Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

It could be argued that with Choules providing vehicle decks, troop accommodation and a dock, the thing that is missing is a spare flight deck.

A small carrier can be designed to double as an LPH during the unavailability of one of the LHDs and without the dock and vehicle decks could actually be smaller, cheaper and have a smaller crew than a third LHD. Cavour Hyuga and Izumo are all designed and carriers / helicopter carriers with a secondary amphibious / disaster relief function with troop and vehicle accommodation designed in. Another option could be to go for something along the lines of HMS Ocean a proper LPH.

Either way whatever is selected could also be specified to be able to operate the F-35B, have the appropriate on board facilities and deck coatings workshops, magazines, etc. this ship could be designed to permanently embark a squadron of F-35Bs in support of the LHDs. When this ship is unavailable either of the LHDs could be used by the F-35 crews to maintain currencies and certifications.

Take it a step further, if the basic ship is cheap enough, we could actually look at two or three instead of just one and buy them as multi role replacements for the FFGs. Their helicopters and accommodations would support the amphibious and disaster relief missions while embarked helos could cover ASW, MCM, AEW and the F-35B air defence, anti surface vessel and land attack. Any task group would likely already have a DDG (AWD) and a couple of ASMD ANZACs escorting the LHD so the small carrier would be well enough defended with its afore mentioned capabilities actually adding to task force defence as well as providing additional strike / CAS support for the troops when they go ashore.

There could be a single large squadron of F-35B providing a flight to two of the carriers or three small squadrons doing the same with the other carrier either serving in the LPH role, covering off for one of the LHDs, or in refit itself.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Of course there is the issue hinted at in your reply Bonza but not explicitly stated; The LHD capability is predicated on having two LHDs. If you are operating one of the LHDs as a CVL you come up short in amphibious capability.

Reading through land 400 latest documents I see that they have the requirement to be able to move two companies in two wave by air and two by sea with heavy equipment in multiple waves. So I would imagine it could be moved by one Lhd.

Not sure if this is the primary amphib plan.

 

[gf0012-aust]

the issue for JSF flying off the LHD's is similar to that for the Tigers - except the Tigers are now cleared

can they.... sure
will they .....

an intermittent capability has very different build, training, force integration, CONOPS constraints to full time capability

 

[hairyman]

I would have thought that if we were to go the way of a purpose built carrier, we would get one big enough to fly a full naval fighter such as the F35C off, instead of the F35B with all of its limitations.

 

[John Newman]

...... and the lack of aviation armament magazines and bunkerage for fixed wing has been discussed on here before. However, I'd be happy if this wasn't the case.

Putting aside the question of the lack (or not) of aviation armament magazines for a moment, I'm interested in understanding how the army's armaments would be stored.

If at some time in the future the LHD's were transporting a full load of troops and all their equipment to some distant shore, I would imagine that there would be everything from bullets at the one end and all the way up to artillery and tank shells.

There could also be mortar and anti tank weapons carried such as Javelin, anti air weapons such as RBS-70 launchers and rounds.

Apart from troop lift helicopters, maybe there would be the possibility of a couple of ARH Tigers which could include unguided rockets and Hellfire missiles.

And the other possibility, remote as it is, that crossed my mind is if one or more MH-60R's were carried, they could be armed with Hellfire and torpedoes too.

So how would all that ammunition be stored? Do armament magazines exist on the LHD's for all of those munitions that could potentially be carried?

 

[ADMk2]

Putting aside the question of the lack (or not) of aviation armament magazines for a moment, I'm interested in understanding how the army's armaments would be stored.

If at some time in the future the LHD's were transporting a full load of troops and all their equipment to some distant shore, I would imagine that there would be everything from bullets at the one end and all the way up to artillery and tank shells.

There could also be mortar and anti tank weapons carried such as Javelin, anti air weapons such as RBS-70 launchers and rounds.

Apart from troop lift helicopters, maybe there would be the possibility of a couple of ARH Tigers which could include unguided rockets and Hellfire missiles.

And the other possibility, remote as it is, that crossed my mind is if one or more MH-60R's were carried, they could be armed with Hellfire and torpedoes too.

