Amphibious ships and air power
- Thread starter alexsa
- Start date
I definately think that the JSF will be a great aircraft for the things it was solely developed to do such as close in support, battlefield interdiction etc. but it is a huge risk to field only one type of platform in an airforce, and the JSF will only be used at its full potential if it is part of a combined arms team air force style, mixed with another platform type that is a top tier A2A superior fighter. This must be something along the lines of the F/A-22, Typhoon, or an evolved F-15. Only a small number of A2A platforms are needed with the JSF supplementing them. Only a mixture of aircraft types will see a true multirole airforce with a true capability edge over our neighbours and adversaries. I have a feeling that the Government and Airforce will realise this and a mix will be bought, perhaps with lesser platform numbers.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
The Federal Government has approved the first stage of the $2 billion Amphibious Ships project which will provide Navy with a world class capability to deploy land forces on operations.
Defence Minister Robert Hill said the project will provide Navy with two new amphibious ships to be used on operations such as combat operations, regional disaster relief, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping and peace monitoring, and assistance to policing or military operations.
Australian shipbuilders will be invited to tender for either or both of two designs:
"Each ship will also be equipped with medical facilities, including two operating theatres and a hospital ward."
A Request for Tender will be released to the Australian shipbuilding industry in the second quarter of 2006.
Senator Hill said the ship builder would be determined once a thorough financial and technical comparison was made between Australian bids and overseas build options.
"The Government’s preference is to see the ships built in Australia, however Australian industry will need to demonstrate it can deliver the project at a competitive price," Senator Hill said.
The Government has given first pass approval to the project and committed $29.8 million towards the Design Development Phase of the project.
This will enable NAVANTIA and ARMARIS to now work on defining the requirements for the ships incorporating necessary Australian environmental, safety and technical requirements.
The tender documentation will allow bidders to:
"The Spanish ship would have a greater carrying capacity but construction of the first Spanish ship has only just started. In comparison, the French ship has slightly less carrying capacity but has been constructed and is undertaking its final tests with the French Navy."
For an Australian build, the contract would be awarded in early 2007 with the in-service date for the first ship being 2012.
Media Note: Still images are availabe from www.defence.gov.au/media/download. Vision will be fed to the networks at Parliament House.
postamble();
GOVERNMENT APPROVES FIRST STAGE OF
AMPHIB SHIPS PROJECT
AMPHIB SHIPS PROJECT
The Federal Government has approved the first stage of the $2 billion Amphibious Ships project which will provide Navy with a world class capability to deploy land forces on operations.
Defence Minister Robert Hill said the project will provide Navy with two new amphibious ships to be used on operations such as combat operations, regional disaster relief, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping and peace monitoring, and assistance to policing or military operations.
Australian shipbuilders will be invited to tender for either or both of two designs:
- the Spanish Navantia ship at approximately 27,000 tonne;
- the French Armaris Mistral ship with additional troop carrying capability at approximately 22,000 tonne.
"Each ship will also be equipped with medical facilities, including two operating theatres and a hospital ward."
A Request for Tender will be released to the Australian shipbuilding industry in the second quarter of 2006.
Senator Hill said the ship builder would be determined once a thorough financial and technical comparison was made between Australian bids and overseas build options.
"The Government’s preference is to see the ships built in Australia, however Australian industry will need to demonstrate it can deliver the project at a competitive price," Senator Hill said.
The Government has given first pass approval to the project and committed $29.8 million towards the Design Development Phase of the project.
This will enable NAVANTIA and ARMARIS to now work on defining the requirements for the ships incorporating necessary Australian environmental, safety and technical requirements.
The tender documentation will allow bidders to:
- Form teaming arrangements;
- Submit fixed price bids;
- Provide innovative solutions to improve price and schedule, and;
- Bid through life support solutions.
"The Spanish ship would have a greater carrying capacity but construction of the first Spanish ship has only just started. In comparison, the French ship has slightly less carrying capacity but has been constructed and is undertaking its final tests with the French Navy."
For an Australian build, the contract would be awarded in early 2007 with the in-service date for the first ship being 2012.
Media Note: Still images are availabe from www.defence.gov.au/media/download. Vision will be fed to the networks at Parliament House.
postamble();
According to this media release from Senator Hill, it indicates that the schedule for this project is already a few months behind. First pass approval was supposed to happen in May/June this year. But at least it's a start.
Cootamundra
New Member
I hope the Spanish Navantia ship makes it through the selection process and gets the gurnsey. I think now that we are going down this path we should make sure we have exactly what we need. One would think the slightly larger option would make the most sense.
By the way, if you go to the images the Navantia designed ship looks like it is complete (and sailing), however, that is not what the press clip says. Does anyone know if it is finished?
Coota
By the way, if you go to the images the Navantia designed ship looks like it is complete (and sailing), however, that is not what the press clip says. Does anyone know if it is finished?
Coota
Virtually every article I have read in the defence magazines I subscribe to have hinted that the Spanish ship is the best suited for Australia's needs, simply because of the fact that it is a larger ship. There are other reasons for this but the bigger it is, the more things you can store in it and do with it. I think if the government are spending $2B on this project, they will buy something that is very advanced with a lot of capabilities, and most likely fitted with everything it needs, rather than fitted for but not with. The biggest thing you may see with the cost factor is a possible decision to build the ships overseas rather than in Australia. This is because our shipyards and companies may not be able to be competitive cost wise, or have the capabilities to build these ships as well as 3 AWDs. I am tipping the LHDs will be operating F-35 STOVL!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Iagree with the above comments, I think the Navantia design will be chosen and we'll see F-35B's operating from them. As to someone's earlier question about who would operate said F-35B's. I'm almost certain they'd be operated by the RAAF.
