Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

I might have missed some recent new's or i'm miss interpreting what people are saying (or something in between) but there is starting to appear talk of 2 or more ship's replacing the Choules...

From my recollection the Choules is to be replaced in the late 2020's with an undefined ship but to date only a ship as in singular, not multiple.

Has something changed or are we just being hopeful of something neither the RAN or Government (to my knowledge) has given any indication of?

Regards, vonnoobie

From the DWP, in the late 2020's a decision is supposed to be made about either purchasing a 3rd AOR, or some sort of logistics support ship. Depending on how this is interpreted, this could be a 2nd example of the Choules replacement vessel, or not. There is some room for interpretation.

 

[vonnoobie]

From the DWP, in the late 2020's a decision is supposed to be made about either purchasing a 3rd AOR, or some sort of logistics support ship. Depending on how this is interpreted, this could be a 2nd example of the Choules replacement vessel, or not. There is some room for interpretation.

Apologies, on a refreshement reading of the DWP the wording does leave open the idea of 2 ship's similar to the Choules in capability.

3.28 The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement
of this logistics support ship around 2030, as HMAS Choules
has demonstrated the benefits of this type of vessel in extending
the reach of the ADF and enhancing our capacity to deploy larger
and better‑equipped forces. HMAS Choules, together with the two
Canberra Class amphibious ships, will provide scalable and flexible
options for greater capacity sea lift and amphibious operations. A
third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be
considered in the late 2020s.

Which does make me question if we are to have 2 LHD's and possibly 2 LSD's/LPD's (designated as logistic support ships) if 2 AOR's (assuming we get the 2nd logistics ship rather then the 3rd AOR) would be enough capacity to sustain a fleet that would be growing in vessel number's and supplies required to sustain each individual ship?

Regards, vonnoobie

 

[Punta74]

Apologies, on a refreshement reading of the DWP the wording does leave open the idea of 2 ship's similar to the Choules in capability.



Which does make me question if we are to have 2 LHD's and possibly 2 LSD's/LPD's (designated as logistic support ships) if 2 AOR's (assuming we get the 2nd logistics ship rather then the 3rd AOR) would be enough capacity to sustain a fleet that would be growing in vessel number's and supplies required to sustain each individual ship?

Regards, vonnoobie

I'd actually like to see 2 x Karel Doorman class vesels. Similar crew size to Choules, and you get replenishment and choules in one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_%28A833%29?wprov=sfla1

 

[ASSAIL]

Regarding the Lurssen candidate for the OPV. It has a problem with the bridge wing designs when berthed in the high tidal ports of NW Australia. These are often quite rough alongside and these protruding wings will cause untold grief either against the jetty or against each other when rafted up.
I hope this is considered as the Bay class Customs boats had a similar but less severe problem which caused them to grief .

Check out the end of video of a pair berthing in Pearl and transpose that to Broome or Darwin on a typical 25 knot morning South Easter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUy5wdUA9p8

 

[Alf662]

I'd actually like to see 2 x Karel Doorman class vesels. Similar crew size to Choules, and you get replenishment and choules in one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_%28A833%29?wprov=sfla1

Karel Doorman is a big ship and at 27,800 tons is up their with the LHD's. IMHO it may be to big for what the RAN has in mind.

Choules is 16,160 tons and Cantabria is 19,500 tons. If a hi-bred LPD / AOR is acquired I don't think it would be any greater than 20,000 tons (again this is my opinion).

 

[Oberon]

Regarding the Lurssen candidate for the OPV. It has a problem with the bridge wing designs when berthed in the high tidal ports of NW Australia. These are often quite rough alongside and these protruding wings will cause untold grief either against the jetty or against each other when rafted up.
I hope this is considered as the Bay class Customs boats had a similar but less severe problem which caused them to grief .

Check out the end of video of a pair berthing in Pearl and transpose that to Broome or Darwin on a typical 25 knot morning South Easter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUy5wdUA9p8

Yes, I can see that would be a problem. Would it be feasible to shorten the wings?

