nope, not on any given sundayAre you sure about that ? I heard a really good buzz that the S-80........
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
But...they have AIP and are better then the Collins class...and...and...
More seriously, any more news about Largs Bay? Think you mentioned elsewhere a few weeks ago that a second inspection team had gone over?
NFI. but it has to go to external agencies for review as well. Bearing in mind whats happening currently in Senate Estimates, I reckon that unless its a sweet sweet deal then the teams will be nervous as buggery
I have a lot of time for Navantia but to be honest I believe we would be getting a better return if we had gone for the evolved over the F-100 and a purpose designed option over the LHD. If Korea can do it we can, what we lack is the political will and maturity to do it.
I've seen some of the traffic re why the Korean option was unattractive (and I was pro-Korean solution)
So I can appreciate why they went cold.
are you talking LHD or AWD there? i dont think you can get a much better amphib than a JC1, but the AWD i can think of a couple that would be a better choice. especially since were only getting 3
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I believe they are talking about the LHD.
Specifically that if the Koreans could design and build the Dokdo Class LHD with no previous experience operating that type of vessel that we could do the same.
I believe the Australian government did release a RFP for an LHD, but the Australian shipyards made their bids with foreign designed vessels... The government also researched whether it was feasible to build the LHD in Australia. The study revealed building the hulls abroad and fitting out the ships in Australia was the best solution... More or less the same with the AWDs although the AWDs will be built in Australia...
Not how it worked. Much earlier than the RFT the Government had decided to acquire an off the shelf LHD and authorised a study of the Spanish and French designs. Northrop Grumman tried to get in with their LPD 17 but were politely told no.
When approval was given for an RFT it was basically a couting session with various shipbuilders and the two designers (DCN, Navantia). All made offers of total builds in Australia. Then Tenix (now BAE) thought they were pretty smart to also offer a mixed build in Spain and Australia because of concerns that Australian industry would not have the capacity to build the hulls because of mining boom (this was all before the GFC). It was also cheaper.
The G&C Evolved AWD and a designed to spec LHD would have both been much better than the Navantia offers. But the Government had been spooked by Collins and wanted more assurances - even if they were hollow - so ordered off the shelf designs. Of course any advantage of off the shelf is lost when you completely change the build strategy but its much harder for the majority of people ignorant of how ships are build to blame subsequent failures on the Government level.
Gibbs & Cox has been for a long time the preferred designer of US warships for decades, not to mention involved with other nations companies and designs as well, including Navantia and the Spanish F-100 frigates... As for the designed as spec LHD did the shipyards involved have a history of designing warships from scratch which have been built in the past? When built were the Collins class submarines, derived from a Swedish submarine, a total and complete success? No wonder why the Australian government chose to go with off the shelf designs...
So it is either the back SEa Ram or the Vls 8 cells, probably not fit both.
I had read about the Vls in the Bpe.
I wonder if they purchase the Bay some have said it will be 6 month ahead of today when it will be ready for Ran´s use.
The fact that there is gap should not make the Ran take a decision too quickly.
Now people is saying things like having an specific design from own requirements instead an off the shelf design, that was thougth for the Spanish Navy general requirments, the Lhd i mean.
In the sense, that for the 3 rd sealift ship also you can choose either a 2nd hand pretty new ship, or a design specifically done above Ran´s requirements.
But Ran´s requirements:
-for ongoing sustainment of the Lhd.
-for sealift.
It´s the hurry so big to tackle the 3rd sealift ship now? Does it make a difference to have the Bay in 6 months ahead, or having that new design off the Ran´s requirements in 2 years ahead? Have Manoora, Tobruck .. been needed crucially to be used in any real emergency in the last 2 years for example?
Bay has good and very good capabilities, but maybe Ran´s requirement ideally would have a bigger helo capability than given by Bay´s or similars.
Say the money for the 3rd sealift ship is 400 mill. dollar, is 280 mill. euro, with that money, comparing the +-450 mill euro that costed the Lhd platform from Navantia, you could get from Navantia a design like:
-120 mts long.
-32 mts. wide.
-13-14000 t. displacement.
-1500 sq mts hangar (for many helos or vehicles).
-dock for 2 Lcm.
-heavy deck for 14 Leopard tanks size.
