Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

I have noticed that the Adelaide Advertiser is still talking about the 4th AWD as a 'done deal' in its report about Labor's submarine plans.



http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22272130-5006301,00.html

It's not a done deal by any means. They're hoping to force an agenda by pre-empting their own preferred position.

A done deal will need a bit more work yet - and I suspect that it will be milestone triggered. The one thing in their favour is that ASC have gone up in resale value due to AWD and "C-Mk2" - any further orders increases the sale value. And thats not any clearer either, although Agra might have some more attuned scuttlebut.

 

[AGRA]

Yes, my sentiments entirely.

My apologies Markus if I appeared to jump on you harshly with my last response you seem to have some good ideas and want to make some good contributions. But please try and look a bit more closely at what is REALLY going on in Australia’s defence capability. The last thing we need is more and more fantasies being thrown around in the community that are completely baseless. Plus if we focus on the reality of the situation then we can make realistic and actually implemented improvements. Everyone plays a role in making this happen…

 

[StingrayOZ]

Indeed, the 2025 time was the only one I have seen until recently.

This still might allow time for a 5th AWD to be constructed.

5 AWD will allow a surge of 3 most of the time, with 2 being avalible all of the time. I do think 5 is unlikely. 4 is entirely possible. 3 is definate. The 5th would be so far off it would be hard to predict accurately.

5 destroyers and ASC would be a valuable little company indeed. Hopefully the yanks or the brits buy it and operate it as expected. By 2025 Canada would be looking at new subs too, hopefully the come aboard this time.

3 AWD would allow room for things like cruise missiles, anti ICBM stuff etc.

Tomahawk on the collins is unlikely to happen. Theres no real room that we would want to dedicate to Tomahawk that we don't already use for something more valuable. We do have harpoon capability I belive, which could be used to simular effect abit with restrictions.

Son of collins I think should definately be designed with such capability in mind.

 

[KiwiRob]

I think its quite pausible that a 5th AWD could be in store and in light of the RNZN in the hunt for a Meko design frigate to add to the two we have, could be a replacement AWD for one of the RANs ANZACs. Cheers.

Are we really in the hunt for a new frigate, I have a friend who is a commander in the RNZN he has said we would like another one but aren't looking, besides which we don't have the crew, when all the protector boats come online the navy will need a lot more manpower. Another frigate is going to make this shortage worse.

 

[Markus40]

AGRO, did you read my post to you some time ago. Obviously not. The RAN did win a contract for the Combat Control System (CCS) Mk 2 weapons control systems for the Australian Navy's Collins-class diesel submarines; an integrated test and training facility; and land-based development systems. This award represents Raytheon's work share of the HMAS Collins Replacement Combat System and represents the first deployment of Raytheon's proven submarine combat control system on an
international submarine platform.

CCS Mk 2 is the U.S. Navy's combat control system, recently designated the baseline system for the entire U.S. submarine force. CCS Mk 2 integrates
sensors, combat control, and weapons launch capabilities for submarine
payloads, including Tomahawk, Tactical Tomahawk, and Harpoon missiles, as well as Mk 48 Advanced Capability torpedoes.

Mod edit: Gentleman, let's play nice shall we?

Dear god! No there’re not! Where are the two Tomahawk mission-planing consoles? Sea 1439/4A replaced the combat system with the US Navy’s AN/BYG-1(V)8 which is the same combat system as the Virginia SSNs. But by combat system they mean operating system, the tactical command and control system, not the exact same fit out as on a Virginia, it’s just the computer boxes and software that manage the ship’s mission systems.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1439/images/RCS_MS_Physical_Architecture.JPG
Don’t see any Tomahawk here do you?

While its feasible the Collins could be upgraded to fire Tomahawks there would be a lot of work needed – modifications to the ship, training in Tomahawk operation, plus the actual missile acquisition and facilities to store and manage them ashore. Then you would need to work Tomahawk into the entire ADF structure – how would we use them.

Collins class life of hull will need replacement from 2020-25ish. In order to build submarines for this deadline serious work needs to start in the next five years.

People can sprout their fanboy opinion about this and that as much as they want but Defence actually has a timeframe, a strategy and so on. Its not secret you can find it out and download it from the net (try the CDE red book and blue book as a good start). If you want to make sense and some kind of contribution try and frame your opinions in terms of what is actually going on.

