Woh, woops. yes, the wacky Japanese naming. They sometimes like to name things for the things they replaced. But yes, thats quite a large dock, looks much larger than what is on the santi. That dock must take up quite a bit of interior room.
Yes, I think the JSS design may become an issue if we want to build it here, we will need to make the osborne dock a tad larger. However, the argument for that seems to be getting stronger, particularly with large frigates in design, and future designs likely to get larger.
The Singaporeans were very excited about them and it was a local developed variation that inspired The endurance 170 (famously the Singaporean f-35b carrier). I find the whole carrier thing particularly odd, because the ship is too short to let a F-35B take off, and none of the lifts can take anything other than a folded or blade removed helicopter.
www.navyrecognition.com
www.eastasiaforum.org
I should preface everything with this is just a broader discussion about designs/conops/doctrine/capabilities not a proposal specifically for immediate acquisition.
adbr.com.au
Sounds similar to an earlier proposal by Volk to reduce the Hunter buy and replace the final batch with DDH style ships.I should preface everything with this is just a broader discussion about designs/conops/doctrine/capabilities not a proposal specifically for immediate acquisition.
I was more pointing out the key advantage of say a through deck ship like the LHD/Endurance 170 over a traditional JSS type design. The key advantage is much improved space and capability in aviation ops. Because other than that, the JSS configuration is going to walk all over other through deck designs as you get spaces/volume for things like hospitals, 70% AOR, embarked forces/amphibious landing capability, and your aviation doesn't interfere with your amphibious loads. There is a tremendous amount of more volume in a traditional ship layout.
One of the few times you would want to have sustained high intensity aviation operations would be in anti-submarine operations. And yes, if things ever went pear shaped against a near peer, we would have to double our helo fleet and we would have to dedicate a significant portion of our entire ADF resources to ASW operations. If there is something to be learnt from the Falkland's campaign is not to underestimate subs. Your navy is useless and undeployable if you can't counter them.
With the proliferation of submarines, ASW becomes more important. Other than operating one or two helicopters, alone insufficient for any sort of screen, that would then burden the LHD's with that role. Something that came up in INDEX 2019. LHD's can't do amphibious taskings and ASW taskings at the same time.
AUSINDEX 2019 commences in India | Department of Defence Ministers
A Royal Australian Navy (RAN) maritime task group has commenced AUSINDEX, a major bienial bilateral exercise, with the Indian Navy in Visakhapatnam, India.The exercise was first held in India in 2015 with this year’s third iteration to focus on anti-submarine warfare, incorporating maritime...www.minister.defence.gov.au
The RAN is also acquiring more utility helicopters most likely romeos.
Navy to get new utility helicopter | ADBR
The Royal Australian Navy’s 808SQN based at HMAS Albatross near Nowra will soon replace its Airbus MRH 90 helicopters with a new utility helicopter. As forecast in the Government’s 2020…
Not only that, it may be useful to have the ASW platform not be the platform you are trying to protect. You may wish to sail them in different directions. The ASW platform may wish to focus on and around choke points, etc, while the amphibious platforms you will probably want to keep well away.
Even a small 9,000t 4 spot through deck ship would be immensely more capable than sending 3 or 4 frigates to do ASW work. You also more likely to see better capability embarking 6 ASW helos off a single purpose platform than embarking 6 ASW helos on 3 crowded multirole frigates/destroyers burdened with ASW on top of other duties. Crewing, piloting, scheduling, maintaining, coordination, training arming etc is going to improved immensely. Having the air support split across three separate ships is going to be extremely inefficient and centralizing them will make a lot of sense. Relying on the small frigate torpedo magazines, which is already juggling mu90/mk54's would seem limiting.
Embarking the 6 ASW helos and perhaps half a dozen UAV's onto a single purpose platform would then free up the other ships. Also such ship could also embark ASW units from other forces, Singapore, Korea, NZ, US, Japan, India etc.
I don't see a tremendous amount of value for tiny through deck cruisers for amphibious ops for the RAN, particularly over a traditional ship. However as an aviation focused platform, or as a ASW platform. Yes definitely. That isn't to say that the then acquired platform wouldn't be useful in other roles, but its raison d'être would be for other purposes. Being focused on operating marine helicopters, it wouldn't need huge lifts and huge hangar spaces.
Such a ship might be of particular interest to India/Singapore etc. For the RAN, maybe it looks at those sorts of ships and decides it is already happy, or other platforms offer more useful and compelling alignment. For NZ it might be attractive to operate as a replacement to hmnzs Canterbury if they cost and manning can be reduced enough. Particularly if allies operated a similar vessel. While they probably wouldn't be interested in any ASW capability, the mini-amphibious capability would probably be more than sufficient.
I understand your reasoning but you do then limit your flexibility by relying on one or two assets in a task group to carry all the organic ASW and ASuW air tasking. Basically, in your scenario .. if the through deck vessel is not there then you cannot support helicopter for the ASW task, or any other task for that matter. Then you really are limited to the shipboard systems.I should preface everything with this is just a broader discussion about designs/conops/doctrine/capabilities not a proposal specifically for immediate acquisition.
I was more pointing out the key advantage of say a through deck ship like the LHD/Endurance 170 over a traditional JSS type design. The key advantage is much improved space and capability in aviation ops. Because other than that, the JSS configuration is going to walk all over other through deck designs as you get spaces/volume for things like hospitals, 70% AOR, embarked forces/amphibious landing capability, and your aviation doesn't interfere with your amphibious loads. There is a tremendous amount of more volume in a traditional ship layout.
One of the few times you would want to have sustained high intensity aviation operations would be in anti-submarine operations. And yes, if things ever went pear shaped against a near peer, we would have to double our helo fleet and we would have to dedicate a significant portion of our entire ADF resources to ASW operations. If there is something to be learnt from the Falkland's campaign is not to underestimate subs. Your navy is useless and undeployable if you can't counter them.
With the proliferation of submarines, ASW becomes more important. Other than operating one or two helicopters, alone insufficient for any sort of screen, that would then burden the LHD's with that role. Something that came up in INDEX 2019. LHD's can't do amphibious taskings and ASW taskings at the same time.
AUSINDEX 2019 commences in India | Department of Defence Ministers
A Royal Australian Navy (RAN) maritime task group has commenced AUSINDEX, a major bienial bilateral exercise, with the Indian Navy in Visakhapatnam, India.The exercise was first held in India in 2015 with this year’s third iteration to focus on anti-submarine warfare, incorporating maritime...
The RAN is also acquiring more utility helicopters most likely romeos.
Navy to get new utility helicopter | ADBR
The Royal Australian Navy’s 808SQN based at HMAS Albatross near Nowra will soon replace its Airbus MRH 90 helicopters with a new utility helicopter. As forecast in the Government’s 2020…
Not only that, it may be useful to have the ASW platform not be the platform you are trying to protect. You may wish to sail them in different directions. The ASW platform may wish to focus on and around choke points, etc, while the amphibious platforms you will probably want to keep well away.
Even a small 9,000t 4 spot through deck ship would be immensely more capable than sending 3 or 4 frigates to do ASW work. You also more likely to see better capability embarking 6 ASW helos off a single purpose platform than embarking 6 ASW helos on 3 crowded multirole frigates/destroyers burdened with ASW on top of other duties. Crewing, piloting, scheduling, maintaining, coordination, training arming etc is going to improved immensely. Having the air support split across three separate ships is going to be extremely inefficient and centralizing them will make a lot of sense. Relying on the small frigate torpedo magazines, which is already juggling mu90/mk54's would seem limiting.
Embarking the 6 ASW helos and perhaps half a dozen UAV's onto a single purpose platform would then free up the other ships. Also such ship could also embark ASW units from other forces, Singapore, Korea, NZ, US, Japan, India etc.
I don't see a tremendous amount of value for tiny through deck cruisers for amphibious ops for the RAN, particularly over a traditional ship. However as an aviation focused platform, or as a ASW platform. Yes definitely. That isn't to say that the then acquired platform wouldn't be useful in other roles, but its raison d'être would be for other purposes. Being focused on operating marine helicopters, it wouldn't need huge lifts and huge hangar spaces.
Such a ship might be of particular interest to India/Singapore etc. For the RAN, maybe it looks at those sorts of ships and decides it is already happy, or other platforms offer more useful and compelling alignment. For NZ it might be attractive to operate as a replacement to hmnzs Canterbury if they cost and manning can be reduced enough. Particularly if allies operated a similar vessel. While they probably wouldn't be interested in any ASW capability, the mini-amphibious capability would probably be more than sufficient.
You just have to look at the Battle of the Atlantic in WW2 for the effectiveness of the Aerial threat to Subs, from mid 1943 when the Allies were able to cover the entire North Atlantic with Air Cover using Escort Carriers and LR Maritime Patrol Aircraft in conjunction with the Escorts, the U-Boat threat pretty much disappeared.
Not my intention. As alexa points out, that really isn't ideal either. I think there are serious issues reducing below ~12 proper surface combatants. But that isn't to say there isn't value in those type of ships and that it isn't worth exploring.
more likely at those capabilities and dimensions around 14,000 tons give or take. Perhaps Mistral 140 design.
Wasn't this the program kicked off by Vice Admiral Hudson following the Fiji Coup?
I googled ' endurance 160 lhd width beam ' was the 5th link down pdf file from ST engineering.
