Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ThePuss]

heard that about you NAVY types!! Village people didnt sing "in the ARMY" did they! nfloorl:

Hot bunking happens when you are in two watches, which means when your off watch you use the rack and when you go on watch your offsider strips the rack and puts his bedding on.......So smart arse! both sailors are not in the rack at the same time!.

On my first ship the "Grey Cat"....thats the Brisbane to you land lubbers, I didn't even have a rack AT ALLL for the first two weeks.....I slept on the deck.

There is something worse than hot racking though, on the Fremantles they had a invention called the "wing rack". You know how ships get wider as the go up?, that meant that there was room to squese a extra rack outboard of the top most rack on FCPB'S. This means if your unlucky enough to be in the wing racks you had to climb over your" Neighbour" to get out...Talk about freindly"

 

[old faithful]

yeah puss, i know how hot bunking works, just the way toby wrote it, i coudnt resist! all those years of being called a pongo or mango :nutkick...and us grunts arent known for our intalekt,intelagunce....brains for come backs!: so gotta get em while we can....

 

[McTaff]

You didn't expect cruise ship accommodations, did you? You're lucky you had your own bunk. There aren't any large barracks in the navy onboard a ship. Aboard submarines, many times we hot bunk, two share the same bunk.

All jokes aside, the real kicker here is that when you're hot-bunking, it means Stinky McBogger that shares your rack might permeate the linen, but at least you work during the time you are awake, and have your own mess designed for you to live in. It may be small, but there are only a few of you in it.

In the embarked troops mess, the non-sleeping space is the same size but for several hundred troops, meaning that when you aren't working, you either mooch around the quarterdeck or in the hangar when there are no flying ops (provided that you are allowed to, and there aren't rotary wing assets already taking up the space), or jog up and down the tank deck, unless it is full of vehicles (which is probably is). The tank deck is stifling when you're north of the Tropic of Capricorn, and although the Army boys are tough, it saps their resolve pretty quickly when they are bored, hot, and the only place they can really stretch out is in their bunk.

Imagine spending a couple of weeks with nothing to amuse you, fighting for elbow room or being confined to your rack?

For Army, they may as well be packed into a sardine can and mailed to the landing zone.

Give them a fast, comfortable ride with dedicated "airline" seats and a small rec area to exercise and I guarantee you they'll arrive fit, healthy and happy. At the moment they don't really have that.

 

[swerve]

Give them a fast, comfortable ride with dedicated "airline" seats and a small rec area to exercise and I guarantee you they'll arrive fit, healthy and happy. At the moment they don't really have that.

Agreed, but that's only an option for short distances, with immediate disembarkation. How often is that likely to apply? You can't send a catamaran ferry thousands of miles, it can't loiter offshore waiting for the right conditions, etc., etc. And the conditions on the new LHDs should be much better than those you describe on the current amphibs. Still not exactly cruise liners, but better.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The LHD's could have had cruise liner like accomodation.. I think the RAN downgraded the accomodation standards. 2 to a room instead of one.

In these days with hard to man ships, accomodation should be a high priority. They should be atleast to a civil standard (ie no hotbunking etc). We aren't in war time, we aren't buying war time UK ships anymore.. We don't have 600+ sailors on a ship anymore either.

And in that I would include the army needs decent accomodation too. But on the LHD where the bulk of the army will be transported should be excellent. The HSV won't be used for long duration trips. It will be more like a ferry in operation. Shuttling rather than loitering. I think its main value is shuffling between islands. Which concidering the island nature of our region could be very valuable, when we have most resources on island A, but island B starts to get hot, and need to move people and equipment from A to B.. And back again.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The LHD's could have had cruise liner like accomodation..

They were never going to have "cruise liner like" accomodation.....

as a piece of trivia, I attended a meeting the other day involving these and discovered that the nickname for them is "fat boats" nfloorl:

 

[battlensign]

They were never going to have "cruise liner like" accomodation.....

as a piece of trivia, I attended a meeting the other day involving these and discovered that the nickname for them is "fat boats" nfloorl:

That's a little ironic. At 230m long and only 32m wide, it is, like most large Spanish ships, cronically short of beam.

Brett.

 

[alexsa]

That's a little ironic. At 230m long and only 32m wide, it is, like most large Spanish ships, cronically short of beam.

Brett.

What??? Before making this comment did you actually look at any comparitive ships of this size?

How about the MV Aida Viva (passenger ship where roll comfort is critical and the ship haas a higher speed taht the BPE). LOA 249m, Beam 32.2m (ratio 12.9%)

What about GC ships. The Aachen class has an LOA of 106m and beam of 14.4 (ratio 13.6%) but for this ship speed is not an issue so long and thin is not important.

