Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

An ARG is not the answer for every time the ships go to sea and it is not the answer to every strategic situation that the government wants to be involved with. In fact the power projection scenario with two shiploads of grunts will probably be the least common use for the ships. There are a myriad of in-between scenarios that could be dealt with by mixtures of troops and aircraft, thus a tailored air group.
Take the old Melbourne situation where her aircraft mix changed over time and changed within the mix of the post 1968 air group (A4's, S2's and Seakings ). That flexibility existed then so why not repeat that with and over the lives of the LHD's.
We shouldn't confine our thinking by assuming that the ships will only ever be tasked for one strategy, that's for the dinosaurs.

Main diffrence here is Melbourne (R21) as far as I know didnot have to swing from a part time aircraft carrier to a troop ship, we had Sydney(R17) then Jervis Bay (GT-203) for those roles if needed.

I can see the attraction but if they can make a case for an FAA then the case can be made for a ASW carrier which can cross deck with the LHD on a as needed basis

 

[ASSAIL]

Main diffrence here is Melbourne (R21) as far as I know didnot have to swing from a part time aircraft carrier to a troop ship, we had Sydney(R17) then Jervis Bay (GT-203) for those roles if needed.

I can see the attraction but if they can make a case for an FAA then the case can be made for a ASW carrier which can cross deck with the LHD on a as needed basis

But you miss the point entirely. Melbourne could change her role from an ASW fighter to a land attack fighter to an anti air warfare (not very good but passable) fighter depending on her mix of aircraft. If her close sister Sydney had been retained in a comparable role to Melbourne one of the two could easily revert to carrying troops (not in an opposed landing naturally).
Now, neither ship had the capability of a LHD but their flexibility was demonstrated never the less.
Your last statement is fundamental "if needed" and that's crucial because what's "needed" continues to change and binding these ships to one role only is ignorant and dangerous.
Finally, no one is making the case for RAN ownership of F35B. If you had read Baddams' submission he deals with that point comprehensively, they remain with the RAAF.

 

[StevoJH]

I wouldn't exactly refer to an LHD as a troop ship, they are far more versatile then that!

There is no reason why Melbourne could not have operated as an LPH if required. I'm not sure how many troops it could have accomodated in that role however.

 

[Joe Black]

More on the Future Frigate:
Euronaval 2014 - Spain pins down F-110 baseline design - IHS Jane's 360

"The company has also acknowledged that F-110 design activity and study outputs could inform ongoing work to examine the adaptation of Australia's Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) - based on Navantia's F-100 guided-missile frigate design - to meet the Royal Australian Navy's Future Frigate requirement under Project SEA 5000."

 

[Volkodav]

Volk, I own and a run a small manufacturing buisness.
I am the owner (wife may dispute this) manager, and production line.
I manufacture old style, timber, barramundi fishing lures.
I make about 25% profit on each lure, orders for my lures range from 15 to 250 units.
I make really nice barra lures, im good at it, and I enjoy it.
now, if I have some family members in Indonesia make them, I get 50% profit, and the quality of the lures is, ah hem , better than mine. I actually cant buy the materials here for the same price as a complete unit made there. Manufacturing in Australia is already a dinosaur. Im not saying its right, or good, In fact its the opposite!
Unions are partly to blame for this, they have made it so difficult and expensive to manufacture anything in this country, that they have forced us to go off shore for nearly everything. The Chinese are also to blame, making products so cheap, local buisness cant compete. Look at cars. If this country did not allow the Koreans and Chinese to import and sell their cheap brands, then GMH and Ford might have had a future.

Unions are definitely part of the problem, just look at the automotive sector and the fact production workers at Holden's, Ford and Toyota are on more money than trades, technical officers and engineers at the automotive components end, yet the much of the components industry is far more efficient, innovative and competitive against imported alternatives than the vehicle assemblers ever were. by over paying one sector of the industry the whole was damaged. Actually a good example is the Holden staff at any particular level were on much better packages than their equivalents in TWR, who were the experts designing and productionising the successful niche models introduced under Peter Hannenburger.

