Yep and the policy restrictions were lifted last month. The store is now open for business.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The order of 24 Romeos was to ensure that enough would be available to have 8 available for or deployed on operations. The original plan was to have had 16 Seahawks and 11 Seasprites across those same 12 platforms. What with training and maintenance requirements, many/most of those 24 Romeos on order will not be available for deployment.
True, apart from there being six FFGs in service and planned to be upgraded when the Sea Sprites were ordered. It was 16 Seahawks for the twelve FFG slots and 11 Srogs for the eight ANZAC slots. An overhead of 4 and 5 airframes respectively and 13 with the Romeos. I'm not complaining, this is a good thing, I'm just curious as to how they will be deployed.
I would not be surprised if a pair were deployed to each LHD, for contested ops, to provide additional screening capacity. As I have recalled recently, that was the practice when HMAS Sydney was trooping to VN
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I remember at the time of the announcement of the purchase of the 24 Romeos that, yes there would be 8 available for operations and the remainder for maintenance and training, but I also vaguely remember that at the same time there was a statement made (sorry, can't remember who or find the comment) that within that total of 24 airframes there was the capacity for a 'surge' of extra aircraft (above the 8 mentioned) if necessary.
Obviously you have to have extra aircrews available too, but I do wonder how many extra airframes could be made available for operations if necessary?
When the new DWP is produced, if increased ASW capabilities feature prominently, there may be a justification for more Romeos (say 6-8), to allow for an ASW capability on the LHD's without reducing the available airframes that would be deployed on the AWD and Frigate fleets.
John, the crewing won't be an issue, the surge will come from either 725, the frontline or the operational training squadron. In any event, there won't be aircraft sitting around idle, they will be manned in the 2 squadrons or in maintenance
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Thanks Assail,
I suppose what I am trying to work out, is it black and white that to have 8 airframes available for operational use (at any given time) that the pool has to total 24? Or are those figures 'conservative'?
Is there capacity in there to actually increase the operational fleet without seriously affecting training and maintenance?
Looking at the current fleet of 16 Seahawks, which have had to carry the load on their own due to the failure of the Seasprites, what is the ratio of operational to training / maintenance airframes? If its the same, then there would be 5-6 airframes available at any given time, or is it actually more because they have had to be worked a lot harder?
Not suggesting that the new Romeos be worked to death, but is there actually more capacity in there because the figure of 8 (against a total of 24) is conservative?
I can't help you there I'm way way out of date, but the Seakings and Wessex 31Bs managed with similar numbers and manned a CAG with 8 or 9 machines.
Just a thought bubble (maybe I should get into politics), there have been discussions on here and elsewhere about a third LHD or a fourth DDG why not combine elements of the two and go for an evolved or modified LPD with an area air defence capability.
Ingalls have been proposing a flight II LPD for the ABM role and the baseline LPD is a very capable amphibious platform so why not go for a LPD with a large VLS, expanded CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT, CEC, ESSM, SM-2 and 6, ASW helos and possibly a 5" gun for NGS in support of the ARG. This ship would self escort and defend an accompanying LHD and relieve a surface combatant for other missions.
Ingalls have been proposing a flight II LPD for the ABM role and the baseline LPD is a very capable amphibious platform so why not go for a LPD with a large VLS, expanded CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT, CEC, ESSM, SM-2 and 6, ASW helos and possibly a 5" gun for NGS in support of the ARG. This ship would self escort and defend an accompanying LHD and relieve a surface combatant for other missions.
Ok that is interesting, had not heard of that, a couple of those could be rather interesting indeed, had a hunt around and found this for reference
LPD Flight II: The Next Generation Amphibious Transport Dock
On that note, obviously we got Choules, but still have not heard officially whether Phase 4C is still going ahead ? guess we will find out in the DWP
I'm not suggesting anything near the BMD version or even an AEGIS substitute but rather an improved ASMD setup with a more powerful radar (scaled up CEAFAR) and a decent sized VLS. Such a ship could provide a layered defence to a taskforce embarking an ARG as well as embarking meaningful elements of said ARG. I would even look at equipping it with VLASROC and a couple of Romeos, maybe retain RAM but look to Millennium to replace the 30mm's. Definitely retain the hanger, dock and troop / vehicle accommodation.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
This is a bit of a WAG on my part, but I think the 24 helicopters to ensure 8 available is a little conservative, but not much.
