Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
This is were something like the Point-class RORO is an option I would like to see. It has the capacity to move large quantities of gear and is lower cost than most MOTS options.
I would like to see a pair to maintain one on readiness. The LHD can focus on the initial entry and the RORO can bring the heavy logistics and additional follow-on forces. A decent LCH would help alleviate the lack of well dock.
I would like to see a pair to maintain one on readiness. The LHD can focus on the initial entry and the RORO can bring the heavy logistics and additional follow-on forces. A decent LCH would help alleviate the lack of well dock.
Flensburger will happily build you an updated one (they kept the plans), & the last I heard Longstone is still out there, unmodified & doing charters (Beachy Head was modified for the Danish firm which bought it, but I don't know how extensively).
Stick some Mexeflotes aboard & you can unload to a beach.
Stick some Mexeflotes aboard & you can unload to a beach.
Jezza
Member
Something like the 30,000-ton displacement M/V Cragside,
In November, Military Sealift Command—America’s quasi-civilian fleet of more than 100 specialized but lightly armed vessels—awarded an initial $73-million contract to shipping giant Maersk to convert one of its cargo ships to a so-called “Maritime Support Vessel” standard.
In November, Military Sealift Command—America’s quasi-civilian fleet of more than 100 specialized but lightly armed vessels—awarded an initial $73-million contract to shipping giant Maersk to convert one of its cargo ships to a so-called “Maritime Support Vessel” standard.
People have actually over thought the issue, There was never a mention of a ship having both capabilities (looks fondly at the Karel Doorman) but a matter of acquiring one or the other though I'm sure there is plenty of argument to acquire both.
The Karel Doorman while being a wonderful ship and quite possibly able to be modified sacrificing the large amount of lane meters for extra troop capacity (From memory the Choules is 1,150 lane meter's to the Doormans 2,000) but that still does't solve the issue of no well deck which can be a major negative both in the armed conflict and humanitarian situations, In one AA could make it all but useless while in the other damaged port facilities would prevent the ship from docking requiring asset's to be beached in via landing craft of some form (LCM-1E's or mexefloats).
In regards to a replacement of a ship similar to Choules then based on vessel's that will be build around that time frame my money would be on the San Antonio class which would still be able to get some construction support as the class will form the basis of the LX(R) that will be in production around that time frame. Other options might come up but for the time being everything else will be long out of production and far more out dated but with a decade until then nothing is a certainty.
For the AOR, Seeing as they mention that they want a high capacity ship I read that as being more capable then what we will acquire. Anything the size of the Tide class and up in my mind is most likely.
---------------
Quick note: Reading the DWP I find the wording some what vague as there are mentions of replacing the Choules but also mention of acquiring a logistics support ship in addition. It is also in my mind that we may keep the Choules along with the possible logistics support ship as the Choules is still quite young and will still have a decade or more of life when the decision comes up in the future.
The Karel Doorman while being a wonderful ship and quite possibly able to be modified sacrificing the large amount of lane meters for extra troop capacity (From memory the Choules is 1,150 lane meter's to the Doormans 2,000) but that still does't solve the issue of no well deck which can be a major negative both in the armed conflict and humanitarian situations, In one AA could make it all but useless while in the other damaged port facilities would prevent the ship from docking requiring asset's to be beached in via landing craft of some form (LCM-1E's or mexefloats).
In regards to a replacement of a ship similar to Choules then based on vessel's that will be build around that time frame my money would be on the San Antonio class which would still be able to get some construction support as the class will form the basis of the LX(R) that will be in production around that time frame. Other options might come up but for the time being everything else will be long out of production and far more out dated but with a decade until then nothing is a certainty.
For the AOR, Seeing as they mention that they want a high capacity ship I read that as being more capable then what we will acquire. Anything the size of the Tide class and up in my mind is most likely.
---------------
Quick note: Reading the DWP I find the wording some what vague as there are mentions of replacing the Choules but also mention of acquiring a logistics support ship in addition. It is also in my mind that we may keep the Choules along with the possible logistics support ship as the Choules is still quite young and will still have a decade or more of life when the decision comes up in the future.
A thought crosses my mind that a logistics ship need not be either an AOR or an LPD and could be something completely different that effectively complements existing and future capabilities. A T-AKE for instance could complement or supplement the AORs supporting the RAN and allies at sea, as well as being more suitable to provide sustainment for a deployed ARG than an AOR would be. Another outside the square option could be a Montford Point Class T-ESD (Expeditionary Transfer Dock) or T-ESB (Expeditionary Support Base) supporting a number of EPF (Expeditionary Fast Transport), previously MLP, AFSB and JHSV respectively. If the threat justifies it a new, highly survivable San Antonio type LPD could even be an option.
