Having that many embarked troops in airline style seats limits the distance or time at sea that you can use those embarked troops.
The time I have spent at sea in a four berth mess is bad enough, but spending any extended period of time at sea in a small seat such as that, is surely bound to have a negative effect on morale to that of a combat soldier.
In a support role to that of a larger amphibious ship, I feel it could be of good use, or for seabourne evacutaion by use of helo's to ferry troops from shore to ship.
As a supporting role I think this would be a good ship,
I spent four weeks in the Kanimbla class troops mess, and we were at perhaps quarter capacity for that troops mess.
I have to say, it was a pretty cramped, uncomfortable and undesirable experience. I'd hate to think what it was like at full capacity - there was just literally nowhere to go, nothing to do. It was either lay in your bunk, or squeeze twenty of us alongside one another on a bench seat designed for eight folks.
We are all professionals here, but if I were a grunt I'd pick a cold tent in miserable weather any day over being crammed into that sardine can again. The simple addition of 'airline seats' would have been a welcome respite!
-------------------------------
That said, there was a discussion earlier in this thread (I believe) regarding Incat proposals: there were a number of factors to consider:
1) Ability to dock at most major ports (I believe the fast cat had a much shallower draft)
2) Ability to Ro/Ro or speed unload (points in this category went to purpose built Ro/Ro)
3) Troops capacity (divided opinion)
4) Speed (points going to the cat, hands down)
5) Operating costs (divided opinions - depending if cruise power or maximum range power were used)
6) Total Initial Outlay (this one is open to the floor)
7) Ability to carry heavy vehicles and equipment (Ro/Ro seemed to be ahead here)
8) Embarked rotary wing assets (Ro/Ro ships could carrier heavier airframes IIRC)
9) Ability to VERTREP or load/unload via helo (both types do it in different ways)
There are other variables, but to me, going with a High Speed Vessel makes more sense - we will have the long haul heavy amphibious stuff all set with the LHD's. Given the current move to amphibious tri-service doctrine, a fast craft deployable at a moments notice far outweighs the need for a slow, inflexible Ro/Ro ship.
We use light infantry battalions, not heavy armour divisions, so it makes sense that as long as the proposed HSV can carry a bunch of Bushmasters, a few towed artillery pieces and some ASLAVS, along with the troops to deploy, then it is what we need.
If it's a low key trouble spot, send in the HSV supported by a couple of frigates (Hopefully one of them an
ANZAC for NGS). Approach the trouble spot, land the grunts with the toys, secure the area, sort out a landing strip and if required the C-17's and LHD's arrive later with the command, cavalry and coffee.
If it's more high key, it plays a different role: Your LHD lands a large troop contingent, and they secure a serviceable dock. Then your HSV gets in, dumps the load, and zips back home for the next ferry-load. Alternatively, it is on standby to move any number of troops to a different zone.
As a secondary mission, wouldn't you rather pledge aid to a disaster zone, load the HSV and send it out - flat biscuit all the way - to arrive on the scene with supplies and a contingent of ground troops to clear and secure (once again, you guessed it) a landing area for your transport aircraft that will inevitably be needed? An LHD in that role would be a little on the slow side, and it represents an enormous projection asset that you have moved offshore, away from where it is able to be loaded, juiced and sent to a trouble spot elsewhere - the HSV is a lower risk option as it isn't a combat platform. Of course, a Ro/Ro would also work, but the issues of suitable docks, and slow speed render it less of an advantage.
I quite enjoyed the discussion on this earlier, and based on my experience and also the interesting and valid points raised on both sides, mypreference would definitely be the purchase of at least one HSV. Given the speed, flexibility and in turn the much improved mission profile it affords us, it is too good an opportunity to pass up.
