Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tasman]

Totally wrong. Having hung around on the Alvao de Bazan itself the problem with widening the hangar is the torpedo magazines on each beam. Magazines are not just normal ship's compartments but heavily armoured spaces. Removing this magazines is a significant redesign effort. Having spoken to the AWD program manager about this he said it was too big a redesign.

That confirms what I have heard and read. I think the best the RAN can hope for is the capacity to operate a helicopter and a VTUAV like Fire Scout. I also think that the RAN will be able to use the aviation capability of the LHD's to get extra naval helicopters to sea when required.

Tas

 

[AGRA]

That confirms what I have heard and read. I think the best the RAN can hope for is the capacity to operate a helicopter and a VTUAV like Fire Scout. I also think that the RAN will be able to use the aviation capability of the LHD's to get extra naval helicopters to sea when required.

Mark Miles 77 has posted online before a low resolution deck plan for the F-100 class. If he is around and could post the link again I think it might help this discussion. It clearly shows the torpedo magazines encroaching into any space a second hangar could go. It also shows the large to starboard of the hangar hallway that can be used for hangar growth space (with some rearrangement). This space is not enough for another helo but plenty for at least two Fire Scouts.

 

[Tasman]

LHD Contract to be signed today (9 October)

A Defence Media Alert has advised that the contract for the two new amphibious ships will be signed today aboard HMAS Kanimbla.

The signing of the final contract for the construction of the two Amphibious Ships (LHDs) for the Royal Australian Navy is the culmination of an exhaustive three-year process of technical development and risk reduction that will ensure the best value for money for the Australian taxpayer.



The Program will utilise the strengths of Australia’s defence industry to provide a world-class leading capability which will be supported within Australia using Australian resources for the life of the ships.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/AlertTpl.cfm?CurrentId=7151

A later announcement by the Prime Minister was reported in The Australian.

PRIME Minister John Howard has announced the government has signed the contract to build two new warships in a deal worth $3.1 billion.

Mr Howard said the government had signed a contract with shipbuilder Tenix to build two large amphibious ships for the Royal Australian Navy.

He made the announcement at Tenix's shipyard in Williamstown in Melbourne.

The first ship, HMAS Canberra, will be delivered in 2013 and the second, HMAS Adelaide, in 2015.

Mr Howard said the project would add another 500 jobs at Tenix in Melbourne, where the construction of the superstructure and the majority of the fit-out of the ships will take place.

The work in Melbourne will be worth about $500 million to Australian industry.

Combat system work for the ships will be carried out in Adelaide, bringing up to $100 million into the South Australian economy, Mr Howard said.

"This contract, costing about $3.1 billion over eight years, will draw on the strengths of Australian industry to provide two of the most advanced ships of this type in the world," Mr Howard said in a statement.

"The first ship, HMAS Canberra, will be delivered in 2013 and the second, HMAS Adelaide, in 2015.

"These 27,000-tonne ships will greatly enhance Australia's ability to deploy forces when necessary in our region or beyond, and to provide assistance in time of natural disaster."

Mr Howard said each ship would carry integrated helicopters and watercraft and would be able to land around 1,000 personnel and new Abrams tanks, as well as artillery and supplies.

They would also be equipped with medical facilities, including two operating theatres and a hospital ward.

Mr Howard said the project would provide the Australian Defence Force with enhanced capability and also support a critical Australian industry.

"It will offer Australian defence firms unparalleled prospects in the areas of electronics, design development, systems engineering and integration, employing Australians in a range of high-value engineering, shipbuilding and project management roles," he said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22556587-31477,00.html

Pleasing that contracts for both the major naval projects will be signed before the calling of the election.

Tas

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

@AGRA....

G'day mate did you miss me???:

Just one question (and i'm seriosly not being sarcastic), what is your exact definition of fitted for but not with? Perharps when space and weight are designed into the platform for the apropriate system including all of its compaonants (weapon, computer system, cooling ect). it would kind of clarify things a little.

@ everyone else....

As far as "fire scout" VTUAV's, its good news to hear we could have mutiple platforms in addition to an NH 90 or Seahawk. But AFAIK their main use will be as an AEW platform to enable SM6 engagements over the horizon, i doubt they could be fitted with heavy dipping sonar gear to or multiple sonar boyies so they can be used as an ASW platform. So the lack of 2 helo's should still curatil our ASW capability.

