Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[LancasterBomber]

Neurally inspired electronics to circumvent heat and energy problems in sub UUV platforms. With particular reference to non-weaponised platforms.

Radical rethinking of the way engineers do business.

 

[StingrayOZ]

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.

Why resupply when you can relieve? I still think a 3rd LHD is the better option. While the Bay class or JSS is a good vessel I still think for the ongoing costs, overall capability etc the LHD wins.

 

[PeterM]

Why resupply when you can relieve? I still think a 3rd LHD is the better option. While the Bay class or JSS is a good vessel I still think for the ongoing costs, overall capability etc the LHD wins.

cost for starters

going a couple of years ago for the Bay class

Current estimate of total procurement costs is around £300M for the design and build of the four vessels

Bay Class Large Amphibious Landing Ships Alternative Landing Ship Logistic [ALSL]

whereas the same for the Canberra class

The contract was valued at 1,411.6 million Euro for the construction of two ships (LHD-1 and LHD-2).

http://www.deagel.com/Carrier-and-Landing-Ships/LHD-Canberra_a000406002.aspx

A Bay class might cost somewhere around A$200-250m in current terms; whereas the LHDs are probably somewhere around A$1.2 bn +

While there are economies of scale that could be had with operating a single type, however you must bear in mind the LHD is a much larger vessel with substantially higher operational and manning costs.

Also we could likely tack into the RN supply chain for their 4 Bay class.

The bottom line is I doubt the ADF can find somewhere in the ballpark of $1bn for what is essentially a luxury item far in excess of what the operational needs are.

Mind you the same arguement will discount the Albion as well as we would be looking at around $750-800m

the actual final cost of the two ships was expected to be about £631 million - Albion £359 million and Bulwark £272 million. The maximum estimated cost to the Ministry of Defence at contract award of the Landing Platform Dock (Replacement) programme was £819 million

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/albion.htm

 

[PeterM]

For completeness

A Galicia/Rotterdam class will probably cost somewhere around A$250-300m
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/16331-navy’s-rm3b-decision
(converting from MR)

 

[Sea Toby]

Appears to be a bilion dollars in difference between building a Bay class compared to another LHD. A billion dollars is a lot of money which can be used to buy other more pressing defence needs.

Its not as if there won't be two LHDs. Having a smaller, less capable ship could come in handy for smaller operations, such as New Zealand's humanitarian aid operations recently for Samoa and Tonga with the Canterbury. There is no need to use a sledge hammer when a tap hammer will do....

 

[battlensign]

Appears to be a bilion dollars in difference between building a Bay class compared to another LHD. A billion dollars is a lot of money which can be used to buy other more pressing defence needs.

Its not as if there won't be two LHDs. Having a smaller, less capable ship could come in handy for smaller operations, such as New Zealand's humanitarian aid operations recently for Samoa and Tonga with the Canterbury. There is no need to use a sledge hammer when a tap hammer will do....

Not to mention that simply logistics support of an operation in more low intensity ops might be commercially charterable. The great thing about the Bays is that they sneakily provide both options in so far as they are capable of logistics support and have a limited amount of extra amphibious capability. All on a crew of 60. It's so good I think we should get two.Not going to happen in reality though.

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

cost for starters

A Bay class might cost somewhere around A$200-250m in current terms; whereas the LHDs are probably somewhere around A$1.2 bn +

The bottom line is I doubt the ADF can find somewhere in the ballpark of $1bn for what is essentially a luxury item far in excess of what the operational needs are.

Navy Matters | Albion Class LPD(R)

First Photos of Builder?s Sea Trials of LHD ?Juan Carlos I?

360 Million euros for a spanish all build LHD. If we aren't building the sealift ship here then lets compare best price to best price. That might be with a light fitout, but a lightfitout (commerical radar etc) LHD is still going to be better than a light fitout supply ship.

So there does not appear to be as much price $'s between them as may be suggested. If we are talking multiple vessels verse 1 I think the LHD puts up an even stronger cases as steel is cheap (in a single hull) and air is free.

While manning personel would be greater (although we have had discussions about minium manning a LHD before), over all costs could be lower/simular as commonality of fleet, training, mixed crew personel.

