Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
And the funny thing is that those issues were actually all but sorted and had been overcome and the canning of the program was more of a political decision ! There in lays the real waste because if it were not for the political interference it is a capability that we would actually have today which would not look so bad when you look at it :)

Great bargain for NZ though :)

Cheers
As I recall it, there was a decision on the part of gov't to adopt a US FAA rule regarding backup systems for digital flight controls with a single pilot. IIRC the two-crew cockpit system that Kaman had developed for the SH-2G(A) had the main flight control system used by the pilot as a digital system, and in the event of failure there was a manual system the pilot could use. The FAA rule which Australia adopted after launching the Seasprite programme required a digital backup system for a digital flight control system. Also IIRC, once the was determined as an issue (shortly before Australia binned the whole programme) it was determined that a digital backup system could be developed and put in, for something like $24 mi. but would delay the then already very overdue Seasprites an additional 18 months. Shortly after that, the plug was pulled.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
As I recall it, there was a decision on the part of gov't to adopt a US FAA rule regarding backup systems for digital flight controls with a single pilot. IIRC the two-crew cockpit system that Kaman had developed for the SH-2G(A) had the main flight control system used by the pilot as a digital system, and in the event of failure there was a manual system the pilot could use. The FAA rule which Australia adopted after launching the Seasprite programme required a digital backup system for a digital flight control system. Also IIRC, once the was determined as an issue (shortly before Australia binned the whole programme) it was determined that a digital backup system could be developed and put in, for something like $24 mi. but would delay the then already very overdue Seasprites an additional 18 months. Shortly after that, the plug was pulled.
Labour Cancelled them shortly after returning to power after 11 years, whether the Libs would have also cancelled if they had stayed in power I’m not sure.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Labour Cancelled them shortly after returning to power after 11 years, whether the Libs would have also cancelled if they had stayed in power I’m not sure.
From what I recall, the main issue was that the requisite system which needed to be developed would take another 18 months, assuming nothing else happened. As it was, the programme was already something like a decade behind schedule and having just checked, the projections were that the inservice date would not have been until ~2010, when Labor axed the programme in 2008. It had been reported previously in 2007 that the programme was likely to be cancelled due to how behind it already was, that it would be several more years and even more funding before it would be able to enter service, and that AUD$1.1 bil. had already been spent on the naval helicopter.
 

Bob53

Member
Navy highlights for new items/confirmations:
  • 2x multi-role sea-lift and replenishment ships
  • Up to to 8 new vessels for mine-countermeasure & hydrographic survey (potentially based on the Arafura design)
  • Pacific SPT Vessel ($180-280m)
  • Replacement for ADV Ocean Protector
  • Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (crewed & uncrewed)
  • Large Army Landing Craft
A few of our favourite discussion points here confirmed. It will be interesting to see the Large Army Landing Craft details after much hand wringing over the lack of LCH replacements.
Has anyone got any information on the large Army Landing Craft and any of the designs that would come into consideration? I've seen a lot of commentary about the larger support ships but nothing much on the Landing Craft?
 

Morgo

Member
Has anyone got any information on the large Army Landing Craft and any of the designs that would come into consideration? I've seen a lot of commentary about the larger support ships but nothing much on the Landing Craft?
This piqued my interest as well.

I had presumed they were something along the lines of this:

Landing Ship Transport 120

or this:


If we were to acquire 5 - 10 of these they would potentially provide a tremendous capability boost in terms of projecting power immediately to our north. They could act alone, as part of a larger group (including both initial landings and as a ship to shore connector for LHS/AOR/JSS) and could provide standalone ongoing sustainment of forces ashore, running a ferry / resupply service from Australian ports to deployed forces and back again.

It would also mean we could land a much heavier force in an initial landing, and provide much better theatre mobility for it afterwards. A great capability boost for a pretty reasonable price I reckon.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
This piqued my interest as well.

I had presumed they were something along the lines of this:

Landing Ship Transport 120

or this:


If we were to acquire 5 - 10 of these they would potentially provide a tremendous capability boost in terms of projecting power immediately to our north. They could act alone, as part of a larger group (including both initial landings and as a ship to shore connector for LHS/AOR/JSS) and could provide standalone ongoing sustainment of forces ashore, running a ferry / resupply service from Australian ports to deployed forces and back again.

