Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[PeterM]

It sounds like you could get quite a lot of ship at the higher end, especially if you kept a lid on the armament and electronics.

Didn't ST Marine recently sell an Endurance LST (LPD) for 200m? That works out at around ...

Actually it was Thailand that recently purchased 4 from Singapore for $SGD200m ea. Singapore already has 4 of these in service (from 2000-2001).

They fit general the profile, but are certainly at the larger end (which is deliberately very broad at this point).

ENDURANCE Class Landing Ship Tank (LST)
Length: 141 m
Width: 21 m
Draught: 5 m
Speed: In excess of 15 knots (20kn?)
Range: 5000 nm at 15 knots
Displacement: 6,500 tons
Armament: 1 x 76mm OTO Melara gun, 2 x MISTRAL SAM systems, 2 x 25mm M 242 Bushmaster, 4 x CIS 0.5 MG
Loading Facilities: 1 x bow door/ramp,1 x stern ramp, 2 x 25 ton deck cranes
Helicopter Facilities: Flight deck & hangar for 2 Super Puma
Boats: 4 × 13 m Fast Craft Equipment & Utility (FCEU) on davits, 2 × 25 m Fast Craft Utility (FCU) inside well deck
Complement: 8 officers & 57 men
Capacity: 18 tanks, 20 vehicles and bulk cargo/Troops 350

I doubt this is what is intended to replace the 6 LCH; but they are certainly very capable vessels. However, they would certainly would be an intriging option for the RAN if they chose to go in that direction.

 

[battlensign]

Hang on, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

You are talking about some potentially very capable ships, but have reached these possibilities through the potential project budgets. I would suggest that another very serious issue, given the RANs perenial crewing problems, is the contraint that any replacement vessel's complement poses. 65 crew for a 8500 ton (full displacement) LPD is fantastic - however, the Landing Craft Heavy [LCH] (which is all that they are) are crewed by 13. So, hypothetically, your LPD solution would require not only a lot of money but also 390 crew for a task that currently requires 78. With the way the RAN uses these vessels/craft numbers are still important so getting 2 LPDs would not cut it.

I would argue that this crewing gap is enough to put a complete stop to that sort of plan. Even the BATRALs have 44 crew......

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The first is that, yes, a 3rd LHD is the ideal world solution but the cost is prohibitive and would require a crew of 730 which is 150 more than that required for the present three ships.

I think the possibility of a 3rd LHD is still alive. You standardise your training not just for navy, but army personel as well. This saves # and $'s. You save money in parts, maintence, development, upgrades etc. While its costs a little more (most likely not much more because of volume and having 2 inservice with the RAN and 1 inservice with spain) but its a known quanity with much lower risk. Stripped down to bare costs the LHD in terms of steel isn't that expensive (Spain fitout to lower costs?).

You mutliply your amphibious capability. We need 2 LHD's to be avalible. Thats the white paper requirement. With 3 you can do that.

However, the endurance class ships do make an argument being closer to what we have now with kanimbla. But how many could we get? 1? The more we get the higher the crewing the better off we would have been with just a 3rd LHD.

 

[icelord]

I think the possibility of a 3rd LHD is still alive. You standardise your training not just for navy, but army personel as well. This saves # and $'s. You save money in parts, maintence, development, upgrades etc. While its costs a little more (most likely not much more because of volume and having 2 inservice with the RAN and 1 inservice with spain) but its a known quanity with much lower risk. Stripped down to bare costs the LHD in terms of steel isn't that expensive (Spain fitout to lower costs?).

You mutliply your amphibious capability. We need 2 LHD's to be avalible. Thats the white paper requirement. With 3 you can do that.

However, the endurance class ships do make an argument being closer to what we have now with kanimbla. But how many could we get? 1? The more we get the higher the crewing the better off we would have been with just a 3rd LHD.

Current planning has a smaller Ships Army Detachement for the LHDs, but a large Bosun Department to accomadate movements for equipment, from Aircraft to Shore Craft. Utilising SADs for much of the roles, and supplement many departments would go towards a Joint Operation Ship, with Army to be used for Helo Movements on Deck, and matings for LCM embarktion and deployments.