If one looks back at the history of the S-70B-2 Seahawk, the numbers story gets a bit more "interesting" shall we say. The 16 in service were delivered between 1988 & 1989, when there were only four Adelaide-class FFG's in service with a fifth under construction, and the sixth getting laid down in 1989. Also worth noting is that of the four in service at the time deliveries commenced, as far as I can tell, only one had a flight deck large enough to allow the Seahawk to operate.
I have not been able to tell exactly when the determination was made that the RAN had a requirement for 16 Seahawks (and therefore do not know how many FFG's were expected) but it does seem that 16 were planned, to service 4 frigates, once they(the frigates) had all been modified. Granted the frigates could each hold two helicopters, they would not always deploy with any, never mind max cap.
-Cheers
From memory, in the late 80's to the mid 90's, Seahawk's were only generally deployed onto a capable ship, as the FFG's were cut and extended, when they were on an overseas deployment or for specific exercises off the EAXA for which they would fly out to the ship from Nowra, was pretty rare to actually see one in the hangar alongside FBE.
And I can say that I never saw an FFG during that time with 2 onboard, but did once remember Melbourne having a Hawk and Squirrel which I think was one of our up top trips where we met up with the Indy Battle Group on the way back
Cheers
When Choules was first acquired there was a brief period when it was viewed as perhaps a stop-gap capability for Phase 4C. However, all who were aware of the ship's capabilities knew from the outset that Choules would become the Phase 4C solution. There was no way we would find a more capable ship for under $500 million, let alone the $100 million we paid the UK for it, which was almost theft.
So before long Choules was assessed as meeting the requirements of Phase 4C and the decision made to retain her permanently. Phase 4C is now done and dusted.
IIRC the JCI has space and weight reserve for a 12 cell VLS in the superstructure, guessing this is possibly the case for the Canberra Class ? would not be wanting to put SM2/6 etc but quad packed ESSM and maybe some VL-ASROC.
Already has the 9LV and upgrade with AUSPAR ?
Just a thought
Cheers
Quite agree, thought it was for a standard Mk41 8 cell (but accept I could be very wrong on this). If that is the case then the units on the FFG7 may be transferable when they pay off.
However a cheaper option may be to simply install SeaRAM.
Yep no need for CWI radars etc then either and you gain the capability to move SeaRam between vessels when they are docked etc, as is our current practice with Phalanx etc.
I do think that 12.7mm and Typhoon 25mm, SeaRam and EW / Decoys etc should be the bare minimum level of self defence armament for surface and air threats for our major Amphibs.
Last edited:
LHD will have Nulka (in VLS?) 4x25 and 6 x 12.7 mounts.
SeaRam seems like a fairly low cost way to add missile protection on non AWD/FFG assets like Choules, LHD, possibly even something like a JHSV, OCV or patrol ship. We never really had the sort of big ships operating in environments where searam would be a big step up, but now we do.
ASROC on the LHD would also be an interesting option to explore.
Last edited by a moderator:
SeaRAM is an obvious choice to improve the LHDs' self-defence capabilities. It's self-contained with a small surface area footprint and is not expensive. The four 25mm Typhoons are simply inadequate (range just 1,500m and lethality against ASMs negligible) and the half dozen 50 cals token gestures.
The problem is where to put SeaRAM on the LHD. When you look at the superstructure there is very little horizontal space to mount something like SeaRAM, unless perhaps the area behind the stack is used - requiring a couple of antennas to be relocated. As space on the flight deck is at a premium you can virtually rule that option out.
The forward starboard deck alongside the ski ramp has the available room and deck strength but would the ramp partially blind SeaRAM's radar to port?
Any mounting location would need to support SeaRAM's all-up weight of about 7,500kg.
It beggars belief that:
a) the LHDs will enter service so poorly armed and;
b) that no obvious space appears to have been set aside in the design of the superstructure for mounting future additional weapon systems, particularly when you think of all the umpteen dozen design and capability review meetings that would have discussed the ability of the ships to defend themselves.
Incredible short-sightedness.
all driven out of the CONOPS and subsequent JACIT mtgs
- Status