Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Which ADF/RAN sim software did you use? eg Single PC software sims in comparison are like having a Model T Ford and calling it a GT-40.
eg, the box used to sim some of the Collins events was done on a SPARC Server running 16 processors and 16 gig of memory - and it used to fall over. (and this is similar to the box that is used for Air Traffic Controlling in one of the busiest airports in the world, let alone southern hemisphere, and its the same type used for data mining across a range of other Commonwealth storage systems - so its designed for grunty work)
There are so many variables involved that there is just no comparison between wargamers software and something written in ADA for a Unix box... If you look at some of the PC based software that is shown at LWC to advertise Sim trg, its very very basic and not even renotely representative of what unfolds. It fulfills specific niches only - and as such is compromised due to inherent simplicity.
The only country that currently runs a full sized carrier is the USA. Everyone else has toy boats. The usa will have carriers for the forseable future. Large nuclear powered monsters. I could see the day when they have fewer in number (~6 or less). This may occur in the next cycle of carrier building and the avalibility of carriers is a whole different issue that Australia should be aware of.
Australia doesn't have the same requirements. Using the LHD as I have explained above will give Australia more capability than any country bar the US, UK, France (and maybe India). Combined with gravy stroked fighters from land, Australia would be able to fend off any threat to its region and support any mission in its immediate region. We would be able to deliver more aircraft, with more fuel and rearm/refuel faster than anyone operating in our region (bar the USA).
Even if the LHD's are just floating runways it solves the major range problem that Australia has with its aircraft (rotary or fixed). If Australia wants to have a full carrier that can project its power over the oceans then thats another issue and look at something like the CVF. What I am promoting is the effective use of aircraft (still entirely land based) by utilising existing assets.
Australia doesn't have the same requirements. Using the LHD as I have explained above will give Australia more capability than any country bar the US, UK, France (and maybe India). Combined with gravy stroked fighters from land, Australia would be able to fend off any threat to its region and support any mission in its immediate region. We would be able to deliver more aircraft, with more fuel and rearm/refuel faster than anyone operating in our region (bar the USA).
Even if the LHD's are just floating runways it solves the major range problem that Australia has with its aircraft (rotary or fixed). If Australia wants to have a full carrier that can project its power over the oceans then thats another issue and look at something like the CVF. What I am promoting is the effective use of aircraft (still entirely land based) by utilising existing assets.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
I disagree with at least one exception the Charles De Gaulle, I agree that the US operate the only supercarriers, the CDG as I'm sure you know "can operate a fleet of up to 40 aircraft: Rafale M (range 3,340km), Super Etendard (range 1,682km) and three E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft. The ship will also support the AS 565 Panther or NH 90 helicopter." www.naval-technology.com,
Something with a displacement of 40,000 odd tons and a length of 261.5 metres, in my mind (I feel quite comfortable stating it in a public forum) makes it no mere "toy boat."
Thats a rather bold and somewhat unqualified statement. Of course not-withstanding a catastrophic degradation of the US economy, or vast overhaul on any current or near future plans of the USN, 6 carriers for US interests is just no feasible, unless you are alluding to future platforms which negate the purpose of a current concept of a carrier? Which I agree will happen but I would think these rather unlikely in at least the next fifty years. If this is not the case why do you think the US would allow its Carrier force to halve? World Peace?
t68
Well-Known Member
This is the best analogy i have heard about the lhd ,but one thing you have to remember is by puting the canopy on it nearly does the same job but at a cheaper price .
But i can understand what you are say if we really need the lhd to do the work of a carrier then buy a carrier.
I know the old HMAS MELBOURNE is old hat but what would it take to pull out the plans and modernize the base plan and bring it up to modern standards, but that might be easier said than done .
REGARDS
TOM
I'm assuming UACV will start significantly taking on roles around 2020. In particular ground/maritime strike. These will be longer range and less fighter like, with great stealth capabilities. Flight times could easily be extended out to 20 + hrs. Resulting in the need for less super carriers. This would occur over the period of many years. Of the order of 11 or 10 by 2025, 8 or 9 by 2030, 6 by 2040. Even that might be a little fast.
