Australia's Amphibious Odyssey: the ADF's Journey towards a World Class Amphibious Capability
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- This documentary on the ADF describes the development of Australia's Amphibious Capability, both the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and Australian Army. In 1999 the Australian Defence Force found its amphibious capability to be badly wanting. The experience of INTERFET was a strategic sock to Canberra, which led Australia on the long road to develop a blue water amphibious capability. 20 years later, at Talisman Sabre 2019, the ADF proved that it now had the right ships, the right people and the right doctrine to project power far beyond its shores. Indeed, driven by joint development by the Royal Australian Navy and Australian Army, the ADF now possesses a world class amphibious force.
An outstanding video! ADF Public Affairs couldn't do it better. I'm ex-RAAF from the 70s and I was one of the relatively small group of RAAF blokes who thought it would be a great idea for Australia to have at least one full-on aircraft carrier.
I've got no bone to pick with the RAAF, I was deeply proud to serve, however, I never understood why the RAAF was, and probably still is, so precious with its ownership of fast attack jets.
The Air Commodores and Group Captains of today have probably only read about how successful the RAN was at delivering another tip of the spear when it was operating the Melbourne. Yes, carriers are obscenely expensive and they need dedicated protection ships and at least one sub with them at all times; but that's the deal; and it's a good one. A mobile, self-sufficient air base that can be anywhere in our sphere of influence in around a week.
You say, rightly, that the 'gold standard' example for us is the USMC, then let's continue to follow their order of battle and have a couple of squadrons of fast jets belonging to the RAN and do rotational training with the RAAF to have a cross-over capability.
We don't have a separate Marine Corps as a service so it makes sense to train both RAN and RAAF attack pilots to use a carrier when a crisis calls for 'all hands-on deck'.
It was a magnificent job of making that fully functional air strip in the bush in 16 days, but a carrier can be just about anywhere in 16 days, in our general region, and be battle ready when it gets there. The RAAF used to have Airfield Construction Squadrons, now wouldn't it make sense that if landing strips had to be made in a hurry, share that job with the RAAF and then RAN, Army and RAAF aircraft can all use the same facility while supporting and re-equipping our carrier(s).
Anyway, as everything does, it all comes down to money. What the RAN has done is magnificent and in going down this road, bonding more tightly with Army. I'm no tactical expert, I was more your logistical type, but this I do know, if you don't own the skies then you can't own the land or the sea; so it's about time we see Australian Navy aircraft carriers.
Wouldn't it be great if we got carriers in an atmosphere where all the big brass of all three services were glad we had the capability to go into a conflict and own the land, sea and sky, in more than one location at a time.
If there is going to be a large, serious conflict it will be a protracted, conventional one.
If it is a 'modern' conflict with the use of nukes then it's only going to last 4 hours anyway. Not much a country like Australia can do about the second scenario but for over 100 years, Aussies have been pretty good at conventional fights, the objectives are still the same, only the equipment improves so, let's make the best of what we have and could have.
Cheers, all the best and you've got yourself another subscriber! BH
Good synopsis and great read Bill
Sadly we would be needing new everything to do that..
sadly the last aircraft carrier we owned got moth balled and scuttled some 20+ years..
you might get a fixed wing of f4 phantoms otherwise you would have shift to the latest harriers otherwise you can only use cobras, apache's and black hawks..
Can't remember what the US class aircraft carrier class is today..
However we would require atleast for 4+ carrier groups 1 based in Darwin, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide..
If you truly wanted to deliver a proper ADF force including army, navy, marines, airforce, coast guard and SF units in each branch ..
we would likely need to make that island to the north of us as part of the Australian protectorate before we could make real use of it..
we need to learn from out mistakes in WW2 if we want to shore up the region..
With China being a flotilla pest to our north we should be shoring up our defenses for sure..
Pretty much what we have at present is nothing more than medium size pissing contest that might battle the pirates and china ocean reach..
though we might do well in some areas in other others we are lacking the resources to build what we need...
100 years of RAAF
(F111)
I hear you, but as a small country with a limited defence budget, dont we need a credible potential foe to justify the considerable investment in a carrier force? Where would we need to project air power to, what theatre? South China Sea? That place is crowded enough as it is and in a conflict, probably not highly survivable anyway. The ADF is tailored to meet current and projected threats as best we can afford, and a flat top unfortunately doesnt really fit.
@@rojay9546 G'day Ro, I agree with you. I wouldn't propose heading for the South China Sea region without being a part of a multinational task force. However, there is a lot of real estate in the South Pacific and in the Indian Ocean. India has, quietly, built up a formidable navy; not that I'm saying they are a potential threat; it is another region where we could have a much greater reach, like the South Pacific, if we had a carrier force.
Hideously expensive, yes, as I said. My comment was merely an effort to put on the table the future concept of an Australian extension to our already outstanding Navy and a slight slap on the wrist for the RAAF who have been 'precious' with their assets going right back to 1921.
When General Sir Thomas Blamey almost had to separate Williams and the Naval rep from physical violence when he chaired the committee charged with creating a stand-alone air force; such was the amity between Army and Navy.
To Blamey's credit he, in true fashion, was able to detach himself from the prejudices of being a senior Army officer. The RAN, at that time, forcefully insisted that they be the template for the new Service.
This was an odd standpoint given that the age of the aircraft carrier was 20 years in the future and all navies were still fixated on mammoth battleships.
Many scholars and historians, myself included, still can't understand their motives for wanting to shape the RAAF in their own image.
Anyway, many experts, scholars and historians (and I dare say many RAN types secretly dream of a carrier force), so this idea is simply not my personal 'wish list'.
To achieve any big project people must keep the idea alive simply by making sure it is in the back of decision maker's minds for much more than a couple of election cycles.
I'm an historian so forgive me for drawing on our 'recent' past with this thought:
During WW2, for a time, MacArthur used Australia, as he said once, as a stationary aircraft carrier until he was able to move on with US carriers.
What Australia will eventually need, as an island, is the capability to project a powerful profile, yes, probably the most expensive 'public relations' move in our history, but it is history that teaches us our friends can swiftly become enemies with little warning.
