Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

HSVs have short range, & are relatively fragile. They can't do what the UK is currently using its ro-ros for, i.e. shipping supplies & heavy equipment to troops in distant theatres. An HSV is strictly intra-theatre transport.

BTW, I don't know why Agra suggested a ro-ro would have to sit in port for days. I've been on plenty, & I've never known one to take more than an hour or so to offload. If your load includes trailers without vehicles to tow them, it takes longer, but still hours, not days. You can carry your own tractor units to tow them off. All that the ship needs is a quay, & parking space for the cargo.
Offloading offshore would take longer, of course, but if you have a sheltered anchorage, & the right equipment (which a militarised ro-ro should have aboard), you can offload from the ramp directly onto lighters, without needing to winch anything.

Whether you want a ro-ro or an LSD, such as the Bay-class, depends on want you want it for. An LSD can function as a ro-ro, but is far more expensive.

An HSV isn't a substitute for a ro-ro cargo ship. It has different capabilities, suited for a different role.

 

[Aussie Digger]

"similar type of vessel" and "fast" seem to be the key points and not obviously linked.

To be honest I didn't realise there was the "fast" requirement. I had assumed the potential vessel would likely be based on the spanish 13,900t Galicia class LDP(where the RAN would leverage the provenb expertise working with Navantia.

On the other hand "Fast" seems to be a different ball game.

In which case the a potential option could be the 112m Joint High Speed Vesssel (JHSV) currently being developed for the US by Incat and Revolution Design.

This leverages the US experience with prototype vessels HSV-X1 Joint Venture, TSV-1X Spearhead and HSV 2 Swift and the RAN's experience with the Jervis Bay.

for more information: http://www.incat.com.au/domino/incat/incatweb.nsf/v-title/JHSV Program?OpenDocument

but does this fit the "similar type of vessel" to Manoora/Kanimbla?

Does anyone have any thoughts?

You misread my post.

I said that HMAS Success would be replaced by a similar but new vessel, under the current DCP.

HMAS Kanimbla/Manoora will be replaced by the "fast" sealift ship.

Of course, that may change come the end of this year, but it is the current plan, IIRC.

 

[swerve]

.It is likely to come down to 4 main options for a LPD (although it would likely be a variant)

25,300t San Antonio Class - 700 troops; 2 LCAC, 14 AAAVs (or similar); Hanger space for 3 NH90 and landing space for 6 NH90

16,000t Albion Class - 300 troops (650 emergency), 4 LCU Mk10, 4 LCVP Mk5; landing space for 2 NH90

13,900t Galicia Class - 540 troops, 6 LCVP (or combination of LCM, LCU, LCVP); landing space for 6 NH90

16,800t (extended) Rotterdam Class - 613 troops, 6 LCVP mk3, 4 LCU mk9 or 4 LCM 8; landing space for 2 NH90, Hanger space for 6 NH90

By "extended Rotterdam", I presume you mean Johann de Witt. Rotterdam is pretty much the same as the Galicia class. These four ships, and the UK Bay-class LSDs, are all variants of the Schelde Enforcer family.

There are also LPD designs available from Italy, Germany & S. Korea, the last probably being cheapest. San Antonio is a very expensive option.

If you want a ship for getting heavy cargo ashore, surely a cargo-oriented LSD such as the Bay-class is better than a troop-carrying, assault-oriented LPD? The RAN is already increasing its troop-carrying and assault capabilities, with the LHDs.

 

[battlensign]

By "extended Rotterdam", I presume you mean Johann de Witt. Rotterdam is pretty much the same as the Galicia class. These four ships, and the UK Bay-class LSDs, are all variants of the Schelde Enforcer family.

There are also LPD designs available from Italy, Germany & S. Korea, the last probably being cheapest. San Antonio is a very expensive option.

If you want a ship for getting heavy cargo ashore, surely a cargo-oriented LSD such as the Bay-class is better than a troop-carrying, assault-oriented LPD? The RAN is already increasing its troop-carrying and assault capabilities, with the LHDs.

Funny you should mention that.........my money is on the Bay Class LSD based on info available.

Brett.

 

[swerve]

Funny you should mention that.........my money is on the Bay Class LSD based on info available.

Brett.

Maybe, but I'm not sure. It isn't "fast", as the spec supposedly calls for, though it could keep up with the LHDs at anything other than flat-out. If that's fast enough, then it - or something similar - could be a contender. Maybe change the balance of troops to cargo, to be even more cargo-oriented.

Another option could be a more militarised ro-ro than the Point class, with an improved ability to unload offshore.

 

[Sea Toby]

I think a larger more cargo oriented Canterbury design would be sufficient. By eliminating lower troop accommodations spaces, more vehicle cargo space can be provided with a larger ferry design.

For the price, New Zealand did well with the Ben My Chree's ferry design, spending half the funds of a Rotterdam LPD to meet its sea lift requirement. 52 million Euros, $ 100 million US, or $140 million NZ. Tenix's Merwede bid was less than ADI's Damen Schelde bid.

