How big a carrier would you think you would need to maintain the sortie rate you would be envisioning here?
Is light in the 25-30k tonne displacements or larger?
Regards,
Massive
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Is light in the 25-30k tonne displacements or larger?
Regards,
Massive
If you want any capability beyond the LHD, they would have to be larger.
Although I expect the LHD's to have a very long life more augmenting them than replacing them.
Again the big issue here is crew more than tonnage or even cost.
San Giorgio is ~ 200 + air crew (could be a ASW helo carrier)
Canberra is ~350 + air crew (although we already have crew pipeline for this and some existing crew on shored positions)
Hyuga is ~370 + air crew (is a ASW helo carrier)
Cavour is ~500 + air crew
Trieste is ~460 + air crew
Izumo is ~500 + air crew
QE ~680 + air crew
America class ~1000++ aircrew
Obviously you won't get anything smaller than a Canberra to operate a F-35. But there is a spectrum of aviation focused ships out there that could do some interesting roles.
In terms of adapting for F-35, that is a pretty well known program, with US wasp/America, UK QEII, Italy Cavour, Japan Izumo all gone through various conversions and adaptions for F-35 operation. They weren't overtly expensive or risky programs. Moving life boats, shielding radars/sensors from downdraft, desk surfacing, navigation and lighting etc. Honestly the skepticism about adapting the JC1/Canberra to the F-35 is overblow. Its significant, sure. Could it cost $250m+ per ship. Sure. Would it take 12 months? Maybe. Do these costs really frighten people anymore? We have spent billons on them, and many billions in escorts. Spains plan and Turkeys plan was to just buy F-35b and operate them from the platform.
The F-35b is a well known entity now with low risk. Seaguardian seems to also fill in that AEW/ISR. MC-55 may take over some of the Growlers roles, we have long ranged E7 and P8s. Reduce Choules manning down to what the UK did and use it more as a logistics ship than an amphibious platform, shift its ~100+ crew to a new 3rd LHD. Plan to replace the 36 SH for 24 F-35A + 18 F-35B. Base it out of WA for straits control. For growing the RAN ~150 people and the RAAF an additional 6 fighter frames (but reducing complexity by one whole fighter platform), you would have 3 carriers, 4 x F-35A squadrons, a Squadron of F-35b's, which could deploy, typically ~6-8 onto a Canberra or any allied carrier or forward deployed from Islands (Christmas, Manus or Singapore). It might even be possible to do it in less than 10 years. Without any loss of capability in any other area including amphibious operations or fighter, or electronic warfare. In addition Singapore could support our F-35B fleet when operating near Singapore surging to ~12 F-35Bs. More than that we would have some serious ASW carrier capability. More importantly, our ASW carrier, would be based out of the same ocean as our submarines, so we could actually train both submarines and ASW platforms.
But is that enough? I presume, having 24F-35A forward deployed to Butterworth (or where ever) and the ~6-12 F-35B's are just there providing organic cover, it probably is, if operating in our region, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesian, PNG, south pacific. Our threats are bombers and lone long range fighters, patrol aircraft, as well perhaps the odd ship/sub. We won't be engaging with continent based fighter squadron hoards or large fleet action groups. With 3 ships, you could always surge capability, and call in additional airframes from allies.
But the biggest issue now is timing with the other platforms. Any new high end capability we don't currently have would be a huge and time consuming ask. Just selecting a new aviation ship would be 3-4 year project + 1 year to framework the project (Sea10000!). Building it would be 5-10 years. If its not already in service with the RAN, then 1-2 years to speed up to commissioning and FOC. Then you have to build the logistics train around it. Train pilots and crews for air operations. If its a new unique platform, then even if you are getting multiple ships you won't get 2-3 ships for several decades before you will have any sort of deployable capability. It would be a frantic push to bring such platforms on line before the mid 2040's. At which point Australia might as well go for broke, operate 1 large unique ship, like the QE and get one off mega capability. Maybe in partnership with the UK for all round capability, and the UK is probably a nation we could do that with.
