Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

The ADF probably needs to get more into an effects based outcome rather than specific platform based ones. For instance the effect of a pair of deployed LHDs could possibly also be achieved by the deployment of an LHD, Choules and three LCH replacements (especially if they are larger helicopter equipped types). Throw in a Hyuga or a 22DDH Izumo (400 troops and 50 vehicle capacity) that can double as a LPH and your options go up, i.e. two LHD or and LHD, Choules and a DDH to deliver the same effect. Obviously two LHDs would be preferable but having a contingency where you also have a dock, bunks and vehicle lanes as well as additional helicopter spots will also get the job done.

I would much rather see a mix of versatile complimentary platforms that can get the job done than try to do the job with too few specialised platforms alone or, just as bad, see some other capability lost to provide funding for an third, fourth or fifth specialised platform. I do not believe we need a third LHD and would rather see the money (if it were available) go on something more versatile that can still go towards achieving the required effect. A DDH, as I mentioned earlier, is one option but so to is a LPD with its large dock, large flight deck and hanger, multiple landing craft, vehicle lanes and troop accommodation, command and control facilities, hospital, defensive systems. It is the perfect complement to a LHD and Choules.

Definitely agree we need more helicopters though, six Chinooks just doesn't seem to be enough. Too bad the AW-101 (Merlin) was eliminated from the additional troop lift comp to replace the Iroquois because it was too large and too close to the Chinook in capability, we could really do with some large and close to Chinook capability at the moment. The AW-101 would have made the perfect Sea King replacement, a great medium lift helo and been ideal for operations off the LHDs, it's extra size and capability would have made it possible for the Army to retain the Blackhawk (with a midlife upgrade) for most of their troop lift needs or supplement and replace them with new build Mike models or MH-60S Knighthawks.

 

[Nick underscore]

At risk of entering back into the realm of reality I did hear whispers in the media that an announcement regarding 2 supply ships may be made in the coming weeks ( I recall reading the Australian and at least one other source). Any word on this? Hinted at local build.

Interesting.

Is this to be the official announcement for the ADF on the Cantabria class? Are these to replace both Success and Sirius? €238mio (2010 figures) each and the crew numbers should roughly offset.

Not sure why RAN purchases seem to pique my interest more than other ADF service branches.

 

[Todjaeger]

Three LHDs is always going to be better than two. But that is the same for every capability we have. For example, the full ARG needs six Chinooks to meet capability requirements. Six. Every single one we own. Available at the same time. Deployed on the LHDs. That is obviously not feasible - we need more Chinooks. There's a similar pattern for lots of other capabilities that make up the amphibious capability.

Saying we need a third LHD because it is 'better' just isn't that helpful. More chinooks would be better. More MRH-90s would be better. More Seahawks would be better. More landing craft would be better. More escorts would be better. Etc etc. Follow this line of thinking and Australian will end up with a couple of Nimitz carriers because it is better (we have seen this in this thread).

The current amphibious fleet meets capability requirements and can embark more 'stuff' than would be available anyway. There's a lot better ways we can spend money than on more big amphibious ships, particularly ones with JSFs on them.

No kidding that the full ARG plan needs to either be re-thought, or measures taken to ensure that the required kit can be available. Though IIRC there had been talk of an order for 6-7 MH-47F's, with the 7 CH-47D's then being sent back possibly for upgrade. From memory this talk had occured prior to the loss of the CH-47D.

My concern here is that not only could there be an issue with the RAN having both LHD's available to deploy the ARG, but with only two vessels there could be an issue of having even a single LHD available when needed. The ARG Chinook situation is a bit different, in that while having the full availability of all the Chinooks is not realistic, having at least some of them should be, and the absence of additional Chinooks can be made up to an extent with the MRH-90's and/or UH-60's.

As Volk pointed out, depending on the Choules availability, and if the LCH's actually get replaced, depending on what their replacements are and respective availabilities, the RAN might be able to effect the required sealift for the ARG using an LHD and then several additional vessels instead of two LHD's.

The situation I am speaking towards what happens if the Gov't or the ADF decide that an ARE or ARG need to be deployed to Timor Leste, the Solomons, PNG, Fiji, etc. or any one of a number of other areas of Australian interest, but one LHD partway through having her engines and/or electronics repaired, or ripped out and replaced as a result of needing repairs, or part of a planned deep cycle maintenance. That sort of work can be rushed to a degree, but will still take time, especially to ensure everything is properly calibrated. Now unless RAN doctrine is to keep the other LHD near Australia if one is undergoing maintenance, the active LHD could easily be on a deployment somewhere. How quickly and easily could the ADF deploy a battalion to Fiji from an LHD if the LHD is deployed off the Horn of Africa serving as the command vessel for an international anti-piracy task force?

