Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Jenkins Marine page has each 6.1m x 2.5m module weighing in at 5 tonnes. This does not include the weight of connectors, ramps, drive units etc.

The other weight penalty will be the hull fittings and reinforcing to carry them as well as the lifting and securing arrangment.
I wonder if a module could be deployed from the ramp and carried internally on a HSV? Don't think external carry rapid deployment will be an option on a HSV, even the big ones like the 112 and 130m ones. I would imagine assembly would have to be done on ship?

The US has just develop and tested a new ramp for the JHSV for amphibious launch or at sea transfer.
The advanced ramp would provide significant improvement over the JHSV's current ramp by allowing the loading or unloading of people and combat vehicles—in rougher ocean conditions than are currently possible—between a JHSV and another ship, pier, mobile landing platform or more.

This ramp is supposed to support transfer in sea state 3 (up to 1.25m), where as the current ramp only supports seastate 1 (0.1m) . Link

It was being tested with a 73t M1A1 tank.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The Jenkins Marine page has each 6.1m x 2.5m module weighing in at 5 tonnes. This does not include the weight of connectors, ramps, drive units etc.

The other weight penalty will be the hull fittings and reinforcing to carry them as well as the lifting and securing arrangment.
Thanks for this. It gives me a point to start from. It also serves to suggest the limitations of an HSV in roles other than Ro-Ro.

A HSV with a ~600 ton cargo capacity becomes rapidly more inefficient if the 'real' cargo capacity drops because 100 tons need to be allocated to kit for a ship-to-shore connector. While that IMO would not be enough to render a HSV as being ineffective in a sealift capacity, it does suggest that it is a niche capability which would be more appropriate for a force requiring regular, rapid intra-theatre sealift in order to be maintained as part of a regular force.

-Cheers
 

weegee

Active Member
Canberra Delay?

Hey guys I came across this yesterday on another forum:
No Cookies | Perth Now

I would have thought that something like this would have gathered some attention here on the east coast before the west coast? I would have thought someone on here would of had a sniff of something happening too?
If it is true of course.
 

StoresBasher

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I was sent a link at work to the article on Thursday.
It's already delayed six months, she was supposed to be commissioned last December. From what I've heard they are looking at August for a new date.

We heard many stories about the workers going slow when we were down their a couple of weeks ago. The running joke that we heard quite a lot, was that Adelaide will be finished before Canberra.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A very interesting read that illustrates a situation far worse than I could ever have imagined.

Commission of Audit | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

After reading this I hope that commission of Audits suggestions are taken up even though they are basically rating the post 1998 changes to defence procurement as a massive failure and hence are criticising the things done by Moore as Defence Minister to fix a broken system that was not actually broken. These changes can be traced back apparently to Moore's, politically driven, efforts to beat the then opposition leader to death with the failings of the Collins Class Submarine project, that resulted in many reactionary changes to defence procurement that resulted in so many of the failed and poorly performing projects hat followed.

I often harp on about the hidden defence cuts of the Howard years and have been shouted down for this but reading this article on the CoA findings explains much of hat I was seeing and complaining about. We were spending so much more on defence but getting so much less. Gear was being retired without replacement, needed projects were being cancelled, the RAN particular was being cut to the bone in numbers, procurement and maintenance but costs were going up.

The issue in a nutshell was the Howard government rolled back all the advances made by Hawke/Keating increasing costs through nationalisation of sections on industry and applying layer upon layer of complexity to the procurement process making it near impossible to even efficiently maintain or upgrade what were had let alone replacement whether through local or overseas procurement. When we did buy stuff we screwed the requirements (ACPBs, Sirius), fell victim to scope creep (ANZAC WIP, FFGUP, M-113 UP) or ordered so few platforms that economy of scale was impossible to achieve (AWD, LHD). We life extended gear we should have replaced, ordered gear that we no longer needed because the platforms it was ordered for had been cancelled, retired needed capabilities without replacement then tried and failed to upgrade other stuff to fill the gap. It cost a fortune and we went backwards.

I now understand what Abe has been saying for years now. Fix the top heavy procurement side of things and we have more than enough money for the gear and the personnel we need to operate it.

Rant over.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I now understand what Abe has been saying for years now. Fix the top heavy procurement side of things and we have more than enough money for the gear and the personnel we need to operate it.

Rant over.
i think i've bitched before about how subs were the political football.....

if you think the two pass process was a cluster you;ll be happy to know that the govt seriously considered a 3 pass process.

that would make indian procurement models look like the gold standard on efficiency
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Getting the F35B for the new LHDs might not be a pipe dream.

