Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tasman]

Australia has always had a stronger navy than Canada. Now it looks like we will have a stronger Airforce and a Navy twice as strong, with a strong amphibious capability in the army. Then again, Canada is in a very quiet region. Australia is on the edge of the next multi power hotspot.

I can't agree with this statement Stingray.

At the end of WW2 the RCN was three times larger than the RAN in terms of manpower. It had a light carrier, 2 cruisers, approx 16 destroyers and 70 frigates together with large numbers of corvettes and minesweepers. Only in cruisers did the RAN have the edge in numbers (4 compared with 2 but one of them was the obsolete Adelaide). I do agree that in recent times the RAN seems to have moved ahead in capability.

Tas

 

[Tasman]

Tas, my point was that - if I am right and the pics show enough space behind the Mk 41s on the front deck (still not sure how much space required) - then it may be possible to do all three right now:

1) Relocate Harpoons from current location to area specified

2) Attach two 21-Round Box Launchers for RAM, and

3) Go with your possible idea for Mk 56 above the hanger for ESSM.

- Now that would be a Warfighting Improvement Program!

Brett.

Agreed!

The RAN does seem to like the idea of mounting the Harpoon launchers forward (as in Anzacs) so if there is space then this would free up cells allocated to ESSM for SM3, SM-6 or additional SM-2s. With both ESSM and RAM mounted midships they would have excellent area and close in defence capability against missile or air attack. Add 25mm Typhoons and/or 12.7mm Mini Typhoons for defence against fast attack craft and the RAN would have a very effective destroyer. There is also a spot at the rear of the hangar for an upgraded Phalanx or equivalent CIWS!

Weight, however, could be a bit of an issue!

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

I can't agree with this statement Stingray

Well to be entirely accurate I should have specified a time frame. Your right, I wasn't aware Canada has such a strong navy directly after WWII. I suppose I should have said that Canada has not been developing its navy in the same way Australia has since WWII.

 

[Tasman]

Well to be entirely accurate I should have specified a time frame. Your right, I wasn't aware Canada has such a strong navy directly after WWII. I suppose I should have said that Canada has not been developing its navy in the same way Australia has since WWII.

To be fair, I should have acknowledged that most of the Canadian frigates, corvettes and minesweepers were sold off soon after WW2 finished.

A major difference between the two fleets was that Canada specialised in ASW whilst the RAN maintained a more balanced fleet. Even when various governments and major allies (USN and RN) tried to push Australia firmly down the ASW path in the 60's and 70's the RAN managed to maintain a balance (e.g. getting A4G Skyhawks for Melbourne along with the 3 Adams class DDGs and the 6 Oberon class submarines).

The present program continues the policy of developing and maintaining a well balanced fleet. The combination of the Canberra class LHDs, Hobart class AWDs, improved Anzac class frigates and upgraded Collins class submarines looks a good one to me. What I want to see now is the solving of the problem of retention of experienced personnel.

Tas

 

[alexsa]

Agreed!

The RAN does seem to like the idea of mounting the Harpoon launchers forward (as in Anzacs) so if there is space then this would free up cells allocated to ESSM for SM3, SM-6 or additional SM-2s. With both ESSM and RAM mounted midships they would have excellent area and close in defence capability against missile or air attack. Add 25mm Typhoons and/or 12.7mm Mini Typhoons for defence against fast attack craft and the RAN would have a very effective destroyer. There is also a spot at the rear of the hangar for an upgraded Phalanx or equivalent CIWS!

Weight, however, could be a bit of an issue!

Tas

The area forward of the bridge is set up for UNREP (hence the frame work on the bridge front). This is still a vital part of the ships operation and sticking harpoon canesters there will cause problems. Suggest a SeaRAM could still be fitted in the 'typcial' CIWS postion aft (without any major reconstruction) and perhaps there is space for a short length VLS (mk 54 as suggested) for ESSM, although that wouel require some rejigging.

 

[Tasman]

The area forward of the bridge is set up for UNREP (hence the frame work on the bridge front). This is still a vital part of the ships operation and sticking harpoon canesters there will cause problems.

