Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bluey 006

Active Member
Re this talk of a 3rd LHD, if it's gonna come out of RAN's pot then what happens to the submarines and ANZAC replacements referred to in the White Paper? Wouldn't a 3rd LHD, paid for by the RAN, have the potential to distort all the other naval future force planning in place?
Agree! We have much more lift than we've had in the past. More than enough for what we'd actually deploy in most situations. Personally I'd like to see Choules to be replaced by two slightly smaller LPD (a number of designs around), which would give us an exceptional amphibious capability.

It seems the underlying driver for this mythical 3rd LHD is the F-35B and aviation capability for the fleet? Yes?

Lets not forget that the USN is landing high end drones on carriers now. So, it is not unreasonable to think that by 2030-2040 UAV carriers (aka UxV combatant as an open source example concept) will be making an appearance.

Numerous defence industry voices (to numerous to name) in the US are advocating designing an aircraft carrier that is devoted to the launch and recovery of unmanned aviation.


Why built 27,000 tonne LHD for manned fighters when you could build UAV carriers half the size that could achieve the same effects with drones, cyber warfare and missiles? And!!! most importantly put less pilots at risk. Or even more likely UAVs flown directly from home bases.

I am all for FAA for the RAN but I don't believe it has to be F-35B.
I expect as UAVs develop they'll become even cheaper. Widening the gap with manned fighters, they'll have a smaller footprint and less logistical burden. They'll be smaller and harder to detect, they'll have (already do) better fuel economy and be able to penetrate deep into enemy A2AD areas. Modules,parts and weapons, possibility even whole vehicles be able to be 3D printed aboard the ship

Laser CIWS and air defence systems as well as rail guns will likely be in play by then. How will this impact Naval warfare? Will aircraft lose their edge? How will we overwhelm or confuse those systems?

If we are going to build an additional major fleet flat top. I'd prefer to see a dedicated UAV carrier with a focus on ASW.

I am imagining a trimaran through-deck cruiser (12,000-20,000 tonnes) equipped with multiple UAVs (fixed and rotary wing) , a well deck of some kind for deploying surface and underwater vehicles plus VLS cells. It would take on Strike/Recon, ASW, CAS, CAP etc missions traditionally associated with a carrier but with half the footprint, logistics burden, and manning requirements, thus therefore much lower cost.

What do those pushing for a 3rd LHD think will have more impact?

6-8 F-35B? (max you'd likely be able to effectively operate off an LHD)

or

16- 48+ UCAV that are only slightly less capable paired with unmanned EA/EW, AAR, AWACS and mini subs.


In a 2008 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments report they strongly recommends carrier-based drone development, They state that “with aerial refueling, a [combat drone] would be able to stay airborne for 50 to 100 hours — five to ten times longer than a manned aircraft.”

That means with drones we can do more with less. I am certain that Australian defence planners aware of our finite defence budget are across this point.

In April, the USN moved closer toward unmamed carrier aviation by installing the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) command center aboard the Nimitz-class supercarrier USS Carl Vinson. Take this as a sign of things to come,


I could go on and on .......... Currently the "old boys club" attitudes are changing, as demonstrated above, within 5-10 years their "traditionalist" arguments for manned fighters will all be a dying a slow death.

F/A-XX and F-X may have manned versions but they'll almost certainly have an unmanned option too. Well at least from my "uninformed" point of view.
 
Last edited:

hairyman

Active Member
Another alternative worthy of consideration would be a Japanese "Destroyer?" They also have six helicopter spots, and an order would help appease the Japanese over their loss of the submarine contract.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
Another alternative worthy of consideration would be a Japanese "Destroyer?" They also have six helicopter spots, and an order would help appease the Japanese over their loss of the submarine contract.
Agreed much more relevant than an additional LHD. Volk was pushing this aviation ship angle about a year ago. An idea which i quite like, just adding into the mix the question- Do the air assets need to be manned?

Although, I don't believe we should base our procurement decisions on appeasing any foreign governments, corporations or individuals. Especially, ones we were at war with only 60 years ago.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I don't imagine the Japanese helicopter 'destroyers' would be any better as they also cause an issue in the force make up as Bonza mentioned in regards to surface ships.

