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

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.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; I really cant see a third canberra, no mater how hard I squint my eyes. 2 Canberra's and a Bay ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 36 votes, 4.14 average.
Old July 27th, 2011   #6256
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
old faithful's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Darwin Australia
Posts: 824
Threads:
I really cant see a third canberra, no mater how hard I squint my eyes.
2 Canberra's and a Bay class would move a brigade. To support a brigade O/S for any length of time, the Army would need 4 regular Brigades. Minimum of 8 Bns. de-link 8/9 and or bring 4RAR back on line. that would mean that Avn would need more helo,s NH90's and Tigers. Navy would also need more NH 90,s. Air force would need more MRT,s to support the assets. A4th AWD would be desirable. More combat engineers,Aty ,Armour and logistics will be needed.
3rd Canberra .....not going to happen.
old faithful is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6257
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,479
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by old faithful View Post
I really cant see a third canberra, no mater how hard I squint my eyes.
2 Canberra's and a Bay class would move a brigade. To support a brigade O/S for any length of time, the Army would need 4 regular Brigades. Minimum of 8 Bns. de-link 8/9 and or bring 4RAR back on line. that would mean that Avn would need more helo,s NH90's and Tigers. Navy would also need more NH 90,s. Air force would need more MRT,s to support the assets. A4th AWD would be desirable. More combat engineers,Aty ,Armour and logistics will be needed.
3rd Canberra .....not going to happen.
i was waiting for someone to do the reality check and crunch up the logistics. :-)

better late than never. thanks for trying to bring the discussion back with real world constraints
________________
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/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6258
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
old faithful's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Darwin Australia
Posts: 824
Threads:
hahaha! How is TS 11 trating you?
Ive been enjoying watching the F15,s fly over work.
old faithful is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6259
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by old faithful View Post
I really cant see a third canberra, no mater how hard I squint my eyes.
2 Canberra's and a Bay class would move a brigade. To support a brigade O/S for any length of time, the Army would need 4 regular Brigades. Minimum of 8 Bns. de-link 8/9 and or bring 4RAR back on line. that would mean that Avn would need more helo,s NH90's and Tigers. Navy would also need more NH 90,s. Air force would need more MRT,s to support the assets. A4th AWD would be desirable. More combat engineers,Aty ,Armour and logistics will be needed.
3rd Canberra .....not going to happen.
I would like to see on paper what a proposed Aussie ARG would realistically comprise based on the proposed orbat once the Canberra's and Hobarts are operational:

Immediate (72 hours notice to move):

1 x Canberra (Tiger + NH90's 1 x sqn SASR or 1 x Sqn Commando complete with light vehicles, RAR light infantry battalion group (medical/engineers/sigs/logistics)
1 x Bay (RAR battalion++, LAV, Bushmaster + 155mm light gun)
1 x DDG
2 x FFG
1 x SSG
1 x Tanker
1 x Replenishment vessel
2 x MCM?

Reserve (30-days notice to move):

1 x Canberra (Tiger + NH90's 1 x sqn SASR or 1 x Sqn Commando complete with light vehicles, RAR battalion group)
1 x Roll-on, Roll-off (RAR Mech Company Group ++, M1A2/APC)
1 x DDG
2 x FFG
1 x SSG?
1 x Tanker
1 x Replenishment vessel
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6260
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,479
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by old faithful View Post
hahaha! How is TS 11 trating you?
Ive been enjoying watching the F15,s fly over work.
I'm one of those people who get their jollys looking at tracks rather than toys.... so work it out.....

________________
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/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6261
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,479
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
I would like to see on paper what a proposed Aussie ARG would realistically comprise based on the proposed orbat once the Canberra's and Hobarts are operational:
I'm not aware of the construct being in the public domain, but what you're thrown up is not it.

NFC

force construct is also event specific.. eg location location location
________________
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/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6262
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,618
Threads:
The plan as I recall was to deploy two LHD's for amphibious landings. While they won't always be deployed this way it was outlined to operate this way.

