Thanks for the link, nice read, he certainly didn't hold back and mince his words did he
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I don't think anyone would argue about tactical utility....
but that's not what drives the central agencies thinking......
but that's not what drives the central agencies thinking......
Last edited:
Hobart Class AWD's sailing together
On a lighter note While not the real thing, here is a pic from Russ French with all 3 Hobart Class AWD's sailing together last weekend, can't wait to see the real thing, it won't happen too often
Builders:
Hobart - Russ French (Owner Defence Models & Graphics)
Brisbane - Vince Caprusso (From Adelaide)
Sydney - Scott Rice (Also from Adelaide)
Cheers
On a lighter note
While not the real thing, here is a pic from Russ French with all 3 Hobart Class AWD's sailing together last weekend, can't wait to see the real thing, it won't happen too often Builders:
Hobart - Russ French (Owner Defence Models & Graphics)
Brisbane - Vince Caprusso (From Adelaide)
Sydney - Scott Rice (Also from Adelaide)
Cheers
Engines101
New Member
Great article from someone who cares and knows exactly what he's talking about.
Here's some thing to try when thinking about long range land based 'air power': your average car has a range of well over 250 miles without refuelling, easily 500 with a top up. So why don't you just commute to that great job 500 miles away? The car can do it, can't it? Tons of good reasons why not, mainly that it would take at least three of you to cover the job and the travelling time. Oh, and those fuel costs....
Air power (sea or land based) is not a lot different. Yes, aircraft can travel long distances. But they still take a finite time to do it, and burn a heck of a lot of fuel. Even more if your filling station is another huge jet burning its own fuel load.
And a final thought. Long distance commutes are tiring behind the wheel of a luxury leather lined saloon. What do you think they're like stuffed into a fighter cockpit?
Great article from a professional, with clear messages. Firstly, Australia needs to get its tactical strike aircraft as close as possible to their potential targets to get the best out of them. Secondly, RAN surface forces will need air defence - relying on land based air cover in the SE Asia and S pacific area is not an option. Finally, it's feasible and affordable.
Hopefully, this article will help spark more debate on a key issue for SDR 2015.
Engines101
Here's some thing to try when thinking about long range land based 'air power': your average car has a range of well over 250 miles without refuelling, easily 500 with a top up. So why don't you just commute to that great job 500 miles away? The car can do it, can't it? Tons of good reasons why not, mainly that it would take at least three of you to cover the job and the travelling time. Oh, and those fuel costs....
Air power (sea or land based) is not a lot different. Yes, aircraft can travel long distances. But they still take a finite time to do it, and burn a heck of a lot of fuel. Even more if your filling station is another huge jet burning its own fuel load.
And a final thought. Long distance commutes are tiring behind the wheel of a luxury leather lined saloon. What do you think they're like stuffed into a fighter cockpit?
Great article from a professional, with clear messages. Firstly, Australia needs to get its tactical strike aircraft as close as possible to their potential targets to get the best out of them. Secondly, RAN surface forces will need air defence - relying on land based air cover in the SE Asia and S pacific area is not an option. Finally, it's feasible and affordable.
Hopefully, this article will help spark more debate on a key issue for SDR 2015.
Engines101
Something that I can't help but think is that surely it would also make RAN recruitment a whole lot easier?
One of the most important points I took from it is that we're not going in completely blind - the US and UK in particular are strong allies with experience in this area. Whether that be why it's useful or how to do it, it would also be in their interest to assist.
One of the most important points I took from it is that we're not going in completely blind - the US and UK in particular are strong allies with experience in this area. Whether that be why it's useful or how to do it, it would also be in their interest to assist.
Probably worth considering is that the Canberras may well end up being Harbour queens unless additional missions are found for them.
Giving RAAF pilots experience in operating off flattops may well be of benefit when it comes to co-operating with our allies. RAAF pilots flying F-35s off US and RN carriers in some future conflict isn't that hard to imagine.
Giving RAAF pilots experience in operating off flattops may well be of benefit when it comes to co-operating with our allies. RAAF pilots flying F-35s off US and RN carriers in some future conflict isn't that hard to imagine.
Why do you think that?
It has a very limited mission scope.
Really? Other countries with LHDs seem to find plenty for them to do, from disaster relief to ro-ro transport & carrier for attack helicopters. For example, Mistrals have been used in Lebanon, Libya, & Mali (not actually in Mali, of course, but assisting in the intervention there). The French navy enthuses over how generally useful they are. The term "Swiss army knife" has been used.
I don't disagree that when they are needed these ships will be invaluable ... but I question whether or not they will be fully utilized in Australia's case. I am simply arguing that since we have them we may as well get the most use out of them ... after all the Spanish use the Juan Carlos for air ops in addition to its primary role.
The specifics on French use are using Tonnerre as a LPH in Libya (Gazelle/Tiger/Puma air group) and Dixmude as a RoRo transport for two companies of mechanised infantry + vehicles + equipment.
They are by nature very flexible vessels, however in terms of how much use you'll actually get will very much depend on your Governments willingness to deploy them abroad or is that seen to be more of an RAAF role.
They are by nature very flexible vessels, however in terms of how much use you'll actually get will very much depend on your Governments willingness to deploy them abroad or is that seen to be more of an RAAF role.