It would also mean we could land a much heavier force in an initial landing, and provide much better theatre mobility for it afterwards. A great capability boost for a pretty reasonable price I reckon.
Damen will definitely be a strong contender, though i suspect the 120 might be a bit bigger then what they are looking at, my money would be more on the LSL 70 or 80.
Some of the ex RAN members on here have some reservations concerning the SVL and driving your back end up onto a beach, and the above Video doesn’t really show how you protect your propellers.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Damen will definitely be a strong contender, though i suspect the 120 might be a bit bigger then what they are looking at, my money would be more on the LSL 70 or 80.
Some of the ex RAN members on here have some reservations concerning the SVL and driving your back end up onto a beach, and the above Video doesn’t really show how you protect your propellers.
Technically this conversation belongs in the Australian Army thread as at this stage this proposed project is for Army Water Transport.
 

DDG38

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Great shot of the recent RAN/USN/JMSDF task group sailing in the SCS. Interesting to note the the RAN has the most ships underway in this group, not something you see very often especially when working with the USN. Also a lot of AEGIS burning ! :) (Source : ADF Imagery Library)
200721-N-DL524-1212.jpg
 

weegee

Active Member
Great shot of the recent RAN/USN/JMSDF task group sailing in the SCS. Interesting to note the the RAN has the most ships underway in this group, not something you see very often especially when working with the USN. Also a lot of AEGIS burning ! :) (Source : ADF Imagery Library)
View attachment 47516
It is a great shot!

Would be a very brave Chinese navy to try and engage that sort of combined firepower. Not even taking into account the aircraft from the carrier.
I wonder how many allied subs are lurking around too?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
It is a great shot!

Would be a very brave Chinese navy to try and engage that sort of combined firepower. Not even taking into account the aircraft from the carrier.
I wonder how many allied subs are lurking around too?
If the US CSG portion was in one of the typical arrangements, there would be one or two USN SSN's lurking about. Depending on where the image was taken and when, there could also have been RAN and/or JMSDF conventionals lurking too.
 

DDG38

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It is a great shot!
Would be a very brave Chinese navy to try and engage that sort of combined firepower. Not even taking into account the aircraft from the carrier.
I wonder how many allied subs are lurking around too?
They're like sharks, if you're in the ocean, guaranteed there's at least one in the vicinity ;)
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
It is a great shot!

Would be a very brave Chinese navy to try and engage that sort of combined firepower. Not even taking into account the aircraft from the carrier.
I wonder how many allied subs are lurking around too?
Sorry to dampen the mood but not really. China has numbers and home ground advantage. When it becomes a full on multinational fleet including Indonesian, Singaporean, Malaysian, indian and Vietnamese ships along side the US, Japan and Australia then such a statement could be made but a single CBG against a Chinese fleet multiple times its size in that region alone.. no.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Details so far are a little thin, but stories now coming through that the RAN ships "encountered" the Chinese Navy (PLAN) on their way to meeting the US and Japanese ships for exercises last week near the Spratly's.


Interesting times, if you could put it that way, indeed, guessing that China will be sending some ships to Rimpac for observational purposes :)

Cheers

Edit: Found this little clip of Canberra taking a couple of hits, just thought I would add as an edit rather than another post :)

 
Last edited:

weegee

Active Member
Sorry to dampen the mood but not really. China has numbers and home ground advantage. When it becomes a full on multinational fleet including Indonesian, Singaporean, Malaysian, indian and Vietnamese ships along side the US, Japan and Australia then such a statement could be made but a single CBG against a Chinese fleet multiple times its size in that region alone.. no.
I agree but I was really speaking of maybe a couple of destroyers or even one of their cruiser sized coast guard vessels and how belligerent their navy has been over the last few years. I bet they would act differently to that task force than to a loan frigate.
Actually, on another note, China doesn't really seem to exercise that much with other nations does it? You do see sometimes they play with Russia Pakistan but they definitely don't play with friends as much as the USA.
 

