Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[justsomeaussie]

Don't get me wrong modular is definitely where this needs to head however we don't want to get into a "fitted for but not with" situation. Till we see how the LCS turn out I don't think we'll have an example of what modular means.

 

[ASSAIL]

I find it difficult to discuss Absalon in the same breath as LCS. Its a 6,000+ tonne "support" ship which simply doesn't fit into any capability required by the RAN.
It reminds me a bit like a 4 door ute, not a very good ute and not a very good car but quite useful if that's all that's required.
As a mini LHD it can't compare with other examples or in the RAN, the JC1's. As a DDG it has no area AAW capability and therefore can't compare with F 105.
At 6,000 tonnes it will be too big and expensive to be considered as any part of SEA 1180 and althogh the wiki price quoted in 2004 USD is 264m, I think you could easily double that today.

In this case I would suggest that there is no utility in them for the RAN, OTOH it could work well for the RNZN in lieu of further FFH's, what do people think?

 

[MickB]

Perhaps a smaller version based on the F100 hull without the gas turbines. This will keep the yards in work and have some comminalty with the AWD.

Give it a modular armament, mission deck and hanger and these could handle the long range EEZ patrol and heavier sea states better than ACPB. (Christmas Island etc)

The versitility of the mission deck allows many other tasks.

Market them to NZ the keep down costs.

 

[ngatimozart]

Perhaps a smaller version based on the F100 hull without the gas turbines. This will keep the yards in work and have some comminalty with the AWD.

Give it a modular armament, mission deck and hanger and these could handle the long range EEZ patrol and heavier sea states better than ACPB. (Christmas Island etc)

The versitility of the mission deck allows many other tasks.

Market them to NZ the keep down costs.

That's not a silly idea because then you could have a fair bit of commonality running between these, the AWDs and the ANZAC replacements if they go with the F100 hull. The hangar and flight deck would have to take something the size of a NH90.If you are going to sell some to NZ then they'd have to be ice strengthened to Class 1C but 1B would be better. I know the the AuG send other vessels to Antarctica but methinks a warship with ice capabilities would be an asset especially as the Antarctic treaty expires around 2040 so will be up for renegotiation and with all the minerals in that part of the world it won't be easy negotiations this time around. Future proofing.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Boat carrying asylum seekers pulls into Geraldton - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Wow Asylum seekers turning up at Cafes during the election period.

I can imagine all sorts of things coming up. I think we might see sea1180 rank up priorities. However, with a 3rd LHD you could just park one off Christmas island and perform training year round, and its big enough to hold and process people.

 

[ngatimozart]

Boat carrying asylum seekers pulls into Geraldton - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Wow Asylum seekers turning up at Cafes during the election period.

I can imagine all sorts of things coming up. I think we might see sea1180 rank up priorities. However, with a 3rd LHD you could just park one off Christmas island and perform training year round, and its big enough to hold and process people.

She's a long paddle from Geraldton to NZ and would have been real dicy crossing the ditch in a boat like that. Wonder if they snuck out west into the IO a ways avoiding the usual routes?

 

[deepsixteen]

I find it difficult to discuss Absalon in the same breath as LCS. Its a 6,000+ tonne "support" ship which simply doesn't fit into any capability required by the RAN.
It reminds me a bit like a 4 door ute, not a very good ute and not a very good car but quite useful if that's all that's required.
As a mini LHD it can't compare with other examples or in the RAN, the JC1's. As a DDG it has no area AAW capability and therefore can't compare with F 105.
At 6,000 tonnes it will be too big and expensive to be considered as any part of SEA 1180 and althogh the wiki price quoted in 2004 USD is 264m, I think you could easily double that today.

In this case I would suggest that there is no utility in them for the RAN, OTOH it could work well for the RNZN in lieu of further FFH's, what do people think?

Hi

I suspect anyone discussing LCS or Absolon in terms of Australia’s sea 1180 requirement is due a visit from the men in white coats; what I suggested was the Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel and that the Danes have a modular system that has been around since the 1980s fitted to 8 or 9 different classes which seems eminently suitable in terms of displacement and flexibility.

Deepsixteen

 

[t68]

To be honest I think a Absalon can fit into a RAN fleet but not for the likes of Sea 1180. The anology of the ute is something that can quite usefull in context, if you take what the Absalon can deliver in flexibility it can swing between inserting and supporting SOC in combination with CB-90 in either a raiding party or with its company strong infantry/helicopter hold a vital piece of infastrucure and have the abilty to support with NGS,with the same sustainable support(CB-90)it can also do the job of anti-piracy it also has the abilty to escort the LHD.The way I look at it it can do the job of the MRV -80 but with the ability to self escort and support the operation at hand with its combat suite and defence/offensive armament.

