Galicia (& Rotterdam, basically the same ship) & the Bay class are variants of the same Damen Schelde design, members of a family of amphibious ships. A specifically Australian variant, e.g. a Galicia/Rotterdam simplified to resemble a smaller Bay, could easily be produced. And any of the variants could be built in Australia. I'm not sure what the contractual arrangements are, & whether Navantia or BAE would require Damen Schelde approval, or need to pay a royalty, but I doubt if that would be an obstacle to local construction of the non-Dutch versions.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Australia was increasing it's lift way before Timor ever came onto the horizon, it just went about it in an absolute "dogs breakfast" way.
The Newport LST's that were acquired by the RAN in the mid 90's were meant to provide the amphibious lift that was eventually required for Timor, except we stupidly went and bought "cheap" appearing but in reality absolutely shagged rust-buckets.
What was meant to be a cheap way of increasing our amphibious capability turned into an expensive one when one bad decision was followed up by another - spending hundreds of millions to re-condition and modify these ships into the HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla vessels we have now. The $500m project to acquire brand new ships was deemed too expensive, but $470m on second-hand rustbuckets was perfectly fine (nice work Mr Keating. Almost as useful as your F-111G purchase)...
Obviously they have turned out okay and provide an adequate level of capability, but it was a torturous and expensive way of doing things that was most un-necessary.
Kanimbla and Manoora were eventually fitted out, refurbished and brought into service, they just couldn't do it in time for Timor, hence the need for HMAS Jervis Bay...
Yes Australia did try before with the Newports. Unfortunately the US Navy discarded the Newports before the Austins and Anchorages. I don't think Australia would have had to as much work upgrading the Austins and Anchorages as they did the Newports.
At the time, and I still do, was impressed with the upgrades of the Newports Australia did, despite the problems and cost over runs. But in hindsight, maybe buying new ships would have been better.
One thing is for sure, Australia will have an impressive sea lift capacity when the LHDs are built and in service.
At the time, and I still do, was impressed with the upgrades of the Newports Australia did, despite the problems and cost over runs. But in hindsight, maybe buying new ships would have been better.
One thing is for sure, Australia will have an impressive sea lift capacity when the LHDs are built and in service.
Newports were a massive conversion. Impressive conversion, like turning a hatchback into a 30t truck. Not a good way of doing things for cost effective reasons. The LHD's are the right way, just wish we could build the hulls here cheaply.
The fact that Jarvis did actually almost single handedly (atleast for the OZ) sealift for E.T is massively impressive. As much as HSC don't make sense on paper, they are the sort of odd device that may be a bit of a wild card. While not ideal for amphibious landings, they would make a good ship for emergency evac of dip/civilian personel which can be non threatening, off shore incase of an emergency. Verse say an LHD with 1200 personel on board which may increase pressure on the situation and take a longer time to prep and get to station.
Bay or Galacia would be good ships, but I'm glad we get something like 2 x LHD + 1 x bay and not 3 x bay's only.
The fact that Jarvis did actually almost single handedly (atleast for the OZ) sealift for E.T is massively impressive. As much as HSC don't make sense on paper, they are the sort of odd device that may be a bit of a wild card. While not ideal for amphibious landings, they would make a good ship for emergency evac of dip/civilian personel which can be non threatening, off shore incase of an emergency. Verse say an LHD with 1200 personel on board which may increase pressure on the situation and take a longer time to prep and get to station.
Bay or Galacia would be good ships, but I'm glad we get something like 2 x LHD + 1 x bay and not 3 x bay's only.
battlensign
New Member
I totally agree. The Bay Class would have been insufficient for 1st wave manouvre and questionable as a platform for providing the requisite support for any forces deployed (AR and Lift Helos etc). I am not even sure the C4ISR (or whatever the latest itereation of that is) would have been up to sratch.
On a completely separate issue - I think that the biggest concern now for the RAN now will be the time involved in getting everything needed for an operation loaded and ready to go.