For all the Talk of Lack of Crew, you would be surpised at the numbers sitting around waiting for positions on ships. with the LHDs, much like LPAs, a larger number of Seaman are able to be accomadated compared to the numbers in the Surface Combatant fleet, allowing for more numbers in the long run to be trained and get sea time and comp Log progression in there respective Departments.

 

[battlensign]

I think the possibility of a 3rd LHD is still alive. You standardise your training not just for navy, but army personel as well. This saves # and $'s. You save money in parts, maintence, development, upgrades etc. While its costs a little more (most likely not much more because of volume and having 2 inservice with the RAN and 1 inservice with spain) but its a known quanity with much lower risk. Stripped down to bare costs the LHD in terms of steel isn't that expensive (Spain fitout to lower costs?).

You mutliply your amphibious capability. We need 2 LHD's to be avalible. Thats the white paper requirement. With 3 you can do that.

However, the endurance class ships do make an argument being closer to what we have now with kanimbla. But how many could we get? 1? The more we get the higher the crewing the better off we would have been with just a 3rd LHD.

Not quite sure what you mean in relation to the Endurance Class LPDs......

I thought we were discussing them in the context of an LCH replacement as opposed to the sealift ship requirement. As such, the plan that I was suggesting was something along the lines of either 2 LHDs, 2 Bays and 6 BATRALS (or whatever) or something along the lines of 3 LHDs and 6 BATRALS (or insert nearest desired capability equivalent here).

Brett.

 

[uuname]

However, the endurance class ships do make an argument being closer to what we have now with kanimbla. But how many could we get? 1?

Well, they are within the range for the LCH replacement, so six. :tasty
(Plus the heavy sea lift ship, which would be a larger vessel)

I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a good course of action, and I certainly don't think it's likely, but it is within the price range given.
It suggests to me that the RAN is looking for something much more capable than the existing assets.

I would suggest that another very serious issue, given the RANs perenial crewing problems, is the contraint that any replacement vessel's complement poses.

And even if that can be resolved, there's the operating costs. I'm certain that will be a major factor in the LCH replacement.
A 6500 ship is probably overkill, and keeping 6 of them running would pull funds from other areas.

Still, what's the middle ground? Are there any ~3000t ships than can land equipment on a beach?

 

[t68]

Why would Australia buy F-35B aircraft for their new LHDs being built? Their LHDs won't have the fuel and/or bomb bunkerage to operate them for long. On the other hand Australian Air Force bases have both aplenty. Any shore close air support for the troops can easily be done with a few Tiger helicopters aboard the ship. I seriously doubt whether Australia needs a carrier, with the Australian Air Force having force multipliers.

And outside Indonesia, I don't see much of an air threat in the Southwest Pacific either. From an Air Force point of view, they would be better off striking Indonesian air bases than attempting to provide a CAP above the fleet. I would rather be downing Indonesian aircraft over their air bases than over the Aussie fleet.

Frankly, I don't see any Australian landings in the Southwest Pacific without air superiority. The Aussie Air Force would eliminate the threat before the Aussies engage in any opposed landings. To do otherwise would be foolish....

Outside of Indonesia there is no credible threat to Australia air power in the Pacific

Australian commitments are not limited to the Pacific; RAAF airbases are of no use when operating in the Middle East.

A third Canberra class is in my humble opinion essential to have two available at any one time, but if by some miraculous decision the powers to be seeing the need for a light carrier. An America class would do the trick, it is dedicated to fixed wing ops and has the fuel and/munitions’ storage and roughly the same size as a Canberra class.
America class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Canberra class can also be taken advantage of as emergency landing platform for mechanical problems or surge platforms if need.

A Queen Elizabeth class would be ideal as in the thinking of the British of future proofing the carriers for the next generation fighter’s in the event stovl craft are not available.

I am sure even thou we are only a bit player in the greater scheme of thing the United States /British would welcome a light carrier to lighten the load of there super carrier's.

 

[battlensign]

Outside of Indonesia there is no credible threat to Australia air power in the Pacific

Australian commitments are not limited to the Pacific; RAAF airbases are of no use when operating in the Middle East.

A third Canberra class is in my humble opinion essential to have two available at any one time, but if by some miraculous decision the powers to be seeing the need for a light carrier. An America class would do the trick, it is dedicated to fixed wing ops and has the fuel and/munitions’ storage and roughly the same size as a Canberra class.
America class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Canberra class can also be taken advantage of as emergency landing platform for mechanical problems or surge platforms if need.