Of course any LSD design should be sufficient. The third ship should be more LSD than LPD, more cargo based than personnel based.

While the Royal Navy's Albion class is a LPD design, the Bay class is more of a LSD design of a Rotterdam LPD. More of a cargo ship than a troop ship. It will be interesting what Australia buys for the third ship. There are many alternatives available.

Australia could choose a ship as large as the Bob Hope class, as large as the new Queen Elizabeth carriers, but no one near the price. The US is spending around $200 million or so for the Bob Hopes. Literally all cargo, and able to transit the Panama canal. Of course, the Bob Hopes won't have over the beach capability as an LSD. I am sure the new white paper or another study will present the specifications Australia will require.

 

[PeterM]

Although likely the more expensive option, I wouldn't completely disregard the San Antonio's.

They are large and exceptionally capable/flexible vessels replacing the functions of the LPD, LSD, LKA and LST classes of amphibious ships in the USN. They are likely the fastest LPD style vessel going around.

The USN/USMC have extensive experience conducting amphibious operations with the Abrams and other heavy vehicles. From a training point of view, the ADF could leverage US experience and training methods/facilities.

The last ship is scheduled for delivery by 2012, so the ADF could potentially tack on to the end of the current production run for the USN.

 

[swerve]

I would discount the San Antonio class, because of the cost & manning. We're not talking 25% or 50% more, but a sizable multiple of the price of a sealift ship, with several times (maybe 10 times, for a basic militarised roro) the crew. With the RAN having difficulty crewing all its ships. crew needs are an important factor.

The requirement isn't for an assault ship, with large troop-carrying capacity. The LHDs will provide plenty of that. Therefore, you'd be paying very large sums for surplus capacity, which would come at the cost of something else. The requirement is for sealift, IIRC to support amphibious operations. A dock may be useful, but not necessarily needed.

A Schelde Enforcer LSD the same size would be vastly cheaper. A Canterbury-style vessel would be cheaper still, especially one that was more cargo-oriented than Canterbury, & a slightly militarised straight cargo-carrying ro-ro like the Point-class even cheaper.

 

[PeterM]

Australia could choose a ship as large as the Bob Hope class, as large as the new Queen Elizabeth carriers, but no one near the price. The US is spending around $200 million or so for the Bob Hopes. Literally all cargo, and able to transit the Panama canal. Of course, the Bob Hopes won't have over the beach capability as an LSD.

If a sealift rather than ambibious assault capability is required, then the Bob Hope Class or the very similar Watson Class LMSR (Large, Medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ships) is very interesting.

Firstly, they are huge!

The T-AKR 310 Watson class is 62,700t (950' (290m) x 106' (32.3m) x 34' (10.4m)) and is reasonably fast at 24kts with a range of 13,800 miles (at 24 kts)

The ship has a cargo capacity of over 13,000t with 395,000ft² of available cargo area.

Crew compliment is 45

for more info http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/takr/

 

[battlensign]

If a sealift rather than ambibious assault capability is required, then the Bob Hope Class LMSR (Large, Medium-speed, roll-on/roll-off ships) is very interesting.

Firstly, they are huge at 62,069t and reasonably fast at 24kts

LMSRs can carry an entire U.S. Army Task Force, including 58 tanks, 48 other track vehicles, plus more than 900 trucks and other wheeled vehicles. - It could carry a large ADF depoyment in one hit.

They are reasonable prices; the lead ship of the class reportedly cost $265million (USD), the 7th reportedly cost $228.2 million

Crew is 26 to 45 with maximum of 50; and it can carry a single helicopter

Hmm....definately agree with swerve that the San Antonio is out of the picture......but a Bob Hope? (Definately would bring some serious sealift capacity....too much? Do we even have a Heavy Brigade to move around? )

I Still think the LSD(A) is what we'll end up with. Great Sealift capability with potential support for Amphibious ops and troop lift capacity when the LHDs are down to one available. Personally, I would prefer two if going down that route (only 60 crew so potentially better for RAN crew wise than a 3rd LHD - which is most definately off the cards). Anyone got details on the costing for an LSD(A)? I understood there were some over-runs on the project......?

Brett.

 

[swerve]

Anyone got details on the costing for an LSD(A)? I understood there were some over-runs on the project......?

Brett.

Yes, there were. The originally contracted price was £330 million for all four. Eventual cost was over £500 million, mostly down to the lead yard, Swan Hunter, which got the contract basically for political reasons, to save the yard, despite it being badly run-down & having lost many of the necessary technical & management skills needed. Big mistake. Didn't work (the yard shut down immediately after the second ship it was contracted to build was towed away to be rectified & completed by BAe), & cost about £200 million.

If BAe had done all four, they'd probably have come in close to the original price.

Richard Beedall has more details - http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lsda.htm

Still - we got four 16000 ton LSDs for about two-thirds of the price of one 25000 ton San Antonio class LPD, & could have got them for less than half of the LPDs price but for politicians trying to keep Labour voters in Newcastle happy. That's 25% of the price per ton of a San Antonio, despite the overruns, with 25% of the crew per ton.

