Amphibious ships for small navies
- Thread starter swerve
- Start date
I agree on the 30,000 ton LHDs. THey are simply too big. They are like mini carriers to me. However, it is very possible Singapore might build mid sized LHDs. Singapore can pay for it and has the tech to build them. The determining factor, to me, is and will always be costs and not manpower. There is certainly more than enough Singaporeans around to man these ships. There are still 4.7-5 million people. Hence, the issue is whether the RSN wants to increase her professional corps of officers.
However, that will incur increased costs for the SAF as a whole. It is something the RSN would want to ponder about.
The new LHD will need to come with increased automation like the Endurance and Formidable classes. I am positive they will be able to pull it off and I think the Endurance class will be replaced by mid sized LHDs in future. Many were surprised when the RSN built the Endurance class and Formidable class ships.
Presently, I feel there is still enough manpower for the RSN to move people around. For example, the RSN was operating about 7 ex County class LSTs previously with a crew complement of about 120 plus per ship. That is about 840 men and women. The excess manpower was assigned elsewhere as required when the RSN decommisioned these ships and started using the new Endurance class LPDs.
So, I am not surprised if the next amphi ship is a LHD or LHDs.
I'm assuming that the NFH 90 will replace the Sea Hawks as the way i understand it, the plan behind the MRH 90 buy was to cut the number of helicopter types in service as low as possible. The next logical step to replacing the Blackhawks and Sea Kings with the MRH 90 would be to replace the Sea Hawks with the NFH 90.
At the moment the RAN doesnt have enough helicopters to have one permanently assigned to each frigate due to the Sea Sprite Cancellation, so any Naval Helicopter Buy would be replacing both the Sea Hawks and the Sea Sprites.
So probably 25-30 Helicopters.
Here is an interesting design from Germany`s TMS. 15,000 ton LHD with a crew complement of just 94.
It carries 750 troops, tanks, etc and 6-7 helicopters on the flight deck. It resembles a RO-RO ship somewhat with a hanger/flat fligth deck installed right on top of the main deck. I think you can have space for more helicopters if TMS can extend the flight/hanger deck and get rid of the gun at the bow of the ship. The well dock should be large enough to fit in LCACs.
A mid-sized LHD with lots of space presently and for future growth plus lots of savings in terms of manpower.
Check out the pdf;
http://www.mediafire.com/?owljtzwdg2z
(sorry if it is queued. Any better place to upload neat files?)Edit:fixed link
It carries 750 troops, tanks, etc and 6-7 helicopters on the flight deck. It resembles a RO-RO ship somewhat with a hanger/flat fligth deck installed right on top of the main deck. I think you can have space for more helicopters if TMS can extend the flight/hanger deck and get rid of the gun at the bow of the ship. The well dock should be large enough to fit in LCACs.
A mid-sized LHD with lots of space presently and for future growth plus lots of savings in terms of manpower.
Check out the pdf;
http://www.mediafire.com/?owljtzwdg2z
(sorry if it is queued. Any better place to upload neat files?)Edit:fixed link
Last edited:
wouldn't the EH-101 be very good candidate for the Sea Hawks replacement NH-90 and EH-101 would make sence if you don't mind an expanded logistic issues
EH 101 would have to be a better option, however logistically it would add a lot more strain, plus i don't think the ANZAC class can operate a helicopter that big, not sure if the Adelaide's can.
Looks like a fine ship. If Germany would buy one or two of them it would be easier to sell these ships to other nations. I believe South Africa was offered these, but I believe the French Mistrals will win the contract because the French have already built theirs. Nations not only look at the bottom line when they acquire ships, they also look at the supply line for parts as well. Its comforting that the parent navy has a few ships too.
Germany never acted as parent navy for the MEKO line, and they won't start now.
The ship initially offered to South Africa was a MHD150, and now a MHD200 - ie a 20,000 ton version of the original MHD150 essentially. Both designs are not in line with what Germany wants from a LHD, which is why TKMS came up with the separate MESHD concept as a potential tender for the German JSS program (which is only related to the MHD line).
Btw: In comparison to DCN's Mistral, the TKMS offer has more offsets for local industry, which is a rather decisive factor often.