Australia has competitive manufacturing and fabrication companies producing quality and precision items at affordable prices. The problem was at the assembly end with the foreign owned vehicle manufacturers simply not building what people wanted at prices they were prepared to pay, although what was in reality dumping by some importers did a fair bit of damage too.

Basically if a serious contender with a modular vehicle platform could be convinced to setup a state of the art, automated plant in Australia, without being expected to have a huge over paid unskilled workforce they too could be competitive and successfully export throughout the region. The fact that such an operation would save most of the components industry by giving them the necessary volumes to support their export programs means the government could literally off the new vehicle assembler a deal of 0% company tax and still make money out of it through the other companies that would then stay in business and the people who would be working instead of being on the dole or in lower paying (lower taxed or even subsidised) jobs.

It could be done but not while so many key decisions are being made by bean counters who don't look at the big picture.

Did I ever mention I used to be a production engineer and for a short period a production manager, this Barra lure project sounds to have real potential

 

[knightrider4]

Volk, I own and a run a small manufacturing buisness.
I am the owner (wife may dispute this) manager, and production line.
I manufacture old style, timber, barramundi fishing lures.
I make about 25% profit on each lure, orders for my lures range from 15 to 250 units.
I make really nice barra lures, im good at it, and I enjoy it.
now, if I have some family members in Indonesia make them, I get 50% profit, and the quality of the lures is, ah hem , better than mine. I actually cant buy the materials here for the same price as a complete unit made there. Manufacturing in Australia is already a dinosaur. Im not saying its right, or good, In fact its the opposite!
Unions are partly to blame for this, they have made it so difficult and expensive to manufacture anything in this country, that they have forced us to go off shore for nearly everything. The Chinese are also to blame, making products so cheap, local buisness cant compete. Look at cars. If this country did not allow the Koreans and Chinese to import and sell their cheap brands, then GMH and Ford might have had a future.

Your not Rob Gaden are you??

 

[t68]

I wouldn't exactly refer to an LHD as a troop ship, they are far more versatile then that!

There is no reason why Melbourne could not have operated as an LPH if required. I'm not sure how many troops it could have accomodated in that role however.

When Sydney was converted to a troop transport ship part of her hanger was rebuilt into troop accomadation , i'am sure Melbourne could have been used as as an LPH it in what numbers troops were avaliable I am not sure.

Assail I not arguing for arguments sake but whilst Melbourne could operate mixed aircraft depending on her role at the time ASW- strike-air defence escort she could do so as those were still her core role with fixed - rotary aircraft, but she was not expected to swing to moving an ARE. We just don't have the numbers like the US if they re-role an LHD into sea control they also have the numbers if needed to have an Amphiboius Assault concurrently without have to worry if the 2nd vessel is available. The Americains have a core group of fixed wing pilots on the LHD all the time keeping their skills current to able to make use of large numbers of fixed wing aircraft of the LHD quickly

 

[Magoo]

Don't forget we are getting two LHDs, not one. For a large operation, one can be configured for the Amphib assault role, and the other for air ops. Both would retain their flexibility.

That said, I'm not a fan of the proposal, but only because I know what sort of financial commitment from government, and cultural commitment from the ADF is required, and I can't see either being done properly!

 

[StingrayOZ]

We just don't have the numbers like the US if they re-role an LHD into sea control they also have the numbers if needed to have an Amphiboius Assault concurrently without have to worry if the 2nd vessel is available.

There are options of course. Get a dedicated carrier, get another LHD, team up with other regional partners (Singapore may be interested, US has plenty of numbers, Japan, Korea are also regionally located and could do the troop thing) to ensure enough availability, have a much smaller amphibious component, insert your troops a different way (HSV, paratroopers, airlift, leased commercial flights or ships). Not all of those are good options and each has it own impact.

If we are talking Timor, it could be the LHD acts as a carrier, logistics link via HSV and C17/C130/C27. Thats eleventy times better than what we had when we did Timor the first time with just 1 HSV and F-111's idling on tarmack in Darwin. Still pretty terrible of course, particularly when you look at how the US would lay down a ARG.

Of course there is the fact we don't have enough lift (sea or helos or army equipment or ability to train the army) for the full ARG anyway. We need both LHD's and the LSD to do the ARG.The ARE seems to be a bit wishy washy IMO, if I deploy a single G wagon is that in effect a really small ARE? How does this small ARE secure the region and handle the unexpected.

