Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

FutureTank

Banned Member
For crying out loud, they are not carriers - they are not bunkeraged for it. You just can't whack a few STOVLs on the deck and call it a Carrier - its a lot more complicated than that.
Designer/builder's site clearly says that provision was made for embarking JSFs. If the Canberra class is built to carry aircraft, then what does one call them? Helicopters are also aircraft although for reasons known to themselves USN calls some of its ships which also carry AV-8Bs LHDs.

For expeditionary purposes small STVOL aircraft have a greater advantage then conventional carriers because they can operate aircraft from unprepared road surface on the shore rather then being limited to the deck, or relying on the ground troops to secure or build a runway. In a sense its the advantage of having a very high combat payload capable helicopter, each F-35B being worth several Army Tigers.

In any case, its a capability that is conspicuous by its omission from the original procurement specifications. That alone should have meant something to the Defence commentators.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
NOT LHDs

People, we are not talking about the USN.
There is not 'LHD' vessel designation in the RAN.
The Canberra class ships are officially designated Large Amphibious Ships - thats LAS.
Not a ward on helicopters in it.
See quote from Defence site below.

In view of the planned acquisition of two large amphibious ships of the Canberra class from 2012, it is especially noteworthy that Astute witnessed the first operational deployment of the ADF’s Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), comprising the amphibious transports HMA Ships Kanimbla and Manoora, and heavy landing ship HMAS Tobruk. Acting together these units established an Army Battalion group ashore within three days. Using either of the designs currently proposed for the Canberra class, a similar-sized expedition could be transported in a single lift and landed in a matter of hours.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Designer/builder's site clearly says that provision was made for embarking JSFs. If the Canberra class is built to carry aircraft, then what does one call them? ....

The Spanish navy site also clearly says that while Juan Carlos I can operate as a STOVL aircraft carrier, to do so requires the installation of additional equipment, which the Armada is buying (as containerised modules, IIRC) but the RAN isn't. It also states that operating as a carrier is an alternative to operating as an amphibious ship: she's convertible, not multi-role. Has to dock, have the carrier-specific kit installed, then off to sea again as a STOVL carrier. The Armada clearly sees this as a secondary role, as a backup to the Principe de Asturias (and her eventual replacement) for when she's in refit.

I've posted the link to the Armada pages where this is explained a few times.

The talk about a possible carrier role for the Australian ships ignores these uncomfortable facts.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
The Spanish navy site also clearly says that while Juan Carlos I can operate as a STOVL aircraft carrier, to do so requires the installation of additional equipment, which the Armada is buying (as containerised modules, IIRC) but the RAN isn't. It also states that operating as a carrier is an alternative to operating as an amphibious ship: she's convertible, not multi-role. Has to dock, have the carrier-specific kit installed, then off to sea again as a STOVL carrier. The Armada clearly sees this as a secondary role, as a backup to the Principe de Asturias (and her eventual replacement) for when she's in refit.

I've posted the link to the Armada pages where this is explained a few times.

The talk about a possible carrier role for the Australian ships ignores these uncomfortable facts.
Is the link to the Spanish site?
 

Gladius

New Member
Links:

Link to the LHD "Juan Carlos I" in the Official Spanish Navy Website (Spanish Language).

Link to the Navantia-Tenix website (English Language).
 
Last edited:

FutureTank

Banned Member
The Spanish navy site also clearly says that while Juan Carlos I can operate as a STOVL aircraft carrier, to do so requires the installation of additional equipment, which the Armada is buying (as containerised modules, IIRC) but the RAN isn't. It also states that operating as a carrier is an alternative to operating as an amphibious ship: she's convertible, not multi-role. Has to dock, have the carrier-specific kit installed, then off to sea again as a STOVL carrier. The Armada clearly sees this as a secondary role, as a backup to the Principe de Asturias (and her eventual replacement) for when she's in refit.
I did translate the Spanish site when the contract was awarded, and don't recall this being 'clearly stated', however it may have changed so I will look again.

Thanks
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I did translate the Spanish site when the contract was awarded, and don't recall this being 'clearly stated', however it may have changed so I will look again.

Thanks
From the Armada site (under "Ficha Tecnica")

"Las configuraciones principales para las que ha sido diseñado el buque son:

* Operaciones Anfibias
o Desplazamiento a Plena Carga 27.079 Tn
o Velocidad Máxima Sostenida 19,5 Nudos

* Operaciones Aereas
o Desplazamiento a Plena Carga 24.660 Tn
o Velocidad Máxima Sostenida 21 Nudos"

Looks differently configured.

