The last plan was a multi role ship, a support shio that could transport troops, plus have refueling capability and carry supplies as well. If it was not being used as a toop mover, i am guessingbmore dry stores and munitiins could be carried. I would like to see something like these revived , also great humanitarian relief, and also litorral support platforms.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
The new Japanese AOE apparently has those capabilities, I guess we will find out for sure in 2028/29.
The ELLIDA(BMT) JSS specs looked ok too but we would be the sole customer -costly and risky and I’m not sure we can build ships of that size anytime soon(within the next decade).
200m x 30.5m, slightly less than UKs FSS at 216m x 34.5m.
Last edited:
The Japanese option would be my choice , without even looking at it! Throw another fast build mogami in with the deal!
Specs look good, similar to the previous class.
Length - similar to Mashu, 220m+?
Beam - similar to Mashu, 25m+?
Weight - 14,500t standard load, so approx 27,000t+ full load.
Crew - Approx 100.
Speed - Approx max speed of 24knts.
Range - Approx 10,000nm at 20knts.
‘According to the Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA), the plan calls for the procurement of five ships of this class by the 2036 fiscal year, with the lead ship scheduled to enter service in 2028.
The hull size is slightly larger than that of the *Mashu*-class replenishment ship with no major structural changes, and the design is said to incorporate stealth-conscious shaping however, conceptual renderings show significant differences from the *Mashu* and *Towada* classes, such as the bridge being positioned toward the bow. Additionally, the inclusion of a side ramp and vehicle-loading capabilities, combined with labor-saving measures like the automation of internal cargo transfer systems, results in a crew size of approximately 100—a reduction of about 40 personnel compared to the *Towada* class.’
only 1 legit pic available and some 3D modelling attempts online below.
Attachments
Last edited:
A lot bigger than i thought!
Japan's never called an LHD, or any other kind of amphibious ship, a destroyer. It called four helicopter carriers, two of them ASW (Hyuga & Ise) & two of them now being converted to F-35 carriers (Izumo & Kaga), destroyers.
None of those ships has a dock (what the D in LHD stands for) or amphibious capability other than that any helicopter carrier or aircraft carrier has.
The subject of the Canberra Class not entering a combat zone I find somewhat perplexing.
It’s just a vessel, no different to a Cape Class PB or Supply Class or for that matter any other RAN vessel.
Take it further ,a MBT, unimog, F35a, P-8, or any other asset within in the ADF that moves.
They all have their own attributes, limitations and role they play within the larger construct.
Is an LHD vulnerable in conflict- Yes
Like any asset employed within the ADF its deployed within its parameters to function and win.
Does it have limitations. absolutely!
Every asset does.
We recognise it and work with it.
Let’s lose the fixation that if it can’t take on the PLAN notion it’s useless and therefore just a logistic bus of HADR asset.
There are countless scenarios closer to home where a LHD could be deployed in an assertive predominantly aviation centric role or for that matter, many other roles.
Roles that could not be undertaken with alternative assets.
The Canberra Class is a very flexible ship that is still a warship.
Like all assets remember it’s what it can do, not what it cannot.
Cheers S
It’s just a vessel, no different to a Cape Class PB or Supply Class or for that matter any other RAN vessel.
Take it further ,a MBT, unimog, F35a, P-8, or any other asset within in the ADF that moves.
They all have their own attributes, limitations and role they play within the larger construct.
Is an LHD vulnerable in conflict- Yes
Like any asset employed within the ADF its deployed within its parameters to function and win.
Does it have limitations. absolutely!
Every asset does.
We recognise it and work with it.
Let’s lose the fixation that if it can’t take on the PLAN notion it’s useless and therefore just a logistic bus of HADR asset.
There are countless scenarios closer to home where a LHD could be deployed in an assertive predominantly aviation centric role or for that matter, many other roles.
Roles that could not be undertaken with alternative assets.
The Canberra Class is a very flexible ship that is still a warship.
Like all assets remember it’s what it can do, not what it cannot.
Cheers S
It's not the ADFs business to fund major infrastructure like this, it's up to the Federal government (same as the Alice to Darwin link). One of the marin reasons the Tennant Creek to Mt Isa line didn't see much traction was the business case relied on pinching the traffic off the existing line to Townsville. The line only makes sense if it continues through to Townsville and replaces the existing narrow gauge line. Although the ADF has used rail in the past it doesn't seem that interested these days.