This will free the carriers be used more for A2A operations. Halving the number of carriers will also allow boosting the escorts per carrier, a wise move in a world where opponents will be more numerous but less individually capable. Money saved would then be able to get invested into more pressing defence programs. Or other priorities.
This is highly subjective long distance crystal balling by an inexperinced, uninformed civilian. But I have heard rumors of the US lowering its # of carriers from its cold war number. I am certainly open up to debate on this issue perhaps in another thread.
Then again the LHD's won't be fully in service until 2015ish, estimating a conservative 30 year life, that pushes them out to 2045. How can anyone be sure we will have overwhelming US support for any skirmish regionally in that time? Who's to say they won't be busy else where?
Regardless, the unpredictability of the future means we should push for maxium capability now. Any form of capability regarding carriers will take decades. Even just operating them a lillypads to extend range of land based aircraft.
I disagree with at least one exception the Charles De Gaulle
Yes, I have to say I hesitated when I wrote that. But I will still stand by it. While a charles de Gaulle is in a class of its own and more capable than others as a carrier, it is still a long way from the Americans. A US carrier can operate nearly twice as many aircraft of twice as many types, including types the CDG can't (refuelers or EW). A US carrier has effectively 3 runways. France only has one ship of this class and I belive its currently undergoing refueling. The CDG is still limited, pretty heavily by its size. As will any Russian based 65,000t carriers (India, Russia, China?). I will say while everyone else has a toy carrier, France has a accurate scale model prototype.
This will free the carriers be used more for A2A operations. Halving the number of carriers will also allow boosting the escorts per carrier, a wise move in a world where opponents will be more numerous but less individually capable. Money saved would then be able to get invested into more pressing defence programs. Or other priorities.
This is highly subjective long distance crystal balling by an inexperinced, uninformed civilian. But I have heard rumors of the US lowering its # of carriers from its cold war number. I am certainly open up to debate on this issue perhaps in another thread.
Then again the LHD's won't be fully in service until 2015ish, estimating a conservative 30 year life, that pushes them out to 2045. How can anyone be sure we will have overwhelming US support for any skirmish regionally in that time? Who's to say they won't be busy else where?
Regardless, the unpredictability of the future means we should push for maxium capability now. Any form of capability regarding carriers will take decades. Even just operating them a lillypads to extend range of land based aircraft.
I disagree with at least one exception the Charles De Gaulle
Yes, I have to say I hesitated when I wrote that. But I will still stand by it. While a charles de Gaulle is in a class of its own and more capable than others as a carrier, it is still a long way from the Americans. A US carrier can operate nearly twice as many aircraft of twice as many types, including types the CDG can't (refuelers or EW). A US carrier has effectively 3 runways. France only has one ship of this class and I belive its currently undergoing refueling. The CDG is still limited, pretty heavily by its size. As will any Russian based 65,000t carriers (India, Russia, China?). I will say while everyone else has a toy carrier, France has a accurate scale model prototype.
Hi Tom,
HMAS Melbourne always struggled to operate her aircraft efficiently and she was terribly limited re the size and weight of aircraft she could operate. She was too small, too slow and by modern standards she needed a comparatively large crew to operate an airgroup that was limited to around 20 aircraft. There is no way, IMO, that her plans would be used as the basis for a new carrier.
If Australia ever wants a new carrier it would be far better, IMO, to adapt a modern design like the CVF (USN carrier designs being too large, too expensive and requiring too large a crew).
The LHD's will provide the ADF with a huge boost in its power projection capacity. To add a dedicated fixed wing carrier force on top of this would require a huge expansion. Experience has shown that at least two ships are needed for efficient carrier operations. At least two new escorts would be required for each and two decent airgroups would be needed to make the vast expenditure worthwhile. Even allowing for the fact that a modern design would require fewer personnel than the old CVL's, I think the RAN would need at least 5,000-6,000 additional personnel to move in this direction. The cost of the ships, aircraft and personnel would place huge stress on the defence budget. It would take more than a decade to build the ships, acquire the aircraft, recruit and train the personnel. To make such a commitment would also require bipartisan political support. To start such a program and not follow it through completely as a result of political bickering would be a disaster for the ADF and a huge waste of taxpayer’s money.