Acquiring something such as the Izumo class would require an aviation fleet far exceeding anything we have or have planned as said vessel is based on purely aviation use, No landing craft what so ever reducing what you can do with it.

When it's all said and done so far the only indication that we have is that it will be 1 (maybe 2) ship similar to the Choule's. Another LHD or the Izumo are both quite different so not very likely at all.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Perhaps the date in 2008 says it all? Reporters are what they are, I cannot comment on McPhedran. Here is a 'no name no court-martial' article about potential of having F-35Bs on the LHDs from Aug 2007 so no need for a third LHD. However it must be clear from all the 'negative' press about this idea and no mention of it in the recent White Paper (despite request for it to be considered in said White Paper by the former PM Abbot) that there will be no such 'Bs on LHDs' for some time: Navy keeps very quiet while it waits for the last laugh - World - smh.com.au
Actually it's pretty clear to me that there will 'never' be -B's in ADF service, let alone -B's off LHD's no matter what articles 8 or 9 years old may say, nor who wrote them...

As to the 'Captains Calls' from Abbott, after he made them and given what subsequently happened to him, in a large part BECAUSE of those 'calls' I think such 'decision making' processes will be long remembered and no such 'outlier' decisions will be made by any political leader any time soon, particularly in relation to defence.

If it doesn't come from defence, well supported as a thoroughly examined and recommended capability acquisition, wih all the i's dotted and t's crossed, particularly within the geopolitical landscape, I can see any such idea being about as successful as our OCV partnership with Malaysia in the 1990's...
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Actually it's pretty clear to me that there will 'never' be -B's in ADF service, let alone -B's off LHD's no matter what articles 8 or 9 years old may say, nor who wrote them...

As to the 'Captains Calls' from Abbott, after he made them and given what subsequently happened to him, in a large part BECAUSE of those 'calls' I think such 'decision making' processes will be long remembered and no such 'outlier' decisions will be made by any political leader any time soon, particularly in relation to defence.

If it doesn't come from defence, well supported as a thoroughly examined and recommended capability acquisition, wih all the i's dotted and t's crossed, particularly within the geopolitical landscape, I can see any such idea being about as successful as our OCV partnership with Malaysia in the 1990's...
What is clear to me is that as requested by former PM and according to this 2014 article below - what are answers officially other than forum dismissals. And by the by I can accept that there will be no F-35Bs in the foreseeable future as some seem to insist. How the RAAF will provide fleet defence is interesting to me - does anyone have those answers? Yes it seems our LHDs will not go much into harms way - but you never know eh.

Plan Jericho - Introducing 5th Generation Capability July 2014 ADM Magazine Nigel Pittaway
“...A STOVL F-35B for Air Force?
CAF also revealed that Air Force is currently studying the potential operations of a short take off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B from the decks of Navy's new Landing Helicopter Dock ships.

The Abbott government is reportedly interested in expanding the LHD role by the addition of combat jets and analysis is now being undertaken to deter-mine what will be required. Air Force has previously (and repeatedly) said that the F-35B was not under consideration and that modelling showed the LHDs could be adequately protected by shore-based F-35As.

"Any idea is worth a look at, because the situation changes, circumstances change. STOVLs have their place, they are a more expensive aeroplane, they have a lot less range and they don't have the weapons capability," he noted.

"It depends on how you see the LHD. If you want to convert it to take STOVL, there are a lot of considerations that you have to take into account and JSF/STOVL by itself isn't a capability. It needs weapons and it needs fuel.

"And I think that if you go and look at the changes you have to put in place to operate STOVL off an LHD you will see that it's got its challenges. That's what we'll work through over the next few months is to articulate what those challenges are, what additional cost, if that's the way we decide we want to go.”
Here is the former PM requesting the info - confirmed by CHIEFs 2014 and I see the Bs as useful 'fleet defence / network nodes' for same on LHDs.

Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink 03 Jun 2014 David Wroe
“Prime Minister Tony Abbott's order to examine turning the navy's amphibious assault ships into aircraft carriers for jump jets will require a major rethink by Defence, top military brass have indicated. Facing a Senate hearing on Monday, Defence chiefs said little work had so far been done on the possibility of buying a short take-off & vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter - an idea that has seized the interest of the Prime Minister. Under questioning by Labor defence spokesman Stephen Conroy, defence chiefs confirmed for the first time that Mr Abbott had asked them to look at the merit of buying the F-35B jump jets under the forthcoming Defence White Paper & accompanying Force Structure Review...."
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...orders-air-strike-rethink-20140603-39gl0.html

Reasons to be cheerful - part 3 (apologies to Ian Dury & the Blockheads)

White Paper to consider F-35Bs for LHDs – report 23 May 2014 australianaviation.com.au
"...the question of F-35Bs being acquired for the ADF was subsequently flagged by Defence Minister David Johnston in an interview with The Weekend West on May 17, where he said the acquisition of the F-35B was “an option which has been considered from day one.”
http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/05/white-paper-to-consider-f-35bs-for-lhds-report/
 
Last edited:

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What is clear to me is that as requested by former PM and according to this 2014 article below - what are answers officially other than forum dismissals. And by the by I can accept that there will be no F-35Bs in the foreseeable future as some seem to insist. How the RAAF will provide fleet defence is interesting to me - does anyone have those answers? Yes it seems our LHDs will not go much into harms way - but you never know eh.

Plan Jericho - Introducing 5th Generation Capability July 2014 ADM Magazine Nigel Pittaway

Here is the former PM requesting the info - confirmed by CHIEFs 2014 and I see the Bs as useful 'fleet defence / network nodes' for same on LHDs.

Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink 03 Jun 2014 David Wroe

Jump jets on navy's agenda as Tony Abbott orders air strike rethink

Reasons to be cheerful - part 3 (apologies to Ian Dury & the Blockheads)

White Paper to consider F-35Bs for LHDs – report 23 May 2014 australianaviation.com.au

White Paper to consider F-35Bs for LHDs – report | Australian Aviation
Seriously ? get over it ! you have been here long enough to know
 

Ships in Port

New Member
Lha

Navy needs air cover for fleet protection and during amphibious operations thousands of miles from Australia so I give a "what if".
The U.S. Navy didn't want the America Class LHA because they don't have a docking well, so what if they offered us the second vessel, Tripoli, for a price too good to refuse. We get a ready made new ship and we just add a ski-jump.
The America class can carry 20 AV-8 or F35-B, a few AEW helicopters and some SAR and anti-submarine helicopters, also several hundred troops.
Once the LHD has landed it's troops under the LHA's air cover her helicopters can cross-deck to transfer the LHA's troops and the STOL aircraft can temporarily return to the LHD.
The fleet should also have cruise-missiles to take out hardened shore targets.
Unfortunately the Hobart Class are too small so hopefully the new frigates will be big enough to have two vertical launch systems so they can carry a substantial load of cruise-missiles.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Seriously ? get over it ! you have been here long enough to know
IF you care to read I am asking for the ADF to provide reasons why there is no interest in 'fleet defence F-35Bs on LHDs' - they were asked by the former PM & former DefMin. No reasons have been provided so far. I'm also asking how 'the RAAF will provide fleet defence' as they have suggested 'via land-based F-35As'. What do I need to get over now?
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Perhaps the date in 2008 says it all? Reporters are what they are, I cannot comment on McPhedran. Here is a 'no name no court-martial' article about potential of having F-35Bs on the LHDs from Aug 2007 so no need for a third LHD. However it must be clear from all the 'negative' press about this idea and no mention of it in the recent White Paper (despite request for it to be considered in said White Paper by the former PM Abbot) that there will be no such 'Bs on LHDs' for some time: Navy keeps very quiet while it waits for the last laugh - World - smh.com.au
No name no court-martial? Mate, I was just letting you know what I'd observed about the bloke's form. I've got no agenda. But keep acting like a grump if that's your preference, it's all the same to me.
 