-flight deck with 4-5 spots which make a difference wrt Bay´s capability.
-400 troops.
And use the Saab combat system and similar fitout that for Canberras.
The design is simply cutting the Canberra to the half in lenght, but keeping height, and width.
4-5 spots for: say each spot is able to sustain handle 3 helos simultaneously.
It would be a more complete set of 2 Lhd plus one miniLhd, so that at least always you would have 2 of them.
And even for smaller jobs than the Lhd.
Just i ask if the dock length as lenght of 1 Lcm and 1 Supercat, would it not give problems for floading the dock, i mean if you require a minimum lenght.
If Ran decided to contract Navantia, who acomplishes prices and schedules, for such ship, Australia could get also the rights or part of the rights, so that you could build another for you or NZ later.
The fact that there is gap should not make the Ran take a decision too quickly.
Now people is saying things like having an specific design from own requirements instead an off the shelf design, that was thougth for the Spanish Navy general requirments, the Lhd i mean.
In the sense, that for the 3 rd sealift ship also you can choose either a 2nd hand pretty new ship, or a design specifically done above Ran´s requirements.
But Ran´s requirements:
-for ongoing sustainment of the Lhd.
-for sealift.
It´s the hurry so big to tackle the 3rd sealift ship now? Does it make a difference to have the Bay in 6 months ahead, or having that new design off the Ran´s requirements in 2 years ahead? Have Manoora, Tobruck .. been needed crucially to be used in any real emergency in the last 2 years for example?
Bay has good and very good capabilities, but maybe Ran´s requirement ideally would have a bigger helo capability than given by Bay´s or similars.
Say the money for the 3rd sealift ship is 400 mill. dollar, is 280 mill. euro, with that money, comparing the +-450 mill euro that costed the Lhd platform from Navantia, you could get from Navantia a design like:
-120 mts long.
-32 mts. wide.
-13-14000 t. displacement.
-1500 sq mts hangar (for many helos or vehicles).
-dock for 2 Lcm.
-heavy deck for 14 Leopard tanks size.
-flight deck with 4-5 spots which make a difference wrt Bay´s capability.
-400 troops.
And use the Saab combat system and similar fitout that for Canberras.
The design is simply cutting the Canberra to the half in lenght, but keeping height, and width.
4-5 spots for: say each spot is able to sustain handle 3 helos simultaneously.
It would be a more complete set of 2 Lhd plus one miniLhd, so that at least always you would have 2 of them.
And even for smaller jobs than the Lhd.
Just i ask if the dock length as lenght of 1 Lcm and 1 Supercat, would it not give problems for floading the dock, i mean if you require a minimum lenght.
If Ran decided to contract Navantia, who acomplishes prices and schedules, for such ship, Australia could get also the rights or part of the rights, so that you could build another for you or NZ later.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A few things to keep in mind. The ships Manoora, Kanimbla and Tobruk have undergone very heavy utilization by the RAN/ADF. In point of fact, amphibious vessels are very useful for disaster operations and response. The heavy flooding in QLD or the earthquake in Christchurch NZ are prime examples of a serious need for the RAN to have such vessels available.
Also, in terms of redesigning the LHD to have a new class which has the same beam and draught, but half the length... While I am no maritime engineer, I would imagine such changes would have a serious impact on a ships stability.
Ultimately, the RAN needs to have some amphibious capability ASAP, or risk being unable to response to events as needed.
-Cheers
Only one of the five articles of this issue Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine was posted on line and it wasn’t the longest or the most interesting of the five.
The web address is Aviation, Defense and Space News, Jobs, Conferences by AVIATION WEEK.
I usually do not go to the web site very often because I read the magazine every week. But I highly recommend to everyone for them to read the “Defense Technology International” magazine which you can read for free by going to the defense section by hitting the button of the same name just below logo on the home page, and then look for the magazine on the left hand side of the next page on the left side down about half way. It takes a while to load it’s a PDF.
Sorry if my query was appropriate but I really don’t know what kinds of information you guys normally rely on beyond your personal experiences, which I value. Personally I think that most articles in Newspapers, and that means any body’s Newspapers, are almost worthless and I prefer trade magazines and professional journals if I can get them but sometimes these sources are regional. As an example there was an article today in the prestigious “Wall Street Journal” about possibly restarting the F-22 fighter line due to changing world political and military situations. Though the reasoning was sound I give the article little credence unless it came from a more connected insider source.
