Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would be inclined to wait until the new engine core and block 4 are already before getting additional “A”or “B”s. I like the flexibility of the F-35B but will leave it to others as to its suitability for Australian defence needs.
The then Prime minister Abbott ordered such an investigation into the conversion of the L.H.D for the carrying of the F-35B believing it would be successful this investigation found it was to costly and complex so was quietly dropped
No F-35Bs for RAN LHDs – report – Australian Aviation
No F-35Bs for RAN LHDs – report – Australian Aviation
Yes when that outcome came out I kind of rolled my eyes.
Some of the cost figures mentioned for modification seemed ridiculously high to myself.
But what the heck we are a rich nation and even those did not seem a deal breaker.
My guess enough cultural blocks at the defence top level for the F35b / LHD combo not to get up.
Cheers S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I doubt that it would really be "cultural blocks" as you put it.
One has to keep in mind that being able to actually (as opposed to just theoretically) embark F-35B's from the LHD's would require quite a bit more than 'just' the modifications involved. As already discussed elsewhere on DT like the RAN 1.0 thread, various RAN LHD and/or carrier threads, etc. there would be quite a bit of work and resources required in order to raise a STOVL, fixed-wing fastjet capability which could deploy with/on an LHD and then conduct sorties. Also, if such a capability were to be raised, there would be ongoing requirements in order to sustain said capability.
Something which people keep seeming to forget is that the primary intended role for the LHD's are amphibs, and if they are acting/training as carriers, they are really not available to do so. The Spanish Armada had intended to use their JCI LHD as a sort of backup to enable pilots to maintain their skills when Spain's planned for dedicated carrier was unavailable due to maintenance, upgrade or repair work. With the RAN having just the two LHD's which themselves will need to periodically go through docking periods for maintenance, etc. the RAN could plan to have one around for training and use as an amphib, or the RAN could plan to use the amphib to train and use as an aviation vessel. If the ADF wanted both roles to be carried out, it would likely require at least two more LHD's, or a pair (or more) of actual, purpose-built aviation vessels.
Also it would likely take several years for the ADF to build up the appropriate working knowledge to effectively operate and employ fighters from ships again.
At some point, the time, resources and associated price tags for everything required can give even wealth nations pause.
I think large ships such as the Canberra class are inherently useful for any number of tasks. They would probably still have a big role in support of Littoral operations, HADR, ASW, MCM, logistics support and so on. I can’t see us operating F.35B but there are images of of ghost bats equipped with landing hooks doing the rounds.
The dock would be handy for operating a range of manned and unmanned vessels as well.
Probably no reason you could park a few HIMARS on the deck.
All up I can see the Canberra class playing a huge role even if it’s primary role is reduced.
TBH, even if we did decide on F-35Bs, they're not gonna be here in time to provide a meaningful long range strike capability much before the SSNs start showing up. Singapore ordered an initial batch of four in 2019 but won't have the airframes until 2026, with a further eight ordered this year for delivery by 2030.
We move today and we're probably talking similar timelines... So, first delivery about 2031-32, maybe IOC 2034 and FOC 2035-36? Against the first of our Virginia class showing up about 2032-33.
Not to say F-35Bs wouldn't be useful (air defence, CAS, etc.), but a pseudo-carrier as a interim long range strike capability looks to arrive too late to be meaningful.
Edit: Okay may have misunderstood the F-35B discussion a bit... looks like it's not about pseudo-carriers as a strike platform... But the timeframe problem still remains.
We move today and we're probably talking similar timelines... So, first delivery about 2031-32, maybe IOC 2034 and FOC 2035-36? Against the first of our Virginia class showing up about 2032-33.
Not to say F-35Bs wouldn't be useful (air defence, CAS, etc.), but a pseudo-carrier as a interim long range strike capability looks to arrive too late to be meaningful.
Edit: Okay may have misunderstood the F-35B discussion a bit... looks like it's not about pseudo-carriers as a strike platform... But the timeframe problem still remains.
It would be interesting to find if the R.A.N has plans for larger drones for its Canberra class and could they be accommodated without significant cost and alteration to its main role
Turkey’s future unmanned fighter jet conducts first flight (defensenews.com)
Turkey’s future unmanned fighter jet conducts first flight (defensenews.com)
Agree it would be a significant enterprise.
Many would see it as a nice to have but not a priority for the ADF.
Of interest is the Navy review into our future fleet with suggestion it will reflect the addition of a nuclear powered submarine capability.
What does that look like re our big slow supply and amphibious ships getting the benefit of a high end capable submarine escort, what does that mean for the future range of contingency the ADF can undertake.