The Armada site has been changed, & I can't find the pages which described the "convertible" nature of the ship. Nor on the Navantia site. But I clearly remember them stating that for Operaciones Aereas suitable mission modules (unspecified) would need to be fitted in the cargo deck. I presume that could be done pretty quickly, but it was clearly a bit more than just loading cargo.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
From the Armada site (under "Ficha Tecnica")

"Las configuraciones principales para las que ha sido diseñado el buque son:

* Operaciones Anfibias
o Desplazamiento a Plena Carga 27.079 Tn
o Velocidad Máxima Sostenida 19,5 Nudos

* Operaciones Aereas
o Desplazamiento a Plena Carga 24.660 Tn
o Velocidad Máxima Sostenida 21 Nudos"

Looks differently configured.

The Armada site has been changed, & I can't find the pages which described the "convertible" nature of the ship. Nor on the Navantia site. But I clearly remember them stating that for Operaciones Aereas suitable mission modules (unspecified) would need to be fitted in the cargo deck. I presume that could be done pretty quickly, but it was clearly a bit more than just loading cargo.
This is just a 1.5knot change in speed and a small displacement change for cargo. I'm not sure how this small change in speed affects operation of aircraft other then possible larger wind speed envelope during operations.
The lower displacement is to be expected since aircraft would bring with them service equipment, ordnance stores and of course fuel and personnel (though not that many).

I'm mystified by the suggestion of mission modules being fitted to the deck that would radically change configuration or would require substantial deck design modifications. If the design is flexible, and future conversion of the design by the user is taken into consideration, then this should be a matter of modestly inconvenient retrofit, possibly one that can be performed without even having to sail back to Spain.

In any case, I will have another look.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
This is just a 1.5knot change in speed and a small displacement change for cargo. I'm not sure how this small change in speed affects operation of aircraft other then possible larger wind speed envelope during operations.
The lower displacement is to be expected since aircraft would bring with them service equipment, ordnance stores and of course fuel and personnel (though not that many).

I'm mystified by the suggestion of mission modules being fitted to the deck that would radically change configuration or would require substantial deck design modifications. If the design is flexible, and future conversion of the design by the user is taken into consideration, then this should be a matter of modestly inconvenient retrofit, possibly one that can be performed without even having to sail back to Spain.
Nobody has suggested radical changes to configuration or any - let alone substantial - deck design modifications. We're talking about the same ship, the same physical object, performing different roles - but at different times, requiring a minor re-configuration (fitting of role-specific equipment, fixing shut the dock) for the change of role. We're not talking about rebuilding, but the fitting of removable equipment in space that would be used for other purposes when operating in an amphibious role. It could certainly be done in Australia.

The view I was contrasting this with is that the ships Australia is buying are immediately usable as aircraft carriers, & can operate F-35B while functioning as amphibious ships. Also, it's been claimed that they're fully capable aircraft carriers, on a par with or better than Cavour. Strange idea.

BTW, none of this is meant as a criticism of the design. To this amateur, it looks ideal for Spains needs & budget (a clever way to maintain air operations with only one dedicated carrier), & well-suited to the role I think the RAN wants it for.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Nobody has suggested radical changes to configuration or any - let alone substantial - deck design modifications. We're talking about the same ship, the same physical object, performing different roles - but at different times, requiring a minor re-configuration (fitting of role-specific equipment, fixing shut the dock) for the change of role. We're not talking about rebuilding, but the fitting of removable equipment in space that would be used for other purposes when operating in an amphibious role. It could certainly be done in Australia.

The view I was contrasting this with is that the ships Australia is buying are immediately usable as aircraft carriers, & can operate F-35B while functioning as amphibious ships. Also, it's been claimed that they're fully capable aircraft carriers, on a par with or better than Cavour. Strange idea.

BTW, none of this is meant as a criticism of the design. To this amateur, it looks ideal for Spain's needs & budget (a clever way to maintain air operations with only one dedicated carrier), & well-suited to the role I think the RAN wants it for.
Ok, sorry if I misunderstood.
I think the confusion is in describing the ships as aircraft carriers, which they are, without specifying the role, which is amphibious (expeditionary). Most people when they hear of aircraft carriers think the big US Nimitz class ships which have a very different purpose, hence the use of very different class of ships used by the USMC.
The Canberra class are very much in the USMC application of aircraft, and is an aircraft carrier (lets not insult helo pilots ok) even if they do not carry fixed wing aircraft.
That F-35Bs have not been purchased to operated from Canberra class, or even hinted at being purchased, is just good sense considering the aircraft are not even in production yet.
In this case the 'carriage' is being put before the 'horses' in a way :)
 

enghave

New Member
Armidale Class PB problems

Wondering what you all thought of the bad publicity surrounding the ACPBs these last few days?

Especially the issue of multi-crewing, I'd heard it was tried and discontinued in USN escorts because the crew lost pride in their ships and this led to low morale. But I understand it's standard in the RN's Vanguard-class SSBNs because of their strategic detterence role.