IF you care to read I am asking for the ADF to provide reasons why there is no interest in 'fleet defence F-35Bs on LHDs' - they were asked by the former PM & former DefMin. No reasons have been provided so far. I'm also asking how 'the RAAF will provide fleet defence' as they have suggested 'via land-based F-35As'. What do I need to get over now?
If the Department of Defence website wasn't down I'd be happy to provide something from the horses mouth.

PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence | afr.com
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
IF you care to read I am asking for the ADF to provide reasons why there is no interest in 'fleet defence F-35Bs on LHDs' - they were asked by the former PM & former DefMin. No reasons have been provided so far. I'm also asking how 'the RAAF will provide fleet defence' as they have suggested 'via land-based F-35As'. What do I need to get over now?

Easy, just breathe .......before things spiral out of control

I suspect a key reason is 6 or 12 (if you're lucky) F-35B on an LHD won't provide fleet defence, there isn't enough air frames and the won't be able to maintain CAP. Not to mention the myriad of other reasons...

SM-2 and SM-6 Missiles,F-18F/EA-18G, land-based F-35As supported by enablers and likely in the future UCAV, EW/cyber attack and laser systems will provide Air-defence. Further down the road other assorted exotic technologies may develop.

I get the " sexiness" of F-35B , over the years i have championed it. But its taken too long , times are changing and technology developing. Things in 2030+ might look a bit different than today.

Once the F-35 enters full rate production. I think we'll see some very speedy developments - some based on F-35 tech.

Don't misunderstand - F-35A will be a great aircraft and serve us well but i think it will enhanced by UCAV. Where fixed-wing V/STOL is required for me UCAV future developments make more sense.

Why put an expensive F-35B on a ship if other smaller cheaper assets can do the job as effectively or better?
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What is clear to me is that as requested by former PM and according to this 2014 article below - what are answers officially other than forum dismissals. And by the by I can accept that there will be no F-35Bs in the foreseeable future as some seem to insist. How the RAAF will provide fleet defence is interesting to me - does anyone have those answers? Yes it seems our LHDs will not go much into harms way - but you never know eh.
Thank you for reposting articles that have been discussed ad infinitum...

Once again because it clearly wasn't obvious enough the previous time, what happened to the only politician in the last 30+ years who showed the slightest interest in considering fixed wing aircraft for the RAN?

Hanging your hat on a bloke who no longer even has the authority to authorise an upgrade to Brookvale oval, for a return to the grand old days of the FAA, smacks of a bit of feverish desperation to me.

We have a nascent amphibious capability centred on an infantry battalion that last I heard barely establishes 2 full rifle companies, yet you're worried about a lack of air cover for this 'force'?

For the record, I too would actually like a fixed wing air combat capability that RAN can deploy (I don't care who flies or operates them, particularly). What I object to is the constant rehashing of the idea that we should interrupt our budding amphibious capability so that we can rush headlong into flying a handful of F-35B aircraft off the first flattops we've had in over 30 years, based on the 'evidence' that such a niche capability would make a tremendous capability boost to the ADF.

I think it would skew our capability and force structure every bit as as much as a captain's call to rush out and buy 1000 M1A2 tanks would (not to mention cost roughly the same...)

IF we were to do it, it should be 1. Based on genuine and identified capability need. 2. Fully funded and introduced as a process that does not impinge on other ADF force developments that are (inarguably) of higher priority. 3. As an expansion to current capability rather than an and/or situation.

At a minimum I would imagine a squadron plus acquisition of the appropriate aircraft, a dedicated vessel and the associated manpower and support elements for such a capability.

Such would provide what you say we need and would add to the force, not detract from it, but would be a massive undertaking and cost would be through the roof.

On top of which, it would cause enormous ruckus throughout the SEA region which we would have to be prepared politically to deal with.

Hence the observable lack of interest in the idea...
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Thank you for reposting articles that have been discussed ad infinitum...

Once again because it clearly wasn't obvious enough the previous time, what happened to the only politician in the last 30+ years who showed the slightest interest in considering fixed wing aircraft for the RAN?