Had the US carrier force been anchored at Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December, the US Navy would have been devastated and out of action for over two years.
Heaven knows what additional destruction and murder the IJF could have inflicted. Japan, who definitely did not have a plan to invade Australia because of US carriers and submarines could have easily sailed into Sydney Harbour and Port Phillip Bay if there were no US carriers and what was left of their navy was needed to protect their homeland.
Finally, at least one carrier task force should, officially, be on our nation's long-term 'wish list'.
While the RAAF enjoys celebrating its 100 years of outstanding service, they can be proud of the much higher levels of cross Service cooperation but Army, RAN and RAAF can, as they have done in the past, do better no matter how long it takes and what it costs... big ticket defence items never get cheaper. That's history and a fact.
Thanks, Ro for this discussion. Cheers BH
Great presentation mate. Well researched and documented. Also happy no shitty background music
Indeed, no music is a bonus. Appreciated .
Impressive dissertation.
David Peter
Such a pity about the mispronounced word pronounced as in American castrated and illegitimate lingo.
"Simultaneously."
Wonderfully presented, I feel if more Aussies were aware of the situation they'd more likely support investment into a carrier.
Personally I think just fitting the LHDs the way they were originally designed to take a dozen F35Bs each would have been brilliant and probably more cost effective and practical to have two ships capable of both amphibious landing and air power projection depending on the assignment.
@@wattlebough the problem would be the reason these make excellent Amphibious ships is due to the massive hangar spaces for personall, equipment and vhiecles. You would want hangar space for every embarked F-35 along with any embarked helicopters along with the appropriate equipment to handle and maintain the aircraft. Worst case this cuts the Amphibious capability in half. The carrier would also need to keep moving to create a head wind for launching and landing fixed wing aircraft, which would make landing equipment harder then a stationary platform. As seen land equipment such as the ASLAV and Abrams can fire thier weapons on deck which could act as fire support to the Landing area.
The cost of modifying the ships, along with procuring the carrier F-35s would mean less standard F-35s for the RAAF. Which arm would operate them? If it's the RAN then they would need to set up and return to the capability of operating fixed wing aircraft. There will be lots of inter service politics regarding who trains who, who operates what.
The RAAF have Tankers to extend the range of the current fighter force along with future aircraft like the loyal wingman system to strike until a local airbase is secured, we have allies with carriers and we will be getting Apache attack helicopters to replace the MRH Tiger, which will see a major increase in offensive air power able to be deployed from the LHDs and possibly supported (even if in just a limited fuelling support role) by other RAN ships. The Apaches will likely be able to communicate to the Hobart class ships and the RAAF network to designate targets.
@@lachlanlandreth9069 Nothing is as insurmountable as the naysayers would have you believe. The USN Wasp Class LHDs are very capable of deploying in an F35B only carrier role and converting back to supporting a USMC MEU in only a matter of days. Every one of your points is debatable and your assumption that Australia is incapable or should not seek a capability of supporting naval air operations independently is the same mentality of a can’t do attitude that the politicians in Canberra hold which has kept the ADF down for decades. When the PLA-N parks a carrier and amphibious assault group off Papua New Guinea some time around 2030 and the USN is preoccupied with some other conflict the people of Australia will wish the ADF had all the bells and whistles that the naysayers complained were too expensive. That same mentality saw the ADF drastically underprepared for a low level peacekeeping operation only 700km from Darwin in 1999.
@@wattlebough What other conflict would the US navy be involved in if not a confrontation with a Chinese carrier group? It’s pretty much their wet dream
There is no need for a carrier in the ADF.
It's very impressive what capabilities were developed in just 20 years. I'm a retired U.S. Marine and I was a member of a small boat raid company assigned to the 13th MEU(SOC) MSPF in 1993. The missions 2RAR are tasked with; small boat raids, amphibious recon, scout swimmers/landing beach assessment, assault climbers etc are specialized skills that are essential for amphibious operations. Having 2RAR as "SME's" with other Regiments rotate through as GCE is a brilliant solution around the need to conduct amphibious operations while not being a dedicated amphibious force.
I am friends with a retired SASR I've always been impressed with the Australians I worked with. I thought the Corps was small then I realized the size of the ADF! Solid group of tough dedicated warriors.
Thank you for an excellent video presentation. Stay safe.
It's Julian from tiktok. Feel's like you made this for me!
Thank you brother, I really appreciate it.
This is A grade chef kiss
hubobubo hey brother. I just hope you like it.
Top quality. Better information than the ADF put out. Keep it up.
Really good explanation of our capability, well done. The ADF is definitely becoming more serious and we need to so we can assist our South Pacific neighbours, if not to meet emerging threats in the region. Great to see the ADF services are working so tightly together, and with other allies. I'm, looking forward to photographing aircraft taking part in exercise Talisman Sabre again this year.
The ADF is definitely not getting more serious , look at all the current scandals and poor choices like Naval groups Frankenstein submarines
Excellent mini-documentary! Completely agree that the ADF has generated a truly impressive amphibious capability which will certainly have utility across a wide range of operations. It would be great if the ADF added some form of naval aviation capability - most likely operating a dozen or so F-35Bs from one of the LHDs would be the simplest way to generate this. However, that would be at the expense of an amphib and therefore would necessitate the addition of another LPD(?) to compensate. Still, congratulations to our Aussie cousins on their achievement!
Thank you Spain.
De nada amigo.
Well done presentation. Much appreciated. My opinion is the sooner the Aus. Govt realises it needs to raise another Inf. Bde. under Beersheba structure, the better. In reality the training rotations from what I have heard from mates who are still in the service, is pretty brutal but more importantly means there is less ready capacity than what is printed on the page.
I am salivating over this video. I can’t wait to binge on all of your other videos. Keep up the awesome work!!
Stellar report. Since at least WWII, it's been clear that Australia would need to know how to fight in the archipelagos and other islands to the north and to be honest I didn't think Australian forces were quite up to the task. Minus the issue of relying on American air support (which, to be fair, is a big issue), I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the rest of the aspects that make up amphibious capability aren't so shoddy.
