Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Joe Black]

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.

I am a little surprise to see the suggestion that it will a stretched for the Navy to operation a 3rd LHD. Didn't RAN decommissioned two FFG plus the LHDs will be replace the LST/LPD HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla? Each LST/LPD will be a near 1-to-1 replace of the LHDs in terms of RAN manpower. The two crew numbers of the decommissioned FFG could easily make up for the extra LHD. Obviously the crews have all been rotated, and new trainings to operation of the LHD will have to be provided. However, nothing insurmountable IMHO.

Now, I can't say the same about the extra crew needed to operation 10 to 12 son of Collins class subs. Where is RAN going to find sufficient submariners to operate them, except maybe from the ex-RN, RCN or even USN.

 

[John Newman]

Now, I can't say the same about the extra crew needed to operation 10 to 12 son of Collins class subs. Where is RAN going to find sufficient submariners to operate them, except maybe from the ex-RN, RCN or even USN.

I think the issue of manpower for the proposed 12 Submarines is a little bit of a different situation.

If the RAN does eventually end up with 10-12 new subs, it probably won't be until the mid 2030's before the fleet is actually increased above the current 6 boats.

So that's around 20 years from now before those extra crews for the first of boats 7-12 start to enter service.

 

[StingrayOZ]

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.

We already should have crews for the LHD working up, after all the first is commissioned in a couple of weeks.

However, we just pulled the plugs on the Balikpapans. While not a complete crew compliment, it half way there (well a thirdish). While we might get more landing craft in the future, its somewhat less likely to be six, and it won't be immediate. Delaying the LCH replacement to get a 3rd LHD seems like a relatively minor compromise. The LCM could fill the role of the LCH for now. Or push the duties out to NZ, Singapore, Fiji and PNG. Money could come from the LCH replacement/choules left over. Or from magic government C17 money pot.

Its a bridgeable gap. One side you have small scale operations still essentially supported by another power. The other side extensive carrier capability, USMC ARG amphibious capability, regional and global humanitarian capability, forward deployment from qld, ASW training etc.

 

[swerve]

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. ...

They're not bigger than Hermes. They're a few metres shorter overall, not all of their length is flight deck (so the flight deck is over 20 metres shorter), & the deck's a lot narrower. So the flight deck area (very important for flight operations) is a lot less, although full load tonnage is only slightly less than Hermes.

They're bigger than Invincible, but the flight deck isn't bigger in proportion to the greater size. It's about the same length, & narrower, despite the greater tonnage, because of the slab sides - unlike Invincible, where water level beam was significantly less than deck width.

And slower, so less wind over deck.

The LHDs are not aircraft carriers! They're amphibious ships with a secondary STOVL capability. A dedicated aircraft carrier, even one adapted from an ASW helicopter carrier, can surpass their fast jet capacity while being smaller.

PS. Compare Cavour. Barely greater displacement, just 13 metres longer than the LHDs - but the flight deck is 30.5 metres longer, as well as wider, & she's much faster. Greatly superior as a carrier. Much worse as an amphibious ship.

 

[hauritz]

My argument for F-35Bs for the LPH is that it is an asset, and we may as well make full use of it.

The LPH is a joint asset. At the moment it is primarily an amphibious warship and there is little point in it setting out to sea unless it is involved in an exercise involving the army. Even during actual warfare I would have to wonder if it would be fully occupied in its primary role as an amphibious warfare vessel.

I would be the first to concede that they would not make ideal carriers ... but we paid several billion dollars for them, and the navy has assigned its scarce crew resources to the project so we may as well try to squeeze every bit of value out of them.

 

[Volkodav]

I agree with Magoo that the is a real chance we won't do this properly which could potentially result in a big chunk of the defence budget being invested in a token capability that fails to deliver the desired operational flexibility while reducing the resources available for core capabilities'. It could potentially result in having one of our few strike fighter squadrons left operationally unprepared due to the lack of investment in sustaining core competencies in addition to the desired maritime air ops. while those same maritime capabilities never achieve the desired level, again due to under investment.