If the ADF wanted to build a purple capability like Naval carrier, if it doesn't happen in the next 2 years, it will never, ever happen. Threats are multiplying faster than our solutions. A big ambitious carrier project seeing FOC in 2045 is IMO too late. By then things are moving on, China as a threat will have come and gone (either peacefully or through conflict) and the next growing threat won't be threatening enough to push it. If there wasn't the need to do it now, I don't see the need in 2040 or 2050. Much like the SK carrier project, its too late. There is time to do what Japan did, and convert existing ships and buy airframes, but not time to project, design, build, bring into service, FOC a bespoke carrier.
The time of selecting new platforms has come and gone IMO. The Subs will be the last new platform selection the RAN will see before global conflict, I doubt they will arrive before it starts. We can elect to build copies of existing units, or not to build copies. There is no time for new solutions. Particularly ones that heavily overlap with existing units. I am also skeptical of radical new platforms for the future past 2050. Drones will look very much like existing things, either manned platforms or munitions.
Mods, I would like to pursue this conversation but are guarded by the history of this topic been acceptable on DT.
Can I suggest the Juan Carlos / Canberra Class thread be reopened.
This will enable this particular discussion to be some what isolated from the RAN 2.0 Thread.
Cheers S
The rate of effort with MH-60R Romeo is a sustainable (cost) effective capability produced by RAN.
Substantial surge capability exists within that 24x aircraft fleet, to operate more than 8 flights.
The additional 12 aircraft will obviously expand upon that.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Thank you. That makes sense. The eight operational flights would provide for those Hobarts / Anzacs in the water at any one time I imagine. The extra 12 was, if I recall correctly, stated to be in lieu of the MRH-90s assigned to the Navy.
If there is a need for a sea based aircraft platform shouldn't the range of such aircraft come into consideration ,I raise this as the the F35B so often suggested has a shorter combat range in comparison to the f35a , potentially requiring the ships themselves to operate within range of their targets , The mq-25 drone being considered by the U.S.N has the potential to double the range of aircraft launched from cats and traps aircraft carriers but this type of drone refuelling I haven't found suggested for the f35b , or the ships operating them
Navy's New Refueling Drone - How It Provided Gas to an F-35 (popularmechanics.com)
Navy's New Refueling Drone - How It Provided Gas to an F-35 (popularmechanics.com)
Luerssen cuts the first steel of 6th Arafura-class OPV - Naval News
Luerssen Australia cuts the first steel of the 6th Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel, the future HMAS Carpentaria, in Henderson.
www.navalnews.com
Although the other big ticket items are being slowly and deliberately inching forwards, it's great to see the Arafuras being built on schedule. Visually, they are far more "ship" than the ones they'll be replacing. Pity they won't have a larger turret with an actual canopy (40mm). That'd look even better.
If the 8 additional mine hunters and hygrographic ships come into fruition, this'll be a good win for the Aust military, imho. Can never have enough of the unsexy, but essential , lower end ships.
Still talking "off the shelf" submarines and now talking about a 2-tier submarine fleet - a new smaller submarine in the low tier and Collins/future-SSN in the upper tier.
www.aspistrategist.org.au
This doesn't really make any sense to me - I don't feel "off the shelf" is really a thing when it comes to submarines - where's the shelf, does the submarine on the shelf have suitable systems to match RAN requirements etc. And I find it hard to believe that capability will be delivered any faster than going all in to deliver SSNs as quickly as possible.
I would note that Major-General Molan suggested that improved capability is need in a 3-5 year time frame. That means Collins.
Regards,
Massive
Can a new conventional submarine smooth Australia’s transition to a nuclear-powered fleet? | The Strategist
The government has announced a defence strategic review to ensure Australia ‘has the right capabilities that are postured to meet the growing strategic challenges that Australia and its partner countries will face in the world ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
This doesn't really make any sense to me - I don't feel "off the shelf" is really a thing when it comes to submarines - where's the shelf, does the submarine on the shelf have suitable systems to match RAN requirements etc. And I find it hard to believe that capability will be delivered any faster than going all in to deliver SSNs as quickly as possible.