I was just wondering how much work has been done on an AEW "fire scout" like VTUAV and what sort of shape would it take and how heavy it would be? What sort of Radar would it use, a fighter sized, APG 79 like ?? And what the endurance of such a platform would be. How many would be needed to give around the clock coverage for a task force? Basically i'm after the low down on this platform/capability combination of SM6 and AEW VTUAV.

 

[AGRA]

@AGRA....

G'day mate did you miss me???:

Nope. :shudder

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Nope. :shudder

But, but, i thought you loved me? does this mean its over??? :cry

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can we keep the banter to PMs thanks.... a couple are ok, but then it starts to distract the thread.....

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Can we keep the banter to PMs thanks.... a couple are ok, but then it starts to distract the thread.....

Sorry mate was just having a laugh.... No mal intent!

Admin: No worries. We just need to be persistent (and consistent!)..

 

[Tasman]

Which ships are being replaced by the LHD's?

It may have been a typo but the comment attached to the photos of the LHD contract signing stated that:

The LHDs will replace HMA Ships Kanimbla and Manoora. They will be known as the Canberra Class with the first ship bearing the class name and the second bearing the name HMAS Adelaide.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/Oct/20071009a/index.htm

I was under the impression that the LHD's would replace Tobruck and one LPA with the second LPA being replaced by a yet to be ordered 'sealift' ship. As Tobruck currently fills the heavy lift role it would, IMO, be more logical for the LHD's to replace the LPA's with the sealift ship replacing Tobruck.

Does anyone have any info as to whether it is, in fact, now planned to replace the two LPA's with the LHD's as stated in the above comment?

Tas

 

[AGRA]

Mmmm... as someone who has said just as much re LHDs replacing LPAs and not the LSH, well the chickens are coming home to roost...

 

[battlensign]

Mmmm... as someone who has said just as much re LHDs replacing LPAs and not the LSH, well the chickens are coming home to roost...

I have read this statement over and over and I still have no idea what it actually means . Is it non-sequitur? Or a prediction? There has been no discussion here (as far as I have seen) of consequences relating to the stages of amphib FEG platform replacement. There have been no discussions of prior determinations, either technical or financial, that have (or will have) consequential implications for force-structure or capability.

In relation to the specific concerns of Tasman, I believe that what was actually being said was somewhat misinterpreted. I do not doubt the words as such (your documentation is always appreciated ) but the meaning has to be taken in context. As I understand it, the AMPHIB FEG see the LPAs as being replaced in terms of capability by the LHDs. Whereas the sealift ship will nominally replace the LST (Tobruk). Much like the Logic Tasman was applying. Technically, I believe that the actual replacement schedule has not been altered - merely the communication in the thinking of the FEG. The alternative explanation would be that although the above is true, this statement on the defence website was written by a tri-service/defence person who didn't know any better.......

Brett.

 

[FutureTank]

Sealift vessel

the sealift ship will nominally replace the LST (Tobruk). Much like the Logic Tasman was applying. Technically, I believe that the actual replacement schedule has not been altered - merely the communication in the thinking of the FEG. The alternative explanation would be that although the above is true, this statement on the defence website was written by a tri-service/defence person who didn't know any better.......

Does anyone know if the vessel will be procured new (purpose designed) or from existing shipping market for Roll-on/roll-off vessels?

If new, is there a possibility of it being built in Australia?

My thinking suggests a larger vessel then the current 5,800 tons displacement Tobruk would be required.

In view of the new helicopter vessels' capabilities, the support sealift ship may not need both bow and stern doors?

 

[Tasman]

Does anyone know if the vessel will be procured new (purpose designed) or from existing shipping market for Roll-on/roll-off vessels?

If new, is there a possibility of it being built in Australia?

My thinking suggests a larger vessel then the current 5,800 tons displacement Tobruk would be required.

In view of the new helicopter vessels' capabilities, the support sealift ship may not need both bow and stern doors?

I agree that the new vessel should be larger than Tobruck.

As discussed previouslly, one option which could be considered is a third LHD which could operate with a reduced crew in the sealift role when required but could also be available to operate in the LHD role when one of the others is in refit or during surge operations - see Post 539.

Tas

 

[FutureTank]

I agree that the new vessel should be larger than Tobruck.