 

[Markus40]

GALRAHN made a legitimate comment and one that i think has merit for a response. There is totally no need for a review of the Subs replacement till way later in the next decade. From what i know they are due for replacement in 2025. I think its shear fantasy to start "tagging" weapons that are not due for replacement so far in advance. No doubt the government will be thinking about the ongoing work at Adelaide and some options on building designs now, including the submarine threat that seems to be adding in numbers in the Asia region, however the Collins are the best in the world and there is simply no logic to the claim that they need to be replaced at this point, unless of course the government wants to look at a Nuclear option, which is highly unlikely in this political environment.

My apologies Markus if I appeared to jump on you harshly with my last response you seem to have some good ideas and want to make some good contributions. But please try and look a bit more closely at what is REALLY going on in Australia’s defence capability. The last thing we need is more and more fantasies being thrown around in the community that are completely baseless. Plus if we focus on the reality of the situation then we can make realistic and actually implemented improvements. Everyone plays a role in making this happen…

 

[Markus40]

I think its quite plausable that as time goes on that 5 AWDs with advancing technology could be in place in the RAN. Not saying they would be but there are "signs" that as New Zealand is in the hunt for a third ANZAC there could be a 5th in place.

Also just commenting earlier that the SSKs are or do have the Technology to implement the Tomahawk.

This is a cut and paste from a article off the web. "The RAN did win a contract for the Combat Control System (CCS) Mk 2 weapons control systems for the Australian Navy's Collins-class diesel submarines; an integrated test and training facility; and land-based development systems. This award represents Raytheon's work share of the HMAS Collins Replacement Combat System and represents the first deployment of Raytheon's proven submarine combat control system on an
international submarine platform."

"CCS Mk 2 is the U.S. Navy's combat control system, recently designated the baseline system for the entire U.S. submarine force. CCS Mk 2 integrates
sensors, combat control, and weapons launch capabilities for submarine
payloads, including Tomahawk, Tactical Tomahawk, and Harpoon missiles, as well as Mk 48 Advanced Capability torpedoes." Cheers.

Indeed, the 2025 time was the only one I have seen until recently.

This still might allow time for a 5th AWD to be constructed.

5 AWD will allow a surge of 3 most of the time, with 2 being avalible all of the time. I do think 5 is unlikely. 4 is entirely possible. 3 is definate. The 5th would be so far off it would be hard to predict accurately.

5 destroyers and ASC would be a valuable little company indeed. Hopefully the yanks or the brits buy it and operate it as expected. By 2025 Canada would be looking at new subs too, hopefully the come aboard this time.

3 AWD would allow room for things like cruise missiles, anti ICBM stuff etc.

Tomahawk on the collins is unlikely to happen. Theres no real room that we would want to dedicate to Tomahawk that we don't already use for something more valuable. We do have harpoon capability I belive, which could be used to simular effect abit with restrictions.

Son of collins I think should definately be designed with such capability in mind.

 

[AGRA]

Now please instead of opening your mouth and embarrassing yourself, open your mouth and take your pills instead. !

Well thankyou for 'proving' with your cut and paste from some online document that the Combat System Replacement project is installing Tomahawk capability onto the Collins class (which the doco doesnt actuall say). I’ve forwarded a copy of your message to the project director, I’m sure he will be very interested to find this out.

To think Defence went and accepted the first boat – even had the Prime Minister there for it – and everyone except Markus40 has forgotten to install that Tomahawk capability.

Man GF I can’t believe I’m wasting my time here… I don’t know how you do it!

Mod edit: Gentleman, let's play nice shall we?

 

[AGRA]

Indeed, the 2025 time was the only one I have seen until recently. This still might allow time for a 5th AWD to be constructed.

First ‘Son of Collins’ (isn’t that my name GF – should I apply for a royalty to S5k if everyone is using it?) objective handover in 2025 does not mean ASC has to get out of the AWD or other destroyer/frigate building business. The submarines and AWD both use different elements of their yard space. Also the ability to share workforce between the two is perhaps overstated. ASC have lots of people working for them anyway on submarine sustainment at both Adelaide and Perth who won’t be working on the AWDs.

