Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


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 ELP Fuel economy not having to burn so much on the take off. One nice thing about ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 43 votes, 4.14 average.
Old March 27th, 2007   #46
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,987
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELP View Post
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.
As well as all of the above the USN's Wasp class is also larger so a longer take off run is possible.

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007   #47
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,672
Threads:
For me the Jump really is a non issue. It can be fitted and altered after manufacturer apparently fairly easily. The BPE is designed to handle the F-35 in all regards, so there is no huge issue if in 2020 Australia decides it does want the STOVL F-35 and modifys the LHD to fly them at its next refit. I've heard harriers can take off from the HMS Ocean, which has no jump, just with limited weapons and fuel. Something to think about. F-35 taking off within 200 m with just air to air missiles might be possible.

What is needed is political will to get the STOVL F-35. Protecting the fleet from anti shipping missile fired from aircraft/ships etc would be a reasonable starting argument. Isn't it one of the reasons for the Harriers on the WASP's.

They are billion dollar ships, with billion dollar+ equipment and priceless personel inside. I think its entirely reasonable for Australia to do everything to protect them.

For me thats:
1 x AWD hobart class loaded to the eye balls (atleast 1 preferable 2)
2 x ANZAC Frigates ugraded with upgraded missiles (SM-2)
2 x collins submarines
6 x F-35B's on the LHD (minium)
2 x ASW helos (atleast)
1 x Huon mine hunter
Preferably another frigate (NZ, US, UK, Japan, Singapore, etc)
Preferably atleast one more destroyer (UK, US, Japan) if operating outside of regional waters or in a hot and heavy enviroment.
Preferably a UK or US nuclear boat nearby or part of the carrier group (maybe replacing a collins).
CWIS x2 on the LHD itself
Support from JORN and other radar networks

Acutally it would be very interesting to see how the RAN escorts the canberras, given the extensive experience they have with US carrier groups and other carrier photo ops from oberons and collins subs. US carrier groups usually have 2 destroyers, a few frigates, and two nuke boats don't they. I don't think they worry about mines that much? Mind you they move at 30+ kts.

Given the E.Timor operation and the appearance of subs, and the use of aircraft to buzz ships, I would say Australia would be wise to be protective.

Obviously being blue water based, a hundred nautical miles + off a coast would be a worth while bit of protection. Mines, littorial conflicts, land based aircraft, ships and land based missiles are less of a issue.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007   #48
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 126
Threads:
Good reading.

I would like the Spanish design as it comes with the ability to set it up with as many as 20 Harriers and has the ski jump. Certainly that would be less JSFs on available as the JSF deck footprint is bigger.

Have to have an engineer tell us what conversion/refit the French design would need. My understanding is the deck isn't rated for JSF weights for what Australia is looking at.

I think mines are a concern. Good you mentioned U.S. as it was Desert Storm where our lack of ability to clear mines made the amphb invasion of Kuwait impossible. In one day a Tico AEGIS class and a big amphib not unlike a future Canberra were mission killed by mines. Fortunately there was no coordinated attack when they were dead in the water. That was the end of any fantasy we had about having another Inchon or whatever. We don't seem to take mine clearance seriously ( funding ) and usually end up asking the Brits or Aussies or whatever to help us out as our small resources end up being maxed out. We also had a Perry not unlike what you have, mission killed the Persian Gulf in '88 due to a mine. That ship went home on a floating dry dock. The littoral waters north of Australia are made for mines.
ELP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007   #49
Senior Member
Major
harryriedl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: london
Posts: 1,018
Threads:
[QUOTE=ELP;96882]Good reading.

I would like the Spanish design as it comes with the ability to set it up with as many as 20 Harriers and has the ski jump. Certainly that would be less JSFs on available as the JSF deck footprint is bigger.

Have to have an engineer tell us what conversion/refit the French design would need. My understanding is the deck isn't rated for JSF weights for what Australia is looking at.

from somebody with no engineering knowledge i imagine that some heat resistant decking [urathen or some such] and enough supplies for proper air ops
harryriedl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007   #50
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,625
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELP View Post
... One nice thing about STOVL JSF is 14,000lb of fuel internal vs a Harriers (USMC) almost 8000lb of fuel. ....
But the F-35Bs empty weight is almost twice that of a Harrier, so that's a slightly smaller fuel fraction.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007   #51
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 126
Threads:
Thanks Swerve.
ELP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007   #52
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,263
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
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.)
.
Max speed of the BPE is given as 21 knots. I will cruise at lower speeds but given it is based on a commercial system it should be able to sustain the max speed if required.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27th, 2007   #53
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
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...
I certainly wouldn't game play a scenario using publicly sourced data on Collins.

Some of it is absolute nonsense.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007   #54
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,672
Threads:
[QUOTE=harryriedl;96912]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELP View Post
Good reading.
Have to have an engineer tell us what conversion/refit the French design would need. My understanding is the deck isn't rated for JSF weights for what Australia is looking at.

from somebody with no engineering knowledge i imagine that some heat resistant decking [urathen or some such] and enough supplies for proper air ops
The mistral would need huge modifications to fly a F-35. From what I've heard, its needs to be longer, stronger, new lifts, redesigned hangers essentially a new ship.

Funny enough there were three preposed LHD ships. BPE, Mistral, and a extra long mistral. Which funny enough was about 220m long, and may have been capable of F-35. But it was binned (too risky).

