Senate Committe hears proposal for Joint Task Force

[hugh19]

Just my two cents, but a amphib is not a carrier. Two completely different jobs.

Plus the last time the navy asked the army about say naval gunfire support, the army turned it down. The senior navy officers do understand jointness, but the ships need men and new equipment before anything else.

 

[Kirkhill]

Australia devises multi-role ship

IAN BOSTOCK JDW Correspondent
Sydney

The Australian Department of Defence has revealed a new multi-role ship concept developed to meet a broad range of naval requirements and to enhance the ability of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to deploy and operate throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

Known as the Multi Role Auxiliary (MRA), the concept was conceived by the Naval Materiel Requirements Branch (NMRB) during 1999 and unveiled last month at the Amphib 2000 amphibious warfare conference.

It is one of numerous design concepts the ADF is considering that takes into account Australia‘s changing geostrategic environment, advances in military technology and ongoing budget pressures. The MRA was developed as an option for improved amphibious transport and afloat support capabilities. The Royal Australian Navy‘s (RAN‘s) existing landing platform amphibious ships, heavy lift ship, under way replenishment ships and major support vessels are due to be retired within the next 15 years.

The MRA, along with other options such as life-of-type extensions for existing RAN ships, purchase of commercial off-the-shelf single and multi-role vessels and leasing arrangements, will be considered following the release of the Defence White Paper later this year.

At 22,000 tonnes displacement, the MRA would have a range of 6,500nm (12,044km) at 18kts and a maximum cruising speed of 22kts. Design engineers estimate the MRA would cost no more than a large frigate.

Designed in the context of a "whole of life, whole of capability approach to capability development", the MRA is expected to achieve significant cost savings in acquisition and through-life costs by combining the various sea lift, amphibious and afloat support roles in one ship type. The MRA would be capable of operating as an under way replenishment ship; transport ship for an army battalion group of around 1,200 troops and equipment; aviation support ship; logistic support vessel; or a combination of these roles.

Resembling a flat-top amphibious assault ship, the MRA features a 224m full length flight deck with landing spots for six helicopters the size of an S-70A-9 Black Hawk. The RAN believes the MRA‘s considerable helicopter support capabilities reflect the growing trend towards over-the-horizon amphibious operations.

The MRA design acknowledges the importance of flexibility and rapid response and the increasing emphasis being placed by the ADF on the ability to project and sustain forces in the littoral environment prevalent within Australia‘s wider region of interest.

The MRA incorporates two elevators capable of accommodating aircraft up to the size of the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor. Two 70-tonne capacity cranes are positioned either end of the island to enable loading of amphibious landing craft. Work is continuing on the feasibility of a stern docking well to provide access for various size landing craft to load and unload.



A computer-generated image of the MRA developed as a result of an engineering concept study by the NMRB to provide a flexible and enhanced amphibious/afloat support capability for the RAN
(Source: Navy Systems Branch ­ Computer Modelling Group)


http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/jdw/jdw000718_1_n.shtml

An aussie solution --- Kind of a mini-Wasp, with a Well-Deck for the price of a CPF

Their estimate, not mine.

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh and by the way, the Brits might be willing to lease/sell us one or two of their Invicible class light carriers.

There are rumours that they are going to mothball up to two of them so they can save up their pennies and by two new 50,000 tonne carriers by 2015 or so.

One or two of those ships, along with the 3 JSS could allow MacKenzie to do what he is proposing in the short term.

 

[hugh19]

Are you brain dead or just don‘t like to read?? We don‘t have the man power to man our current ships much less a Invincible class carrier. It takes up to two years just to get some Tech trades QL3 qualified for gods sake. Pay attention to what ex dragoon was saying.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sledge

Not brain dead, or at least not most of the time.

You are dead right. We don‘t have the manpower. We don‘t have the parts. We don‘t have the fuel, food, money, training, experience.....

The issue under debate here is whether or not we should get them.

If we should get them it is only because the canadian public and our politicians see value in them and see them as both a worthwhile and attainable goal.

Gen. MacKenzie is arguing that such a goal would be worthwhile. I think Gate-Guard, amongst others is agreeing with him. I certainly do.

Your position seems to be that regardless of whether or not it is worthwhile, it is not attainable. That may indeed be true.

But if it is true then you are making it easier for those who want to cut the forces further by allowing them to argue that the forces can‘t do anything meaningful and NEVER WILL so why waste money on them.

I believe that change has to happen. I believe that the folks in the CF can change the CF and adapt to changes in the Defence policy.

I also know that between 1939 and 1944 the Canadian Navy radically increased in size, learned how to train farmboys to fire boilers at sea (my father-in-law), learned how to command large formations of ships and how to crew aircraft carriers.