Again, based off how heavily utilized the Kanimbla-class LPA's were, I would expect something similar for the LHD's, and that could mean none being available for an event which occurs at short notice.

 

[Volkodav]

I understand what you are saying Tod as it is similar to the situation that led to the RAAF gaining additional C-17s. The original aircraft were programed to return to the US for work and the government bought additional airframes to cover that period, those airframes became part of the permanent fleet.

The same could be done for the LHDs although I must admit not as likely. An additional hull, whether it is a LHD, LPD, LPH or DDH, could be acquired at some point in the future, prior to either LHD requiring a major maintenance period of upgrade say in ten years time. Very long lead times so something would need to be done sooner rather than latter. Maybe the key is looking at what replaces the LCHs, a class of LSVs or some of the larger, more innovative options could more than fill the bill.

I would actually feel more comfortable if the ARG was normally moved by something other than a pair of LHDs and having the two ships operating together was the fall back. A US ARG for instance uses a LHD, LPD and LSD, if ours could be designed to normally use a single LHD and other ships to be determined this could be factored into the LCH replacement, looking outside the square, say a pair of similar to the Osumi Class LSTs.
ÅŒsumi-class tank landing ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A dock, a flight deck, vehicle stowage and troop accommodation. Or as I suggested in a previous post a LPD, perhaps a pair of modified San Antonio, an interesting option as the USN is now investigating using LCS type modular mission equipment.

Its still extra hulls, or at least in place of existing hulls of a different size / type but will add versatility and flexibility that we would not see if a third LHD were ordered.

 

[Bonza]

I don't follow your posts, so no I can't say I am aware.
"Raw prawn" - how quaint.

Mate, I already asked you not to take things so personally. We expect mature discussion on these boards. Don't get your knickers in a twist just because someone had an opinion on Australian defence spending.

 

[hairyman]

It seems obvious to me that if were to order a 3rd LHD from Spain it would have to be built with the capacity to use F35B's and to take part in anti submarine operations. Its amphibious capabilities would probably be downgraded., but it still have them.
Or maybe buying or co-building a LPD with Japan might be a better option?

 

[John Newman]

I think we are going to be in for a long 12mths of speculation (no doubt some extreme speculation too!) on the possibility of F-35B's ending up in ADF service and how they will be operated.

I would imagine there will be a lot of examination of the benefits (or not) of proceeding with the purchase of B's and what needs to be put in place for all of that to happen. So it will be interesting to see what ends up in the DWP next year, if this idea (thought bubble) actually evolves into reality.

Probably a good place to start would be to examine very closely the experience of how Spain operates the JC1 (especially now that PdA has been retired) in its roles of both being able to operate as a STOVL carrier (anti-submarine too?) and in a more pure amphibious role with only transport helicopters and watercraft, which is much closer to how the Canberra's are planned to be operated, or a mix of BOTH roles.

And I suppose it's the mix of both of those roles is where the compromises have to be made, what impact does the carriage and operation of STOVL aircraft have on the JC1's amphibious capabilities, is it significant or not?

I came across this article on the Navy Daily website:

Sea-riding in the Spanish LHD


The JC1 was involved in an exercise where its amphibious capabilities and ability to operate STOVL aircraft at the same time were on display. As I said, examining the Spanish experience is probably a good place to start, assuming that if F-35B's are purchased and are to be operated on the Canberra class in a similar role, especially if an additional 'dedicated' STOVL carrier type ship is probably not likely to be purchased.

Answers to the speculation on the 'how, what, where and why' is still at least a good year away, at least until the new DWP is published.


Anyway, regardless of that, if in fact the DWP does give the go ahead for the acquisition and operation of F-35B's, realistically when would they enter service? I would think the answer to that is probably at least 10 years away.

Assuming that if this does go ahead (the RAAF would probably be the operators of the B's or maybe a 'joint' operating role with the RAN), regardless, I would think the RAAF is going to have it's hands very full with the introduction of the Growlers in the next few years, introduction of P-8A's and Triton and be pretty busy with introducing the new fleet of F-35A's, the last of which will be delivered in 2023, a lot of work to do.

As for the RAN, at least the next five years will probably see it pretty tied up with getting both the LHD's into service, in conjunction with Army too, in the intended amphibious role.