A railway is a prety easy target, in war or peace.
Even floods effect them here in the top end.
I worked for halliburton in the early 2000s we used to ship tools all ober Australia and the world. Cost was not a factor, time was. We rarely used rail, if ever. I sent one tool to Karatha from Darwin once. The truck stopped at victoria river, due to floods. So we turned the truck around, and sent via Alice Springs, Adelaide , Perth -Karratha! Australia is a big place. If you relied on rail for transport of our ADF assets, esspecialy on war time, it would be a disaster. Impossible to secure the line. Very easy target. Not the assets, the rail line itself.
Even floods effect them here in the top end.
I worked for halliburton in the early 2000s we used to ship tools all ober Australia and the world. Cost was not a factor, time was. We rarely used rail, if ever. I sent one tool to Karatha from Darwin once. The truck stopped at victoria river, due to floods. So we turned the truck around, and sent via Alice Springs, Adelaide , Perth -Karratha! Australia is a big place. If you relied on rail for transport of our ADF assets, esspecialy on war time, it would be a disaster. Impossible to secure the line. Very easy target. Not the assets, the rail line itself.
I am not saying the A.D.F should fund this railway infrastructure ,the A.D.F could through the ministry encourage this as federal govt. funding as major upgrade to comercial rail services ,commercial use jobs etc.
The rail line though is something in war that can be quickly fixed bridges and ships not so , Russian rail lines are attacked trains derailed and are soon back in service and this is from a neighboring country ,Its easy to read up on China,s usage of its rail network over the last twenty years to move its missiles around
Last edited:
Railways may be an easy target to hit, but difficult to do a lot of damage to and relatively quick to repair.
Impossible to secure roads either.
Ueah I get that, but imagine 50% of our armour moving northby rail, and the train derails, tipping over the assets. At least by road, they would be spread out, and yes, i know and understand the cost difference. Break the tracks in 10 different spots for example...
Eventually they are going to be loaded onto a ship anyway to deploy.
Even if they are on a train, eventually they would have to be loaded onto a truck even if used in Australia. Anything tracked is going to be a PIA and I don't see infrastructure like entire rail lines between minor cities being funded to move some of the ~70 or so tanks we have.
Rail in Australia is slow like 60-80kmph slow. I'm not sure that a ship would be significantly slower if you include scheduling, loading, unloading and getting to where its needed.
If we were to get a new AOR, I think we just get a copy of what NZ ordered. Crew of 64. RAN and RNZN would then have a common platform, common crew. It could be crewed by the new merchant marine people. Training and ops would be standard between AU-NZ. Its also polar capable so could be useful as an alternative for our single polar ship, in resupplying bases or remote islands.
Supply class has those extra amphibious features, but its not an amphib. Its a supply ship that can embark small numbers and support light small company sized missions. We could put specials on them, and have that go out if we wanted something a bit more low profile than kicking in the door with Canberra's. Or they could do light HDAR stuff.
We need to look at overhauling the Canberras anyway.
Spains program which concluded last year (and our ships are used much harder than spains):
www.navalnews.com
So if we are looking at having useful amphibious capability, then we need to take more seriously investing in the capability that under pins the entire ADF, the Canberras.
This basically includes opening the ship right up, replacing engines, pods, 70km of wiring, power convertors and transmissions cabinets. Changing all the valves on the ship, corrosion work, redoing toilets, kitchens, cold storage, recreation, messes, dining, offices, working spaces, etc.
It is probably also the time to look at CEAFAR and ESSM VLS. Maybe even Phalanx/SeaRAM/Laser mount at the rear.
Even if they are on a train, eventually they would have to be loaded onto a truck even if used in Australia. Anything tracked is going to be a PIA and I don't see infrastructure like entire rail lines between minor cities being funded to move some of the ~70 or so tanks we have.
Rail in Australia is slow like 60-80kmph slow. I'm not sure that a ship would be significantly slower if you include scheduling, loading, unloading and getting to where its needed.
Our tanks are already in Townsville, the redbacks are in Townsville.. If they are going anywhere, it is onto a ship at Townsville and deployed globally. I don't think Darwin makes sense to move anything there and then load it onto a ship, It wouldn't be any faster than loading in Townsville.
I think that is a sub optimal, but I see it gain a lot of traction with higher ups. We need assets that can perform the mission.