The ship initially offered to South Africa was a MHD150, and now a MHD200 - ie a 20,000 ton version of the original MHD150 essentially. Both designs are not in line with what Germany wants from a LHD, which is why TKMS came up with the separate MESHD concept as a potential tender for the German JSS program (which is only related to the MHD line).
Btw: In comparison to DCN's Mistral, the TKMS offer has more offsets for local industry, which is a rather decisive factor often.
any idea when the contract will be finished will the economic crisis effect the procurement tanking Rand and stock market
A real competition, then.
DCN can point to Mistral & Tonnerre in service, say (more or less truthfully) that the teething problems were nothing unusual & were quickly ironed out to the MNs satisfaction, so they shouldn't recur on additional ships, & can therefore offer a smooth, almost risk-free entry into service. Strong plus points.
Against that, TKMS have built up a good relationship with the S. African navy by building it four good ships, delivered pretty punctually, with local equipment fitted. Promises on their part to give offsets, integrate the same local equipment without problems, & deliver on time & on budget are therefore very credible. Also strong plus points.
And the three subs too. I also wouldn't be too surprised if TKMS was attempting to go for a package deal - South Africa wants to replace its three corvettes with up to six OPVs as well, in the same timeframe (optimistically until 2013/2014).
DCN would likely have an extremely good stance though if the two additional - and likely somewhat reduced - Mistrals for the MN were already fully designed and could be offered.
Dear StingrayOZ, while I agree that Singapore will not buy a 30,000t LHD, I also agree with KiwiBob that your classification is problematic. Please note that I'm not trying to make a nationalistic argument - on the importance of Singapore's navy (rather I'm trying to provide another point of view on other factors to be considered on your classification).
Let me explain. While Singapore and South Africa both sit at key sea trade routes, the profile of each navy and their respective functions are very different.
IMHO, the South African surface fleet (compared to Singapore) faces no immediate naval competitors in Africa, with a much larger shoreline to defend. As such, she needs to invest in more OPVs rather than more expensive frigates. South Africa also has a significant submarine population, which means that she can engage in sea denial against regional powers (eg. like India and China).
Singapore on the other hand needs to invest in a very capable surface fleet. For surface warfare, Singapore has harpoon armed F-15s, F-16s and MPAs. The Aster/Harpoon armed Formidable Class frigates (with seahawks for ASW), and submarines (more geared towards playing the role of hunter killers) reflect our role as a maritime protector - to keep SLOCs open. Further, the focus on 4 LPDs (rather than 1 or 2 bigger ones) reflects our concern to bring back equipment from a larger variety of overseas bases at the same time.
The Singapore navy operates in a more difficult regional threat environment (with a stronger class of regional competitors/friends) - hence I expect the Singapore navy to only grow bigger at the same rate - because the focus is not developing a sea denial capacity - rather the focus is to keep SLOCs open in partnership with US, Australia and Malaysia (even though Malaysians tend to think of us as a regional competitor).
If the classification was on "potential from growth", then you may need to consider including Malaysia and Thailand in the same category as South Africa - which then raises the question does the classification make sense? Let me know your thoughts.
Further more, Singapore expects that it would be of interest to certain other powers to assist in our attempts to keep SLOCs open. If the SLOCs are affected, the interest of Australia, China, Korea, Japan and the US would all be adversely affected.
Btw, thanks Red for the PM.
Last edited:
Yes and thats why a comparison is not really possible. South Africa would be the sort of nation that would find real value with a large LHD, able to pull into a port provide the facilities that are often hard to comeby in its region during conflicts. Hospitals, Fresh water, or evacuate civilians. etc. Also a very useful way to deploy and operate attack helicopters. For S.A larger vessels make sense. I would like them to get something that would add real capabilities to the African Union, particularly in logisitics, something the continent of Africa really needs.
Singapore is in a wholey different situation, which you have explained and I agree with. They would have no real interest in a supersized LHD. It doesn't meet the requirements for them and the operations they are likely to perform.