MV Safmarine Curine, a geared contienr vessel LOA 212.2m beam 19.8m (ration 9.3%), this really is a long thin ship.

MV Carinval Freedom, another modern passenger vesel again - 290m LOA and beam of 35.5m (so 12.2%)

The BPE at 13.9% is better than both and consider the LOA is excentuated by the bow ramp the ratio looking at the LBP will be even better.

 

[alexsa]

It will be more like a ferry in operation. Shuttling rather than loitering. I think its main value is shuffling between islands. Which concidering the island nature of our region could be very valuable, when we have most resources on island A, but island B starts to get hot, and need to move people and equipment from A to B.. And back again.

Correct, and don't forget it will need a proper port to unload in as these do do not carry lighterage equipment. So it will be shuffling to paes where other have established a secure base.... providde the weather is force 5 or less and the laod is not too heavy.

Given resource constriants and limitations of the HSV carft the RAN shouldnot purchase any HSV when they can charter them as needed.

 

[battlensign]

What??? Before making this comment did you actually look at any comparitive ships of this size?

How about the MV Aida Viva (passenger ship where roll comfort is critical and the ship haas a higher speed taht the BPE). LOA 249m, Beam 32.2m (ratio 12.9%)

What about GC ships. The Aachen class has an LOA of 106m and beam of 14.4 (ratio 13.6%) but for this ship speed is not an issue so long and thin is not important.

MV Safmarine Curine, a geared contienr vessel LOA 212.2m beam 19.8m (ration 9.3%), this really is a long thin ship.

MV Carinval Freedom, another modern passenger vesel again - 290m LOA and beam of 35.5m (so 12.2%)

The BPE at 13.9% is better than both and consider the LOA is excentuated by the bow ramp the ratio looking at the LBP will be even better.

Don't be silly..........of course I didn't!

No....I didn't mean from a Roll comfort perspective......I meant more from the perspective of just getting more flight deck area. I note the Japanese Hyuga Class has 33m with 197m length giving 16.75%.

You are quite right though, even the Wasp Class has 32m for a 257m length (Similar for the Tarawa Class with 250m length).

That's why I like some of the Vessels the Japanese use. They also seem to maintain more ships with fleet speeds (20.5 for LHD versus 30 or more for th Hyuga - admittedly the Hyuga Class are smaller and the Wasp Class and HMS Ocean are about 20 knots or less aswell). It is possible that Amphib groups slow down rapid response - only go as fast as the slowest ships etc.
Brett.

 

[gf0012-aust]

No....I didn't mean from a Roll comfort perspective......I meant more from the perspective of just getting more flight deck area.

Roll comfort is relative to vessel anyway....

as for flight deck area issue - platforms that are rotor carriers tend not to worry about platform (ieg rotor) overhang - again it's a platform specific issue.

these are expeditionary vessels - not mini fixed wing carriers. we bought them to conduct expeditionary, recovery and rescue - not to flick jets into the air.

"fat boats" also refers to how much they can carry internally as well as dimensional issues. compared to manoora/kanimbla, they're phat little buggers,,,

 

[battlensign]

Roll comfort is relative to vessel anyway....

as for flight deck area issue - platforms that are rotor carriers tend not to worry about platform (ieg rotor) overhang - again it's a platform specific issue.

these are expeditionary vessels - not mini fixed wing carriers. we bought them to conduct expeditionary, recovery and rescue - not to flick jets into the air.

"fat boats" also refers to how much they can carry internally as well as dimensional issues. compared to manoora/kanimbla, they're phat little buggers,,,

1) Ah, but that is just merely what we wanted you to think! (In secret we are actually creating three CSGs!)

2) Does the current arrangement enable ease of use for CH-47s? (saw a pic on one or more of the forums that had side sponsons attached - those were cool)

Brett.

 

[StevoJH]

1) Ah, but that is just merely what we wanted you to think! (In secret we are actually creating three CSGs!)

2) Does the current arrangement enable ease of use for CH-47s? (saw a pic on one or more of the forums that had side sponsons attached - those were cool)

Brett.

1) Probably more like the UK's ARG or US ESG. Maybe eventually the ships will carry 4 or 8 F-35's if they can be budgeted, but as GF said, the ship is for rotary winged operations, I'm sure the ski jump would be useful for UAV's or maybe UCAV's though.

2) I was under the impression that the purpose of the open lift at the rear of the ship was to allow large aircraft such as the CH-47 to be stored Below decks in the hanger.

 

[gf0012-aust]

1) Probably more like the UK's ARG or US ESG.