And I also think it would be wise of the Government to wait and watch the progress of the known future users of the F-35B, eg, the US, UK and Italy to see how it all works for them on their respective ships.

And yes I'm speculating too, but I think what I'm suggesting (in my opinion) is probably the more cautious approach to this, anyway, we will see!!!!

Cheers,

 

[gf0012-aust]

thought bubbles - i hate them

now we'll have 12 months of fruity ideas while the DWP advances

funny thing is that the 12 subs falls into the pattern of regional sales and platform trends for the PACRIM

JSF STOVL could also end up locking in with future force dev trends in the region.

both subs and LHA/LHD/LPD regional trends are being driven by chinas behaviour in the PACRIM

even more interesting when you consider that the trend is rapidly shifting to ARG's as the core construct.

 

[Volkodav]

I find it interesting that we have twelve platforms able to operate sixteen Seahawk helicopters yet we have twenty four Romeos on order. Once the FFGs have been retired and the DDGs are in service the number of helicopters that can be embarked will drop to eleven. What are the remaining helicopters going to be doing?

 

[King Wally]

I find it interesting that we have twelve platforms able to operate sixteen Seahawk helicopters yet we have twenty four Romeos on order. Once the FFGs have been retired and the DDGs are in service the number of helicopters that can be embarked will drop to eleven. What are the remaining helicopters going to be doing?

I always imagined they could complement a LHD helo mix well.

Throw one of two in to help cast a wider ASW screen (along with the escorts) and even assist with Amphibious Landing strike missions (hellfire etc) or if needed light utility?

Again all this points out why the LHD is best to focus on Helo missions > Fast Jets, limited room + resources etc and so many useful assets you can deploy. MRH-90, ARH, Chooks, Romeo's, you start to run out of room before you know it. Each one though adds something nice to the mix.

 

[John Newman]

And talking of submarines in the PACRIM, I saw this about a week ago in The Australian:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

The article said:

THE chances of Australia using Japan’s “world’s best” conventional submarine technology have improved significantly since Tony Abbott’s visit to Tokyo, says Defence Minister David Johnston.

Senator Johnston told The Australian yesterday negotiations were continuing on the possibility of using technology from Japan’s Soryu-class submarine in the new boats to be built for the Royal Australian Navy.

He said the government would be advised on the best options for Australia by the navy, but he believed the Soryu was the best conventional submarine in the world.

After the Prime Minister’s visit, Japanese ambassador to Canberra Yoshitaka Akimoto said the trip brought bilateral relations to a new level.

Mr Akimoto stressed the importance of closer security co-operation between the two nations and fresh negotiations on co-operation in the fields of defence technology and equipment.

Senator Johnston said the government was committed to building the submarines in Adelaide. He said the remarkable improvement in the Collins-class submarines over the past two years meant they could still be operational until the new boats were ready in 2030. “That’s a big ask,” he said.

The improvement also supported the case that Australia should, with help from expert design teams overseas, build the new submarine fleet, Senator Johnston said.

While estimates of the cost of a replacement fleet of 12 submarines range from $36 billion to $40bn and higher, Senator Johnston said: “I don’t think that’s a number that is potentially doable.

“It’s not a blank cheque.”

Senator Johnston was seeking advice from industry on a cost-effective solution. “We need capability at an affordable cost.”

The thing I thought was interesting in the article was that it just wasn't specifically talking about the 'propulsion' systems (as is often mentioned), but talking about using technology from the Soryu class (does this mean more than just the propulsion systems?) and also the Def Min's comment that, "he believed the Soryu was the best conventional submarine in the world".

I'd actually been thinking for a while prior to reading the article, that rather than (as appears to be a strong option) of building an evolved Collins class (with the talked about Japanese propulsion systems), why not instead get involved with Japan in the 'co-production' of the Soruy class (or it's successors) for both countries?

Would it be possible for both countries to utilise the same hull form and propulsion systems in the one class, with the difference being that Japan would most probably use a mix of its own (and US) weapons and sensor and Australia use US sourced weapons and sensors?

(I know subs and ships are different animals, but taking the Type 26 Frigate for example, we could see both the UK and Australia, if it selects the T26, using the same hull form, basic ship systems, etc, and the difference is in the weapons and sensors for example).

Could such an arrangement with Japan evolve into a perpetual submarine construction program that would benefit our countries both in a military and industrial sense?

Japan currently has 18 subs in commission 5 (+5 building) Soryu, 11 Oyashio and 2 of the previous Harushio class in a training role.