As discussed previouslly, one option which could be considered is a third LHD which could operate with a reduced crew in the sealift role when required but could also be available to operate in the LHD role when one of the others is in refit or during surge operations - see Post 539.

Tas

I'm not sure its warranted to get a third LHD. The capability is for a single LHD with the second as an operational backup since it is doubtful given recent history that the Army will require a two battalion deployment in a hurry.

It seems to me that crewing a third LHD as pointed out earlier would be beyond RAAN's capability at this time (it takes a good 2-3 years to get a crew together).

The question is, can the civilian market provide what had to be a purpose-built vessel with Tobruk. If it can, can it be built in Australia (which would be great IMHO), and I'm not even from Adelaide or Newcastle

I'm also thinking that a larger support vessel could provide storage for a possible option of F-35s down the road.

 

[Tasman]

I'm not sure its warranted to get a third LHD. The capability is for a single LHD with the second as an operational backup since it is doubtful given recent history that the Army will require a two battalion deployment in a hurry.

It seems to me that crewing a third LHD as pointed out earlier would be beyond RAAN's capability at this time (it takes a good 2-3 years to get a crew together).

The question is, can the civilian market provide what had to be a purpose-built vessel with Tobruk. If it can, can it be built in Australia (which would be great IMHO), and I'm not even from Adelaide or Newcastle

I'm also thinking that a larger support vessel could provide storage for a possible option of F-35s down the road.

In the sealift role the crew could be significantly reduced.

Much as I would like to see the sealift ship built in Australia I suspect the hull will be built in Spain and finished in Australia if the LHD option is followed or the ship built in South Korea and fitted out in Australia if it is decided to opt for a 'straight' sealift design.

Tas

 

[FutureTank]

In the sealift role the crew could be significantly reduced.

Much as I would like to see the sealift ship built in Australia I suspect the hull will be built in Spain and finished in Australia if the LHD option is followed or the ship built in South Korea and fitted out in Australia if it is decided to opt for a 'straight' sealift design.

Tas

Tas, are you sure? After all, I'm not talking a huge hull here. Maybe 10,000t displacement max. Its even in the Garden Island capacity I think :idea3

 

[FutureTank]

sealift vessel

I was thinking maybe something like this
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/roro.htm

 

[riksavage]

The way the RN is going the RAN will probably be able to buy at least one of the Bay Classes on the cheap! Excellent sealift with added advantage of large flight-deck.

Its just been announced that the future Canberra Class ships will have minimal defensive armament and systems. Saab 9LV combat system with the radars designed for aviation control, and not targeting. They will mount only 4RAFAEL Typhoon 25mm remote weapons systems at the corners, for fending off asymmetric attacks. Very surprised to hear they will not have a couple of RAM or similar CIWS (Goalkeeper / Phalanx).

I know they will be escorted by DDG's but seems crazy to me that a ship of this size will not have a basic self-defence system as a last ditch defence against sea-skimmers.

 

[FutureTank]

The way the RN is going the RAN will probably be able to buy at least one of the Bay Classes on the cheap! Excellent sealift with added advantage of large flight-deck.

Its just been announced that the future Canberra Class ships will have minimal defensive armament and systems. Saab 9LV combat system with the radars designed for aviation control, and not targeting. They will mount only 4RAFAEL Typhoon 25mm remote weapons systems at the corners, for fending off asymmetric attacks. Very surprised to hear they will not have a couple of RAM or similar CIWS (Goalkeeper / Phalanx).

I know they will be escorted by DDG's but seems crazy to me that a ship of this size will not have a basic self-defence system as a last ditch defence against sea-skimmers.

Can't have everything straight off ;-)
Give it a year in service, and then there will be an operational review or something.

 

[Tasman]

Tas, are you sure? After all, I'm not talking a huge hull here. Maybe 10,000t displacement max. Its even in the Garden Island capacity I think :idea3

Problem is that the RAN hasn't really defined the specifications for the sealift ship as yet and it may well be that a much larger ship than 10,000 tonnes will be required.

As I said before, I would like to see the ship built locally but we seem to be moving away from building large ships in Australia. That is why I think it is likely that a ship will be built overseas and fitted out in Australia. The same may well be the case for the 2 AOR's required to replace Success and Sirius. Not ideal for Australian industry, IMO, but at least it would be better than just importing an off the shelf product.

Tas