I hope I haven't offended anyone saying that Singapore has a small navy. Its a very capable navy, more capable than other larger navies. The sea lanes they have regionally are some of the most important in the world. They have to deal with higher threat levels and more capable opposition with a full range of advanced weapons.
But I would put Malaysia and Thailand in a simular pool as South Africa. In terms of LHD. Thailand and Malaysia will most likely look at larger ships.
Should I be classing them as a medium navy, verse a small navy for Singapore. Well in terms of amphibious ships I would.
None taken (offense, I mean). IMHO, it is the goal of Singapore to be seen as a small but capable navy (and not to be seen as habouring regional power ambitions).
Thailand operates a small aircraft carrier. However, it spends more time in port than at sea due to operating costs concerns. So how big, is too big?
From my point of view, increasing the capabilities of the Endurance class is something that the RSN needs to look at and in that regard the Danish Absalon class is instructive. However, the cheaper option to upgrade may just be to acquire 4 more seahawks (or a large UAV and the Endurance class has its own USV). Currently, only the Formidable class is to be equipped with its own organic helicopter.
Last edited:
The Naval Aviation community has a plan to replace the Seahawks you can read about it here:
http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/issues/july08.php
As to the LHDs being ASW carriers that is unlikely in the way you describe it. RAN only plan on basing one helo flight (with one multi-role naval helicopter and a UAV capability) on the LHD with the rest of the air wing being Army units.
However they will carry the Sea 1778 organic MCM system. This is likely to be stand off UUVs for MCM that will also in the USN have an ASW capability. So with a few of these UUVs on board with modular MCM and ASW capability over quite some area.
The methods of ASW have changed a lot since Tom Clancy in the 1980s so its kind of wrong to try and imagine the future RAN operating in the old way of helo carriers and the like.
This is the right question. Amphibious forces aren't based on some kind of arbitary size constraint in a ratio to overall navy personnel size but on what kind of landing forces are needed. The NZDF can only reasonbly deploy a reinforced combat team and by administrative landings (ie not opposed in any way just lacking port infrastructure) so they only need a 9,000 tonne HMNZS Canterbury without a well dock to achieve this.
The ADF wants to put a reinforced combined arms battlegroup ashore in the face of opposition (not to much opposition but) so it needs two large 27,000 tonne LHDs to do the job (it actually needs three to sustain the two in service but cost cutting effects everyone).
The SAF's amphibious role includes smaller amphibious assaults to secure small islands in its vital maritime approaches so it needs a small assault vessel. It also has a multi role requirement to help sustain overseas training deployments. So similar to the NZDF it needs a 8,500 tonne ship but since their operational requirements are more intense its more of a military ship which comes at a cost premium (Canterbury was cost capped to US$ 100 million).
What the SANDF needs for their Africa wide stabilisation mission will define their Project Millennium amphibious requirement.
When I read the Coles report, didn't he criticized New Zealand for not setting up a supply line chain as well. Even though the ship is mostly commercial parts bought off the shelf, much of the parts for the Canterbury are of European make. While the OPVs and IPVs were built locally in Australia and New Zealand, and with companies that have license agreements for parts, this is not the case with the Canterbury. Being able to find and acquire spare parts in the future is very important, as important as building the ship in the first place.
Its comforting to buy a ship the parent navy has in its inventory on the basics of spare parts alone. What may be commercial parts bought off the shelf today may not be so in thirty years. There has been a reason why New Zealand has bought in the past British, and recently Australian built ships. Its been said before that New Zealand could go alone and buy cheaper ships on their own designed for New Zealand's needs. Project Protector is an example of doing this, as neither the Americans, British, or Australians have such ships in their inventory.
Keep in mind I didn't bring this subject up, Mr. Coles did.
Its comforting to buy a ship the parent navy has in its inventory on the basics of spare parts alone. What may be commercial parts bought off the shelf today may not be so in thirty years. There has been a reason why New Zealand has bought in the past British, and recently Australian built ships. Its been said before that New Zealand could go alone and buy cheaper ships on their own designed for New Zealand's needs. Project Protector is an example of doing this, as neither the Americans, British, or Australians have such ships in their inventory.
Keep in mind I didn't bring this subject up, Mr. Coles did.
Last edited: