Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
With 3 ships 1 should be available all the time and 2 some of the time.
With 4 ships 1 should be available all the time and 2 most of the time.
Another potential way to look at it is that of three vessels, at any given time one would be undergoing maintenance, the second would be undergoing training and workups, and the third would be available for deployment, with a potential surge capability of one of the other vessels as well.

With four vessels instead of three, the typically one would be in maintenance, a second undergoing training, the third could be deployed, with the fourth available for deployment, and then a potential surge capability of an additional vessel as well.

Some of this depends on the expected maintenance cycles, as well as just how often the AWD's are going to be deployed 'away from home' as it were. While I could be mistaken, I suspect one of the major roles the AWD's are expected to have is to provide escort and air defence for the fatships. I would therefore expect that the AWD's are not going to be deployed far from Australian shores, unless they are escorting other vessels (like the fatships). I base this suspicion on just the limited number of hulls currently planned for area air defence within the RAN. The more GP nature of the upgraded Anzac-class FFH and whatever will replace they are more apt to be deployed on their own. Not that the AWD's would not be capable of independent operations, just IMO they are capable of acting as escorts in ways which the FFH's cannot.

-Cheers
 

Jaimito

Banned Member
Seems the French and the Spanish (and british) yards have simular problem in that they aren't getting quiet enough work through (although the goverments haven't been perfect in allowing that to happen either). This translates into is your ship building industry sustainable or not.

So both the French and the Spanish Im sure would be keen to please, and provide a few reasonable options if we were interested. Given both have pretty good supply, LHD's etc, they might concider moving one of the not so old ships to us and building a new one for themselves.

So in terms of aquisition we aren't up poo creek just yet, I would imagine that IOC within the RAN would be simular from any three of the nations offering solutions for us.

We are up poo creek in terms of capability right now. With ships that could be opened with a butterknife (and thats the good one!) and are essentially inoperaterable. Really all of this should have been happening while the LHD bid was getting up back in 07(?) Then we would have this capabilty right not and not have to scab off NZ, who lets be honest, doesn't really have much for us to scab. Not only that when we lobby for them to take a more active role we are going to be shakey ground given we are infact leaning on them for capability we should have 24/7 ourselves and is proberly more important than the F-111 capability gap.
I have doubts Spanish Armada sells any of Galicia or Castilla, not at low price, Castilla is full Command and Control, even for Nato rapid reaction force, Galicia is very used in all operations and exercises. And they need both, for example, today either Galicia or Castilla are joined in rapid reaction force of Nato, doing exercises near north african coast, together with the Principe de Asturias and the old Spanish Lst, which points the Lst is in good state.

Now, some people say something could be worked out, maybe, with the Spanish, what about a rapid lease of the Lst for some millions and start the design for a mini lhd, derived from the Canberra, from Navantia. But the fact they are deploying the Lst means they value it, and maybe even more after canibalizing the other decomissioned Lst.

Bay will be sold to the best offer, if Australia bid is smaller than Chilean or so. Maybe they sell it in Sotheby´s to the best pushed up offers in open room.

I wonder how the works for the Canberras are going in Australia, the electronics shouldnt be too far from ready, as the combat system Saab is previously developed with the Anzacs, comms and radar probably ready as off the shelf equipment. Maybe spend some money on speeding up the fitout, and get the Canberras in 2012.

Wrt humaniatarian assitance, i havent seen mentions to the Canterbury being useful in the earthquake, nor any of Manoora... needed to be sent for assitance for the Yasi cyclon.
 

Jaimito

Banned Member
If the Largs was taken off the table, I wonder if Spain would offer us a Galicia class, and then new build one for herself (as spain is in reasonable shape in sealift). Keeping Natavia busy after the LHD build would seem to benefit their industry.

The requirement seems to be written around a bay class, Largs does seem ideal. Being one of the biggest of its type and made for the RN with ideas shared by the RAN.
About keeping Navantia busy: they have more than 40 bids in the globe for building ships, but things with crisis are being delayed. Anyway they are studuying/joining the projects for the the north sea and others wrt alternative energies, sea windmills for producing electricity, which are really big projects, and just the ones planned are for like 15-20 years of working hours. Hopefully they can join those business, which maybe might be of interest in Australia, provided they have sea zones with wind.


The requirements for the 3rd sealift seem nice for Largs Bay, but peolple are saying that Largs Bay are not command and control, as they come now. What about any planned hospital facilities. What about the Abrahams tank, is even bigger than a Leopard 2. What about helos spots for lifting whole brigades by air or having 12 asw helos to put in air, because the Awd just has one. What about getting SSP (Siemens Schottel Propulsor) in the next 3rd sealift ship, ship smaller than Canberra, so maybe having the 3rd even faster than 20 knots. And about electronic systems requirements, are they going to be fully compatible with the next Cec, Saab´s, Aegis, subs.. all those things if you go for a new built 3rd sealift might not be any problem.
 

