Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Wombat000]

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.

Depends I guess on the mission to be achieved.
if it’s a hit an run, then sure a nasty sub launched missile strike fits the role.

if it’s the much talked about amphib capability mission, then that implies surface assets and their entourage.
be that ASW integrity, counter air or air sea landing capability.

a CVS provides it, gives your task group air mobility, ASW, and if it had onboard long range air to air it could provide ASM defence thereby reducing escort vessel VLS rounds fired and task group resilience in the AO, as well as AEW and perhaps mitigating the air attack on the task group from happening in the first place.

 

[Reptilia]

US Navy prepares to sell littoral combat ships

The US Navy is preparing to offload two of its Independence-class Littoral Combat Ships into the foreign military sale market during the financial year 2024. The USS Jackson (LCS-6) and USS Montgomery

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Possibility for RAN? Transport/MCM perhaps?

 

[Takao]

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.

To do what though?

Penetrate the South China Sea? Sure, SSN all the way. To escort a convoy from Hawaii to Gladstone? Well.... To provide support to the land component of a JTF? Well....

This comes to the crux of claims that SSNs are the bestest deterrence ever. Against what?

 

[Takao]

US Navy prepares to sell littoral combat ships

The US Navy is preparing to offload two of its Independence-class Littoral Combat Ships into the foreign military sale market during the financial year 2024. The USS Jackson (LCS-6) and USS Montgomery

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Possibility for RAN? Transport/MCM perhaps?

If we took the $xx m that it would cost, withdrew it in cash and made a pile at the end of Anzac Ave - and then lit it on fire....that would be a better use of tax payers money than buying an LCS. In fact, add in the carbon credits from burning plastic and we'd still be ahead.

 

[Redlands18]

If we took the $xx m that it would cost, withdrew it in cash and made a pile at the end of Anzac Ave - and then lit it on fire....that would be a better use of tax payers money than buying an LCS. In fact, add in the carbon credits from burning plastic and we'd still be ahead.

There are some very good reasons why the Americans stopped building them and started building proper Frigates instead.

 

[old faithful]

To do what though?

Penetrate the South China Sea? Sure, SSN all the way. To escort a convoy from Hawaii to Gladstone? Well.... To provide support to the land component of a JTF? Well....

This comes to the crux of claims that SSNs are the bestest deterrence ever. Against what?

How about keep the trade routes open between Singapore and Mainland Australia, or how about anything between the Persian Gulf and Aust?
Or we could have an aircraft carrier with 6 or 8 F35Bs on it to do what.....provide a 2 A/C CAP? Provide a couple of precision strikes, that a couple of tomahawks could have done. Really, the need for an aircraft carrier for the RAN is not the "bestest" use of money. The SSNs are a true strategic asset.
No one wants to be in a convoy knowing there are subs out there, and nukes can be out there for a long time with no need to give their position away.
Want to think about a few things, how about fuel storage in Australia, or refining our own fuel again. We (Australia) are a quarry and a farm, time we start processing and manufacturing stuff from the quarry.

 

[Going Boeing]

The DSR indicated that the RAN needs a large number of smaller warships - is this a contender?

 

[Flexson]

I'd serve on it over a LCS....

 

[swerve]

The DSR indicated that the RAN needs a large number of smaller warships - is this a contender?

View attachment 50454

Is that gun what propels the boat?

 

[Scott Elaurant]

US Navy prepares to sell littoral combat ships

The US Navy is preparing to offload two of its Independence-class Littoral Combat Ships into the foreign military sale market during the financial year 2024. The USS Jackson (LCS-6) and USS Montgomery

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Possibility for RAN? Transport/MCM perhaps?

We could turn them into artificial reefs with a well placed Sinkex exercise? Good for tourism.

 

[devo99]

The DSR indicated that the RAN needs a large number of smaller warships - is this a contender?

View attachment 50454

Depends... does that mattock on the funnel come with the ship or is it sold separately?

 

[ADMk2]

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.

Yep I too like the idea of a pseudo ASW carrier. I think for a Pacific War such would be in much more demand than our limited amphibious lodgement capabilities or even some more fleet air defence via a handful of fixed wing fighters, but then again in every scenario apart from a Pacific war with China, the LHD’s have more utility in being employed as they are now. I suspect over time as is, we will see a growth in offensive air power being launched from the LHD’s in the form of more offensive orientated rotary wing and UAS systems.

As with the F-35B idea that gets tossed up every couple of weeks / months, I think the only real way we ‘should’ do it (assuming we were) is via a dedicated flattop. Of course present budgets, workforce etc mitigate the idea completely, but were we to contemplate it, I don’t think over-loading the LHD’s even further is a credible option in the slightest. A dedicated hull st the least would be required, which leads to more support, more escorts, etc etc…

 

[devo99]

Yep I too like the idea of a pseudo ASW carrier. I think for a Pacific War such would be in much more demand than our limited amphibious lodgement capabilities or even some more fleet air defence via a handful of fixed wing fighters, but then again in every scenario apart from a Pacific war with China, the LHD’s have more utility in being employed as they are now. I suspect over time as is, we will see a growth in offensive air power being launched from the LHD’s in the form of more offensive orientated rotary wing and UAS systems.

As with the F-35B idea that gets tossed up every couple of weeks / months, I think the only real way we ‘should’ do it (assuming we were) is via a dedicated flattop. Of course present budgets, workforce etc mitigate the idea completely, but were we to contemplate it, I don’t think over-loading the LHD’s even further is a credible option in the slightest. A dedicated hull st the least would be required, which leads to more support, more escorts, etc etc…

As shown in one of BAEs animated videos for their new Strix drone it is apparently capable of ASW by carrying either a dipping sonar or sonobuoys. If the RAN were to adopt an armed UAS then Strix is a very good contender. Of course having fixed-wing horizontal flight and VTOL capability in the same platform is a very nice thing as well.