Also the planned rate of AWD production is one per year after the prototype. Without slowing down work tempo ASC could produce a 4th AWD (2018), 5th (2019), 6th (2020), 7th (2021), 8th (2022) and so on…

There is provision within the IP agreement with Spain to build F100 hulls for the RAN in modified versions, including without Aegis. Combine an F100 vessel with the ‘All-Australian’ combat system being installed on the ANZACS (CEA FAR and Saab 9LV Mk 4) or it’s next generation and you would have a very efficient ANZAC replacement. This AWD(-) would have a lot more space and weight margins for littoral warfare systems like the German F125 ship. We could call it the LWD [Littoral Warfare Destroyer].

 

[alexsa]

First ‘Son of Collins’ (isn’t that my name GF – should I apply for a royalty to S5k if everyone is using it?) objective handover in 2025 does not mean ASC has to get out of the AWD or other destroyer/frigate building business. The submarines and AWD both use different elements of their yard space. Also the ability to share workforce between the two is perhaps overstated. ASC have lots of people working for them anyway on submarine sustainment at both Adelaide and Perth who won’t be working on the AWDs.

Also the planned rate of AWD production is one per year after the prototype. Without slowing down work tempo ASC could produce a 4th AWD (2018), 5th (2019), 6th (2020), 7th (2021), 8th (2022) and so on…

There is provision within the IP agreement with Spain to build F100 hulls for the RAN in modified versions, including without Aegis. Combine an F100 vessel with the ‘All-Australian’ combat system being installed on the ANZACS (CEA FAR and Saab 9LV Mk 4) or it’s next generation and you would have a very efficient ANZAC replacement. This AWD(-) would have a lot more space and weight margins for littoral warfare systems like the German F125 ship. We could call it the LWD [Littoral Warfare Destroyer].

Couldn't agree more the follow on ANZAC does occasionally get forgotten. The major plus for the RAN is it seems the ALP will be very forward in giving work to SA due to the political implications. Anybody that cuts projects will really being putting their head in the political noose as this is a major source of work and investment for the state. This being said there is scope to cut cost throught fitted for but not with.... again.

 

[Markus40]

Yes i dont know what your problem is but if you are interested in pursueing the article i have cut and pasted it for you. The reason i have cut and pasted the article is because the URL wont work on this site for some reason. The article comes from the Raytheon web site.

Raytheon Awarded $32.4 Million Weapons Control Systems Contract For Australian Submarines

TEWKSBURY, Mass., July 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company has
been awarded a $32.4 million U.S. Navy Foreign Military Sales contract from the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).

Under the contract, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems will develop five Combat Control System (CCS) Mk 2 weapons control systems for the Australian Navy's Collins-class diesel submarines; an integrated test and training facility; and land-based development systems. This award represents Raytheon's work share of the HMAS Collins Replacement Combat System and represents the first deployment of Raytheon's proven submarine combat control system on an international submarine platform.

"CCS Mk 2 will provide the Royal Australian Navy with a combat-proven
system that continues to deliver the capability, reliability and affordability that our Customers demand. We look forward to expanding our partnership with the U.S. Navy in support of the RAN modernization of its submarine force," said Dan Smith, vice president of Integrated Defense Systems. "IDS continues to apply our partnership, technology, disciplined program management, and
talented people to provide our Customers around the world with innovative end- to-end solutions that support warfighters mission success."

Engineering development, test, integration, and production of systems
software and hardware for Collins CCS Mk 2 will be performed at Raytheon's Portsmouth, R.I., facility. Under a separate direct contract, presently under negotiation with the Commonwealth of Australia, Raytheon Australia will design, develop and produce hardware and software to support the installation and systems integration of CCS Mk 2 onboard Collins-class submarines.

Raytheon's One Company systems solution approach will leverage the people, systems, facilities, infrastructure, processes and domain knowledge of the IDS-Raytheon Australia team to provide the RAN with a truly capable submarine combat system and Customer-focused life cycle support. CCS Mk 2 is the U.S. Navy's combat control system, recently designated the baseline system for the entire U.S. submarine force. CCS Mk 2 integrates sensors, combat control, and weapons launch capabilities for submarine payloads, including Tomahawk, Tactical Tomahawk, and Harpoon missiles, as well
as Mk 48 Advanced Capability torpedoes. CCS Mk 2 was the combat system that enabled successful land attacks from U.S. submarine-launched Tomahawk missile strikes during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Based in Tewksbury, Mass., Integrated Defense Systems is Raytheon's leader in mission systems integration. With a strong international and domestic Customer base, including the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the U.S. Armed Forces, Integrated Defense Systems provides integrated air and missile defense and naval and maritime warfighting solutions.

Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN), with 2002 sales of $16.8 billion, is an
industry leader in defense, government and commercial electronics, space, information technology, technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With headquarters in Lexington, Mass., Raytheon employs more than 76,000 people worldwide.



Its a article put out by Raytheon and i dont think they would make things up would they? This is my source and i stick by it. My argument is to say that the Collins SSK have the Technology for launching the Tomahawk and i have backed this up with this article. Your out burst doesnt hold up im sorry and im sticking with the facts based on this article. The subs are fitted for but not with the Tomahawk. Thank you.

Ahh so sorry, my apologies for apologising for being harsh before – I didn’t quite realise how nuts you were.

Well thankyou for 'proving' with your cut and paste from some online document that the Combat System Replacement project is installing Tomahawk capability onto the Collins class (which the doco doesnt actuall say). I’ve forwarded a copy of your message to the project director, I’m sure he will be very interested to find this out.

To think Defence went and accepted the first boat – even had the Prime Minister there for it – and everyone except Markus40 has forgotten to install that Tomahawk capability.

Man GF I can’t believe I’m wasting my time here… I don’t know how you do it!

 

[AGRA]

Its a article put out by Raytheon and i dont think they would make things up would they? This is my source and i stick by it. My argument is to say that the Collins SSK have the Technology for launching the Tomahawk and i have backed this up with this article. Your out burst doesnt hold up im sorry and im sticking with the facts based on this article. The subs are fitted for but not with the Tomahawk. Thank you.

I know people have their opinions and like to keep them no matter how wrong. But heah whatever floats your boat. There are people out there who think aliens flew to earth in DC-8s and had their minds trapped in volcanos that were nuked, Tom Cruise for one... So if you want to persist in believing that Collins are 'fitted for not with' Tomahawk then go for it.

For everyone else reading - this is complete nonsense. Sure just about any modern combat system could integrate Tomahawk or any other weapon - SUBROC for instance (is Collins fitted for not with SUBROC Markus40?) into a ship or submarines weapon system and the US Navy use the same baseline combat system as our new one for Collins to do so.

But there are other items needed - the things that the combat system 'integrates' - like a weapon management system and so on. Without that you have no capability.

To assume from a statement that says we sold some BYG-1s and the US Navy uses BYG-1 to do this, this and this that this means the new customer of said BYG-1 is also doing everything the US Navy does is just frankly gullible.

To integrate Tomahawk would take more. But heah what do I know… Its not as if I’ve stood there beside HMAS Waller and asked this very same question of the project manager now…

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mod hat on here.

Gentleman, let's continue this discussion in a congenial manner shall we?

If you can't argue successfully and have to resort to Ad Hominem attacks Markus, I really wonder why you are here?

AGRA, I have no doubt you can prove your points. Can we leave it at that?

Cheers

AD

 

[alexsa]

(try the CDE red book and blue book as a good start).

Have you got a working link for these. I am probably not holding my tounge the right way when I am using the search function.

 

[AGRA]

There are actually three key Defence capability development books now:

The Gold Book: “Strategy Planning Framework Handbook” explains Defence’s process for formulating strategic guidance (ie what will the security future be like) and planning for operations and capability development.
http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/SPFH2006.pdf

The Blue Book: “Defence Capability Development Manual” outlines the main steps and features for developing investment proposals (including options) for new Defence capabilities.
http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/_home/_pubs/dcdm.pdf

The Red Book: “Defence Capability Plan” details capability needs for the next 10 years. Public versions including only projects approved for consideration by government are published every two years. Current public version is DCP 2006-16.
http://www.defence.gov.au/Capability/docs/Public_DCP_2006-16.pdf

 

[Todjaeger]

Given the recent discussions in the RAAF thread about F-35A and -B aircraft, and what would be needed in terms of LHDs to operate F-35Bs away from Australia I found myself with some questions.

