Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

The ARG is also predicated on every single helicopter in the ADF being serviceable at the same time and embarked on the LHDs. There are a whole lot of capabilities that might cause the ARG to fall over, the LHDs are just one of many.

It's worth remembering, the ARG is not a full time capability. It's not even a part time capability. It's an 'in the event of war, break glass' capability that if enacted would be an ADF main effort. It will get tested once when the second LHD comes online just to prove we can do it, but that's it.

It will pretty much be the only time we will do it, because its unlikely we will have both LHD's and Choules all lined up, it will be like a full eclipse, rare, lasting only minutes. (still mighty impressive)

With a stronger Chinook fleet, that would take significant load off entire helo fleet. If we had 12 operational (like we used to) or even 8, then it would be far more doable. The we would need to ensure we had the troops, vehicles etc to be able to do it more often. Even ignoring the LHD's, our commitment in Afghanistan highlighted we were already weak in this area.

But if we don't have the ships, we don't have the aircraft, we never train for it (except this once), we don't acquire the tools, it will never happen again. What use is capability if you can never use it? What happens if the war comes and we have a blown transformer? or more realistically, we are locked into a cycle which prevents the ships being available all together.

My argument is that perhaps with a few minor sacrifices (eg Balkipapan replacements the LCM and LHD can do that job admittedly with overkill, but can offer additional humanitarian support which we should be doing anyway - hospital facilities, etc) it drops from nearly impossible and highly disruptive to merely difficult.

Should be impressive.

 

[Volkodav]

Good points, it strikes me that the only time we could ever assemble an ARG is for an exercise, planned well in advance, and then only if there are no unplanned availability issues with any of the required assets. Maybe there should be a more achievable plan, to deliver as big a chunk of the desired effect, that can be exercised regularly. Also a plan to make good any short falls given sufficient warning would be smart (probably has been done).

Should the F-35B be acquired we would likely see them deployed onboard the LHDs and probably used operationally far more often than we would ever see an ARG assembled, even for exercises.

 

[Joe Black]

Good points, it strikes me that the only time we could ever assemble an ARG is for an exercise, planned well in advance, and then only if there are no unplanned availability issues with any of the required assets. Maybe there should be a more achievable plan, to deliver as big a chunk of the desired effect, that can be exercised regularly. Also a plan to make good any short falls given sufficient warning would be smart (probably has been done).

Should the F-35B be acquired we would likely see them deployed onboard the LHDs and probably used operationally far more often than we would ever see an ARG assembled, even for exercises.

If a 3rd LHD is not purchased, an alternative might be to acquire another Bay class LPD from the Brits should one be made available. Perhaps the ARG concept can then really bear fruit.

I'm still hoping for a 3rd LHD. Rather have a 3rd LHD than 2 extra C-17. Afterall, with RAAF already having 6 and 2 more on other, I think we have a pretty good air lift capability, not to mention the current and additional A330-MRTT/KC-30A can haul cargo too.

 

[StevoJH]

If a 3rd LHD is not purchased, an alternative might be to acquire another Bay class LPD from the Brits should one be made available. Perhaps the ARG concept can then really bear fruit.

With the UK economy growing, I very much doubt they will be looking to economise by disposing of another Bay Class LSD. Especially given that they are much less expensive to operate then the Albion class LPD or Ocean class LPH.

 

[rockitten]

Good points, it strikes me that the only time we could ever assemble an ARG is for an exercise, planned well in advance, and then only if there are no unplanned availability issues with any of the required assets. Maybe there should be a more achievable plan, to deliver as big a chunk of the desired effect, that can be exercised regularly. Also a plan to make good any short falls given sufficient warning would be smart (probably has been done).

Should the F-35B be acquired we would likely see them deployed onboard the LHDs and probably used operationally far more often than we would ever see an ARG assembled, even for exercises.

To be honest, RAN probably want the LPD become a "dedicated light carrier with secondary amphibious role". After all, the jet can contribute to the day by day operation way more than riflemen and tanks.

But that's the problem: the RAAF hate this idea because that mean they will have a whole squadron of F-35B that has shorter range, less pay load, higher upkeep, and have it under their responsibility, their budget, but not under their control.

The same applies for why the army rarely deploy their helicopter on board the kimbilia class. So until the Air Force and the army see the LPD as a joiny accet rather than a navy's plaything, they will be nothing more than harbour queens on garden island.

Otherwise, if tony Abbott really want to push for that, just tell RAAF to choose between sticking with the SH and 75As or get the extra Bs. Let's see if the birdies will say no.