I'm a naval and fleet air arm enthusiast but I also believe that we would have to be very sure of what we were doing and our ability to sustain it before embarking down the carrier track again. At this stage I think it must remain a dream.
A third LHD and a fourth AWD would be good additions to the curent naval program and, as I have stated before, I would support the acquisition of a squadron of F-35B's, available for limited deployment from the LHD's in similar fashion to USMC VSTOL operations. I think we would need the third LHD if we were to follow this path. As has been pointed out by others we would need to acquire additional equipment (as planned by the Spanish) for at least one LHD to enable it to operate F-35B's. Re the LHD's, I agree with StingrayOZ that we "should push for maximum capability now," to ensure that we have the flexibility to respond to future developments.
At this point in time I think we should concentrate on making sure that we get the LHD's and AWD's in service and operating efficiently. When the time comes to order the final batch of F-35's we can review the situation and, if the F-35B is successful and proves able to operate effectively from the Spanish LHD, we can make a rational decision about whether or not to include it in the ADF's order of battle.
Tas
i would like to add that the F35B will be around for a long time so their is no need to worry about buying the moment its avalible.
Good point. Let's get the LHD's up and running as amphibious assault ships. It will take time to develop procedures for efficient helicopter and landing craft operations. There will be plenty of time down the track to look at the F-35B and find out just what it can and cannot do, especially in regards to operating from Juan Carlos I.
Tas
Last edited:
Don't forget China looked at it for a design of an indigenous carrier, then went and bought the Russian Vardyag and co-op with Russian Designers for their own.
We would have to use the C word to get that many crew, and i really don't see it happening with any side of politics or public support.Plus it would be useless to operate only one, the adage is one at sea, one in dock, one on standby.
True, Juan Carlos may not even go well as a supporting Carrier let alone consideration as a central Carrier. We got till 2030 for the 35B i think, even then they might come up with another type to replace that in stages such as UCAV, good things come to those who wait:rel
t68
Well-Known Member
Hi guys
I only brought it up as something like the us carriers are way out of our league, in terms of size and man power and of course fiscal policy
I was not a wear of the operational deficiencies of HMAS MELBOURNE but thought as most of the leg work was done it was a matter of ironing out most of the deficiencies and problems?, It is of course an old design and might be in the to hard basket regarding bring up to modern standards.
Just out of curiosity would a ship of this size be able to be built in aus or would it be to large for the infrastructure capability here in oz
The French and English are working on a new conventionally-powered carrier. It will be built by DCNS. But I cant find the design of the new ship or the size, do you think this might complement the LHD when they are all sorted out, and see if we get the fourth AWD I was thinking of a time frame of 2017-20
REGARDS
TOM
Ps I found the info on the new carrier here
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/ http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/
I only brought it up as something like the us carriers are way out of our league, in terms of size and man power and of course fiscal policy
I was not a wear of the operational deficiencies of HMAS MELBOURNE but thought as most of the leg work was done it was a matter of ironing out most of the deficiencies and problems?, It is of course an old design and might be in the to hard basket regarding bring up to modern standards.
Just out of curiosity would a ship of this size be able to be built in aus or would it be to large for the infrastructure capability here in oz
The French and English are working on a new conventionally-powered carrier. It will be built by DCNS. But I cant find the design of the new ship or the size, do you think this might complement the LHD when they are all sorted out, and see if we get the fourth AWD I was thinking of a time frame of 2017-20
REGARDS
TOM
Ps I found the info on the new carrier here
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/ http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gaulle/
phalanx upgrade for RAN
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...story/11-09-2007/0004702423&EDATE=Nov+9,+2007
" Raytheon, U.S. Navy Sign $241.8 Million Phalanx Close-In Weapon System Orders LOUISVILLE, Ky., Nov. 9, 2007 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE:
RTN) is being awarded two contracts totaling $241.8 million to overhaul and
upgrade 34 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems for the U.S. Navy and one system
for the Royal Australian Navy. Raytheon will also build 12 Land-Based
Phalanx Weapon Systems for the U.S. Army and provide associated hardware to
all three services under the agreements......"