 

[battlensign]

Yes, there were. The originally contracted price was £330 million for all four. Eventual cost was over £500 million, mostly down to the lead yard, Swan Hunter, which got the contract basically for political reasons, to save the yard, despite it being badly run-down & having lost many of the necessary technical & management skills needed. Big mistake. Didn't work (the yard shut down immediately after the second ship it was contracted to build was towed away to be rectified & completed by BAe), & cost about £200 million.

If BAe had done all four, they'd probably have come in close to the original price.

Richard Beedall has more details - http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lsda.htm

Still - we got four 16000 ton LSDs for about two-thirds of the price of one 25000 ton San Antonio class LPD, & could have got them for less than half of the LPDs price but for politicians trying to keep Labour voters in Newcastle happy. That's 25% of the price per ton of a San Antonio, despite the overruns, with 25% of the crew per ton.

Thanks, good read. I probably should have known to use that as starting point ........always have in the past (but its getting late here and I am tired...). Any ideas on what this means to the RAN price wise, should they decide that the LSD(A) meets their requirements? The numbers do not really make for easy translation for a per unit price in a subsequent contract.

Brett.

 

[Sea Toby]

Add inflation, a different shipyard for better or worst, and the price should be around possibly A$200 million each for a Rotterdam/Bay class ship. New Zealand bought a smaller ferry design for NZ$140 million. On the other hand a much larger Bob Hope class ship runs a bit over US$200 million. I do not see how a third amphibious ship would cost over A$250 million unless the Aussie's bought a San Antonio LPD which runs near US$1.5 billion.

You get what you pay for.

 

[swerve]

The Watson & Bob Hope class came in at a bit over $300 million, when built. http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97150.htm - $384 mn for lead ship down to $282 mn for end of run. Allow for inflation since then, orders placed 1993 to 1997, last delivery 2002. That's for a 62000 ton ro-ro, probably too big for Australia. It's hard to be sure what the Point-class 23000 ton ro-ros cost, because the building price is wrapped up in a contract to operate them, but it seems to have been about £37.5 million each for the four German-built, & £40 million each for the two British-built, starting as the last Watson was being delivered - ordered 2001, last delivery end-2003.

Your top-end figure of A$250 mn seems fair. Should be less for a ro-ro with strengthened deck, military comms, cranes, etc., as long as it isn't too big, i.e. not like the Bob Hopes. Up to the limit for an LSD the size of Johann de Witt.

 

[PeterM]

If the RAN was considering a strategic sealift vessel rather than an Assault ship, then something around half the size of the Bob Hope/Waston class could be an option. At around 30,000t, it would have substantial transport capability and almost certainly be cheaper than the LPD options.

Additionally it would have greater speed/range and be alot more economical to maintain/run.

 

[enghave]

I spent four weeks in the Kanimbla class troops mess, and we were at perhaps quarter capacity for that troops mess.

I have to say, it was a pretty cramped, uncomfortable and undesirable experience. I'd hate to think what it was like at full capacity - there was just literally nowhere to go, nothing to do. It was either lay in your bunk, or squeeze twenty of us alongside one another on a bench seat designed for eight folks.

-------------------------------

I second this, I spent a few weeks in a near-capacity Manoora troops mess, (originally designed as short-term accommodation for soldiers being transported for amphibious ops, but being used as long-term accommodation for seaman trainees): still trying to forget the experience. Morale was so low people were thinking of quitting, or even worse, joining the RAAF.

On the plus side, Manoora had an awesome SRE system, movies all day and night.

 

[Marc 1]

Morale was so low people were thinking of quitting, or even worse, joining the RAAF.

Geez things must have been bad nfloorl:

 

[Sea Toby]

I second this, I spent a few weeks in a near-capacity Manoora troops mess, (originally designed as short-term accommodation for soldiers being transported for amphibious ops, but being used as long-term accommodation for seaman trainees): still trying to forget the experience. Morale was so low people were thinking of quitting, or even worse, joining the RAAF.

On the plus side, Manoora had an awesome SRE system, movies all day and night.

You didn't expect cruise ship accommodations, did you? You're lucky you had your own bunk. There aren't any large barracks in the navy onboard a ship. Aboard submarines, many times we hot bunk, two share the same bunk.

 

[old faithful]

You didn't expect cruise ship accommodations, did you? You're lucky you had your own bunk. There aren't any large barracks in the navy onboard a ship. Aboard submarines, many times we hot bunk, two share the same bunk.

heard that about you NAVY types!! Village people didnt sing "in the ARMY" did they! nfloorl:

 

[Lofty_DBF]

You didn't expect cruise ship accommodations, did you? You're lucky you had your own bunk. There aren't any large barracks in the navy onboard a ship. Aboard submarines, many times we hot bunk, two share the same bunk.

How many times have you had to hot bunk sea toby????????