So how would all that ammunition be stored? Do armament magazines exist on the LHD's for all of those munitions that could potentially be carried?

Armament magazine on the ships are often part of the air weapons project. I saw most recently for instance that the MH-60R program includes funding for delivery of air weapons magazines for Hellfire and torpedoes (and probably 12.7mm weapons and ammunition) on RAN's major surface combatants, didn't specify any particular class, so it probably covers AWD, ANZAC, FFG, Choules and LHD's.

I expect the relevant programs you mentioned either had funding included or the various platforms were scoped as part of the overall LHD project.

 

[StoresBasher]

I'm heading down to Williamstown tomorrow to see LHD01, do some inductions and a few other things. Not sure if I'll be able to take any pics, but I'll report back on Thursday/Friday night.

 

[John Newman]

Armament magazine on the ships are often part of the air weapons project. I saw most recently for instance that the MH-60R program includes funding for delivery of air weapons magazines for Hellfire and torpedoes (and probably 12.7mm weapons and ammunition) on RAN's major surface combatants, didn't specify any particular class, so it probably covers AWD, ANZAC, FFG, Choules and LHD's.

I expect the relevant programs you mentioned either had funding included or the various platforms were scoped as part of the overall LHD project.

I understand your point about the magazines for air carried weapons on ships, I remember reading an article (I think it was in The Australian) a few months ago that modifications to the magazines (I believe the modifications to the AWD's are not happening till after construction is complete and also to the ANZAC's) have to be made so that the 'full' range of weapons carried by the MH-60R's could be carried on those two classes of ships because the current magazines are not configured/equipped to store those weapons.

What I'm particularly interested to understand is, for instance, if the LHD's were carrying/transporting a load of M1 Abrams tanks from point A to point B, would the 120mm munitions be stored in a magazine on the ship or would they stay 'pre-loaded' in the tanks?

And the same question would apply to all the other Army munitions that I mentioned above, would some or all of the rounds (whatever they be) end up being stored in magazines or stay with the equipment being transported?

Cheers,

 

[gf0012-aust]

What I'm particularly interested to understand is, for instance, if the LHD's were carrying/transporting a load of M1 Abrams tanks from point A to point B, would the 120mm munitions be stored in a magazine on the ship or would they stay 'pre-loaded' in the tanks?

And the same question would apply to all the other Army munitions that I mentioned above, would some or all of the rounds (whatever they be) end up being stored in magazines or stay with the equipment being transported?

Cheers,

they'd go into the armouries

 

[Todjaeger]

I understand your point about the magazines for air carried weapons on ships, I remember reading an article (I think it was in The Australian) a few months ago that modifications to the magazines (I believe the modifications to the AWD's are not happening till after construction is complete and also to the ANZAC's) have to be made so that the 'full' range of weapons carried by the MH-60R's could be carried on those two classes of ships because the current magazines are not configured/equipped to store those weapons.

What I'm particularly interested to understand is, for instance, if the LHD's were carrying/transporting a load of M1 Abrams tanks from point A to point B, would the 120mm munitions be stored in a magazine on the ship or would they stay 'pre-loaded' in the tanks?

And the same question would apply to all the other Army munitions that I mentioned above, would some or all of the rounds (whatever they be) end up being stored in magazines or stay with the equipment being transported?

Cheers,

The issue to keep in mind about munitions storage aboard the LHD (specifically for sustained air ops) is not whether munitions can be safely stored aboard, they can, otherwise the troops and vehicles would be unarmed and of very limited use. The issue has to do with the size, type, and location of the munitions storage.

A case in point would be the AWD's and the LWT. Originally designed to utilize the MU90, the decision to purchase MH-60R Seahawks and Mk 54 LWT's has caused some issues because the propulsion systems are different. This in turn is causing an issue because the AWD torpedoe magazine was not designed to safely storage the Mk 54 LWT, specifically the motor/fuel components of the propulsion.

In the case of supporting air ops, any motors/fuels used by the munitions needs to also be safely contained, with systems in place to contain or put out a fire in the magazine and depending on the fuels and materials, such system requirements can be quite varied.

