Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_14_1162-1.JPG

Nellis_14_2512-1.JPG

Nellis_14_0051-1.JPG

Nellis_14_1085-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Todjaeger Dipping slightly into politics... I just hope the vessel design selection doesn't also factor in where ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 36 votes, 4.14 average.
Old March 16th, 2007   #31
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,951
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Dipping slightly into politics... I just hope the vessel design selection doesn't also factor in where the vessels will be built, and how that area votes. Apparently (and other senior members/defence pros can confirm) the selection of the ADI Bushmaster was partially contingent on the fact that the local elected offical (MP? or maybe lower house, not sure) didn't have a good hold where the Bushmaster was built. To support that official, the product built there was selected. As opposed to the S600-series from Tenix, which was to be built in a district that was a solid Opposition seat. From what I understand about performance the S600 was equal to the Bushmaster, but was expected to have lower lifecycle costs, being based off the Unimog.

-Cheers
You can never write of politics as an influential factor in awarding a contract! Another factor though is proven performance. Here I think the reputation of Tenix has been enhanced during construction of the Anzac class. Thales Australia (formerly ADI) would need to convince Defence of their ability to deliver.

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2007   #32
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 402
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
You can never write of politics as an influential factor in awarding a contract! {snip}
Cheers
Cough, cough, cough, gasp....
Tassie, I have to ask.
Was there just a little irony in that particular statement? You really played that one with a straight bat, not an emoticon in sight.
I of course refer to the cancelled air 6000 evaluation program and the selection of the.....JSF!

rb
rossfrb_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 19th, 2007   #33
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,951
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossfrb_1 View Post
Cough, cough, cough, gasp....
Tassie, I have to ask.
Was there just a little irony in that particular statement? You really played that one with a straight bat, not an emoticon in sight.
I of course refer to the cancelled air 6000 evaluation program and the selection of the.....JSF!

rb
Er...umm... Probably! I think without actually saying it I was trying to suggest that I favour the track record of one of the competing companies over the other and I would hate to see the contract awarded to the one I have reservations about simply because it is based in a marginal seat. I also prefer the 'good guys' design!

In relation to the JSF I bet the pollies wish they had followed through a selection 'process'. Even if the end result had been identical it might have avoided some of the flak flying around at the moment.

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #34
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 126
Threads:
A few concerns I have about the Mistral LHDs if they are the pick, is that:

-Any type of STOVL fighter aircraft isn't in the requirement. Nor are STOVL F-35s.
-Even if a STOVL jet was required you would need not only the ski jump deck but a deck that could sustain the increased weight of something like a STOVL JSF ops. Currently the flat deck for Mistral isn't rated for that kind of weight. Which would require additional expense. Someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't the two LHDs capped at $2 billion total for both?
-Any LHD program assumes all goes well with the new air defence warship that is being looked at in order for the LHD to even be partly safe.
-I am seriously seriously concerned about how these LHDs loaded up with so much prime gear and personnel, would be protected. There isn't a nuke attack sub in the inventory to help quickly sanitize the path they would take. P-3s and helos would have to drop acres of sonar bouys. The air threat, assuming the air defence ship works, is still of concern. Even one leaker of a cruise missile would turn an LHD into a bonfire. The bad guy only has to get lucky once. Which brings up yet another good reason to have F-22 as because of it's better battlefield mobility over JSF, could better set up to intercept cruise missiles. Super Hornet Block II is very good at killing cruise missiles ( tests have shown this ), and JSF would have the sensor fit to do well and the latest AMRAAM variants are tuned up for cruise missile intercept, however Super Hornet is a bit portly to be covering real estate vary fast, and JSF won't have any kind of real super cruise to hang your hat on. LHDs with an umbrella of F-22s backed up by tankers is critical. The air warfare ship should be pretty hot but I wouldn't depend on it to catch everything. A defence in depth with the air warfare ship and F-22 would be the safer option. The LHDs will demand lots of defence in depth from a lot of platform types if you want to keep them safe in a real shooting war.
ELP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #35
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,846
Threads:
This adds weight to the F35b STOVL aquisition in conjunction with the natiaviania design. A deployment beyond the effective range of F22 + Tanker would be realistic, however with the F35 available for intercept or the outer layer of defence would be practical anywhere in the world. Also the collins class boat is an exellent anti shipping platform with a very long range for a diesel boat, and i doubt the LHD would leave home without one.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #36
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,951
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELP View Post
A few concerns I have about the Mistral LHDs if they are the pick, is that:

