Ok fair comment on the capacity, I wasn't aware the requirement was for greater lift from the LCH(R). That really does change / challenge what I was suggesting and rule out the concept of an APD. The canning of the LSM MkII was a tragedy as the LCH, even supported by Tobruk (and to an extent by Jervis Bay), really was a big step backwards from the LSM, HMAS Sydney combination we had through the 60s.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I was sort of thinking of a mini Endurance but with a finer more combatant type hull. The whole concept is a bit confused and based on a variety of info from different sourses on different classes of ship. I like the idea of a mini LPD that can look after its self in a scrap but that doesn't make it a good let alone practical idea.
The SLV concept Abe mentioned is intreging in that it makes 20kt+ speeds conceivable while retaining an over the beach capability. Could this be scaled up to something akin to the Danish Absalon Class MRV but with a beaching / flodable stern dock capability?
The cogs are turning but its time to crash, might give it some more thought over the week end.
They are building one for the UAE with 13,000 dwt!
Last edited:
Sounds as if the Caimen 200 would have to be scaled up a bit to fit.
New one on me Jezza ! I'd never seen the hangar before on any of the LSD's.
fftopicThat aside, that's a nice shot of the outer wall in Pompy dockyard. Any idea what Type 22 was in front & btw what ship was the pic taken from ?? (lol)Personally, here's a couple of my own pics that I took during a 'press day' in 2006...
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/british-warships/p43729-mounts-bayflooded-up21.html
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/british-warships/p43808-lcu-in-well-dock.html
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/british-warships/p43809-lcu2b-rhib-in-well-dock.html
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/british-warships/p43731-rfa-mounts-bay.html
SA
some decent images now in Navy News
there's also some commentary on negotiations with RNZN on the use of Canterbury when Tobruk goes into maintenance
there's also some commentary on negotiations with RNZN on the use of Canterbury when Tobruk goes into maintenance
Bay is a force multiplier when the Lhds. It´s like having almost a 3rd Lhd, complementing just 1 Lhd or both, Bay can carry containers and light and heavy vehicles so that you can use most of the hangar in the Lhds for aircraft. So it is a multiplier of forces because you put as many aircraft in air ops as needed. But this is Bay tied to the Lhds.
But think of tsunami along 500 kms of coast, or civil war nearby with different hotpots along the country, you would wish to send each of the 2/3 fatships avalaible to different points along the coast or wherever, maybe 100 or 200 kms separated between them. In this case then use the tent if needed and as many helos as convenient in Bay. Think of 1 Lhd in training, and other in the west of Australia, and the Bay in the East, and something spots in the geography, in the east, a natural disaster, a conflict, is the Bay going to wait for the Lhd to arrive or will go soon as possible. Etc.
Containers things are fine, like it is to be tied up to the Lhds, but i prefer to speak the situation the Bay is decided to carry some helos, less usual or not don´t mind, the Rn put the tent. The tent shown in the picture is a bit impressive, quite high, should be strong against elements without problem, it seems for just one helo, need a bit of space inside for tools,etc.
And still have quite space for containers between cranes and the superstructure.
So would use the surplus of the surplus to make a proper tent suited to helo requirements. Rnavy requirements maybe was more specific to be the Bay tied up to Albions or Ocean, etc, but maybe Adf having just 1 Bay (and 0 Lhd for some time) would think of flexibility for having helo capacity in Bay.
A tent compatible with the helos you want to carry in the Bay, tent suited to other requirements. A big tent with space for one helo maintenance, and 2 parked in, almost covering all the beam from side to side, 26 mts., almost 8 mts for each helo width. So that if you want to carry 2 Tigers and one Nh90 or Sikorsky. Or 1 Nh90 and 2 Asw helos. I know nothing about Ran being interested in buying Ospreys in the future. And the Austr Chinooks. I like this kind of games.
I don´t know if Bay has weapon lift, but i´ve seen like a couple of small lifts in the container deck. Probably Bay has something for helos weapons if needed, general multifunctional zones, lifts, magazyns in the superstructure etc. Quite exciting.
Bay will be able to operate independantly of the LHD's.
Most of our ships have hangers. Aircraft don't have to always live in the hanger. Infact most spend most of their time outside. If your anchored in a safe protected harbour, away from seaspray its not a huge issue. If you can't afford that luxury then you send a LHD.
I think the Bay is fine and I now think that there won't be any siginficant changes to its tent/helo faclilities.
