Has it been confirmed? It's something i'd been thinking it *could* have for a while due to size, hangar layout etc but i've not seen anything official to confirm it.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
t68
Well-Known Member
Whilst I do like the Japanese shipping for what you are trying to achieve, if we have to settle for second best with no fixed wing strike or tactical air support for the LHD I would be more inclined to go with Endurance-160 multirole support ship which can serve as a Afloat Forward Staging Base with several CB90-class fast assault craft and also still be able to have an ASW capability it can also be seen as a replacement for HMAS Tobruk with extra capacity for HADR
Is a Light Carrier in Singapore's Future? | Defense News | defensenews.com
Leaving the F-35B out of it a through deck DDH / cruiser is the best way to get and sustain a usable number of helicopters to sea. Navies have been investigating and occasionally building ships like these since the 50s. When they haven't gone ahead it's usually been for political reasons. There have been many hybrids over the years carrying two, three or more large helicopters but it has pretty much always been acknowledged that a through deck design would have been better.
IMO the RAN needs a class of fast helicopter carriers to complement and harden the primary surface combatant force.
IMO the RAN needs a class of fast helicopter carriers to complement and harden the primary surface combatant force.
But for not much more money you could get a light fleet carrier of the type represented by the Cavour class. This in combination with the limited fixed wing capability (non sustained) would be a good mix to provide facilities for ASW helos and organic air if we decided to do it.
But we are all dreaming
King Wally
Active Member
I was about to make a very similar post. And honestly your last line summed it up.
We're dreaming and dollars are going to be very tight for a while yet.
Right now I think the RAN is down to essential programs and replacement. We may be lucky to just get the basics done right if all this budget doom and gloom posturing is sticking around for a while.
I can't tell you how many times I have heard media commentators hold up the RAAF F-35A buy as some kind of obvious "instant fix" to budget woes. "Just cut it and everything is perfect". Defence will be treading lightly for a while I fear.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
We might be dreaming, but the government would be more likely to be talked into an extra 24 SH-60R's and 3 big destroyers then it would be into 3 Aircraft Carriers, 24 SH-60's and 24-36 F35B's.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I'd rather something that is specifically for ASW and has the ability to keep up with the Frigate/Destroyer force.
That LHD is likely to be limited to the 18-22kts that most LHD's are, plus its probably not as survivable.
A pair of smaller (cheaper) LHD's might be good for replacing Tobruk and Choules though when the time comes.
It's an interesting hypothetical though. Don't know enough about DDG1000 to know how well it would fit, by DDH I assume you mean the Japanese designation - it would bring a massive level of rotary capability to the fleet. If the light frigates were properly designed they would be an interesting choice, one that perhaps starts getting back to the whole Sea Control Frigate concept, although I'm not seeing many modern frigate types that might form a basis for an Australian class as they tend to be a bit larger. Were you thinking a clean-sheet design or something existing? I guess the Formidables might be along the lines of what you're thinking?
The great advantage of the DDG-1000 is its low operating costs and growth margins. It has a very small crew, a high level of automation and, through its all electric propulsion system, huge reserves of power generation. There may be only three ships built for the USN but their systems are being rolled out through the fleet, radars in the new carriers, GTs in the LCS1 class etc. The AGS may be an orphan system so drop it in favour of a Mk-45 Mod 4 and extra VLS and you have a very large, very survivable, extremely capable general purpose platform.
Best thing with it is its growth margins, it was designed for systems that were deleted to save money leaving even more than was intended. It is just crying out for a CEA S Band radar to complement its X band set. This ship would with its USN spiral development as well as Australian tech rapidly exceed the capability of the Hobarts through simply having the space and architecture to install new systems. We buy it as our land attack platform and then progressively update it into an ABM capable CGN.
Depending on time frames and USN priorities, if they were to develop a DDG-1000 derived CG in the new future (similar but modified hull form I believe is on the cards) we could look at a version of that platform instead. Either way I think we need to look at getting our top tier skimmers back inline with the USN, we missed an opportunity with the Burkes and earlier with the Kidds. Top tier USN, second tier bespoke and more numerous.
It really is too bad we didn't do this in the 70s and 80s, supplement the DDGs with three small helicopter carriers (i.e. the 6-7000t Vosper Thornycroft Harrier Carrier http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134973&stc=1&d=1153522700 http://warships1discussionboards.yu...rrier39-concept-scale-JSFB-mebbe#.U3BhK-9ZqM8) to keep our Sea Kings at sea rather than buying the Seahawks and modifying the first three FFGs at great expense. The loss of the Seakings dunking sonar also reduced the effectiveness of the Ikara as there was no longer anything to provide it with targeting data outside the range of the ships sonar. Throw in the Trackers and our three of our four best ASW systems were killed with the retirement of Melbourne, leaving only the RAAFs Orions, buy a couple of small helicopter carriers and two of the systems could have been retained avoiding the expense of buying new helicopters and modifying ships. A smaller helicopter such as the Lynx or Sea Sprite could have been ordered to supplement the Sea Kings and the Sea kings could eventually have been replaced with Merlins. A real pipe dream, the Trackers could have been replaced with additional Orions with perhaps some of them configured for AEW. All affordable, same or lower cost than what we actually did, providing greater capability and a more sustainable path forward.