If the numbers come back its unsupportable, I can live with that, but to rule it out of hand with out concidering all options and weighing the potential benifit. But as it has been pointed out a Albion might be ruled out for the same reasons.

Smaller ships don't always mean smaller costs and purchase costs are not the be all and end all. Remember the LHD can also operate as a fleet oiler, amphib, carrier, hospital ship, sealift, sea control, command, human evac, training ship for the LHD etc. Its a heck of a flexable ship over other designs and the money is worth it. With a refit it could be turned into almost any type of ship we want (its a ship worth refitting or prepping).

We spent a billion $'s trying to get some old helicopters to fly. The few million $'s would be worth it to have 3 x LHD's. For small ships, buy a ferry (~9000t) and use the OCV (~2000t) to fill in that role.

The LHD should do fly the flag missions almost continually to places like Samoa, Fiji, Timor, PNG. With 3 ships you can do this very regularly.

 

[Sea Toby]

360 million Euros is in the vicinity of twice the value of an 360 million Aussie dollars. A Bay class will run around 200-250 million Aussie dollars. An Aussie LHD will run over a billion point two Aussie dollars. Four or five Bay class ships can be bought for one LHD. Also keep in mind the Spanish government owns a significant percentage of Navantia. What they sell to themselves will be a different cheaper price than what they will sell to others, especially after five years. They aren't anywhere near the same price.

 

[StevoJH]

360 million Euros is in the vicinity of twice the value of an 360 million Aussie dollars. A Bay class will run around 200-250 million Aussie dollars. An Aussie LHD will run over a billion point two Aussie dollars. Four or five Bay class ships can be bought for one LHD. Also keep in mind the Spanish government owns a significant percentage of Navantia. What they sell to themselves will be a different cheaper price than what they will sell to others, especially after five years. They aren't anywhere near the same price.

Everyone seems to be thinking along the same lines.

 

[swerve]

360 million Euros is in the vicinity of twice the value of an 360 million Aussie dollars. A Bay class will run around 200-250 million Aussie dollars. An Aussie LHD will run over a billion point two Aussie dollars. Four or five Bay class ships can be bought for one LHD. ...

Much cheaper to run, too. Look at this photo of the entire crew of Lyme Bay. About a quarter of the crew of Juan Carlos.

Everyone seems to be thinking along the same lines.

Yep. Well, almost.

Remember the LHD can also operate as a fleet oiler, amphib, carrier, hospital ship, sealift, sea control, command, human evac, training ship for the LHD etc.

And so can an austere LSD, though in some cases you need to load it up with some expensive equipment - just as you have to to enable an LHD to do those things.

 

[PeterM]

If the RAN is going to have somewhere around an extra $1bn for any new ship capability, I would much rather it was invested in a 4th AWD rather than a 3rd LHD.

It doesn't make economic sense to get an expensive LHD when a much cheaper Bay or Galicia/Rotterdam can get the job done.

The LHD is a sub optimal fleet oiler or replenishment ship at best. quite frankly, this is not their role and it is not needed as we have two fleet supply ships in HMAS Sirius and HMAS Success. The other roles can be either done by a Bay class or would already be done by the LHD. The strategic sealift ship is meant to support the LHDs, not fill the same role.

The only reason I could see for the RAN to get a 3rd LHD would be as a pure light carrier variant, and that simply isn't going to happen.

 

[PeterM]

On a completely different note, I am hoping for the HMAS Success (18,000t) replacement the RAN looks at something like the Cantabria class (19,600t) or Berlin class (20,240t) rather than modifying a commerical design, which was done with HMAS Sirius.

from white paper

Maritime Operational Support Capability. This phase of SEA 1654 seeks to replace the capability provided by HMAS Success. This is likely to be an ACAT II project and Defence will commence work on developing this project for Government consideration after 2016.

To be fair Sirius (25,016t) replaced Westralia (40,870t) which was built as a Stat 32 class tanker and modified for underway replenishment in 1979 for the British Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

Originally, the RAN planned to have a ship specially constructed for the role. The decision to instead purchase an under-construction civilian tanker and modify her for military service allowed Sirius to enter service three years before originally planned, at a saving of half the acquisition project's cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Sirius_(O_266)

Sirius is expected to remain in service for around 15 years, so is due for replacement around 2023.