The LHD,s in the future will be able to venture further afield and have emphasis on other roles in addition to our current amphibious centric operations.
Future landing craft both medium and heavy will also be introduced in the near future adding to our capacity and offer flexibility that we don't currently have today to a bit of everything.
The LHDs capabilities should be allowed to grow comensurate with the ships design and potential.
Cheers S
buffy9
Well-Known Member
Per the DSR, RAN faces the biggest hurdles when it comes to workforce. Growth in capability is good, though we must keep in mind there are only two of these ships while Navy also transitions the Submarine Fleet to SSNs. I'd suggest that with amphibious lift currently being a premium (at least until the LMVs are in force by end of decade), we shouldn't be sacrificing this - there is still a need to transport the A2AD systems into theatre, per a strategy of denial.
If there is room for capability growth however, with Blackhawks and Seahawks being concentrated together sustainment wise, there may be merit in the LHDs being utilised as Seahawk ASW platforms until Hunter comes along (whether its six or nine). Sea denial operations and limited sea control could both benefit, more than a risky drone concept. It may also be able to leverage undersea warfare (UUVs and USVs) developments with ADV Guidance.
Last edited:
Don't disagree
We currently have 11 frigates with a single hangar and will soon have 36 Romeo's fitted for ASW.
Sure 8 to 12 may be used for logistics but at their core they were designed to hunt and fight.
Apache helicopters are not far away.
They will be deployed and add to our fire power.
The LHDs are an opportunity not just a transport.
Our future fleet what ever it looks like is quite some years away
Cheers S
Last edited by a moderator:
CEA is going to be majority government owned in a bit over a year.
www.theguardian.com
Australian government to buy Canberra-based radar company for nearly $500m
Commonwealth will take control of CEA Technologies saying the company’s phased array radar capabilities are a critical sovereign capability
www.theguardian.com
Interesting. No doubt the founders have done very well (deservedly) out of that.CEA is going to be majority government owned in a bit over a year.
Australian government to buy Canberra-based radar company for nearly $500m
Commonwealth will take control of CEA Technologies saying the company’s phased array radar capabilities are a critical sovereign capability
A good move on balance. The Government is now in a position to build world class ships at Osborne, fit them with world class radars and soon fill their VLS with world class weapons.
It does make you wonder whether the solution to the Henderson conundrum is for the two businesses to be acquired and rolled into ASC.
Last edited:
Not to be argumentive but you seem to imply that the people who compiled this report were either incompetant or misleading on purpose.
Interested to know what you seem to know.
This is huge..CEA is going to be majority government owned in a bit over a year.
Australian government to buy Canberra-based radar company for nearly $500m
Commonwealth will take control of CEA Technologies saying the company’s phased array radar capabilities are a critical sovereign capability
I have a feeling this won't be the only acquisition either..
Its a fair question
I guess it's fair to say it's speculative arrogance on my behalf to assume the authors were, as you say either incompetent or misleading.
What I know is Australia has had three aircraft carriers in the past .Four if you include the sea plane tender / carrier HMAS Albatross.
I know the appetite for deploying fixed wing aviation to sea has nor abated, but quite the opposite has continued with existing "carrier navy's" and also been adopted by others with aspiration in this area. Some have had limited success like Turkey and Brazil but the aspiration is still there.
I know that our region has bore witness to some of the largest carrier and amphibious operations in history all of which were greatly assisted by organic aviation at sea.
I know that their have been many occasions when seemingly small numbers of aircraft flying off both land and sea bases have had much greater affects on their domain than their seemingly small foot print.
I know that the old harrier and the F35B have limitations compared to their conventional counter parts, but its what they bring to the fight that's important, not their limitations. That's why the F35B exists and why nations like Japan want to acquire it
So when we have history, geography and a trend toward a certain capability and we in Island OZ are going the opposite direction, my question is why?
Dollars, opportunity cost ,yep get it.
Here is a thought.
We started the quest for a LHD close to 20 years ago. That's right two decades ago
Conversation of need after East Timor and tender in 2004.
Lets say back then we wanted the future LHD's to carry what Airforce had already selected back in the day, the future F35.
Navy get their asked for three LHD's ( Comment at the time they are out of control ) and Air force get their future Aircraft in two versions A and B.
Fast forward to day we have three LHD's and are introducing the B version to the fleet having had many years of cross training with the US navy and marines to get up to speed.
An expensive exercise maybe, but one accomplished over many years and budgets. Again many years and budgets!
So what would the rest of the ADF look like today to fund this.
In reality over this period of time I'd doubt it would look very different at all.