 

[hauritz]

All this talk of a third LHD reminds me of the navy's original plans back in 2000.

RAN considers aircraft carrier plan - 7/4/2000 - Flight Global

I remember thinking the whole thing was a pipe dream back then ... but the navy seems to have got the "MRA" concept up and running. I wonder if they could be plotting in the background to get the LSS put back onto the agenda.

 

[gf0012-aust]

All this talk of a third LHD reminds me of the navy's original plans back in 2000.

RAN considers aircraft carrier plan - 7/4/2000 - Flight Global

I remember thinking the whole thing was a pipe dream back then ... but the navy seems to have got the "MRA" concept up and running. I wonder if they could be plotting in the background to get the LSS put back onto the agenda.

it was army who initially pushed for the LHD's - the Navy can thank Cosgrove for triggering the journey

 

[Joe Black]

it was army who initially pushed for the LHD's - the Navy can thank Cosgrove for triggering the journey

20 F/A 18s? Wouldn't that require the assault vessels to have be CATOBAR capable?

 

[gf0012-aust]

20 F/A 18s? Wouldn't that require the assault vessels to have be CATOBAR capable?

not sure what you mean

LHDs were driven by an army push. post ET. Carriers weren't a consideration at all.

CATOBAR was irrelevant to an LHD as were fixed wing combat

 

[StingrayOZ]

Should the F-35B be acquired we would likely see them deployed onboard the LHDs and probably used operationally far more often than we would ever see an ARG assembled, even for exercises.

Well as hard as and demanding as the F-35B is, its nothing compared to a full operational ARG. So say even if we only assemble the full ARG every two years, 3 LHD's will allow much more training for all the elements that make up that ARG. Training and qualifying people for F-35B's of the LHD are a walk in the park in comparison.

As Raven has put it, a full ARG is essentially a hail mary give it all we got (at least for the moment, I would hope in 10 or 15 years it would be difficult but fairly standard.) We aren't the USMC, its not like 2500 army troops will sail around on them all the time. But we really do need to train for it and we really need to be able to do it. When not doing the ARG thing, do what the USMC and do the non combat thing (which we desperately need in our region). A bit of proactive work and maybe we can avoid having another nation collapse.There are six that are looking pretty shaky in our region today.

To be honest, RAN probably want the LPD become a "dedicated light carrier with secondary amphibious role". After all, the jet can contribute to the day by day operation way more than riflemen and tanks.

RAN doesn't want a carrier, it hasn't pushed (IMO) even for a 3rd LHD. I imagine there might be a bit more traction once the LHD's are operational and we try to form a ESG/ARG. Then the LHD are a known quantity, the risk is low, both operationally and the build. The LHD build seemed to go pretty much to plan and to budget and pretty much everyone is happy with the capability we got for it, it was a good buy. Men and tanks solve problems ultimately, air power will only get you so far.

If you said in early 1997 Australia would have 2x 27,000t LHD's and 1xbay, they would have laughed very hard at you. In 1999 we were trying run an amphibious landing of ~3000 off a commercial build fast ferry and it very nearly would all come undone. Typically, because our "big" amphibious ships weren't ready or available. If it wasn't for the Steven Bradbury effect we would have been right up the creek. The US dead set did not believe it was possible hence their entire and adamant reluctance to send any troops to ground (but gave huge logistical support).

If you look back at Timor, thats a hail mary.

So what did Timor take? (Im just putting it in here for perspective, many here may not be aware).
22 Nations
11,000 troops (5000 Australian 1000 NZ)
35 ships (including 3 US Amphibs, 6 landing ships from everywhere)
10 F-111/12 F-18's
13 Hercs + 4 Bous..

All with less than 6 months notice at the worst of time (no Kanimblas).

Looking at that, I would say an extra LHD is prudent insurance, and a ARG is the very least we should be forming. Who knows, next time the US may not have 3 Amphibious ships to do our bidding.

 

[rjtjrt]

All with less than 6 months notice at the worst of time (no Kanimblas)
.

And no C-130E nor any of the replacement C-130J. It was right at the changeover fron the E to the new J.

"13 Hercs + 4 Bous.."

Just for completness, probably should add that there were a couple of G222's form the Italian Air Force helping with the aitlift in Timor early on.

 

[Oberon]

20 F/A 18s? Wouldn't that require the assault vessels to have be CATOBAR capable?

The F/A 18s would be land based operating from conventional runways.

 

[Joe Black]

not sure what you mean

LHDs were driven by an army push. post ET. Carriers weren't a consideration at all.