-Any type of STOVL fighter aircraft isn't in the requirement. Nor are STOVL F-35s.
-Even if a STOVL jet was required you would need not only the ski jump deck but a deck that could sustain the increased weight of something like a STOVL JSF ops. Currently the flat deck for Mistral isn't rated for that kind of weight. Which would require additional expense. Someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't the two LHDs capped at $2 billion total for both?
-Any LHD program assumes all goes well with the new air defence warship that is being looked at in order for the LHD to even be partly safe.
-I am seriously seriously concerned about how these LHDs loaded up with so much prime gear and personnel, would be protected. There isn't a nuke attack sub in the inventory to help quickly sanitize the path they would take. P-3s and helos would have to drop acres of sonar bouys. The air threat, assuming the air defence ship works, is still of concern. Even one leaker of a cruise missile would turn an LHD into a bonfire. The bad guy only has to get lucky once. Which brings up yet another good reason to have F-22 as because of it's better battlefield mobility over JSF, could better set up to intercept cruise missiles. Super Hornet Block II is very good at killing cruise missiles ( tests have shown this ), and JSF would have the sensor fit to do well and the latest AMRAAM variants are tuned up for cruise missile intercept, however Super Hornet is a bit portly to be covering real estate vary fast, and JSF won't have any kind of real super cruise to hang your hat on. LHDs with an umbrella of F-22s backed up by tankers is critical. The air warfare ship should be pretty hot but I wouldn't depend on it to catch everything. A defence in depth with the air warfare ship and F-22 would be the safer option. The LHDs will demand lots of defence in depth from a lot of platform types if you want to keep them safe in a real shooting war.
I share your concerns about the self defence capability of the LHD. It is true that they are capped at $2bn for the pair which suggests a very basic fit out. Hopefully they will at least have space and weight allowed for additional sensors and weapons if more money is available later. I expect that initial armament will be limited to a couple of RAM systems (Or equivalent) and few Mini Typhoons (this is speculation on my part based on the single CIWS and a few HMGs, supplemented by Army RB70 detachments in the present LPAs). This will be OK if deployment is limited to the South Pacific but would need to be supplemented if the ships deploy to a 'hot' situation. I suspect that the navy will be reluctant to enhance the self defence capability in the design at this stage because their first priority will be to get the hulls in the water before someone decides we don't really need them. Keeping the design simple and the price down will help achieve this but hopefully growth potential will be built in.

I agree that only the Spanish design would be able to operate the F-35B.

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #37
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,721
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELP View Post
A few concerns I have about the Mistral LHDs if they are the pick, is that:

-Any type of STOVL fighter aircraft isn't in the requirement. Nor are STOVL F-35s.
-Even if a STOVL jet was required you would need not only the ski jump deck but a deck that could sustain the increased weight of something like a STOVL JSF ops. Currently the flat deck for Mistral isn't rated for that kind of weight. Which would require additional expense. Someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't the two LHDs capped at $2 billion total for both?
-Any LHD program assumes all goes well with the new air defence warship that is being looked at in order for the LHD to even be partly safe.
-I am seriously seriously concerned about how these LHDs loaded up with so much prime gear and personnel, would be protected. There isn't a nuke attack sub in the inventory to help quickly sanitize the path they would take. P-3s and helos would have to drop acres of sonar bouys. The air threat, assuming the air defence ship works, is still of concern. Even one leaker of a cruise missile would turn an LHD into a bonfire. The bad guy only has to get lucky once. Which brings up yet another good reason to have F-22 as because of it's better battlefield mobility over JSF, could better set up to intercept cruise missiles. Super Hornet Block II is very good at killing cruise missiles ( tests have shown this ), and JSF would have the sensor fit to do well and the latest Aver Super Hornet is a bit portly to be covering real estate vary fast, and JSF MRAAM variants are tuned up for cruise missile intercept.
And your point is?

Following this logic we would never send a ship to sea if there was any risk. The logic being the AWD is to support these ships. It is not beyong the capability of a Collins to provide support, admittedly not with the same persistance as a nuke given the need to snort but still very capable. It is also worth noting that there is a project in the 2006 capability plan to upgrade ship based ASW detection.

A platform like the BPE equipped with NH-60 (hopefully with a dipping sonar) escorted by FFG's and AWD's with Seahawks (don't forget they are an ASW platform), or what ever replaces them, would provide a pretty useful ASW deterant. ANZAC's and SeaSprite (if they survive) fitted with Penguin ASM provide a very good Littorial capability against FAC and other smaller combatants.