I don't think the ADF will ever seriously concider operating the ospreys. We are better served with chinooks and other purely rotary or fixed wing assets that are cheaper to purchase and operate.
Most of our ships have hangers. Aircraft don't have to always live in the hanger. Infact most spend most of their time outside. If your anchored in a safe protected harbour, away from seaspray its not a huge issue. If you can't afford that luxury then you send a LHD.
I think the Bay is fine and I now think that there won't be any siginficant changes to its tent/helo faclilities.
I don't think the ADF will ever seriously concider operating the ospreys. We are better served with chinooks and other purely rotary or fixed wing assets that are cheaper to purchase and operate.
In the sense what requirement is more important, to add concentration of gear and soldiers tied the Bay with the Lhd? or to have flexibility to deploy in different strategical points away? Both are full of sense, and will depend on reality demand.
What about Uavs? If you ever deploy Bay alone sure Uav intelligence intensive 24/7 you´ll need some containers with Uavs (or in the garage) hehe and a suitable "tent" (or in the garage maintenance as well with the different workshops).
The Chinooks would be great, what about a Bay´s air wing of 1 Chinook, 1 Tiger and 1 Mr60h Sikorsky Asw multipurpose.
But the Osprey in with configs, has range of 1600 or 3600 ferry and 700 or 2200 ferry the Chinook, and speed of 500 kms/h! (200-300 kms/h helo), in the context of Asia, Australia, thousands of islands and kms, such an endurance might give very good flexibility and time in air, it covers lots lots more of space than any helo. It makes some of the transport role of the Chinook. It can make search and rescue really away and sooner than any helo. The asw variant. Think of the area of sea radarized by the Osprey. Add to that the 2 Lhd are Osprey capable as well.
It had to be bought, it had to be logistically maintained and learnt, as any other helo.
While the Chinooks has the strong advantage that already have it. Just need to adapt the ship, ie make a xxl tent. Any tent should be cheap.
Despite Chinook is the king of carrying soldiers like 50 (vs like 30 Osprey) and cargo like 12 t. vs like 7-8 in Osprey. So actually a functional mix of Osprey and Chinook.
I have doubts Adf ever goes for Osprey.
For some unknown reason, the RAN threads seem to always migrate to a stage where fanciful claims are made about what ships can and cannot do, and what RANs CONOPs will or should be.
I would rather not see us having to head down the path again of reminding people to suspend their own tactical planning expertise as a substitute for what a vessels requirements are, and what RANs intent will be.
there are a whole raft of posters who've paid the price along the way and ended up being banned because of a lack of self control and common sense in making claims
It's frustrating to have to pull posts back into line and dislocate its debating rhythm.
So to forewarn about going off into technical wally world, and to discourage people from making fanciful claims about how and what these ships can and can't do, or what their mission intent is, please pause before posting.
RAN have been quite clear on what they see Largs as doing. discussions about UAV's and how the RAN does TAC planning are so far off base to be eye watering.
lets stay on track please, and lets certainly not bugger up another thread by going off with the planning fairies. esp when some statements have no resemblance to RANs stated intent.
I would rather not see us having to head down the path again of reminding people to suspend their own tactical planning expertise as a substitute for what a vessels requirements are, and what RANs intent will be.
there are a whole raft of posters who've paid the price along the way and ended up being banned because of a lack of self control and common sense in making claims
It's frustrating to have to pull posts back into line and dislocate its debating rhythm.
So to forewarn about going off into technical wally world, and to discourage people from making fanciful claims about how and what these ships can and can't do, or what their mission intent is, please pause before posting.
RAN have been quite clear on what they see Largs as doing. discussions about UAV's and how the RAN does TAC planning are so far off base to be eye watering.
lets stay on track please, and lets certainly not bugger up another thread by going off with the planning fairies. esp when some statements have no resemblance to RANs stated intent.
Last edited:
I had a look at the plans for Largs bay yesterday and I now have a much greater appreciation for the vessel.
She will be a very valuable vessel to the RAN for many years in the the Sealift role, because a mini LHD she is not. With the LHD's I was amazed at the extent of their C4 facilities but with the Larg's Bay i am conversely amazed at her very spartan C4 fit out. Her Ops room ( or Bridge annex in RFA speak) is the size of my kitchen and her embarked forces planning area is the size of my living room.
She has one fairly small vehicle deck which runs most of her length minus the dock, so I am very glad she does not have a hanger because the space fwd of her flight deck has much greater utility being open plan. Being open is it can be used as a helo parking space, vehicle deck or container storage area (At the end of the day is it that big of an issue that the Helo maintainers will need to do a few extra wash downs than if they had a hanger?).