A Queen Elizabeth class would be ideal as in the thinking of the British of future proofing the carriers for the next generation fighter’s in the event stovl craft are not available.

I am sure even thou we are only a bit player in the greater scheme of thing the United States /British would welcome a light carrier to lighten the load of there super carrier's.

Can't fault you on the need for the 3rd LHD but the bit in bold about the America Class LHA is a little wrong. First it is not anywhere near the size of the Canberra Class (at ~45kton v. 27kton). Additionally the crewing of a vessel requiring 1000 people is an issue. For perspective, 3 LHDS is around 740 people.

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well, they are within the range for the LCH replacement, so six. :tasty
(Plus the heavy sea lift ship, which would be a larger vessel)

I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a good course of action, and I certainly don't think it's likely, but it is within the price range given.
It suggests to me that the RAN is looking for something much more capable than the existing assets.

Arhh ok it thought it was about replacing the sealift.

Hmmm interesting... Confusing but interesting.

 

[t68]

Can't fault you on the need for the 3rd LHD but the bit in bold about the America Class LHA is a little wrong. First it is not anywhere near the size of the Canberra Class (at ~45kton v. 27kton). Additionally the crewing of a vessel requiring 1000 people is an issue. For perspective, 3 LHDS is around 740 people.

Brett.

I think when you start putting in place all the people need to operate efficiently IE aircraft techs, ammo tech deck handler’s, air controller’s etc they all add up.

 

[PeterM]

Hang on, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

You are talking about some potentially very capable ships, but have reached these possibilities through the potential project budgets. I would suggest that another very serious issue, given the RANs perenial crewing problems, is the contraint that any replacement vessel's complement poses. 65 crew for a 8500 ton (full displacement) LPD is fantastic - however, the Landing Craft Heavy [LCH] (which is all that they are) are crewed by 13. So, hypothetically, your LPD solution would require not only a lot of money but also 390 crew for a task that currently requires 78. With the way the RAN uses these vessels/craft numbers are still important so getting 2 LPDs would not cut it.

I would argue that this crewing gap is enough to put a complete stop to that sort of plan. Even the BATRALs have 44 crew......

Brett.

I completely agree with you, as a LCH option the Endurance class isn't going to happen./
On a purely hypothetical note, it may be interesting, but it is unpractical on many levels.

the best option imho is something around the size of the 60m MPC2 although the 90m MPV and 45m MPC could be possibilities. From a crew point of view the MPV has a crew of 27, the smaller MPC has a crew of 13.

for the strategic sealift class, something along the lines of the Albion or Galicia classes seem to be the best option.

 

[swerve]

Absolutely agree about the Endurance class, & the likelihood of something much smaller & with a much smaller crew being chosen. But are you sure you meant Albion, & not the Bay class? The latter would seem much more appropriate & affordable.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can't fault you on the need for the 3rd LHD but the bit in bold about the America Class LHA is a little wrong. First it is not anywhere near the size of the Canberra Class (at ~45kton v. 27kton). Additionally the crewing of a vessel requiring 1000 people is an issue. For perspective, 3 LHDS is around 740 people.

Brett.

The US LHA's were looked at as part of an assessment and rejected early in the process.

 

[PeterM]

Absolutely agree about the Endurance class, & the likelihood of something much smaller & with a much smaller crew being chosen. But are you sure you meant Albion, & not the Bay class? The latter would seem much more appropriate & affordable.

I did mean the Bay class.

The Albion class could be in the mix, but they are probably a little bigger than what we are ideally looking for.

As a strategoc sealift ship, presumably something like the Harper's Ferry could also be an option.

I think the Bay class is the most likely.
Interestingly they replace the Round Table class (aka "Sir" class); Tobruk is based on this design.

 

[StevoJH]

I did mean the Bay class.

The Albion class could be in the mix, but they are probably a little bigger than what we are ideally looking for.

The Albion class are basically a floating amphibious warfare command centre with additional troop carrying capacity, they are not cheap (700-800 million each IIRC, and with a large crew).

As a strategoc sealift ship, presumably something like the Harper's Ferry could also be an option.

Except they have a crew of ~400.

I think the Bay class is the most likely.
Interestingly they replace the Round Table class (aka "Sir" class); Tobruk is based on this design.

I like the Bay class.

 

[battlensign]

I did mean the Bay class.


I think the Bay class is the most likely.
Interestingly they replace the Round Table class (aka "Sir" class); Tobruk is based on this design.

That is interesting....I wonder if anyone will mention that to Government. Would be a good supporting point - although the needs of the RN may differ greatly to those of the RAN in amphibious and sealift capabilities.

Brett.

 

[stoker]

Albion Class

Name No Builders Laid down Launched Commissioned
ALBION L14 BAE Systems Marine, Barrow-in-Furness 23 May 1998 9 March 2001 19 June 2003
BULWARK L15 BAE Systems Marine, Barrow-in-Furness 27 January 2000 15 November 2001 12 July 2004


Displacement, tonnes: 14,600 standard; 18,500 deep load; 21,500 docked down
Dimensions, feet (metres): 577.4 x 94.8 x 20.0 (176 x 28.9 x 6.1)
Main machinery: Diesel-electric: 2 x Wartsila Vasa 16V 32E diesel, 13MW total; 2 x Wartsila Vasa 4R 32E diesel, 3.1 MW total; 2 x electric motors (16,763hp); 2 shafts
Speed, knots: 18
Range: 8000 nm
Complement: 325 crew plus 305 military (710 at overload)
Military Lift: 4 LCU Mk 10 (dock); 4 LVCP Mk 5 (on davits); 6 MBT; 6 light guns; 67 vehicles

Guns: 2 Goalkeeper CIWS; 2 single 20mm GAM-BO1 guns
Countermeasures: Decoys: Outfit DLJ(2); 8 Sea Gnat 6-barrelled 130 mm/102 mm decoy launchers. DLH offboard decoys.
ESM: Racal-Thorn EMI UAT(7); intercept.
ECM: Racal-Thorn Type 675(2); jammer.
Combat data systems: Ferranti ADAWS 2000 Mod 1; Links 11, 14 and JTIDS 16;. Matra Marconi SCOT 1D SATCOM.
Radars: Air/surface search: Siemens-Plessey Type 996(2); 3D; E/F-band.
Navigation: Two Kelvin Hughes Type 1007; I-band.
IFF: 1010/1011.
Helicopters: Flight deck facilities (no hanger) for operating one Chinook or two Sea Kings HC.4 or Merlin HC.3

Programmes: A decision was taken in mid-1991 to replace both existing LPD's. Project definition studies by YARD completed in February 1994 after a years delay caused by attempts to introduce commercial shipbuilding standards without compromising safety. Invitations to tender were issued to VSEL and Yarrow on 18 August 1994 with an additional tender package to Vosper Thornycroft in November 1994. In March 1995 it was announced that only VSEL would bid, the contract to build the ships was awarded on 18 July 1996.
Structure: Substantial Command and Control facilities. The configuration is similar to Fearless with a well deck and stern gate, but side ramp access as well. Although commercial items and construction standards are being extensively used, damage control is to military standards.

Additional Notes:
Known as Landing Platform Dock (Replacement) (LPD(R)), these ships are replacements for HMS Fearless and Intrepid which have been in service since 1965 and 1967 respectively.

Albion’s primary function is to embark, transport, and deploy and recover (by air and sea) troops and their equipment, vehicles and miscellaneous cargo, forming part of an Amphibious Assault Force. When the ships enter service they will provide the Joint Rapid Reaction Force with effective amphibious capabilities, including heavy lift, and provide a base from which the Commander Land Force (CLF) and 3 Commando Brigade can rapidly deploy into theatre to conduct a wide range of amphibious operations. The ships will also to act as the afloat command platform for the Commander Amphibious Task Group (COMATG), which includes operational command of both the naval task group and the land forces while embarked. These vessels will form the centrepiece of UK amphibious assault efforts and will provide a platform for the planning, command, control and communication of amphibious operations. Major improvements over the existing ships include much more extensive command, control and communications equipment and higher off-load speed due to improved troop handling arrangements.

Although a design specification contract was awarded to YARD Ltd as far back as 1991, there has been continuous delays to the program, mainly due to budget restrictions as the cost of the original design was priced by shipbuilders at £373 million, far in excess of the MoD's budget. There then followed very lengthy efforts to reduce the cost to within budget by a combination of cutting corners, cutting capability (e.g. the hanger was deleted), adopting off-the-shelf commercial items and construction standards, and tough negotiation. A contract valued at £449 million for the design, build and support of two ships was finally awarded to Marconi Electronic Systems, Marconi Marine (VSEL) Ltd (now part of BAE Systems) on 18th July 1996. Including separately procured items, cost increases and inflation, the actual final cost of the two ships was expected to be about £631 million - Albion £359 million and Bulwark £272 million. In March 2003 the government stated: "The maximum estimated cost to the Ministry of Defence at contract award of the Landing Platform Dock (Replacement) programme was £819 million, including the associated landing craft; the current estimated cost to the MOD is £790 million. The Prime Contractor has reported losses on the LPD(R) programme but there will be no additional costs to the MOD under the contract." The £790 million figure was the expected total cost to the MOD of the LPD(R) capability including design and development costs, landing craft, and all command, control and communications systems ordered under separate contracts. The actual, final, 2004 figure was slightly higher.

The two ships were both built at the BAE Systems Marine (ex-Marconi Marine (VSEL)) shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria. First steel was cut for HMS Albion in November 1997 and unit fabrication began in February 1998. The "keel" of HMS Albion was symbolically laid down on 23rd May 1998 and 5 of the 7 large block modules she's assembled from were constructed in the covered Devonshire Dock Hall before being moved out for assembly on the slipway.

At the time of ordering it was stated that Albion would enter in to service (ISD) in March 2002 and Bulwark in March 2003. Unfortunately construction work was soon badly behind schedule and by January 2000 their official ISD's had slipped to 31 March 2003 and December 2003 respectively (12 and 9 months late).

HMS Albion was launched on March 9, 2001. In early November 2001 the MOD asked BAE Systems to expedite the completion of HMS Albion, and 180 people working on Bulwark were transferred to Albion with the hope improving her ISD by at least 7 weeks. Although this was not achieved, HMS Albion continued to have priority over Bulwark until her completion.

HMS Bulwark was launched on 15 November 2001. At that time she was scheduled to commence sea trials in February 2003 but additional delays to her completion due to the priority given to HMS Albion meant that they did not begin until 31 March 2004. She was delivered and commissioned in 12 July 2004, and entered service in December 2004.

The LPD(R)s have a standard displacement (fully manned and stored) of 14,600t, and the full load displacement (with fuel, ammunition, stores, water) is over 18,000t. The fully-integrated diesel electric propulsion system will be capable of speeds of about 17 knots. Each LPD has a complement of 325 crew, including crew for the landing craft, 20% of the accommodation will be suitable for female crew members. Each ship will have a military lift capacity of 305 embarked military personnel, or up to 700 assault troops for short periods, together with all equipment and up to 6 main battle tanks, 6 light guns and 67 vehicles and trailers.

The two-spot 64m long flight deck supports operation of two medium support helicopters such as the Command Sea King HC.4 and can take Chinook and Harrier aircraft. The LPD(R) will also be able to operate the future Support Amphibious and Battlefield Rotocraft (SABR) which is due to enter service in 2008. No hangar is provided, however the design does include provision for deck stowage of a third medium helicopter and equipment needed to support aircraft operations such as Flight Service Control, Ground Support Equipment Handlers/ Maintainers Ready Room, and an Aircrew Briefing Room.
Each LPD(R) carries four Landing Craft Utility (LCU) Mk10 in a floodable dock and four Landing Craft Vehicle & Personnel (LCVP) Mk5 on davits. The docking system is located at the stern of the ship. Flooding of the docking area which is normally dry is achieved by ballasting the stern of the ship which allows the landing craft to float. When the ship is berthed vehicles can also disembark through the side ports.