CATOBAR was irrelevant to an LHD as were fixed wing combat

I was referring to the LSS in the Flight Global article...
"The plans include the option of acquiring more capable carriers, designated Littoral Support Ships (LSS), each of which would be equipped with 20 Boeing F/A-18 Hornets. The proposed LSS would also carry airborne early warning aircraft, with the RAN identifying the Bell Boeing MV-22 Osprey and Eagle-Eye tilt-rotor unmanned air vehicle as potential candidates."

The proposed LSS sounds more like something closer to a Charles de Gaulle carrier.

 

[t68]

I was referring to the LSS in the Flight Global article...
"The plans include the option of acquiring more capable carriers, designated Littoral Support Ships (LSS), each of which would be equipped with 20 Boeing F/A-18 Hornets. The proposed LSS would also carry airborne early warning aircraft, with the RAN identifying the Bell Boeing MV-22 Osprey and Eagle-Eye tilt-rotor unmanned air vehicle as potential candidates."

The proposed LSS sounds more like something closer to a Charles de Gaulle carrier.

That it does but because of the mixed signals in regards to EWA aircraft and mentions Eagle Eye(VTOL)it's strange and only 20 Hornets it appears to me they are referring to the Spanish concept of BSAC 220 or even a LHA-6 who knows.

 

[StingrayOZ]

That it does but because of the mixed signals in regards to EWA aircraft and mentions Eagle Eye(VTOL)it's strange and only 20 Hornets it appears to me they are referring to the Spanish concept of BSAC 220 or even a LHA-6 who knows.

Seems like a poorly thought out idea. The story explains that it may be opposed within the RAN itself, so I don't see it getting very far.

I don't really see the need for the carriers to have organic AEW. Much larger, more capable AEW could be land based and have long range. Wedgetail has a 6500 km range and can be air refuelled. It would seem to be a fairly straight forward to keep one in the air 24/7 even a 1000 miles from a land base. Doing so would take a huge load off the carriers. Operating say a V-22 based AEW for 24 hr cover would be a huge burden on a small carrier.

If we were to operate F-35B's off the carriers you would want it to be single minded. As many F-35's and nothing else (maybe 3 helos) then other helos on Frigates, AWD, OCV's etc).12 is a more realistic operational maximum, again with nothing else.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Seems like a poorly thought out idea. The story explains that it may be opposed within the RAN itself, so I don't see it getting very far.

I don't really see the need for the carriers to have organic AEW. Much larger, more capable AEW could be land based and have long range. Wedgetail has a 6500 km range and can be air refuelled. It would seem to be a fairly straight forward to keep one in the air 24/7 even a 1000 miles from a land base. Doing so would take a huge load off the carriers. Operating say a V-22 based AEW for 24 hr cover would be a huge burden on a small carrier.

If we were to operate F-35B's off the carriers you would want it to be single minded. As many F-35's and nothing else (maybe 3 helos) then other helos on Frigates, AWD, OCV's etc).12 is a more realistic operational maximum, again with nothing else.

organic AEW for a task force is better than relying on land based air

it's one of the telling delimiters for the PLAN - they're limited in force sensor management as they're reliant on land based AEW

organic AEW gives you a 400km sensing ring.

 

[Volkodav]

Organic AEW is definitely worth having, even without F-35B. It would be a valuable capability for the ADF as a whole, just look at the effective employment of the RN FAA AEW Sea Kings in Afghanistan providing surveillance in support of land based operations.

On the carriers, while individual officers and the official political line, especially when they are fighting to justify maintaining surface combatant numbers and bespoke submarines in possibly increased numbers, may be that there is no requirement for or interest in carriers, I think it would be fair to say that the RAN has been interested in and wanted carriers since the first World War. Even when the RAN had carriers, they wanted more and bigger ones. When the two ocean navy was proposed in the 60s the RAN was talking an increase to three carriers to support it.

Even now with talk of the F-35B being a RAAF asset flying off the LHDs, I do not doubt that there are elements in the RAN aspiring to them being operated by the FAA and flown from a class of proper light carriers. In fact I imagine there are those who would have prefered we had bought a number of carriers instead of the LHDs and opted for LPDs and LSDs to cover off the amphibious requirements.

 

[StingrayOZ]

it's one of the telling delimiters for the PLAN - they're limited in force sensor management as they're reliant on land based AEW

I don't doubt its better, if you have a fleet of large carriers, and want to conduct blue water (pacific or Indian) carrier operations. But is it essential for Australia to have that capability? But how often will we be operating in blue waters with a carrier with out US or UK cover over a 1000km from an airbase? What level of awareness would say a Seaking with Searchwater 2000AEW have over a F-35B? Or F-35B, JORN, and land based Wedgetail? If we went down the road of part time carrier would it be essential?

