KMW are offering a ship mounted version of the 155mm L52 AGM [Artillery Gun Module, aka Donar] in place of MONARC.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The only significant advantage of using a conventional 155mm naval gun over 127mm is ammunition standardisation. But there are a range of advantages for using the naval 127mm, especially the multi-role ammunition and customisation for naval use.
There is no way you will see a 155mm gun on the Hobart class. For one they have already ordered the Mk 45 Mod 4 mounts which will add extended range 127mm and smart round firing capability.
If Australia can't find a use for the LCMs they should not have bought and built, maybe they can sell them to another South Pacific nation who won't use them with landing ships? I'm thinking they should be good enough for many of the island states of the South Pacific.
If the Bay class are too expensive for the third sealift ship, maybe the new government is leaning towards a Point class, or a larger Canterbury type vessel with a well dock?
Its been a while since the new government been in charge, does anyone know when the new white paper will be published? I am expecting the white paper will reveal where the new government is leaning...
If the Bay class are too expensive for the third sealift ship, maybe the new government is leaning towards a Point class, or a larger Canterbury type vessel with a well dock?
Its been a while since the new government been in charge, does anyone know when the new white paper will be published? I am expecting the white paper will reveal where the new government is leaning...
According to the Austalian (Nov 22):
"Already the white paper's release has been put back to at least April. On Thursday night Rudd said it would be delivered "in the first half of 2009"."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24687207-31477,00.html
Enhanced maritime capability is still high on the defence prorities, it will be interesting to see what form that takes given the economic situation.
What are the best options for the 3rd Amphibious ship?
Considering funding will be tight, what would give the RAN the "best bang for buck" option?
"Already the white paper's release has been put back to at least April. On Thursday night Rudd said it would be delivered "in the first half of 2009"."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24687207-31477,00.html
Enhanced maritime capability is still high on the defence prorities, it will be interesting to see what form that takes given the economic situation.
What are the best options for the 3rd Amphibious ship?
Considering funding will be tight, what would give the RAN the "best bang for buck" option?
If the white paper puts emphasis on cargo freight, the Point class 2600 lane meters is very impressive, although there is no amphibious capability. The Points are strategic sea lift vessels, they have no tactical capability. I believe this would provide the most sea lift for a buck.
If the white paper puts emphasis on troop carrying as well as tactical capability, I would not be against an enlarged Canterbury with or without a well dock. I prefer the well dock for tactical operations, and I would think a larger ship with double the vehicle deck could be built with 800 or more lane meters. I would not bother with a RHIBs capability New Zealand included for a patrol role, but I would locate any lifeboats to the flight deck. And doing so would provide some troop carrying capability as well. Sort of a poor man's LSD, or Bay class.
If the white paper puts emphasis on troop carrying as well as tactical capability, I would not be against an enlarged Canterbury with or without a well dock. I prefer the well dock for tactical operations, and I would think a larger ship with double the vehicle deck could be built with 800 or more lane meters. I would not bother with a RHIBs capability New Zealand included for a patrol role, but I would locate any lifeboats to the flight deck. And doing so would provide some troop carrying capability as well. Sort of a poor man's LSD, or Bay class.
Why on earth are you mentioning this? The Army's LCM8s are heavily used and are on schedule to be replaced with 12 new LCM hulls for the delivery of the 2 LHDs. There are also six LCM2000, long range LCM8s, that have been built by ADI but not accepted into service yet because of defects. Plus the Navy's six LCH are scheduled for replacement from mid next decade.
Their is a requirement for a third amphib to sustain the fleet but only enough funding in the Defence Capability Plan for a commercial ferry or RO-RO type ship. Something like the RNZN's Canterbury class or a bigger hull with less military features. What is really needed is the third LHD to sustain two LHDs in service at any one time. But this will require another billion to be allocated to the budget.