If we were to get a new AOR, I think we just get a copy of what NZ ordered. Crew of 64. RAN and RNZN would then have a common platform, common crew. It could be crewed by the new merchant marine people. Training and ops would be standard between AU-NZ. Its also polar capable so could be useful as an alternative for our single polar ship, in resupplying bases or remote islands.
Supply class has those extra amphibious features, but its not an amphib. Its a supply ship that can embark small numbers and support light small company sized missions. We could put specials on them, and have that go out if we wanted something a bit more low profile than kicking in the door with Canberra's. Or they could do light HDAR stuff.
We need to look at overhauling the Canberras anyway.
Spains program which concluded last year (and our ships are used much harder than spains):
Spanish Navy's LHD Juan Carlos-I to be powered with ABB's Azipod - Naval News
ABB has secured a contract with Navantia to upgrade Juan Carlos I with an electrical propulsion system based on dual ABB Azipod units.
www.navalnews.com
So if we are looking at having useful amphibious capability, then we need to take more seriously investing in the capability that under pins the entire ADF, the Canberras.
This basically includes opening the ship right up, replacing engines, pods, 70km of wiring, power convertors and transmissions cabinets. Changing all the valves on the ship, corrosion work, redoing toilets, kitchens, cold storage, recreation, messes, dining, offices, working spaces, etc.
It is probably also the time to look at CEAFAR and ESSM VLS. Maybe even Phalanx/SeaRAM/Laser mount at the rear.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
You're right about the Canberras' self defense. It's pretty well entirely lacking. Whether there's the political will to give it to them is another matter.Eventually they are going to be loaded onto a ship anyway to deploy.
Even if they are on a train, eventually they would have to be loaded onto a truck even if used in Australia. Anything tracked is going to be a PIA and I don't see infrastructure like entire rail lines between minor cities being funded to move some of the ~70 or so tanks we have.
Rail in Australia is slow like 60-80kmph slow. I'm not sure that a ship would be significantly slower if you include scheduling, loading, unloading and getting to where its needed.
Our tanks are already in Townsville, the redbacks are in Townsville.. If they are going anywhere, it is onto a ship at Townsville and deployed globally. I don't think Darwin makes sense to move anything there and then load it onto a ship, It wouldn't be any faster than loading in Townsville.
I think that is a dumb move. We need assets that can perform the mission.
If we were to get a new AOR, I think we just get a copy of what NZ ordered. Crew of 64. RAN and RNZN would then have a common platform, common crew. It could be crewed by the new merchant marine people. Training and ops would be standard between AU-NZ. Its also polar capable so could be useful as an alternative for our single polar ship, in resupplying bases or remote islands.
Supply class has those extra amphibious features, but its not an amphib. Its a supply ship that can embark small numbers and support light small company sized missions. We could put specials on them, and have that go out if we wanted something a bit more low profile than kicking in the door with Canberra's. Or they could do light HDAR stuff.
We need to look at overhauling the Canberras anyway.
Spains program which concluded last year (and our ships are used much harder than spains):
Spanish Navy's LHD Juan Carlos-I to be powered with ABB's Azipod - Naval News
ABB has secured a contract with Navantia to upgrade Juan Carlos I with an electrical propulsion system based on dual ABB Azipod units.
So if we are looking at having useful amphibious capability, then we need to take more seriously investing in the capability that under pins the entire ADF, the Canberras.
This basically includes opening the ship right up, replacing engines, pods, 70km of wiring, power convertors and transmissions cabinets. Changing all the valves on the ship, corrosion work, redoing toilets, kitchens, cold storage, recreation, messes, dining, offices, working spaces, etc.
It is probably also the time to look at CEAFAR and ESSM VLS. Maybe even Phalanx/SeaRAM/Laser mount at the rear.
The USN San Antonio class have two Bushmaster II mounts, two RIM-116 mounts and are fitted for but not with two eight cell Mk.41 planned to be quad packed with ESSM, giving them 32 rounds plus the 42 for the reloadable RAMs. Quite a bit of firepower.
“Suggested” by a well-known naval group proponent. Might as well ask Malcolm Turnbull his thoughts on these matters…
By almost no-one else though…
Ironically the most drone intensive war we’ve ever seen (across all domains) is being primarily contested by, wait for it...