It is interesting that Success will have been in service for well over 30 years, (quite likely around 36years) but the Sirius (which is a new ship) has an expected service life of half of that. Sirius may have been half the price and faster to get in service, but if there needs to be two of Sirius style vessels procured for the same service life as a ship which was specially constructed for the role, is there any significant savings?

If the Success replacement program commences around 2016, it is likely the vessel would be in service somewhere around 2020, which is around the time the Sirius replacement would need to start. Perhaps Success and Sirius could be replaced with a single design with construction of the 2nd getting under way after the first is completed.


It is worth noting that Success is an Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) vessel whereas Sirius is purely an Auxiliary Oiler (AO) vessel.

 

[StevoJH]

Sirius was purchased as a stop gap so that both ships could be replaced at the same time.

 

[Todjaeger]

On a completely different note, I am hoping for the HMAS Success (18,000t) replacement the RAN looks at something like the Cantabria class (19,600t) or Berlin class (20,240t) rather than modifying a commerical design, which was done with HMAS Sirius.

from white paper


To be fair Sirius (25,016t) replaced Westralia (40,870t) which was built as a Stat 32 class tanker and modified for underway replenishment in 1979 for the British Royal Fleet Auxiliary.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Sirius_(O_266)

Sirius is expected to remain in service for around 15 years, so is due for replacement around 2023.

It is interesting that Success will have been in service for well over 30 years, (quite likely around 36years) but the Sirius (which is a new ship) has an expected service life of half of that. Sirius may have been half the price and faster to get in service, but if there needs to be two of Sirius style vessels procured for the same service life as a ship which was specially constructed for the role, is there any significant savings?

If the Success replacement program commences around 2016, it is likely the vessel would be in service somewhere around 2020, which is around the time the Sirius replacement would need to start. Perhaps Success and Sirius could be replaced with a single design with construction of the 2nd getting under way after the first is completed.


It is worth noting that Success is an Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) vessel whereas Sirius is purely an Auxiliary Oiler (AO) vessel.

Another thing to remember though was that HMAS Sirius also was leased out and operated as the MV Delos prior to being refitted and recommissioned as the HMAS Sirius. Essentially meaning that the vessel itself had already seen some service (3-4 years IIRC).

As SteveJH mentioned, the purchase was a stopgap. Both to cover MARPOL reqs for double-hulled tankers (Westralia was only a single hull) and that Westralia was an aging ship due for replacement. Given the length of time major ADF procurements take, about 14-15 years from identification need through to IOC. Effectively the RAN would have needed to start consideration for a Westralia replacement circa 1992 to achieve the in-service date it did with a purpose-built naval AO or AOR.

Given that Success is also coming up for replacement in a few years, it does seem sensible to me that a common AOR design is selected to replace both vessels, instead of operating two distinctly different replenishment vessel types.

My personal preference though would be either selection of a follow-on AOR design but larger than the current Success (with greater fuels and stores capacity), or commissioning 3 AORs of the same or slightly smaller size than currently used.

My interest in having a larger AOR than currently in service is that with the vessels planned for RAN (Canberra-class LHD, Hobart-class AWD) there is a greater possibility of multiple RAN vessels operating together on extended deployments. This, coupled with the increased amount of munitions and fuels that could be expended would seem to dictate that more, and more varied fuels and stores need to be carried on the replenishment vessel.

The other perspective, that of having the same or slightly smaller-sized vessel but three instead of two stems from being able to ensure that one is always available for deployment with a surge capacity of two or perhaps even three replenishment vessels.

Two other points to consider for the future replenishment vessels.

It might (emphasis MIGHT) be beneficial for the RAN to choose some form of JSS that is also capable of embarking a limited amount of sealift. I myself would see this being used more to augment or replace forces already in place, than as being part of an initial landing. Of particular use could be the ability to carry as cargo additional helicopters or UAVs to replace any lost or damaged.