The carriage of F-35B would provide credible air defence, CAS and anti shipping strike, particualry if we get helo based AEW. In other words the same system the UK used with reasonaable sucecess until the SeaHar was paid off (which reduced the air defence side a tad). In other words the whole package would provide excellent capability in any scenario we would expect to ahve to play alone in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ELP View Post
however Super Hornet is a bit portly to be covering real estate vary fast, and JSF won't have any kind of real super cruise to hang your hat on. LHDs with an umbrella of F-22s backed up by tankers is critical. The air warfare ship should be pretty hot but I wouldn't depend on it to catch everything. A defence in depth with the air warfare ship and F-22 would be the safer option. The LHDs will demand lots of defence in depth from a lot of platform types if you want to keep them safe in a real shooting war.
Sorry this pre-supposes one outcome ....... the shore based F-22's, f-18Fs or JSF are within effective range of where the ships are operating. I suggest that is not always going to be true and if they are wihtin range it will be at the end of a long (tanker) support string to ensure effective time on task. in other words coverage is going to be poor. Even the P-3 would spend a considerable time in transit. As such organic air is the most effective option to ensure coverage.

When HMAS Melbourne was disposed of one of the arguemtns was that the RAAF had the capability to provide fleet air cover. This was, still is, and will be in the future (with the current and anticipated numbers of airframes) complete rubbish unless the fleet remains in reasonable proximity to the Australian coast (and air bases for that matter) noting that continual coverage at the extremes of the EEZ would be a stretch (and would absorb airframe hours at a thunderous rate of knots).

I would love to see the F-35B at sea along wiht a decent ASW helo and helo based AEW for this reason, but ....... I am not holding my breath.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #38
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELP View Post
A few concerns I have about the Mistral LHDs if they are the pick, is that:

-Any type of STOVL fighter aircraft isn't in the requirement. Nor are STOVL F-35s.
-Even if a STOVL jet was required you would need not only the ski jump deck but a deck that could sustain the increased weight of something like a STOVL JSF ops. Currently the flat deck for Mistral isn't rated for that kind of weight. Which would require additional expense. Someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't the two LHDs capped at $2 billion total for both?
-Any LHD program assumes all goes well with the new air defence warship that is being looked at in order for the LHD to even be partly safe.
-I am seriously seriously concerned about how these LHDs loaded up with so much prime gear and personnel, would be protected. There isn't a nuke attack sub in the inventory to help quickly sanitize the path they would take. P-3s and helos would have to drop acres of sonar bouys. The air threat, assuming the air defence ship works, is still of concern. Even one leaker of a cruise missile would turn an LHD into a bonfire. The bad guy only has to get lucky once. Which brings up yet another good reason to have F-22 as because of it's better battlefield mobility over JSF, could better set up to intercept cruise missiles. Super Hornet Block II is very good at killing cruise missiles ( tests have shown this ), and JSF would have the sensor fit to do well and the latest AMRAAM variants are tuned up for cruise missile intercept, however Super Hornet is a bit portly to be covering real estate vary fast, and JSF won't have any kind of real super cruise to hang your hat on. LHDs with an umbrella of F-22s backed up by tankers is critical. The air warfare ship should be pretty hot but I wouldn't depend on it to catch everything. A defence in depth with the air warfare ship and F-22 would be the safer option. The LHDs will demand lots of defence in depth from a lot of platform types if you want to keep them safe in a real shooting war.
The concern about the ASW escort for the LHDs is IMV a valid one. The RAN would have to rely on surface warships and shipbourne helis when away from Australian home waters. The Collins SSK, while very good, is an SSK and doesn't have the speed to keep up with a taskforce and remain silent and submerged. The AP-3C Orions are tasked with patrolling the maritime approaches to Australia and would IMO not be tasked to maintain an overflight of a RAN taskforce. There would be too many requirements to providing such an escort (AAR, overflight permission, need for aircraft maintenance and rotation, etc.) This leaves the shipmounted sonar arrays and torpedoes, as well as any ASW helicopters (like the Seahawk and possibly the NFH-90 in the future) aboard the frigates/destroyers and LHD itself. Given the apparent growing interest in SSKs in the region this is of potential concern.

