Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[PeterM]

I don't believe your government wants to spend another $2 billion on another Canberra hull when Rotterdam or Bay ships will run no more than $400 million, or an enlarged Canterbury will run no more than $200 million...

Frankly the government wants to buy a smaller ship which lifts half the troops and equipment as a Canberra LHD. At times a Canberra will be too large, much alike using a sledge hammer when a tap hammer will do... There is nothing wrong with flexibility...

That is correct. If the RAN can somehow be allocated an extra $1b for a new ship, I am sure they would prefer a 4th AWD and go with a cheaper option for logistical support.

By the time the stragetic sealft ship is being considered, the 6 new LCHs wll be enterng service, part of their role is to support the Canberra class.

With the Strategic Sealift ship, it may depend on how the balance between Logical support and transport/amphibious capability.

I expect something like a Rotterdam/Bay or Canterbury is what is generally intended at this early stage.

Interestingly the Success replacement program will be considered after 2016. I wonder whether something like the Zuiderkruis Joint Logistic Support Ship (JSS) might be considered as a merger of both programs.
The JSS is a 28,000t ship combining underway replenishement with logistical support, hospital capablity, 6 NH90 or 2 CH-47 and and a “steel beach” stern design for cargo transfer via landing craft. It is due to enter service in 2014.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Dutch-Order-Multi-Purpose-Support-Ship-06113/

 

[aussienscale]

Dutch JSS

Interesting concept ! would be a possible answer, would also can the need to double hull Success. Only concern would be how much fuel and what types it can carry ? Fuel for the LHD's, AWD's, Anzac II and aviation etc. Also with respect to supporting the LHD's and escorts you also want good supply for landed forces as well, with good water making ability too.
P.S. here is a link to a cgi image of the jss
http://www.deagel.com/library/Computer-generated-image-of-Royal-Dutch-Navy-JSS_m02010040200002.aspx

 

[jimmyjames]

Interestingly the Success replacement program will be considered after 2016. I wonder whether something like the Zuiderkruis Joint Logistic Support Ship (JSS) might be considered as a merger of both programs.
The JSS is a 28,000t ship combining underway replenishement with logistical support, hospital capablity, 6 NH90 or 2 CH-47 and and a “steel beach” stern design for cargo transfer via landing craft. It is due to enter service in 2014.


This could be a good ship for the navy but the fuel bunkerage and vehicle lane space might be a problem... ammunition storage and transportation for army might be good but like all things the government needs to see the specifications and cost of the ship.

This ship could transport extra helos and equipment as the DCP and white paper suggest but the army ARH tigers are not set up for sea transportation and will need major work done ( folding blades, rust control, tie down points and stronger undercarriage ) on them before they could be deployed on the SEALIFT Ship or on the LHD.

 

[aussienscale]

With regards to the above JSS here is an interesting read, sorry if this is going too far off topic
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA449387

 

[StingrayOZ]

I believe the Tigers are or can easily be setup with folding blades, they are mostly composite or alloy (of the non rusting type), they have the same engines as other helicopters that operate over oceans,

Interesting that both programs are around 2015. It may make sense to have them rolled into one ship, then again there may be times where it is best to have two seperate ships. If the LHD was operating heavily (amphib and sailing at 21kt around an operation) then you would want an oiler and not the 3rd sea lift ship. The LHD is light IMHO on fuel bunkerage.

 

[PeterM]

The JSS is an interesting concept. There is certainly challenges with the inclusion of multple capabilities within a single hull. Either way before the RAN has to make any decision on either project, it will have been in service with the Dutch; interestingly Canada is also looking to develop a similar capability. If the JSS concept works in practice, it is worth at least evaluating.
,
There could be advantage for a smaller Navy like the RAN in combining capability into a single larger hull.


I am no expert, but on an intial comparison

Success is 18,000t, 157.2m x 21.2m, 19kts, carries 1 Sea King, complement 220

Galicia (considered a possible option for the Strategic Sealift vessel)
13,900t, 165m x 25m, 20kts, carries 4 EH 101 or 6 NH90, complement 115

JSS
28000t, 205m x 30mm, 18kts, carries 2 CH-47 or 6 NH90, complement 150

Going purely by size, there seems the JSS may have room for fuel bunkerage capacity that perhaps is not much smaller than Success.