I would note that Major-General Molan suggested that improved capability is need in a 3-5 year time frame. That means Collins.
Regards,
Massive
If we go an interim submarine between the Collins and the future SSN the only option that makes any sense is new build Collins fitted out to the planned fit out for the LOTE, Maybe more put will depend on a risk analysis of time it would take to benefits it would gain. Anything else means having 3 submarine classes in service at once which for a force the size of the RAN is a big no no with a solid slap across the head for even suggesting it. Within the next 6 months or so we are meant to know where we stand if it is feasible to bring the build forward which if its the case at what drumbeat and will it line up with the Collins class retirement. Might need no new boats, might need only a couple, might need 6.. to be determined but a 3rd entirely unrelated class is not that answer.
This article would suggest that the son of Collins according to defence officials "would not provide a beneficial, nor a low cost and low risk solution for the Future Submarine”.’
The strange submarine saga: Son of Collins to son of Collins | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)
Certainly the U.S.N were very involved in the Collins class development so it might not make sense to them also to revisit this path
The strange submarine saga: Son of Collins to son of Collins | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)
Certainly the U.S.N were very involved in the Collins class development so it might not make sense to them also to revisit this path
I don’t think anyone ever seriously suggested that Son of Collins or any other conventional submarine design would fully meet the RAN requirements. That is why we eventually decided we needed nukes.
The problem that Australia faces at the moment is that we need an interim capability until those subs arrive.
The current plan is for a Collins LOTE program. The obvious problem with that is that one LOTE might not be enough. Without a second LOTE the Collins look set to withdraw between 2038 to 2046. With a second LOTE you could push those retirement dates even further. My understanding is that a submarine hull life is determined by the number of dive cycles it completes so I am not sure whether further LOTEs are even possible.
The problem that Australia faces at the moment is that we need an interim capability until those subs arrive.
The current plan is for a Collins LOTE program. The obvious problem with that is that one LOTE might not be enough. Without a second LOTE the Collins look set to withdraw between 2038 to 2046. With a second LOTE you could push those retirement dates even further. My understanding is that a submarine hull life is determined by the number of dive cycles it completes so I am not sure whether further LOTEs are even possible.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
However, an "interim sub solution" has its own set of problems. One major one being just how long it would take to get a supposed "interim" sub into RAN service? Another fairly obvious issue is that if some existing design was selected, just how well (or poorly) would it fit with RAN sub CONOPS as well as the RAN's area of operations? That has been an issue for the RAN for years, and why, prior to deciding to go down the SSN path, the RAN had been after large conventional subs that had the ability to operate in some domains like an SSN.
How well would it really be likely to go, if the RAN were to select a not-really-fit-for-purpose sub design, with unfamiliar systems and an unfamiliar configuration? Particularly since it would be at a minimum several years before the new class of sub would be able to enter RAN service, never mind have RAN personnel achieve competency given that the CONOPS would likely have to be changed to accommodate the different capabilities.
On the back end of things, if new subs were ordered immediately and lead sub delivery was somehow managed in five to seven years (2027-2029+/-) then what would the RAN do? Would these not really suitable subs be decommissioned once the SSN's start getting commissioned, when some of these interim subs might only have been in service 10-15 years? Or would these same subs be kept in service until closer to the normal end of service, 25-30 years after being commissioned?
No real, easy answer to this IMO.
I agree and it’s a diabolical dilemma.
In considering this issue with the various suboptimal (pardon pun) solutions, I think the ultimate question is ‘what will be the least difficult’?
Thats why IMHO the only practical option as an ‘interim‘ capability is a fast tracked Collins LOTE.
Perhaps there might be scope for a LOTE program to itself be a tranched capability evolution?
Component supply hopefully is more easily and readily sourced, industrial base exists, CONOPS should theoretically be an evolution of current doctrine, and crewing & training issues most easily adapted.
