Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
In my opinion i believe the LHD and AWD requirements should be merged into a single ship type. That way you would require fewer total ships and fewer crew. In any combat scenario both the LHD and AWD would stick together so the advantage of having more ships to be in more places at once doesn't really apply.
All that would be required for the LHD would be the AEGIS weapons system including long range missiles. The LHD could pretty much do everything with the only draw back being a slightly lower top speed.
These "super LHD's" would have a higher operating cost compared to a AWD, but thats really irrelevent. You would use the ANZAC frigates if you want cheap. If you need capabilities of the AWD then obviously tention is high and operational costs do not matter at all.
The LHD easily has the mass to mount the AEGIS system without affecting its primary role. 4 LHD ships with AEGIS would be able to do the job of 2 LHD's and 4 AWD's. Even though its two less ships you'd have so much extra space even the F-35B option would be very easy to implement. In fact with 4 LHD's we'd have so much spare space that wouldn't have enough helicopters to fill them. We could turn one entirely into a F-35B carrier.
It would provide the best High-Low mix.
Okay thats really interesting. 3 x LHDs. ! Would my suspicions be correct that with 3 x LHDs that the RAN will end up with more AWDs as a Escort? If the RAN are building these numbers of capital warships, then i would have to come to the conclusion that an additional Sealift Ship would be acquired to keep the the fleet sustained. Even with the 2 x LHDs. Cheers.
The RAN has a requirement for 12-15 escorts. The difference being based on what they can crew and after SeaChange ships are moving to three crews for every two so despite reduction in crew requirements thanks to automation the increase in escorts – as planned under ‘Plan Blue’ – haven’t eventuated. But the future might be different; the RAN could fix its personnel problems or fit more automation – that can push down the current 180 crew for an escort (including AWD) to about 110. As for what constitutes these ships well the F100 hull, either with or without Aegis, would appear to be the future for some time.
An increase in LHDs to three would not significantly change the RAN’s requirements for escorts. This would just make it possible to sustain a two LHD amphibious task group all the time. A third LHD would be available for some additional seatime, but not 365 days a year.
The role of a sealift ship is not to sustain the LHDs. There is a requirement for periodic deployment of vehicles and stuff, like to the MEAO for operations. This can actually be conducted by an LHD with reduced crewing. However this mission is only once every couple of years.
The current RAN replenishment ship program is coalescing around two large AORs to be delivered late next decade to replace Success and Sirius (only purchased for a AO life of 10-15 years). Because of the new strategic relationship with Navantia this is likely to be an evolved version of their new double hull AOR Cantabria.
An increase in LHDs to three would not significantly change the RAN’s requirements for escorts. This would just make it possible to sustain a two LHD amphibious task group all the time. A third LHD would be available for some additional seatime, but not 365 days a year.
The role of a sealift ship is not to sustain the LHDs. There is a requirement for periodic deployment of vehicles and stuff, like to the MEAO for operations. This can actually be conducted by an LHD with reduced crewing. However this mission is only once every couple of years.
The current RAN replenishment ship program is coalescing around two large AORs to be delivered late next decade to replace Success and Sirius (only purchased for a AO life of 10-15 years). Because of the new strategic relationship with Navantia this is likely to be an evolved version of their new double hull AOR Cantabria.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No, I recall ("off the top of my head") from one of the DCP's that Tobruk and one of the LPA's were to be replaced initially. I don't recall any specific order that these vessels will be paid off, in though.
I'd imagine that the command and control capabilities inherent in the LPA's would make it more likely that one of the LPA's would be retained as opposed to Tobruk, until the LHD's are operational though?
One of these ships seems likely to have to be paid off prior to the LHD hitting the water though due to our manning difficulities, which seem unlikely to be resolved in 6 years time...
The DCPs aren't gospal. The crew of Tobruk (LSH) and their supporters are putting a case to be last to decom because it is a cheaper and more reliable vessel to retain. Also that the crews of the LPAs can walk off and onto the new LHD whereas the LSH crew would need another 100 people. If the LSH is last to decom then there would be at least a LHD and a LPA in service alongside it during the transition.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I had thought HMAS Tobruk was a LSL? I think one of my Jane's guides had it so listed... :unknown
Anyway, took a look at the DMO Joint projects, http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/jp2048/jp2048ph4.cfm and it does list the Heavy Landing Ship HMAS Tobruk as being first in line for replacement, by an LHD, with an in service date of 2010-2012. The second LHD would replace a Kanimbla LPA from 2012-2014, and the remaining LPA would be replaced in the 2016-2018 with an unspecified "Sealift Capacity". Let this out, this link was last updated Dec 2005, so it is somewhat dated.
I had thought replacing the Tobruk with a Canberra-class LHD sound a little odd. The roles the LHD seem intended for seem more akin to what the LPA roles have been. Than and Kanimbla and Manoora are both about ten years older than Tobruk. If the crew of Tobruk are fighting to have that the last one decomissioned, I have to assume that there isn't any significant operational or support defect in it, which would be a major reason for such a relatively early replacement. The only other ones that come to mind is either the roles Tobruk fufils are expected to not be as important, or that there will be increased need for LHD/LPA type capabilities. Any one able to shed any light on this?
-Cheers
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I can see where this would be done. I don't think it is a good idea though, for a variety of reasons. These reasons are largely that such a combination of different mission roles, will impact each other and likely to a negative degree.
By combining and reducing the number of vessels in the RAN, the available "presence" of the RAN is reduced. There will be missions where there is no requirement for an AWD presence (troop transport for exercises, humanitarian missions, etc) and resources used granting the LHD the ability would be wasted. Similarly, there will be missions where an AWD is needed but a LHD isn't (like providing escort to other vessels or service in a coalition force) as such, the cost to give the properties of an LHD are then wasted. Not to mention that there will be times when the AWD and LHD wouldn't deploy together.
Keep in mind that often, a multi-role vessel isn't quite as capable at the various roles a specialized vessel would be. In some instances, this difference might be negligable (multi-role frigate vs. ASW frigate), but given the large difference between a LHD, with enlarged flight deck, docking wells, and large cargo/personnel capacity, and that of an AWD which would be less than a quarter the displacement and one can see a difference.
-Cheers
Interesting about a 3rd LHD. I had heard rumors a long time ago.. A 3rd LHD would completely justify atleast 1 squadron of F-35B's. The aircapabilities of the LHD if dedicated to the role are impressive.
A third LHD would mean a 5th AWD would make a strong argument operationally. But would certainly not be required (4 would be).
With three you could surge two(most of the time) and have one ready to releave one of the others on a rotational system.
I wouldn't be suprised if the Manoora is the first paid up. Tobruk would still be handy.
The ADF is turning out to be a extremely capable force. 3 x 27,000 ton ships, atleast 4 AWD's, possibly F-35B's. If this stuff all comes down the pipe Australia would be a extremely capable country.
A third LHD would mean a 5th AWD would make a strong argument operationally. But would certainly not be required (4 would be).
With three you could surge two(most of the time) and have one ready to releave one of the others on a rotational system.
I wouldn't be suprised if the Manoora is the first paid up. Tobruk would still be handy.
The ADF is turning out to be a extremely capable force. 3 x 27,000 ton ships, atleast 4 AWD's, possibly F-35B's. If this stuff all comes down the pipe Australia would be a extremely capable country.
Tobruck's design was based on the RFA Sir Bedivere class LSL (landing ship logistics) but the RAN has always classified it as LSH (landing ship heavy lift or landing ship heavy for short). The H for heavy was also used for 8 LCHs (landing craft heavy). This is a non NATO/USN standard classification term and the RAN now uses H for 'helicopter' (which is standard) rather than 'heavy' in its new construction. Hence FFH (fast frigate helicopter) for its Anzacs.
Jane's may well have classified it using the standard NATO classification in some of its classifications. Janes now classifies it as LSLH!
Tas
Firstly Navantia has been selected as preferred contractor for two separate ship designs: an Aegis equipped AWD and a LHD. Contract signing will happen within weeks and the Commonwealth of Australia is highly unlikely to change this at the last moment.
Secondly on the technical side it is not as easy to fit an Aegis to a new ship design as one would imagine. It takes two years to design a new Aegis waveguide arrangement which is why the AWD design contenders both used pre-existing array designs (F100 and DDG-51 Flight IIA). Aegis combat system weighs in at about 1,000-2,000 tonnes so isn’t exactly an optional add on. Plus it takes up considerable deck surface area for the VLS cells.
Thirdly on the operational side operating aircraft and firing missiles and high power radars does not mix. Whenever the ship is ready to fire missiles helicopters won’t be able to park on deck – this kind of defeats the purpose of having a H in LHD.
Finally the crew savings are marginal. All you save are the bridge and engine room crew. While of key importance to the RAN and critically short staffed this is only about 100 people per hull. You could achieve similar savings fitting the latest automation in bridge and engine-room watch-keeping and SOLAS fire suppression systems. The difference for an LHD of these savings is 80 per hull.
This is an extract from the public DCP 2006-16. Which is not a concrete plan, it’s just an indicative guide. For example with build strategy and preferred tenderer selection the detail is LHD1 will be handed over to the RAN in December 2012 and LHD2 in June 2014.
The roles of the two ship types are the same, their capabilities are different based on what they were designed for but that does not define their current role. Tobruk was built for a requirement that was actually an Army ship. But was poached by the Navy and because of cost cut backs was used to replace the Sydney, which was an LPH.
The requirement for the ADAS is to have two LHD ships at the centrepiece of an amphibious task group to deploy a 2,000 strong force. To have two ships on hand at anyone time requires three ships. Secondary roles will include sealift, disasters relief, etc.
Last edited:
They will be able to deploy more than 2,000 troops. More like 2,500-3,000 troops with 2x BPE's as each ship can carry 1,200 troops. With additional troops on other ships. If Australia gets 3 LHD's and a RoRo more likely the maxium total deployable troops + equipment would be 5,000 (war time). Australia would be able to effectively fully deploy its current forces at nearly full strength. Thats a huge inital landing, and we could then bring additional forces in very quickly. Australia could do this immediately, single handedly with out any support from powerful but far away and busy allies.
I don't think they should chew into the space of the LHD's with extensive missiles etc. Some sort of defence system, but the AWD are the protectors.
People see 27,000t and say "gawd thats huge". But Australia is trying to make that 27,000t work like a 40-50,000t american LHD. Which in tern is trying to do some of what a 100,000 t carrier is doing. To stick missiles and junk on it makes it way too hard. Leave it for the escorts. The escorts will make better use of it, covering more area being physically seperated (and more accurate).
Australia seems to be taking some huge strides in its capabilities, across the board. Makes you wonder, what particular threat is in mind.
I don't think they should chew into the space of the LHD's with extensive missiles etc. Some sort of defence system, but the AWD are the protectors.
People see 27,000t and say "gawd thats huge". But Australia is trying to make that 27,000t work like a 40-50,000t american LHD. Which in tern is trying to do some of what a 100,000 t carrier is doing. To stick missiles and junk on it makes it way too hard. Leave it for the escorts. The escorts will make better use of it, covering more area being physically seperated (and more accurate).
Australia seems to be taking some huge strides in its capabilities, across the board. Makes you wonder, what particular threat is in mind.
AGRA's post outlines the technical problems in your proposal.
Another problem I see is that the AWD will be a multi role combat ship in the RAN and it is likely that there will be many times when it will be required to operate independently of the LHDs. In these situations numbers of hulls are critical and having a limited number of 'all purpose' ships like your proposed AWLHD would be a disadvantage, IMO.
Tas
1,200 + 1,200 = 2,400, not 2,500-3,000. However not all bunks are created equal. The figure quoted is for the configuration of the Juan Carlos I class, not the Canberra class derived from it. The Australian LHD will have a larger command and control centre and hospital and different accommodation standards – to meet our requirement, which is 1,000 passengers per ship.
Well that’s not the plan either. The sealift ship (which is not a Ro/Ro) is in place of the third LHD not in addition. Plus how is a sealift ship going to carry 1,400 people. Unless we take up from trade “Fairstar the Funship” (and who would be so cruel as to put the Army through a deployment on her!) we can’t lift that many. Besides you then just have a lot of people crammed into bunks – where comes their ammunition, vehicles, etc.
Finally by having three ships we can sustain two. Even in wartime ships need maintenance and can’t all be in one place at one time.
The objective amphibious force for the Navy is three Canberra LHDs and six HSV-type vessels (to replace the LCH), supported by an Army ship to shore capability (helicopters and landing craft).