I think that to reduce timeframes for all of this there should be containerised equipment kept with one of the Brigades to facilitate rapid loading. Ideally this would be 1 set of equipment to support a Combined Arms Battlegroup (maybe kept in Darwin?) with perhaps slightly more than needed to allow the government to tailor the force as needed and at least 1 set of equipment required to support a the initially lodgement of a light infantry battalion (i.e whatever Jervis Bay was carrying when 3RAR deployed to E.T). This would be expensive, however, and there is also the issue that in some cases we are not currently provisioned for it (i.e. not enough Abrams, LAVs, Arty etc). Perhaps this is something that the government should be considering in its future acquisitions.
Does anyone know how loading would currently work or how it is envisioned to do so in the future?
Brett.
they arrived quickly - and then we spent days transferring gear because the dock and ramps on JBay didn't match up with Tobruk et al.. ie days were spent doing snail tranfers with both ships in shallow water with ramps down doing asset tranfers so that Tobruk could take them to shore.
in a real conflict where the port was contested and under duresss we never would have been able to offload safely.
logistics is the key - planning is the touchstone.
ET is still used in ADF as the standout example of how logistics can stuff up and compromise the whole show.
I have done a little more research on the crewing on the Bay class.
According to Janes the Bay’s have 67 RFA crew as the core ships company plus up to 57 military personnel as augmented ships company . So in other words 67 RFA guys and girls to operate the Bays in peace time/ low intensity operations but add nearly another sixty or so military guys / girls when you are operating a flight or two, gunners, ops staff, etc for use in high intensity operations
To me the Bay class is the way to go for our 3rd future Amphib. Big enough to be the “On Watch” amphib but at a much cheaper price and lower crew requirement than getting a third LPD.
According to Janes the Bay’s have 67 RFA crew as the core ships company plus up to 57 military personnel as augmented ships company . So in other words 67 RFA guys and girls to operate the Bays in peace time/ low intensity operations but add nearly another sixty or so military guys / girls when you are operating a flight or two, gunners, ops staff, etc for use in high intensity operations
To me the Bay class is the way to go for our 3rd future Amphib. Big enough to be the “On Watch” amphib but at a much cheaper price and lower crew requirement than getting a third LPD.
battlensign
New Member
60-ish did seem almost too good to be true so I cannot say that what you have provided there is entirely unexpected. However, I would note that there appears to be a significant scope for many of those augmenting personnel to come from several different areas. For example the flights would come the FAA, the Oppos would either be normally assigned staff (i.e regular ships crew in RAN service) or would be coordinated through the Task Force's Battle Staff, probably onboard one of the LHDs (COMFLOT etc). There could also be a Ships Army Detachment for the gunners depending on the willingness of Army and the prickliness of the RAN. I actually believe that there will necessarily be an increase in Army personnel attached to whatever we end up calling the AASG in the NGN to support the amphibs. Cheating to get around Navy's crewing problems? Absolutely, but I think that it is a legitimate requirement. In reality they are purple assets for Governments use in contingencies anyway.
Brett.
Totally agree mate. The navy is more than happy to let the other two services help it man the amphib squadron as we realise it exists for our customers, i.e. the army and to a much smaller extent the air force. So if the other services are willing to help us man these platforms, well great!. The navy and the army learnt around 20 years ago that it better for the two services to work together than against. The Air Force has in the past been a little bit less helpful in the co'option area but I read an article from the CAF (and Ex FAA sky hawk pilot) that the Air Force in the 80's was very "precious" about letting the army to use their Hercules....How dare they! :duel. But he said that is an attitude that had to change, Which I think it has to a large degree, with the RAAF providing excellent Tri Service support in recent years. Getting back to the future Amphib squadron it dose have a larger SAD component but it will also have an RAAF'ie detachment to support the LPA's in the areas that the navy lost in the 80's such as large scale aircraft control capability .
battlensign
New Member
Was that intended or were you thinking LHDs there? I am curious as if I am on the detail correctly then the FEG will need to keep one LPA on until the replacement sealift vessel which according to the WP2009 and DCP2009 is 'for government consideration beyond 2019'. In which case either could be right.
Brett.
