Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

Thanks Volk,John and Swerve for your response

As mentioned by Swerve, the Royal Navy has alot of platforms to which avaition can be deployed. Just as the RN is transitioning form the Invincibles era to a small fleet of large fleet carriers and other amphibious ships it will change the way it does business re aviation. So too for the RAN, as we consolidate with the Canberra's we will learn how to best operate and go about deploying aviation to sea. I guess it's in this context that I see the role of Choules as being different as to how it was employed in the RN.
What ever it's indended design I see it as an opportunity for a third ship to deploy aviation at sea. However wonderful the Canberras are, they are only two in number and will at some stage need to go through a sheduled maintenance cycles.Like all bits of mechanical stuff they may suffer from an unexpected break down. Given that they are new, I trust the outcome of that last statement is way into the future.However in the real world stuff happens that you don't expect so I trust you get my point.
Unlike the RN we currently only have three Amphibious ships. With such low numbers we can only be at so many places at any one time. For me it's a question of redundancy and flexibility. Remember it was'nt that long ago the relatively new Choule suffered mechanical problems. Not a good position to be in and no landing craft heavy to help backup.
The concept of the Hanger is really like the Canberra's Hanger/ Garage, a flexible space for aviation and if needed logistic's.
Like all things it's an opinion piece and I thankyou for listening.

Thanks Volk for the revisit of the RAN over the decades. I trust this statement is not too bold but the RAN in the late 80's was quite lost with the loss of the old Melbourne. It was by standards of the day old fashioned with soo few ships able to deploy a even a single helicopter.
How times have changed. I feel the fleets looking pretty good for the future.

Regards S

 

[t68]

The 1982 "rebalancing" of the fleet made its most capable and expensive component, its aircraft, ineffectual overnight, it basically wasted thirty five years of investment. That money was never reinvested in boosting numbers and individual capability, it was lost or expended trying to fill gaps with ineffectual measures that provided less capability at greater cost. Seahawks for the FFGs, FFGUP, Super SeaSprite, and now Romeo and AWD.

Unless we went with another cat & trap carrier the majority of the FAA was obsolete overnight anyway with the withdrawal Melbourne except for the Sea Kings. if they kept that option(cat & trap) the future FAA could have comprised of F/A-18 Hornet, S-3 Viking,E-2 Hawkeye, Tracker ASW and Sea King ASW helicopters.

But if the Invincible went ahead the FAA was hobbled anyway compared to what it was with Melbourne, no fixed wing for how long? no long rang Tracker for ASW, whilst Harrier is indeed versatile how long would we have had to wait?

To me the death kneel for RAN CV was the UK abandonment of CVA-01project, if it went ahead we would have had a new carrier in the mid 70's easily capable of have to be replaced about now and the discussion would be on either the French or English version of CVF and would we need 2. The other option was a new build BSAC 220 in the late 1980's or conventional CDG in the 90's could Melbourne have soldiered on for another decade?

It was also a pity that planning did not go further for Sydney to convert to a commando carrier using HC4 Sea Kings as its primary lift helicopter

 

[John Newman]

Thanks Volk, John and Swerve for your response

As mentioned by Swerve, the Royal Navy has a lot of platforms to which avaition can be deployed.

Hang on a sec ......

What Swerve actually said was at the time of the order of the 4 Bay class, was that the RN 'had' a lot of aviation capability, not 'has' a lot of aviation capability as at today.

As at today those three Invincible class no longer exist (two scrapped and one laid up), as for Ocean, well her days are numbered and she will decommission in 2018, without replacement as far as I know.

When it come to the two LPD's, Albion and Bulwark, only one is kept in commission.

So that basically leaves the three Bay class sisters of Choules in commission, plus one of the LPD's and Ocean until 2018.

In a nutshell, what I think Swerve was saying, at the time the 4 Bay class were ordered the RN had plenty of aviation capable ships (I'm sure Swerve can qualify what I'm saying), so obviously having a higher level of aviation capability on those ships when they were ordered wasn't a high priority, but if you look at the RN today that is definitely not the case.


So the question might rightly be asked, if today the RN was ordering the Bay class, would they have greater aviation facilities (similar to their Dutch or Spanish cousins), or not?

There is a big difference between 'has' and 'had' as to what type of capabilities might be procured and enter service when a particular class of ship is planned or ordered.

So getting back to the RAN, sure I have no doubt that a modification could be made to Choules to significantly increase her aviation capabilities, but the question is, would those modifications also mean that her capacity to carry significant amounts of deck cargo disappear? And the answer would be yes.

I still see it as a 'balance' between the three major amphibious fleet units in the RAN, the two LHD's and Choules, and in their current configuration there is a fair amount of flexibility in those configurations.

Anyway, time will tell, if the RAN thinks that an aviation focus (less deck cargo capacity), is the way to go, then maybe it will happen, but I wouldn't hold my breath!