Comprehensive, lucid and professional. I particularly liked the balanced approach that included a good treatment of the associated doctrine and the need to exercise it. I've worked with emergency services and have found many of them have an under-developed appreciation of its importance, particularly during serious events that stretch both capability and capacity. This presentation would be a good means of helping them get a better understanding of what it is, how it fits and why it's essential.
Thankyou, that’s quite a complement
Awsome presentation. Now drop the british submarine purchase and buy the Spanish S-80 submarine class. This video is about how you can trust Spanish warships building.
East Timor showed up Australia and Nz. That's why Nz got HMNZS Canterbury, the Lav 3, Nh90 and Aotearoa.
Also why we plan for additional Amphibious ships to Canterbury, which hints at a LHD as RNZN specs are larger still.
Portugal recently ordered in Nov. 23 a Damen MPSS, multiple purpose support ship, basically a LST with a flat top suitable for a helicopter and drones, as well as landing craft, and small submersibles. Useful for submarine rescue ship, diving, surveillance, oceanography, and hydrographic survey, not to mention disaster relief missions. Basically a Swiss army knife with a 7000 tons displacement destroyer sized vessel. Ships crew 48, but with mess and bunks for 100 for scientists, commandoes, and hospital staff, not to mention lift 200 troops... With her flight deck and vehicle deck she can carry up to 16 20 foot containers and/or light vehicles such as humvees or jeeps... When the Canterbury retires, the Damen MPSS would make a great replacement at either 7 or 9 thousand tons displacement... 100 meters in length or 130 meters in length, with a 20 meters beam... I believe Ireland will buy one for their MRV requirement this year...
That is a very tight and interesting docco. Also glad it had no music or other effects. It is wonderful to see the ADF finally showing as adults in an adult sandbox. I see some elements missing I think but what we have is amazing
Pretty sure the British MoD were at one point discussing selling the RFA Lymes Bay as well. To see the RAN snap up a second Choules Class for a bargain basement $60M AUD and have a four vessel amphibious fleet would have been superb. To really round it out adding two Spearhead Class T-EPF catamaran fast transport ships like the old Jarvis Bay would be the way to go imo. With these things getting to Fiji from Brisbane in under 48 hours with a Chinook on board would be very doable.
Ships like the American spearhead class are derived from the earliest days of large fast catamaran ferries, which were only invented 7 years before the Jervis Bay was built. The fast cat ferries are now faster (50+ knots), bigger (up to 3 times the size) and have vastly improved sea keeping. In commercial service they can carry up to 200 trucks, 400 cars and 2000+ passengers. The only two companies in the world that build them are Incat of Hobart and Austal of Perth. Naval versions could easily accommodate large helicopter decks, so it's surprising that the RAN does not appear to have considered ordering at least one to complement their slower and less flexible monohull vessels of fairly traditional design.
@@Dave_Sisson the main issue with the catamarans ( speaking as a Tasmanian, with several friends employed by Incat, and having travelled on no less than three separate vessels) is the tendency to pitch and roll severely in moderate seas. The vessels are impractical for use in many offshore situations.
@@andrewallason4530 In their marketing material Incat and Austal *claim* that this has been hugely improved and that modern fast cats now have sea keeping comparable to monohulls. I wouldn't go that far, but modern cats are definitely more stable than the pioneering vessels of the 1990s. Strangely the newly built US Navy Spearhead cats are derived from those older ferry designs rather than modern ones like the latest generation of 110 metre Incat ships or the Austal equivalent.
Good points but the navy more
So needed RORO vessels , the RAAF can do rapid deployment of troops and equipment the navy gets the bulk of equipment and personnel
Around
During the '80's 8/9 RAR was considered the "Amphibious" battallion. Which basically meant a trip on the Tobruk & landing craft execises one per year or so.
Basically what happens today except they rotate the battalions so by the time the next rotation for a battalion comes up they don't have enough personnel from their previous rotation. It's more a basic induction than a refresher but word is there will be big changes. Apparently.
This video is solid research on Australian military capability.
Where did you get this info from
Dr Alan Ryan "Back to the Future" in Dennis & Grey (2001) 'A century of service', at or around p.151 where he quotes Hugh White. It appears the situation provided significant impetus to the repeal of Section 50D of the Defence Act. Other material written around that time refers to force stretch, specifically personnel shortages but, interestingly, no shortage of high-tech gear. I hope this helps.
Great to see our forces working to strive to be what they are regularly recognised as, and that's some of the best and foremost feared in the world...ready, capable and willing to defend Aus, go to the aid of neighbours and look after our own backyard and greater theatre region. Glad the Govt finally invested in bolstering the ADF to the force it deserves to be!!!!
Cheers from Sydney!!!!
I serve on the mighty HMAS Brisbane and before that Melbourne before she went out of service in 2019 and will be serving on HMAS Adelaide, Canberra’s sister ship
@@MuzzCat05 bud I serve on that ship right now, served would be if I use to be on her. Nice try
@@lukey391 Chilean Navy?
They decomed in 2019.
@@OrDuneStudios I’m so used to Melbourne, she was my home for many years, Until 2019 even serving on Brisbane, few other blokes who transferred from Melbourne I knew call her Melbourne, guess people don’t understand how much attachment you can get serving on a ship for so long, don’t like Brisbane tho. Will be going to HMAS Adelaide in a week, so will be a different experience
@@OrDuneStudios we did 4 weeks on Adelaide for training, went to Pearl Harbor. Was right against the U.S carriers, made Adelaide look bloody tiny
@@lukey391 How come you don't like Brisbane?
Mate, this is so interesting. So incredibly interesting. Thank you!
I like to see how Spanish designs fit so well in Australian navy.
Great work. Informative and detailed. I Served in the Army Reserve in a rifle company, and would have joined the regular army but was committed to another career so the Reserve was a good option. The changes since my time in the 1990's is impressive. We need a strong and modern ADF as we face the increasing threat of conflict throughout the Pacific region.
