Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[StingrayOZ]

A good read about Australia's emerging amphibious capability

Australia’s Emerging Amphibious Warfare Capabilities | The Diplomat

Now I am thinking throw in some F35Bs on a 3rd LHD, would that not drastically up the capability and essentially make ADF a very useful "persuasive tool"?

Its an interesting article. I liked how it focused on the amphibious need for the ADF. Still I think its understated how the LHD are going to change the ADF and Australia's regional outlook. But highlights how we have to develop the amphibious capability now we finally have two of the key assets.

Brings up the issue of no replacement for the heavy landing ships. No announcement, no replacement, no alternatives. Do we have a plan for this? What are we doing for missions less than Choules but more than a patrol boat.

 

[hauritz]

Its an interesting article. I liked how it focused on the amphibious need for the ADF. Still I think its understated how the LHD are going to change the ADF and Australia's regional outlook. But highlights how we have to develop the amphibious capability now we finally have two of the key assets.

Brings up the issue of no replacement for the heavy landing ships. No announcement, no replacement, no alternatives. Do we have a plan for this? What are we doing for missions less than Choules but more than a patrol boat.

I think the navy might also miss something the size of the Tobruk when it goes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the navy ended up leasing something to replace the lost capability.

 

[t68]

I think the navy might also miss something the size of the Tobruk when it goes.

I wouldn't be surprised if the navy ended up leasing something to replace the lost capability.

Choules is technically a replacement for Tobruk. Whilst the current and future shipping is a major leap in capability, I still believe we need a couple of logistics support vessel smaller than Choules but larger enough to supplement the sealift capability when needed something along the lines of General Frank S. Besson-class logistics support vessel

 

[MickB]

I see the STS stern landing ship as a quick, low risk replacement for the LCH. A 45m version could be built as a direct 1 for 1 replacement.

Faster,better sea keeping, greater capacity.

Slowing to back onto the beach should present no problems as the LCHs role has never been that of opposed landings.

A class of larger 80m to 100m versions would serve as replacements for the Tobruk and fill the niche between LCH and LHD.

It could follow the same layout as the JHSV, (hele deck, side ramp etc) allowing it to operate as a ship to shore connecter and use austere ports. To fulfill most of the same roles.

It would have a greater load capacity and ability to operate in worse weather conditions than the JHSV.

 

[Volkodav]

I see the STS stern landing ship as a quick, low risk replacement for the LCH. A 45m version could be built as a direct 1 for 1 replacement.

Faster,better sea keeping, greater capacity.

Slowing to back onto the beach should present no problems as the LCHs role has never been that of opposed landings.

A class of larger 80m to 100m versions would serve as replacements for the Tobruk and fill the niche between LCH and LHD.

It could follow the same layout as the JHSV, (hele deck, side ramp etc) allowing it to operate as a ship to shore connecter and use austere ports. To fulfill most of the same roles.

It would have a greater load capacity and ability to operate in worse weather conditions than the JHSV.

Agreed, they would be an interesting, suitable and capable replacement for the LCH. I must confess that as time goes by without any news it appears less and less likely that they will be replaced at all. Hope it is not the case but that is how it looks at the moment.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It could follow the same layout as the JHSV, (hele deck, side ramp etc) allowing it to operate as a ship to shore connecter and use austere ports. To fulfill most of the same roles.

It would have a greater load capacity and ability to operate in worse weather conditions than the JHSV.

It would seem to be something very practical. I would imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to fit a helipad. 45-60m variants would seem to be appropriate. While Im not sure we order 6 off the bat, I would have thought a 2 or 3 ship build would have been a straight forward no brainer and at least provide that basic capability.

The diplomat article points out, part of what we want to use the LHD is preventive diplomancy. As such one will no doubt be on deployment in the region performing missions other than just ARG amphibious landings. So with only 2 ships don't know how much amphibious training we will get to train.

And with only 2 ships any long term mission will interfere with all this strategic action and any strategic preventative action will interfere with long term missions. So with only two ships, we are back to reactionary and picking up the peices. With no smaller scale missions (supported by smaller ships) we can't even do what we used to be able to do in the region.
Then throw in ideas like F-35B operations (for strike, CAS and sea control), ASW, working with allied forces in a variety of roles, out of region deployments etc. We haven't even got them in service and we want them to do everything. Hey they are flexible, but to utilise that flexibility you need a number of hulls to support it, train it and sustain it.

I would be throwing in for a third LHD, ideally 3+ stern landing ships. With that we then would have a range of options for a range of missions.

 

[alexsa]

It would seem to be something very practical. I would imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to fit a helipad. 45-60m variants would seem to be appropriate. While Im not sure we order 6 off the bat, I would have thought a 2 or 3 ship build would have been a straight forward no brainer and at least provide that basic capability.