weegee

Active Member
Another great shot, this time HMAS Canberra with some offensive teeth parked on the flight deck. Great to see her ramping up her capabilities. (Source : ADF Imagery Library)
View attachment 47518
It's great to see the defence force getting some use out of the tigers. Especially on board the Canberra Class. Do we know if the prep time to get them stowed away has come down? Wasn't that one of the bugbears with the Tigers that they're not really marinised?
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
It's great to see the defence force getting some use out of the tigers. Especially on board the Canberra Class. Do we know if the prep time to get them stowed away has come down? Wasn't that one of the bugbears with the Tigers that they're not really marinised?
While not maranised a'la the AH-1, it never raised issues in my experience. The engineering and maintenance aspects were addressed quickly and smoothly - although that pre-dated FOCFT on the Canberra class. The French experience off Libya was very beneficial and showed no issues. There may be some medium- or long-term corrosion issues, with either or both fleets, but I'm not away (either way) of those.
 

Antipode

New Member
It's great to see the defence force getting some use out of the tigers. Especially on board the Canberra Class. Do we know if the prep time to get them stowed away has come down? Wasn't that one of the bugbears with the Tigers that they're not really marinised?
It could easily be a shot taken on the Spanish JC1 deck! Good for Australia, operating two of them for good.

Wonder why ADF doesn't organise a traditional marine corps. 1 Division's 2nd battalion, Royal Australian Regiment seems to be a de facto permanent amphibious force. Wouldn't optimise this logistic matters you mention?

Salud
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
It could easily be a shot taken on the Spanish JC1 deck! Good for Australia, operating two of them for good.

Wonder why ADF doesn't organise a traditional marine corps. 1 Division's 2nd battalion, Royal Australian Regiment seems to be a de facto permanent amphibious force. Wouldn't optimise this logistic matters you mention?

Salud
I hope you mean marine element and not corps seeing as the former can be any size while the latter is by definition a force of several divisions and often 50,000+ strong in manpower... When comes down to it it's a numbers game. The ADF only has so many spare bodies so if we were to create a traditional marine force you would need a brigade strength at least which then completely throws out plan Beersheba. Only way to make that work is to take 1st div entirely marine. Awesome but then it is set up more to island hopping with a smaller armoured component not able to go toe to toe with a peer enemy dedicated land army. For Australia making 2RAR the marine element/professional force to tell the rest of the army to do in such situation is the best option available at present.

That all said any further discussion on this subject should take place in the ADF thread. Just because the marines catch a taxi to battle doesn't mean it belongs in a naval thread.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry to dampen the mood but not really. China has numbers and home ground advantage. When it becomes a full on multinational fleet including Indonesian, Singaporean, Malaysian, indian and Vietnamese ships along side the US, Japan and Australia then such a statement could be made but a single CBG against a Chinese fleet multiple times its size in that region alone.. no.
Suggest some care be taken in in such emphatic statements.

The area these vessel are operating in is the South China Sea. This is a long way from mainland China and would still required considerable effort to counter this task group noting the ferry range for land based aircraft. The Chinese ‘carriers’ (noting No2 does not yet appear to be fully operational) carry less organic air than one USN CVN. The are aircraft are also load restrained by the fact these are STOBAR carriers and aircraft either need to be launched light or tanked after take off to get the max load out and range. These carriers also lack the AEW capability of the USN carrier and I suggest there is a technology gap between the aircraft embarked and the weapons they carry.

Add to that you need to know where your enemy is.

The islands have the capability of hosting land based aircraft but would also be pummelled by SSM’s from the fleet noting the USN know perfectly well where they are and where things are located on these islands.

Add to this you have no idea where the US SSN’s are located. I suggest they could make an awful mess of any task group sailing from China with ill intent. China is working on ASW but my understanding (and this is dated) they are still well behind.

Finally close to China is Japan and any attempted prodding of a US/AUS/JN task force in the South China Sea is going to result in a response from there. China will need to cover that and possibly other areas too.

Battles are not necessarily fought by getting all your ships in one place and slugging it out (it was tried at Jutland to no real effect) rather it is protecting your assets and sea lands. China still has to do this if it wants to play rough. I would suggest the combination is quite a challenge to China ... especially as they are winning few friends at the moment.

I hope it does not happen ... nobody needs that. The current build up by ASEAN nations in response to China’s approach and the economic response to China may cause them issues. It should at least give the cause to pause.
 
Last edited:
Top