The Canadian 2006 specfications for a 28000t JSS called for capability for:

Ability to carry 7,000t – 10,000t of ship fuel,650 – 1,300t of JP-5 naval aviation fuel, and 1,100 square meters of ammunition​

Presumably the capacity of the Dutch JSS (similar size) would be in the same ballpark
Canada’s C$ 2.9B “Joint Support Ship” Project Sinks

 

[aussienscale]

I believe the Tigers are or can easily be setup with folding blades, they are mostly composite or alloy (of the non rusting type), they have the same engines as other helicopters that operate over oceans,

It does not matter if it is made of composite materials or alloy, they are not designed for the marine environment, and the Army stated at the Seapower conference that is was a major concern to operate the Tiger from the LHD's in a maritime environment. Even the strenght of the airframe for landing in other that mirror conditions is of real concern.
IMHO I would be surprised if a Tiger ever saw the deck of an LHD, and if it does it would not be for very long. You will also find that many of the marine variants of engines although used for land choppers as well will have special parts because of that old friend salt. Salt attacks and effects pretty much anything it comes into contact with in one way or another

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well there may indeed be issues, but France has operated the Tigers off its LHD before. There is precident. Operating off the LHD won't be like operating off a frigate, your going to be 15 m above the ocean on a huge fin stabalised ship. The tiger has shown it can do that at least as a demonstration.

The lifts on the Canberra class will be big enough to operate a tiger without folding blades, the only helo that will need blades removed to stow is I think the chinooks, although they might not have to remove all blades even for that big mumma. Chinooks aren't completely marinised yet some of them even land on water!

The Army may not wish to do it, but its possible. If they can get the tiger working reliably. Otherwise it going to have to be flown in off a C-17. If they can fly in on a C-17 they aren't deployable in a useful way. So we should proberly get rid of them and get some apaches (which also aren't water safe but operate off the UK LHD) or a Super cobra.

Interesting on the RAN site there is a computer generated video showing tigers on the deck of the LHD. So obviously someone in the RAN thinks they will operate off them. Along with a couple of Chinooks casually sitting up the back.

 

[aussienscale]

Well there may indeed be issues, but France has operated the Tigers off its LHD before. There is precident. Operating off the LHD won't be like operating off a frigate, your going to be 15 m above the ocean on a huge fin stabalised ship. The tiger has shown it can do that at least as a demonstration.

The lifts on the Canberra class will be big enough to operate a tiger without folding blades, the only helo that will need blades removed to stow is I think the chinooks, although they might not have to remove all blades even for that big mumma. Chinooks aren't completely marinised yet some of them even land on water!

The Army may not wish to do it, but its possible. If they can get the tiger working reliably. Otherwise it going to have to be flown in off a C-17. If they can fly in on a C-17 they aren't deployable in a useful way. So we should proberly get rid of them and get some apaches (which also aren't water safe but operate off the UK LHD) or a Super cobra.

Interesting on the RAN site there is a computer generated video showing tigers on the deck of the LHD. So obviously someone in the RAN thinks they will operate off them. Along with a couple of Chinooks casually sitting up the back.

Yes you are right, the chinooks do need the blades folded to go below,, and there are the same concerns regarding the marine environment for them as well. Correct me if I am wrong but I think that solution is only for transportation of them and not the actual operational use of them from the ship ? Not very pratical to have to remove and install the blades evertime you want to use them ? I think you would rarely see a CH-47 on a regular basis operating in a maritime situation anywhere in the world and with Australia only getting 7 CH-47F It would indeed be a rare occasion. They may be used from land base out the the LHD and back again to transfer loads but I don't think they would be on the ship on a permanent basis. The smaller brother CH-46 Sea Knight is what you may be thinking of which is designed and used by the USMC specifically for the maritime environment.