They won't ONLY be used from the "mini carriers" and possibly won't be used often from them at all. I'd say that any RAAF use of F-35B's from RAN amphib ships would be kept at a minimum unless workups were being conducted for a planned deployment.
The Government doesn't want to be seen as supporting "aircraft carriers" IMHO because they are seen by some as objects soley for "power projection" and have become something of a "political issue" over the years. A capability to use said ships for this task however would probably be seen as politically acceptable.
If the F-35B's were marketed on the basis of their "rough field" or forward operating base ability, as well as their "potential" Naval applications if necessary, then again they may be politically acceptable...
I doubt the RAN would care who operated the F-35B's either provided they could be used off RAN ships, they'd still provide air cover for the RAN which it has greatly lacked since HMAS Melbourne was paid off and the RAN would be happy about that I think...
They won't ONLY be used from the "mini carriers" and possibly won't be used often from them at all. I'd say that any RAAF use of F-35B's from RAN amphib ships would be kept at a minimum unless workups were being conducted for a planned deployment.
The Government doesn't want to be seen as supporting "aircraft carriers" IMHO because they are seen by some as objects soley for "power projection" and have become something of a "political issue" over the years. A capability to use said ships for this task however would probably be seen as politically acceptable.
If the F-35B's were marketed on the basis of their "rough field" or forward operating base ability, as well as their "potential" Naval applications if necessary, then again they may be politically acceptable...
I doubt the RAN would care who operated the F-35B's either provided they could be used off RAN ships, they'd still provide air cover for the RAN which it has greatly lacked since HMAS Melbourne was paid off and the RAN would be happy about that I think...
seantheaussie
New Member
I seem to remember in a world war two powers refused to name a ship after their country as they didn't want their country sunk. I've got to say this makes sense to mecherry said:With the arrival of 2 amphib ships and 3 AWD over the next decade, what are some of the possible names for these vessels? Will the new AWD take the names of the old Perth class ships? I think HMAS Australia would be a great name for the lead amphib ship.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #53
http://www.navantia.es/cgi-bin/run.dll/extranet/jsp/programa.do
Quote from Navantia press release 23rd of May (so a bit old) however it is interesting to note they state the vessel is to eventually serve as aircraft carrier to support aviation embarked forces.
Yes you are right. Apparently Armaris have been asked to provide detailed information relating to three variants of its Mistral design: the military off-the-shelf design which is currently in production; a modified design providing for increased troop capacity; and an option based on the original extended Mistral design. I believe the extended design is around 30m longer, bringing it to around the same length as the Spanish design.
If we are to purchase the F-35B variant to operate from our amphib ships on a part time basis, and we operate Tiger attack helos on a part time basis, and we operate 6 MRH-90s on a part time basis.....will the new ships have any helos on a permanent basis, and what sort are these likely to be? I know this is a difficult question considering we don't know (and neither does ADF) what AIR9000 will bring.
If we are to purchase the F-35B variant to operate from our amphib ships on a part time basis, and we operate Tiger attack helos on a part time basis, and we operate 6 MRH-90s on a part time basis.....will the new ships have any helos on a permanent basis, and what sort are these likely to be? I know this is a difficult question considering we don't know (and neither does ADF) what AIR9000 will bring.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #56
Considering the extra money committed to marinising the MRH-90 you can bet these helos will the main troop carrier embarked on such a platform. Similarly the RAN would be likley embark Seakings (in the utility role), or their replacement, on these vessels noting these are currently carried on the LPAs. It is also worth considering that when (or if) the Seaprite becomes operational there will be 16 Seahawks for 4 FFGs. That leaves a few spare.cherry said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I'd say these ships would probably have a Sea Hawk or 2 asigned to it permanently. They would be a very big (and highly valued) target for any "enemy" sub forces and the RAN would want these ships to have some capability to protect themselves, plus the Sea Hawks provide vertrep functions, utility/transport tasks and limited anti-surface warfare capabilities.
On top of this the AWD's will need some helo's too when they arrive too. This is almost guaranteed to be a Sea Hawk, unless AIR 9000 decides to replace the ASW helo's, but I seriously doubt that will happen in time...
On top of this the AWD's will need some helo's too when they arrive too. This is almost guaranteed to be a Sea Hawk, unless AIR 9000 decides to replace the ASW helo's, but I seriously doubt that will happen in time...
Does anyone know if the ships will have 'armoured' portions to protect vital ship areas/personnel ? As AD mentioned, they make for a nice juicy target. You'd want to ensure high degree of survivability for such a ship. I reckon the LHD's would make great flag ships, provided all the communications gear is up to it.
Any hints on whether the ships will be defended with RAM?
Any hints on whether the ships will be defended with RAM?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Do you mean "Radar absorbent material" or "rolling airframe missile"? I'd expect the LPD's would be fitted out with armoured sections, bulkheads etc to improve survivability. There are several reports at the RAN Seapower Centre website that detail (without too many specifics) armour usage upon current RAN Warships. I recall reading one not too long back so they should still be there.Supe said:
The LPD's will replace Tobruk and then either Kanimbla or Manoora, (not sure if it's been decided upon yet) so I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that their comms fitouts won't be amongst the most extensive ever fitted in a RAN vessel. Kanimbla and Manoora have both had extensive comms upgrades since coming into service and are used as mobile HQ command centres on ops, something the RAN didn't have previously, it's not a capability they would be prepared to lose I'm sure...