While its usually true it takes three ships to deploy one abroad during peacetime, if one ship isn't being deployed 24-7 all the time one does not necessarily need three ships. Is Australia prepared to operate one LHD with a battalion of troops aboard 24-7?
With my Coast Guard background, I know the Galveston base has only one Reliance class cutter, and one Keeper class buoy tender. Neither of these assets are at sea 24-7. While there are a number of patrol boats available, with local coastal operations three ships of each class are not necessary.
I serously doubt whether Australia will deploy a battalion of troops and an LHD half way around the world, or even as far as Singapore 24-7.
Look at how the British have operated their Invincible class carriers. Only two of the three are manned with crews at any given time. The third ship has come in handy during long term maintenance periods, the crew switching ships. While the British go on long deployments with their carriers, they are not operating on deployments 24-7. With their new CVFs, they are not building a third carrier.
The US Navy does deploy their LHDs for six months deployments 24-7 around the world. They have Marines aboard 24-7 as well. Plus, there are other ships deployed with the marine task group too, including replenishment ships.
With my Coast Guard background, I know the Galveston base has only one Reliance class cutter, and one Keeper class buoy tender. Neither of these assets are at sea 24-7. While there are a number of patrol boats available, with local coastal operations three ships of each class are not necessary.
I serously doubt whether Australia will deploy a battalion of troops and an LHD half way around the world, or even as far as Singapore 24-7.
Look at how the British have operated their Invincible class carriers. Only two of the three are manned with crews at any given time. The third ship has come in handy during long term maintenance periods, the crew switching ships. While the British go on long deployments with their carriers, they are not operating on deployments 24-7. With their new CVFs, they are not building a third carrier.
The US Navy does deploy their LHDs for six months deployments 24-7 around the world. They have Marines aboard 24-7 as well. Plus, there are other ships deployed with the marine task group too, including replenishment ships.
Last edited:
FutureTank
Banned Member
Why do you say that?
It seems to me the original Liberal Government's intention was to create something akin to the USN Expeditionary Strike Group that moves the USMC Expeditionary Unit (about 2,200 personnel), and the three new ships (JP 2048) supported by the two (SEA 1654) ships will be more than capable of emulating this, albeit less the fixed wing aircraft.
This task force configuration was not unprecedented in RAN history, and the two programs were not intended to create a new capability, but to restore a capability lost in the 1980s.
HMAS Sydney and Melbourne with the Boonaroo and Jeparit performed essentially those same roles for the Task Force deployed to Vietnam in the 60s-70s, and this time around the RAN is getting purpose-build military vessels that have vastly expanded capabilities by comparison. Even if the RAN decided in future to operate fixed wing aircraft, no significant modifications would be required.
As was then during the Chifley Labour Government, now the RAN also has significant funding problems with the Rudd Labour Government precluding a reserve aircraft carrier, and this time around there is no HMAS Sydney replacement fund.
And then there are personnel issues for a third ship.
Well that's not how Australia plans on using the LHDs. As has been mentioned in official statements and probably 10 or more times in this thread and others the ADF's amphibious deployment and sustainment (ADAS) model is to have two LHDs carrying a ~2,000 strong landing force between them. So the two LHDs are a pairing to create the ADF amphibious force. Which of course means when one of those LHDs is in refit from time to time the ADF won't be able to deploy the amphibious force. Which creates the need for the third ship to sustain two ready at all times.
Is the army prepared to man the ships with troops 24-7? Or when the need arise, the army boards the ships when required? Is the army prepared for deployments within a day, or two, or does it take a week? Are the ships anchored nearby, or do the ships need to sail to another port to embark the army?
I would think any ship in long term maintenance can be made ready for an emergency within a week, probably within a few days. Since the army isn't prepared to board within hours, the ships won't be necessary within hours either. As I recall the Falklands, it took the British three days to prepare and board their forces. And more and more ships had to sail later. While 2 Para landed at San Carlos, their transport ship, the MV Norland, left a week after the carriers left.