StoresBasher

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
With 3 ships 1 should be available all the time and 2 some of the time.
With 4 ships 1 should be available all the time and 2 most of the time.
FFG's are pretty much similar.
One in refit, one alongside, one doing work ups and one getting ready for a deployment.
 

ThePuss

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
FFG's are pretty much similar.
One in refit, one alongside, one doing work ups and one getting ready for a deployment.
Would love to comment on the Zac's....can't though:rolleyes:

p,s I would would hate to be the O.O.D of Stirling this weekend with two "East" Zac's and two Zac's from the "Far East" alongside. :hitwall
 

dave_kiwi

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Wrt humaniatarian assitance, i havent seen mentions to the Canterbury being useful in the earthquake, nor any of Manoora... needed to be sent for assitance for the Yasi cyclon.
Urr, how much would you like, re Canterbury and the Christchurch Earthquake -- its been useful <sic>:

NZDF - New Zealand Defence Force

NZDF - CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE - NZ DEFENCE FORCE - UPDATE 13

Its was dam lucky that the RNZN / Army / RNZAF were about to start a major exercise in the South Island when the earthquake struck.
 

Kirkzzy

New Member
Some of this depends on the expected maintenance cycles, as well as just how often the AWD's are going to be deployed 'away from home' as it were. While I could be mistaken, I suspect one of the major roles the AWD's are expected to have is to provide escort and air defence for the fatships. I would therefore expect that the AWD's are not going to be deployed far from Australian shores, unless they are escorting other vessels (like the fatships). I base this suspicion on just the limited number of hulls currently planned for area air defence within the RAN. The more GP nature of the upgraded Anzac-class FFH and whatever will replace they are more apt to be deployed on their own. Not that the AWD's would not be capable of independent operations, just IMO they are capable of acting as escorts in ways which the FFH's cannot.

-Cheers
Yeah that's why I asked, wanted to get a general idea of availability to see if they would be doing much independently, besides escorting, but looks like that will be their primary function.
 

Jaimito

Banned Member
Urr, how much would you like, re Canterbury and the Christchurch Earthquake -- its been useful <sic>:

NZDF - New Zealand Defence Force

NZDF - CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE - NZ DEFENCE FORCE - UPDATE 13

Its was dam lucky that the RNZN / Army / RNZAF were about to start a major exercise in the South Island when the earthquake struck.
Ok thanks.

"There are 216 regular force Navy and 23 Naval Reservists in the Lyttelton area, with the HMNZS CANTERBURY and HMNZS OTAGO. They are still focused on security patrols in the Lyttelton town centre.

HMNZS CANTERBURY will transit to Wellington this evening to embark a second load of relief vehicles and supplies, and will return to Lyttelton on Friday. She has transported a total of 1613 tonnes of vehicles and equipment, and 349 personnel in or out of Lyttelton so far. "
So actually can see a utility of it, deploy some soldiers to protect and patrol towns. Bring vehicles and supplies to the zone. Both things could be done greatly with a ship without militar command and control, even with just basic infermeries the limited hospital.

And that is the thing, with the helos/helos spots you can bring the soldiers to protect or the supplies much faster, precisely, avoiding broken roads, mountains etc.
 

StoresBasher

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Would love to comment on the Zac's....can't though:rolleyes:

p,s I would would hate to be the O.O.D of Stirling this weekend with two "East" Zac's and two Zac's from the "Far East" alongside. :hitwall
Yeah I was going to comment on them too, but wasn't sure if it was in the public domain already? Obviously not.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
AThe requirements for the 3rd sealift seem nice for Largs Bay, but peolple are saying that Largs Bay are not command and control, as they come now. What about any planned hospital facilities. What about the Abrahams tank, is even bigger than a Leopard 2.
Abrams is (1) not bigger than a Leopard 2: the idea that it's heavier is based on comparing weights in American tons of 907kg with weights in real 1000kg tons, & (2) the British Army (i.e. the user of Largs Bay) has the Challenger 2, which is a bit heavier than either.