Great video. Sending U.K. carrier group shortly 💪🇬🇧 🇦🇺 🇺🇸
*Thank you for posting all of your videos. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!*
ADF has put together a small but effective amphibious force that can seamlessly integrate with Allies such as USMC. Bravo Zulu
The Australian forces has long had amphibious capability. In the Great War they successfully intervened in German New Guinea. They maintain a seaplane carrier after the War till the Great Depression. In the Cold War a mix of older aircraft carriers, amphibious launches and transport ships provide a capability. In War on Terror period various older vessels were coming to an end of their useful life. A stop gap of RN surplus but near new ships helped while the opportunity was taken to replace 4-5 smaller vessels with 2 then 3 larger vessels. These are nasalised but unarmed vessels - there is no armed threat in the South Pacific and no islands in the Indian Ocean.
The RAN still has a shortage of maritime capable transport helicopters but this is being addressed. New amphibious landing craft are being ordered to replace those in use from the Cold War. There is though no expansion of capability; just greater efficiencies.
The major weakness for the RAN remains that there are very few merchant ships to move supplies with the helicopter carriers. We have little merchant navy tradition. This places a major limits the range the RAN helicopters carriers can deploy. Troops without fuel and bullets are not able to engage in combat. They are a constabulary force as used in Timor Leste (get the name right - it includes territory in the Western side of the island too)
@@russellmiles2861 there is great merchant navy tradition and history. Sadly nothing is being done to maintain the capability of the Australian merchant navy.
@@lachlanlandreth9069 I stand corrected. Yes, my fathers mate worked for ANL.
The best video I have seen on this topic. well done
Good job dude. I will check out your other videos.
There are plans to acquire two new ships to join the LHD’s, two JSS ships that will have 350 troops, vehicles and two helicopters. Navantia Australia has a good looking design that was done in Melbourne
Damen is working with the British for a new LPD program, to replace their Rotterdam and the British Bay class, but not expected to enter into service until the 2030s. The Dutch are planning to build six to replace their LPD but to be multi purpose to do OPV duties as well to replace their four OPVs. Hopefully details of this design will be released soon...
It's crap
Good job Australia ! Hopefully Canada can do something similar !
Go Canada from an Aussie, top country
Canzuk
@@justsmallstuff4994 Fingers crossed
Excellent video very well presented and clearly enunciated!
I agree with David Peter. This is an exceptional upload........."Good On Ya Mate !"
That was good! Would love to see more of these. Could you do a video talking about the capability and weapons of RAN, in comparison to the US Navy and other Asia pacific nations? Thanks!
Love your work. Engaging and professional.👍
im so proud of our RAR and ADF.
Brilliantly narrated thank you. I think in time we will get 36 F-35Bs. But firstly I think next time the LHDs need heavy maintenance the decks will be reinforced for F-35B use even if it’s only USMC.
F35B is useless for carrier strike as it as limited range of only 1600km. Australia LHD is a required amphibious assault ship for Australia army not for Navy.. if Australia wanted a fixed wing aircraft carrier they would go with a larger ship. And would go for the C variants of the F35 that has double the range of the B variants and has a bigger weapons load capacity
I think instead of investing the money and time into operating the F-35 from the Canberra class, long range missions supported by the MRTT tanker's, along with possibly gettong coalition support from the RN or USN to provide aircover. Like show in the video, a fast runway could be set up to allow RAAF air assets to operate from it.
@@nathan-ck3je the Combat radius of the C is 1100km whilst the B is 833km. Hardly twice. The C is also a fair bit more expensive as only the USN operate it in very limited numbers.
Japanese flattops have just had their decks resurfaced fior F-35Bs.
@@gregs7562 USN is getting 330.
Well done, good video and a good journey on the ADF's Amphibious awakening. While the Canberra's can in theory have fixed wing, the true capabilities in the class like the JC1, were removed at the construction level, they are missing some very critical "bits" for them to actually operate them.
Agree though, we do need a sea based fixed wing capability :)
They only need a reasonably minor refit from what I understand; far less than the Izumo’s are getting.
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 There were critical "Internals" that were built out of the Canberra's, so their ability compared to the JC1 is very different, it would be a major refit for both ships putting them out of action for some time, but we would then also loose the very important capability that they are right now, so you loose a big capability to gain one, which then goes against everything you spoke about in the video of the journey the ADF has taken to get this world class amphibious asset, you also have to take into account that, although they are RAN ships, they are purple assets, meaning they are a true tri service piece of kit.
For the cost involved a new build and purpose built STOVL carrier would make much more sense. You would then have true fleet support, ASW and ground support for the troops protecting the Amphibious Group and supporting fleet.
Converting and refitting the Canberra's and still trying to keep the Ampib capability leads to a half half capability not really fit for purpose for either requirement and while the B's are a fair bit more expensive than the RAAF's A's it would not be out of the realm to include B's into the RAAF mix for say the last 28 airframes when we go from the 72 to 100.
Cheers
@@aussienscale So to be clear and before I get into this, I’m not advocating the use of F-35B’s on the Canberra class, but the argument you’ve just deployed there is basically the same stuff I hear from anyone who is against converting these ships, and in my opinion its generally a pretty weak one. There’s this ‘group think’ against using fixed wing aviation on these ships within the Australian strategic community that I really can’t wrap my head around; every other user of this design, indeed this class of warship, either has, or will deploy, the F-35B, except Australia. Now, is it a wise investment for the ADF to operate F-35Bs? Maybe, maybe not; but the arguments against utilising them on Canberra and Adelaide specifically are all weak. I think the reality is the RAAF just doesn’t want the F-35B because they think it will be a distraction from their core mission, and there is a real conservatism in the ADF when it comes to naval aviation.
1) The missing “internals”. I’ve had a fairly good look into this and from what I can determine the Canberras need a thermion deck coating, a new instrument landing system, an upgraded fuel delivery system, some communications upgrades and, maybe, some internal work to strengthen the deck. If there is anything I missed there let me know, but I haven’t been able to find any source which mentions anything more major. This can all be achieved in a moderate refit, commensurate with most mid life upgrade programs. This would be comparable to, indeed probably smaller in scope than, the ANZAC ASMD program. ASPI quoted $500m per ship, which is probably a high estimate given their negativity towards utilising the F-35B on these vessels. Now, that is certainly affordable and achievable if the ADF wants the capability: Arguing that there is some inescapable design flaw in the Canberra class that makes their conversion hideously expensive is just not supported by the evidence unless there is something major that I am missing.