But I think you are right that the reliability of the Tiger needs to be sorted before we even get to that stage. The AH-1J Sea Cobra or the AH-1T Improved Sea Cobra may have been a better option, I do recall reading (will try and find the reference) that there was a push for a combination of the Cobra's and the Apaches(The Apaches also do not have a maritime version) From what I remember the biggest issue for the Cobra is that it is getting a bit long in the tooth with the original being from the mid 60's. In the early 80's and again in the mid 90's the USMC pushed for a marinised version of the Apache but never got approval from congress as they would be the only user making cost's prohibitive, so the last version of the Cobra's date to about the mid to late 90's I think. Of over 1,100 built in the mid to late 60's (Mostly for Vietnam) The USMC is the only US operator of them with about 170 units.

I think it is a real pitty some of the choices that have been made for the ADF, will we ever really use the LHD's to their full potential ? Or will it be a show pony getting polished in the garage and coming out for the occasional weekend drive as long as it is not raining ? (A bit of tounge in cheek there, but you get my drift )

 

[riksavage]

Yes you are right, the chinooks do need the blades folded to go below,, and there are the same concerns regarding the marine environment for them as well. Correct me if I am wrong but I think that solution is only for transportation of them and not the actual operational use of them from the ship ? Not very pratical to have to remove and install the blades evertime you want to use them ? I think you would rarely see a CH-47 on a regular basis operating in a maritime situation anywhere in the world and with Australia only getting 7 CH-47F It would indeed be a rare occasion. They may be used from land base out the the LHD and back again to transfer loads but I don't think they would be on the ship on a permanent basis. The smaller brother CH-46 Sea Knight is what you may be thinking of which is designed and used by the USMC specifically for the maritime environment.

But I think you are right that the reliability of the Tiger needs to be sorted before we even get to that stage. The AH-1J Sea Cobra or the AH-1T Improved Sea Cobra may have been a better option, I do recall reading (will try and find the reference) that there was a push for a combination of the Cobra's and the Apaches(The Apaches also do not have a maritime version) From what I remember the biggest issue for the Cobra is that it is getting a bit long in the tooth with the original being from the mid 60's. In the early 80's and again in the mid 90's the USMC pushed for a marinised version of the Apache but never got approval from congress as they would be the only user making cost's prohibitive, so the last version of the Cobra's date to about the mid to late 90's I think. Of over 1,100 built in the mid to late 60's (Mostly for Vietnam) The USMC is the only US operator of them with about 170 units.

I think it is a real pitty some of the choices that have been made for the ADF, will we ever really use the LHD's to their full potential ? Or will it be a show pony getting polished in the garage and coming out for the occasional weekend drive as long as it is not raining ? (A bit of tounge in cheek there, but you get my drift )

The UK Apaches are not marinised, but the military did have the foresight to specify more powerful engines and folding rotors. Hence they will continue to be seen on Ocean and the future QE's.

I hate to say, but I think the Tiger buy was a bad move, the Aussies should have gone for Super Cobra, a tried and tested platform on both land and sea. I thought Turkey and a number of ME countries operate Cobras? The Tiger appears to be suffering a hell of a lot of teething problems in both France and Germany.

 

[aussienscale]

Yes you are right Rik, I was just pointing out that the USMC was the only US user of the Cobra, the other countries are Iran, Taiwan, ROK, Turkey and of course the US.
Even thought the UK Apache has the upgraded engines I would imagine the maintenance and checks in that environment would be well above land based variants

 

[old faithful]

Yes you are right Rik, I was just pointing out that the USMC was the only US user of the Cobra, the other countries are Iran, Taiwan, ROK, Turkey and of course the US.
Even thought the UK Apache has the upgraded engines I would imagine the maintenance and checks in that environment would be well above land based variants

have to agree with your previous post regarding the LHD,s not being used to their full potential.
However, I can see the LHD,s being used to transport units to long range deployments like Somalia, or the middle east. In that case, then tigers could be transported, and flown from the deck,s to their FOB as could the chinooks. However, the ADF dosnt have enough rotory assets to deploy both LHD,s with full compliments of choppers. I cant see 50% or more of our choppers being deployed at once, to support a max of 4 Battalian size groups.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I wonder how much of an issue 'marinisation' actually is?

Army doesn't seem to have had too many 'concerns' operating the S-70A9 Blackhawks off Kanimbla and Manoora, for years now and to the best of my knowledge, these Blackhawks have had no particular 'marinisation' work either...