Nick underscore
Member
Interesting piece Magoo and thanks for posting.
I have a feeling we will see many more former RAN, RN operators' opinions, expressed pubically in favour, before the 2015 DWP final release.
Personally, I'm not against the idea of pair of F-35B Sqdns, as many have mentioned, it adds a unique capability to the ADF, not just viewed through the LHD prism / discussion.
Not sure how our neighbours to the North, would view this, once the actual ink is dry on the order.
If accepted politically, do the RAAF want the B?
I have a feeling we will see many more former RAN, RN operators' opinions, expressed pubically in favour, before the 2015 DWP final release.
Personally, I'm not against the idea of pair of F-35B Sqdns, as many have mentioned, it adds a unique capability to the ADF, not just viewed through the LHD prism / discussion.
Not sure how our neighbours to the North, would view this, once the actual ink is dry on the order.
If accepted politically, do the RAAF want the B?
Every single available sea day for both vessels has already been scheduled for use for about the next five years. I don't think there's any concern about them becoming 'harbour queens.'
This is one of the biggest concerns with getting F35s for the LHDs - there won't be enough available sea days to do everything.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Very interesting read thanks Magoo.
I too was very surprised when the article suggested that below the flight deck is exactly like JC1, I was under the impression that changes to the magazines and fuel storage was different. We all know that JC1 was/is expected to be used as a training capabilty and is now the primary capabilty for fast jet when PDA was in the dock, but it was my impression that the super structure layout is different to that of JC1 and the Canberra sacrificed space for more command and control aspect, not sure how the changes effect the flyco I'd imagine the diffrence would be minor in that regards.
So by that article it suggest that have 8 F35B on board it will not displace any helicopters, is that also true for the stores and equipment for ready group/element
Possabile aviation air group, keeping in mind that we want the capabilty to lift a rifle company in a single lift.
8x F35B
5x ARH
12x MRH-90 (2x flights for rifle company)
2x CH-47 ( heavy lift)
2x MH-60s? (combat search and rescue for downed pilots)
4x AEW helicopters crowsnest?
Plus all the required kit for an ARG, MH-60R helicopters are on the escorts
Obviously that's not going to fit on a single LHD but if we are serious about the capabilty that's a lot of aircraft, and 23m shorter than the than a Wasp class LHD were space is at a premium with only two ships it's asking a lot.
Last edited:
Given the tempo the Kanimblas were under, they will be very very busy.
Of course given that they would the assets most likely deployed to help coordinate and spearhead disaster response, aid, reconstruction efforts. I wonder if it would affect building amphibious capacity if one or both of the ships had approximately 1 year removed from that 5 year schedule, as they would be deployed to help. I would assume over the next 5 years we will have at least 1 significant natural disaster in our region.
To then throw F-35 carrier operations on top of that is optimistic.
Even without the F-35B's, that would be a tight fit for a single LHD. Why not just surge two LHD's if we need to single airlift a rifle company and provide 24/7 carrier coverage. We will need to surge two for the full ARG capability.
I think these 2 are going to be some of the busiest assets in the fleet. they definitely won't be harbour queens
the only thing that will hold them back is if and or the govt directs Navy to cut back sea time to save on fuel budgets - and I can't see that happening either
t68
Well-Known Member
That would be ideal, but their is no certantly that two ships will be avalible. Look what happened to HMAS Choules who long was she laid up for due to repairs?
I just think what they are trying to achieve whilst commendable is not doable with the current numbers of hulls in the water.
Bluey 006
Active Member
I am a big supporter of fixed wing asserts (F-35B) on the LHDs, however I am starting to wonder if it isn't better to wait for a STOVL version of Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) or a similar UCAV?
This may mitigate some of the concerns re-space,displacing helicopters, flight deck modifications etc
The persistence and range offered by a UCAV would likely! reduce the air-frames required and the lower weight of a UCAV would mean a less powerful engine would be required and therefore likely! be less taxing on the deck..
Is this something that has been considered?
On this note any word on rotary VTUAV for LHD,AWD,OCV and Future Frigates?
Is the MQ-8 Fire Scout the leading contender or did we have something else in mind? Over the years local firms (Aus & NZ) have developed some interesting concepts......
I agree. We are already at 100% usage with what we already have and they aren't even in commission yet, there is no wiggle room for disaster relief, humanitarian missions, peace keeping missions, allied international deployment. If we divert the LHD from the already arranged usage structure we are actively degrading the amphibious capability from the army and putting it off.
The window that both will be avalible for deployment won't just be rare, it will be short even under the best conditions.
With no Balikpapans, no Kanimblas the only thing the army has seen of the water is off Tobruk, which is now 2 years past her use by date, busy (overworked?), and adopts the latest in amphibious operations from the 1970's (and has cost us $100 million in repair since 2007 and nearly $70m since 2012-till the end of this year). There is a lot of rebuilding to do.
We either need to abandon the idea of ARG capability (go back to Kanimbla/Choules sized ARE capability which we never really got because they were too busy), F-35B capability and timely and flexible response to humanitarian missions and cut our smaller brother nations lose and fend for themselves.
Or we get another LHD.
- Status