iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Whichever it was it was an impressive ship.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I forgot about that. Thanks.
Takao
The Bunker Group
I also find it interesting that as the Pacific War went on, the 20mm was discarded for the heavier hitting power of the 40mm. But, as the kamikaze threat increased, the 40mm was in turn seen as too small and lacking hitting power, with the 3" becoming the calibre of choice. Add in the greater effects a larger shell can carry, I can't see how replacing the 5" with a 57mm is a sensible idea. Most AShM are bigger and faster than a IJN aircraft; add in the range and different warheads and I think 5" has decades left
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
My thoughts exactly. Why use a peashooter when you have a shotgun!
Does the Meko a-200 come with secondary guns in the 40mm calibre , certainly some of the articles presented by Meko show ships fitted with this at rear
www.australiandefence.com.au
Project Sea 3000 down to three designs - Australian Defence Magazine
Three designs from two companies are competing to fulfil the Navy's requirements for new General Purpose Frigates.
www.australiandefence.com.au
@spoz This is a question for you as I remember you mentioned being involved in the Kanimbla class acquisition. Do you know what sort of mission was the RAN looking to address with the Canberra class and how would a US Montford Point/Lewis B. Puller class ESB fit or fall short of that mission profile? I have my own ideas already but I'm interested if you have insight regarding it.
I wasn’t involved with the Canberra class acquisition; I was in AWD at the time. So my knowledge of it is second hand. However, we went for the Kanimblas to convince the government that there was merit in having ships with large internal and embarked forces capacity, a multi spot helo capability and very good comms and command facilities.
The envisioned missions ranged all the way from commanding and executing (relatively small scale) amphibious and lodgement ops, through HADR type missions to being able to provide A based comms and other facilities either when we.had large numbers of troops deployed for some reason, or even when the PM was at something like the South Pacific Forum. Our intention was to convince them of the utility of such platforms as the Canberras would become after the THSS, a similar sort of ship, was cancelled in the very early 90s; and in that I think we were successful. So I imagine the Canberra ops range would be very very similar, although they are much more capable assets to achieve them.
Included in that mission set was over the beach lodgement and then sustainment of a landed force. That works best if you have a well deck. I’m not sure that the ESBs would be capable of that; and in any case I would not send them in harms way in the same way I believe the Canberras could be risked; they are essentially commercial ships with military capabilities grafted on whereas the Canberras are very definitely built as warships. They could, however, undoubtedly do quite a few of the lower intensity missions the Canberras undertake. The one big advantage of the ESBs comes from their heritage - they are not quite as “in your face” as a large flat deck is going to be, so may well have advantages in some political environments.
So for a Navy like the RAN, the Canberras, as all around performers, are probably the better bet. For the USN, with their much different amphibious capability and (at least before Trump) their international involvement the ESBs, as cheaper to run if slightly less versatile platforms do make sense - provided you don’t have to commit them to a hot war.
The envisioned missions ranged all the way from commanding and executing (relatively small scale) amphibious and lodgement ops, through HADR type missions to being able to provide A based comms and other facilities either when we.had large numbers of troops deployed for some reason, or even when the PM was at something like the South Pacific Forum. Our intention was to convince them of the utility of such platforms as the Canberras would become after the THSS, a similar sort of ship, was cancelled in the very early 90s; and in that I think we were successful. So I imagine the Canberra ops range would be very very similar, although they are much more capable assets to achieve them.
Included in that mission set was over the beach lodgement and then sustainment of a landed force. That works best if you have a well deck. I’m not sure that the ESBs would be capable of that; and in any case I would not send them in harms way in the same way I believe the Canberras could be risked; they are essentially commercial ships with military capabilities grafted on whereas the Canberras are very definitely built as warships. They could, however, undoubtedly do quite a few of the lower intensity missions the Canberras undertake. The one big advantage of the ESBs comes from their heritage - they are not quite as “in your face” as a large flat deck is going to be, so may well have advantages in some political environments.
So for a Navy like the RAN, the Canberras, as all around performers, are probably the better bet. For the USN, with their much different amphibious capability and (at least before Trump) their international involvement the ESBs, as cheaper to run if slightly less versatile platforms do make sense - provided you don’t have to commit them to a hot war.
I suspect navies are acknowledging guns are unlikely to be in the ship sinking business going forward. That’s not to say there isn’t other roles a 127mm cant perform.
Last edited:
An ESB capability could be a very good complement to the Army's new amphib capability, brilliant for HADR, and don't even need to be RAN operated ( but likely would be).
It could allow the RAN to acquire something more capable and survivable to replace the Canberras down the road. The UK destroyer/frigate like assault ship proposal, or even Japan's Hyuga//Izumi, with a unmanned vessel/aircraft mothership role.
Reports out of the u.k saying they will build 12 ssn aukus to replace 7 astutes.
www.bbc.com
UK to build up to 12 new attack submarines
The defence review on Monday is expected to recommend the armed forces move to "warfighting readiness".
www.bbc.com
This discussion on the Canberra class being used for aircraft does not go away ,the Canberra class primary task is amphibious operations is there an argument that modifications made to the carriers to operate such aircraft would provide some flexibility for planning and reduced risk ?