My personal opinion is focus on the full ARG capability and force multipliers to that ARG capability. To that end I would support a 3rd LHD (even at the expense of smaller sealift), F-35B's (even at the expense of additional F-35a), chinooks (over more C-17, KC-30), more gear for the army to complete an ARG over stuff that they need, but not essential for the ARG. However, it should be seen as a priority timing over more than instead of. We can afford to do that. Its the capability we need. Its the capability we can deploy, by definition.

Which is the problem I have with those Whitepaper comments. They are invariably about single items, or particular singular capabilities. Rather than looking at the whole system and what are the aims you want to achieve with it.

 

[ASSAIL]

When Sydney was converted to a troop transport ship part of her hanger was rebuilt into troop accomadation , i'am sure Melbourne could have been used as as an LPH it in what numbers troops were avaliable I am not sure.

Assail I not arguing for arguments sake but whilst Melbourne could operate mixed aircraft depending on her role at the time ASW- strike-air defence escort she could do so as those were still her core role with fixed - rotary aircraft, but she was not expected to swing to moving an ARE. We just don't have the numbers like the US if they re-role an LHD into sea control they also have the numbers if needed to have an Amphiboius Assault concurrently without have to worry if the 2nd vessel is available. The Americains have a core group of fixed wing pilots on the LHD all the time keeping their skills current to able to make use of large numbers of fixed wing aircraft of the LHD quickly

You're wrong, I did 4 trips to VN in HMAS Sydney and at no stage were there any conversions in the hanger to accommodation. There was enough messing arrangements within the normal messes to accommodate the battalion although we did use the lifts for a volley ball court.

Its fantasy saying that the LHDs can't change from one role to another at relatively short notice, look how quickly RAF pilots embarked in Illustrious for the FI. From Dockyard to commissioning to embarking pilots within a few weeks and that was with a far more challenging aircraft to fly let alone fly from a ship.

 

[t68]

You're wrong, I did 4 trips to VN in HMAS Sydney and at no stage were there any conversions in the hanger to accommodation. There was enough messing arrangements within the normal messes to accommodate the battalion although we did use the lifts for a volley ball court.

I stand corrected by your actual hands on experience, I have read numerous article that stated that during the conversion to become a troop ship that their were alterations to accommodate

Its fantasy saying that the LHDs can't change from one role to another at relatively short notice, look how quickly RAF pilots embarked in Illustrious for the FI. From Dockyard to commissioning to embarking pilots within a few weeks and that was with a far more challenging aircraft to fly let alone fly from a ship.

I never said it cannot be done, all I am suggesting that if we need the capabilty it should not be at the expence of the LHD core job. If we look at the Spanish the original intent of the Juan Carlos was to provide a platform which harriers could make use of while there sole aircraft carrier PDA was in the dock or repairs, and as Falklands the task forces had 2x Fearless Class LPD plus a number of LSL from the RFA, they weren't expecting HMS Hermes and Invincable to do Amphious Assult whilst concurrently doing strike and air defence over the task force.

 

[old faithful]

Don't forget we are getting two LHDs, not one. For a large operation, one can be configured for the Amphib assault role, and the other for air ops. Both would retain their flexibility.

That said, I'm not a fan of the proposal, but only because I know what sort of financial commitment from government, and cultural commitment from the ADF is required, and I can't see either being done properly!

Your last comment is what I fear the most, "cant see either being done properly"

 

[alexsa]

I stand corrected by your actual hands on experience, I have read numerous article that stated that during the conversion to become a troop ship that their were alterations to accommodate





I never said it cannot be done, all I am suggesting that if we need the capabilty it should not be at the expence of the LHD core job. If we look at the Spanish the original intent of the Juan Carlos was to provide a platform which harriers could make use of while there sole aircraft carrier PDA was in the dock or repairs, and as Falklands the task forces had 2x Fearless Class LPD plus a number of LSL from the RFA, they weren't expecting HMS Hermes and Invincable to do Amphious Assult whilst concurrently doing strike and air defence over the task force.

In your asumptions; how does the fact that the LHD's are bigger and more versitile than the Invicible or Hermes which carried a limited nuimber of SHAR in the opening period of the Falklands conflict fit. Add to that we will have Choules (seems to get missed in these discussions) we have a plethora of landing barges in Australia (do to the nature of our northern regions) that can be taken up and Tobruk is still going (admittedly this may not be for long).

The areas in which Australia is likley to exercise this sort of capability is very differnet from the Falklands and it is a poor example.

I like the idea of an afloat capability and a dedicated carrier such as the Cavour with ther LHD's would provide a very potent capabilty, however, like others I worry that the polictical will in this country is variable and even if such a capability was pruchased the supporting capability may not be provided.

We have a Navy that has been lumbers wiht fitted for but not with and cust in sustainment costs for much of it life after WWII. The sad fact is that a sustained balance force with regular renewal would probaly cost less that the boom and bust cycle we currently see.

 

[StingrayOZ]

With both the LHD or a LHD and Choules could we not operate a smaller ARE (company?) and lower levels of carrier operations?

We had two carriers. When we had them we ended up with one troop lift (mostly) and one real carrier, and in the end it wasn't enough (we couldn't sustain deployment/operation of either at least in the 60's/70's IMO). Ideally we would have had three. Same as when we had Kanimbla's, not enough.

Now we have two LHD's. That could do either amphibious stuff or carrier stuff, but not at the same time. We also can't sustain either, or operate big enough to do anything independently either (ie deploy and sustain a ARG or have enough free time to do carrier without giving up amphibious capability).

Airforce found magic money for another 2-4 C17's. I would have thought the Army, Navy and Airforce could push for a 3rd LHD. I would argue a 3rd LHD is much more important because:

* You could operate/train/sustain a carrier permanently, with an air group of 6-12 planes, available all the time. Surge capacity would be globally significant (ie two LHD operating as a pair of pure carriers).
* You can deploy/train/sustain an ARG continuously (core assets), at anytime.
* You go from being a bit player than can't really fit into any international mission rotations, to one that can perform/relieve the role of the UK/US Marines or take on or lead missions of significance.

Then you can look at resourcing the Army, navy and airforce to support that core concept of a ARG.

 

[rand0m]

Speak of which;
HMAS Canberra (or soon to be?) has arrived back in Sydney

Potts Point Sydney Weather - Sydney Web Cam

StingrayOZ - How about some refurbished/surplus US M109's for the army?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Speak of which;
HMAS Canberra (or soon to be?) has arrived back in Sydney
Potts Point Sydney Weather - Sydney Web Cam
StingrayOZ - How about some refurbished/surplus US M109's for the army?

She looks nice in Sydney. I think she is a great looking ship. When is she offically commissioned? Next week?

I think the army needs a bunch of stuff including mobility stuff and fighting stuff.

 

[ASSAIL]

She looks nice in Sydney. I think she is a great looking ship. When is she offically commissioned? Next week?

I think the army needs a bunch of stuff including mobility stuff and fighting stuff.

28th November is the date and there's a nice couple of photos on RAN Twitter

 

[Magoo]

Airforce found magic money for another 2-4 C17's. I would have thought the Army, Navy and Airforce could push for a 3rd LHD.

Just to clear this up, Air Force didn't find the money for the extra C-17s, it didn't even ask for them! The idea for the extra C-17s came straight from the government and they are being acquired as a national asset, especially in the wake of MH17. They just happen to wear a RAAF roundel and be operated by a RAAF unit.

You could argue a 3rd LHD would be the same, but where are you going to get the additional resources to raise, train & sustain three such vessels? Navy is going to be stretched to operate two as it is.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just to clear this up, Air Force didn't find the money for the extra C-17s, it didn't even ask for them! The idea for the extra C-17s came straight from the government and they are being acquired as a national asset, especially in the wake of MH17. They just happen to wear a RAAF roundel and be operated by a RAAF unit.

Yep, basically sold in as dual use assets so an easy acquisition. RADFATAF

I trailed in behind the C17 Gate Review and they knew that they were in...

 

[Magoo]

I trailed in behind the C17 Gate Review and they knew that they were in...

No-brainer...isn't that what Johnston called it?