As for air threats... Assuming the AWD systems are as anticipated, the LHD should be fairly well protected. Particularly if the Anzac upgrades also go as desired with a 2nd 8 cell Mk 41 8 VLS, CEA-FAR and CEA-Mount. Again, for similar reasons given for the AP-3C Orion, I don't see a land-based aircraft escort available outside of home waters, although the possibility exists for some support from land-based radars (JORN comes to mind) to provide some warning of incoming threats. Now, if the Navantia BPE design is selected, and some F-35Bs are purchased, the LHD could have airborne defences to augment the escort ships. Otherwise, I would imagine that the LHDs would have rather minimal armament. For example, USN carriers only mount Sea Sparrow SAMs for short-range air defence, and Phalanx for CIWS. The reason of the air defence responsibility lies with the escorts and air group. The Wasp-class LHD has a similar armament, and the San Antonio-class LPD replaces the CIWS with RAM, and adds in 2 30mm guns, granted there is space for a 16-cell Mk 41 VLS but it currently isn't fitted.

One thing that might be a good idea, and could be used regardless of which LHD design is selected is an AEW&C helicopter. Something similar to the AEW&C Sea Kings used by the RN, perhaps based off of the MRH-90 airframe. Such a "portable" asset could assistance in maintaining situational awareness as well as providing greater potential detection ranges and response time. This could become invaluable particularly if the BPE is adopted and F-35Bs purchased. As the RN found out in the Falklands in 1982 which led to the development of a heli-bourne AEW&C.

As mentioned though, a well thought out defence in-depth, covering air, surface and underwater approaches is needed.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #39
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,951
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
The concern about the ASW escort for the LHDs is IMV a valid one. The RAN would have to rely on surface warships and shipbourne helis when away from Australian home waters. The Collins SSK, while very good, is an SSK and doesn't have the speed to keep up with a taskforce and remain silent and submerged. The AP-3C Orions are tasked with patrolling the maritime approaches to Australia and would IMO not be tasked to maintain an overflight of a RAN taskforce. There would be too many requirements to providing such an escort (AAR, overflight permission, need for aircraft maintenance and rotation, etc.) This leaves the shipmounted sonar arrays and torpedoes, as well as any ASW helicopters (like the Seahawk and possibly the NFH-90 in the future) aboard the frigates/destroyers and LHD itself. Given the apparent growing interest in SSKs in the region this is of potential concern.

As for air threats... Assuming the AWD systems are as anticipated, the LHD should be fairly well protected. Particularly if the Anzac upgrades also go as desired with a 2nd 8 cell Mk 41 8 VLS, CEA-FAR and CEA-Mount. Again, for similar reasons given for the AP-3C Orion, I don't see a land-based aircraft escort available outside of home waters, although the possibility exists for some support from land-based radars (JORN comes to mind) to provide some warning of incoming threats. Now, if the Navantia BPE design is selected, and some F-35Bs are purchased, the LHD could have airborne defences to augment the escort ships. Otherwise, I would imagine that the LHDs would have rather minimal armament. For example, USN carriers only mount Sea Sparrow SAMs for short-range air defence, and Phalanx for CIWS. The reason of the air defence responsibility lies with the escorts and air group. The Wasp-class LHD has a similar armament, and the San Antonio-class LPD replaces the CIWS with RAM, and adds in 2 30mm guns, granted there is space for a 16-cell Mk 41 VLS but it currently isn't fitted.

One thing that might be a good idea, and could be used regardless of which LHD design is selected is an AEW&C helicopter. Something similar to the AEW&C Sea Kings used by the RN, perhaps based off of the MRH-90 airframe. Such a "portable" asset could assistance in maintaining situational awareness as well as providing greater potential detection ranges and response time. This could become invaluable particularly if the BPE is adopted and F-35Bs purchased. As the RN found out in the Falklands in 1982 which led to the development of a heli-bourne AEW&C.

As mentioned though, a well thought out defence in-depth, covering air, surface and underwater approaches is needed.

-Cheers
I think what you have said is valid. I'd just make two points:

1. Someone with more technical knowledge about the Collins might correct me but, AFAIK, this class, whilst limited so far as surface speed is concerned, has a reasonable underwater speed for an SSK and given the moderate speed of the LHDs I think it could contribute effectively to an ASW screen.

I would not be surprised to see at least a pair of dedicated ASW/ASuW NH90s assigned to these ships when they are deployed operationally.

