Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

I sometimes wonder if the RAN has been their own worst enemy in terms of platform numbers and capabilities.

The DDGs and FFGs were to have been replaced with a notional stretched ANZAC or similar with better radars beefed up combat system and a much bigger VLS (48 or more cells). AEGIS was not a given but looking at what CEA have done for the ANZACs with CEAFAR these ships, while more than capable enough to start with, would have become extremely capable destroyers, perhaps more capable and affordable than the current AWD program.

In 1997 prior to the retirement of Perth Class DDGs the RAN were offered the four New Threat Upgrade Kidd Class DDGs from USN which were refused. These ships were at the time the most powerful and capable non-AEGIS combatants in the world and still had 15 to 20 years of life left.

I have been told, anecdotally, that neither option was really wanted by the upper echelons of the RAN as three Flight IIA Arleigh Burke Class DDGs was all they were interested in. Unfortunately by the time they sold the Government on AEGIS (i.e. post Timor when we needed a USN AEGIS cruiser to plug our capability gap) there were other options that led to a less satisfactory outcome.

Personally I would love Malcom Frazer's two ocean navy from the late 60s with three carriers and 23 destroyers and frigates but at the end of the day we need to be realistic. Unfortunately with the way we use our ships and intend to use them eleven, let alone nine is not enough, no matter how individually capable some of the platforms are.

 

[t68]

How long does it take for Juan Carlos I to swing between a sea control ship and an amphibious assault ship what changes needed to be made in port?

Is it a case of just changing over the xo storage magazine for the weapons of the F35B and refueling her and fly the aircraft aboard?

 

[StevoJH]

I would take limited sea basing of F-35B's aboard a Canberra class over no sea basing of fixed wing aircraft.

A third ship of the class would not go astray given this additional added role though.

That plus a trio of hyuga class through deck cruisers (CLH or CVH?) and 6-8 Type 26 frigates would do nicely.

 

[t68]

that plus a trio of hyuga class through deck cruisers (clh or cvh?) and 6-8 type 26 frigates would do nicely.

mh-60r + f35b= 22ddh

 

[StevoJH]

mh-60r + f35b= 22ddh

I would even settle for the smaller 16DDH.

Hyuga and her sister have a Mk.41 VLS and carry ESSM, the 22DDH does not.

A Hyuga and a pair of T26's would be quite a potent surface group. Especially if she is stocked up on SH-60R's or AW101's.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I guess this is part of assessing if the F-35B are really what Australia wants. Can they realistically be operated off the LHD's? If so what sort of capability would that give us? If they can and we want it, what's the turn around, what is the availability of the LHD's and what happens when we want both? Will we be the only partner operating in a multinational operation with this capability? Whats the CONOPs? Would we be training and operating with other regional allies? While we have deck strength and lifts, what about heat?

I think this is realistically where we are today. Given the LHD were designed a fair way before the F-35 actually started flying, how well will they gel together. Even if we don't get the F-35B this would still be useful to assess it.

While the JC1 design permits carrier type operations, its in the details if it will work for us in that way. Given the F-35B takes 6t of fuel a simple calculation shows that if you had 12 flights per day (using all 6t), that 900t would be used up in 12.5 days. With harriers it would last basically twice as long, getting a more respectable 25 days. It mentions STOVL not F-35 in the carrier capability.

So no the LHD won't be running high sortie rates in a 24/7 environment, pummelling positions and running a comprehensive CAP.

 

[StevoJH]

Even if the LHD can "only" run a wing of F-35Bs for 2 weeks without resupply, I don't see that as being a major problem, for a deployment of any length you would want to have a tanker attached anyway.

 

[aussienscale]

The 16 and 22DDH both don't have the strengthened deck required for STOVL operations, so would actually require mods for any type of fixed wing operations.

The LHD does have the deck strength required to operate the JSF along with the weight capacity and size allowance in the lift's, it was part of the design requirements from Spain, depending on the coating we have applied on ours we would require the newer deck paint specifically developed for use with the JSF.

As to how long it would take to re-set between roles ? who knows, generally with a larger ship before you can "rush" of you have to stock up regardless, re-fuel, food, stores, ammunition etc, so a couple of days depending on what the ship was doing at the time of course

Cheers

And just as an after thought, spares, tools and gear for maint of the JSF would also have to be swapped out/re-configured in the workshops as well, I would imagine this would be time consuming but could be streamlined with containerisation ?