Good point alexsa (as is usual with your posts )!

Tas

 

[battlensign]

The area forward of the bridge is set up for UNREP (hence the frame work on the bridge front). This is still a vital part of the ships operation and sticking harpoon canesters there will cause problems. Suggest a SeaRAM could still be fitted in the 'typcial' CIWS postion aft (without any major reconstruction) and perhaps there is space for a short length VLS (mk 54 as suggested) for ESSM, although that wouel require some rejigging.

Noooooooo! The plan was perfect!: Why did you have to go and bring logic into this?!?!?! Damn you, Damn you Sir! We could have had a Frigate with 16 Tactom/SM3/6, 32 SM2, 32 ESSM and 42 RAM, CIWS and Standard/Mini-Typhoon! These Destroyers could have really kicked some A$$.

Is there anyway to keep the UNREP capability whilst maintaining the forward Harpoon location?

Brett.

 

[old faithful]

can anyone tell me wether the AWD,s will be modified to carry two helo,s rather than one? Also, a UAV option would be a great asset for these ships, will the hangers be large enough for a helo + UAV?

 

[Aussie Digger]

can anyone tell me wether the AWD,s will be modified to carry two helo,s rather than one? Also, a UAV option would be a great asset for these ships, will the hangers be large enough for a helo + UAV?

As I understand it, the design doesn't allow for the carriage of 2x helo's, but 1x helo and a couple of VTOL UAV's is apparently possible...

There HAD to be a reason Adm Shackleton was smiling when he emerged from the Cabinet meeting which chose the F-105 design...

 

[battlensign]

As I understand it, the design doesn't allow for the carriage of 2x helo's, but 1x helo and a couple of VTOL UAV's is apparently possible...

There HAD to be a reason Adm Shackleton was smiling when he emerged from the Cabinet meeting which chose the F-105 design...

I assume you mean CN VADM Shalders.....

Brett.

 

[Sea Toby]

Noooooooo! The plan was perfect!: Why did you have to go and bring logic into this?!?!?! Damn you, Damn you Sir! We could have had a Frigate with 16 Tactom/SM3/6, 32 SM2, 32 ESSM and 42 RAM, CIWS and Standard/Mini-Typhoon! These Destroyers could have really kicked some A$$.

Is there anyway to keep the UNREP capability whilst maintaining the forward Harpoon location?

Brett.

No. The ship meets specifications....or they would not have been bought the ships. Now, the Monday morning quarterbacks are out, wondering why they didn't get more VLS cells. Or wondering why there isn't another helicopter hangar. Gee, whiz, get real folks. You did not buy a 9,000 ton Arleigh Burke, get over it. You bought a ship of less than 6,000 tons. The Hobarts will never carry as many weapons as a Burke, they are not big enough. But the Hobarts will be flexible.

The Hobarts are much better ships than the Anzacs, 48 VLS cells instead of 8 VLS cells, all of the VLS cells are on the main deck, not high above the hangar. In my opinion having the VLS much lower is better, its amazing how ten years of learning and planning makes a difference.

You an bet the admirals are already thinking about adding Typhons or mini-typhoons, and CIWS, whether a Phalanx gun or SEA-RAMs. More than likely the current policy of cross decking either will continue, if only to save some funds.

 

[Sea Toby]

Somebody misses the Jervis bay i take it...:teary

The biggest concern is the LCM. Which was not designed to carry the Abrhams, as it predates the mere thought of purchasing an abrahms, and yet its only 4-5 years old and will operate off the LHDs.
I can't recall the name but currently the USMC is looking at a new landing craft that some claim would work well for the RAN and the LHD to operate the Abrahams off, and is part of the JP2048 phase to replace LCM and LCH, as well as the possibility of a LCAC(yeah right, keep dreaming)

LCMs don't cost that much, new craft can be bought and built which can transport the M1 tanks. Since the old craft are fairly new, one should be able to sell them easily as cream puffs almost. Landing craft should not be a problem with any budget.