 

[Todjaeger]

I'd actually like to see 2 x Karel Doorman class vesels. Similar crew size to Choules, and you get replenishment and choules in one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_%28A833%29?wprov=sfla1

While a vessel able to perform both missions sounds nice, it can cost extra (like an extra 120 mil.+ Euros or more), and depending on service needs, it might not provide any extra capability which is utilized. If the RAN determines that a third AOR is really required, the sealift capability might not get much use. By the same token, if sealift is where extra capacity is needed, then the AOR component might be largely unused.

The other area I would be concerned about, is whether the ability to perform both type roles ends up making it not very good at either. That is sometimes what happens when different roles are tasked to the same asset, a jack of all trades, but master of none.

 

[vonnoobie]

While a vessel able to perform both missions sounds nice, it can cost extra (like an extra 120 mil.+ Euros or more), and depending on service needs, it might not provide any extra capability which is utilized. If the RAN determines that a third AOR is really required, the sealift capability might not get much use. By the same token, if sealift is where extra capacity is needed, then the AOR component might be largely unused.

The other area I would be concerned about, is whether the ability to perform both type roles ends up making it not very good at either. That is sometimes what happens when different roles are tasked to the same asset, a jack of all trades, but master of none.

Could be 2 x LPD's and 1 x AOR MOTS would be cheaper and more useful then 2 x Karel Doorman type vessels.

As it is I don't imagine we would go for anything close to the size of the Doorman let alone that between it's split use even with the larger size it can't even carry half the amount of troop's of the Choules in normal times (141 vs 356).

Still a big option in what we could acquire, Could be anything from a variation of Singapore's Endurance class to America's San Antonio class. Actually the Dokdo class from South Korea looks good.

 

[hauritz]

The Choules was really a ship of opportunity. The original requirement was for a sealift vessel ... And that could probably have been filled by a far less capable ship than the Choules.

To me the requirement for a logistics vessel or AOR in the late twenties sounds much like Canada's JSS ... And the Cantabria class was at one stage a candidate for that role.

An additional Cantabria could be adequate as a sea lift ship.

 

[the road runner]

The other area I would be concerned about, is whether the ability to perform both type roles ends up making it not very good at either. That is sometimes what happens when different roles are tasked to the same asset, a jack of all trades, but master of none.

Lucky we have time on our side to decide what will be needed.
With the 2 Canberra class and Choules being in service i am sure operations and exercises in the near future will dictate the path forward. I would assume (3 x) AOR would be needed as Navy's fleet of ships will be growing in size(displacement) into the future.

As to a follow on for Choules my money would be with Navantias "Galicia class"

Navantia do seem to be forming a great relationship with Australia in regards to Ships. LHD,LCM's,AOR and AWD's all offered by Navantia with Future frigates and LPD's in the running for further contracts. The RAN is well an truly on its way in becoming a well rounded force

Edit.When you crunch the numbers the RAN will be sitting at close to 250,000 tons in 2030's. Have we had a navy that has been that heavy in our history?

 

[Todjaeger]

Could be 2 x LPD's and 1 x AOR MOTS would be cheaper and more useful then 2 x Karel Doorman type vessels.

As it is I don't imagine we would go for anything close to the size of the Doorman let alone that between it's split use even with the larger size it can't even carry half the amount of troop's of the Choules in normal times (141 vs 356).

Still a big option in what we could acquire, Could be anything from a variation of Singapore's Endurance class to America's San Antonio class. Actually the Dokdo class from South Korea looks good.

The troop capacity might be less, but IIRC the Karel Doorman has ~twice the lane metres of a Bay-class LSD. So the question would be, are you looking to move troops, or vehicles/kit? One of the other big differences is the ability to transport & support six NH90 or similar sized medium lift helicopters. Plus of course all the fuel, cargo, potable water, etc. from the replenishment side of the vessel.