 

[hauritz]

The F-35 would offer capabilities beyond operating off Australia's LPHs. It would also be useful for cross deck operations with our allies.

 

[hairyman]

It is mentioned above that the AWD is really a frigate, not a destroyer. If that is the case, what capabilities is it short of in comparison with a true destroyer?

 

[gf0012-aust]

It is mentioned above that the AWD is really a frigate, not a destroyer. If that is the case, what capabilities is it short of in comparison with a true destroyer?

tomarto, tomayto

Hyuga is also a Destroyer

 

[ASSAIL]

It is mentioned above that the AWD is really a frigate, not a destroyer. If that is the case, what capabilities is it short of in comparison with a true destroyer?

It may not have the weapon magazine capacity of an AB but it packs a bigger punch than a T45 an can target better and contribute to force targeting with CEC, something that T45 may get sometime in the never never

 

[oldsig127]

The F-35 would offer capabilities beyond operating off Australia's LPHs.

In fact, this is the most perceptive post on this subject I've seen here since the original PM allusion to different types.

I know that this is the Naval/Maritime forum, but the F-35B brings capabilities other than populating the deck of a carrier or LHD.

Think Harrier. Hundreds of GR.1, GR.3, GR.7 and GR.9 aircraft were manufactured for the RAF, which doesn't have any ships at all. Stand aside the practicality of operating a 5G aircraft from a forest clearing, the F-35B would still offer the RAAF a capability to operate from damaged fields, small fields, makeshift fields and so on and also to operate in extremis from a suitable RAN ship (think Falklands for RAF ops) or as a pool of aircraft capable of routine operations with the RAN to provide an extra integrated support capability to Navy and Army amphibious ops. (Here, think Joint Force Harrier)

There'd be tradeoffs. Shorter legs, different equipment to support and cost for example. The decision should be made on the basis of whether the possible benefits outweigh the costs for Australia.

Summary - it isn't all Navy!

os127

 

[Volkodav]

It may not have the weapon magazine capacity of an AB but it packs a bigger punch than a T45 an can target better and contribute to force targeting with CEC, something that T45 may get sometime in the never never

I believe the 48 cell VLS in the T45 takes up a similar volume to the 64 cell in an AB (aft position) and while the Aster15 can't be quad packed the way ESSM can the new Sea Ceptor missile can be. It also has a much bigger hanger and much greater margin for future capabilities and upgrades, the only reason it doesn't have CEC is cost cutting.

The notional SPY3/AEGIS/T45 is a personal favourite of mine, the best affordable platform with the best proven combat system and the best new generation radar. Eliminated as too developmental and too risky because it was seen as an existing option as every part of it actually existed and was proven but not integrated together while the even more developmental G&C Evolved design got a shot and they couldn't even get their weight estimates right. The F-104 was selected by default and even though Navantia were pushing highly affordable upgraded / improved designs that better met the requirement they were rejected because it was the Existing option and could not be changed. Procurement rules stuffed the whole thing by putting rules in place that eliminated the best options on technicalities and left us building options that probably should not have been short listed.

 

[ngatimozart]

In fact, this is the most perceptive post on this subject I've seen here since the original PM allusion to different types.

I know that this is the Naval/Maritime forum, but the F-35B brings capabilities other than populating the deck of a carrier or LHD.

Think Harrier. Hundreds of GR.1, GR.3, GR.7 and GR.9 aircraft were manufactured for the RAF, which doesn't have any ships at all. Stand aside the practicality of operating a 5G aircraft from a forest clearing, the F-35B would still offer the RAAF a capability to operate from damaged fields, small fields, makeshift fields and so on and also to operate in extremis from a suitable RAN ship (think Falklands for RAF ops) or as a pool of aircraft capable of routine operations with the RAN to provide an extra integrated support capability to Navy and Army amphibious ops. (Here, think Joint Force Harrier)

There'd be tradeoffs. Shorter legs, different equipment to support and cost for example. The decision should be made on the basis of whether the possible benefits outweigh the costs for Australia.

Summary - it isn't all Navy!

os127

That's why I mentioned in earlier to look at how the RAF / RN intend to operate theirs and how the USMC operate their Harriers, plus how they'll operate their F35Bs. If this ever happens the ADF will have to extend their air power thinking.