 

[alexsa]

Noooooooo! The plan was perfect!: Why did you have to go and bring logic into this?!?!?! Damn you, Damn you Sir! We could have had a Frigate with 16 Tactom/SM3/6, 32 SM2, 32 ESSM and 42 RAM, CIWS and Standard/Mini-Typhoon! These Destroyers could have really kicked some A$$.

Is there anyway to keep the UNREP capability whilst maintaining the forward Harpoon location?

Brett.

Sadly I don't think so. You need space for UNREP (which still involves a degree of 'manpower') and plumbing. Not a simple task to find another location.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sadly I don't think so. You need space for UNREP (which still involves a degree of 'manpower') and plumbing. Not a simple task to find another location.

Apart from the fact that the sheer cost of staging any vessel to an arsenal concept is too expensive and would be thrown out pretty damn quickly.

The cost to fill a vessel with that loadout would kill off sailing and training time for a huge part of the fleet. All Austgovs are and have been averse to that cost imposition.

Philosophically we also don't subscribe to the russian/indian/chinese bluewater combatant vessel design philosophy

 

[Scouter]

G'day everyone. Quick question.

Its been mentioned several times that buying complete missile loadouts for warships is exceptionally expensive, and to save money complete laodouts may not be purchased for the Hobarts.

If that's the case, then how is the issue of war stocks dealt with? Presumably in any conflict where those missiles are actually used, reloads will be required, and I would guess that Raytheon et al build to order, rather than keep stocks just in case. Would we "borrow" them from the USN?

Thanks.

 

[Sea Toby]

Good question. I suspect the Australian government would use American war stocks, but would have to pay for the weapons they used. This is one of the benefits of being an American ally, much like during WWII.

During peacetime I am sure Australia, much like the USA and other nations, do a lot of cross decking of their war material. Australia isn't the only nation biting the bullet when it comes to defence spending.

During a war, the budget is chaff into the wind. I believe John Curtin said something similar. Everything is done to win a war, all other matters become secondary.

Winston Churchill said his government's policy was to win the war. He offered nothing but blood, sweat, tears, and toil.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would we "borrow" them from the USN?

Thanks.

we've done so for a number of items in the past....

 

[battlensign]

I have been thinking about what everyone has said (thanks for all the feedback) but I still believe that only the UNREP operations would potentially been impaired - to what extent? Unsure.

G'day everyone. Quick question.

Its been mentioned several times that buying complete missile loadouts for warships is exceptionally expensive, and to save money complete laodouts may not be purchased for the Hobarts.

I actually do not agree with that assessment of the costs. Significant? Perhaps. Prohibitively so? I would not believe so. The SM2 and ESSM loadouts from the FFGs would merely be swapped to the Hobarts (and interestly there are four FFGs that could switch to four Hobarts..... ). The only new purchases are the Tomahawks/SM3/6 depending on government requirements and 8 RAM Launchers.

Brett.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I actually do not agree with that assessment of the costs. Significant? Perhaps. Prohibitively so? I would not believe so. The SM2 and ESSM loadouts from the FFGs would merely be swapped to the Hobarts (and interestly there are four FFGs that could switch to four Hobarts..... ). The only new purchases are the Tomahawks/SM3/6 depending on government requirements and 8 RAM Launchers.

Brett.

You might not think so, but 5 past governments - and most certainly this government disagree.

It's not going to happen and it also goes against how austgov looks at capability for our skimmers. (from both sides of the political spectrum)

as it is, we're up for more "hurt" soon.

2 chances. Buckleys and the proverbial......

 

[Scouter]

missile stocks

Thanks for the replies.

Given that war stocks would appear to be non-existent, how quickly could the USN get sufficient supplies of missiles to the RAN? In the event of a rapidly developing crisis that required ships deploying to cary a full combat load, would it just be a case of phoning the Pentagon, loading a couple of C-17s and flying them over, or would all the legal niceties have to be observed?

My guess is that the paperwork could be sorted out later, but thats just a guess.