The second point is that the RNZN is also looking at replacing their oiler HMNZS Endeavour, which is a bit smaller than either RAN replenishment vessel. IMO it would make sense for the Oz and Kiwi governments and navies to sit down together and select a common replenishment vessel for both navies, potentially achieving some savings through economies of scale.

-Cheers

 

[PeterM]

I found an interesting audit review of the Westralia replacement/Sirius Purchase and Modification

ANAO Audit Report No.20 2006–07 -Purchase, Chartering and Modification of the New Fleet Oiler
http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2006-07_Audit_Report_20.pdf

 

[StingrayOZ]

If the RAN is going to have somewhere around an extra $1bn for any new ship capability, I would much rather it was invested in a 4th AWD rather than a 3rd LHD.

Well, I won't keep pushing the 3rd LHD concept. It was always going to be the most expensive option, I still think regionally it would be better if we got a 3rd LHD and a nearby friendly got a few LSD (NZ?), but thats not going to happen.

A 4th AWD is a more urgent requirement.

Moving on.

The fleet oiler I think should be much larger. We are looking at 11-12x 7,000 Frigates/destroyers, 2 x 27,000t+ LHD with limited fuel capabilities (particularly aviation), possibily highspeed cats, OCV, etc. All very thirsty.

I think it would be nice for it to be able to carry some shipping containers from port to port. The hardend decks then would also be suitable for helicopters light vechicals on deck etc. In addition to this a dedicated helicopter landing spot (pref 2 hardend enough to land a chinook) with refuelling capability and additional personel capacity. However each of these drive the cost up and smaller vessels would be less capable in this regard.

 

[PeterM]

The fleet oiler I think should be much larger. We are looking at 11-12x 7,000 Frigates/destroyers, 2 x 27,000t+ LHD with limited fuel capabilities (particularly aviation), possibily highspeed cats, OCV, etc. All very thirsty.

I think it would be nice for it to be able to carry some shipping containers from port to port. The hardend decks then would also be suitable for helicopters light vechicals on deck etc. In addition to this a dedicated helicopter landing spot (pref 2 hardend enough to land a chinook) with refuelling capability and additional personel capacity. However each of these drive the cost up and smaller vessels would be less capable in this regard.

I can certainly see the rationale behind more capability. Personally I am not 100% certain it is needed, but the argument can certainly be made.

There are not many larger classes amongst the non-commercial designs and these seem to be for the much bigger US and UK fleets.

I would rather use an existing design somewhere around the 20,000t mark, (perhaps something like the Cantabria or Berlin classes). If additional capability is needed (and I will leave that to the experts), imho the best option would be to get a 3rd vessel in addition to replacing Success and Sirius.

I imagine that being built by Navantia, the Cantabria would be a strong option, and would allow considerable scope for involvement by Australian Industry
Here is some information on the Cantabria
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPort...a/conocenos_modernizacion/03_buq_apro_combate

 

[swerve]

Whatever the Italians build to replace Stromboli & Vesuvio might also be a candidate, though if they choose a variant of Etna, as some sources suggest, it could be rather small. Etna is only 13400 tons full load.

Cantabria & the Berlin class are fairly similar to each other, I think.

 

[hairyman]

When talking about the replacement for Manooka and sister ship adn Tobruk,you need to consider that these ships are only about a third the size of the LHD's. A Bay class would probably be closer to twice their size. In preference to getting a third expensive LHD, a couple of smaller ships would be more sensible, as the RAN still would have the requirement for places like the Solomons, where a LHD would be overkill.

 

[PeterM]

Whatever the Italians build to replace Stromboli & Vesuvio might also be a candidate, though if they choose a variant of Etna, as some sources suggest, it could be rather small. Etna is only 13400 tons full load.

Cantabria & the Berlin class are fairly similar to each other, I think.

Cantabria and Berlin classes do seem to be very similar. Cantabria would have the advantage of leveraging the existing RAN experience with Navantia with the Canberra and Hobart classes.

Presumably the French will be replacing the Durance class (18,000t) in the near future, so whatever they choose could be a possible option, after all Success is a modified Durance Class. I wouldn't be surprised if the French and Italians selected a common design.