I'm assuming RAN, though just one unit makes me wonder whether it's for testing/evaluation purposes (C-RAM et al?).
Are current RAN phalanx, block 1 B yet? Or is this a trial of it?
rb
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...story/11-09-2007/0004702423&EDATE=Nov+9,+2007
" Raytheon, U.S. Navy Sign $241.8 Million Phalanx Close-In Weapon System Orders LOUISVILLE, Ky., Nov. 9, 2007 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE:
RTN) is being awarded two contracts totaling $241.8 million to overhaul and
upgrade 34 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems for the U.S. Navy and one system
for the Royal Australian Navy. Raytheon will also build 12 Land-Based
Phalanx Weapon Systems for the U.S. Army and provide associated hardware to
all three services under the agreements......"
I'm assuming RAN, though just one unit makes me wonder whether it's for testing/evaluation purposes (C-RAM et al?).
Are current RAN phalanx, block 1 B yet? Or is this a trial of it?
rb
AFAIK none of the RAN Phalanx units have been upgraded to Block 1B yet so I expect this will be a trial to determine what benefits it will provide (e.g. use against swarm attacks). The RAN has at least 9 Phalanx systems available so it would seem to me to make sense to upgrade them for future use from platforms such as the LHD's (which may otherwise only have the 25mm Typhoon and 12.7mm Mini Typhoon) and the AWD's.
Tas
Don't even try and be smart with me Future Tank or I figuratively stick one of those Harriers up your proverbial… Not all LHDs are equal and not all Navies, if you stopped playing computer games on your PC you might notice that.
Each of the US Navy's Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESG) have a 40,000 tonne Landing ship, Helicopter Dock (LHD) [sometimes known as Landing ship, Helicopter Assault (LHA)], a 25,000 tonne Landing Platform, Dock (LPD) and a 20,000 tonne Landing Ship, Dock (LSD). With that amount of sealift and capability they aim to move a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) based around a reinforced infantry battalion.
The ADF’s Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment System (ADAS) will consist of two 27,000 tonne LHDs. That will move a Combined Arms Battle Group (CABG) based around a reinforced infantry battalion.
The USN ESG has 85,000 tonnes of shipping to move effectively the same landing force that the ADF will have 54,000 tonnes of shipping to move. And with that surplus 31,000 tonnes they can only deploy and sustain a force of six (6) AV-8B ‘Harrier IIs’…
Further the USN ESG has a capability requirement for opposed landings. The ADF under MOLE only has a requirement for un-opposed landings. Our strategic environment (hopefully, and I’m very pessimistic about this) will enable the ADF to engage in amphibious manoeuvre and avoid having to go ashore under artillery fire (etc). This is why the USMC needs a range of equipments like the Harriers, DD(X)s and Amtraks that we do not have.
Even if we do develop a requirement for opposed landings the kind of effects generated by a small force of STOVL tactical fighters or Carrier Battle Group (CVBG) strike fighter support can potentially be replicated by other systems. Such as land attack missiles and enhanced NGS via ERGM capabilities.
The USN maintains 10 ESGs and we will have one ADAS. The efficiencies of scale make it feasible for their ESGs to have a STOVL half-squadron, the USMC has eight (8) squadrons with a few hundred aircraft. The ADF would be hugely burdened to maintain a STOVL force for our limited amphibious forces in comparison to the USMC.
The following publication (page thirteen) looks in detail at the recent USMC deployment to HMS Illustrious. What makes the article worth reading is the argument put forward for smaller carriers operating STOVL aircraft. Ironically this is from a USMC perspective not one offered by the RN.
http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/sample/
http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/sample/
The only true carrier avalible to Australia is the CVF.
We could only ever crew/afford one. Even then that would be a massive cost to do so. How many billion to build it? ~$4+ AUD? How many billion to give it an airwing, ~$6 billion easy just there. Something like 500-600 crew.