For a real balanced force structure for the RAN this would entail bring up defence spending to a level which no one would contemplate. Australia with its 2ocean fleet policy needs flexibility in its assets and I believe an Absalon can give the RAN a flexibility for a middle player, if it was me the RAN should look similar to this composition,

3x LHD
8x AWD
3x Absalon
9x BAM
2x Cavour (ASW/F35B)
14x River PB(HMS Clyde)
4x MRV-80(mine,survey)
9x LCH
2x Bay (sealift)
12x SSG

Although its an expensive fleet but it's a flexible fleet for a middle power, being an island nation Navy should be as capable and flexable as it can be. I was in two minds in regards to ASW either an 3x Hygua or 2x Cavour but the prospect of F35B for fleet defence was to hard to ignore as it can free the RAAF for long range strike without using it limited assets for fleet defence when it could be put to better use.

 

[justsomeaussie]

So effectively splitting the typical frigate roles between the AWD and the BAM? Extremely costly. What effect are you trying to achieve?

Your next job is to at a minimum double the Defence budget. We can't even keep boats in the water and sailors in them at the current budget.

Surely the inclusion of the F35b is a joke also.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So effectively splitting the typical frigate roles between the AWD and the BAM? Extremely costly. What effect are you trying to achieve?

Your next job is to at a minimum double the Defence budget. We can't even keep boats in the water and sailors in them at the current budget.

Surely the inclusion of the F35b is a joke also.

CREF above - what he said in spades

 

[t68]

So effectively splitting the typical frigate roles between the AWD and the BAM? Extremely costly. What effect are you trying to achieve?

Your next job is to at a minimum double the Defence budget. We can't even keep boats in the water and sailors in them at the current budget.

Surely the inclusion of the F35b is a joke also.

As I said its extremely costly but flexible. As a task group combined using one or both LHd,1x Cavour with addtional ASW helicopters and 3x Bams covers the ASW side of the house. Now keeping with flexibility theme the same Cavour can cover for fleet defence at range with F35B along with AWD, as capabile as the AWD are their defence ring is limited when you have red air probing at your defence outside effective range when you can extend that range with F35B. I stated sometime ago the complexities of the RAAF to manage fleet defence at range we may have the combat aircraft to sustain the effort but we do not have enough support assets to keep a 24/7 CAP over the fleet at range, if you take these assets out of the equation it limits the capacity of the RAAF address other area of need such as strike instead of fleet defence.I am not talking about going down the strike carriers of the UK, 18 F35B for the FAA 9 aircraft per ASW carrier.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Take a step further back and ask yourself what are the real world scenarios that your fleet is going to operate in?

Insurgency in PNG/Indonesia
Stabilisation Operations in Timor and the Pacific
SLOC support in the Indonesian Archipelago
Coalition operations in the South China Sea

Run through these first before designing a fleet.

What is the first question. Why is the second question. How is the third.

E.g against whom are your AWD and carriers operating against?

 

[t68]

Take a step further back and ask yourself what are the real world scenarios that your fleet is going to operate in?

Insurgency in PNG/Indonesia
Stabilisation Operations in Timor and the Pacific
SLOC support in the Indonesian Archipelago
Coalition operations in the South China Sea

Run through these first before designing a fleet.

What is the first question. Why is the second question. How is the third.

E.g against whom are your AWD and carriers operating against?

That's crystal balling in my opinion, no one knows what can and will happen in the future, history is littered with examples of allies becoming enemy's and enemy's becoming friends, as the old saying goes keep your freinds close but your enemy's closer.

Like it our not Australia is a island nation dependant on its SLOC with 2 large oceans on either side. In the past it has been the will of the goverment have the capacity to deploy at a brigade level and at the same time able to have a battalion level deployment running concurrently, we know that at any one time we have not been able to fulfill that requirement of goverment due to the lack of funds, to be able to sustain that the RAN and the greater ADF needs to be extremely flexible. As we saw with ET Australia was pretty much stretched to the limit and that was one relatively close to home, with submarines lurking within the task group and the RAAF bombed up ready for action, now I imagine it was a pretty intense situation, now imagine an Australian task force on that situatian far from Australia waters relying on KC-30A tankers to support the fleet at distance would you rather the RAAF or an on station FAA F35 ready to react to a situation that comes up.