Cheers,

 

[ASSAIL]

Although just about every surface combatant requirement from the late 50s onwards included the ability to operate at least one Wessex sized helicopter, only three non combatants (Stalwart, Success, and Tobruk) and not one warship was able to when Melbourne retired a quarter of a century later.

Not quite so, most legacy platforms from the 50's and 60's were converted to some form of rotary wing capacity, MATCH/DASH or similar smaller aircraft (Wasp), not medium helos with the exception of the RN County Class. Newer escorts built for the RAN did not because our entire CONOPS revolved around operating with a CVS where this was not needed and the quicker reaction weapon of choice, IKARA, was fitted in lieu. So, when Melbourne was not replaced, the entire CONOPS disappeared and the RAN has been struggling to find a cohesive role ever since. The LHDs change that.

Basically the disposal of the carrier made the existing fleet unbalanced and obsolescent overnight, ships that made perfect sense as carrier escorts were left vulnerable and the fleet was left incapable of operating outside of an alliance situation. The rhetoric at the time was the money saved would be invested into a greater number of more flexible, general purpose warships, this never really happened as hull numbers remained fairly static, with the only real difference being all new major combatants were able to hanger a medium helicopter.

Absolutely, the RAN was emasculated and directionless for 25 years. At least ET provided that way ahead.

 

[ASSAIL]

I haven't mastered the quote routine on my iPad folks so some please, kind soul fix it so I don't look so amateurish, thanks.

 

[Volkodav]

Unless we went with another cat & trap carrier the majority of the FAA was obsolete overnight anyway with the withdrawal Melbourne except for the Sea Kings. if they kept that option(cat & trap) the future FAA could have comprised of F/A-18 Hornet, S-3 Viking,E-2 Hawkeye, Tracker ASW and Sea King ASW helicopters.

But if the Invincible went ahead the FAA was hobbled anyway compared to what it was with Melbourne, no fixed wing for how long? no long rang Tracker for ASW, whilst Harrier is indeed versatile how long would we have had to wait?

To me the death kneel for RAN CV was the UK abandonment of CVA-01project, if it went ahead we would have had a new carrier in the mid 70's easily capable of have to be replaced about now and the discussion would be on either the French or English version of CVF and would we need 2. The other option was a new build BSAC 220 in the late 1980's or conventional CDG in the 90's could Melbourne have soldiered on for another decade?

It was also a pity that planning did not go further for Sydney to convert to a commando carrier using HC4 Sea Kings as its primary lift helicopter

Nope, they lost, and still would have lost the ability to take Skyhawks and Trackers to sea but both types continued to contribute from shore bases, not ideal but not the complete waste that was the helicopter force. The Seakings were the real waste as not only couldn't it go to sea in usable numbers anymore, its range made using them from shore bases pretty pointless while the loss of their sonar and datalinks also severely curtailed the effectiveness of Ikara, leading to its withdrawal.

If I remember correctly the Trackers were used in what became Coastwatch while the Skyhawks were used for fleet support (even after their sale to NZ) and were always intended to be replaced with either Sea Harriers or AV-8B+ down the track had a new carrier been acquired. The real damage was having all that investment tied up in the Sea Kings and Wessex and no real use for more than about half a dozen of them in a utility role when for less than the price of the Seahawks and FFG mods we could have acquired a helicopter carrier (or two) to take half a dozen Sea Kings and two or three Wessex to sea in support of our escort force, thereby maintaining a more extensive ASW capability than we had to make do with instead. The Wessex would have remained in the utility role on the support ships for no reduction in capability.

A CTOL carrier would have been great but by the late 70s wasn't going to happen as most of the options were no longer available (ex RN Centaur, pre conversion Hermes, Victorious and Eagle, or an ex USN modernised Essex). The best that was going to happen would be shore based Trackers, perhaps transferring to the RAAF in the long term to supplement then be replaced by Orions (maybe if the FAA operated them successfully from shore the government could have transferred the Orions to the RAN ). The Skyhawks would have provided fleet support and perhaps dissimilar training and the RAN would have obtained a light carrier initially with up to 15 to 20 Sea Kings, Wessex and Harriers. Eventually a second and possibly third carrier would be acquired, Sea King replaced with Merlin, Harriers upgraded with AMRAAM and some of the superceded Sea Kings converted to AEW versions. All highly affordable and if done would have meant we wouldn't have needed to spend so much on AWDs and LHDs as the carriers would have offered more capability and greater flexibility at lower cost.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If I remember correctly the Trackers were used in what became Coastwatch

I remember seeing half a dozen queued up for refugeee watch duties in the late 70's

and a catalina flying boat with a full perimeter degaussing ring on its lid squatting periodically on the tarmac

 

[Volkodav]

Not quite so, most legacy platforms from the 50's and 60's were converted to some form of rotary wing capacity, MATCH/DASH or similar smaller aircraft (Wasp), not medium helos with the exception of the RN County Class. Newer escorts built for the RAN did not because our entire CONOPS revolved around operating with a CVS where this was not needed and the quicker reaction weapon of choice, IKARA, was fitted in lieu. So, when Melbourne was not replaced, the entire CONOPS disappeared and the RAN has been struggling to find a cohesive role ever since. The LHDs change that.