Even when the RAN had carriers, they wanted more and bigger ones. When the two ocean navy was proposed in the 60s the RAN was talking an increase to three carriers to support it.

Even now with talk of the F-35B being a RAAF asset flying off the LHDs, I do not doubt that there are elements in the RAN aspiring to them being operated by the FAA and flown from a class of proper light carriers. In fact I imagine there are those who would have prefered we had bought a number of carriers instead of the LHDs and opted for LPDs and LSDs to cover off the amphibious requirements.

Dreamers will still dream. I still think a pure carrier force for a country like Australia is going to be a pretty big luxury, we haven't had carriers for 30 years and even then we only really had 1 full time carrier. The LHD's do not preclude a carrier, but can act like one. But we could have an additional 2 LHD's for the price of 1 carrier (both in purchase and operating costs). The Spainards say that each LHD can operate up to 12 F-35's as an aircraft carrier.

With 3, you could have 1 ready as a carrier most of the time, and in emergency surge (and sustain) 2 with a combined airwing of 24 (more aircraft than we needed during Timor). Operating this way, crewing two LHD's would be similar to crewing a single Cavour (around 600, and operating costs would most likely still be less than a Cavour). Training would be simple as you could train on any of the 3 LHD's and work up two operational "carrier" crews one would most likely be the specialist, but the crews for the 2 other ships would have training experience. Even when training amphibious elements there would be space and time to conduct fixed wing air operations. Anything that is developed, upgraded or worked out for one ship, can be applied to the whole fleet. Spain and Turkey have indicated they would like to operate F-35's off their ships, so there are even international training partners to support operations.

When operations decline, it can then go back to a single ship, and then back to amphibious training. While Im sure a single ship would not match Cavour's sortie rate or ability to sustain operations with 16 aircraft, two ships would be superior. Its not about the individual its about the total force.

While it would be great to run around like the USN with our own dedicated carrier, I don't think we will be in that position. Our Amphibious and our fixed wing aviation will have to share homes, or we have no fixed wing aviation.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What level of awareness would say a Seaking with Searchwater 2000AEW have over a F-35B? Or F-35B, JORN, and land based Wedgetail? If we went down the road of part time carrier would it be essential?

well, thats what the PLAN have done, they've knocked off Searchwater for use on their rotaries and modified to their needs

bit hard to compare to JSF or E7 as there are fundamental boundaries in place, some defined by platform real estate. some due to mission intent.

JORN is not a targeting system and its track management is close held in the purest sense

 

[StingrayOZ]

well, thats what the PLAN have done, they've knocked off Searchwater for use on their rotaries and modified to their needs

bit hard to compare to JSF or E7 as there are fundamental boundaries in place, some defined by platform real estate. some due to mission intent.

JORN is not a targeting system and its track management is close held in the purest sense

If we did go down the road of buying F-35's, the ability to swing a searchwater under a helo isn't probably a big deal breaker. If you had F-35's on a LHD in a blue water environment, surely JORN would offer a vague layer of awareness in many regions, enough to send up UAV's or a F-35 to get a look.

I was reading this bit:

https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/opinion-pieces/fixed-wing-navy-jets-a-non-starter/Fixed-wing-navy-jets-not-realistic.pdf

Which argues clearly for F-35 to be a complete impossibility with just 2 LHD's. And goes on to argue the irrelevance and expense even if we had a 3rd. I disagree because I think the 3rd needs to exist purely for the amphibious function.
https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/opinion-pieces/fixed-wing-navy-jets-a-non-starter/Fixed-wing-navy-jets-not-realistic.pdf

If the money comes from existing and budgeted things like the 4th squad for the RAAF and Balkipapan replacement + Patrol crew. Then the cost is neutral.

I actually find some of what ASPI comes out with is contradictory. There is a strong argument that you would need 3 LHD's to have 2 available. But we won't do it because the F-35B is stupid (completely ignoring the amphibious need). Many of its articles are set out to prove a fallacy is a fallacy. Operating F-35's off the two LHD's is wrong. Why not present the other more plausible options.

Reader response: getting serious about Asia
I also disagree that we should aim to have less capability because if we have capability we will get involved in other peoples messes. The LHD are soft and hard power. They amount they can do in other than war cases is significant, more significant than what they can do in war.

And as we should be well aware, things other than war can be very important to stop uprising and instabilities.