Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Hi Guys, I want to try and get a grasp on Australia's military relationship with the US and specifically the Navies of the 2 nations. Are we really as close an allied force to the US as is made out by the media? Is this only because of the ANZUS treaty if we are?
If we are so close why? what is in it for the Americans? I can see what's in it for AUS but our defence force is a drop in the ocean compared to theirs so what is in it for them Or are they really just helping out a smaller nation with similar interests in the world.
And lastly regarding Anzus if someone were to directly attack AUS would the USA drop everything and come running to our defence (providing we could not sort out the problem ourselves) or would this only happen if it served them to do so?
I am sorry for asking possibly stupid questions but when you search for things like this on the web there is so much conflicting information, I know for sure on here there are professional people in the industry who know the whole story and are not going to be blinded by which way they swing or country pride etc

Thanks

For starters, it is not really a RAN-USN relationship, it is a Oz-US relationship.

As already observed, the US and Australia have similar national origins, and there is also shared values. Then there is the historical ties between the US and Australia, while these historical ties are not as strong or intertwined as those of Australia and NZ, they are still present nonetheless.

Then there is also the strategic location of Australia. From a US perspective, in order to maintain a worldwide reach and comms/sensor footprint, secure sites spread around the world are needed. As such, Australia is host to joint US/ADF comms facilities, and elements of the US space programme have comm and radar sites within Australia.

Now, if something were to threaten Australia, it is questionable just what the US would do exactly. The US IMO would act with its own interests in mind, but what those are exactly is very situational. Keep in mind though, that pretty much the only nation which is currently able to directly threaten Australia is the US...

-Cheers

 

[SASWanabe]

has anyone given any thought on the Balikpapans maybe being replaced with a small LST or LPD 3~5000 tons? i have been looking through the requirements and it seems like an LST would be a good fit.

maybe a mini Tobruk?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes, the bay is a really good fit with the LHD's. Its been designed for the same mission. (Or we designed our requirements from the UK designs).

The RAN has awesome amphibous capability in terms of ships.

 

[Kirkzzy]

has anyone given any thought on the Balikpapans maybe being replaced with a small LST or LPD 3~5000 tons? i have been looking through the requirements and it seems like an LST would be a good fit.

maybe a mini Tobruk?

Yeah it got me thinking a while back when I thought to myself "wait, why don't we just replace them with larger ships but be it in smaller numbers"

 

[PeterM]

has anyone given any thought on the Balikpapans maybe being replaced with a small LST or LPD 3~5000 tons? i have been looking through the requirements and it seems like an LST would be a good fit.

maybe a mini Tobruk?

I don't see a LST happening (although it might be nice)

I think it more likely we look at something like the Caimen-200
BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft Tank Caimen-200 (Design DS703)

it can reportedly carry 3 MBTs, with a 16+knt speed and 1000nm range and around 840t. Half a dozen of these would be very useful vessels and I expect the general kind of thing we are intending.

 

[SASWanabe]

the selling point for LSTs is that even 6 Caimen 200s cant carry as much as the 1 Tobruk, or go as far or as fast.

i realise we will never get a 1 for 1 replacement if we chose LSTs at most we would probably get 2 or 3 depending on the size, it would still be a huge boost in capability.

for the times when a Canberra or Largs is just a bit too big

 

[John Newman]

I don't see a LST happening (although it might be nice)

I think it more likely we look at something like the Caimen-200

it can reportedly carry 3 MBTs, with a 16+knt speed and 1000nm range and around 840t. Half a dozen of these would be very useful vessels and I expect the general kind of thing we are intending.

The Caimen video looks pretty good, but is this design just a "concept" or have any of these actually hit service with anyone??

What is the difference in size / capability with the current heavy landing ships?

I assume that the navy will want to have a "proven in services" design, if possible.

I remember when the white paper came out, there were some suggestions that one possiblity being suggested, by who I don't know but I did see some photos and that was of a French heavy landing craft/ship that had a helicopter landing deck on the stern.

Anyway, time will tell.

 

[StevoJH]

The French LST's date from the 1970's and will soon require replacing, we need a modern design, not a design from the 1960's.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BATRAL"]BATRAL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]

I think the USN also has/had a class of small LST's in service?

Edit: was actually the US Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Frank_S._Besson,_Jr._class_Logistics_Support_Vessel

 

[PeterM]

I remember when the white paper came out, there were some suggestions that one possiblity being suggested, by who I don't know but I did see some photos and that was of a French heavy landing craft/ship that had a helicopter landing deck on the stern.

Most likely one of the larger CNIM designs
CNIM - Landing Craft and Multipurpose Patrol Craft - Naval Technology

 

[uuname]

Yeah it got me thinking a while back when I thought to myself "wait, why don't we just replace them with larger ships but be it in smaller numbers"

It's been discussed before, and my understanding is that numbers are important. Sometimes you need the ability to be in multiple places at once, to perform duties over a wider area.

In addition, while it would be nice to get 6 austere dock ships, valid arguments we raised about the trouble the RAN would have crewing them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

For starters, it is not really a RAN-USN relationship, it is a Oz-US relationship.

That is true, but the relationship between PACOM and Oz is regarded as stronger than some of our country to country relationships.

Consider PACOM in its entirety - it adds some significant clout, and they have been responsible for swinging political decisions in favour of Oz

This is over and above the country to country relationship.

RAN has been nicknamed the 7th and a 1/2 Fleet (TIC)

 

[swerve]

Galicia is 160 mts, Bay is 176, 16 mts longer, the width of the garage should be +-16mts, as Bay is 26 beam, 16x16 is 256 sq mts....

You said Bay had "much more", i say "a bit more", to detail things....

16 metres longer, plus a lot less dock. Can you at least remember to include everything? You've ignored hundreds of square metres of dock which Galicia has, but Largs Bay doesn't. And there's a little bit more beam, as well, so every metre of length potentially (depending on internal layout) provides a bit more vehicle deck.

 

[SASWanabe]

It's been discussed before, and my understanding is that numbers are important. Sometimes you need the ability to be in multiple places at once, to perform duties over a wider area.

In addition, while it would be nice to get 6 austere dock ships, valid arguments we raised about the trouble the RAN would have crewing them.

i was under the impression that navy crewing numbers were up into 120% at the moment.

not to mention the Balikpapans are based east and north coasts so we wont have the nonsense we have crewing the submarines...

i think the added ability a proper LPD/LST would offer over any LCH would far outweigh the loss of vessels if we only got 3.

then there is an idea i saw someone raise somewhere else about buying a design that could have a secondary patrol role and swapping 3 or 4 of the future OPV for an LPD type ship. bare in mind the next gen OPVs are expected to cost atleast 150m each and Thailand bought an Endurance class LPD for about 150m so a smaller 3-5000ton ship would probably cost less

 

[swerve]

I don't see a LST happening (although it might be nice)

I think it more likely we look at something like the Caimen-200
BMT Defence Services - Fast Landing Craft Tank Caimen-200 (Design DS703)

it can reportedly carry 3 MBTs, with a 16+knt speed and 1000nm range and around 840t. Half a dozen of these would be very useful vessels and I expect the general kind of thing we are intending.

That range is with a load & at full speed, IIRC. Maximum range would be a lot more.

The Caimen video looks pretty good, but is this design just a "concept" or have any of these actually hit service with anyone??

Design from BMT (a firm which I think is well respected), not yet built. I don't know how fully worked up the design is.

What is the difference in size / capability with the current heavy landing ships?.

See my post on the previous page.

 

[Jezza]

Not heard anything about a UK refit. I'd assume that the Aussies will want to do that 'in-house', so that they can have a look under the covers & see if there's anything wrong that hasn't been declared.



The Bays are BASED ON, not identical to the Galicia or Rotterdam classes, so they have facilities to refuel & berth helo's, but were never designed to have a hangar fitted. To fit one would be extremely expensive & it would be on top of the lift to the deck below (not a good idea!)

Having worked on the Bay's & seen them in-service, I have no memory of a collapsable hangar ever being fitted, although I thought that the Canadians (??), The Americans (in the past) & French have used them.

Bay Class Auxiliary Ship Alternative Landing Ship Logistic (ALSL) - Naval Technology


SA

Picture of tent hanger

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The RAN and Army actually have their own ideas for the LCH replacement (JP2048-5 "Independent Watercraft"). It will be a ship much bigger than the LCH at around 1,300 tonnes and able (working as a pair) to deploy a combat team sized force. The key requirement is being able to land the force and also provide sea going sailing. The BMT Caiman is close to the requirement and there are some interesting stern loaded ideas out there (the ramp is at the aft of the ship). The Australian designed SLV [Stern Landing Vessel] has generated a lot of interest in the RAN. The 65m hull looks designed for JP2048-5.

http://www.seatransport.com/files/pdf/COMPRESSED-Sea-Transport-Military-Solutions-Nov-2009.pdf

 

[Volkodav]

i was under the impression that navy crewing numbers were up into 120% at the moment.

not to mention the Balikpapans are based east and north coasts so we wont have the nonsense we have crewing the submarines...

i think the added ability a proper LPD/LST would offer over any LCH would far outweigh the loss of vessels if we only got 3.

then there is an idea i saw someone raise somewhere else about buying a design that could have a secondary patrol role and swapping 3 or 4 of the future OPV for an LPD type ship. bare in mind the next gen OPVs are expected to cost atleast 150m each and Thailand bought an Endurance class LPD for about 150m so a smaller 3-5000ton ship would probably cost less

My understanding is that the current LCH has a very similar capacity to the USN LCU but is far more suited to extended transits and independent operations.

My concept is to design a frigate sized Multi Role Vessel with a docking well sized to fit a single LCU sized landing craft, or a pair of LCM, or several CBs. It would have a very large, for its size, flight deck (i.e. able to operate a Chinook or CH-53K) and a hanger for two medium sized helos. The combat system would be similar to that of the OCVs with space and weight for a medium calibre gun and VLS forward, provision for CIWS and / or RCS on and around the superstructure.

This class could enter service as an un-armed or minimally armed auxiliary with the potential to be upgraded as required into a class of modern day APDs that are as capable as looking after themselves as the upgraded ANZACs. They would replace the LCHs and some of the proposed OCVs providing more capability than what is currently proposed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

My understanding is that the current LCH has a very similar capacity to the USN LCU but is far more suited to extended transits and independent operations.

That’s debateable. The LCH certainly has a better view from the bridge but the USN LCU is a very good sea boat for a barge hull landing craft. But the most important thing about the LCH is that it was a ship no one wanted. The Army wanted the LSM Mk II yet the Navy forced them into a ship less than half that size for political purposes. So now that the Navy has ownership of the LCH role and is motivated about amphibious warfare they are reverting to the original requirement. So the new landing ship needs to carry about twice the load as the LCH.

My concept is to design a frigate sized Multi Role Vessel with a docking well sized to fit a single LCU sized landing craft, or a pair of LCM, or several CBs. It would have a very large, for its size, flight deck (i.e. able to operate a Chinook or CH-53K) and a hanger for two medium sized helos. The combat system would be similar to that of the OCVs with space and weight for a medium calibre gun and VLS forward, provision for CIWS and / or RCS on and around the superstructure.

Well where are you going to get the money for 12-16 frigates to carry the 12-16 LCU sized landing craft needed to meet the requirement? Plus no SEA 1180 ship combat system is going to be able to support the use of missiles needing a VLS.

This class could enter service as an un-armed or minimally armed auxiliary with the potential to be upgraded as required into a class of modern day APDs that are as capable as looking after themselves as the upgraded ANZACs. They would replace the LCHs and some of the proposed OCVs providing more capability than what is currently proposed.

It will be cheaper and easier just to build the 6 LSM sized LCH replacements and escort it with SEA 1180 OCVs rather than morphing the two ships together.

 

[Volkodav]

The RAN and Army actually have their own ideas for the LCH replacement (JP2048-5 "Independent Watercraft"). It will be a ship much bigger than the LCH at around 1,300 tonnes and able (working as a pair) to deploy a combat team sized force. The key requirement is being able to land the force and also provide sea going sailing. The BMT Caiman is close to the requirement and there are some interesting stern loaded ideas out there (the ramp is at the aft of the ship). The Australian designed SLV [Stern Landing Vessel] has generated a lot of interest in the RAN. The 65m hull looks designed for JP2048-5.

http://www.seatransport.com/files/pdf/COMPRESSED-Sea-Transport-Military-Solutions-Nov-2009.pdf

OK thats cool, scrap the dock I proposed and go for the SLV in conjuntion with the ability to launch and recover CBs and LCMs at sea as required.

Yes I know its expensive and there would be concern that the ships would spend most of their time off east Africa harassing pirates or that they would displace proper combatants from the order of battle but I believe they would be a great addition to the ADF in that they would free up our primary surface combtants and big amphibs by taking on all of the that are too big for the OCVs but don't require first rate warships.

 

[Sea Toby]

Several 3-D images of a Bay

The link below has several 3-D images of a Bay. Notice how containers can be stacked behind the superstructure where a hangar would most likely be fitted. I like this flexibility in the Bay class design where this space can be used to either stack containers or be used for the tent hangar depending upon the mission. Also notice where the British would fit a CIWS forward of the superstructure and behind the mast/stack above the superstructure.

Google Image Result for http://files.turbosquid.com/Preview/2011/02/13__14_35_09/bay_class6_tsbuild_v2.01.jpgfd821a20-65f9-4908-b974-c71cb1ca15cbLarge.jpg