The diplomat article points out, part of what we want to use the LHD is preventive diplomancy. As such one will no doubt be on deployment in the region performing missions other than just ARG amphibious landings. So with only 2 ships don't know how much amphibious training we will get to train.

And with only 2 ships any long term mission will interfere with all this strategic action and any strategic preventative action will interfere with long term missions. So with only two ships, we are back to reactionary and picking up the peices. With no smaller scale missions (supported by smaller ships) we can't even do what we used to be able to do in the region.
Then throw in ideas like F-35B operations (for strike, CAS and sea control), ASW, working with allied forces in a variety of roles, out of region deployments etc. We haven't even got them in service and we want them to do everything. Hey they are flexible, but to utilise that flexibility you need a number of hulls to support it, train it and sustain it.

I would be throwing in for a third LHD, ideally 3+ stern landing ships. With that we then would have a range of options for a range of missions.

Just a heads up, these are not fast ships with an adversied speed of 13 knots and very 'bluff' in the bow. The ones operating actually only do 9 knots.

The prososed large STS design will offer 13 knots and the tunnel design necessary to protect the props means it may be difficult to get higher speeds. All options need gently sloping beachs but by way of comparision the Batral class:

• does 16 knots,
• is helo capable and
• can carry LCMs on deck.
• Can carry 138 men and their equipment as cargo, cargo capacity (not deadweight) of 400 tonnes
• range of 4500 nm at 13 knots

A modem version of this would perhaps be a good option.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Just a heads up, these are not fast ships with an adversied speed of 13 knots and very 'bluff' in the bow. The ones operating actually only do 9 knots.

This is started to get off track of the thread so I will focus on how this impacts on the LHDs. Given the we haven't heard anything about the Balikpapan replacements, I wouldn't be surprised if a different approach it taken in the new white paper.

Its interesting to see France not replace the Batral class with a pretty different sort of ship. Bâtiments Multimission.

If we were to get a 3rd LHD (thats a big if - hypothetical) then the need for heavy lifting is significantly reduced and we might be better served with a patrol/opv ship with some landing capability and longer range connectors for the LHD that have some independent capability.

I'll start a new thread about the heavy landing craft.
.

 

[ASSAIL]

I'll start a new thread about the heavy landing craft.
.

There won't be much to reference, if you do a search for JP 2048 Ph 5 there is a big blank.
I reckon the discussion fits OK within the general RAN thread IMHO naturally.

 

[StingrayOZ]

There won't be much to reference, if you do a search for JP 2048 Ph 5 there is a big blank.
I reckon the discussion fits OK within the general RAN thread IMHO naturally.

Yes, seemed more appropriate. Moved to RAN thread.

This thread can now focus on the JC1 and Canberra class and I assume the Turkish build.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Some may be interested in the thoughts of Dave Baddams (ex-A4G then RN FAA SHAR CO) along with Steve George and others about F-35Bs on LHDs submitted for consideration here:

http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/082-Baddams.pdf (185Kb)

 

[swerve]

Maybe slightly OT, but I wish the RN had got something like Juan Carlos 1 instead of HMS Ocean, Albion & Bulwark. I'm hoping that when the last two are retired, they'll be replaced with decent LHDs - perhaps an updated (since it won't be for quite a while) JC1.

 

[RobWilliams]

Very much agree.

We've got the QEC, top class aviation ships. Ideally they'd shift the helicopters onto amphibs to allow a QEC to be a 'proper' carrier with more fixed wing and hanging further away from shore.

Never mind where the escorts for these two groups would come from mind

 

[StingrayOZ]

Maybe slightly OT, but I wish the RN had got something like Juan Carlos 1 instead of HMS Ocean, Albion & Bulwark. I'm hoping that when the last two are retired, they'll be replaced with decent LHDs - perhaps an updated (since it won't be for quite a while) JC1.

Well, they won't last for ever. Wasn't Albion under review in 2010 anyway? Oceans already 20 years old as well. I imagine when Bulwark is in extended readiness they may consider pulling the plug on her in 2016 (rather than doing more refits). Also perhaps dispose of another Bay class? Then you would have room for 2 or 3 LHD's and still have 2 LPD's. That would seem to be a pretty impressive amphibious force, combined with the new carriers.

Hard to think how you would update it (other than minor systems like radar etc). In the 2020 period she will still very modern. JC1 didn't exist when they were building Ocean, Bulwark etc. These new LHD ships (Mistral, JC1) really came about from late 90's thinking (most likely inspired by USS Wasp which is where the us really perfected the modern LHD, with LCAC and being able to operate the Harriers, removal of 5" guns).

Mid 90's Australia was trying to convert a ex US tank landing ship (LST) into something that we hoped looked/operated like Albion.

I hope more countries adopt the JC1 design. Uk and Canada would be great compatible allies, joint deployments would be a very interesting exercise. I would imagine many countries are looking closely at Australia experience with the LHD acquisition and how they fit within CONOPS of both Australia and the US.