It will come down to the strategic situation at the time as to how the requirements are formulated.
It will come down to the strategic situation at the time as to how the requirements are formulated.
its about force structure and a coherent balance
you don't buy a platform for every contingency requirement - even the US doesn't do that
your force structure is based on the risk assessments of where and when you are likely to have to fight, support like minded partners and how you manage your HADR events.
we can't afford to go and buy a niche capability which may have infrequent use and which will take money from platform purchases and overall force sustainment - especially when the services themselves are responsible for defining and developing a force that fits not only service reqs, but joint requirements.
for the last numbers of years we only get replacement platforms if the services can demonstrate the efficiency and trade it off against the efficiencies that selection will bring to the table.
ie phat ships replaced B1 and B2 after it was determined that East Timor was a logistics cluster. the lessons learnt to select those vessels was about offloading issues, vessel to vessel transfer, bunkerage on and off ship etc...
C17's were selected as they could show clear efficiencies in replacing the C130's on a load for load basis, on a sustainment benefit and that they met future requirements for HADR assistance. (eg they can carry a self contained surgical/medical container to a loc whereas C130's can't and the only way to get similar capability by air was through a crippling lease of fat antanovs
choules fulfills a number of capabilities that is unique to it and would not be realised through an LST acquisition, especially when that role can be picked up by other assets such as phat ships (despite the hysteria about the tanks being too heavy, that is based on a non warlike loadout where safety margins under WHS have to be factored in. On top of which those tanks aren't loaded already "assisted up" so weight variations are minimal)
At the moment I'm basing it off of being an AOR or LPD as the wording does indicate either an AOR or a logistics support ship similar to the HMAS Choules. That said we still have a good decade before we are likely to really start looking at options which I believe was in part set so far out to allow us to get a better idea of what we will actually need, Rather then buying something now and being stuck with the choice they are allowing time for the force structure we have planned to get entranched and allow a more detailed assesment of what is actually required be it extra amphibious capability, a larger AOR to support a possible semi permanent task force based around one of the LHD's or as you mentioned any number of other ships that could provide valuable logistics support or niche capability. Time will tell.
t68
Well-Known Member
Dont take this the wrong way but reading between the lines of what you said, are you saying now that we have 2xLHD and 1x LSD replacing both LPA and LSH plus the 6x LCH is all we need?
Tonnage and capabilty wise they are far far in advance on what we had but still 3 replacing 9 still leaves us thin asthey can only be in one place at a time.surley we need either small LPD or LST to round out capabilty?
Well that is the choice really, Do we want less ships vastly more capable or greater amount of ships far less capable?
What also needs to be accounted for is crew's, Between the Tobruk, Kanimbla's and Balikpapan's they required 684 crew, where as between the Canberra's and Choules they require 744 crew. Like it or not if we don't have the naval personnel to man them then it is pointless thinking about an acquisition for them.
While a half dozen LST's be they of any class would be nice to have circumstances have changed from Indonesia being a major concern who with the massive amount of small islands the LST's would have been ideal to China being our main concern where we are more likely to engage in conflict over a more defined area thus making the LST's less of a requirement.
Built by Maersk at Odense, but same (with minor variations) as the Flensburger-designed Point class, based on a commercial design which has been sold to several freight lines.
30000 tons? Hmm. According to the published specs. she's the same dimensions as the Points, & from the pictures I've seen that looks correct. Where did the extra tonnage come from?
PS. Longstone & Beachy Head are now Finnmerchant & Williamsborg
weegee
Active Member
I have come across this article this morning. It seems as though we have upset the Sth Koreans again.
Is this a matter of another verbal captains call during an OS visit? Does anyone believe that they have any grounds to be upset?
Its not like we have had nothing to do with Navantia, they built 2 of the largest ships in the region and are also responsible for our AWD's So it's not like choosing them was out of the blue.
South Korea 'very much disappointed' with Australia over Defence contracts
Is this a matter of another verbal captains call during an OS visit? Does anyone believe that they have any grounds to be upset?
Its not like we have had nothing to do with Navantia, they built 2 of the largest ships in the region and are also responsible for our AWD's So it's not like choosing them was out of the blue.
South Korea 'very much disappointed' with Australia over Defence contracts
I wouldnt really bother to mention Navantia and the AWD's because that is just an argument not to go that way with how badly they stuffed us around.
That said when you consider the culture in South Korea they have every reason to be angry, Being given every indication once they they had the contract only for the buyer to renege is bad enough, for that buyer to start to renege on multiple occasions well even I would be getting pissed.
Shows how hard it is to keep everyone friendly and onside.