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #40
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
I think what you have said is valid. I'd just make two points:

1. Someone with more technical knowledge about the Collins might correct me but, AFAIK, this class, whilst limited so far as surface speed is concerned, has a reasonable underwater speed for an SSK and given the moderate speed of the LHDs I think it could contribute effectively to an ASW screen.

I would not be surprised to see at least a pair of dedicated ASW/ASuW NH90s assigned to these ships when they are deployed operationally.

Cheers
Regarding the Collins SSK, from the info I have, and well all know how accurate public domain info is...

The listed surface or snorting speed is 10 kts, and the max submerged speed is 20 kts. The issue as I see it becomes the persistance of the Collins while in transit. The listed endurance on batteries is 400 n miles at 4 kts. I could be mistaken, but I wouldn't think that it would have long time on batteries while moving at greater speed. I would also expected that the normal cruising speed for the LHD would be a minimum of 10 kts, possibly 15 kts. That is where I see a problem. How long can a Collins escort a taskforce moving at 10+ kts without surfacing? Also (and this is directed a sub people) what effect does traveling on the surface or snorting have on a sub's acoustic signature? I would imagine that a surfaced sub is more easily detected by hostile subs than one completely submerged. If I'm wrong, happy to be set straight.

Once an LHD & taskforce is on-station though, a Collins would provide a very sneaky, and unpleasant surprise. It's the escort in transit where I see vulnerabilities.

As for the LHD helicopters, I would assume there would be a few tasked with supporting a taskforce or the LHD itself. An NFH-90 with a ASW/ASuW configuration like the "Romeo" Seahawks would be quite valueable. Able to track surface, sub-surface and even limited air traffic while relaying this to different ships. And able to take action against detected hostile surface and undersea threats. One or two configured as such wouldn't go amiss.

One thing I do wonder, and I admit I lack the background to know if this is foolish question or not. How useful are some of the other RAN sonars at detecting subs or augmenting existing ASW assets? For example, as part of the upgrade of the Anzac frigates, they are to be (or have been) fitted with a mine avoidance sonar. While not being designed to do so, could information gathered by a mine avoidance sonar assist in conducting ASW operations? Or could the sonar used aboard the Huon MHC also assist in detecting subs? I understand that ASW wasn't what these systems were designed for, what I am interested in knowing is if secondary uses are possible, and if so, is ASW a possible secondary use?

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #41
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,951
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Regarding the Collins SSK, from the info I have, and well all know how accurate public domain info is...

The listed surface or snorting speed is 10 kts, and the max submerged speed is 20 kts. The issue as I see it becomes the persistance of the Collins while in transit. The listed endurance on batteries is 400 n miles at 4 kts. I could be mistaken, but I wouldn't think that it would have long time on batteries while moving at greater speed. I would also expected that the normal cruising speed for the LHD would be a minimum of 10 kts, possibly 15 kts. That is where I see a problem. How long can a Collins escort a taskforce moving at 10+ kts without surfacing? Also (and this is directed a sub people) what effect does traveling on the surface or snorting have on a sub's acoustic signature? I would imagine that a surfaced sub is more easily detected by hostile subs than one completely submerged. If I'm wrong, happy to be set straight.

Once an LHD & taskforce is on-station though, a Collins would provide a very sneaky, and unpleasant surprise. It's the escort in transit where I see vulnerabilities.

-Cheers
I suspect you are right Todjaeger. Based on the above info the points you make seem pretty valid. The best support may well be to pre position a Collins in the deployment area, prior to arrival of the LHD and its escorts.

BTW, I think it would be a mistake to assume that the RAN's ASW capability is seriously lacking. It is probably true that ASW has not been a high priority since the end of the Cold War (as indeed is the case in many navies) and it could be improved as suggested in some of the earlier posts, but I believe that the FFGs, FFHs and the Seahawks, along with the RAAF's AP-3Cs all have a reasonable capability in this area. They also get to exercise with the Collins class as well as USN SSNs so skill levels ought to be reasonably honed.

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #42
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,830
Threads:
I don't think collins will be a problem.

The LHD max speed is around 15-19 kts. Realistically cruising speed is more likely 10-15 kts. Fast enough to leave smaller, shorter ranged subs behind and low of fuel but fast enough for collins to keep up. Snorkling is not a problem really. You know the sub is going to be nearby the LHD and AWD so if it snorkels and makes a bit of noise thats not really a big issue (better if you have two tho, one always submerged and stealthy.)

Once they are around the location, collins will perform perfectly. While the LHD is zooming around at ~15 kts the sub can slowly patrol the area not having to keep up with the LHD.