Crew accommodation is ridiculously decadent at the moment so we will not have any problems finding room for a larger RAN crew (the three top offices have 4 different rooms each!)
As for armament she has mountings and equipment rooms for Phalanx forward of the superstructure on 01 deck and the aft end of the superstructure on 06 deck. She also has mounts for two 30mm at both sides on 05 deck, so mounting Typhoon/ Toplite would be a minor endeavor. She also has mounts for 8 SRBOC/CHAFF style launchers so easy to swap them out with MK 36's. I am sure on a vessel of her size we could squeeze a few Nulka launchers onto her as well.
I am very happy that we got a near new vessel for 100 mil , But what people need to remember is that her role is go from point "A" to point "B", dump her load and bugger of back home and let the LHD's do their jobs.
P,s I hear she is not going to get a lick of paint before she head's for her new home so she will serve in the RAN in the RN/RFA paint scheme, at least for a while.
She will be a very valuable vessel to the RAN for many years in the the Sealift role, because a mini LHD she is not. With the LHD's I was amazed at the extent of their C4 facilities but with the Larg's Bay i am conversely amazed at her very spartan C4 fit out. Her Ops room ( or Bridge annex in RFA speak) is the size of my kitchen and her embarked forces planning area is the size of my living room.
She has one fairly small vehicle deck which runs most of her length minus the dock, so I am very glad she does not have a hanger because the space fwd of her flight deck has much greater utility being open plan. Being open is it can be used as a helo parking space, vehicle deck or container storage area (At the end of the day is it that big of an issue that the Helo maintainers will need to do a few extra wash downs than if they had a hanger?).
Crew accommodation is ridiculously decadent at the moment so we will not have any problems finding room for a larger RAN crew (the three top offices have 4 different rooms each!)
As for armament she has mountings and equipment rooms for Phalanx forward of the superstructure on 01 deck and the aft end of the superstructure on 06 deck. She also has mounts for two 30mm at both sides on 05 deck, so mounting Typhoon/ Toplite would be a minor endeavor. She also has mounts for 8 SRBOC/CHAFF style launchers so easy to swap them out with MK 36's. I am sure on a vessel of her size we could squeeze a few Nulka launchers onto her as well.
I am very happy that we got a near new vessel for 100 mil , But what people need to remember is that her role is go from point "A" to point "B", dump her load and bugger of back home and let the LHD's do their jobs.
P,s I hear she is not going to get a lick of paint before she head's for her new home so she will serve in the RAN in the RN/RFA paint scheme, at least for a while.
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Is it possible to put a link here to the plans you were looking at??
Sorry, but I would like to remain employed
Yes the plan's only show the two, which is fine as two Typhoon to replace the 30mm's plus a couple of 50 cals / Mini T's will be plenty.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes, keeping employed is a good idea!Sorry, but I would like to remain employed
One question I've asked, and still haven't had a definitive answer, one way or the other, is about the possible retrofit of a hangar.
There are numerous references, both in print and online, that the Bays were built without a hangar but it was in the "design" as a retrofit if necessary.
Even the Royal Navy's site also says the same thing, and I'm not talking about the "portable" carport you could get from Super Cheap Auto if wanted either!!
And yes of course, the RAN will determine in time whether or not that it is practical / feasable / warranted, etc.
All I would like to know if that is true and if any plans exist showing that possible retrofit.
Nothing I've seen shows a retrofit.
Largs is being considered (and its still subject to a deeper materiel examination and basic trials) because there is a capability gap of some urgency
to attack her superstructure with significant structural changes would delay her for some time, I'd estimate another 2 yrs, and as she is arriving (subject to successful final review and trials) I cannot see anyone pulling her offline for another 2 years to make mods that are outside of her employment intent. This also ignores the reality of how long it would take to get an approved and accepted engineering solution approved - let alone actioned
To put her into maintenance for another 2 yrs would make a nonsense of the urgent intent to get her in the first place.
Canterbury will not cover off the capability - and she is only designed to supplement any deficiencies generated by Tobruks potential withdrawal
Forget about major changes. The planning and implementation realities suggest not.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yes, I've seen numerous photos of the tent, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I've seen numerous articles that talk about possible future retrofit of a hangar.
I just dont see how "retrofit" and a portable hangar that can be put up or down is the same thing.
- Status