The only difference of significance between then and now was political commitment and money.

I don‘t sell you and your shipmates short.

The problem is with the politicians.

 

[CDNBlackhawk]

if we had the manpower, yes i think we should go in this direction, but manpower and current equipment should be the priority right now.

 

[hugh19]

Um lets see the technology on ships is NOT reciprocating steam engines any more, the technology of the day was very crude and it took far less time to train personnel. Do you have any idea how many people died while the navy got its s*** together????? That rapid expansion was impressive but not possible today. So they answer is no we can‘t and should not get them. In ten years once the problems we face now are solved or not then possibly. But in ten years the 280‘s will be gone with or without replacement, and the frigates will be obsolete and in need of serious upgrades and or replacment. ( the frigates were designed for a 20 year life span)

So what your saying is scrap the fleet for a amphib ship. Unless the money is forth coming it is unattainable.

Plus there is going to be a huge outflux of people soon as people get out. Its the start of where all those 20/40 plan contracts end. Many peopl are going for pension so they need to be replaced. The training system is clogged now, noone is around to train people. So when myself and ex talk listen.

 

[Kirkhill]

Um lets see the technology on ships is NOT reciprocating steam engines any more, the technology of the day was very crude and it took far less time to train personnel.

And my father-in-law, who had a grade 8 or 10 education from a prairie town of less than 500, and whose exposure to technology was splicing leather traces on their family cart-horses didn‘t have to make a leap to become a Chief Engine Room Artificer??

In fact I agree the technology was simpler and that training will be harder and might have to take longer.

Do you have any idea how many people died while the navy got its s*** together?????

Yes I do. I don‘t want to see us have to go through that again.

That rapid expansion was impressive but not possible today.

You may be right, you probably are. Also unnecessary (not you, the rapid expansion). I am not arguing that we HAVE to expand that fast, nor even that it is desireable, just that it is possible. And if that is possible then a longer term, better planned, better executed expansion is also possible.

So they answer is no we can‘t and should not get them.

We disagree.

In ten years once the problems we face now are solved or not then possibly.

We agree.

But in ten years the 280‘s will be gone with or without replacement, and the frigates will be obsolete and in need of serious upgrades and or replacment. ( the frigates were designed for a 20 year life span)

We absolutely agree.

So what your saying is scrap the fleet for a amphib ship.

Absolutely not!!!!!!

Plus there is going to be a huge outflux of people soon as people get out. Its the start of where all those 20/40 plan contracts end. Many peopl are going for pension so they need to be replaced. The training system is clogged now, noone is around to train people.

Are some of these people that could be retained but are just fed-up with the over-tasking and are getting out? Or is it that we haven‘t attracted the replacements? Or is it that we haven‘t recruited the replacements? From your last comment it doesn‘t sound like recruiting is a problem.

Unless the money is forth coming it is unattainable.

Absolutely agree. That is what the discussion is about, setting a goal, a planning horizon and getting the funding to do the job properly. The question is what jobs are we, as a nation, capable of. Not what the CF, nor even the Navy, is capable of with the resources at hand.

So when myself and ex talk listen

I always do. And I hope that others are as well.

I am just happy to have the opportunity to talk to folks like yourselves that help me to understand the problems you are facing.


Cheers Sledge,

 

[Danjanou]

I don‘t think anyone is comparing picking up a couple of new ships to expanding a navy of 11 ships to one of over 400 in 6 years and incidentally fighting a major war during that period.

No matter what type of ship we ultimately choose and how many it will take a few years for them to come into service. They just aren‘t going to appear in Bedford Basin overnight you realise.

How long that time lag is will depend of course on the type(s)/numbers we choose and if they‘re o foreigh ready to go design or something we design here. Also the political push behind the project or lack of it is important (Sea King replacements anyone?)

Duringt that period there should be sufficient time to recruit and train sufficient pers to man them.

PersoanllY I‘d like to see a blue water navy with 4-8 DDHs with air defence and C&C capabilities (replacements for the Tribals) 12-16 CPF (or eventual replacemnts), 4 subs, 12-20 MCMV/costal patrol vessels (real ones),4 new purpose built replenishment ships and 2 light assualt ships/carriers capable of transporting and supporting a small 600-800 man battlegroup, but it ain‘t gonna happen.

It all comes down to political will or as it is today lack of same.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Hey Dan....would love to have you as a defence minister.

 

[Danjanou]

Yeah that‘s nothing. You should see my plans for 3 Div (1 Regular 2 Reserve) Army with SP Arty, real tanks, and maybe even paratroopers.

 

[Korus]

Stop teasing us!