Absolutely, the RAN was emasculated and directionless for 25 years. At least ET provided that way ahead.

I was specifically thinking of RAN requirements, sorry I should have stated this. The RAN wanted a steam only County with tartar and a second Wessex, versions of the Charles F Adams with hanger and flight deck were considered and when the RN looked at the RAN requirements they suggested their escort cruiser (initial versions similar in layout to Vitorio Veneto, later ones more like Giuseppe Garibaldi) would actually be a good fit.

 

[gf0012-aust]

when the RN looked at the RAN requirements they suggested their escort cruiser (initial versions similar in layout to Vitorio Veneto, later ones more like Giuseppe Garibaldi) would actually be a good fit.

was that the Blake? I wandered around on her "deck" in the early 80's. IIRC only really had room for 1 x wessex. (it was all I saw in my travels)

might have had more, but I can only recall one pad and only saw one when I did the tour

 

[gf0012-aust]

how times change....

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Navy_News-February-28-1975.pdf

 

[swerve]

Hang on a sec ......

What Swerve actually said was at the time of the order of the 4 Bay class, was that the RN 'had' a lot of aviation capability, not 'has' a lot of aviation capability as at today.
...
In a nutshell, what I think Swerve was saying, at the time the 4 Bay class were ordered the RN had plenty of aviation capable ships (I'm sure Swerve can qualify what I'm saying), so obviously having a higher level of aviation capability on those ships when they were ordered wasn't a high priority, but if you look at the RN today that is definitely not the case.

Absolutely right. That's exactly what I meant.

So the question might rightly be asked, if today the RN was ordering the Bay class, would they have greater aviation facilities (similar to their Dutch or Spanish cousins), or not?

Good question. We no longer have as many aviation platforms, & although the carriers will have big decks & hangars, there'll only be two of 'em & sometimes only one.

I think that given the main roles of the Bay class in the RFA (different from their Dutch & Spanish sister ships, which are built for amphibious assault: the Bays are meant for amphibious transport, backing up assault ships) they don't directly need better aviation facilities, but the LPDs - Albion & Bulwark - do. Unfortunately, converting the LPDs would need a major rebuild & is probably impractical. We should probably replace them eventually with a pair of LHDs, but that won't be for a long time, so even with the excellent helicopter facilities of the solid stores ships & the more limited but still useful facilities on the new tankers I think we have a problem. Temporary hangars on the Bay class could alleviate that.

 

[ASSAIL]

how times change....

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Navy_News-February-28-1975.pdf

That old Navy News brought lumps to the throat. I as CO Of Assail ( guess where my nom de plume came from ) when Adroit commissioned to come to join our solitary PB left after TC Tracy and I was earning the princely sum do $$10k/ yr including all allowances.
More important though, the article on Fr Louis Breslan's retirement. He was a great guy, a real character Northern Irishman who took me through the pre marriage rituals needed when a non Catholic marries in the Roman Church. Our discussions had little to do with religion but much to do with Rugby and the benefits of Irish whiskey. He officiated at my wedding in 1969 and he must have done a reasonable job because the boss still puts up with me.
Thanks for the memories.

Oh, and the A4s were pretty good as well!

 

[swerve]

was that the Blake? I wandered around on her "deck" in the early 80's. IIRC only really had room for 1 x wessex. (it was all I saw in my travels)

might have had more, but I can only recall one pad and only saw one when I did the tour

Are you sure? Perhaps you're mis-remembering. I don't think you can have seen either Blake or Tiger with Wessex aboard in the early 1980s. Neither was in commission after 1979, & they operated Sea King from 1972. Tiger visited Melbourne in 1977, & there are photos of her with a couple of Sea King on the deck.

After their rebuilds they had big hangars & flight decks. Official capacity was four Wessex, later four Sea King. The hangars look big enough in photos. The decks had two spots marked in the photos I've seen (obviously that could have changed), although that looked tight & I can imagine only one being normally used, with the rest of the deck being used for moving helicopters around. Still, the only bigger flight decks in the RN in 1982 were on Hermes & Invincible.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are you sure? Perhaps you're mis-remembering. I don't think you can have seen either Blake or Tiger with Wessex aboard in the early 1980s. Neither was in commission after 1979, & they operated Sea King from 1972. Tiger visited Melbourne in 1977, & there are photos of her with a couple of Sea King on the deck.