The extra money required could also see cuts to other areas such as the RAAF air combat readiness, or even numbers, and RAN surface combatant numbers and capability, as the F-35B, on paper, appears to add to the RAAFs air combat capability and the RANs anti-surface, air defence and land attack capabilities. This could see a future government cut or reduce readiness of these areas on the incorrect assumption the LHD / F-35B is an adequate substitute, but, unfortunately, has never achieved it's full potential.

What comes to mind is the RANs submarines, on paper a very effective and capable force that allows Australia to punch above its weight. The trouble is when there are two of the six boats laid up due to crewing and funding issues and a third in long refit you can only have a maximum of one boat on deployment instead of two and only one available for training instead of two, then a tug collides with one of those and you have none available. End result, because it was not done properly or fully funded we ended up paying large sums of money for next to zero capability.

The same could also be said of the old Army of ones. The individual Para and Mech btns, delivered game changing capabilities while at full strength but when not properly funded and lacking adequate trained manpower were a drain on Army resources reducing the number of deployable battalions.

That said, if done properly the F-35B would be a game changer with its versatility resulting in the ADF acquiring additional airframes and platforms to fly from. The added capability could then justify a reduction in combatant numbers.

 

[StevoJH]

They're not bigger than Hermes. They're a few metres shorter overall, not all of their length is flight deck (so the flight deck is over 20 metres shorter), & the deck's a lot narrower. So the flight deck area (very important for flight operations) is a lot less, although full load tonnage is only slightly less than Hermes.

No, the start of life Canberra class is not bigger then the end of life Hermes, however they do have a much larger internal volume, and by end of life after a few refits they will likely displace much more then the end of life Hermes.

Hanger area for the Canberra class (remembering that the light vehicle deck can be used as a hanger) should be larger then for a centaur class carrier.

As you stated though, they are considerably slower. What impact this would have on operations would depend on what take off run an F-35B would require for a full load at ~20 knots.

 

[StingrayOZ]

My argument for F-35Bs for the LPH is that it is an asset, and we may as well make full use of it.

The LPH is a joint asset. At the moment it is primarily an amphibious warship and there is little point in it setting out to sea unless it is involved in an exercise involving the army. Even during actual warfare I would have to wonder if it would be fully occupied in its primary role as an amphibious warfare vessel.

I would be the first to concede that they would not make ideal carriers ... but we paid several billion dollars for them, and the navy has assigned its scarce crew resources to the project so we may as well try to squeeze every bit of value out of them.

The lhd are not great carriers, but they could be very useful ones. We already have 2. With 3, you can share carrier and amphibious as required. You also have the advantage oF having a carrier or lhd or two carriers or two amphibs or one of each. While they are limited as a carrier, you have two if required.

I would assume two lhd are better than say a single caviar, for what Australia needs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

first and foremost they are floating HQJOCs in an event, secondary to that is rotary air basing and insertion and cash and carry and an opportunity role in ASW as a sea base

any fixed wing element is unlikely to get up unless proposed by RAAF as invariably they will go off UK modelling and make fixed wing combat air (fw FAA) RAAF rather than RAN FAA

I just cannot see it happening - and more to the point no one is seriously looking at it.

the $$'s would kill future force development for the next 30 years

 

[ASSAIL]

first and foremost they are floating HQJOCs in an event, secondary to that is rotary air basing and insertion and cash and carry and an opportunity role in ASW as a sea base

any fixed wing element is unlikely to get up unless proposed by RAAF as invariably they will go off UK modelling and make fixed wing combat air (fw FAA) RAAF rather than RAN FAA

I just cannot see it happening - and more to the point no one is seriously looking at it.

the $$'s would kill future force development for the next 30 years

I'm far less pessimistic than some. I understand that the intent is to acquire 100 joint fighters, eventually. The LHD's have a service life of 40 years. Within their lives it would be folly to believe that their contribution to joint CONOPS will be static it won't , it will be dynamic.
In view of all this I believe it would be folly not to consider giving the ADF/Government the flexibility enabled by a number of RAAF operated F35B's.
The added aircraft expense would be marginal, the added platform costs are unknown.
In force projection scenarios where ground troops are not envisaged it gives the Government so many more options and I hope that it is considered some time in the future