The Defence Minister David Johnson has confirmed that purchasing the B model is being considered.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/23583014/jump-jets-on-defence-radar/
Might not be a pipe dream, but a very long way off and many things can change in the mean time. The priority is the RAAF's A's, 72 ordered with a long lead time for delivery and IOC, if the remaining 28 were to be B's to make up the 100 we are talking a long way down the track before that decision is made.

Cheers
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Might not be a pipe dream, but a very long way off and many things can change in the mean time. The priority is the RAAF's A's, 72 ordered with a long lead time for delivery and IOC, if the remaining 28 were to be B's to make up the 100 we are talking a long way down the track before that decision is made.

Cheers
considering the costs that are involved with setting up the fleet and force structure, as well as the issue of hurting the rest of the def budget (plus a few other things), I am very surprised that this would get aired

it was smacked on the head a few years back quite vigorously,

one of the negs was that there was a view that Aust could trigger a force dev war.
although we know three of the neighbours are changing their force dev model due to China behaving badly, maybe we have a get out of gaol card
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
i think i've bitched before about how subs were the political football.....

if you think the two pass process was a cluster you;ll be happy to know that the govt seriously considered a 3 pass process.

that would make indian procurement models look like the gold standard on efficiency
Look at the damage a two pass system did with a dithering minister like Smith and a disinterested PM like Gillard, three passes would have meant no decisions ever. I am concerned enough that the current government are too distracted by the current political narrative that the economy is screwed and we cant afford anything for a decade, I just hope they follow advice and unwind Moores mess. Maybe it could free up enough cash for the Bs and something better than the LHDs to fly them off.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Getting the F35B for the new LHDs might not be a pipe dream.

The Defence Minister David Johnson has confirmed that purchasing the B model is being considered.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/23583014/jump-jets-on-defence-radar/
Be interesting to read a transcript of the full interview to see the 'context' of what was actually said, interesting all the same.

It was only a few weeks ago when the PM and Def Min announced the additional batch of F-35A's and one of the PM's comments regarding the last batch was that a decision on what 'type' hadn't been decided, makes the Def Min's comments even more interesting too.

Opens up a whole bunch of questions (if it did happen):

* Would B's be in addition to the last batch of A's? Or in place of?
* Would the RAAF not receive it's 4th Squadron? (end up one short or the Super Hornets continue in service?)
* Would the B's be operated by the RAAF or the RAN, or a joint squadron?
* Would we see the RAN get a purpose built carrier, such as Cavour?

Too many questions and no answers for a long time, maybe we might see a bit more clarity on this when the new DWP is released around this time next year.

Interesting!!
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Whilst I don’t object to getting the platform I consider it ill advised to operate them from the LHD. If the government of the day wants a maritime fast air capability it should do it properly, Canberra class are not optimized for combined fast air/helicopter operations they don’t have the explosive magazine or the bunkerage to sustain combined operations. That extra 23 meters in length and 13000 tons makes a difference in the capability of the asset and I believe if we have them they will be at the detriment of the overall capability of its core job.
The USMC only has 6 fast jets on board for CAS these are not ASW carriers or strike carriers as we all know that the US has other assets that cover those roles, the greater ADF needs the capability what an aircraft carrier represents, aircraft carriers have often been viewed as a status symbol or a measure of national will and credibility.

As it stand the ADF has a doctrine of sea-denial with our submarines and Anzac frigates and soon to have AWD, Australia being an island nation needs to look past the sea-denial and be more proactive in the sea-control, we need not worry ourselves with being invaded but we do need to be aware that we can be reduced in our efforts to forward deploy at will of our heavy forces which is the role of the LHD.
A properly defined aircraft carrier will be made up of several concepts,

Eyes of the Fleet (locate the enemy & maneuver to its best advantage)

Cavalry, (not only support ground troops but fleet defence BARCAP ASW & maritime strike)

Airfield at Sea, (ability to conduct independent operations to where permission to move is not needed from other countries)

Geopolitical chess piece, (demonstrate Australian concern, resolve, or outright anger)
The soon to be commissioned RAN Canberra class LHD would seem to blur doctrinal boundaries, because it features a “ski jump” for operating STOVL jets. Whilst the ship can backfill as a “strategic projection ship”, the ship’s design focuses on amphibious operations more than any of the doctrinal roles mentioned above and cannot meet those requisites whilst moving a Amphibious Ready Group.
 

phreeky

Active Member
All options should be considered, that's a pretty sensible thing to do, but that doesn't mean they think it's likely. With the budget being such a hot topic any such decision won't be coming for some time anyway, and it's safe to say that the chance of a gov change at the next election couldn't be ruled out. They're not really taking any real risk saying what they have.
 