After their rebuilds they had big hangars & flight decks. Official capacity was four Wessex, later four Sea King. The hangars look big enough in photos. The decks had two spots marked in the photos I've seen (obviously that could have changed), although that looked tight & I can imagine only one being normally used, with the rest of the deck being used for moving helicopters around. Still, the only bigger flight decks in the RN in 1982 were on Hermes & Invincible.

might have been 70's. blake was at port adelaide/outer harbour for 3 days along with a french corvette - and definitely was a wessex as i remember a bloke shoving his camera down the open nose and getting marched off by police for his trouble. only one helo was on board. its possible that some were disembarked for servicing at Nowra as they did do some maint work on RN air when ships visited.

 

[rockitten]

Not quite so, most legacy platforms from the 50's and 60's were converted to some form of rotary wing capacity, MATCH/DASH or similar smaller aircraft (Wasp), not medium helos with the exception of the RN County Class. Newer escorts built for the RAN did not because our entire CONOPS revolved around operating with a CVS where this was not needed and the quicker reaction weapon of choice, IKARA, was fitted in lieu. So, when Melbourne was not replaced, the entire CONOPS disappeared and the RAN has been struggling to find a cohesive role ever since. The LHDs change that.

Absolutely, the RAN was emasculated and directionless for 25 years. At least ET provided that way ahead.

Actually, it always puzzle me how come, from Gannet to Seaking, our FAA never purchase any AEW for old Melbourne.

Even now, a fleet of AEW helicopter on board the Canberra can provide our task force with a much needed over-the horizon targeting and AEW capability.

But nope, just nope.

 

[Volkodav]

was that the Blake? I wandered around on her "deck" in the early 80's. IIRC only really had room for 1 x wessex. (it was all I saw in my travels)

might have had more, but I can only recall one pad and only saw one when I did the tour

The Tiger helicopter conversations were an interim measure when the escort cruiser was delayed. The original type was never actually built and grew into the larger Invincible class, the real reason they were called"Through Deck Cruisers" is that is what they literally were designed as, British equivalents to the Vittorio Veneto.

I will dig around and try and find some online references but most of what I have on them is from Friedman and Browns books on the post war RN. They started off as single ended cruisers with Sea Slug forward and a large flight deck over a hanger aft, before evolving to through deck configuration with Sea Slug aft. Other versions variously had Tartar, Seadart, Ikara, Mk6 4.5" gun mount etc. They were designed to be surface group leaders primarily for ASW warfare in the North Atlantic and were separate to the carrier program but one of the reasons the number of carriers planned was cut from five to three.

 

[ASSAIL]

Actually, it always puzzle me how come, from Gannet to Seaking, our FAA never purchase any AEW for old Melbourne.

Even now, a fleet of AEW helicopter on board the Canberra can provide our task force with a much needed over-the horizon targeting and AEW capability.

But nope, just nope.

Melbourne was a CVS loaded to the hilt with SK, A4 and S2 a/c plus a couple of Wessex for Pedro duty. AEW would have been "nice to have" but not essential for Hunter Killer ASW.
The Soviet ASM threat was not as sophisticated then as it is today and the escort EW systems on the DDGs was considered adequate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Melbourne was a CVS loaded to the hilt with SK, A4 and S2 a/c plus a couple of Wessex for Pedro duty. AEW would have been "nice to have" but not essential for Hunter Killer ASW.
The Soviet ASM threat was not as sophisticated then as it is today and the escort EW systems on the DDGs was considered adequate.

yep, fundamentally they were aligned to the US and UK hunter killer structure.

AEW was being handled in the PACRIM by aircraft such as the RC121. WS121 EW121 types of land based LR platforms rotating out of guam etc.. - usually under the guise of harsh weather monitoring

the USN didn't have constant coverage, but it was more than enough to deal with the soviets against the threat of the day (as you say)

 

[rockitten]

Finally, they said that. What's their next target? ANZACS replacement?

Nocookies | The Australian

"The caution comes as bid *leader Mitsubishi Heavy Industries also said it would be willing to bid for future warship contracts in Australia and to launch satellites for the Australian government or telecommunications companies to augment its campaign for the $20 billion submarines contract.

...

MHI said some of the technology used in constructing high-pressure hulls would be useful to Australia for both undersea gas *extraction and conventional shipbuilding and it has pledged to transfer this expertise."

 

[Stampede]

breath!

Cheers

Hello John
I should have said a SLOW transition from Invincibles to the QE11 class.Yes aware of Britains fleet composition and your correct the Invincible era has well and trully passed.As I get older it's easy to lose a decade when looking back at stuff.!!!!
I wonder what the Royal navys amphibious fleet will look like in the late 2020's.The introduction of a LHD may be a good fit.
Any way that's for another thread.

Regards S