There is also the matter of where the munitions are stored. If the magazine is well below the level of the flight deck and/or hangar, and there is no elevator system between the two, then getting munitions to aircraft in any sort of volume would become quite cumbersome, difficult, and potentially hazardous.

-Cheers

 

[Raven22]

What I'm particularly interested to understand is, for instance, if the LHD's were carrying/transporting a load of M1 Abrams tanks from point A to point B, would the 120mm munitions be stored in a magazine on the ship or would they stay 'pre-loaded' in the tanks?

And the same question would apply to all the other Army munitions that I mentioned above, would some or all of the rounds (whatever they be) end up being stored in magazines or stay with the equipment being transported?

Cheers,

Bit of both. First line ammunition would stay with the equipment, while bulk ammunition would go into the magazines. With the M1 for instance, the M1s would be loaded onto the ship with first line of ammunition already loaded (42 120mm rounds, 1000 0.50 cal, over 11000 7.62mm etc). Extra ammunition, belonging to the A1, A2 ech etc, would be held in the magazines. Similarly individual soldiers will keep their normal ammunition in their personal equipment, with bulk loaded in magazines.

It really can't be any other way. An M1, for instance, contains about 2 tonne of ammo. Trying to keep that sort of weight in the magazines and only loading the tanks prior to landing is obviously not particularly practicable.

 

[aussienscale]

Bit of both. First line ammunition would stay with the equipment, while bulk ammunition would go into the magazines. With the M1 for instance, the M1s would be loaded onto the ship with first line of ammunition already loaded (42 120mm rounds, 1000 0.50 cal, over 11000 7.62mm etc). Extra ammunition, belonging to the A1, A2 ech etc, would be held in the magazines. Similarly individual soldiers will keep their normal ammunition in their personal equipment, with bulk loaded in magazines.

It really can't be any other way. An M1, for instance, contains about 2 tonne of ammo. Trying to keep that sort of weight in the magazines and only loading the tanks prior to landing is obviously not particularly practicable.

Exactly, every pack, every tank and everything in between will be loaded to the hilt on top of the magazine's on the ship. This is part of why we have stipulated a 50 day sustainment period, get the troops there first and maintain while supply lines either by sea or air are established.

You also have to take into account the LHD's are obviously escorted, and will have a supply vessel present on any deployment as well, so lets hope we select the right one's to replace Success ?

On the subject of magazine's on a ship, you have different kinds/ratings which dictate what can be carried according to specs, so you can't load up a small arms mag with M1 shell's etc, likewise you can't just use that space to store munitions for F-35's where ever you like.

As Tod has mentioned above, just a change in the type of torpedo and different fuels dictates changes in specs and upgrades for the torpedo mag already. So it is not as simple as the fact there is plenty of space on the LHD's.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

The Caimen-200 seems to be on the money. However, add a flight deck to the standard Caiman-200 design.

View attachment 6254
The added internal area would create extra room for storage, fresh water or holding area for immigrants or unlawful people.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lhh_Li2vio

http://http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/bmt-design-portfolio/bmt-caimen-landing-craft/

You cannot redesign a ship by simply adding top weight and structure to a vessel. Given the paylaod of the vessel is 200 tonnes an additional 50 tonnes of structure limits the vessel considerably. Stability would also take a hit.

Add to that the increased bending forces from a large structure down aft means this wouel also need to be compnsated for in structure as well. I like the Camen 200 but to add a flight desck would mean a higher displacement and would essentailly be a significant redesign.

 

[aussienscale]

I would have thought that if we were to go the way of a purpose built carrier, we would get one big enough to fly a full naval fighter such as the F35C off, instead of the F35B with all of its limitations.

IF we were to get a carrier it would most certainly be a STOVL, the minimum size for a CATOBAR is around the UK's QE size and not really practical for the RAN.

Also IF we were you have to take into account the current force structure, and having the LHD's which have some utility with STOVL would make sense to follow and utilise that capability and maintain capability when said carrier is in refit etc, but it is a moot point, but never say never when Tony is at the helm, depends how long he stays in ?

