Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Wonder if the Navy sent a MRH-90 or a Seahawk with her to Hawaii? Haven't seen either.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I think the Canberra Class are one of the most important bits of kit within the ADF.
Unfortunately pedestrian effort in utilizing the "H" in LHD is however perplexing.
Disappoint with the availability rates from both the Tiger and Taipan helicopters I can understand contributing to the lack deployment.
That said however, both of these types have flow in modest numbers off the LHD's in the past
Defence wanted this type of ship.
They could well of selected a different type of vessel or mix of ships.
They wanted and got a big LHD.
Army did dedicate a Battalion to Amphibious operations.
Under sized in my opinion but specialized to work directly with the new LHD's.
So why did we get this type of ship.
I do recall when the old amphibious trio were to be replaced 20 years ago the aspirational benefits of landing as much critical mass in as short a time as possible was deemed important.
A ship with a docking well and full length flight deck appeared to be the answer.
Heavy stuff transported by the connectors and a flight deck with six spots and enough helicopters to maintain a healthy sortie rate to provide the various duties specific to the type of helicopter deployed.
We can move the heavy stuff;
The flying stuff I'm not to sure.
We have had an LHD for seven years.
Where are we in the crawl,walk and run.
Cheers S
Building an amphibious capability of this size takes decades which is what the RAN has been working towards through various platforms (LCHs, LPAs etc). LHDs are not CVs, you won't see their flight decks crammed full of aircraft all the time. What rate of aviation ops were you expecting from these ships ? This year alone during Op Tonga Assist both LHDs were flying Taipans and Chinooks constantly while on station because it's one of their mission profiles and a capability they can deliver. When sailing in TGs they will have a mix of Seahawks and allied aircraft operating from their decks.
Look at other similar sized navies around the world, how many are operating amphibs of this size regularly and competently ? I'm afraid I don't understand your criticism.
Yes I know I'm being critical.
My perception of time,need,opportunity and focus may not be shared.
Will be interesting what this space looks like with the additional MH-60R and replacement helicopters for Taipan and Tiger Helicopters.
Cheers S
Part of the issue is, while the Tiger has performed well on LHDs, there simply aren't enough of them to deploy all the time and meet the operational requirements we obtained them for in the first place. The fact we don't have enough and can't get enough Tigers is one of the reasons they are being replaced by a greater number of Apaches instead of being extensively upgraded. The Combat Wombat on the other hand has had some additional issues (over and above all its other woes) when deployed on the LHDs.
To be honest, the LHDs were a later acquisition than both helo types, although the dumb bit is what became the MRH acquisition started as an additional squadron of utility helicopter intended specifically to operate from Bill and Ben.
Happy to stand corrected if Takao has more or different info, but this is my (little bit shaky) understanding.
We have at various times, I think 13 aircraft per vessel is the highest I have heard of personally being embarked, I’m not sure we’ll ever see that much higher, to be honest. Perhaps if a larger number of Apache were to be employed one day…
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Great and thanks, that sort of figure of 13 is what I wanted to know.
If correct, then for any major exercise this should be the bare minimum number embarked.
Real world military scenario's will dictate that necessary and this skill set must be consolidated much quicker than was envisaged than when we aspired to acquire this capability.
Unfortunately the world has changed dramatically in a short space of time hence my negativity on this subject.
Cheers S
PS - Maybe Navantia could build us that third LHD rather than Hobarts.
Then someone will say we will need more escorts for the LHD
Its a challenge!!!
I don't like the idea of a third LHD as increased tensions have raised questions over the survivability and effectiveness of our current two. If we used them in a high threat scenario we could easily lose them raising questions over the opportunity cost of LHDs verses other capabilities.
We have pundits saying we shouldn't be buying IFVs, tanks, helicopters and even frigates because they are too vulnerable I think LHDs without even point defence missiles falls somewhat below that. We don't even have sufficient, suitable helicopters for our current pair to operate.
It could be argued that a mix of high end (with decent self defence capability) LHDs would have been a better investment. I firmly believe a couple of light carriers, and LPDs would have been better value for money.
Last edited:
Different manufactuer but I look at the RAH-66 and I can also see the Bell 360.Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche - Wikipedia
Yes there last major new Rotary Wing project was soooo succesful. @$4B each those 2 prototypes were worth every cent
Given the experience faced by attack Helo's in Ukraine, features not considered worth the cost in 2004 (stealth,internal weapons bay Etc) may be reconsidered to make future craft more survivable.