2) They would be out of action for some time due to refit. This is a normal part of all warship capability; they are routinely out of action for deep maintenance and mid life upgrades anyway. This kind of refit is no more difficult than the ASMD or FFG UP which was completed. The Canberras will be out of action to have deep maintenance done anyway so being in drydock for a mid life upgrade of this scope is no reason not to do it. You would literally NEVER upgrade any warship then. HMAS Canberra is in an extended maintenance period right now i.e. not available for deployment.
3) They are joint assets. No idea how this is even relevant to a mid life upgrade program or refit or the use of F-35Bs on these vessels.
4) A dedicated carrier would be cheaper than converting the Canberras. Even taking ASPI’s high end estimate, the cost for converting the Canberras would be around $1bn AUD. Even if we are just talking acquisition cost, not operating costs, you really think Australia can either buy or design and build a dedicated carrier for $1bn AUD? I think you are dreaming there mate. The distinctions between the Canberra class and JC1 are minor, and that vessel was designed from the ground up to operate STOVL aircraft, so I don’t know how you can argue these vessels are not “fit for purpose”. Really, acquiring a third LHD to replace HMAS Coules and converting Canberra and Adelaide would give you a fleet of 3 multi-purpose vessels which can be utilised in a number of roles depending on how you need them: sea control, light carrier, ASW, humanitarian assistance, amphibious assault vessels. This is a much better and more affordable option than buying a dedicated carrier. Again, look at the other users of this kind of vessel, it’s how they intend to use them.
5) The F-35B is more expensive. Yes it is more expensive, but that doesn’t mean it’s not affordable. Lot 14 F-35Bs are $101m USD, compared to $77m USD for F-35A. If we purchased 24x F-35Bs to replace the super hornets that would amount to an additional acquisition cost of ~$800m. The ADF’s 2021 budget is $42.7 billion AUD. Is it more expensive? Yes. Is it a gigantic distortion of Australia’s defence spending? No. Obviously, if we decided the capability was worth it we could absolutely afford it.
Now, as I said I’m not advocating the acquisition of the F-35B. Given the defensive threat Australia faces I think it’s at least debatable whether we should be further investing in amphibious capability, but the F-35B is certainly a realistic option for Australia. The thing I just don’t get is why its opponents claim that it isn’t when, as far as I can tell, the evidence clearly shows that if the ADF decided it needed fixed wing naval aviation, Canberra and Adelaide could absolutely be utilised for that purpose if the appropriate investments were made.
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 No group think on my part, I know what is missing and what was changed as a fact of my ex employment in the RAN as both a serving member and Defence Civilian, I was directly and indirectly involved in numerous programs of the time, above and below the water.
And no, you will not find any details in any public forum.
@@aussienscale Mate, I dont mean to be offensive, but that really isnt an answer at all to any of the objections I just raised or my analysis.
Maybe you are who you say you are, maybe you arent. How can I tell? From where I'm sitting you are just a guy on the internet claiming he knows classified information. You are quite literally just saying "trust me, I know, I used to work for defence" without even providing any analysis or reasoning, let alone evidence.
That might work on the forums like DefenceTalk, but out here, if you cant support your arguments with either open source inteligence, actual defence or manufacturer statements or third party analysis, then you literally aren't saying anything. Try and get through peer review by saying "trust me, I used to work in the field".
If you really do have information about Canberra's internal layout and why this makes coversoin so much more difficult than ASPI's analysis, which I find at least questionable, then provide it, even in broad outlines. As I said, I would like to know. If its classified, then it might as well not exist to someone without a security clearance, because there's no way I can verify your claims. Its the same as saying you have an invisible dragon on your shoulder. So why even make claims if you can only appeal to classified information to support them?
Great video mate. Nice work.
Great video. Keep up the good work. Just subscribed.
Really enjoy your videos! Great stuff!
As an Aussie myself, I would like to se L03 and L04 dedicated to carry the F35B's as a battle group with destroyers, frigates and subs. We need the true ability to project our forces when required.
@jimminy cricket Australia doesn't need Nuclear Weapons. We're under the US's Nuclear Umbrella.
@@Nathanct43 if that makes you sleep better...it cannot be relied upon for obvious reasons of mutual assured destruction.
Great film really informative loved it thank you .
Great work. So in conclusion, we should build 2 aircraft carriers similar to the new QE class.
Such a beautiful and bold ship.
Great video - Makes me proud to be Aussie
Could the Canadians do this? Aussie needs to be the big brother to that one.
The RCN tried to procure two Mistral Class Amphibious Assault Ships from France, but failed due to budget cuts towards the end of the Harper Government. The Trudeau Government isn't big on military spending and basically ignored the military with the exception of the Type 26 CSC program. If the Conservatives win in 2025 then military spending might be increased as they claim to support the 2% NATO spending goal, but I have a hard time trusting them to actually follow through on that promise.
Excellent stuff bro
That's a lovely boat. More versatile than the QE
Ayyy I’m first
Thanks for the content my guy
Excellent documentary.
Awesome vid mate.
Interesting video, subbed!
Great video
Surely anybody can see changing out say 10 of our F35As for F35Bs would completely change this force. Five on each carrier would be a total game changer. Even if we bought or leased some US Marine AV-8s it would greatly increase the firepower of this group.
The LHDs are not carriers. Their decks are not rated for vertical take off aircraft. The ski jump was kept to keep the balance of the ship stable.
A small force of F-35Bs deployed needs a large force purchased to provide for maintenance.
There is no real need for an aircraft carrier. We have Australia to serve as that
They were not purchased to fill a need that requires ship board F35s. Having F35s on board means the ships are no longer as useful for the role they were purchased for.