The land project was a bit weird because it disappeared. The AOR project it think has been pretty straight forward. We are running a fleet pretty similar to Spain, with the AWD, LHD's, Choules, and the SPS Cantabria was designed to support that kind of fleet. Oh, and they operated the SPS Cantabria with the RAN for what? A year? Half the RAN has been and trained on that ship.Spain can show it working with a variety of nations. It has specific features the RAN would be interested in from a builder we have a lot of business with.
Whos been impressed with the Korean bid? I don't think it was speced from the outset for exactly what the RAN needed. The marketing seemed weak, I don't think they pushed the local build option enough. I think the core capabilities of the ships are fine as would be the price, but the rest of the package wasn't there.
Even between the Japanese and the Koreans there are miles of difference. Japan seems serious about building a deep and mutually benifical relationship with Australia. S.Korea made some progress, but doesn't seem to have the sustainment of the Japanese.
The land project was a bit weird because it disappeared. The AOR project it think has been pretty straight forward. We are running a fleet pretty similar to Spain, with the AWD, LHD's, Choules, and the SPS Cantabria was designed to support that kind of fleet. Oh, and they operated the SPS Cantabria with the RAN for what? A year? Half the RAN has been and trained on that ship.Spain can show it working with a variety of nations. It has specific features the RAN would be interested in from a builder we have a lot of business with.
Whos been impressed with the Korean bid? I don't think it was speced from the outset for exactly what the RAN needed. The marketing seemed weak, I don't think they pushed the local build option enough. I think the core capabilities of the ships are fine as would be the price, but the rest of the package wasn't there.
Even between the Japanese and the Koreans there are miles of difference. Japan seems serious about building a deep and mutually benifical relationship with Australia. S.Korea made some progress, but doesn't seem to have the sustainment of the Japanese.
Joe Black
Active Member
But is it a case of us Australian (and to a larger extend the Western world), don't know how to do business with the Koreans and to a larger extend the Asians? They do have a different business culture, whereby face, handshakes and connections might mean much more to them than to us.
Korean ship building is losing a lot of money and they really need our business. We, or perhaps previous Tony Abbott gov, might have over promised to them, or perhaps said something to them that they took it as if it was a done deal.
Lessons to learn perhaps?
I would have thought that Abbott's minders and staff at the Australian embassy in Seoul would have advised Abbott about Korean business practice and culture when he was in South Korea. Another "captain's call"? Perhaps. The Koreans were making a pretty attractive offer. Three ships for the price of two would have allowed for one on each coast and a third in maintenance/refit and for training. I hope the quality of their naval ships is better than some of their electronics and cars.
Last edited:
Not sure why the SK's would be aggrieved about missing out on the SP
they dodged a bullet - and it was their call in the end about there not being any business sense in getting stuffed around to provide a niche solution for a cottage build but against an expected high volume competitive price
quite frankly, they should have told Oz army to get stuffed long ago as the mods against price expectations were ridiculous
why dick around for a dozen units when its easier to sell a complete MOTs solution with less fussy customers who would also order them in triple figures.
methinks they are protesting too much to bring up past history.
whether they are justified for feeling aggrieved over promises to keep between heads of state - well, thats open to speculation and therefore useless for any meaningful analysis
they dodged a bullet - and it was their call in the end about there not being any business sense in getting stuffed around to provide a niche solution for a cottage build but against an expected high volume competitive price
quite frankly, they should have told Oz army to get stuffed long ago as the mods against price expectations were ridiculous
why dick around for a dozen units when its easier to sell a complete MOTs solution with less fussy customers who would also order them in triple figures.
methinks they are protesting too much to bring up past history.
whether they are justified for feeling aggrieved over promises to keep between heads of state - well, thats open to speculation and therefore useless for any meaningful analysis
I am either confused or don't understand the scenario re Collins replacement, from what I've read quite a lot of people are totting the Soryu as the safer option of the other two options, yet if we did go down the Soryu path it would not likely be a mots buy and would be an evolved Soryu, isn't this the exact same concept re sizing up the Type 214 into a type 216? Essentially taking a current sub/tech and evolving into an evolved/larger version?
:
A few weeks ago (can't find URL) I came across a Norwegian report that the KNM Maud AEGIR (basis for RAN bid) is at least 4 months behind schedule at DSME in Korea. About a year ago the RN was reporting that the HMS Tidespring the first AEGIR should be in UK by now - according to its AIS it is still tied up alongside being completed in DSME.
If Korea wanted our (urgent) order for long overdue replacement for Success, both Tidespring and Maud had to be seen to be on schedule without problems. That is evidently not the case at the moment even though both may prove to be successful BUT we could not wait to find out!
- Status