I would think any ship in long term maintenance can be made ready for an emergency within a week, probably within a few days. Since the army isn't prepared to board within hours, the ships won't be necessary within hours either. As I recall the Falklands, it took the British three days to prepare and board their forces. And more and more ships had to sail later. While 2 Para landed at San Carlos, their transport ship, the MV Norland, left a week after the carriers left.
There are a range of deployment triggers and scenarios. But mostly looking at two days to a week to deploy with troops. Its this kind of requirement that has Defence claiming they can get away with two ships. Sure if the LHD is just in dry dock getting its hull scrapped for barnacles its no problem. But if the ship is down for replacement of an engine or some major hull work its not going to happen.
Also the ADF requirement is not just for Falklands style operations. The idea is to have the ADAS available for all sorts of deployments like when Australia sent an amphibious special operations force to Fiji in 2006 to cover a much expected coup.
But when a shipyard and a navy wants to put together any engine in a hurry after breaking it down during a long term maintenance period, its amazing how quickly it can be done with three shifts working around the clock. Its not by any means a two or three week process.
At a price of one and a half billion per ship, along with another billion for the aircraft aboard, the government thinks a third ship is too expensive when two ships will suffice almost all of the time. A third ship also requires much more manpower as well at a time when the navy is having a difficult task of manning the existing ships of the fleet.
If trouble is brewing, the ship won't in drydock anyway, its maintenance period will have been delayed until after a crisis.
At a price of one and a half billion per ship, along with another billion for the aircraft aboard, the government thinks a third ship is too expensive when two ships will suffice almost all of the time. A third ship also requires much more manpower as well at a time when the navy is having a difficult task of manning the existing ships of the fleet.
If trouble is brewing, the ship won't in drydock anyway, its maintenance period will have been delayed until after a crisis.
I can understand the idea behind a third LHD, but I am not sure that is likely given the current financial climate.
The main options (as far as my limited knowledge goes) seem to be:
16,000t - LPD (R) Albion Class Landing Platform Dock, United Kingdom
16,200t - Bay Class Auxiliary Ship Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL), United Kingdom
13,900t/12,750t-16,800t Galicia/Rotterdam Class Landing Platform Docks (LPD), Spain/Netherlands
12,000t LSD Foudre Class Landing Platform Docks, France
enlarged version of 9,000t MRV Canterbury, Netherlands/Australia
or the JHSV Fast Catamaran Transport Program
The JHSV is an intriging option as the ADF could likely tack onto the existing US program. The ships will have a carrying capacity equal to about 20 C-17s and will be very economical to operate. The first JHSV is due to enter service in 2011.
The main options (as far as my limited knowledge goes) seem to be:
16,000t - LPD (R) Albion Class Landing Platform Dock, United Kingdom
16,200t - Bay Class Auxiliary Ship Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL), United Kingdom
13,900t/12,750t-16,800t Galicia/Rotterdam Class Landing Platform Docks (LPD), Spain/Netherlands
12,000t LSD Foudre Class Landing Platform Docks, France
enlarged version of 9,000t MRV Canterbury, Netherlands/Australia
or the JHSV Fast Catamaran Transport Program
The JHSV is an intriging option as the ADF could likely tack onto the existing US program. The ships will have a carrying capacity equal to about 20 C-17s and will be very economical to operate. The first JHSV is due to enter service in 2011.
Im wondering if on account of the global economic situation and huge down turn in taxation revenue forecast,would it be a good idea to divert a considerable sum of any stimulus packages into the adf,as opposed to the hope in boosting consumer spending through personal handouts?Wont personal handouts perhaps go to imported goods?