Really enjoyed this look at the potential of F35Bs for the Navy, personally a third boat could be more along the lines of the american America class leaving the two we have tilted more towards the assault taskings, but with the ability to take F35's if required?
The scenario used showing the logistics required for keeping 35s on station compared to having them on a boat couldn't be clearer, nicely done.
Hi there, After watching your clip on UA-cam, about Australia’s deployment to East Timor, and the subsequent reforms that followed; I was thinking about New Zealand’s latest naval and airforce purchases. Are the two forces set up to compliment each other? Or are they simply two forces that can work in with each other if the need arose? Also how capable do you feel the New Zealand defence force is? Is it merely a peace keeping force? Or can it hold its own, when in league with allies?
Its minimal to be honest mate; NZ only spends about 1% of GDP on its military. It can deploy one infantry battlegroup in concert with Australia, but it lacks the logistical assets to do that independently. Although, it probably wouldn’t need to. Obviously the army and navy can definitely hold their own when part of a coalition force, such as Timor, as they are desigend to work within that setting, but not so much without coalition partners. NZDF just lacks the enabling assets.
I guess that’s the way the NZDF is set up now is to be able to deploy elements to support partners and allies, such as a frigate, SF or infantry battalion, but other than that just a very minimal force to patrol NZ's EEZ. This makes sense, as there just arent any competitors or threats.
The RNZN regularly deploys say a frigate as part of a RAN task force; it did this for RIMPAC not that long ago, and obviously a battalion battlegroup to Timor. So when operating with coalition partners the NZ forces are comparable to ADF forces, they integrate with Australian units all the time, it’s just the NZDF lacks the capability to operate independently, if that makes sense?
In terms of how "joint" the NZDF is, I'm not sure it is that integrated. So, for example, in Australia, we have Head Quarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC), which is a joint operational command centre that manages all ADF assets (Army, Navy, Airforce) globally. I dont think the NZDF has anything similar. And again, the NZDF doesn’t envisage operating alone, so its more about integration with allies like the ADF, rather than integration with each other.
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 thanks for your reply mate!
That really confirms my belief that the NZDF is more suited to a humanitarian/peacekeeping role, to be deployed as part of a multinational response, rather than being a stand alone asset.
Which as you say, makes sense for a country of Nz’s size, geographical position, and lack of any real regional threat.
Thanks again for your insights
I think the Hobart's SM-2 is the top cover for the LHD's operations. It's good to ~90 nm, deadly at half that.
Another part of Australia’s Amphibious needs that required to be solved, is the replacement of Balikpapan class of landing vessels. The government donated/sold them to the Philippine navy 10 plus years ago without a replacement for the RAN.
good content !
Neither of the 2 LHD have any CWIS or air defence missiles.
I don't understand why there is no defence against aircraft or missile attack other than the nulka decoy.
Am I missing something?
Time, and escorts (DDG or FFH) take the different battlespaces, but you're right CWIS would be great.
@@cobyblizzard8024 During the Falklands war you can see how this could play out in a conflict.
I would not risk the lives of the people onboard or the ship and the equipment onboard needlessly.
Air defence would add 1% to the cost of the ships price.
It was just never added like it was intended.
Definitely especially with the RAN having such a small surface fleet and the terrible air defence capability of the ANZAC meko 200s and Australia only having 3 F100 frigates
What your missing is, if these defences were essential for a deployment, the deployment wouldn't happen, even if we had the defences.
Yeah I agree, I think the capability for jets should be there on these ships, not permanent but available, whether a group of RAAF F35Bs or a return of fixed wing aircraft to the RAN, which would be difficult as the Australian navy hasnt been furnished with jets since Skyhawks and would require significant infastructure and training. The LHDs alone would need some substantial upgrades as well
Well done I really enjoyed that and subcribed
Only Tobruk and JB were operational for Timor. I was onboard Tobruk. Neither Kanimbla or Manoora were capable of stern door marriage, which was the method used to pass vehicles and troops to LCHs for beach landing. Tobruk was recovered from mothballs prior to deployment and was a mess. JB was unreliable because the high speed engines overheated in the hot Asian waters. On Tobruk we had achieved more transfers of army from Darwin by Xmas because of JB breakdowns
The whole thing sounds like a cluster
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 sure was
Fantastic video, the Abrams can’t fit on the LCM’s though and this is an issue for the ADF
About time.
Thanks ; very informative ,! We ( AUS) should have a big shopping list to be first class! New amphibious vehicles,Indonesian tank boat, Ripsaw/Storm , Gibbes quad ski , a couple of Austal HSSV 72m would go all right too! Phalanx,oerlikon, etc etc
Very good! Thanks.
A couple of Ticonderoga class missile cruisers would round it all off nicely for the RAN. Plus F35Bs for increased stealth reach.
just equip the Ships and Submarines we have now with some Tomahawks or similar., and we could’ve had two capable Aircraft Carriers, well capable L.H.D’s but straightened decks of the Canberra Class , wasn’t in the build.
i like how you think.
Nice report.
This is absolutely fuckin' excellent, man.
An unrelated question; Why don't the flight decks on the Canberras overhang to provide more deck and hanger(?) space?
A few changes in the ADF with new equipment to help evolve capabilities. The Apache will replace the MRH Tiger, which will increase the offensive air power of the LHDs. It will be intresting to see if any other ships apart from the LHDs will be certified to operate the Apache.
The OPV program with the Afura class vessels will have a adaptable mission package. While they lack hangar space, thier heli deck is rated up to a Chinook. These small vessels could support 2RAR in landings as well as acting as quick ferries for other landing zones away from the LHD or get equipment closer to shore or a needed area for airlift.
The Hunter class frigates will probably also aid in the Amphibious capabilities, but probably more so in the task group protection role.
For some reason they have downgraded the heli decks on the arafuras so they can only take uavs
@@masterofpuppets7295 citation?
@@OrDuneStudios i read it in Australian & NZ defender mag, they have always been pretty reliable
@@masterofpuppets7295 well the lead of the class being built in Adelaide still has a massive heli deck. I am sure the cost if material saved by downgraded wouldn't be noticeable.