Best thing with it is its growth margins, it was designed for systems that were deleted to save money leaving even more than was intended. It is just crying out for a CEA S Band radar to complement its X band set. This ship would with its USN spiral development as well as Australian tech rapidly exceed the capability of the Hobarts through simply having the space and architecture to install new systems. We buy it as our land attack platform and then progressively update it into an ABM capable CGN.
Depending on time frames and USN priorities, if they were to develop a DDG-1000 derived CG in the new future (similar but modified hull form I believe is on the cards) we could look at a version of that platform instead. Either way I think we need to look at getting our top tier skimmers back inline with the USN, we missed an opportunity with the Burkes and earlier with the Kidds. Top tier USN, second tier bespoke and more numerous.
It really is too bad we didn't do this in the 70s and 80s, supplement the DDGs with three small helicopter carriers (i.e. the 6-7000t Vosper Thornycroft Harrier Carrier http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134973&stc=1&d=1153522700 http://warships1discussionboards.yu...rrier39-concept-scale-JSFB-mebbe#.U3BhK-9ZqM8) to keep our Sea Kings at sea rather than buying the Seahawks and modifying the first three FFGs at great expense. The loss of the Seakings dunking sonar also reduced the effectiveness of the Ikara as there was no longer anything to provide it with targeting data outside the range of the ships sonar. Throw in the Trackers and our three of our four best ASW systems were killed with the retirement of Melbourne, leaving only the RAAFs Orions, buy a couple of small helicopter carriers and two of the systems could have been retained avoiding the expense of buying new helicopters and modifying ships. A smaller helicopter such as the Lynx or Sea Sprite could have been ordered to supplement the Sea Kings and the Sea kings could eventually have been replaced with Merlins. A real pipe dream, the Trackers could have been replaced with additional Orions with perhaps some of them configured for AEW. All affordable, same or lower cost than what we actually did, providing greater capability and a more sustainable path forward.
There has been concerns raised in the forum, that the new defence minister will point the pork barrel at his home state and at Austral in perticular. If this was to happen I would much rather a local built version of the JHSV than another aluminium PB or a multi hull OPV.
Several people here have pointed out the problems of operating such vessels for extended periods in a blue water enviorment.
The HSV would not replace any existing capabilities but act as a force multiplier.
It should be constructed at the outset to operate the Mexeflote or similar system to overcome its lack of over the beach capability. It could be carried in sections along both sides of the ship to balance the weight. It need only be carried when operating in areas lacking support structure.
The HSV could unload onto the flote via the stern ramp, the cargo would then be rafted in. In addition the flote could be fastened to the shore to act as a temp jetty for direct unloading.
Several people here have pointed out the problems of operating such vessels for extended periods in a blue water enviorment.
The HSV would not replace any existing capabilities but act as a force multiplier.
It should be constructed at the outset to operate the Mexeflote or similar system to overcome its lack of over the beach capability. It could be carried in sections along both sides of the ship to balance the weight. It need only be carried when operating in areas lacking support structure.
The HSV could unload onto the flote via the stern ramp, the cargo would then be rafted in. In addition the flote could be fastened to the shore to act as a temp jetty for direct unloading.
I could be mistaken but isn't a big part of the US HSV concept the existence of sea basing with the commissioning of new ships supporting each other in the provision of a whole capability? HSV is just one part of the whole and I doubt we would ever have the money or need to buy the other component parts to make it all work. i.e. a RAN equivalent to the USNS Montford Point (T-MLP-1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Montford_Point_(T-MLP-1)
The USN must first cross an ocean to reach most areas of interest to them, with Australia many of ours are right on our doorstep. This would allow RAN HSVs to operate from mainland ports.
This said there is nothing to prevent them operating in support of the LHDs in non combat missions. The quick dispatch of large amounts of aid from a centrally located phat ship would of great assistance on any humanitairian mission.
Speaking of the USN what with the LCS order looking like being cut by 20 hulls and the Japan based 7th Fleet feeling that a traditional Frigate would be the better option for the Asia-Pacific region - what of the chances for a BAe Type 26 design built under license in the US as a solution for them to cover the shortfall and program partner to boot? If it ends up that the RAN & RNZN are onboard alongside the RN in the Type 26 program it could be interesting and the Canadians might be back in the hunt with a bit of arm twisting.