 

[justsomeaussie]

That's crystal balling in my opinion, no one knows what can and will happen in the future,

But isn't that exactly what you are doing? I don't see anyone else within Navy, CDG, Government or the Think Tanks proposing such a gigantic force as you.

Yet you can't even justify what it will be used for and against whom.

It just seems to be capability at any expense without any thought on how and why.

 

[Volkodav]

Just an observation, the AWD is a frigate that we have decided to call a destroyer. IMO had the US decided to build a frigate replacement for the FFG-7 class after the collapse of the NF-90 project, it would likely have looked a lot like the F-100, with the obvious advantage of being cheaper due to economy of scale. Why is this important? Well considering we currently have 4 FFGs in service, originally had 6 and 3 DDGs and at one point planned a total of 10 the argument that we need more AWDs holds more water. Add to this the ANZACs were originally intended to be high end GP/ASW frigates, then low end patrol frigate before the RAN was able to secure something in between. Leaving corvettes, OPVs, FACs and PBs out of it, you could actually argue, that based on historic force levels and capability comparisons that 3Flight II Burkes and 6 F-100s would be a reasonable starting point for the RAN today.

Add North Korea and Iran to the mix and you have to ask would PMs Hawke, Keating, or Howard have forked out extra funds to cover missile defense (more hulls), in fact would would either of the should have been PMs, Costello or Beasley have done?

 

[t68]

But isn't that exactly what you are doing? I don't see anyone else within Navy, CDG, Government or the Think Tanks proposing such a gigantic force as you.

Yet you can't even justify what it will be used for and against whom.

It just seems to be capability at any expense without any thought on how and why.

Of course I can't tell you against whom, it's called hedging your bets. No its not capability at any expense I did say in the original post it was extremely expencive and no one would do it and my personal opinion.

It's not to far from when we had a mix of mix ofAdelaide class and river class ships and a aircraft carrier. Bams will take the place of the current Anzac working with the Light carrier in ASW task group, hobarts will be the AWD piquet and the Absalons will be our all rounders doing everything from anti-piracy to working with SOG or it can be placed with a company of infantry of the coast ready to assist Australian nationals in operations similar to Operation Morris Dance.

In regards to the number of ships in the fleet it will fill out a two ocean fleet, 3x LHD, 4XAWD,3xBAMS and the Absalons on the east coast the rest of the numbers on the west and it will have the numbers to cover contingencies either in unexpected brake down or vessel incapacited by red forces action. The fundamental job of the RAN is to flex its muscle to gain and to maintain sea control fundamentally to where it is operating.

The RaN having a fleet as flexible and in numbers means the RAAF has the means to exploit its advantages in whatever ways it sees fit.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's crystal balling in my opinion, no one knows what can and will happen in the future, history is littered with examples of allies becoming enemy's and enemy's becoming friends, as the old saying goes keep your freinds close but your enemy's closer.

Its not actually.

Its how we assess whats required. On an open forum I can't even say the name but CREF what j said earlier is based on how we do business in force planning and assessment

 

[t68]

Its not actually.

Its how we assess whats required. On an open forum I can't even say the name but CREF what j said earlier is based on how we do business in force planning and assessment

Force planning would be an interesting subject and I understand the need for the information to remain in the classified domain.

But one would think that it also requires a lot of assumptions on behalf of the anaylist and 2 different people who see the same information and have differing views on its interpretation.Betcha their would be a lot of lively debates in the field.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Force planning would be an interesting subject and I understand the need for the information to remain in the classified domain.

But one would think that it also requires a lot of assumptions on behalf of the anaylist and 2 different people who see the same information and have differing views on its interpretation.Betcha their would be a lot of lively debates in the field.

the easiest way to explain it as that all modern militaries have a set of plans which are based on a whole raft of scenarios.
If the PM, President, Chancellor etc get woken at 4am and are told that someone has invaded x and we need to consider doing y then the re are plans already on their table giving them options

those options are used as considerations in force development type roles.

eg if x invades y what do we need to effectively provide capability to further the national interests and direction of the govt of the day

those things can be as "simple" as a CT requirement in country, to a major coalition event 5k away to an autonomous need to do something by ourselves in a given environment

there are dozens of them

 

[StingrayOZ]

Previous fleets were in previous threats. Cold war isn't what we are in today.

We need amphibious capability, we need that 3 LHD for about half a dozen reasons. You need 4 AWD for the same reasons, because deploying the LHD's in anything except a completely benign aid environment without 2 capable (AWD) escorts is asking for trouble. You can't do that with less than 4.

I don't see carriers, I don't see 8 destroyers.. But we might get 8 very very capable frigates.