@@lachlanlandreth9069 yeah they will still have the massive heli deck but from what i read structurally they won't be able to support large helicopters. With a guess i'd say it's due to cost or possibly to increase speed/endurance or both
Thanx for the correct pronouncing of Jervis 👍
Would the RAN benefit from getting former USN Tarawa Class LHA's as aviation Assault Carriers only that way they could have a 1:1 ratio of troop Assault and combat aviation support?
I served onboard the USS 🇺🇸NASSAU LHA-4 .I would be happy if your country could purchase one or two of these ships.They are beautiful ships.Their capabilities would greatly enhance your countries defense.
Hey man, with the army’s use of the Canberra class lhd’s as transport, do they use army or navy technical support crew?
Yeah always, it’s always ‘Joint’
It has Navy support crew. But it's designed for purpose for army. The crew has both Navy and army.
They will have Army advisors in the more Navy roles, such as approach to the Landing area etc. The Army would provide the drivers but the Navy will do marshalling.
Normally carries a crew of 293 RAN, 60 Army and 2 RAAF Air Controllers
When Australia buys 4 more LHDs as F-35B aircraft carriers, make sure they include well decks. The US had to redesign their America-class LHDs because they didn't originally include well decks.
According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship , on the coast of Lebanon during the late 1970s, the enemy had anti-aircraft systems (Russian manpads ?) and the helicopters of LHDs were fired on. The US Marines had to be moved from an LHD that didn't have a well deck onto LHAs that had well decks.[10] Helicopters can't land troops without air-superiority, so if there are any SAMs (surface to air missiles) around, even a few manpads, they have to use the landing boats.
Also, at any beach or port without sufficient dock and crane facilities, a well deck allows vehicles (eg tanks) and TCU cargo containers to be loaded or unloaded from an amphibious aircraft carrier using landing craft.
Sounds like we need an aircraft carrier to finish the group. How about it , Canberra?
Imagine the FOD flight deck walk down after an on deck live fire exercise!
I love the sound of an Australian carrier, please believe. But I honestly believe the funds would be better used for the production of a much larger Agis destroyer fleet as our current surface fleet size doesn’t stand much chance in combat with most hostile navel powers.
I don’t see it happening either
Of Australia was to get a carrier it would have to look at purchasing a South Korean light carrier or Japanese “””””””””””helicopter destroyer”””””””””””””
The new South Korean light carriers will primarily operate F-35B VTOL aircraft and a large fixed and rotary wing drone fleet
2 RAR, second to ONE
I really wish the UK government took this approach to a viable combined arms amphibious capability, rather then wasting time and money on two super carriers which increasing look like they will never have anything approaching viable air wings.
Would it make sense to have an “Royal Australian Marine Corps”? Therefore the Army could focus on its expertise while the “RAMC” could work more cohesively with RAN?
I always wondered why we didn’t have this already.
Awesome doco btw
Nah, the aus army is only half the size of USMC as is. What's actually happening is that they are clearly modelling the army after the USMC ( which makes sense given the strategic picture in the indo-pacific, and out intent to maintain highly professional, highly trained force). The only difference is that the aus army will retain more specialist units in order to maintain the capability to build a future capability. A key example, the aus army will retain its 80 odd M1A1 tanks in order to maintain its capability to field a tank force in the future. The USMC is giving up its tank force, safe in the knowledge that the US army will retain the capability.
ADF is too small and already has too many officers as it is
Australian troops have through history proven themselves to be able to enter battle by whatever means without the requirement for a specialised unit.
We have a core of amphibious experts and they form the nucleus around which a regular brigade can carry out an amphibious assault
Thanks for the replies.... you’re all right, our troops have enough experience.
There is a pressing requirement for three more of the Canberra class vessels ( faster ) plus two genuine at least Q E Class real aircraft carriers...with the defence required . This , with new subs ( when and what ? ) would make it a pretty good navy.
The LHDs would make good small aircraft carriers and this is possibly the way forward however they would require at least another 10 knots of speed!
Great vid keep it uo
The normal people around the world can not believe Australian people volunteer to help people.🇦🇺
he defend, he force, but most importantly he attac
THANK YOU, WELL PUT TOGETHER. Sadly the Canberra and Adelaide cannot take on F35Bs as their decks are not built to withstand the heat produced by aircraft. I strongly suggest that we get a 3rd ship of the Juan Carlos class fitted for these planes; allowing Australia to independently take on potential enemies .19/03/2121
nah man better off with another submarine with some real punch , more punch than harpoons.
This is not correct. Below the flight deck the Canberra and JC1 are the same. The JC1 can support AV8B’s and may support the F35B. The issue (for both the Canberra and the JC1) is the number of aircraft that can be supported, the sorties the vessel could generate and the impact having such an aircraft onboard may have on the primary mission of the vessels in regards to their ability to get the men and gear on the beach. A quick look at any of the public forums will give an indication of the amount of passion this subject engenders but there is currently no intent to operate the JSF off the Australian LHD.
@@alexschultz-altmann9509 ua-cam.com/video/QeLprjZahsY/v-deo.html
The Spanish JCI can operate the f35
And to this day, not one single Australian VSTOL aircraft has landed or taken off from either Canberra or Adelaide. But don't worry, the Admirals still got their gongs for accepting this design of ship.
It is a bit of a worry, yet I see the solution in near term of developing specialist UAV assets that can be controlled by long range airborne command aircraft or from on board either or both Canberra class vessels. We now have the floating capability it just needs a bit of strategic thinking.
The V-22 is technically a VSTOL aircraft.
The cost to modify the hulls and change the deck to a flat top would have been more then the cost to build it anyway. In the ramp they use it to store mooring lines, maintenance supplies and other miscellaneous supplies and stores. Yes there was talk they could operate fixed wing from the carrier, but it would cut the Amphibious capability.
You’re not listening. The LHDs are troop and vehicle carriers not aircraft carriers.
Aircraft can operate from the LHDs. If they called them aircraft carriers it would upset the Indonesians - its a political thing.