AFAIK none of the other things you mention is part of the sealift ship requirement. It's not meant to be another LHD, but a cheaper, simpler, supplement to them.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
M1A2 SEP is:
  • about the same weight as a Leopard 2 A6M CAN
  • ~500 kg heavier than a Leopard 2 A6M
  • ~1000 kg heavier than a Strv-122B
  • ~1200 kg heavier than a Leopard 2 A4M CAN
  • ~3100 kg heavier than a Leopard 2 A6 (plain)
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Would love to comment on the Zac's....can't though:rolleyes:

p,s I would would hate to be the O.O.D of Stirling this weekend with two "East" Zac's and two Zac's from the "Far East" alongside. :hitwall
I can tell you it sucked being a member of Port Services on Friday, 6 Anzacs and Sirius to berth within a couple of hours, Monday morning will be fun aswell. The next few weeks will be very busy.
 

ThePuss

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I can tell you it sucked being a member of Port Services on Friday, 6 Anzacs and Sirius to berth within a couple of hours, Monday morning will be fun aswell. The next few weeks will be very busy.
Awww poor baby had to work after lunch on Friday :teary, It must of been tough after doing bugger all during the week :D.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Awww poor baby had to work after lunch on Friday :teary, It must of been tough after doing bugger all during the week :D.
It certainly was tough, don't know how I coped with getting Wednesday off :D
Though compared to the greenies in B75 & TUASSC who just play Playstation and Xbox all day, it is tough :p:
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
AFAIK none of the other things you mention is part of the sealift ship requirement. It's not meant to be another LHD, but a cheaper, simpler, supplement to them.
The primary role of the sealift ship is even more basic than that. It is to be a stores ferry between the LHDs and a logistics hub. Simply carry stuff back and forth. However since the LHDs will operate as a sea base it needs to be able to offload to the LHDs outside a port or sheltered waters. Hence the requirement for helo and LCM capability. This mission requirement is also exactly the same as the RFA LSDs of the Bay class.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
M1A2 SEP is:
  • about the same weight as a Leopard 2 A6M CAN
  • ~500 kg heavier than a Leopard 2 A6M
  • ~1000 kg heavier than a Strv-122B
  • ~1200 kg heavier than a Leopard 2 A4M CAN
  • ~3100 kg heavier than a Leopard 2 A6 (plain)
Just wanted to point out that the Australian Army Abrams are a variant of the M1A1, not M1A2. Perhaps AD or Abe could come up with what the weight of the Aussie Abrams are.

As I understand it, they are essentially M1A1 Abrams which have had elements of the SEP and TUSK upgrades applied to them, but with that, I suspect the weight would still be less than that of an M1A2.

-Cheers
 

Jaimito

Banned Member
Abrams is (1) not bigger than a Leopard 2: the idea that it's heavier is based on comparing weights in American tons of 907kg with weights in real 1000kg tons, & (2) the British Army (i.e. the user of Largs Bay) has the Challenger 2, which is a bit heavier than either.

AFAIK none of the other things you mention is part of the sealift ship requirement. It's not meant to be another LHD, but a cheaper, simpler, supplement to them.
I said bigger, not meaning heavier:

Abrams 2: 9.78x3.66.
Leopard 2e: 7.70x3.75.
Challenger 2: 8.30x3.5-4.2.

But actually the bigger size of Abrams will probably result only in less tanks accomodated in garage, but not any type of incompatibility.

Mod edit:

Abrams brother. Not "Abrahams".

Regards,

AD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Just wanted to point out that the Australian Army Abrams are a variant of the M1A1, not M1A2. Perhaps AD or Abe could come up with what the weight of the Aussie Abrams are.
Australia bought the M1A1 AIM main battle tank, which was upgraded with selected components of the TUSK - Tank Urban Survivability Kit.

Chief of Army advised the "standard" weight of these vehicles are 62,000 kilograms.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2004/aug/040804/abrams_M1A1.ppt

As I understand it, they are essentially M1A1 Abrams which have had elements of the SEP and TUSK upgrades applied to them, but with that, I suspect the weight would still be less than that of an M1A2.

-Cheers
TUSK yes, SEP no.

Regards,

AD
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I said bigger, not meaning heavier:

Abrams 2: 9.78x3.66.
Leopard 2e: 7.70x3.75.
Challenger 2: 8.30x3.5-4.2.
The length of an M1A1 with gun pointed aft and locked in the travelling position is 9.03m.

The length of a Leopard 2 with L44 gun (2A4, 2A5) pointed aft and locked in the travelling position is 8.49m. Leopard 2 with L55 gun (2A6) has a travel length (gun aft) of 9.81m.

So that Spanish Leopard 2e you refer to must have its turret removed to be only 7.7m long. Is this the standard configuration of Spanish tanks? Doesn’t seem like a very practical idea to me… Cuts down on their length sure but kind of defeats the purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top