Amphibious force (Camberra-class) vs. Soryu-class fleet

Status
Not open for further replies.

cvsoryu42

New Member
I think Canberra-class ships are quite multi-functional ships

But I'm not sure if it fits the Australian Navy strategy when thinking about the coming addition to the Navy of new type of submarines (likely Soryu-class). The submarine project is also quite expensive and it is the perfect dissuasion weapon for a country with the navy size of Australia.

What is the real purpose of increase the size of the so-called amphibious force ?

It seems to me both projects are expensive and do not seem to be complementary for the read necessities of the RAN.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I think Canberra-class ships are quite multi-functional ships

But I'm not sure if it fits the Australian Navy strategy when thinking about the coming addition to the Navy of new type of submarines (likely Soryu-class). The submarine project is also quite expensive and it is the perfect dissuasion weapon for a country with the navy size of Australia.

What is the real purpose of increase the size of the so-called amphibious force ?

It seems to me both projects are expensive and do not seem to be complementary for the read necessities of the RAN.
When you say the 'read' necessities of the RAN, I assume you actually mean the 'real' necessities of the RAN???

Maybe you can enlighten all of us on what you believe the 'real necessities of the RAN' actually is??
 

cvsoryu42

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
When you say the 'read' necessities of the RAN, I assume you actually mean the 'real' necessities of the RAN???

yes, sorry, i meant "real"

Maybe you can enlighten all of us on what you believe the 'real necessities of the RAN' actually is??
Well, I would like to read opinions about this in the context of both big projects.
I think the Soryu-class submarines would play an excellent dual role as defense and attack platforms.

In contrast, what is the strategic purpose of the amphibious force? What is the main contribution of the Carriers in the RAN in its long history with the exception of Vietnam aid operations?
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Well, I would like to read opinions about this in the context of both big projects.
I think the Soryu-class submarines would play an excellent dual role as defense and attack platforms.

In contrast, what is the strategic purpose of the amphibious force? What is the main contribution of the Carriers in the RAN in its long history with the exception of Vietnam aid operations?
I think you are missing the point here.

You said "It seems to me both projects are expensive and do not seem to be complementary for the read(real) necessities of the RAN.", True?

That was the statement you made, so again I ask (politely of course), what are the real necessities of the RAN??
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Are you ok ?? :confused: I think this is the purpose of the forum.

If you do not know, perhaps someone could kindly tell us the strategic necessity of RAN for acquiring the Canberra-class and expanding the amphibious force.
Watch yourself ! As John has suggested, read the forum rules, behaviour like this is not tolerated in this forum like other forum. Otherwise your stay will be short.

This forum has a much higher expectation for input, and the way you engage with people on it, not a good start. Take a breath, read the rules and have a think.

Cheers
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
A few things to point out, and keep in mind.

Vs. threads are very much against the forum rules. Having said that, I believe that while the question is in the form of a Vs. thread, that is not really what the OP is trying to ask.

Right now the RAN and ADF are definitely doing one thing, which is expanding the amphibious capability (to a degree, depending on if/what/how the LCH's get replaced). The second thing which might be happening is the replacement and/or expansion of the RAN submarine capability.

In order to understand what is happening with these capabilities for the ADF, one has to keep in mind that they both provide a number of different potential capability options to the ADF and thus AustGov.

For submarines they are both offensive and defensive naval assets, able to require a disproportionate force response to properly counter. They are also very valuable ISR assets. Potentially hostile countries need to consider if the RAN might send a sub against a naval task force, to mine a harbour, lauch a barrage of land-attack missiles (if the future RAN sub has such a capabilty) or land/retrieve SASR or similar assets.

The types of capabilities the Canberra-class LHD's provide is completely different, yet also of great value to the RAN, ADF, and Australia as a whole. First, the provide an enhanced capability for Australia to lift, transport, and land a large number of troops across a great distance and support them. Given relatively recent ADF history, specifically the deployment to East Timor, Australia realized that it did not have the capability to deploy troops overseas to the degree that it wanted/felt it should have. Especially for deployments within the region. A pair of LPA's were acquired and refitted, but more was still wanted/needed. There is also a whole range of HADR and command/control-type capabilities that ships like LHD's can provide. Given what Australia has been involved with over the last 15 years, and is likely to continue being involved with, expanding and improving on those capabilities is also going on.

The RAN is naturally tasked with different mission sets, which require different types of kit to complete. If the RAN were to only acquire a single type of ship (even a multi-role one) then a significant portion of mission sets would not be able to be completed successfully. For a land-based comparison, it would be sort of like arguing that an Army should only ever purchase tanks, and no other type of combat vehicle. The reality is that without also having supporting APC's, IFV's, SPG's, etc. an all-tank combat vehicle force is only effective against other tanks, or when able to engage hostile vehicles with personnel mounted/on-board.
 

Oberon

Member
Are you ok ?? :confused: I think this is the purpose of the forum.

If you do not know, perhaps someone could kindly tell us the strategic necessity of RAN for acquiring the Canberra-class and expanding the amphibious force.
The two Canberra class LHDs are not really expanding the amphibious force of the RAN. They are to replace the two LPAs (Kanimbla and Manoora) which have been disposed of.

The purpose of the force is to move a force of army and aviation assets (ie helicopters) by sea in the defence of Australia. Australia also has a responsibility in the SW Pacific to ensure the sovereignty of small island nations and that they don't become failed states. An example was the Solomon Islands intervention a decade ago.

They will also provide Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief (HADR) following a natural disaster due to their large capacity to carry equipment and stores; and to provide medical facilities and helicopter transport.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The two Canberra class LHDs are not really expanding the amphibious force of the RAN. They are to replace the two LPAs (Kanimbla and Manoora) which have been disposed of.
I would consider it an expansion past what Bill & Ben were capable of, in pretty much all areas except for suitability as a command/control ship.

The LHD's can lift more troops, stores, and kit. A single LHD can transport and land more troops than both LPA's could combined. Greater capacity of aviation assets, larger vehicle deck, etc. Also with a well dock and larger number of helicopters and landing craft, the LHD can potentially land more troops, faster. If both LHD's can be surged to deploy at the same time, the capacity would far outstrip what the LPA's could manage at the best of times.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If you do not know, perhaps someone could kindly tell us the strategic necessity of RAN for acquiring the Canberra-class and expanding the amphibious force.

this has been discussed on here numerous times over the last 17 years. Please use search and make the effort to read prev posts and commentary

people don't mind helping but when they are asked to restate what has been covered dozens of times in the past, then patience and toleration get tested

at the most basic level, a platforms reason for life is included in the CONOPs.
the basis acceleration for change triggers from lessons learnt out of East Timor
the strategic footprint is viewed through a 30+ year prism
force restructure through vehicles such as "Plan Blue" is also done at a generational level

all of this has been discussed time and time again
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top