 

[swerve]

Yep I too like the idea of a pseudo ASW carrier. ...

JMSDF ships Hyūga & Ise.

 

[Bob53]

Yep I too like the idea of a pseudo ASW carrier. I think for a Pacific War such would be in much more demand than our limited amphibious lodgement capabilities or even some more fleet air defence via a handful of fixed wing fighters, but then again in every scenario apart from a Pacific war with China, the LHD’s have more utility in being employed as they are now. I suspect over time as is, we will see a growth in offensive air power being launched from the LHD’s in the form of more offensive orientated rotary wing and UAS systems.

As with the F-35B idea that gets tossed up every couple of weeks / months, I think the only real way we ‘should’ do it (assuming we were) is via a dedicated flattop. Of course present budgets, workforce etc mitigate the idea completely, but were we to contemplate it, I don’t think over-loading the LHD’s even further is a credible option in the slightest. A dedicated hull st the least would be required, which leads to more support, more escorts, etc etc…

Isn’t just all a moot point. It’s been decided that we won’t be doing this several times over I thought…has something been suggested in official circles that F35B is back on the table? On the other hand a UAV like Stryx seems to offer a significant low cost capability boost across all platforms a that have a helipad. Seems to have about 85% of capabilities of the Romeos but probably at much lower cost.

 

[Bob53]

If we took the $xx m that it would cost, withdrew it in cash and made a pile at the end of Anzac Ave - and then lit it on fire....that would be a better use of tax payers money than buying an LCS. In fact, add in the carbon credits from burning plastic and we'd still be ahead.

What if they are $1 million each? Or are they just dogs …i thought they were starting to shape up as reasonable ASW platforms. Later version might have some if the bugs ironed out.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Isn’t just all a moot point. It’s been decided that we won’t be doing this several times over I thought…has something been suggested in official circles that F35B is back on the table?

Nothing about F-35B's. But a lot of questions about where the LHD's fit into the new ADF if they aren't moving the now smaller and lighter army around, its a lot of sailors. The LHD have very limited fixed wing capability, apart from certifying pilots and perhaps to build up capability. It would have to remain under range of land bases. The ADF will never have an organic naval tanker capability from a flattop. Acquiring a dedicated carrier requires an additional ~600 sailors on top of acquisition costs. An ASW platform is way more reasonable, so what would that look like with helicopters and drones. Give the exercises with India, some of the development stuff in drones, Turkeys direction, an helo/drone carrier is a much more suitable role for the ships than fixed wing manned aircraft strike carrier.

Ships no matter how good their sensors, have a horizon, and being based on the surface, the horizon is very much limited. We are well and truely in the age of the long range missile, but how do we get tactical data surface and sub surface? From the main radar on a ship? from the bow sonar? No matter how good these become, they won't have endless range. Inevitably you have to dismount the sensors onto other smaller platforms, and its been happening ever since we have had spotter planes at the start of the 20th century. While Sats and OTHR have their place, they have very well known limitations and are very far away. While they may be able to provide an over all strategic picture, having millisecond tactical data that can provide real firing solutions is a whole other question.

The US has the capability to use a Tomahawk, because they can put in assets that can provide that data for a complete kill chain. Do we have 1500nm+ vision?

 

[devo99]

Nothing about F-35B's. But a lot of questions about where the LHD's fit into the new ADF if they aren't moving the now smaller and lighter army around, its a lot of sailors. The LHD have very limited fixed wing capability, apart from certifying pilots and perhaps to build up capability. It would have to remain under range of land bases. The ADF will never have an organic naval tanker capability from a flattop. Acquiring a dedicated carrier requires an additional ~600 sailors on top of acquisition costs. An ASW platform is way more reasonable, so what would that look like with helicopters and drones. Give the exercises with India, some of the development stuff in drones, Turkeys direction, an helo/drone carrier is a much more suitable role for the ships than fixed wing manned aircraft strike carrier.

Ships no matter how good their sensors, have a horizon, and being based on the surface, the horizon is very much limited. We are well and truely in the age of the long range missile, but how do we get tactical data surface and sub surface? From the main radar on a ship? from the bow sonar? No matter how good these become, they won't have endless range. Inevitably you have to dismount the sensors onto other smaller platforms, and its been happening ever since we have had spotter planes at the start of the 20th century. While Sats and OTHR have their place, they have very well known limitations and are very far away. While they may be able to provide an over all strategic picture, having millisecond tactical data that can provide real firing solutions is a whole other question.

The US has the capability to use a Tomahawk, because they can put in assets that can provide that data for a complete kill chain. Do we have 1500nm+ vision?

Perhaps something like the RN's Crowsnest helicopter borne AEW would be an option. It is definitely limited by the flight ceiling and range of helicopters compared to fixed wing AEW platforms like E-2 but it's at least significantly better than what we have now, which is diddly squat in terms of Navy AEW. Importantly it can take off and land on the LHDs like any other helicopter so no need for converting anything into a carrier.

 

[Volkodav]

If we took the $xx m that it would cost, withdrew it in cash and made a pile at the end of Anzac Ave - and then lit it on fire....that would be a better use of tax payers money than buying an LCS. In fact, add in the carbon credits from burning plastic and we'd still be ahead.

Yes buying ophan LCS, the parent navy didn't want, would be equivalent to buying the Upholder class submarines. Just because something is cheap to buy, doesn't mean it will be value for money.

 

[Volkodav]

What if they are $1 million each? Or are they just dogs …i thought they were starting to shape up as reasonable ASW platforms. Later version might have some if the bugs ironed out.

The early ones are ophans, built as prototypes, that are not worth (or not capable of) being brought up to standard.

Even the later ones are not that good.