i was reffering to the photoshoped image of the hangar on a bay class... clearly it would reduce cargo capacity....
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Newman
The Bunker Group
If a hangar was built on, and I doubt that anything major will be done to the ship until well after the LHD's are in service.
I think a far more obivious and practical placement of a hangar would be the arrangement on HMNZ Canterbury. See attached photos.
If a hangar was palced at the back of the superstructure and it was done in the same fashion as Canterbury, then the cranes could also be used to load and unload landing craft as well which would also improve the "flexibility" of Largs Bay.
So even with the space taken for a hangar, there will still be a significant amount of space for cargo and of course the landing spots.
The K and M have Phalax so maybe that will go across. As far as helo facilites are concerned the Tobruk has no hanger so as far as like for like is concerned the Bay si a massive increase in capabilty.......................... at a great price
Fitting Phalanx to Largs Bay won't be as easy as to the LPAs. In the later they replaced two twin 76mm gun mounts that the ship was designed to carry above the bridge. So there was plenty of weight at height in that location designed into the ship.
Maybe the RN specified a spot or two on the Bay class for Phalanx. If they didn't then it will be a complex job to fit one on top of the superstructure where it will be able to provide >300 degree coverage from a single mount. Otherwise one will have to go on the forecastle and another aft around that frame on the main deck.
As to a hangar there is little need for its design role as a sealift ship. While VERTEP will be a major role the helos will be provided by the LHDs it sustains. As the gap fill primary amphibious asset until Canberra is available there isn’t enough time for such a major modification. Besides the tent seems like a more than suitable compromise that is proven in service. Whacking a giant 500 tonne structure on the aft of the ship is the kind of thing fan boys might love but its not naval architecture. To carry that you would probably have to give up the pumps and ballasting tanks for the well dock. Win, lose.
The last Bay deployed to the Gulf had Phalanx mounted port and starboard behind the bridge section for the duration, so clearly it's possible. Both units were then removed once back in the UK.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Kanimbla and Manoora have previously been fully fitted out with Typhoon 25mm and Mini-Typhoon 12.7mm, as has HMAS Tobruk, so apart from some engineering work to identify how the weapons could be located on the vessels, I imagine that RAN already has sufficient weapon systems to equip Largs Bay should it need to.
There is no doubt it will be equipped with a basic self-defence capability and close in anti-surface capability.
Anything beyond that is unlikely and undertaken as you point out, by other vessels.
they're a non intrusive mount, so the issue of mounting Phalanx over something like Goalkeeper is pretty substantial.
one of the clear selling points of Phalanx has been the non intrusive design, hence why it was ideal for real estate challenged platforms such as C-RAM
I've seen a few RAN/RFA/USNS auxiliary assets with theoretical mounts ....
This seems to be a good outline of what weapons systems a bay class can carry
The Bay Class….Brilliant Motherships? or just Logistics? « The Phoenix Soap Box
The Bay Class….Brilliant Motherships? or just Logistics? « The Phoenix Soap Box
^ also being why i brought up the 30mms on the Huons earlier
Thanks for the info. Clearly the Bay class LSD was designed for fitting Phalanx which makes a lot of sense. Just now need to track down a picture...
PS. Video here:
http://www.bfbs.com/news/iraq/rfa-cardigan-bay-returns-gulf-42752.html
The Phalanx were fitted aft P&S on each side of that frame between the flight deck and the cranes. Would only have a ~300 degrees firing arc with a blind spot towards the bow. This location would indicate an add on not a design from scratch space and weight provision. The RAN could do better...
if the guys over at shipbucket are to be trusted, and ill admit theyre usualy pretty accurate in their drawings. there is space for one Aft on the top of the superstructure and one forward of the superstructure.
Shipbucket - Real Designs/Great Britain/LSD(A) Bay Class L3006 Largs Bay.gif
i would love to see their source photos tho
Need a 3rd on the bow, or one fitted on the bow and one istalled on the stern, offset allowing for rotary to approach from a slight angle.
just found this, again not sure of its accuracy but the Phalanx placement would make sense
3ds max royal navy bay class
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/bay_class/images/BayClass_4.jpg
with that location would you not get a full 360 degree arc?
Edit: just found this real photo, no phalanx fitted but you can clearly see two identical "Plates"? were the phalanx are shown in the Drawings
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/img/upload/img_400/cardiganbay5.jpg
3ds max royal navy bay class
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/bay_class/images/BayClass_4.jpg
with that location would you not get a full 360 degree arc?
Edit: just found this real photo, no phalanx fitted but you can clearly see two identical "Plates"? were the phalanx are shown in the Drawings
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/img/upload/img_400/cardiganbay5.jpg
Well that is clearly the design for Phalanx locations and yes it would have full 30 degree coverage and a two gun broadside. Interesting then that they just fitted them P&S amidships for Cardigan Bay's NAG deployment. Probably because it was a lot easier to do so. To fit the Phalanx on top of the superstructure and even at the bow would have required a major shipyard crane. The P&S fits would have been possible with a mobile crane.
Why would you want one right aft? The P&S mounts can cover the rear arc quite well except for a very small blind spot (short range probably only the last 100m) under the stern. Anyway the design for mounts on the superstructure and forecastle house are the best locations. Good firing arcs, designed for weight at height and clear from weather.
I find that hard to believe, even (as I assume you're doing), ignoring the helicopter decks of escorts, tankers, etc.