Just throwing it out there into the mix.
Well, they are part of but not the whole story IMO. JHSV are online now, and as part of the design pre-date the T-MLP. The T-MLP is designed to work to the LCAC/ssc and have facilities to store and operate 3 of them per ship. The T-MLP is able to dump its load using LCAC's nearby the ship. It doesn't really solve the problem of going past the beachhead.
The JHSV is ideal to work intra-theater, although as Timor showed, if pressed and close enough it can shuffle inter-theater quite quickly if required (as fast as C-130 for large loads) < 1000km in good weather (think Indonesia, Timor, Fiji, Samoa). But intra theater it can move medium loads (~600tons) a lot more efficiently than rotary, fixed wing, or large ships (LHD etc) shuffling around the area of operations. With speed above 40kts your other ships/landing craft don't have to be very fast, as anything priority can be speedily lifted by the JHSV. It fills the gaps from the LHD/LPD/roro and the LCH. It doesn't replace any, but supports all and allows them to work further apart and provide more coverage. Would be particularly useful at moving troops/civilians (eg move a company into or out of area).
However there is no firm plan for Australia to acquire a JHSV in the near term. Which seems a bit out of it, as Land 400, the LCH, LARC-V etc should connect to a JHSV project. Given what the US is doing the idea that its just a ferry and we can just throw it together if we need it seems to sell the concept short (and is the sort of thing we were lucky in Timor with). We are right in the middle of trying to work out what a medium sized country with expeditionary needs requires to operate effectively.
But I don't know if now is the right time to acquire. I don't know if Austal is the right supplier for an Australian JHSV. But I do think its something to watch carefully.
Agreed but politics often defies common sense.
Carriers are bad, too expensive and we don't need them, that is the bipartisan political truth in Australia. We spend or plan to spend billions on AEGIS, cruise missiles, light weight ASW helicopters, anti-surface vessel helicopters, modified frigates, additional frigates, bespoke submarines, upgraded strike bombers and anything else (except SSNs) to avoid buying carriers.
There were through deck cruiser designs developed by the RN from the early 60s, designed for 12 Wessex or 9 Sea King with Tartar or Sea Slug, that would have fit the bill perfectly for the RAN that as far as I can tell were never looked at. Strike carriers would be nice but a small ship able to carry a dozen helicopters or, later, Harriers, would have been perfectly good enough to supplement Melbourne in the 60s. I will never understand why Sydney wasn't converted to an ASW helicopter carrier in the 60s permitting Melbourne to carry additional Skyhawks for strike and air defence. So many smart things we could have done to lead to a better balanced fleet today instead of the current situation of spending billions failing to achieve the desired results and then letting the entire show run to ruin before trying again.
We would need to have some sort of effective interface between them, that's what Montford Point is for the USN, the connector between the auxiliaries (conventional and HSV) and the amphibs to do the actual landings. Then again it could be argued that a pair of Mobile landing Ships (MLP) could be a good investment for the RAN going forward, especially if they were of a fully submersible heavy lift design permitting them to be dual roled in peace time i.e. moving ship blocks around etc. Load them up with LCU, LCAC even LARC-V etc. and use then as a floating wharf to offload other ships and move their cargos ashore asap.
Looking outside the square I would rather a multi role capability such as an Absalon or a modern day APD, maybe even one with a through deck to better operate helicopters to a HSV. More durable, more survivable and more flexible. Drop the combat systems all together and you have a fast monohull ferry, but at least it has a steel hull and can safely navigate above sea state 5. You can still specify 40 or 50 knots if you want but 25-30 kt and rough weather endurance would likely be more valuable, 20kt would probably do nicely.
Really outside the square now, a very large multi-mission deck with vehicle ramp and a Manitou forklift could be incorporated in an OPV design to replace some of our PBs. It would be very seaworthy and durable, and while not as fast as a HSV still two to three times faster than a LCM or LCH. It could serve as a MCM or counter piracy / border protection mothership, disaster relief transport and support base, special forces support, basically everything the JHSV is intended for but more durable and sustainable.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Or build a DDH and make sure one of the elevators is located aft so that Chinooks can be stored in the hanger. No reason why you cannot use part of the hanger deck as vehicle or cargo storage in an emergency.
Absalon is trying to do too many things.
Its an attempt at an AmphibiousMinelayerFrigate.
Absalon is trying to do too many things.
Its an attempt at an AmphibiousMinelayerFrigate.
The JMSDF Osumi class have a vehicle deck / dock and no hanger with the front half of the flight deck also intended as vehicle stowage and the rear half for use by helicopters. Its role is to move equipment to Japanese held territories to reinforce them prior to or just after invasion with a secondary disaster relief role. They are a LPD that looks like a LHD that is used as a fast transport and not an amphibious assault ship at all.
- Status