I wonder if Turkey will still see the LHD as a priority given the land issues on their borders.

 

[Volkodav]

Some may be interested in the thoughts of Dave Baddams (ex-A4G then RN FAA SHAR CO) along with Steve George and others about F-35Bs on LHDs submitted for consideration here:

http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/docs/082-Baddams.pdf (185Kb)

Very interesting, thanks for that.

The points that where, I believe, of particular relevance, were, the shorter range of the F-35B is irrelevant as they can be based closer to the action (on LHDs / small carriers, or semi / unprepared strips) and their smaller internal payload is also mitigated by their closer proximity to potential targets. Not mentioned, but I believe also of relevance, is that sea based combat aircraft are inherently easier to defend from attack / sabotage than forward deployed land based aircraft.

 

[RobWilliams]

Well, they won't last for ever. Wasn't Albion under review in 2010 anyway? Oceans already 20 years old as well. I imagine when Bulwark is in extended readiness they may consider pulling the plug on her in 2016 (rather than doing more refits). Also perhaps dispose of another Bay class? Then you would have room for 2 or 3 LHD's and still have 2 LPD's. That would seem to be a pretty impressive amphibious force, combined with the new carriers

The 2010 SDSR ended up putting Albion alongside in extended readiness and leaving us with 1 operational LPD.

If we can them - or either of them - before their OSD which is 2030+ then we'll probably not be getting a replacement for them as it'd be the result of a CONOPs change WRT amphibious landings.

Ocean is gone once the carriers are online, considering we won't have a 'proper' carrier group* until the mid-2020s anyway it wouldn't be long after that the LPDs would be getting replaced.

*proper as in being deployable with a well worked up carrier crew and be able to deploy with significant numbers of more capable later block F-35.

 

[swerve]

Well, they won't last for ever. Wasn't Albion under review in 2010 anyway? Oceans already 20 years old as well. I imagine when Bulwark is in extended readiness they may consider pulling the plug on her in 2016 (rather than doing more refits). Also perhaps dispose of another Bay class? Then you would have room for 2 or 3 LHD's and still have 2 LPD's. That would seem to be a pretty impressive amphibious force, combined with the new carriers.

Hard to think how you would update it (other than minor systems like radar etc). In the 2020 period she will still very modern. ..

If Albion was under review in 2010 it was as a money-saving measure, with no thought of replacement. She was only commissioned in 2003. Bulwark is a month away from the 10th anniversary of her commissioning - they're not even middle-aged yet. And with them now alternating in service, they're going to last a long time. I suspect replacements won't be considered until the 2030s, when, as Rob says, their OSD is expected to be - but that could be extended, given their low usage rate.

Ocean is older, & more cheaply built so not expected to last as long, but current planning doesn't call for a direct replacement, & taking both CVFs into service seems to have confirmed that. She'll be replaced by the ability of the CVFs to carry lots of helicopters.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Oh well, the UK will be pretty well off with the two CVF carriers she is getting anyway.

I was reading on Turkish forum, the new turkish LHD is going to have its ski jump removed and the front lift turned into a hatch (I assume personnel only no aircraft). Pretty major modifications.

 

[harryriedl]

If Albion was under review in 2010 it was as a money-saving measure, with no thought of replacement. She was only commissioned in 2003. Bulwark is a month away from the 10th anniversary of her commissioning - they're not even middle-aged yet. And with them now alternating in service, they're going to last a long time. I suspect replacements won't be considered until the 2030s, when, as Rob says, their OSD is expected to be - but that could be extended, given their low usage rate.

Ocean is older, & more cheaply built so not expected to last as long, but current planning doesn't call for a direct replacement, & taking both CVFs into service seems to have confirmed that. She'll be replaced by the ability of the CVFs to carry lots of helicopters.

When the previous Fearless Class managed late 60s into 2000s I would expect 40 years out of the LPD's. I would like an Ocean replacement as it cheaper to run compared with the CVF's and is useful tool in some respects I like something like the Mistral to act as a replacement for Ocean and Argus sometime after the T26's have started building.

I wouldn't entirely rule out a commando carrier replacement as the RN has like these classes of vessels for a very long time.

 

[StevoJH]

When the previous Fearless Class managed late 60s into 2000s I would expect 40 years out of the LPD's. I would like an Ocean replacement as it cheaper to run compared with the CVF's and is useful tool in some respects I like something like the Mistral to act as a replacement for Ocean and Argus sometime after the T26's have started building.

I wouldn't entirely rule out a commando carrier replacement as the RN has like these classes of vessels for a very long time.

Intrepid went into reserve as a parts Hulk in ~1990/1991 after 23-24 years of service.

Didn't they spend a lot of their later years as training ships as opposed to frontline warships?