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm far less pessimistic than some. I understand that the intent is to acquire 100 joint fighters, eventually. The LHD's have a service life of 40 years. Within their lives it would be folly to believe that their contribution to joint CONOPS will be static it won't , it will be dynamic.
In view of all this I believe it would be folly not to consider giving the ADF/Government the flexibility enabled by a number of RAAF operated F35B's.
The added aircraft expense would be marginal, the added platform costs are unknown.
In force projection scenarios where ground troops are not envisaged it gives the Government so many more options and I hope that it is considered some time in the future

I can see some utility and benefit - I'm just not sure that there's any motivation to do so at the expense of other capabilities.

to buy new and additional gear someone (and usually the nominal parent service/capability owner) has to sacrifice something

eg extra C17's was an easy win as the logistics numbers meant losing extra C130's was a no brainer. If RAAF picked up the fw FAA gig they would have to slim down on A's. Can't see that happening.

they're already doing the quickstep on maintaining Growlers and Shornets beyond JSF IOC/FOC

 

[TheArchitect]

F35B Capabilities

I am a longer term reader of this forum but this is my first post.

I believe the continued development of the F35B will make it a game changer. In many situations it can act as a force multiplier by improving the situation awareness of connected naval defensive systems. For example a small number of F35B’s overhead a naval battle group could provide early detection to direct ship based missiles against various airborne targets.

I think we need to think about the wider capability of the F35B. The ability to operate the F35B from a LHD or other amphibious ship is only part of the capability. A small group of F35B's could operate as a specialist unit to be rapidly deployed to a FOB or other secondary airfield, both within Australia and within our region. The key focus would be on rapid response go anywhere mantra, with an emphasis on surveillance and intelligence gathering. Although small in number the capability of the F35B provides significant flexibility in deployment to appear in unexpected places with its networking capability becoming a force multiplier.

The ability to operate from any secondary airfields across Northern Australia also provides a significant additional deterrent to any potential aggressor. The dependency on a small number of suitable airfields is issue that has concerned me for some time for defending Australia, especially the areas around the Northern coast line of Australia.

In addition it is extremely difficult to bomb and totally close an airfield for STOL or STOVL capable aircraft. As the British found during the Falkland’s war with the Port Stanley airfield, only part of the runway is required for these types of aircraft to continue to operate. Hercules continued to operate from the Port Stanley airfield during the entire Falklands war despite repeated bombing of the airfield by the British.

To operate from FOB's or secondary airfields various support units would also require critical support infrastructure to be forward deployed. The US Marines are developing the F35B and the related support systems exactly for this capability. The related support systems are designed to be deployed by C-17 Globemaster aircraft.

 

[alexsa]

No, the start of life Canberra class is not bigger then the end of life Hermes, however they do have a much larger internal volume, and by end of life after a few refits they will likely displace much more then the end of life Hermes.

Hanger area for the Canberra class (remembering that the light vehicle deck can be used as a hanger) should be larger then for a centaur class carrier.

As you stated though, they are considerably slower. What impact this would have on operations would depend on what take off run an F-35B would require for a full load at ~20 knots.

Thanks, truth was a was looking at Invincible in the first instance and should have been clearer. Certainly more flexible with a large carrying capacity.

For speed, I watched Invincible launch SHAR in Sydney harbour at anchor and she was lauching at sea at the main body speed of advance of 18 knots. This was for a sinkex against an old Attack class patrol boat. The SHAR blew the bow off but the tough old bugger did not sink. It had been secured to last as long as possible.

Similarly US LHD as not much faster and operated Harriers (and have operated F35) without a ski jump so it would appear not to be an issue.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Leaving the F35 to one side.