2x “giant armies”… The smaller of those 2 “giant armies” hasn’t invaded anyone and numbers ( give or take) 4.9m troops…
People should be careful about jumping to conclusions about the way warfare apparently works…
Have you noticed we don’t intend to even attempt to operate them as entirely autonomous assets?
Something to think about in there…
Im not sure right now you could state that transporting anything by rail is not significantly faster than an lhd ,and what is the alternative if naval ships are not availableEventually they are going to be loaded onto a ship anyway to deploy.
Even if they are on a train, eventually they would have to be loaded onto a truck even if used in Australia. Anything tracked is going to be a PIA and I don't see infrastructure like entire rail lines between minor cities being funded to move some of the ~70 or so tanks we have.
Rail in Australia is slow like 60-80kmph slow. I'm not sure that a ship would be significantly slower if you include scheduling, loading, unloading and getting to where its needed.
Our tanks are already in Townsville, the redbacks are in Townsville.. If they are going anywhere, it is onto a ship at Townsville and deployed globally. I don't think Darwin makes sense to move anything there and then load it onto a ship, It wouldn't be any faster than loading in Townsville.
I think that is a sub optimal, but I see it gain a lot of traction with higher ups. We need assets that can perform the mission.
If we were to get a new AOR, I think we just get a copy of what NZ ordered. Crew of 64. RAN and RNZN would then have a common platform, common crew. It could be crewed by the new merchant marine people. Training and ops would be standard between AU-NZ. Its also polar capable so could be useful as an alternative for our single polar ship, in resupplying bases or remote islands.
Supply class has those extra amphibious features, but its not an amphib. Its a supply ship that can embark small numbers and support light small company sized missions. We could put specials on them, and have that go out if we wanted something a bit more low profile than kicking in the door with Canberra's. Or they could do light HDAR stuff.
We need to look at overhauling the Canberras anyway.
Spains program which concluded last year (and our ships are used much harder than spains):
Spanish Navy's LHD Juan Carlos-I to be powered with ABB's Azipod - Naval News
ABB has secured a contract with Navantia to upgrade Juan Carlos I with an electrical propulsion system based on dual ABB Azipod units.
So if we are looking at having useful amphibious capability, then we need to take more seriously investing in the capability that under pins the entire ADF, the Canberras.
This basically includes opening the ship right up, replacing engines, pods, 70km of wiring, power convertors and transmissions cabinets. Changing all the valves on the ship, corrosion work, redoing toilets, kitchens, cold storage, recreation, messes, dining, offices, working spaces, etc.
It is probably also the time to look at CEAFAR and ESSM VLS. Maybe even Phalanx/SeaRAM/Laser mount at the rear.
Well not on the LHDs currently, Maybe on Arafura or Choules. People keep complaining about the Arafura lack of firepower.. Imagine organically embarking a 155" Huntsman on the rear.. But we can always contract commercial shipping. Just like to move anything on rail the ADF doesn't operate its own diesel locomotives and rail network, it uses commercial services.
Typically the places rail wins is over trucks. Ships tend to win out over rail in cost. For Australia we just don't have enough heavy armour to justify it big on rail to move it specifically. The US with 10,000 tanks and 100,000 heavy vehicles and an existing rail network is different, same with Russia. They can use massive train capacity to move massive amounts. But that is very 1940-60s thinking. We have inland rail, and it is what it is.
More effective use of rail would be to improve manufacturing/farming/mining logistics. Now that coal is in decline we should base industry near these locations that can use these heavy rail links.
But we are in a RAN thread.. This is a lot of rail talk.
I'd toss the question, is that because we don't want to or can't.
I tend to think that our mindset on how to use these new technologies is behind what the technologies can actually do (or will be able to do in the not unreasonable future).
I feel that we are stuck in enforcing (and restricting thinking to) operator in the loop, when we could be preparing for operator on the loop and beyond.
I'm not talking about the here and now, but the technological iteration is so fast at the moment, that it's hard to forecast what a third or fourth gen ghost bat and ghost shark will be capable of doing.
It wasn't that long ago that I remember the government was stuck on the principle that the ghost bat would only be an ISR platform, and then boom we had an armed version released (in my view led by Boeing rather than the government that got dragged kicking and screaming to adopt it). What next, and why does it have to remain within the loyal wingman philosophy.
I know this is an RAN thread, but same mindset applies to the ghost shark, I can see that being substantially different in a couple of generations, with generations being released yearly. And the same applies to platfoms like MUSVs and future LUSVs.