Fantasy RAN thread (Surface Ships & LHDs only)

Status
Not open for further replies.

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #121
1. The QUALITY of discussion on the RAN has dropped to the point that there is a mass exodus of knowledgeable members from the thread.

2. This cannot be good, in the long run for the forum. As a compromise, we propose the fantasy discussions be directed here, until the Australian Government or the RAN has news on changes. In the meantime, you are all welcome to indulge here, and discuss matters related to RAN Surface Ships & LHDs only.

3. All discussions on carriers moved to Fantasy RAN thread (Carriers only). In a near peer war, any proposed RAN carrier automatically become a high value target — for US super carriers to survive, even they need to operate in 3s in shifts. For the USN, if continuous operations is required, in their CONOPS, each carrier only conducts flight operations from 12 hours. Not sure how a proposed Australian baby carrier would really survive.

4. The Mods have created 2 threads on submarines, including one related to RAN Discussions on SSNs only, here and the other in Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems, here — which are still open for discussion at this time.

5. All other RAN discussions can be found in the
original mother thread.
1. This thread was created to avoid banning members in the RAN thread and to give limited space for logical and reasoned expressions of a member’s suggestions on how to grow the RAN’s Surface Ships & LHDs only. This expectation has not been met.

2. Worse than that, the Moderators have in the past provided clear guidance on what not to do. That is — not to have circular discussions on RAN carriers — but that seems to been ignored. We have had multiple attempts in the past where this fantasy type of discussion was allowed. What has occurred in the past is not at all encouraging. All these past threads are now closed because they became a trash bin of bad ideas.

3. This ‘fantasy’ thread is on its last legs. If there is no improvement in the quality of the discussions here, it will be closed in about 6 to 7 days, unless there is a huge improvement in the quality of ideas.

4. In the meantime, until 11 Oct 2021 (the proposed use by date of this thread), there will be:

(i) proper justification for the incremental steps RAN needs to take, if there is to be a proposed increase in surface combatants by any member. The onus is on the proposer to discuss this over at least 3 full length posts, on:
(a) the estimated cost to acquire such capability and its CONOPS;
(b) the schools pipeline; and
(c) sea-shore mix for sustainment (as new ships need to adhere to the raise, train and sustain cycle);
(ii) NO MORE discussions on RAN aircraft carriers — anyone already warned and who tries to discuss this here again will be banned for a month — if you want to discuss that (and avoid a ban, you can elect to start a new ‘fantasy’ thread and we will allow it to be open for a month before locking it); and
(iii) NO STUPID attempts at suggesting a ADF rocket force. Anyone who tries to discuss this will be banned for a year. We had an Indonesian member that suggested a rocket/missile force for the TNI, as part of his plan to build an invasion force for Singapore, and he was eventually banned.
 
Last edited:

ddxx

Active Member
I'm not sure if this post should be here or on the main thread, so please feel free to move if required.

I'm curious if there's any information or knowledge in regards to the planned large vessel for the 'Pacific Step Up'?

Is this essentially another JSS multirole vessel as per the two already planned to be built in Henderson?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if this post should be here or on the main thread, so please feel free to move if required.

I'm curious if there's any information or knowledge in regards to the planned large vessel for the 'Pacific Step Up'?

Is this essentially another JSS multirole vessel as per the two already planned to be built in Henderson?
Yes probably should be on the main RAN thread, it is a stated project that is due to start soon. There does not appear to be anything in the public on this yet but if its getting built at Henderson they probably need to get the new Dry Dock built
 

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
Please forgive me but I’m confused here. This thread is labelled as being for fantasy and then we get this rather strong warning when a few talk rationally about a capability that Australia had for the better part of three decades?

I don’t see anyone complaining in the thread. I thought Todjaeger’s post in response to my last comment was a good one, though I don’t agree on all points, and you liked it. So where’s the problem?

I’ll regard your point 4 as a challenge and may well have a crack when I have the time.

@Anthony_B_78

Strongly suggest you read the warning from OPSSG. This thread was organised to allow a little more latitude than we normally but you still need to justify your proposals ... and that includes cost and practicality as well as sticking to the limits of this thread (read the title).

We have not normally allow 'fantasy' threads but we tried it again in this case. Don't waste the opportunity for a meaningful discussion because this thread is on a very short leash.

alexsa
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ddxx

Active Member
I really do think everyone needs to read the 2020 Strategic Update in entirety once again.

And then ask themselves how does the ADF, and the Joint Force, meet those objectives?

It’s the key policy document which informs capability procurement. The lack of reference to the Strategic Update to either inform, disprove or support a post is rather insidious. And I don’t just mean new forum members like myself.

And, to be frank, it’s thoroughly concerning.
 
Last edited:

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I really do think everyone needs to read the 2020 Strategic Update in entirety once again.

And then ask themselves how does the ADF, and the Joint Force, meet those objectives?

It’s the key policy document which informs capability procurement. The lack of reference to the Strategic Update to either inform, disprove or support a post is rather insidious. And I don’t just mean new forum members like myself.

And, to be frank, it’s thoroughly concerning.
Fair enough, any examples ?