At present there are the two Canberra-class LHD's on order from Tenix & Navantia. These will replace HMAS Tobruk, and either HMAS Kanimbla or Manoora (sorry, can't remember which of the two scheduled first for replacement). These are expected to enter service with the RAN between 2012-2014. A third amphibious warfare vessel is also expected to be ordered, to then replace the remaining Kanimbla-class LPA in service, I believe in the 2015-2018 timeframe. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get any information on what that replacement vessel is expected to be.

I've read various things like a possible dedicated HSV for rapid troop life, like HMAS Jervis Bay or the Westpac Express. Another thing I've come across would be a new heavy lift ship to fufil the role HMAS Tobruk has.

One thing I've thought, given the usual RAN maintenance and training schedules, is that a third Canberra-class LHD should be ordered. This would allow one to be in dock for maintenance, one to deploy for training ops and a third always available to deploy operationally.

What I'm wondering is if anyone had any insight into what mission role the third amphibious warfare vessel is expected to have, and whether having a third LHD would fulfill that adequately.

A plus of having a third LHD IMV would be that it could allow for a surge deployment of all three LHDs. This would likely then allow two to operate as amphibious ships, with third acting as a CVL, if F-35Bs are ever purchased.

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

A Third LHD sounds great but do you think having 3 of them is not going to stretch the RAN resources to the limit? I think that having the 4 x AWDs and the 2 x LHDs is going to keep the recruiting office very active on marketing for recruitment. I was under the impression that the 2 x LHDs was replacing the Tobruk, Kanimbla and Manoora. I could be wrong. Cheers.

Given the recent discussions in the RAAF thread about F-35A and -B aircraft, and what would be needed in terms of LHDs to operate F-35Bs away from Australia I found myself with some questions.

At present there are the two Canberra-class LHD's on order from Tenix & Navantia. These will replace HMAS Tobruk, and either HMAS Kanimbla or Manoora (sorry, can't remember which of the two scheduled first for replacement). These are expected to enter service with the RAN between 2012-2014. A third amphibious warfare vessel is also expected to be ordered, to then replace the remaining Kanimbla-class LPA in service, I believe in the 2015-2018 timeframe. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get any information on what that replacement vessel is expected to be.

I've read various things like a possible dedicated HSV for rapid troop life, like HMAS Jervis Bay or the Westpac Express. Another thing I've come across would be a new heavy lift ship to fufil the role HMAS Tobruk has.

One thing I've thought, given the usual RAN maintenance and training schedules, is that a third Canberra-class LHD should be ordered. This would allow one to be in dock for maintenance, one to deploy for training ops and a third always available to deploy operationally.

What I'm wondering is if anyone had any insight into what mission role the third amphibious warfare vessel is expected to have, and whether having a third LHD would fulfill that adequately.

A plus of having a third LHD IMV would be that it could allow for a surge deployment of all three LHDs. This would likely then allow two to operate as amphibious ships, with third acting as a CVL, if F-35Bs are ever purchased.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

A Third LHD sounds great but do you think having 3 of them is not going to stretch the RAN resources to the limit? I think that having the 4 x AWDs and the 2 x LHDs is going to keep the recruiting office very active on marketing for recruitment. I was under the impression that the 2 x LHDs was replacing the Tobruk, Kanimbla and Manoora. I could be wrong. Cheers.

Nope the 2x LHD's are replacing HMAS Tobruk and either Manoora or Kanimbla, (I don't think it's been announced yet which one will go first). The 2nd LPA is to be replaced by a fast "sea lift" ship, whatever that may be exactly, according to the DCP.

It may be a case that a 3rd LHD is simply ordered instead but no such announcements have yet been made.

Cheers

AD

 

[Tasman]

Given the recent discussions in the RAAF thread about F-35A and -B aircraft, and what would be needed in terms of LHDs to operate F-35Bs away from Australia I found myself with some questions.

At present there are the two Canberra-class LHD's on order from Tenix & Navantia. These will replace HMAS Tobruk, and either HMAS Kanimbla or Manoora (sorry, can't remember which of the two scheduled first for replacement). These are expected to enter service with the RAN between 2012-2014. A third amphibious warfare vessel is also expected to be ordered, to then replace the remaining Kanimbla-class LPA in service, I believe in the 2015-2018 timeframe. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get any information on what that replacement vessel is expected to be.