No we’re not. The concept is very different. We will operate two Canberra LHDs together to land and sustain over a beach a battlegroup sized force. The US Navy will operate an Expeditionary Strike Group centred on an LHD/LHA, LSD and LPD to carry out an amphibious assault of a battlegroup sized force.
You shouldn’t wonder – just read about it:
Defence Update 2007: the latest strategic outlook paper
http://www.defence.gov.au/ans/2007/default.htm
FJOC – The Future Joint Operating Concept: The CDF’s vision of the future threat and our response
http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/FJOC.pdf
Yes it is, however the up beat growth in capability isnt due to present threat, but due to contingencies that MAY occur in this region sometime in the future. Besides that i am of the opinion that Australia has become a world power for this region and will have a big role to play with other Asian countries forming a bigger defence alliance with such countries like Japan and others in the future. This will in many cases free up US assets for other areas of the world that require "presence". If not add to the build up of assets in the pacific and south china sea. It will also add a considerable deterant aspect to the region as well.
Yes i agree with that Tassie, however the AWDs do need to have an interoperability with all aspects of naval assignments whether thats escort, sole operations, Littorial back up, anti sub, anti surface etc. The AWD is in many ways "general purpose" but its main role will always be AAW in protection of the fleet. Not only would the so called proposed AWLHD be a disadvantage but it would be disastrous to the RAN.
AGRA has responded pretty well to this but thers is one added complication your proposal completely ignores. When in the amphibious support role the vesel will be 'close in' and tied to the shore by the need to support the landing of troops and equipment. The detracts from the air defence role and the need for the AWD to be mobile to get up threat or to clear blind spots casued by land masses by being able to move offshore and patrol. It also means a ship, which would be the main body of a formation, will also need ot conduct its own local ASW operations whihc is less than desirable.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #538
well i hope the "Son of Collins"(royalty to AGRA) is up to task if Indonesia gets its way and buy 12 subs.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/indonesia-considers-buying-up-to-12-submarines-01819/
A 3rd would increase the capabilities, and if the Govt. had of gone for the Mistral then this would have been demanded, not requested.
The question is, if the 3rd had of been ordered already, would the work have been made here in Aus. to build at least 2 of the 3 instead of the fitouts?
The possibility of a 3rd would have everyone looking at the word "carrier" (hey, we started already) so even talk of this is premature until the F-35B is flying, then the rumours can get kicked started. So we have 2 paths to along, either a 3rd LHD for the Amphib Assault force, or a Overwatch Carrier to provide support, which would require 2-3 ships in the same Area, and put a hole in the 2 at sea, 1 in dock plan. Do we want to go as far as Fantasy and say 4 if ones a Carrier?
Also with The Ro-ro, would we be looking at something like the USN TAK-E or something a little smaller?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/indonesia-considers-buying-up-to-12-submarines-01819/
A 3rd would increase the capabilities, and if the Govt. had of gone for the Mistral then this would have been demanded, not requested.
The question is, if the 3rd had of been ordered already, would the work have been made here in Aus. to build at least 2 of the 3 instead of the fitouts?
The possibility of a 3rd would have everyone looking at the word "carrier" (hey, we started already) so even talk of this is premature until the F-35B is flying, then the rumours can get kicked started. So we have 2 paths to along, either a 3rd LHD for the Amphib Assault force, or a Overwatch Carrier to provide support, which would require 2-3 ships in the same Area, and put a hole in the 2 at sea, 1 in dock plan. Do we want to go as far as Fantasy and say 4 if ones a Carrier?
Also with The Ro-ro, would we be looking at something like the USN TAK-E or something a little smaller?
Indonesia’s 12 submarines can be chalked up to the same category as Iran’s 250 Su-30MKMs and China’s Tu-22Ms… Wishful thinking. Plus the Indonesian navy is well below the RAN in terms of acquiring, operating and sustaining first class defence equipment. I don’t think we have anything to worry about here.
Two Mistrals were up to scratch to deliver the ADAS capability. Two Juan Carlos I’s are better but not by a huge margin (10-20%), which just provides a little bit added flexibility.