The Taipans were acquired as art of Air 9000, whose object was to rationalise the number of helos types operated by the ADF while replacing some types which were approaching the end of life, including the Sea King but principally (in the phases concerned - 2, 4 and 6) the Army’s Blackhawks.
Phase 2 was to increase the overall lift capability of Army, not just for amphib ops, but (with 6) was not the main driver of the overall requirement ; that was 4 - Blackhawk Replacement. Worked well, didn’t it? Army now apparently wants to trade in for Blackhawks and Navy for Seahawks.
There is probably still a place for them if we still wanted to up total lift - but not in the battlefield manoeuvre or maritime utility roles.
Phase 2 was to increase the overall lift capability of Army, not just for amphib ops, but (with 6) was not the main driver of the overall requirement ; that was 4 - Blackhawk Replacement. Worked well, didn’t it? Army now apparently wants to trade in for Blackhawks and Navy for Seahawks.
There is probably still a place for them if we still wanted to up total lift - but not in the battlefield manoeuvre or maritime utility roles.
I have long thought the MH-60S would have been a good fit for the ADF. Fully marinised, utility type, certified for multiple secondary roles, including SAR, CSAR, special forces support, mine warfare, anti surface, etc.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Hang on - why is 13 the minimum number? If that's the most to date, does that not suggest that is what we need to exercise?
Exercises aren't done for fun, they are done for a purpose. What is the purpose of the exercise? A Sqn of helicopters (which 13 is) can lift a Bn of light infantry; what more is needed then?
You are very worried about the H in LHD, but do remember a couple of things.
1. I'd suggest in their entire RAN career, neither HMAS Kanimbla nor HMAS Manoora saw 13 helicopters across their decks ever. The ability to operate 13 helicopters from one ship is such a leap forward.
2. That ignores the additional aspect of undercover storage. Having 4x MRH-90 on HMAS Canberra is much superior to having 4x MRH-90 on HMAS Kanimbla as the maintenance can be done, and the helos stored, in shelter. Automatically everything about your helo's improve, as their exposure to the elements is reduced.
3. Along with that, these aren't USN ships. We have elected not to pursue deck storage as much as possible (see 2). So we can afford to operate smaller numbers of helos than max and still have little impact on long-term fleet avaliability.
4. As @Todjaeger points out:
every helo on board takes the space of some trucks. Again, what is the point of the exercise? Your Bn of light infantry still need wheels for logistics and the like - if you take 24x - 30x helicopters, not only are you deck parking (see 3), you are also taking space on the light vehicle deck. Loading the LHDs is a never ending jigsaw puzzle
5. Deck quals are expensive to keep up all the time. And they need to be done regularly. Putting heaps of helos on LHDs all the time will lead to a situation where all 16 Bde does is practise deck quals. Which may be appropriate for a major amphibious operation or exercise, but 16X's responsibilities extend beyond that. There simply isn't enough AAvn helos to maintain large ship detachments. Should there be? I don't think so, I think there are better things to spend money on than more helos.
Overall, the amphib capability is where it needs to be. Can HMAS Canberra deploy tomorrow with 24 helo? Yup (allowing for loading and frantic deck quals). But could she sail around with a Sqn of Tiger, a Sqn (+) of MRH-90 and a Tp (+) of CH-47? Absolutely. If there was a mission that needed that, 16X and the RAN could. Do we need to though? No. not at the moment.
Thanks all for the input.
I clearly have a very different view on this subject.
All the best
Cheers S
It’s all a trade-off. Load more helicopters and you reduce the vehicles, artillery or stores that could be carried, or vice versa.
To me the best thing is that these ships can actually carry what we need them to, which as mentioned is a big step up from where we have been previously…
Are there plans to operate an aircraft like the ' Scan Eagle "from the Canberra class ? I'm not suggesting these types of aircraft can perform all of the functions of regular manned aircraft but likely having a smaller physical footprint in the ship would not require compromises on other assets not able to be carried
Yes, 822X Squadron already operates them and the Schiebel S100 from a variety of platforms. 822X Squadron | Royal Australian Navy. There was an announcement a short time ago that they are buying a lot more of the S100s.
Captain Matchbox
New Member
Dad joke of the year.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Can anyone tell me the point of painting a Barcode on the hull of the ship, the number IDs her immediately. A 20 sec search will give you all the public info any Navy would want released.