What's the combined deck area of Mistral, Tonnerre, Dixmude (afloat as we write), Siroco & Charles de Gaulle? What about Hyuga, Ise, Oosumi, Shimokita & Kunisaki? Or Cavour, Garibaldi, & the three Santi? Even totting up Juan Carlos, Principe de Asturias, Galicia & Castilla might surprise you.
I think you're getting a bit carried away with enthusiasm, & forgetting to do the sums. You've seen the possibility of temporarily overtaking the RN, & forgotten about everyone else.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Abraham,
Your comment regarding a helicopter hangar, "fan boys might love it but its not naval architecture, etc .....".
In an issue of "Defence Today" dated November/December 2006, page 36, there was an article regarding the "new" Bay's about to enter UK service and how they could also be a contender for JP2048 Phase 4C, eg strategic lift ship.
The article states, ".... The ship does not have a helicopter hangar though there IS an option to retrofit the ships in the future".
Clearly when the ships were designed, the hangar option was available. Does anyone have any further info regarding this original design option?
The 4 Bays are very closes sisters to the Dutch Rotterdam and Spanish Galicia Class ships, and all 4 of those ships have hangars attached to the back of the superstructure, so i wouldn't just brush it off as "fan boy" fantancy that will take away from the ships current fuctions and cause major "naval architecture" issues as you have suggested.
Im not saying for one minute that when Largs Bay gets here it will be "docked" and out of service for 1-2 years of modification, of course it won't.
The Navy will want to get the ship into service asap and obviously the "only" modifications that will be done are those that will make it fit, eg any Australian specific modifications.
But I wouldn't mind betting that somewhere down the track, 6-7 years, after the LHD's are well into service and the Largs Bay is due for a "major refit" that modifications such as a hangar would/should be considered.
If such a modification was considered and done, then something like what is on HMNZS Canterbury is a possibility. A hangar for at least 4 aircraft and some landing craft either side, the Canterbury is only 2/3rds the size of Largs Bay, if they can do it on Canterbury why not on Largs Bay??
Yes, at then end of the day the navy will determine what will eventually be done, or not done, with the ship once the pressure is off them when the LPA's are in service.
Largs Bay was a "purchase of opportunity", but it also very very closely resembles the ship that JP2048 proposed, except it is coming into service 12-14 years earlier than planned.
Will JP2048 be deleted, as has happened with the plan for two extra C130's with the purchase of the 5th C17 or will the ship be modified to "fit" that requirement, or will JP2048 be "pushed out" to a time when Largs Bay is ready for replacement? Who knows at this stage.
I know other posts have covered the fitment of Phalanx, etc, but the same 2006 article also mentioned, "The Bay class is deficient in weapons and self defence, being fitted for, but not fitted, with a 30mm gun emplacement, a Phalanx Close-in Weapons System and decoy launchers for infra red flares and chaff".
So obviously the fitment of the above is not an issue, it was designed for in the original construction.
Well then I rest my case… Don’t believe everything you see in print. Especially in a magazine like Defence Today.
The ships were modified from a design that incorporated a hangar but it was removed for the UK ship. So I guess you could call that an option.
If you had actually properly quoted me - which you didn't - you would have noticed I was referring PARTICULLARY to the drawing attached above with the hangar aft of the cranes. The actual Bay class has a temporary hangar located further forward and could no doubt have a light structure permanently fitted in this location. This is a very different thing to that drawing.
Thailand has a carrier and look where that got them... Since the RAN will be limited in the future to an air arm of only 24-30 helicopters I think we have a long way to go before we can get excited about our fleet air strength.
im still clinging to my hope that the Bay is seperate to JP2048 as i have only seen Defmin Smith quote it as a stop gap. consider the cost of the Sealift ship was meant to be 300-500m AUD and we bought largs for 100m AUD that still leaves minimum 200m for a second vessel.
when you consider the bays were about 120m to build (lets not argue) and even Johan de Witt only cost about 370m USD a south korean shipyard could build either for a sum easily under 400m AUD
when you consider the bays were about 120m to build (lets not argue) and even Johan de Witt only cost about 370m USD a south korean shipyard could build either for a sum easily under 400m AUD
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Abraham,
I don't believe everything I read in print, or on-line as a matter of fact, I remember reading/hearing similar comments about the Bays when they were new/about to come into service from a number of other sources, sorry can't remember all of them exactly, it was 5 years ago!!!
I'm only a "newbie" to this forum and if you think that I have "mis-quoted" you, then I'm sorry, I DID actually reproduced your "entire" commentary in my reply, so I don't really know how that is mis-quoting you? I didn't selectively "cut" bits to make a point, whatever, anyway.....
And YES I agree a hangar on the stern of the ship is a silly idea, I certainly didn't suggest it, I said, if done, it should be at the back of the superstructure, similar to the examples that I mentioned.
The point I was making, is that it is possible to make the modifications that I mentioned/suggested because the Bays are, for a better word, "dummed down" version of the original Dutch and subsequent Spanish designs and if the a hangar was a future option that could be retrofitted without out screwing up the ship.
Will those modifications happen or not, who knows?? Isn't the use of forum's like this to ask questions? The what ifs, etc?? But I do think that it is possible at some later stage, well after the LHD's enter service.
As I said, Largs Bay, is a "purchase of opportunity" to fill a gap until the LHD's are in service.
But in the "long" term, is Largs Bay the "exact" fit that the Navy wants, its it "exactly" what JP2048 was about, I don't know? I don't know the "exact" requirements, only what is in the public version of the DCP.
So all I am assuming is that somewhere in the future, the ship may receive major modifications or will it just push JP2048 Phase 4c 15-20 years down the track, I just don't know, does anybody?
- Status