The Mistral apparently can't hanger a Chinook. Which given Australia's limited heavy lifting capability would be a nice thing to do.
Quote:
Max speed of the BPE is given as 21 knots. I will cruise at lower speeds but given it is based on a commercial system it should be able to sustain the max speed if required.
Well the US fleets go flat out because it make a firing solution from enemy subs very hard. You would literally have to wait until they sailed into you. Also a bit of extra wind over the deck helps with take offs. Given we only have two LHD's, high speed will limit the endurance, also given that its unlikely to drop anchor until its back at home port, it may limit its range and loiter time around the conflict.


Gf how about it, do you think collins will make a viable escort? Are these sorts of issues being addressed with its successor?
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007   #55
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Well the US fleets go flat out because it make a firing solution from enemy subs very hard. You would literally have to wait until they sailed into you. Also a bit of extra wind over the deck helps with take offs. Given we only have two LHD's, high speed will limit the endurance, also given that its unlikely to drop anchor until its back at home port, it may limit its range and loiter time around the conflict.
They also go fast to avoid slow diesel subs and to make less efficient shadowing nukes make noise trying to keep up


Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Gf how about it, do you think collins will make a viable escort? Are these sorts of issues being addressed with its successor?
Collins Mk2 won't be a nuke. I don't see Collins Mk1's being used as Task Force escorts in "fast environments".

Nukes are really the only subs able to keep up with fast task forces, fast resupply or hacking jobs.

as an aside, the odds are on that it would be a good idea for some in the RAN assessment teams to start learning Spanish.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007   #56
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,672
Threads:
Hahaha...

I suppose when your part of a US carrier group (or strike force or what ever they call them these days), stealthy and quiet arent really required. I would have thought the nuke boats would easily keep up, I've heard they can be very quick when they want to be (and not caring about silence).

I suppose different tactics are required to use diesel subs as protectors of a LHD. The italians and spanish do it with out nuke boats, but then again they have different threats. Japanese and Koreans are going to have to figure out escorts for their smaller LHD's.

Now all we need is F-35B's and we are away...
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007   #57
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
I suppose when your part of a US carrier group (or strike force or what ever they call them these days), stealthy and quiet arent really required.
I think you've misunderstood me - I'm talking about the hackers making noise - not the escorts

Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
I would have thought the nuke boats would easily keep up, I've heard they can be very quick when they want to be (and not caring about silence).
Nukes don't have a problem, and plus the fact that the USN (for example) has the luxury of being able to afford subs for discretionary work. small countries like Oz don't have that luxury.


Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
I suppose different tactics are required to use diesel subs as protectors of a LHD. The italians and spanish do it with out nuke boats, but then again they have different threats. Japanese and Koreans are going to have to figure out escorts for their smaller LHD's.
The Italians, Spanish, Japanese and Koreans don't have management responsibility for 1/9th of the worlds oceans and blue/green waterways. Their demands and requirements are thus a bit more flexible and compressed (as in platforms per real estate footprint)

Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
Now all we need is F-35B's and we are away...
well, this is going to be the eternal argument for years to come. I suspect that under prev history, where platforms were mercilessly maligned by all and sundry (eg F-111 and Collins) that they will deliver the goods. As opposed to the Miracle which was a veritable lawn dart and seems to have had a charmed life and post script to its service life. Go figure.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007   #58
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
What is bizarre is that we are all hoping that F35Bs will eventually fly off from Australian LHDs... and since most of us underline that the Mistrals have never been built with that in mind, most of us support the BPE...
Ok fair enough, but Spain hasn't even confirmed its interest for the F35Bs and its navy's plans call for a real aircraft carrier to operate jets and replace the existing CVL Asturias.
Hence I come to my point : if Australia wants to make sure its new LHDs are F35s compatible, why not launch an international procurement race with precisely that clearly written ? DCN, Izar, and of course Fincantieri and Vosper would have to come up with a perfectly suitable design !

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007   #59
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,987
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour View Post
What is bizarre is that we are all hoping that F35Bs will eventually fly off from Australian LHDs... and since most of us underline that the Mistrals have never been built with that in mind, most of us support the BPE...
Ok fair enough, but Spain hasn't even confirmed its interest for the F35Bs and its navy's plans call for a real aircraft carrier to operate jets and replace the existing CVL Asturias.
Hence I come to my point : if Australia wants to make sure its new LHDs are F35s compatible, why not launch an international procurement race with precisely that clearly written ? DCN, Izar, and of course Fincantieri and Vosper would have to come up with a perfectly suitable design !

cheers
I guess the point is that the RAN has not indicated publicly at any stage that it requires the vessels to be F-35B capable. The project is already aiming to build vessels far larger than the ships they are replacing and this has attracted quite a bit of media criticism. Any public push to acquire what the public might perceive as 'aircraft carriers' would immediately bring out the anti carrier critics in the media and could bring down the whole program.

The LHDs are being built to meet an army rather than a naval requirement. The ability to be able to use them for naval purposes will be a bonus. If the RAN does want the future capability to be able to get fixed wing aircraft back to sea, and it can convince the army and RAAF of the benefits that the F-35B would provide, it will push for the BPE. Selection of this design would provide a huge boost to the ability of the ADF to project power.

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 28th, 2007   #60
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
and it can convince the army and RAAF of the benefits that the F-35B would provide, it will push for the BPE.
I don't see that as a huge stumbling block. As it is the proposals have been along the lines of the RN/RAF re-org where RAF fixed wing pilots take over fixed wing fleet air arm roles and are deployed on the RN assets.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 AM.