That way we should be able to deploy 2 ships (as per the white paper) near indefinitely at any time (in the rare case we can't we can surge other ships/american amphibs etc).

The RAN turning up on your door step with 2xLHD's with 2,600 army with equipment, dozens of helos, protected by a AWD, frigates and subs. That can secure the beach,sea port, airport etc. At which point we start moving in serious sealift, C-17's, etc. Those troops don't have to defend a land base HQ and where it should be, they just focus on securing other infrastructure etc. All under the blanket of the RAAF and continental based aircraft. Thats a much better entrance than turning up with a converted Tasmanian ferry and trying to find some where to ramp off....

 

[MickB]

However there will still be a beach head, no doubt airports and seaports that will be secured

Have I missed the point, I thought the idea of sea basing was to do away with all this.

 

[StoresBasher]

2. HMAS Choules (bay class) is one if the uggliest things afloat - the Brits used to make "pretty" ships but not any more --- the Type 45's are just strange looking, with no aesthetics at all.

Certainly off with a bang....
Choules ugly, no way and she is a great ship to serve on.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Have I missed the point, I thought the idea of sea basing was to do away with all this.

Not completely. The LHD doesn't make our C-17's obsolete. It means we can operate if there are no local, secured or friendly airports in the area. So instead of hoping when we turn up the locals are operating as normal and friendly to see us we can land, secure important resources/facilities. Our main base of operations will remain the LHD's, but the airport will still be one of the first things we try and secure. But it may take weeks or a month to ensure its safe enough to use.

The 1,300 army personnel that each LHD carries will be moved ashore to do this, they won't come back to the LHD every night for cookies and warm milk. They will be out and about. At times they will return to the LHD. Regrouping, new assaults/missions, medical, maybe R&R. However the command structure, the main ops, will stay on the LHD.

The LHD makes sense to use as a base for a number of reasons. Your main base can be just OTH from the action. 5 minute flight and you can personnel out to safety or 5 min flight in to support. You can use your naval assets to protect it.

Here is a terrible picture showing the basics.
Seabasing_ConOpsNewest | aviationintel

Now we won't have the capabilities the USN and USMC have. But for smaller operations in our region we could do it. Throw in a few friendly assets for a period of time. Maybe a USMC LHD at the start of operations, maybe having a USN carrier on operations in region ready to drop in if needed, Uk, US airlift and sea lift etc. The sort of things we could reasonably expect. The USMC might just sit there offer advice, intel, play backup, help with resupply, offer another vector, etc. We wouldn't be completely dependant on the US to do every little thing for us, and we could lead a international task-force. The LHD are the lynch pin in the whole operation (hence why I think its very important to get 3, even if it never happens).

Well after looking at what happened in Timor that's what I think the idea is. The US is more than happy to help us, but they aren't going to stuff up their global plans so that we have it easy in our little region because we are tight arses. We can't expect a small aluminium ferry is going to be the best way to drive into a hell hole and deploy ourselves. They may play a part, but we need those LHD's as the central component in the whole show.

They are absolutely essential to the whole operation. Seabasing doesn't mean everything returns to sea. Its about having a large secure space, where you can launch and operate from. Its used in combination with forward/advanced basing. But you can place it where you need it.

 

[Raven22]

I think some are is confused as to what sea basing really means. It doesn't mean everything stays on the ship, it means that all the higher level support function remain on the ship - ie, what would normally be in the B ech. Combat teams with their echelons will remain ashore. The battlegroup HQ and the A2 ech will remain ashore. The higher support functions are what remain afloat. For example, instead of the battlegroup A2 ech going back to the brigade maintenance area for resupply, they go back to the ship (or rather the ship pushes it forward). Instead of establishing a FARP ashore, the helicopters go back to the ship. Instead of establishing a field hospital with surgical capability ashore, the casualties are flown back to the ship.

Also, not every operation is going to use sea basing, and not every operation is going to use sea basing for the duration of the op. Most scenarios that involve a major JTF deploying have the battlegroup on the LHD securing an APOD ashore, with a second light battlegroup being flown in to the APOD, who then go off to fight the war while the remainder of the JTF are brought in by more conventional means. Sea basing might be used for a week or two, but not indefinitely.

 

[swerve]

I wonder if any one has come up with a very small LPD design about the size of a Kanimbla class

Certainly! Plenty of them.

Ouragan class (now retired) - [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouragan_class_landing_platform_dock"]Ouragan class landing platform dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Endurance class (in service, available for order)
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_class_landing_platform_dock_ship"]Endurance class landing platform dock ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

San Giorgio class (in service, expected to be available second hand soon)
San Giorgio Class Landing Platform Dock (LPD) - Naval Technology

And unbuilt designs, e.g. the smaller variants of the Enforcer family (i.e. the basis of the Dutch/Spanish Rotterdam/Galicia & the British Bay class) such as the Enforcer 8000 being looked at by Chile before the French LPD Foudre became available second hand at a good price.

The Korean-designed Indonesian Makassar class is quoted as having rather greater displacement, but the length & beam don't seem to match that, so you could add that to the list.
Makassar Class Landing Platform Docks - Naval Technology

 

[ThePuss]

There is a few interesting photos over at fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - 02 HMAS Canberra showing Canberra under going what I assume is listing trials at anchor.

Apologies if these have already been posted but I have not be skulking around here lately.

 

[Jhom]

There is a few interesting photos over at fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - 02 HMAS Canberra showing Canberra under going what I assume is listing trials at anchor.

Apologies if these have already been posted but I have not be skulking around here lately.

Nope, still fitting electrics and pipes, and tons of internal painting...

 

[OpinionNoted]

Nope, still fitting electrics and pipes, and tons of internal painting...

Do you know the date canberra leaves for aus?

 

[mankyle]

I seem to remember it will be on July 12th

 

[ThePuss]

Nope, still fitting electrics and pipes, and tons of internal painting...

Yes it's clear that she still has a lot of work to be done, but there has to be a reason to move her from the fitting out wharf and anchor her

 

[OpinionNoted]

I seem to remember it will be on July 12th

oh ok thanks for that.