I'm aware we don't operate the f35b but if we were engaged in real engagements it may be it would be conducted with countries that do and who could operate from the L.H.D,s .
I'm aware we don't operate the f35b but if we were engaged in real engagements it may be it would be conducted with countries that do and who could operate from the L.H.D,s .
the road runner
Active Member
The carrier debate...Again.
The LHD are approximately 10 years old so roughly halfway through its life.
Is the investment worth it? ...I'd say NO ... it's a LHD with a well dock if we want a light carrier just buy one and have it as a dedicated carrier.
The major issues that arise from turning our LHD into a carrier are
*Bunkerage of weapons. With dedicated lifts to bring weapons up to arm the jets.
*More fuel storage required. Fast jets burn threw fuel
*Dedicated Air traffic radars and control
*Training of crew. As we know the ADF is lacking crews in a number of areas... Where would these people come from?
*And finally, where would all this money come from?
The LHD are approximately 10 years old so roughly halfway through its life.
Is the investment worth it? ...I'd say NO ... it's a LHD with a well dock if we want a light carrier just buy one and have it as a dedicated carrier.
The major issues that arise from turning our LHD into a carrier are
*Bunkerage of weapons. With dedicated lifts to bring weapons up to arm the jets.
*More fuel storage required. Fast jets burn threw fuel
*Dedicated Air traffic radars and control
*Training of crew. As we know the ADF is lacking crews in a number of areas... Where would these people come from?
*And finally, where would all this money come from?
It’s another Bergmann special…. sometimes I think he just throws these silly articles out here for clicks.
He also has an obsession with continuing the Luerssen partnership for C90 production, choosing the Brazilian embraer C390 over the new Hercules and going with Korean frigates and destroyers over the shortlisted designs.(recent articles out of Korea shows Australia has made the right decision). Just a few… of many.
He also has an obsession with continuing the Luerssen partnership for C90 production, choosing the Brazilian embraer C390 over the new Hercules and going with Korean frigates and destroyers over the shortlisted designs.(recent articles out of Korea shows Australia has made the right decision). Just a few… of many.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Yeah, pretty much...
Though I would disagree somewhat on the list of major issues, as it neglected the one I would consider most important, in that by focusing so much on embarking and supporting fast air, an LHD would be either seriously compromising or possibly even forgoing completely its amphibious sealift role.
I remain rather skeptical of the apparent plans for Army to take over much of the amphibious capability and using larger numbers of much smaller vessels. I think such ideas might work for very small landings that do not require transiting through threatened waters or over long SLOC.
If a sizable force needs to be landed, then trying to coordinate and command a large force of smaller vessels will run into problems without some sort of command vessel. Not sure that the current config for the Hobart-class DDG really has space to lend itself to a flagship role, and NFI about whether the Hunter-class FFG would be up to that task.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
That sounds like a plan that will have continuous submarine construction and, with 12 SSN’s (or SSGN’s) plus 4 SSBN’s, that should allow a drumbeat close to 2 years - much more efficient than the current slow production rate.Reports out of the u.k saying they will build 12 ssn aukus to replace 7 astutes.
UK to build up to 12 new attack submarines
The defence review on Monday is expected to recommend the armed forces move to "warfighting readiness".
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The only realistic plan to upgrade the aviation capabilities of the LHD’s would be to operate UAV’s. There have been a number of trials off similar sized vessels so there is data available for this to be developed. Apart from offensive capability, the RN has their VIXEN AEW drone under development and are currently using cargo drones to resupply smaller vessels in the fleet thus reducing the workload for their helicopters.
This is more practical than trying to operate F-35B’s from the Canberra class.
Yes the F35B, LHD thing!
Many layers to the subject but in very recent times part of the question or answer is the manned / unmanned balancing act across the land, Sea and Air domain.
It’s such a rapidly evolving space it’s difficult to know what to propose.
So does the RAAF have manned fast Air -yes
Will we commit to a land or sea theatre of operations without manned aviation assets-No
Could we find ourselves in a military contingency without a major ally. Yes
Would the F35B/ LHD be combo be useful -absolutely
Should we go done that path?
Hmmmmmmm
Once I would have said yes without hesitation but now the unmanned aviation potential makes more sense with our limited budget
Even if it’s just a very modest acquisition it should be explored
Cheers S
Likewise, I've given up reading Bergmann's articles.
For my two bob's on this subject.
An upgrade to the Canberras for F35Bs would be a decade long project at minimum and take them out of service for long periods of time. The Japanese have spend a lot of time upgrading their Izumos for this purpose, seemingly forever. We would be better to buy new purpose built vessels.
F35As from forward bases throughout friendly SE nations would provide all the range we need to provide air cover to landing troops. Remember we will never be landing troops in unfriendly locations.
We will need the capacity and capability provided by the Canberras to mobilise an amphibious force. We will never move a batalion and its gear the long distances into theatre via the medium and heavy landing craft. They move things around within the theatre.
There are so many other higher priority investments. IAMD comes to mind, as does missile production and satellites.