King Wally

Active Member
The USMC only has 6 fast jets on board for CAS
And logic would seam to point out given the reality of the Canberra class set up that a couple of ARH Tigers would fill our equivalent role on the LHD's. Perhaps even Sea-Hawk Romeo's could assist seeing as they carry the hellfire these days?





[
 

t68

Well-Known Member
And logic would seam to point out given the reality of the Canberra class set up that a couple of ARH Tigers would fill our equivalent role on the LHD's. Perhaps even Sea-Hawk Romeo's could assist seeing as they carry the hellfire these days?





[
Correct in a ADF application Tiger ARH will be used for Fire support, security for forward deployed forces, armed escort, coordination, armed and visual reconnaissance.

On the other hand fast jet fixed wing operations come with their benefits that ARH will not overcome in, close air support using conventional and specific weapons, offensive and defensive anti-air warfare such as combat air patrol, armed escort missions, and offensive missions against enemy ground-to-air defenses, be able to deploy to and operate from carriers and other suitable vessels (LHD), advanced bases, expeditionary airfields, and remote tactical landing sites. Fixed wing aircraft will also have an impact to shaping the battlefield in preparation amphibious assault.
 

Monitor66

New Member
And logic would seam to point out given the reality of the Canberra class set up that a couple of ARH Tigers would fill our equivalent role on the LHD's. Perhaps even Sea-Hawk Romeo's could assist seeing as they carry the hellfire these days?

There is a good case to be made in favour of helos over fast jets for CAS in anycase, where their persistence over the battlefield and time on target cannot be matched by fast jets. The flexibility of the LHD allows various mixes of trooplift (MRH90), medium lift (CH47) and ARH (Tiger) to be embarked to suit the mission/operation, with 2-4 Tigers the norm I believe.

As it has better marinisation, taking a few MRH90 out of the hangar and parking them on the flight deck to make room for additional Tigers could easily see half a dozen (or maybe a full squadron of 8) Tigers embarked for short periods without severely limiting aviation lift.

Tiger's weapons load, particularly Hellfire and the excellent Nexter 30mm cannon (said to be a superior weapon system to the Apache's 30mm gun), also provide highly discriminating, precision targeting/aerial fire support against virtually any target likely to be encountered by our ground forces fighting ashore/inland - from exposed troops, key installations, MBTs, fortified positions and defended buildings. The 70mm unguided rockets are less accurate but look out for uptake of guided/precision 70mm rockets in due course.

The MH-60R can carry 8 Hellfire AGMs, which would be handy to prosecute a wide variety of land based targets. I imagine the Romeo will be qualified off the LHDs once their integration with the surface combatants gets sorted.

Providing CAP over a task force is of course the domain of carrier-based fast jets. However, I don't think Air Force wants a bar of that game. To be operationally meaningful and feasible, 10-12 F-35B would need to be embarked on LHD to provide effective CAP. As has been mentioned, the LHDs are not designed/set up for this role and it would come at the expense of the ship's helo lift capability.

The LHD's ski jump also opens up the possibility of embarking armed UAVs (not UCAS, not yet anyway), which the ADF is understood to be contemplating, potentially under Project Air 7100. They would, of course, have to be capable of take-off/retrieval on flat-decks but would add another layer of capability in the precision land strike role.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

So while having only 2 LHD gives you battalion lift capability some of the time for a short period of time, adding an additional role of fixed wing carrier (UAV or F-35B) doesn't exactly make its job easier or increase the availability of only 2 LHD's.

While I don't see them getting an aircraft carrier, they are going to have to look at getting something so they have at least two ships available at all times. Possibly surging all three for some super huge operation (or deploying 2 and utilising the resources of an allied partners 3rd).

I believe our G.G Cosgrove had some input on the original plan to be able to deploy a battalion. I would be very interested in the next white paper (which I think with get support from both sides).

Choosing B's over A's doesn't really compromise the RAAF plan for 4 squads. The B is a very capable aircraft and has minimal compromises and extremely high levels of commonality between the F-35A. You could if you wish by a B and treat it exactly like an A for the most part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top