As for the Dokdo-class LPH... I do not know how good a fit that would be for the RAN. It has a personnel carriage capacity similar to the Canberra-class LHD, and can move a significant number of vehicles (200 or so) but only something like 6-10 tanks. Relating to the large number of troops able to be lifted, for how long can the troops be safely and comfortably embarked? If memory serves, the LHD's can have troops embarked for ~50 days. Given that the LHD displacement is about 50% greater, with similar listed capacities for a number of things, I suspect the LPH could not support ADF personnel embarked for that long. Plus the crew requirement is over 300, which is about 50% greater than one of the LHD's, and about twice that of Choules.

 

[oldsig127]

As to a follow on for Choules my money would be with Navantias "Galicia class"

Navantia do seem to be forming a great relationship with Australia in regards to Ships. LHD,LCM's,AOR and AWD's all offered by Navantia with Future frigates and LPD's in the running for further contracts.

You are aware of course that the Galicias and the Bay Class (Choules) are both derived from the same Spanish/Dutch design from the 1980s? The Rotterdam class is also a subclass of the same (Enforcer) design.

I'd have imagined that 40 years later a different ship would be filling the role, if only through incremental improvements in design

oldsig

 

[Alf662]

Lucky we have time on our side to decide what will be needed.
With the 2 Canberra class and Choules being in service i am sure operations and exercises in the near future will dictate the path forward. I would assume (3 x) AOR would be needed as Navy's fleet of ships will be growing in size(displacement) into the future.

As to a follow on for Choules my money would be with Navantias "Galicia class"

Navantia do seem to be forming a great relationship with Australia in regards to Ships. LHD,LCM's,AOR and AWD's all offered by Navantia with Future frigates and LPD's in the running for further contracts. The RAN is well an truly on its way in becoming a well rounded force

Buried in the DWP is the replacement of the LCM1E's and associated modifications to the LHD's.

I thought it was a bit odd that such new assets were being replaced. Having done some research it occurred to me that defence may be looking at some thing with a greater lift capacity and more landing flexibility.

Two options that sprang to mind were the LCAC and the much newer UHLAC, both of these would require the LHD's to be modified. The Dokdo class can also carry two LCAC. If I remember correctly the well deck on Choules is to small to accommodate them and it would seem logical to me that the LCM1E replacements are taken into account when Choules is replaced.

 

[vonnoobie]

The troop capacity might be less, but IIRC the Karel Doorman has ~twice the lane metres of a Bay-class LSD. So the question would be, are you looking to move troops, or vehicles/kit? One of the other big differences is the ability to transport & support six NH90 or similar sized medium lift helicopters. Plus of course all the fuel, cargo, potable water, etc. from the replenishment side of the vessel.

As for the Dokdo-class LPH... I do not know how good a fit that would be for the RAN. It has a personnel carriage capacity similar to the Canberra-class LHD, and can move a significant number of vehicles (200 or so) but only something like 6-10 tanks. Relating to the large number of troops able to be lifted, for how long can the troops be safely and comfortably embarked? If memory serves, the LHD's can have troops embarked for ~50 days. Given that the LHD displacement is about 50% greater, with similar listed capacities for a number of things, I suspect the LPH could not support ADF personnel embarked for that long. Plus the crew requirement is over 300, which is about 50% greater than one of the LHD's, and about twice that of Choules.

Good point's on the Karel Doorman - Bay class differences.. Time should tell us what we need.

As for the Dokdo, While appearing more crew heavy and listing few tank's carried I'm wondering if this is the actual crew number's needed and max amount of tank's it can handle or is it a particular way that they operate and there current force mix for operations on the ships? From memory has been mentioned that the USN do have crew heavy ship's due to the way they operate when for the same ship in another nations service would have less crew.. Could this apply to the Dokdo? Such as the KDX-II Destroyer's, Smaller then the Hobart's but with a crew size almost 50% larger.

 

[Todjaeger]

Buried in the DWP is the replacement of the LCM1E's and associated modifications to the LHD's.