Hanging your hat on a bloke who no longer even has the authority to authorise an upgrade to Brookvale oval, for a return to the grand old days of the FAA, smacks of a bit of feverish desperation to me....
These things were not mentioned by me - especially 'the grand old days of the FAA' - no feverish desperation from me but the complete opposite if you dare to read my posts. I accept there is no interest in 'F-35Bs on LHDs' however as the former PM indicated (along with the former DefMin) I'm interested in official ADF reasons why there is no interest. Forum explanations without reference to the ADF officials do not interest me.

As for the 'only politican in the last 30+ years who showed the slightest interest in considering fixed wing aircraft in the RAN' I'll give you some decade old federal parliamentary interest: http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary...mmittees?url=jfadt/maritime/report/report.pdf

Australia’s Maritime Strategy Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade; June 2004 Canberra
"...Recommendation 9
5.91 If in 2006 the Government confirms that it will purchase the Joint Strike
Fighter (F-35) then it should consider purchasing some short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35 variants for the provision of organic air cover as part of regional operations...."
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
IF you care to read I am asking for the ADF to provide reasons why there is no interest in 'fleet defence F-35Bs on LHDs' - they were asked by the former PM & former DefMin. No reasons have been provided so far. I'm also asking how 'the RAAF will provide fleet defence' as they have suggested 'via land-based F-35As'. What do I need to get over now?
Yes Spaz, get over it, you are making the assumption and assertion that B's off the LHD's is the only way to provide fleet defence, nonsense.

As I also said, you have been here long enough to very well know that this has been discussed so many times before that you should not be at all surprised by the responses your posts are garnishing.

Let alone the fact that you are providing no valid commentary to back up your call to arms to re-instate the FAA, what the roles will be, basic Conops maybe ? where the money will come from to do this ? what else will be sacrificed to do so ?

All the stuff you should know about, so why continue to make such calls ?

You stir the pot, you will get hot spatter back, that's life
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Forum explanations without reference to the ADF officials do not interest me.
the RAAF and ADF reports rejecting the need for F-22's are not in the public domain and yet we all know that we've got as much chance of getting F-22's as buying the John C Stennis....

The combat capability scenarios (I'll refer to the old name as the new name is classified) which act as the foundations for all calls to the PM at 0400 when the manure hits the mistral also aren't public domain, but refer to the prev as well

In fact the CCS would act as some of the primary vehicles to encourage any change of force planning heart
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
These things were not mentioned by me - especially 'the grand old days of the FAA' - no feverish desperation from me but the complete opposite if you dare to read my posts. I accept there is no interest in 'F-35Bs on LHDs' however as the former PM indicated (along with the former DefMin) I'm interested in official ADF reasons why there is no interest. Forum explanations without reference to the ADF officials do not interest me.
Then why are you posting on the forum if our replies do not interest you ?

Then write to the Government and ask them for your answer, or better still do your own research and find the answers ? we are not here to research and answer your questions
 
These things were not mentioned by me - especially 'the grand old days of the FAA' - no feverish desperation from me but the complete opposite if you dare to read my posts. I accept there is no interest in 'F-35Bs on LHDs' however as the former PM indicated (along with the former DefMin) I'm interested in official ADF reasons why there is no interest. Forum explanations without reference to the ADF officials do not interest me.
I'm not sure why I feel the need to do the leg work for you but if you spend a bit of your time searching in the right places it isn't hard to find the info you desire.

ParlInfo - Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee : 02/06/2014 : Estimates : DEFENCE PORTFOLIO : Department of Defence
 

SASWanabe

Member
Australian Navy Backs Off From F-35B Joint Strike Fighter |

“The jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars,” The Australian Financial Review reported.
good enough? if you want better Spaz, I suggest you email the ADF and ask them yourself.

Or just go back through this thread and get your answers from the 4 or 5 other times we have discussed this very same thing.

In the grand scheme of things it all boils down to how much it costs. and what you expect the navy to sacrifice in order to afford it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top