 

[LancasterBomber]

HMAS Farncomb will be docking at ASC's WA Henderson facility this Wednesday for its first schedule maintenance at the new facility.

http://www.ancr.com.au/AMC_Floating_Dock.pdf

The above is a link to the floating dock that will lift the submarine out of the water and if you look carefully you can see the self-propelled modular transfer system. (red multi wheeled)
I will post pictures later this week.

Lofty is there any chance of seeing some pics? I wonder how it went with HMAS Farncomb? It looks like a very impressive setup in WA.

 

[meat_helmet]

I wonder how much of an issue 'marinisation' actually is?

Army doesn't seem to have had too many 'concerns' operating the S-70A9 Blackhawks off Kanimbla and Manoora, for years now and to the best of my knowledge, these Blackhawks have had no particular 'marinisation' work either...

I am guessing that the Army is only going to use them off the LHDs when there is a particular deployment that requires them. And even then they may be stored below for the majority of the trip [away from the elements/salt] and used form the LHDs in the initial deployment phase before the can be based on land.

Is that a fair assumption? If thats the case the issues of salt damage and corrosion might be no worse than if they were operating from a base on the coast for a few weeks. They also may have no need for stronger undercarriage if the LHD deck is going to be fairly stable ie. not operating in rough seas. I'm just putting it out there - Would they be operating for longer periods than this out at sea?

 

[Lofty_DBF]

HMAS Farncomb Docking

Farncomb on the floating dock.

Imageshack - img1192h.jpg

Imageshack - img1205w.jpg

Imageshack - img1200v.jpg

On the ASC Hard stand

Imageshack - p1010471.jpg

 

[winnyfield]

I hate to say, but I think the Tiger buy was a bad move, ]the Aussies should have gone for Super Cobra, a tried and tested platform on both land and sea. I thought Turkey and a number of ME countries operate Cobras? The Tiger appears to be suffering a hell of a lot of teething problems in both France and Germany.

Seemed good at the time - decent comprmised between recon and attack. They promised local assembly, no Australian gov't would pass on that.

 

[aussienscale]

I am guessing that the Army is only going to use them off the LHDs when there is a particular deployment that requires them. And even then they may be stored below for the majority of the trip [away from the elements/salt] and used form the LHDs in the initial deployment phase before the can be based on land.

Is that a fair assumption? If thats the case the issues of salt damage and corrosion might be no worse than if they were operating from a base on the coast for a few weeks. They also may have no need for stronger undercarriage if the LHD deck is going to be fairly stable ie. not operating in rough seas. I'm just putting it out there - Would they be operating for longer periods than this out at sea?

You are right, stowed below, in particular the CH's with blades folded probably (as has been indicated on the Spanish Armada website) would be in the upper light vehicle deck, which I am pretty sure, like the hanger is a controlled environment. So no major drama's with them or the Tigers for distance transport and then disembarkation to land base.

As stated by Digger, yes they do use the Black's and don't have a problem with it, I have done many ops with the Black's and pervious to that the UH's as well. Over short periods not a major drama, a good wash and a few extra checks when they get back. Extended use is where the problems come in. Repeated hard landings, even in good conditions the extra forces generated would surprise most people, the contstant exposure to salt combined with extreme levels of humidity etc. But as a few people have elluded to we don't have enought anyway to have on board full time which is a real shame and I think a waste.

If there are any Pilots or Birdie's on here they may be able to shed more light on the subject, this is basic knowledge that I personally gained whilst at NAS Nowra (HMAS Albatross) in the late 80's

This link explains a lot of the "marine" differences in the Blackhawk V Seahawk, EG:
Corrosion protection, bouyancy, emergency flotation, jettisonable cockpit doors, engine corrosion protection etc
http://www.vectorsite.net/avs70_2.html

 

[LancasterBomber]

Farncomb on the floating dock.

Thanks Lofty that is awesome to see. Much appreciated.

 

[Hoffy]

Great pics Lofty.
BTW , is there something clasified about the prop section , or is the cover just for protection?
Also funny seeing weed etc on the fins.