The reason we aren’t building the hulls in Australia is because we don’t have the industrial capacity. We don’t have the shipyard facilities sized for it and we don’t have the workers (as they will be busy on AWD). Ordering three LHDs from the get go would make no difference. The RAN also has a requirement for two >20,000 tonne AORs before 2020 that were considered with the LHDs in the design study (JP2048/2). So in effect we have a requirement to build and handover five large sips (>10,000 tonnes) next decade. If the entire fleet rejuvenation plan had been planned from the beginning – back in the 80s when we started serious post war naval shipbuilding in Australia (Collins, ANZAC) – then perhaps we could have built the large hulls here.
People need to understand that this is an operational fleet not a collection. If you have two LHDs then that doesn’t mean you will have two available at all times. Likewise for three. The requirement is for two LHDs to provide ADAS for a 1,200 strong battlegroup and 800 strong support group and all their gear and consumables. Therefore to ensure that two LHDs are available at all times one needs three ships.The possibility of a 3rd would have everyone looking at the word "carrier" (hey, we started already) so even talk of this is premature until the F-35B is flying, then the rumours can get kicked started. So we have 2 paths to along, either a 3rd LHD for the Amphib Assault force, or a Overwatch Carrier to provide support, which would require 2-3 ships in the same Area, and put a hole in the 2 at sea, 1 in dock plan. Do we want to go as far as Fantasy and say 4 if ones a Carrier?
ADAS is not an amphibious assault force it’s an amphibious deployment force – if we want the assault capability we need a lot more weapons of which a carrier is one.
However three LHDs provides sustainment of two at the ready for amphibious duties and periodically a third for sealift to support long term deployments and carrier like duties from time to time to deploy RAAF air power (if they acquire the F-35B).
Since 99% of all feasible medium and high intensity warfighting now and in the future will happen in coalition and alliance with other nations providing a periodic carrier capability is an acceptable practise. For example if we had this capability now the government could decide to deploy a strike fighter squadron to support the troops in Iraq and do so without needing to negotiate a land base with the Gulf States or a risky inside Iraq base.
There is no Ro-Ro! It was just mentioned as the type of potential ship to fill the JP2048/4C gap. The most likely solution, assuming 4C is not brought up to a full LHD would be something like the HMNZS Canterbury, a purpose built militarised ferry. Other potential solutions are 2-3 >100m long fast catamarans. And a Ro-Ro, which case the Sirius model would be followed with a $100m boat brought of the stocks in Korea or Japan and modified in Australia for another $100m.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
So you think we're being premature by discussing the F35b's capability or the RAAF purchasing some because the production model hasnt flown yet? What you think there might be some drastic reason why it wont, especially given the organisations relying on the platform (USMC, RAN, Armada, Italian Navy)? Were we being premature discussing the F35A before last year because AA1 hadnt flown yet????well i hope the "Son of Collins"(royalty to AGRA) is up to task if Indonesia gets its way and buy 12 subs.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/indonesia-considers-buying-up-to-12-submarines-01819/
A 3rd would increase the capabilities, and if the Govt. had of gone for the Mistral then this would have been demanded, not requested.
The question is, if the 3rd had of been ordered already, would the work have been made here in Aus. to build at least 2 of the 3 instead of the fitouts?
The possibility of a 3rd would have everyone looking at the word "carrier" (hey, we started already) so even talk of this is premature until the F-35B is flying, then the rumours can get kicked started. So we have 2 paths to along, either a 3rd LHD for the Amphib Assault force, or a Overwatch Carrier to provide support, which would require 2-3 ships in the same Area, and put a hole in the 2 at sea, 1 in dock plan. Do we want to go as far as Fantasy and say 4 if ones a Carrier?
Also with The Ro-ro, would we be looking at something like the USN TAK-E or something a little smaller?
And the 3rd vessel doesnt need to be a dedicated "carrier", the Canberras are more than capable as operating as a CVL without any major modifications. IF the threat required it, you could use all 3 in a surge operation with one operating as a CVL, with 12 F35b's, AEW MRH 90's, Seahawks ect. You could also use 3 in a surge operation with all 3 operating as LHD's If the need required it.
Just because in normal operations you can have 2 LHD's out and one in maintinance doesnt mean you cant launch all 3 in a surge operation. You wont be able to maintain a force of three for an extended period on time. However if your looking at a falklands type scenario you could use all 3 for the initial operation (the warfighting bit) and as soon as a rough airstrip is is completed you could disembark the air wing and personell and send the late one home for touch ups. But then again even talking of such a thing is pure fantasy huh?
- Status