I assumed that this would be as a lead as apart of a multinational mission. At which point we would host personel and equipment from wide alliance many of which do not have their own amphibious assets. I would imagine it would be forces we could tightly intergrate with. Royal Marines, NZDF, USMC who may not be able to get shipping into theatre or smaller nations who don't have the equipment etc.

Also with the LHD's in pairs you can use air assets and the flooded dock (one performing each task). Also you have twice the landing craft. You can also deploy from two vectors.

Also there was no requirement of the ADF actually being able to utilise the assets to the fullest upon delivery. We will have these assets for what 30+ years? At LHD IOC we will be lucky to be able to launch training helicopters off it.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6263
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,846
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by old faithful View Post
I really cant see a third canberra, no mater how hard I squint my eyes.
2 Canberra's and a Bay class would move a brigade. To support a brigade O/S for any length of time, the Army would need 4 regular Brigades. Minimum of 8 Bns. de-link 8/9 and or bring 4RAR back on line. that would mean that Avn would need more helo,s NH90's and Tigers. Navy would also need more NH 90,s. Air force would need more MRT,s to support the assets. A4th AWD would be desirable. More combat engineers,Aty ,Armour and logistics will be needed.
3rd Canberra .....not going to happen.
I would have assumed you'd need three BCT's to sustain a brigade level deployment. Anyway having 3 Canberra's would just be about being able to deploy a brigade sized element, but also about having the flexibility to deploy a battalion sized battle-group and still have some capability up your sleeve for natural events ext. As I understand it these assets are about more than Falklands type scenarios. That being said I would have thought those dollars could have been spent elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ
Perhaps our ANZACII's are such capable ships they can act as mini AEGIS ships (actually not that mini) we will be fine with the three AWD and 8-9 ANZACII's.
This seems to be what defense is thinking. A 7000tn destroyer with AUSPAR & SM6 is likely going to resemble a poor mans AWD, which is fine by me considering we're looking at 8. One more and we get to the magic 12 number of major surface combatants. A 4th AWD makes more sense as far as I can tell unless we can just tack another ANZAC II on the order and get comparable capability (with AEGIS through CEC) for less cost and more local work.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6264
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,846
Threads:
p.s. surely the third LHD will be named Melbourne?
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6265
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,469
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
I'm not aware of the construct being in the public domain, but what you're thrown up is not it.

NFC

force construct is also event specific.. eg location location location
Is this what you are referring to?


If so, yes it is floating around the place. (See what I did there?)

ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6266
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,938
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
Is this what you are referring to?

Australian Army Amphibious Road Map

If so, yes it is floating around the place. (See what I did there?)

Bored huh?
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6267
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,479
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
Is this what you are referring to?

Australian Army Amphibious Road Map

If so, yes it is floating around the place. (See what I did there?)

I'd need to check the date of the slides as although 41 is close to what I've seen, it wasn't what has been discussed when I've attended JACITmtgs

you can appreciate my nervousness in making claims until I see what docs are uncontrolled/controlled
________________
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/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6268
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 108
Threads:
In a '.pdf' from the Brookings Institution I offer this passage for interest or comment wrt possible use of mystery funding.

Colonel John E. Angevine, US ARMY
Mind the Capabilities Gap:
How the Quest for High-End Capabilities Leaves the Australian Defence Force Vulnerable to Mission Failure
PP 43,44.

"The Canberra-class LHD was designed for the Australian Army’s legacy combat vehicle fleet. Yet DMO’s LHD modernization program is not interoperable with the Australian Army’s new Overland-Field Vehicle Project (LAND 121, Phase 4) and Land Combat Vehicle Project (LAND 400, Phase 2). Together, these two LAND projects will replace the current legacy fleet consisting of the Land Rover vehicle series (averaging 4 tons), M113AS3/4 (10-ton curb weight), Bushmaster PMV (13.7-ton curb weight), and ASLAV (12.9-ton curb weight).67 According to Australian Defence Business Review, the Australian Army Development and Plans Office briefed that the new vehicle fleets, drawing on lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, “would include: 40-tonne [44-ton] fighting vehicle; a 30-tonne [33-ton] protected mobility vehicle; a 35—70-tonne [38.6—77.1-ton] specialist vehicle; and a 10-tonne [11-ton] protected mobility vehicle-light type vehicle."