And to be fair that update, and yep get we can only go by what is in the public domain, but a lot of that has been binned by the very announcement of the nuclear submarine acquisition, stated by both the PM and Defmin that this is a change in strategic footing for the ADF but more so a change in force structure.

We will no doubt get an update as some stage, but the AUKUS announcement changed a fair bit of that, and the change in stance will have flow on affects to the other services as well. Interesting time regardless :)

Cheers
 

ddxx

Active Member
Fair enough, any examples ?

And to be fair that update, and yep get we can only go by what is in the public domain, but a lot of that has been binned by the very announcement of the nuclear submarine acquisition, stated by both the PM and Defmin that this is a change in strategic footing for the ADF but more so a change in force structure.

We will no doubt get an update as some stage, but the AUKUS announcement changed a fair bit of that, and the change in stance will have flow on affects to the other services as well. Interesting time regardless :)

Cheers
The Force Structure Update has certainly been ‘binned’, at least somewhat, by the SSNs - the document was for the most part ‘business as usual’ where as the Strategic Update was anything other. The Strategic Update itself is arguably further supported by the announcement, it actually aligns with the document.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My only contribution to this thread, will be that I am rather attracted to the idea of the increased use of MH-60R from the Canberra Class. It’s not a perfect large ASW vessel, obviously lacking a bow mounted sonar and undoubtedly other capabilities I am happy to announce I’m likely completely ignorant of… The MH-60R fleet, unless there is reasonable surge capability inherent within that fleet is also not properly sized for this role either, but well, this is a RAN fantasy thread…

We have already seen RAN operating multiple MH-60R’s off Canberra Class LHD’s simultaneously in what I imagine are the full range of tasks the MH-60R is intended to carry out, so I guess my discussion topic is, is there perhaps some scope to further increase our anti-submarine warfare capability with additional MH-60R operating from the Canberras? Noting full well that increasing capability in this role will likely come at the expense of capability in other roles?

Something approaching a fleet ASW role perhaps? I’d guess a highly capable fleet ASW vessel would be a particularly prized asset in the Indo-Pacific afterall…
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
My only contribution to this thread, will be that I am rather attracted to the idea of the increased use of MH-60R from the Canberra Class. It’s not a perfect large ASW vessel, obviously lacking a bow mounted sonar and undoubtedly other capabilities I am happy to announce I’m likely completely ignorant of… The MH-60R fleet, unless there is reasonable surge capability inherent within that fleet is also not properly sized for this role either, but well, this is a RAN fantasy thread…

We have already seen RAN operating multiple MH-60R’s off Canberra Class LHD’s simultaneously in what I imagine are the full range of tasks the MH-60R is intended to carry out, so I guess my discussion topic is, is there perhaps some scope to further increase our anti-submarine warfare capability with additional MH-60R operating from the Canberras? Noting full well that increasing capability in this role will likely come at the expense of capability in other roles?

Something approaching a fleet ASW role perhaps? I’d guess a highly capable fleet ASW vessel would be a particularly prized asset in the Indo-Pacific afterall…
Perhaps not entirely. If looking it as just a solo unit then yes adding ASW to the Canberra class could detract from its role and the capability a a whole, However depending on what sort of replacement we acquire for the Choules and potential second logistics ship that may be able to cover what capability is lost on the Canberra class while giving a taske force a much larger ASW capability.

It will to some extent IMO come down to what future logistics ship we acquire, But if suitable enought then increasing the MH-60R fleet to add extra birds aboard our larger ships seems to be a logical thing as it would be a big improvement to fleet defense at a low financial and man power cost.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #130
1. The current goal is to allow a limited time leeway for discussion but not a certifiably insane thread — as a member found out, refusal to heed our team’s advice clearly given by a Moderator leads to a short ban, issued by another (with a round of appreciative applause for the act).

2. For me, the value of contributing to DT is the corrections that I get to make in my posts, when other members point it out. Corrections makes one humble. All discussions on carriers are now moved to Fantasy RAN thread (Carriers only).

(a) In a near peer war, any proposed RAN carrier automatically become a high value target — for US super carriers to survive, even they need to operate in 3s and in shifts. For the USN, if continuous operations is required, in their CONOPS, each carrier only conducts flight operations from 12 hours. Not sure how a proposed Australian baby carrier would really survive.
(b) On 17 January 1991 (at the start of the 43-day air campaign), 668 coalition aircraft attacked Iraq and 90 aircraft were launched from five USN carriers and the US Marine Corps. They contributed to 13% of the sorties launched on the 1st day of war, during Gulf War 1.

3. This is why Anthony_B_78 was asked: What is the basic concept of operations that is required?

4. Good writing takes time for both research and for the ideas to mature. Air Power 101 for New Members, took me weeks to write and another month to mature. I trust that he will use the time away, to mature his thoughts.

5. As it is, we suspect that keeping these ‘fantasy’ threads open for too long will diminish DT’s reputation for serious discourse and there is a request to close it immediately that we are seriously considering; please use the remaining time this thread remains open well. Thank you for your attention.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top