I've read various things like a possible dedicated HSV for rapid troop life, like HMAS Jervis Bay or the Westpac Express. Another thing I've come across would be a new heavy lift ship to fufil the role HMAS Tobruk has.

One thing I've thought, given the usual RAN maintenance and training schedules, is that a third Canberra-class LHD should be ordered. This would allow one to be in dock for maintenance, one to deploy for training ops and a third always available to deploy operationally.

What I'm wondering is if anyone had any insight into what mission role the third amphibious warfare vessel is expected to have, and whether having a third LHD would fulfill that adequately.

A plus of having a third LHD IMV would be that it could allow for a surge deployment of all three LHDs. This would likely then allow two to operate as amphibious ships, with third acting as a CVL, if F-35Bs are ever purchased.

-Cheers

As you are aware, there has been a very detailed discussion about this in the RAAF thread centred on the acquisition and deployment of RAAF F-35Bs from the LHDs. Without repeating everything from that thread it is clear that a third LHD would enable the force to be deployed exactly as you have suggested (two in the amphibious role and the third in an aviation support role with a complement of F-35Bs and helos (e.g. Seahawk and/or Seasprite, Tiger ARH, and perhaps an AEW version of the MRH-90).

There has been considerable debate (a fairly hot one at times!) in that thread about the feasibility of operating F-35Bs from the LHDs if there are just two of them. Strong arguments have been put either way and to me the 'jury is still out'. I expect that the RAN will model various combinations of helos, vehicles, troop numbers, etc, and I imagine that they will at least look at the F-35B (there is plenty of time before it would need to be ordered for the fourth Lightning squadron). One thing where practically everyone who has been involved in the debate seems to be in agreement is that the RAAF rather than the navy should operate F-35Bs from the LHDs.

Funding in the DCP for the third replacement ship for the amphibious force is limited at present to a 'sealift' ship. The type has not been specified but my impression is that a commercial type vessel to carry heavy cargo is what is envisaged.

In my opinion the additional cost of a third LHD, instead of the sealift ship, would be more than justified because of the huge increase in flexibility that it would provide.

Tas

 

[AGRA]

A third amphibious warfare vessel is also expected to be ordered, to then replace the remaining Kanimbla-class LPA in service, I believe in the 2015-2018 timeframe. Unfortunately I haven't been able to get any information on what that replacement vessel is expected to be.

Its called JP 2048 Phase 4C.

Phase 4A is to be HMAS Canberra, Phase 4B HMAS Adelaide and Phase 4C… Well the way things work is defence is given a pot of X amount of $$ in future years by treasury as future budget estimates. Defence then divides this money up amongst its most important projects.

This is not actually real money or committed money or means the projects will happen but it’s a means of working out based on estimating what is going to happen. A public version of this is published so industry can make forward plans on how to build these needs and the public (like this webpage) can discuss what’s valid and what not – also those in Defence outside of the capability development process can have some insight.

However what’s in the DCP tends not to be exactly what happens as it is a compromised forward vision and based purely on estimates.

Now what happened in JP 2048 Phase 4 is Defence identified the need for three new amphibious ships to replace the current three. Three was required to provide two on hand at anyone time, as ships need to be refitted to stay seaworthy and can therefore be in docks for many months, even over a year, at a time. Having two ships as the centre piece of your amphibious task force (ADAS: Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment system) is a good idea as it gives you more redundancy than one. Also the landing and support force requirement was quite large (2,000 men) and the ships needed, even two, likely to be rather big (27,000 tonnes as it turned out).

Now go back to the budget estimate. Defence only had about $2.5 billion for Phase 4. Which based on the requirement and then estimates was not enough for three of the type of ship needed. So based on the estimate the spare change from two LHDs was used to create the ‘sealift capability’.

This is not necessarily a converted RO/RO ship or any other type of ship. It’s a second tier amphibious support ship. Fortunately defence funding has caught up to need and when JP 2048 Phase 4C goes to Government first pass decision should end up as LHD No. 3.

Under JP 2048 Phase 3 is the replacement for the LCHs which is being defined right now and could include the kind of shorter range high speed catamaran type ships.

PS don’t assume Tobruk will be first to pay off. This depends on the life of the hull and Tobruk is actually younger than the two LPAs…