"The new combat vehicle fleet is heavier by about 50%, and the footprint is larger than the legacy fleet. Consequently, the LHD will have less available lane space and more weight to bear on its decks than initially planned, rendering the current Canberra-class design less capable without redesign and reinforcement.
The Australian Army will have to reduce the size of its amphibious assault force unless DMO procures a third LHD or redesigns the current LHD, which is under construction. Fearing political rebuke due to the expected increases in cost and delays for JP 2048, DMO has not updated the LHD requirements to accommodate the increased vehicle size and weight, according to Trevor Thomas of Australian Defence Business Review.69 Additionally, with the greatly increased vehicle weights, the ship’s shifted center of gravity may make the LHD top heavy, thus reducing the sea state in which it can operate."

Cheers,
Mac
JoeMcFriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6269
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,479
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeMcFriday View Post
In a '.pdf' from the Brookings Institution I offer this passage for interest or comment wrt possible use of mystery funding.

Colonel John E. Angevine, US ARMY
Mind the Capabilities Gap:
How the Quest for High-End Capabilities Leaves the Australian Defence Force Vulnerable to Mission Failure
PP 43,44.

"The Canberra-class LHD was designed for the Australian Army’s legacy combat vehicle fleet. Yet DMO’s LHD modernization program is not interoperable with the Australian Army’s new Overland-Field Vehicle Project (LAND 121, Phase 4) and Land Combat Vehicle Project (LAND 400, Phase 2). Together, these two LAND projects will replace the current legacy fleet consisting of the Land Rover vehicle series (averaging 4 tons), M113AS3/4 (10-ton curb weight), Bushmaster PMV (13.7-ton curb weight), and ASLAV (12.9-ton curb weight).67 According to Australian Defence Business Review, the Australian Army Development and Plans Office briefed that the new vehicle fleets, drawing on lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, “would include: 40-tonne [44-ton] fighting vehicle; a 30-tonne [33-ton] protected mobility vehicle; a 35—70-tonne [38.6—77.1-ton] specialist vehicle; and a 10-tonne [11-ton] protected mobility vehicle-light type vehicle."

"The new combat vehicle fleet is heavier by about 50%, and the footprint is larger than the legacy fleet. Consequently, the LHD will have less available lane space and more weight to bear on its decks than initially planned, rendering the current Canberra-class design less capable without redesign and reinforcement.
The Australian Army will have to reduce the size of its amphibious assault force unless DMO procures a third LHD or redesigns the current LHD, which is under construction. Fearing political rebuke due to the expected increases in cost and delays for JP 2048, DMO has not updated the LHD requirements to accommodate the increased vehicle size and weight, according to Trevor Thomas of Australian Defence Business Review.69 Additionally, with the greatly increased vehicle weights, the ship’s shifted center of gravity may make the LHD top heavy, thus reducing the sea state in which it can operate."

Cheers,
Mac
Trevor Thomas should be smart enough by now to realise that DMO cannot change any specs unless they are directed to do so by the Capability Manager - who also needs to get the Government to accept and sign off first.

Its a Govt issue first. DMO project manages at the direction of the Capability Manager and Sponsor. And as the Govt is talking to task anyone who changes scope - then DMO is hardly going to act without direction and blessing and multiple cabinet signatures behind it.


the man is a moron
________________
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/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2011   #6270
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 108
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
Trevor Thomas should be smart enough by now....

the man is a moron
GF,

I'll keep that in mind.

However, it's not Thomas' flawed and politicised view I paid any attention to but the good Colonel's [is there any other kind of Colonel?] statements re. the change in vehicles requiring a rethink etc.

In other words, Is it so?

Cheers,
Mac
JoeMcFriday is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:59 PM.