 

[meatshield]

In the late 1990s the absolute minimum number of surface combatants with which the RAN thought it could remain effective was 14. About 10 years ago it was 12. Now it is 11. Sooner or later it must reach a tipping point beyond which there are simply not enough ships to do what it required. In amphib assets the outlook is much brighter than it was 5 or 10 years ago and the capability miles ahead, but in the DDG/FFG space numbers matter.

As for Army, 54 M777 155mm towed howitzers to replace 115+ Hamel 105mm light guns and 36 M-198 155mm towed howitzers; 59 M1A1 Abrams for 90 Leopard AS1 gun tanks. In each case the replacement capability is a noticeable improvement but noticeable too is the reduced numbers.

Capability is critical but meaningless if you don't have enough assets to ensure that capability remains viable beyond the first few engagements. I hope we never have to learn that lesson the hard way.

Please forgive my ignorance but did they get ride of those old artillery pieces or did they go into storage??

 

[ASSAIL]

I believe the 48 cell VLS in the T45 takes up a similar volume to the 64 cell in an AB (aft position) and while the Aster15 can't be quad packed the way ESSM can the new Sea Ceptor missile can be. It also has a much bigger hanger and much greater margin for future capabilities and upgrades, the only reason it doesn't have CEC is cost cutting.

The notional SPY3/AEGIS/T45 is a personal favourite of mine, the best affordable platform with the best proven combat system and the best new generation radar. Eliminated as too developmental and too risky because it was seen as an existing option as every part of it actually existed and was proven but not integrated together while the even more developmental G&C Evolved design got a shot and they couldn't even get their weight estimates right. The F-104 was selected by default and even though Navantia were pushing highly affordable upgraded / improved designs that better met the requirement they were rejected because it was the Existing option and could not be changed. Procurement rules stuffed the whole thing by putting rules in place that eliminated the best options on technicalities and left us building options that probably should not have been short listed.

All that might be true but right now, it lacks harpoon, it has a pi...ant missile and CEC is way off if ever, therefor F104 comes off better armed and info ed

Sorry, verging on my d cks bigger than yours but V made me do it!

 

[Monitor66]

What the Navy planned is irrelevant. Australia has had about a dozen major surface combatants for the last 50 years. This will likely be reduced 11 next decade. In the same timeframe, the submarine arm has expanded and the amphibious capability massively increased. None of which is strong evidence that the government keeps reducing platform numbers with each generation.

The M777s are enough to replace every single gun that the Army had in service. Realistically the Army can't man the guns we have - lots of RAA manpower has gone to massively increasing the number of JFOs/JTACs and the raising of a UAV/STA regiment.

The Abrams buy replaced the Leopard capability we had in service - 2 squadrons. Since the Leopards entered service we have also bought 257 ASLAVs, upgraded more M113s than we needed, and bought over 1000 Bushmasters. Again, this is not particularly strong evidence that we keep reducing platform numbers with each generation.

There are some capabilities where platform numbers have dropped, but they are in the minority. At the same time other capabilities have grown and continue to grow. A lot of the reduction in numbers is due to changing requirements and force structures, not a basic belief that more capable platforms can offset a reduction in numbers, which is what you said.

Perhaps more to the point, I don't understand the constant need on this forum to compare what we have now/will have in the future with what we had in the past. The strategic circumstances today are very different to those in the past, so why use the past as a benchmark? Why not base what we need now/in the future on today's requirements? Otherwise we would never evolve. With this thinking we would have the Australian Army going to war in WWII with Light Horse Regiments mounted on horses, because that is what we had in the past.[/QUOTE

Whose talking 50 years ago? How has Australia's strategic outlook or geographic environment evolved that we would today need less surface combatants than 10 or 15 years ago?

Comparisons with years gone by are valid in some circumstances, just as comparisons with what regional forces have on inventory are often valid. I don't buy the line that force structure reviews are just about capability and not also about finding cost efficiencies (please!).

I hear your point re Abrams and arty, but are you saying that the 140 odd artillery pieces (Hamel 105mm and M-198 155mm) were hollow capabilities and less than half were actually manned?

 

[Volkodav]

Fair enough, the RN have always been expert at under arming and single roling their platforms

Lots of potential but poorly executed, usually for political and or cost reasons.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's why I mentioned in earlier to look at how the RAF / RN intend to operate theirs and how the USMC operate their Harriers, plus how they'll operate their F35Bs. If this ever happens the ADF will have to extend their air power thinking.

RAAF drivers for RAN fixed wing fleet air arm has been discussed a few years back