We have 6 boats, which means for a big operation we could use two. The AWD will have some very advanced under water detection systems.

If we are venturing outside of our local waters (with Jorn, P3's, wedgetails etc) then Im sure either the US or UK would be interested in tagging along for the ride. As part of a multination force we would get coverage of our assests. Certainly air ops could be conducted with the F-35 so surface targets would be rather silly trying to sneak up on them.

A carrier battle group going into mildly hostile waters would be something like 1 x LHD, 1 x AWD, 2 x collins and 1 or 2 Frigates. Most likely with US or UK running nearby with a nuclear boat and perhaps a US destroyer if things look really nasty and the US wants to openly legit the deal. Thats plenty of coverage. Thats essentially equal to a Nimitz group. Even with out the US/UK participation I belive that would be fine against all except countries with nuclear subs (China, Russian, India). Im pretty sure if we are moving our LHD against these countries someone else will be involved.

Seriously very few countries have subs that would venture out into the blue waters with Australian assests like AWD's and collins, and almost none with most likely US/UK friendlies around.

If the idea is we can't protect our own ships from other nations, then maybe we should look at fixing that problem rather than not getting them or using them.

But we are the dominent SSK operator in our little region, with are friends with the dominent super power and other nuclear status nations. The AWD are built to protect assets like the LHD.

The LHD itself does not need weapons directly, maybe a few CWIS would be a good idea. But it relies on its escorts. A decent 3D-radar would be useful, as would communications, but I can see the LHD operating with fairly minimal fitout. I can see it sitting as a hub in the networked force, which makes is a useful place for command to sit. The BPE LHD is apparently very cheap. We could buy perhaps as many as four for the money. Excluding radar, landing craft, coms etc.

I would ideally like to see 4 AWD's. One for each LHD, and two remaining, one in dock and one patrolling. 3 provides the bare minimum.

And hopefully a new class of submarine is not too far away. Some extra subs would be really valuable.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #43
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 126
Threads:
Historically, ship SAM systems ( and the people running them ) have been real bad at defending against even 1 or 2 anti-ship missiles.

Just to name a few...
-The Sheffield
-Stark
-Vincennes 1st gen AEGIS ( Iranian shoot down w/ poor target I.D.)
-The Israeli boat that got hit last summer- This one is worth thinking about because it was a non-nation state that took the shot. Has to go on record as being one of the larger weapons used for 4th generation warfare. Something for a Canberra class to consider if it gets within visual range of a land mass that might not be the most friendly.

And yes a lot of those were human element driven, but it still begs the question of "wheres the beef"? . Then theres the problem of going out of EMCON, everyone will know where you are then. It gets worse in a littoral environment with terrain. Add to that any non-combatant traffic ( surface or air )

My problem with robo-cruisers is the man machine interface. One also has to consider that whole portions of the AEGIS system were reported as being compromised by a variety of successful espionage to the Chinese. If it was me, I'd be looking at another vendor on the Hobart thing.

An air umbrella is needed even if it is a small amount of STOVL JSF.

Unfortunately there is no plan to fund STOVL JSF. And yes, it looks like the Spanish option for the Canberra class is the safe way to go to have that growth room on arrival.

A defence in depth is needed, meaning ship SAMs and some kind of barcap. Where as the C variants of AMRAAM working with AESA are designed to take out a cruise missiles. A netcentrically linked JSF AESA into the CIC of the air warfare ship will be a large help too. Not a total solution, but it beats SAM-only.

Finally there is mines. These things are a big show stopper. The navy has some outstanding mine clearance people and gear but if there is a shooting war they will have barely enough resources to cover home waters. A Canberra class will need more robust anti-mine warfare clearance ships assigned, and those, in order to do their work safely will also need some kind of air cover.

No need to have yet another Canberra memorial because someone thinks these ships that are carrying a lot of people and equipment on board don't need air cover. Huge mistake.
ELP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #44
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,681
Threads:
One question.

Why is a Sky Jump needed? The USMC operates its Harriers without one and as long as I know they are going to do the same with the F-35s.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2007   #45
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 126
Threads:
Fuel economy not having to burn so much on the take off. One nice thing about STOVL JSF is 14,000lb of fuel internal vs a Harriers (USMC) almost 8000lb of fuel. Also with the ski jump, in the non stealth mode hanging weapons external, JSF would be able to carry more for a longer distance.
ELP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 PM.