Problems scupper navy boats
THEIR frustrated crews call them "Armifail" class patrol boats.

According to sailors who serve on the navy's $550 million Australian built Armidale class patrol boats, the vessels are riddled with faults and spend more time in port under repair than at sea protecting the country from drug and people smugglers.
[snip]

The navy has also introduced a radical new crewing system for the 12-boat fleet based at Darwin, Cairns and Dampier in Western Australia.

It requires the 21-person crews to rotate between the $38 million 56-metre boats after a nine-week assignment followed by four weeks' respite, rather than being posted to a vessel for a two-year billet.

According to one crew member that means there is no attachment to any boat.

"There is no pride, or incentive to take pride, in the boat," the crew member said.

"Morale is dead and sailors are leaving in disgust."
- - - - - -

HMAS Maitland sailors escape putrid gassing
FOUR navy sailors narrowly escaped death when they were "gassed" aboard an Armidale class patrol boat.

The fleet inspectors, who conduct war readiness inspections aboard navy vessels, were asleep on HMAS Maitland in Darwin when they were overcome by hydrogen sulphide (rotten egg) gas in the spare bunk room.

The gas was generated by a failure of the boat's sewage treatment plant, a defence spokesman said.

The fault has not been fully rectified and the accommodation areas on the Armidales remain off-limits.

Despite the seriousness of the incident, it was kept a secret by the navy.
- - - - - -

As a blissfully ignorant civilian I was impressed when I went on a tour of one of them, but am concerned they seem to have quite a lot of problems. And the HS gassing of the green team on Maitland seems to me a truly shocking event, I hope the guys suffer no lasting medical problems.

Are these kind of teething problems to be expected, or is this yet another Defence screw-up?

An how much responsibility should navy command take for this?
 

McTaff

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
According to one crew member that means there is no attachment to any boat.

"There is no pride, or incentive to take pride, in the boat," the crew member said.

"Morale is dead and sailors are leaving in disgust."
That's a big call. Really, multi-crewing is a huge improvement for shore time and rest postings. It's not completely untrue about the lack of attachment, but you're talking about small crews and small vessels, which starts to look more like planes and pilots.... Doesn't matter which airframe you are taking out, you're doing your job.

Sadly, this 'inside source' isn't seeing the bigger value of getting more time ashore and rest-posted. If they wanted continual service aboard a ship, they simply need to move to another vessel type. If it was a serious problem, then COMAUSNAVPBGRP would hear about it and address it.

HMAS Maitland sailors escape putrid gassing
FOUR navy sailors narrowly escaped death when they were "gassed" aboard an Armidale class patrol boat.

The fleet inspectors, who conduct war readiness inspections aboard navy vessels, were asleep on HMAS Maitland in Darwin when they were overcome by hydrogen sulphide (rotten egg) gas in the spare bunk room.

The gas was generated by a failure of the boat's sewage treatment plant, a defence spokesman said.

The fault has not been fully rectified and the accommodation areas on the Armidales remain off-limits.

Despite the seriousness of the incident, it was kept a secret by the navy.

-

As a blissfully ignorant civilian I was impressed when I went on a tour of one of them, but am concerned they seem to have quite a lot of problems. And the HS gassing of the green team on Maitland seems to me a truly shocking event, I hope the guys suffer no lasting medical problems.
Blah blah blah. Hype from the media. Toxic Hazard is a real risk, and you'd be surprised how often this stuff collects aboard ships of any type. I can't tell you any statistics, and I can't tell you how often I have seen it aboard our ships (both of these things for obvious reasons), but I can tell you it is an extremely well-practiced and drilled emergency. I've been involved in countless DCEx and CasEx scenarios, and also the very Real Deal, and believe me you only have to say the words "Toxic Hazard" and sailors and officers alike slip into an incredibly high gear.

No mention was made as to how much exposure was experienced by the Green Team, nor what the reaction of the crew was. Perhaps the real questions that should be asked is how the warning system responded: Was it functioning correctly? Did the Green Team miss the call or hear it an escape? If they didn't, was it a communications system failure? Was it a failure of the warning system? Was it a big fault that suddenly dumped a large volume of H2S? Or was it a small leak? Was it a design fault, or an induced fault?

Most likely it is simply a case of the press overstating the facts yet again in an effort to sell more advertising, and everyone reacted as per drilled, and no big deal.

I'm skeptical due to the lack of details. Saying they 'narrowly escaped death' is like saying 'firefighters risked their lives to put out a blaze' - it's part of the job, and it happens, surprisingly often.

Are these kind of teething problems to be expected, or is this yet another Defence screw-up?