What if instead money was made available to lure a healthy increase in recruits to bolster adf numbers.They would be full time jobs created,and of course it would only be sustainable for the few years a stimulas fund would cover,but it would give a lotta kids out of school and who ever else is keen,a good insight and exposurre into the adf.These would be jobs you can measure as created and not up in the air "what will people do with any stimulas package thrown their way".Also as far as a 4th AWD goes,that could be ordered and a 3rd LHD could be ordered from spain and fitted out here as in the 1st 2.Yes we have manning issues but they are things that are going to have to be worked out if any government is serious about addressing shortfalls in the adf,so mabey from an adf point of view,this could be something they could benifit from.
What if instead money was made available to lure a healthy increase in recruits to bolster adf numbers.They would be full time jobs created,and of course it would only be sustainable for the few years a stimulas fund would cover,but it would give a lotta kids out of school and who ever else is keen,a good insight and exposurre into the adf.These would be jobs you can measure as created and not up in the air "what will people do with any stimulas package thrown their way".Also as far as a 4th AWD goes,that could be ordered and a 3rd LHD could be ordered from spain and fitted out here as in the 1st 2.Yes we have manning issues but they are things that are going to have to be worked out if any government is serious about addressing shortfalls in the adf,so mabey from an adf point of view,this could be something they could benifit from.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
JSV is unlikely as its only really good for short distance travel. The albion class would cost too much, as at ~740 million pounds for the pair built in the UK, you are talking around a billion AUD for one, at which point you might as well get another Canberra.
Don't know much about the others
I would think the price would be in the same neighborhood for a Canterbury and a Point class. The ships are similar in size, cost less than A$200 million. For freight the Point class would be the better buy, some 2600 lane meters of vehicle space vs the Canterbury's 403 lane meters. Of course the Canterbury would be more useful in tactical missions whereas a Point class would only be useful for strategic missions.
The new Canberra LHDs will have 800 lane meters of vehicle space. The only problem with the LHDs is they cost ten times as much. Without doubt, I would think a Point class or a similar ship concentrating on freight would be the better buy for sea lift. A poor man's LPD is the Canterbury, or something similar, for tactical cargo and troop lift capacity. If necessary a larger ship could be purchased.
The new Canberra LHDs will have 800 lane meters of vehicle space. The only problem with the LHDs is they cost ten times as much. Without doubt, I would think a Point class or a similar ship concentrating on freight would be the better buy for sea lift. A poor man's LPD is the Canterbury, or something similar, for tactical cargo and troop lift capacity. If necessary a larger ship could be purchased.
Last edited:
Albion is over 18000 tons full load, but as StevoJH says, too expensive for the role.
Bay/Galicia/Rotterdam/De Witt are variants of the same basic Schelde Enforcer design. A basic, stripped-down model could do the job & might be within budget. There are also smaller versions, & I think one was offered to the RNZN, but it bought Canterbury. Navantia can build it.
The Foudre class is no longer offered, AFAIK, though they might dust off the blueprints if asked. Huge dock, but correspondingly limited lane-metres, I think. Depends on what the requirement is.
Fincantieri & TKMS also offer ships. Fincantieri has LPD/LHD designs, & TKMS has the MESHD or MHD dock/support ship, configurable for RAS, a transport which does not need a port, or as an LHD. Fincantieri also does replenishment ships, of course.
Flensburg have a couple of sealift & sealift-cum-replenishment ships - not only the Point-class.
And for the wild card, there's always the Korean option. Indonesia has a few very cheap Korean LPDs of ca 11000 tons (Makassar class), built to merchant standards, by a commercial yard. If the requirement is for an austere ship, a transport with a dock rather than a true amphibious assault ship, I think it would be well worth examining that option.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I wouldn't get too carried away with any of those options.
Think of how HMAS Sirius was obtained and modified and it might be a bit closer to the mark for the "sealift" ship...
So, you think a commercial ro-ro? Might as well order an already militarised one straight from Flensburg. Deck strengthened for nose to tail tanks, etc. Probably as cheap or cheaper than paying for mods to an existing ship, unless it's one laid up & available at a bargain price.
- Status