Sorry mate, it was a typo, I meant to say LHD, the LPA's currently have a LCDR birdie as an air boss but they do not have the skill set to control a LPD A/C. Even NAS Albatross have RAAF'ies "In the Tower"
And yes one LPA will stay around till until close to the third major Ampib replacement coming online
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes i can understand why they were rejected at the time.
They were not what we were looking for a the time, America class is purely a light carrier designed for fixed wing ops.the class has no well deck for landing craft for which we are after.
The reason i brought it up was the fact people want to put f35b aircraft on the lhd and as sea toby has quite rightly pointed out lack of space for extra fuel/armament’s storage and aircraft maintenance area’s.
My point is if we wanted to go down the path of a fleet air arm again having a ship that could do the job properly in the first place not ad hoc like we seen to do, having both Canberra class and America class working together is a win-win situation as you are not taking an lhd for it’s intended purpose, with the added benefit of f35b able to land on a Canberra if needed.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As has been mentioned repeatedly previously... The RAN is not looking to resurrect the fixed wing FAA at present or any time in the near future. So people had been mentioning the ADF possibly purchasing a small number of F-35Bs, and then perhaps creating an adhoc airgroup deployable from the LHDs. What was being ignored, aside from how unsuitable the Canberra is for sustained fixed wing ops and the cost, is the amount of prep work needed to actually achieve such a goal.
There would need to be RAN and RAAF personnel posted to USN and RN/RAF facilities to being gathering the needed information on successfully operating fighters aboard ship. The ADF body of corporate knowledge on doing so is essentially gone since it has been nearly 30 years since the RAN last had a carrier in service. IMO at least so of that knowledge base would need to be regained, prior to selection of a ship design to operate the fighters from.
Perhaps in another 15-20 years or so the ADF might decide that the situation warrants a RAN carrier again, but I do not see that as a possibility any time sooner short of a major and ongoing war.
-Cheers
t68
Well-Known Member
There seems to some contention about PM Rudd’s agenda about acquiring the 12 new subs to replace the Collins class.
Rudd's subs may never float | The Australian
The Australian is questioning if the Rudd government would have the capacity to fund and will for such an enormous undertaking.
It also goes into weather that ASC could deliver as there seems to be some sort of internal conflict within ASC and has not had a chief executive for quite some time despite a world wide search for one, and as a government owned entity could not complete as if it were in private ownership.
I would have thought it would have been better of in government hands as it would not have to worry about showing a profit, and in theory should make it cheaper to build.
It also seems not everyone in Russell Hill is in favour of building a 12 sub fleet.
In reality what would be the best size sub fleet for Australia?
Considering Beasley stated we should have built 8 Collins when they were in power
Rudd's subs may never float | The Australian
The Australian is questioning if the Rudd government would have the capacity to fund and will for such an enormous undertaking.
It also goes into weather that ASC could deliver as there seems to be some sort of internal conflict within ASC and has not had a chief executive for quite some time despite a world wide search for one, and as a government owned entity could not complete as if it were in private ownership.
I would have thought it would have been better of in government hands as it would not have to worry about showing a profit, and in theory should make it cheaper to build.
It also seems not everyone in Russell Hill is in favour of building a 12 sub fleet.
In reality what would be the best size sub fleet for Australia?
Considering Beasley stated we should have built 8 Collins when they were in power
its a bit of a beat up. ASC have a new 3 star in place running the shop. As for the comments on 12 subs, Combet made it pretty clear last week in a closed briefing that it would be australias largest single defence purchase and that they were committed to it.
Its not just Russell. The Govt signs off on the white paper - and considering how many times it went back to Russell for rewrite - then they clearly have their stamp on it. On another note - the white paper released to the public is always going to be vague for security reasons. there are multiple levels of white paper - and all those above the public release will not go public - period (or maybe at the 30 year point)
As for the subs, that debate is only just starting. I'll be attending one session next week but this is really early days - we won't have a closer idea until we get out a few years beyond today.
all the media noise isjust speculation and no one is in a position to make public comment yet.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
Remember when I made this post?
Enjoy your week off.
Last edited by a moderator:
We're not getting STOVL/STOL except for rotary air.
the discussion was about subs.
I will not comment on the white paper
- Status