NAVY could do something simular, shelve balkipapan replacement. With a focus on large scale deployment. IMO the amphibious need is the priority. I don't see the need for a dedicated carrier over everything else.

We enquired about another bay class. IMO another lhd would be much more useful.

 

[hairyman]

If we were to acquire a 3rd LHD with a longer and wider flight deck, I imagine it would cost somewhere in the region of B$1.2 - 1.5.. Then we have to buy planes to put on it. If we went with the F35B, and we wanted 24, I dont think we would have much change from B$3 just for the F35B's.

 

[swerve]

No, the start of life Canberra class is not bigger then the end of life Hermes, however they do have a much larger internal volume, and by end of life after a few refits they will likely displace much more then the end of life Hermes.

Hanger area for the Canberra class (remembering that the light vehicle deck can be used as a hanger) should be larger then for a centaur class carrier.

As you stated though, they are considerably slower. What impact this would have on operations would depend on what take off run an F-35B would require for a full load at ~20 knots.

Yes, larger internal volume, which is ideal for their primary role. But the considerably smaller deck area & lower speed are more important when one is considering their value as aircraft carriers.

They're what they look like - amphibs. Maximum volume, moderate speed, deck laid out mostly for helicopter operations. A secondary role as an auxiliary carrier is designed in, & I've no doubt they can do it, & probably reasonably well, but they're not going to be as good at it as a dedicated carrier of the same size - & that's no accident. It's because optimising 'em for fast jet ops would impair their functionality in their primary role.

Hangar space - good. But operational tempo will be affected by the deck.

 

[swerve]

Thanks, truth was a was looking at Invincible in the first instance and should have been clearer. Certainly more flexible with a large carrying capacity.

For speed, I watched Invincible launch SHAR in Sydney harbour at anchor and she was lauching at sea at the main body speed of advance of 18 knots. This was for a sinkex against an old Attack class patrol boat. The SHAR blew the bow off but the tough old bugger did not sink. It had been secured to last as long as possible.

Similarly US LHD as not much faster and operated Harriers (and have operated F35) without a ski jump so it would appear not to be an issue.

A Sea Harrier being able to take off from an anchored Invincible in unspecified conditions isn't exactly of great importance. At what weight? How many weapons, what fuel load? Any wind?

US LHDs are a fair bit bigger. 50% more tonnage, over 20 metres longer, & the flight deck is pretty much full length, which makes up for the lack of ski jump. And how many Harriers do they operate?

The claim which seemed to be being made was that being bigger than another ship, by itself, makes the Canberra class a better carrier. Not so!

 

[oldsig127]

They're what they look like - amphibs. Maximum volume, moderate speed, deck laid out mostly for helicopter operations. A secondary role as an auxiliary carrier is designed in, & I've no doubt they can do it, & probably reasonably well, but they're not going to be as good at it as a dedicated carrier of the same size - & that's no accident. It's because optimising 'em for fast jet ops would impair their functionality in their primary role.

I'm watching this argument go around and around and wondering why Defence shouldn't be considering secondary roles as well as primary ones against whatever CONOPS the forces will be expected to fulfill.

I'd dearly like RAN to have a dedicated carrier (or two, or ten) but in the absence of a need and the ability to fund it/them, I'd really like a proper analysis that considered all the capability we can wring out of whatever assets we can afford to put in service.

Arguing against a secondary role is somewhat like arguing that you can't buy a loaf of bread and use a paring knife to cut a sandwich because it isn't optimised for the task and might be needed to peel a potato - unless you know what is on the menu and whether we can afford to have both

oldsig127

 

[swerve]

Who's arguing against a secondary role? Certainly not me!

I'm just trying to remind people that an LHD with a secondary STOVL carrier role ain't going to be as good in that role as something for which it's the primary role. I'm sure it can still be useful in the role - indeed, I've argued exactly that in the past. Just remember its limitations.

It ain't a matter of pro or anti. There are nuances.

 

[rand0m]

Can I confirm something here...

The 24 MH-60R's will cost roughly the same price as the 2 x Canberra class LHD's?