As long as the Canberra and the Adelaide have those ski jumps at the front (a feature only there because removing it would've required an expensive redesign) we'll have to keep explaining to people that the army and its vehicles use all the space aboard those ships, and would again lose more than was gained by trying to shoe-horn just a few fast fighters aboard. I also feel that many ignore how far the RAAF's mid-air refuelling capabilities have come, enabling them to keep a force in skies much further away from base than ever before. I think we're right to handle our region with what we've got. Since as you've outlined in fine detail, what we have is what we should've had in East Timor, not a force to go storming across the whole Pacific Ocean with, all by ourselves.
That assumed these ships are only ever used in full blown LHD mode and there is no other use for them. But that simply isn’t reality: they are routinely used as helicopter carriers with ASW assets aboard, humanitarian response and even just flag ships. For example, any of the indo pacific endeavour operations didn’t even have a full ARE.
Now, I’m not advocating for the F-35B, but the arguments raised here are the same kind of “group think” I’ve run into time and time again; I cannot understand why the Australian strategic community becomes so irrational any time someone talked about naval air power.
This is the reality: the LHDs are multi-role vessels that are very rarely full to the brim with army equipment. For the other 90% of the time there is definitely room for F-35Bs if the Canberra’s were modified to carry them. Maybe, sometimes what you need is sea control or air defence, rather than a full blown amphibious warfare vessel. If we acquired the F-35B then you could configure the individual vessels for the role you need at the time; sea control vessel, light carrier, ASW vessel with MH-60Rs, Humanitarian vessel, or if you have to do Timor again, full blown LHD. The Canberra’s certainly have the potential to be used in this way.
Now, should we invest the required funds considering all of the other pressing needs? Maybe, maybe not. But the idea that we can’t even have a mature discussion about the F-35B without generating the kind of knee jerk reaction you’ve shown here (which is typical in my experience) is a very strange state of affairs. If the F-35B is such an obviously bad idea then why are all the other users of this kind of vessel opting to go down that path?
Finally, A2A refueling is no substitute for local air power; it is useful for things like strikes, but maintaining even a relatively small CAP over somewhere like Fiji would be a huge strain on tanker assets. Proximity equals capability.
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 Well ok then.
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 well said.I would like to see Australia use f35b on the Canberra class.and a flight air Arm (fast jet).
@@videowilliams Didnt mean to have a crack at you personally mate, its more this general argument ive run into. Sorry If I came off too strong.
Surprised they still haven't moved forward JP2048 Ph 5 to replace the LCHs. Those where the workhorses of the fleet island hopping. Damen Landing Craft designs are perfect to fill that capability now.
They are going to replace the LCM-8s and LARC-Vs first then move towards creating a LCH replacement, Yes Damen certainly does have a good range of Amphib’s the problem lies in Australia’s Geography, we really need a vessel that has better open ocean performance then the LCH had. Sea Transports, Stern Landing Vessel shows some promise if they have produced a way to protect the running gear while backing it onto a Beach.
Good video, well presented. Can I just remind you though that there are women in the ADF that deploy with the AMPHIB fleet. So, 2300 men and and women make up the embarked personnel.
Yes, my bad, I’m a historian so I’m usually talking about time periods when it was just men, so it’s a bit of a habit.
It's a shame we're never likely to see Canberra or Adelaide's ski jumps used for F35Bs
Adding a 'real' Carrier to the ADF would be a massive expense and incredibly difficult logistically, but -with my vast military knowledge (Sarc OFF) I can't see how this force is viable, in a hot war, without a carrier sitting behind them and providing cover. The catch is; that's not just a carrier, it's an entire Carrier Battle Group, plus RAS capabilities on a whole new scale, and the whole thing goes to hell when the carrier needs a refit.
None the less, It needs to be part of the plan. Hang the expense, give the cat another canary!
Btw, it seems to me that a Carrier Battle Group would do wonders for recruitment - yes, it'd need to!.
Do you mean metres squared or square metres? there is a big difference.
What are you referring to?
@@hypohystericalhistory8133 When you say Canberra has a flight deck of 4750 meters squared which is 22,562,500 Square Metres
Just came aboard... enjoyable series' of analysis.
Just looking a the map.....
While out-of-the-box strategic thinking is all good.....there arguably comes a morning where you're just thinking too hard with the limited resources available, and the time expended, of having whole Reg Battalions continually changing up their roles & mindsets?
In my humble opinion,😎 just go for a dedicated Australian Marine Commando Brigade Gp, utilizing & ramping up a dedicated Marine Commando reserve, where you can simply just rotate a couple of RAR Coys through instead.
Slain te'🍻
We should make a catapult version of the camera for fast jets and the F35 C
Excellent presentation.
I think the billion dollar plus investment to make the Canberra’s capable of each shipping a small squadron of F.35Bs (8-9 airframes) would not detract from their deployment of the other personnel and assets as described above. With China and potentially Russia both flexing their geopolitical muscle, even the deployment of an amphibious group in our region but not directly against either of those powers runs the risk of coming up against truly modern air defence systems which would leave our amphibious capabilities very exposed.
The total cost would probably be in the order of $1.5 billion to harden the flight decks, add in extra aviation fuel stores, magazines, lifts and reconfigure certain internal bulkheads, perhaps another 1.5 billion to acquire a third LHD, plus of course about $6 billion to acquire approximately 28 F35Bs - including the costs of training air and ground crews and obtaining spares etc.
Beyond that, the Canberra’s probably need to develop some UAV capabilities. Alternatively, acquire a QE class carrier that has, in addition to ski ramp STOVL capabilities two EMAL catapults and traps for large USV launch and recover capabilities. That’s a 20 year, 20 billion program right there (40 billion peso panel because we’d also need to acquire another 3 AWD destroyers, plus another supply ship next ad another 3 ships to the 9 ship Hunter Class build over that same period). Given that we sit at the intersection of three of the world’s great oceans, with the 21st century geopolitical hotspot immediately to our north, that type of investment is probably needed. Especially when America is so politically volatile domestically, and there is no guarantee that a future Donald Trump type nativist and isolationist president doesn’t simply cut and run from its treaty obligations to Australia.
So, an exact copy of a MAGTF?