Japan appears (up to this point) to operate it's various classes of submarines for approx 20 years and as a new boat is added to the top, one of the older boats at the other end retires and/or becomes a training boat. They also appear to currently be commissioning a new boat around every 12 months or so.

So what you say? If that 'trend' continues it probably means an eventual Japanese fleet stabilising at around 20 boats, add a new one at the top every year and one off at the bottom.

With Japan probably ending up with a 20 boat fleet and Australia planning a 12 (maybe less, say 10) boat fleet, maybe there is a way forward that with Australia more than likely to commission a new boat every two years and Japan commissioning a new boat every one year that a co-production split 2/3rd, 1/3rd could achieve a positive outcome for both of us.

Both countries perform final assembly, Japan 1 boat a year, Australia 1 boat every two years, Australia builds modules for 1/3 of the class, Japan builds modules for 2/3 of the class.

At the end of 20 years, Japan would again commission a new boat (one drops off at the bottom (maintaining the fleet of 20 boats), and for Australia, we do basically the same, new boat is produced and the oldest retires, maintain a fleet of 10 (one major refit at the half life).

At the moment the only two countries that appear to be interested in building and maintaining large conventional submarines are Australia and Japan, so why not work together into the future on this? Maybe at some point in the future others may join in on operating large conventional submarines, and I specifically thinking of Canada if it eventually wants to replace it's UK built boats.


Is all of what I suggested possible? Maybe, maybe not, a lot of bridges to cross, maybe a bridge too far.

Interesting idea all the same!!!

Cheers,

 

[gf0012-aust]

At the moment the only two countries that appear to be interested in building and maintaining large conventional submarines are Australia and Japan, so why not work together into the future on this? Maybe at some point in the future others may join in on operating large conventional submarines, and I specifically thinking of Canada if it eventually wants to replace it's UK built boats.


Is all of what I suggested possible? Maybe, maybe not, a lot of bridges to cross, maybe a bridge too far.

Interesting idea all the same!!!

Cheers,

sth koreans are also in the big conventionals game, they won't touch japanese gear though

 

[John Newman]

sth koreans are also in the big conventionals game, they won't touch japanese gear though

True, but that has probably more to do with historical factors between those two countries.

Going back to my Father's generation (all served in WW2), he and my uncles would probably be turning in their respective graves if they knew we were considering using Japanese tech in our future subs.

I won't repeat what he and all of them said when I was growing up about Japan and the Japanese, but as we know, time moves on.....

 

[Monitor66]

And talking of submarines in the PACRIM, I saw this about a week ago in The Australian:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

The article said:




The thing I thought was interesting in the article was that it just wasn't specifically talking about the 'propulsion' systems (as is often mentioned), but talking about using technology from the Soryu class (does this mean more than just the propulsion systems?) and also the Def Min's comment that, "he believed the Soryu was the best conventional submarine in the world".

I'd actually been thinking for a while prior to reading the article, that rather than (as appears to be a strong option) of building an evolved Collins class (with the talked about Japanese propulsion systems), why not instead get involved with Japan in the 'co-production' of the Soruy class (or it's successors) for both countries?

Would it be possible for both countries to utilise the same hull form and propulsion systems in the one class, with the difference being that Japan would most probably use a mix of its own (and US) weapons and sensor and Australia use US sourced weapons and sensors?

(I know subs and ships are different animals, but taking the Type 26 Frigate for example, we could see both the UK and Australia, if it selects the T26, using the same hull form, basic ship systems, etc, and the difference is in the weapons and sensors for example).

Could such an arrangement with Japan evolve into a perpetual submarine construction program that would benefit our countries both in a military and industrial sense?

Japan currently has 18 subs in commission 5 (+5 building) Soryu, 11 Oyashio and 2 of the previous Harushio class in a training role.

Japan appears (up to this point) to operate it's various classes of submarines for approx 20 years and as a new boat is added to the top, one of the older boats at the other end retires and/or becomes a training boat. They also appear to currently be commissioning a new boat around every 12 months or so.

So what you say? If that 'trend' continues it probably means an eventual Japanese fleet stabilising at around 20 boats, add a new one at the top every year and one off at the bottom.

With Japan probably ending up with a 20 boat fleet and Australia planning a 12 (maybe less, say 10) boat fleet, maybe there is a way forward that with Australia more than likely to commission a new boat every two years and Japan commissioning a new boat every one year that a co-production split 2/3rd, 1/3rd could achieve a positive outcome for both of us.