The design and build contract for ten Mk 10 LCUs was placed with BAeSEMA (now part of BAE Systems) at Glasgow in May 1998. The craft were to built by Ailsa-Troon in their shipyard on the Clyde under a £20 million sub-contract, however the yard went in to liquidation after delivering only the first two. In November 2000 the contract for the remaining 8 units was re-awarded to BAE Systems Govan at a revised cost to the MoD of £30 million! Each LCU is 30m in length and displaces about 170 tonnes light, 240 tonnes fully laden. Typical payloads include a main battle tank such as the Challenger Mk II; or four High Vehicle Equivalents; or 120 troops and two over-snow vehicles; or equipment and vehicles. Payloads can be taken from either the LPD(R) to other amphibious shipping, or to the shore.

These will be the first RN LCUs to have a drive-through, roll-on, roll-off capability, which will greatly increase the speed and ease of loading and unloading of vehicles. The programme involved the design, build and trailing of the first two prototype craft, which were delivered in November 1999. The trials were conducted at the Amphibious Trials and Training Unit Royal Marines (ATTURM), Instow, North Devon and ended in early 2002 with interface trials (right) with the still building HMS Albion. Upon completion of evaluation the craft were returned for modifications. Following acceptance of the design, work on the final eight production LCUs commenced with deliveries planned between December 2001 and February 2003.

HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark also each carry four Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel Mark 5 (LCVP Mk 5), 12 were ordered from FBM Babcock Marine Ltd at the Rosyth Royal Dockyard, near Edinburgh, on the 6 August 2001 in a contract valued at £9 million. An earlier batch of the vessels has already proved highly successful during operations from the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean.

The LCVP Mk5 is carried on davits on the superstructure of the ships. The LCVP Mk 5 is constructed of aluminium and is expected to have a service life of about 20 years. The LCVP's have a maximum loaded displacement of 24 tonnes. They are 15.7m long and have a breadth of 4.3 m. They have a top speed of 24 knots and a range of 210 nautical miles. They are crewed by three Royal Marines and can carry a Royal Marines Commandos rifle troop of 35 men or two light trucks.

Integral to the role of the LPD(R) as the Command Ship of an integrated amphibious force, the ship will be fitted with comprehensive command, control and communications systems, including: the GEC-Marconi ADAWS 2000 Combat Management System (CMS), the Command Support System (CSS), the Integrated Communications System (ICS) and the Marconi Scot Satellite Communication System.

The ICS provides integrated internal and external communications system which will facilitate effective communications between sea, air and land forces. A cut-down version will be fitted in the LCU Mk 10. The initial ICS contract, valued at £35 million, was awarded to Redifon MEL and its consortium partners BAe Defence Systems and Thomson-CNI in August 1994, the production contract in July 1996.

The contract for the CSS was awarded to EDS Defence Ltd in May 1996. The CSS is to be fitted throughout the Royal Navy fleet and also in some operational land-based headquarters. The LPD command support system fit will comprise 73 workstations with the latest full colour flat-screen display technology for use by the staffs of COMTAG and CLF. The software is Windows based and the system design is based on commercial off the shelf hardware. The CSS system is compatible with the Joint Services Command System at Northwood.

Alongside these systems is the ship’s own ADAWS 2000 command system, which has six workstations and is a development of those in service on Invincible class carriers. It controls the operation of the ship’s weapons and sensors to provide a sophisticated self defence capability.

Key improvements over the Fearless class ships include:

•Comprehensive and Highly sophisticated command support and operations facilities

•Advanced communication systems

•Electric propulsion which reduces the number of marine engineering personnel by nearly two-thirds (compared with Fearless), to around 60. Overall ship’s company numbers are reduced through new technology and automation from 550 to 325 – a reduction of around 40 per cent.

•Troop accommodation is connected to embarkation stations by assault routes wide enough for Commandos carrying full Arctic kit and weapons. Dedicated assembly areas are connected by assault trunks to landing craft points and the flight deck. Together these changes double the speed of troop disembarkation.

•New roll-on roll-off “drive through” LCU Mk10 landing craft that can carry a Challenger 2 tank. The Ro-Ro design means the LCUs do not have to manoeuvre to re-enter the dock and this dramatically speeds vehicle disembarkation.

•The floodable amphibious dock can accommodate four LCU Mk10s. The dock is fully enclosed.

•Munitions and stores are moved around from magazines and stores areas to the landing craft using a system of overhead rails and gantries, significantly speeding the work of stores disembarkation.

•Vehicles can embark from the dockside over a Ro-Ro side ramp on the starboard side, considerably speeding the loading and unloading processes in port. There is a ramp from the vehicle deck to the flight deck to enable vehicles to be transported as helicopter underslung loads.