We currently have people on exchange with a number of fat boat users looking at the way that they do business

2) I was under the impression that the purpose of the open lift at the rear of the ship was to allow large aircraft such as the CH-47 to be stored Below decks in the hanger.

True. you avoid putting air assets out in the "open" at sea as much as possible - especially rotors

 

[gf0012-aust]

1) Ah, but that is just merely what we wanted you to think! (In secret we are actually creating three CSGs!)

Good luck on thinking that this is happening..... Bob Brown will be Cardinal of Sydney before that happens under the current team philosophy ....

 

[alexsa]

Good luck on thinking that this is happening..... Bob Brown will be Cardinal of Sydney before that happens under the current team philosophy ....

And we will all be vegitarians ...................... What a scary thought

 

[swerve]

The HSV won't be used for long duration trips.

And that reduces its value. It can't set off until a port has been secured, since it needs a port, & its cramped accommodation & limited "hotel" facilities means it can't loiter, & therefore doesn't have the option of going to the hot spot & waiting offshore until it's able to dock. This means it can't do rapid response, or anticipatory moves. Useful for delivering reinforcements - provided, of course, the first troops ashore have secured a port but not an airfield, since if they have an airfield then aircraft will deliver your troops much more quickly.

It will be more like a ferry in operation. Shuttling rather than loitering. I think its main value is shuffling between islands. Which concidering the island nature of our region could be very valuable, when we have most resources on island A, but island B starts to get hot, and need to move people and equipment from A to B.. And back again.

But it can't move until it knows that there'll be a port for it to land its troops and equipment. That's the value of a traditional, slow, ship. It can set off as soon as there's a hint of trouble, & if when it gets there no port is available, well, it has cranes, & Mexeflotes, lighters, or whatever. If the weather is too bad to unload onto them, or the assault force hasn't yet secured anywhere the lighters can unload onto shore, it waits. Bad weather isn't a show-stopper, range is much greater, carrying capacity is much greater.

A high-speed ferry is perfect for shuttling between two ports, not too far apart. But amphibious operations, as far as I can see, don't resemble that much. The occasions on which an HSV is useful (& I can imagine quite a few) probably don't justify the expense of buying & maintaining one. I agree with alexsa: charter one (or more) when wanted, if available. If not, it's not the end of the world. It's a "nice to have" thing, not an essential thing.

 

[StevoJH]

And that reduces its value. It can't set off until a port has been secured, since it needs a port, & its cramped accommodation & limited "hotel" facilities means it can't loiter, & therefore doesn't have the option of going to the hot spot & waiting offshore until it's able to dock. This means it can't do rapid response, or anticipatory moves. Useful for delivering reinforcements - provided, of course, the first troops ashore have secured a port but not an airfield, since if they have an airfield then aircraft will deliver your troops much more quickly.


But it can't move until it knows that there'll be a port for it to land its troops and equipment. That's the value of a traditional, slow, ship. It can set off as soon as there's a hint of trouble, & if when it gets there no port is available, well, it has cranes, & Mexeflotes, lighters, or whatever. If the weather is too bad to unload onto them, or the assault force hasn't yet secured anywhere the lighters can unload onto shore, it waits. Bad weather isn't a show-stopper, range is much greater, carrying capacity is much greater.

A high-speed ferry is perfect for shuttling between two ports, not too far apart. But amphibious operations, as far as I can see, don't resemble that much. The occasions on which an HSV is useful (& I can imagine quite a few) probably don't justify the expense of buying & maintaining one. I agree with alexsa: charter one (or more) when wanted, if available. If not, it's not the end of the world. It's a "nice to have" thing, not an essential thing.

Airport? I was under the impression that if you had a nice flat spot and a bulldozer you could probably just "build" an airport for a C-130 or C-17

 

[Sea Toby]

Why do all the flat top boys complain about the aft lift of an LHD? The aft lift not only serves the hangar deck, it also serves the vehicle deck below. If you bothered to look at a picture of the Cavour, a similar sized Italian carrier, you will notice the side lifts would approach the sea if it served the vehicle deck below, much too low. With a lift inside the hull of a ship, one can use the lift to serve both hangar and vehicle decks, i.e., lift the army's equipment to the flight deck so they can be flown in. The perfect place is aft, but one could use a forward lift as well by the bow, unfortunately, that is where most of the fly boys want their ski jump. The Canberras are LHDs first, not small carriers. Ships with side lifts only serve the hangar deck. Because the aft lift is not blocked by the inside of a ship, large helicopters can overhang the size of the lift aft from the hangar deck up to the flight deck. However, the army's equipment won't be able to overhand the lift from the vehicle deck as their is a deck above, the hangar deck. The Canberra LHDs were designed this way on purpose, to do the above.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

sea toby

sea toby are you a submariner???