I would say to do what we want to do really we need an additional sealift ship anyway. I think we can all agree that it would be almost impossible to operate F-35B's with just two LHD's, and do everything else we want to do. Heck, you want Brigade level delivery your looking at more than two LHD's just for that.
While certainly some functions of the F-35's can be duplicated through other systems, with just small AWD's, we will be tight just offering Air defence. It when you start to argue 5th or 6th AWD verse another LHD with some F-35B's.
We could only ever crew/afford one. Even then that would be a massive cost to do so. How many billion to build it? ~$4+ AUD? How many billion to give it an airwing, ~$6 billion easy just there. Something like 500-600 crew.
So your saying Australia needs a additional sea lift ship of ~ 30-40,000t. Yes I would agree.
I would say to do what we want to do really we need an additional sealift ship anyway. I think we can all agree that it would be almost impossible to operate F-35B's with just two LHD's, and do everything else we want to do. Heck, you want Brigade level delivery your looking at more than two LHD's just for that. While certainly some functions of the F-35's can be duplicated through other systems, with just small AWD's, we will be tight just offering Air defence. It when you start to argue 5th or 6th AWD verse another LHD with some F-35B's.
Everyone here is talking about a third LHD,but for me it makes no sense as you need something to deploy on it. I mean in future Oz will have 7 conventional Infantry Bn to deploy some of them 2 LHD are sufficent enough as I doubt that Oz will send more than a full brigade (2 Infantry and one Combined Armor Bn+Arty etc so around 4000 Soldiers) into action and an action which reguires so many would be a major Regional War.
So if you want a 3rd LHD you should have to increase the Army to 9 conventional Infantry Bn+4th RAR. And this would be a major strain on recruitment.Where as I hope they would delink 8/9 Bn so they get 8 conventional Bn.
Personally I would rather like to see that the money and personnel would go to an 4th AWD,1 add. Infantry Bn,1 4th RAR Company,add MRH 90 and ARH, an ANZAC Follow on Programm which would provide at least 10 Surface Combatants and an very potent Mariner and Global Hawk Force.
This would be an more useful asstes than a 3rd LHD.
So if you want a 3rd LHD you should have to increase the Army to 9 conventional Infantry Bn+4th RAR. And this would be a major strain on recruitment.Where as I hope they would delink 8/9 Bn so they get 8 conventional Bn.
Personally I would rather like to see that the money and personnel would go to an 4th AWD,1 add. Infantry Bn,1 4th RAR Company,add MRH 90 and ARH, an ANZAC Follow on Programm which would provide at least 10 Surface Combatants and an very potent Mariner and Global Hawk Force.
This would be an more useful asstes than a 3rd LHD.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Army already has announced plans for 8 infantry battalions,
1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8/9 battalions Royal Australian Regiment will all be in Army's orbat come 2010 and of the battalions, only 8/9 RAR hasn't formally been re-raised (I believe). However it as been approved by Government and funding provided.
As to the 3rd LHD, it's not a matter of having enough troops to fill 3x boats, but having enough boats to put troops into.
Australia already operates 20x infantry battalions in total. It'd be a lot easier to bring some of these battalions to operational readiness than try and build a third LDH once we get into a desperate situation...
4th RAR company? Not sure what you're referring to here, but if you mean a 4th company for 4RAR (Commando) they already have 4x companies...
We don't need additional Tigers or MRH-90's til we get an operational capability out of the ones we've already ordered. Some Global Hawks and MQ-1 "Reapers" would be nice though, I have to admit...
I was talking about conventional Infantry Bn,by which 4th RAR doenst count as it as Special Forces.So Oz operates 7 Bn (Light,Mech,Motorised) and 4th RAR as SOF.
I always thought that 4th RAR has 3 Commando Companies(A,B,C,)+TAG east,or is it nowadays that they have 4 Commando Companies+ TAG east?
I always thought that 4th RAR has 3 Commando Companies(A,B,C,)+TAG east,or is it nowadays that they have 4 Commando Companies+ TAG east?
Jezza
Member
- Status