In considering this issue with the various suboptimal (pardon pun) solutions, I think the ultimate question is ‘what will be the least difficult’?
Thats why IMHO the only practical option as an ‘interim‘ capability is a fast tracked Collins LOTE.
Perhaps there might be scope for a LOTE program to itself be a tranched capability evolution?
Component supply hopefully is more easily and readily sourced, industrial base exists, CONOPS should theoretically be an evolution of current doctrine, and crewing & training issues most easily adapted.
On the subject of half-assed solutions I found this piece on the new Pacific support ship. Apparently buying a second hand ship was the back up option after negotiations with Damen to build a new ship failed. Anyway what we have is a vessel that can't deploy or carry its own landing craft, lacks aviation fuel storage and doesn't appear to have any direct access between the cargo deck and helipad.
www.australiandefence.com.au
Australia’s Pacific Support Vessel: What to make of ADV Reliant - Australian Defence Magazine
With the vessel now in Australia, and awaiting formal commissioning into the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), it’s worth examining what capabilities it offers and how the RAN might employ it.
www.australiandefence.com.au
Flexson
Active Member
I wouldn't be so quick to believe it can't deploy it's own landing craft. It may not have a well deck, steel beach or marriageable doors but it has a crane with a lifting capacity more than 2 times Tobruk's Velle Derrick and plenty of deck space.On the subject of half-assed solutions I found this piece on the new Pacific support ship. Apparently buying a second hand ship was the back up option after negotiations with Damen to build a new ship failed. Anyway what we have is a vessel that can't deploy or carry its own landing craft, lacks aviation fuel storage and doesn't appear to have any direct access between the cargo deck and helipad.
Australia’s Pacific Support Vessel: What to make of ADV Reliant - Australian Defence Magazine
With the vessel now in Australia, and awaiting formal commissioning into the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), it’s worth examining what capabilities it offers and how the RAN might employ it.
Tobruk quite often loaded LCM-8's by rafting them up alongside and craning vehicles and stores straight onto the LCM-8's after having just craned the LCM-8 off its own deck.
"(From front) HMA Ships Canberra, Warramunga and Supply sail in-company through the Pacific Ocean during a commemorative service to mark the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Savo Island." Image Source : ADF Image Library
There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar
E kore rātou e kaumātuatia
Pēnei i a tātou kua mahue nei
E kore hoki rātou e ngoikore
Ahakoa pehea i ngā āhuatanga o te wā
I te hekenga atu o te rā
Tae noa ki te aranga mai i te ata
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them
We will remember them.
These article suggests the the R.A.N is going for a very sophisticated capability for its various platforms
Speartooth LUUV - C2 Robotics Pty Ltd
Indo Pacific 2022: Royal Australian Navy breaks cover on Speartooth large unmanned underwater vehicle (janes.com)
Speartooth LUUV - C2 Robotics Pty Ltd
Indo Pacific 2022: Royal Australian Navy breaks cover on Speartooth large unmanned underwater vehicle (janes.com)
This quite possibly in time could help out in part with the Intergrated undersea survelliance system that was listed in the 2020 DWP (Assuming it will still go ahead, dont see any reason why not).
For all those past naysayers that Australia cant do this or that, Must irk them that in the last couple of years not only have we come out with a flying unmanned drone (Which Boeing's Phantom works is really interested in doing more with) but now also an LUUV all largely home grown. All those eyes in the sky, on land and in the future under the sea going to make it virtually impossible for any one to sneak up with out taking a VERY wide berth not to mention allowing command to know when and where to place forces to achieve the best results.
Invariably the people who say we can't do this or that are those who see themselves as superior to others but know they can't do it. That is arrogant people assuming others are as limited as them.
It's basically a case of those who can't do things, or are too afraid to do things, saying, "you can't do that because you aren't good enough". To stand by and let you try, and possibly succeed, is to acknowledge they aren't superior to you.