A leasing could be done, not compromising the potential requirements of 3rd sealift ship. A leasing of the Bay or other ship avalaible.
I read New Zealand was looking for a mini Lhd or Canterbury replacement.
And interest was made even in building the Canberras in Australia.
The market actually lacks of such a ship, maybe S. Giorgios. Not that big and expensive as a Canberra, but very capable even in helos ops.
So that in future years, Ran might want, to make the carrier league "properly done", it just has the Ran, to build another mini Lhd, having 2 miniLhds for amphibious and a 3rd mini for N. Z., and then having in 2 Canberras like 34 F35bs.
To assist disaster is relative, the main help they have is the helos to bring people to the hospital in the ship or save them from the water. So the more helos spots the better human aid. They bring containers with food, water and Cimic. Bay has 2 spots probably for med helos, but not for a Chinook spot and another med spot together, it seems.
I must admit this one concerns me as well GF, particulary if they consider the "Canterbury" Solution as being able to provide for us until the LHD's arrive.
The Bay is not looking like the quick fire sale we would have liked
P.S. I was joking about the S by the way
We need to get the Bay thing sorted ASAP.I must admit this one concerns me as well GF, particulary if they consider the "Canterbury" Solution as being able to provide for us until the LHD's arrive.
The Bay is not looking like the quick fire sale we would have liked
P.S. I was joking about the S by the way
We've been caught with our pants down twice now already with no fat ship available to help out with natural disasters, such as the QLD and now Christchurch.
No matter how much money we throw at Tobruk and Kanimbla, the facts are simple, they are old broken worn out ships that should have been replaced already.
Its probably time to bite the bullet and factor lifecycles into our procurement and life extension plans instead of just trying to stretch everything until it is literally falling apart all at the same time (i.e. block obsolescence) and any suitable replacement is still years away.
The simple act of ensuring the RAN has capable ships it needs when it needs them would ensure there was enough work to sustain a local ship construction industry as well as to develop a significant ship design capability. South Korea chose this path and evolved from a war torn agrarian society into one of the worlds great manufacturing nations. When I was a child we left them for dead in almost every way, now the opposite is true, we allowed our industries to wither and die or in some cases deliberately killed them off (stupidity, short sighted political agendas, blinkered ideology, deliberate strategy to harm opponents / competition etc.) where Korea made strategic decisions and stuck to them to reap the rewards for the benefit of their citizens decades later.
Plans to replace Tobruk should have been initiated once the decision had been made to retain her as a third large amphib, this would have averted our current situation. The AWDs should have been ordered to either replace the DDGs as they retired or instead of the FFG upgrade. We cancelled the planned replacement for the Fremantles and then had to press gang MCMVs and ANZACs into border protection as the shagged Freos were overwhelmed. We will encounter problems with Success long before her replacement is ordered yet even though we know her condition is poor no efforts have been expended to ensure her vital capabilities are continued.
Ships wear out and the harder you use them the quicker this happens. Considering we have a real navy that spends a lot of time at sea doing what we need it to do, we need to replace our ships not life extend them. Major upgrades mean you have effectively lost the use of the platform for a couple of years during the upgrade and the resulting platform can never offer the level of capability or length of service a new build can. New builds, on the other hand, can and should be undertaken while the platform they are intended to replace is still in active service.
When the Camberra and the Adelaide arrive and start working the Force projection capabilities of the RAN will be very good.
But, for something like Tonga, Fiji or other micronesia states sending an LHD is overkill
Something like a Bay class, a Roterdamm/Galicia Class or a Foudre or similar LPD, with ro/ro capabilities, capable of transporting 3-5 medium or 1-2 heavy Helicopters would be much more appropiate (IMO)
But, for something like Tonga, Fiji or other micronesia states sending an LHD is overkill
Something like a Bay class, a Roterdamm/Galicia Class or a Foudre or similar LPD, with ro/ro capabilities, capable of transporting 3-5 medium or 1-2 heavy Helicopters would be much more appropiate (IMO)
- Status