Both countries perform final assembly, Japan 1 boat a year, Australia 1 boat every two years, Australia builds modules for 1/3 of the class, Japan builds modules for 2/3 of the class.

At the end of 20 years, Japan would again commission a new boat (one drops off at the bottom (maintaining the fleet of 20 boats), and for Australia, we do basically the same, new boat is produced and the oldest retires, maintain a fleet of 10 (one major refit at the half life).

At the moment the only two countries that appear to be interested in building and maintaining large conventional submarines are Australia and Japan, so why not work together into the future on this? Maybe at some point in the future others may join in on operating large conventional submarines, and I specifically thinking of Canada if it eventually wants to replace it's UK built boats.


Is all of what I suggested possible? Maybe, maybe not, a lot of bridges to cross, maybe a bridge too far.

Interesting idea all the same!!!

Cheers,

An impediment might be Japan's self-imposed restriction on exporting arms, although as discussions have been underway between Australian and Japan at the highest levels (govt and Defence) for some time and continue this perhaps is only a temporary one.

 

[Monitor66]

I always imagined they could complement a LHD helo mix well.

Throw one of two in to help cast a wider ASW screen (along with the escorts) and even assist with Amphibious Landing strike missions (hellfire etc) or if needed light utility?

Again all this points out why the LHD is best to focus on Helo missions > Fast Jets, limited room + resources etc and so many useful assets you can deploy. MRH-90, ARH, Chooks, Romeo's, you start to run out of room before you know it. Each one though adds something nice to the mix.

The MH-60R won't be tasked with VERTREP or utility work unless no other option exists, as they are jam packed with ASW systems, some of which can be removed to allow for re-role but you probably wouldn't want to do this at sea away from base-level support.

The Romeo will in fact be less useful in the insertion/extraction of ship's boarding parties than the extant Seahawks as the cabin will only accommodate four pers.

 

[John Newman]

An impediment might be Japan's self-imposed restriction on exporting arms, although as discussions have been underway between Australian and Japan at the highest levels (govt and Defence) for some time and continue this perhaps is only a temporary one.

Yes, that's why I said 'a lot of bridges to cross', but it will be interesting to see, especially under the current Japanese Government, what will happen with those restrictions.

Time will tell!

 

[gf0012-aust]

An impediment might be Japan's self-imposed restriction on exporting arms, although as discussions have been underway between Australian and Japan at the highest levels (govt and Defence) for some time and continue this perhaps is only a temporary one.

the japanese have started exhibiting at international arms events.

 

[StingrayOZ]

the japanese have started exhibiting at international arms events.

Times have changed. I imagine they will reposition themselves, but they are behind in the positioning. Korea has been a bit more open/collaborative historically IMO.

While the Japanese and Koreans don't have lots of love for each other, they have a big potential problem that is shared. The problem is a lot of historic tension between several nations with interests around the south china seas. Several long term enemies may be reluctantly fighting alongside each other in the future. It will be a long time before they undertake combined military construction projects with each other.

The next 5 years will see people choosing sides. Australia is in the odd position as it has pretty positive relations with every single player in the region. In some projects we might end up being the pragmatic glue that holds two or more together in a way the US can't. Hopefully in a nice friendly way. If we are careful.

 

[ASSAIL]

I have run a fleet of small (25mtrs - 50mtrs) ships in my 30 years of pearling with a vast array of Japanese equipment in 3 Japanese built ships. Gear varying from main engines, gearboxes, dive compressors etc and the machinery quality is superbly simple and reliable. What stands head and shoulders above all local builds is the electrical installations, they are magnificent , switchboards, cabling runs, motors, control circuits and just about anything with wiggly amps.
I would love to see that quality and reliability replicated in Australian warships so the more co-operation with, and source material from, Japan the better.

 

[Volkodav]

I have run a fleet of small (25mtrs - 50mtrs) ships in my 30 years of pearling with a vast array of Japanese equipment in 3 Japanese built ships. Gear varying from main engines, gearboxes, dive compressors etc and the machinery quality is superbly simple and reliable. What stands head and shoulders above all local builds is the electrical installations, they are magnificent , switchboards, cabling runs, motors, control circuits and just about anything with wiggly amps.
I would love to see that quality and reliability replicated in Australian warships so the more co-operation with, and source material from, Japan the better.

Very much on the same page, I am a fan of Japanese equipment and also appreciate the fact it fits pretty well with US gear as well, logistically speaking. I would very much like to see a couple of evolved DDHs in RAN service to carry some of our extra Romeos and maybe Abbotts notional F-35Bs post 2023.