I thought it was a bit odd that such new assets were being replaced. Having done some research it occurred to me that defence may be looking at some thing with a greater lift capacity and more landing flexibility.

Two options that sprang to mind were the LCAC and the much newer UHLAC, both of these would require the LHD's to be modified. The Dokdo class can also carry two LCAC. If I remember correctly the well deck on Choules is to small to accommodate them and it would seem logical to me that the LCM1E replacements are taken into account when Choules is replaced.

The well dock of a Bay-class LSD is sized to fit an LCU Mk 10, which has a beam of 7.7 m, or about half that of an LCAC, so I would expect an LCAC to not fit. The well dock of one of the LHD's is about 2 metres over what is required. IIRC though, within the well dock there are basically spacers, to permit landing craft to dock side by side. As I understand it, while the width of the dock is 16.8 m, the spacers mean that the entire width is not available in all areas.

 

[the road runner]

You are aware of course that the Galicias and the Bay Class (Choules) are both derived from the same Spanish/Dutch design from the 1980s? The Rotterdam class is also a subclass of the same (Enforcer) design.

I'd have imagined that 40 years later a different ship would be filling the role, if only through incremental improvements in design

oldsig

I was reading this document ,it has been posted a number of times before.

http://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf

The Spanish/Dutch ships(and Canberra class) are all part of the evolution of the "ATLAS" family of ships. I was assuming a follow on Atlas class of ships along the lines of the Galicia class may be what the RAN would be looking for ????...The above link states the Galacia class was designed in the early 90s and launched in 1998


Cheers

 

[vonnoobie]

The well dock of a Bay-class LSD is sized to fit an LCU Mk 10, which has a beam of 7.7 m, or about half that of an LCAC, so I would expect an LCAC to not fit. The well dock of one of the LHD's is about 2 metres over what is required. IIRC though, within the well dock there are basically spacers, to permit landing craft to dock side by side. As I understand it, while the width of the dock is 16.8 m, the spacers mean that the entire width is not available in all areas.

The actual spacer is actually the boarding/refueling point.

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/SHIP_LHD_Canberra_Class_Concept_Cutaway.jpg
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2013/05/10/1226639/650784-hmas-canberra.jpg

So you can't actually remove that what so ever, Not if you want to refuel your asset's and let the crew's board them without unflooding the well deck each time.

That leave's either a craft slightly more capable then the LCM-1E's or something like an LCU or a mix of both.

 

[Muar River]

I was reading this document ,it has been posted a number of times before.

http://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf

The Spanish/Dutch ships(and Canberra class) are all part of the evolution of the "ATLAS" family of ships. I was assuming a follow on Atlas class of ships along the lines of the Galicia class may be what the RAN would be looking for ????...The above link states the Galacia class was designed in the early 90s and launched in 1998


Cheers

Damen still offer the Rotterdam design and its slightly larger half sister, Having a hangar for six medium helicopters is a significant bonus.

 

[the road runner]

Damen still offer the Rotterdam design and its slightly larger half sister, Having a hangar for six medium helicopters is a significant bonus.

The Rotterdam class can only operate Medium sized helicopters from her deck.The Galicia class can operate heavy sized helicopters and even V/STOL aircraft. I guess it depends on what the RAN is looking for. With Army having CH-47 i would assume these helicopters would want to operate off any future LPD the RAN may purchase.

That is,if the RAN wants a future LPD.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Rotterdam class can only operate Medium sized helicopters from her deck.The Galicia class can operate heavy sized helicopters and even V/STOL aircraft. I guess it depends on what the RAN is looking for. With Army having CH-47 i would assume these helicopters would want to operate off any future LPD the RAN may purchase.

That is,if the RAN wants a future LPD.

Actually, I suspect that going forward, future amphibs and support vessels should be designed to permit at least the lily-padding of V-22 Osprey's, if not having the capability to hangar them. With operations alongside the USMC and USN, I can foresee a need to permit one of them landing.

If ASW and/or AEW versions end up getting developed, the importance of being able to land/operate from RAN vessels would be even greater.