The end result would however be a very game changing capability very much suited for our region.
One that is a serious deterrent on many levels.
Why such capability will always have limitations, it is what the capability gives to government that is important.
So were they incompetent or misleading you ask.
No!
But in my opinion it was the wrong call both then and now.
Cheers S
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I hope we don’t go down the carrier route unless it can be done off an LPD very economically. Even then we would need to think hard about what we gain vs what we lose with the LHDs in supporting forward deployments.
My main concern is simply cost. The RN has a bigger budget than the RAN and still can barely afford to build and keep running seven SSNs, four SSBNs and two CVs. The cost of the two carriers has been so high they cannot afford enough aircraft to fully use them. Meanwhile their surface fleet has shrunk. Carriers have huge crews and high operating costs. Like subs, you need to get them regularly to sea to maintain skills.
Australia has already taken on a big challenge with eight SSNs. Many international observers doubt our ability to build SSNs. If we could deliver and operate them reliably, while expanding the surface fleet as proposed, I’d be delighted. The RAN would be a far more capable navy. I’d hate to see us try to deliver two challenging capabilities and fall short in both. I’d prefer we did one properly. For naval air patrol, we should learn to love long range UAVs.
My main concern is simply cost. The RN has a bigger budget than the RAN and still can barely afford to build and keep running seven SSNs, four SSBNs and two CVs. The cost of the two carriers has been so high they cannot afford enough aircraft to fully use them. Meanwhile their surface fleet has shrunk. Carriers have huge crews and high operating costs. Like subs, you need to get them regularly to sea to maintain skills.
Australia has already taken on a big challenge with eight SSNs. Many international observers doubt our ability to build SSNs. If we could deliver and operate them reliably, while expanding the surface fleet as proposed, I’d be delighted. The RAN would be a far more capable navy. I’d hate to see us try to deliver two challenging capabilities and fall short in both. I’d prefer we did one properly. For naval air patrol, we should learn to love long range UAVs.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
I think in this discussion it is actually the ASW capability that should almost be considered above, or at least on par with, the possibility of fighters.
I mean, we obviously see submarines as the quintessential strategic capability for us, and our potential adversaries have even more of them, so having greater capabilities to defend our surface forces from submarines would seem to be essential.
Yes, you could deploy some Romeos onboard the Canberras, and substantially increase your ASW screen, but if you had an extra flattop, then you focus even more on that without coming at the expense of your amphibious operations.
This document I've cited previously in such discussions talks about how many Romeos the USN thinks it needs for a carrier battle group. Obviously the RAN is not the same, but it is instructive. What I'm gathering from it is that you need at least 9 stories every 24 hours to keep one aircraft airborne and then more sorties - they allow for another 10 - to respond to contacts. Aircraft fly an average two sorties a day. I imagine that's a sustainable rate of effort.
A dedicated squadron of six or eight Romeos on a dedicated ship - plus the extra aircraft carried on each of the escorts - would be a big improvement you would think. Like the Canberras, such a ship would also be rather flexible.
Still, I agree like everyone else that everything costs money and it may fall well down the list of priorities.
I mean, we obviously see submarines as the quintessential strategic capability for us, and our potential adversaries have even more of them, so having greater capabilities to defend our surface forces from submarines would seem to be essential.
Yes, you could deploy some Romeos onboard the Canberras, and substantially increase your ASW screen, but if you had an extra flattop, then you focus even more on that without coming at the expense of your amphibious operations.
This document I've cited previously in such discussions talks about how many Romeos the USN thinks it needs for a carrier battle group. Obviously the RAN is not the same, but it is instructive. What I'm gathering from it is that you need at least 9 stories every 24 hours to keep one aircraft airborne and then more sorties - they allow for another 10 - to respond to contacts. Aircraft fly an average two sorties a day. I imagine that's a sustainable rate of effort.
A dedicated squadron of six or eight Romeos on a dedicated ship - plus the extra aircraft carried on each of the escorts - would be a big improvement you would think. Like the Canberras, such a ship would also be rather flexible.
Still, I agree like everyone else that everything costs money and it may fall well down the list of priorities.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I think an interesting idea for the RN would be an analysis of the pros and cons of four SSBNs versus 3 CVS with sufficient F-35B inventory and perhaps even CATOBAR.. Unfortunate it is too late now.
I personally think it would be a no brainer for Australia.
8 subs, armed with cruise missiles, that are difficult to find, don't need much support underway, or 3 CVS which are big, need heaps of support, like tankers, easy to find, and easy to follow.
Give us 8 nuke subs please.