•The ship takes advantage of “stealthy” design measures to reduce its radar signature.

The ships are based at Devonport.

Last revised: 19th December, 2004

Actually the Albion class are quite a big ship with a decent price ta and a fair size crew.

It would be interest to see a cost comparison on a 3rd LHD Canberra class to that of an introduced one off Albion class.



.

 

[StevoJH]

I have no idea why you just copy pasted that whole article. but i'd like to point something out.

At this current minute 1.00 AUD = 0.553119 GBP

Assuming 400 million GBP per ship, a single albion class ship would cost $723 million AUD. However, that is not taking 10 years of inflation into account. I can't be bothered working out the compounded value at this time of night, so assuming 2% inflation every year for 10 years, that $723 Million would now be $867.6 Million.

On top of that, the Albion class requires a larger crew then the Canberra class, the ship costs 60-90% of the cost of a Canberra (unsure how much of the project cost is infrastructure). Oh, and an Albion gives less capability then a Canberra.

In conclusion, the RAN choosing to purchase the Albion class as the replacement of the second LPA would be a bad decision. The much cheaper bay class that is optimised for the transport and landing of heavy equipment over the beach on the other hand, would be a potentially good decision.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Honestly we would be better to throw everything in together and get another LHD.

Any money left over get something very light on crewing. Some sort of JHSV maybe. I know these craft are have limitations but speed can help subsitute # of hulls which we are not going to have anyway. Being a useful commerical vechical we can use it for ~10 years then sell it off and get something newer rather that upgrading it. Possibly even crew it with part/whole civilian crew.

We can proberly afford to crew 3-4 large HSC, they can be completely local designs and boost economies in certain regional areas. With a helo spot/hanger, a well dock for RHIB's, they would be able to move SAS/Commando's extremely quickly and perform most of the little missions closer into shore or smaller missions in the pacific.

To make up for the sheer lack of hulls OCV could be tasked with simular missions at a pinch under the cover of larger assets (amphibious landing not assualt). Perhaps OCV should have a well dock for RHIB's or atleast some limited amphibious capability.

3 x Canberras we could lift entire armies and sustain deployments. Smaller allies (NZ/Singa) could then provide smaller ships for sealift/amphib operations providing small ships required. We can provide USMC style amphib assets to something like a Wasp class ship, but with the advantage of having 2 seperate ships with 12 landing spots, between them. We could deploy each to a different theater if we wished (as a part of a large international effort) or combined to perform amphib landings/assualts where we are the lynch pin in the operation.

Anything else and we will be an imcomplete force suitable only for bit player operations, and without the direction, assets and need to form a complete force.

 

[PeterM]

I think there is a litle misconception with the Strategic Sealift ship.

The intention (afaik) is to provide logistical support for the LHDs, not a primary amphibious vessel in its own right. Something like the Bay class would be ideal (this is the type of role it is designed for) and a significantly cheaper alternative.


from the white Paper

9.24 The Government has decided to enhance this amphibious capability by acquiring a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel. Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure. The new ship will provide ongoing sustainment support for deployed forces, allowing the LHD ships to remain in areas of operations in direct support of the land force ashore.

Here is some general information on how the RN use the Bay Class Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL). It gives some idea of how their role differs from a true LPD, LPH etc

(from http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/bay_class/)

MISSION
An Amphibious Task Group (ATG) includes Landing Platform Docks (LPD) and a Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH), which support the first wave of an amphibious assault, and the alternative landing ship logistic vessels which support the second wave of the assault. The availability of the ALSLs provides the amphibious task group with a new capability to lift the 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines.

"The design of the ALSL ships is based on the Royal Schelde's Enforcer design."The first wave of troops are landed by the LPDs, HMS Albion and Bulwark and by the LPH, HMS Ocean, to establish a beachhead and landing zone.

The ALSL ships, positioned about 20km offshore, remain over-the-horizon during the first wave assault, launching helicopters and landing craft to offload the second wave of troops and equipment.

When the beach area and landing zone have been confirmed as secure the ALSL Bay Class vessels approach the landing zone to deploy Mexeflotes, motorised pontoons for offloading the heavy vehicles.