An how much responsibility should navy command take for this?
As I said, it is more a regular problem across other ships in the Navy, and also the world. I wouldn't call it a teething problem necessarily, but if a weakness in the turd farm is discovered, it'll be rectified quick smart. Good juice if no-one got hurt finding out. Hate to play down this incident, but it's really not that newsworthy - in fact I'm interested to know how this paper got the source.

-

A note for the uninitiated:

H2S is an insidious gas: Initially at low concentrations, you can smell it. However, as the concentration increases to dangerous levels, a phenomenon called "Olfactory Fatigue" occurs, where your sense of smell disappears. Worse, once this happens it is too late. You'll be merrily working away, and you'll suddenly smell something odd and think "what's that?" You'll try to sniff for it again, but nothing. Typically, you'll lose consciousness shortly thereafter, never knowing what it was that got you.

H2S is common on ships that have sewage systems. Aboard all RAN ships, there is an oversupply of small, emergency-only hoods with an adequate supply of compressed air to allow escape. Called the ELSRD (say: Ellsred), they can protect (and every one is drilled in the use of them in a 'hot' environment) from smoke, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, which are the killers aboard ships.
 

AMTP10E

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
People, we are not talking about the USN.
There is not 'LHD' vessel designation in the RAN.
The Canberra class ships are officially designated Large Amphibious Ships - thats LAS.
Not a ward on helicopters in it.
See quote from Defence site below.

That's incorrect. There is no such official designation LAS. LHD is the official designation used by the RAN.
 

AMTP10E

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
...Blah blah blah. Hype from the media. Toxic Hazard is a real risk, and you'd be surprised how often this stuff collects aboard ships of any type. I can't tell you any statistics, and I can't tell you how often I have seen it aboard our ships (both of these things for obvious reasons), but I can tell you it is an extremely well-practiced and drilled emergency. I've been involved in countless DCEx and CasEx scenarios, and also the very Real Deal, and believe me you only have to say the words "Toxic Hazard" and sailors and officers alike slip into an incredibly high gear.

No mention was made as to how much exposure was experienced by the Green Team, nor what the reaction of the crew was. Perhaps the real questions that should be asked is how the warning system responded: Was it functioning correctly? Did the Green Team miss the call or hear it an escape? If they didn't, was it a communications system failure? Was it a failure of the warning system? Was it a big fault that suddenly dumped a large volume of H2S? Or was it a small leak? Was it a design fault, or an induced fault?

Most likely it is simply a case of the press overstating the facts yet again in an effort to sell more advertising, and everyone reacted as per drilled, and no big deal.

I'm skeptical due to the lack of details. Saying they 'narrowly escaped death' is like saying 'firefighters risked their lives to put out a blaze' - it's part of the job, and it happens, surprisingly often.


As I said, it is more a regular problem across other ships in the Navy, and also the world. I wouldn't call it a teething problem necessarily, but if a weakness in the turd farm is discovered, it'll be rectified quick smart. Good juice if no-one got hurt finding out. Hate to play down this incident, but it's really not that newsworthy - in fact I'm interested to know how this paper got the source.
From memory AFTP4 has ships doing about one hundred DC17 (toxic hazard exercise) a year, so ships should be all over it like a rash. Hell, I didn't serve on a single ship that didn't have at least 2 Safeguard toxic hazards a year.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
That's incorrect. There is no such official designation LAS. LHD is the official designation used by the RAN.
Is that official? I have seen several different designations used, and LHD has been used primarily in literature that had something to do with operations, and often compared to or couched in term used by the USMC.
Most recently whenever the class is mentioned by name, the 'large amphibious ships' description has appeared.
 

AMTP10E

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Is that official? I have seen several different designations used, and LHD has been used primarily in literature that had something to do with operations, and often compared to or couched in term used by the USMC.
Most recently whenever the class is mentioned by name, the 'large amphibious ships' description has appeared.

It is officially official. I'm in the process of writing up the 10 year Amphibious capability and force structure agreements and LHD is the term. Everyone: CN, COMAUSFLT, COMATG, CANAASG... calls them LHDs.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
It is officially official. I'm in the process of writing up the 10 year Amphibious capability and force structure agreements and LHD is the term. Everyone: CN, COMAUSFLT, COMATG, CANAASG... calls them LHDs.
Well. its usage is not particularly consistent throughout ADF, or the RAN.

In any case, helicopter deck or not, it is still built to carry JSF aircraft.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
It is officially official. I'm in the process of writing up the 10 year Amphibious capability and force structure agreements and LHD is the term. Everyone: CN, COMAUSFLT, COMATG, CANAASG... calls them LHDs.
Do you mind if I ask why 10 years?
 

AMTP10E

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Do you mind if I ask why 10 years?
Capability planning is linked to money and in Defence the requirement from CFO and the central agencies is a 10 year forward projection.

It's also handy for working out long lead time issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top