Here are 68 pages of every possible discussion point on this very subject, a few years old, but still very relevant

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/hypothetical-carrier-buy-ran-10410/

Cheers

 

[old faithful]

Ok, apart from the LHD,s and hypertheticial acc,s etc etc, blah blah blah, F35B,s would be a very handy assett in a remote place with a lack of airfields , a long way from home.
They could be transported via LHD and operated from land based rough airfeilds.
usefull yes, do I think it will happen? No.

 

[Volkodav]

Bit of both. First line ammunition would stay with the equipment, while bulk ammunition would go into the magazines. With the M1 for instance, the M1s would be loaded onto the ship with first line of ammunition already loaded (42 120mm rounds, 1000 0.50 cal, over 11000 7.62mm etc). Extra ammunition, belonging to the A1, A2 ech etc, would be held in the magazines. Similarly individual soldiers will keep their normal ammunition in their personal equipment, with bulk loaded in magazines.

It really can't be any other way. An M1, for instance, contains about 2 tonne of ammo. Trying to keep that sort of weight in the magazines and only loading the tanks prior to landing is obviously not particularly practicable.

Raven, as a customer, what's your thoughts on a replacement for the LCH? Would a US Army style LSV which is able to lift a squadron of Abrams or similar numbers of IFVs be the way to go or would a small LPD be of more use? What do we actually need in terms of national and regional capability from such a platform?

 

[Raven22]

Raven, as a customer, what's your thoughts on a replacement for the LCH? Would a US Army style LSV which is able to lift a squadron of Abrams or similar numbers of IFVs be the way to go or would a small LPD be of more use? What do we actually need in terms of national and regional capability from such a platform?

No idea. I've never been on an LCH and probably never will. I've not given it much thought.

 

[hairyman]

Aussienscale posted:-

"IF we were to get a carrier it would most certainly be a STOVL, the minimum size for a CATOBAR is around the UK's QE size and not really practical for the RAN."


The Charles DeGaule is a lot smaller than QE11...but still manages with Rafael M. Would a non nuclear vessel of about that size be suitable for the RAN? I would have thought it would be.

 

[John Newman]

Aussienscale posted:-

"IF we were to get a carrier it would most certainly be a STOVL, the minimum size for a CATOBAR is around the UK's QE size and not really practical for the RAN."


The Charles DeGaule is a lot smaller than QE11...but still manages with Rafael M. Would a non nuclear vessel of about that size be suitable for the RAN? I would have thought it would be.

Not that I think it's going to happen, but 'if' the RAN was going to get back into the fast jet carrier business, my choice would be the Italian Cavour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour_(550)


Apart from her capability to operate STOVL aircraft and anti-submarine helicopters (average air wing is 20, but can carry 30 aircraft), she also has a secondary amphibious capability too.

A relatively small crew, compared to either the much larger UK and French carriers, too.

Cavour would be my pick compared to the much larger ships, she is something that we could probably afford to crew and operate, but again, still don't think the RAN is ever going to get back into the carrier business.

Cheers,

 

[King Wally]

Not that I think it's going to happen, but 'if' the RAN was going to get back into the fast jet carrier business, my choice would be the Italian Cavour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour_(550)


Apart from her capability to operate STOVL aircraft and anti-submarine helicopters (average air wing is 20, but can carry 30 aircraft), she also has a secondary amphibious capability too.

A relatively small crew, compared to either the much larger UK and French carriers, too.

Cavour would be my pick compared to the much larger ships, she is something that we could probably afford to crew and operate, but again, still don't think the RAN is every going to get back into the carrier business.

Cheers,

And nearly copied my post word for word, I'll just stop to say very much my thoughts as well. Apart from tight budgets with many hands outstretched (Subs, supply ships, future frigates, patrol boats etc) I can't really see the RAN ending up in a situation needing a carrier without having an ally alongside with one (USA/UK). All said and done, if the brief hit my desk with the will and want I'd be going for the Cavour too. Order a squadron of F-35B and before you know it you could be rolling.