Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

there are a few lessons learnt that came out of using Jervis Bay during the Timor crisis.

there are reasons why we won't buy them...

even if we lease one for an emergency (such as a rapid evac from Fiji) the problems that we experienced in ET with Jervis Bay have not gone away - in actual fact we're worse off as Tobruk is basically busted so the vessel to vessel exchange that was even partially possible is non existant.

Largs is the far better option

Totally agree, Largs is the smartest decision I have seen for some time, I personally dont hold much to the article. If we had some money to spare (and we don't) we could possibly get an Albion for a good price

 

[StevoJH]

Totally agree, Largs is the smartest decision I have seen for some time, I personally dont hold much to the article. If we had some money to spare (and we don't) we could possibly get an Albion for a good price

I don't think they are quite that desperate.

Honestly though, what benefit would the RAN get from purchasing a HSV?

Would be interesting to get a rough idea how many are floating around the country that could be chartered/requisioned in a hurry though.

Would also be interesting to see how many large landing craft are floating around in the civil maritime fleet. For example, I saw quite a few of them when I was up on Fraser Island a month or two ago.

 

[aussienscale]

I don't think they are quite that desperate.

Honestly though, what benefit would the RAN get from purchasing a HSV?

Would be interesting to get a rough idea how many are floating around the country that could be chartered/requisioned in a hurry though.

Would also be interesting to see how many large landing craft are floating around in the civil maritime fleet. For example, I saw quite a few of them when I was up on Fraser Island a month or two ago.

In all seriousness, to buy would be and absolute waste of money. There are plenty of alternatives floating around that could be short leased or borrowed in the name of national security at very short notice, plenty of types of landing craft available around the country as well, fraser is a good start, even the guys that do the runs out to Moreton etc.

IFAIAC Incat are just making story's and stiring up the pot to see what happens, marketing is a wonderfull thing, and in this multi media world we live in, very easy to do if you have half a brain, that's why the government and oposition have not picked up on it yet

 

[StevoJH]

IFAIAC Incat are just making story's and stiring up the pot to see what happens, marketing is a wonderfull thing, and in this multi media world we live in, very easy to do if you have half a brain, that's why the government and oposition have not picked up on it yet

The government is too busy trying to market unpopular policies without making the connection that maybe the policies are unpopular for a reason and that they are supposed to be governing on behalf of the people, not inspite of the people.

Howard did the exact same thing with work choices.

:nono

 

[hairyman]

Surely if the government were to buy the HSV2 from Incat they would be paying a lot less than $100m for it. I saw it sitting near Hobart wharf about 5 years ago. If it was the same ship Incat would not be asking a lot for it, surely.:hul

 

[Sea Toby]

Surely if the government were to buy the HSV2 from Incat they would be paying a lot less than $100m for it. I saw it sitting near Hobart wharf about 5 years ago. If it was the same ship Incat would not be asking a lot for it, surely.:hul

Its one thing to lease for a short period of time in a pinch, its another thing to buy something for the long run that doesn't meet specifications at any price...

Don't fall into the trap of buying something because its on sale. If you don't need it, don't buy it...

RFA Largs Bay was needed, met specifications, and luckily was purchased at a fire sale price.... The best in all worlds... Cream puffs aren't found everyday...

 

[riksavage]

Its one thing to lease for a short period of time in a pinch, its another thing to buy something for the long run that doesn't meet specifications at any price...

Don't fall into the trap of buying something because its on sale. If you don't need it, don't buy it...

RFA Largs Bay was needed, met specifications, and luckily was purchased at a fire sale price.... The best in all worlds... Cream puffs aren't found everyday...

If a second 'Cream Puff' comes on the market I wonder whether NZ would ever consider buying one, particularly if the RAN find it to be as useful as predicted? It would better align ANZAC forces in the event of a combined operation in the region and allow for a common purchase of LC's.

I can't see the RN retaining 3 x Bays, keeping 2 + 2 Albions would make more sense considering current budget pressures backed-up by roll-on/off assets. 1 x operational Albion, 1 x Bay and 1 x Ocean or Invincible is consistent with current UK military planning based around having a single Response Force Task Group available until 2015.

 

[alexsa]

Surely if the government were to buy the HSV2 from Incat they would be paying a lot less than $100m for it. I saw it sitting near Hobart wharf about 5 years ago. If it was the same ship Incat would not be asking a lot for it, surely.:hul

This came from the report quoted by Wedgee

The $100 million jet-powered vessel, now nearing completion in Hobart, will be capable of speeds of up to 40 knots, delivering a 1000-tonne payload within hours to any destination within 2000 nautical miles of the coast.


Read more: Big cat steams on to the radar for crisis work

So yes it is 100 million. I love the 1000 tonnes and 2000 miles. This sort of ignores their own specification which state 600 dwt tonnes at 39knots or the fact that ...

Max Deadweight - approx 950 tonnes or up to 1450 at reduced operating conditions.

http://www.incat.com.au/domino/inca...00A7/$File/hull 067 mini spec.pdf?OpenElement

These figures are quoted as 100% MER. It also ignores the fact all accomodation is seated and the speed is based on fair weather.

The other useful fact is it burns 300 cubes of MDG/MGO to do this. By the way using their quoted 190g/kWh this gives about 164 tonnes of fuel a day to carry 950 tonnes (I am being kind here noting the "in hours comment"). Or to look at the max dwt at speed ..... this gives a high speed range of about 36 hours or 1400 nm at 39 knots with just 600 tonnes. ​

 

[swerve]

If a second 'Cream Puff' comes on the market I wonder whether NZ would ever consider buying one, particularly if the RAN find it to be as useful as predicted? It would better align ANZAC forces in the event of a combined operation in the region and allow for a common purchase of LC's.

I can't see the RN retaining 3 x Bays, keeping 2 + 2 Albions would make more sense considering current budget pressures backed-up by roll-on/off assets. 1 x operational Albion, 1 x Bay and 1 x Ocean or Invincible is consistent with current UK military planning based around having a single Response Force Task Group available until 2015.

The ro-ros are pay per day. Above a certain level of guaranteed usage, we don't pay for them if we're not using them, & they're released for commercial use. That means that we can cut ro-ro costs painlessly.

The Bays are relatively cheap to operate, & being used for lots of jobs that a ro-ro couldn't do, entirely separate from being part of a TFG. I was surprised that Largs Bay was sold.

If NZ wants more than Canterbury, at a bargain price, there are other second hand amphibious ships for sale at the moment. France has put Foudre up for sale, & Italy is offering one of the Santi, with more to follow in a few years. They don't have commonality with the RAN, but I doubt that's crucial.

 

[SteelTiger 177]

I think it would be good for the RAN to look at adding fixed-wing capabilties for their new Canberra-class asssault ships or procurring a Stvol capable carrier also will the Canberra-class ships be capable of handling a platoon of M1 tanks?

 

[harryriedl]

I think it would be good for the RAN to look at adding fixed-wing capabilties for their new Canberra-class asssault ships or procurring a Stvol capable carrier also will the Canberra-class ships be capable of handling a platoon of M1 tanks?

not this again You will see the various arguments for and against in many places firstly their is a thread about in this forum and secondly large parts of this thread has gone over the issues and arguments of STOVL in RAN service which boil down to

Expense whole new organization has to be built up from scratch everything air traffic to pilots

issues with both Harriers and F-35b once old and borderline obsolescence and one has such huge problems they have been given only a year to solve them before cancellation

The unsuitability of Camberra class to act as a carrier due to lack of stores when acting as LHD, Modifications have to made to convert it to a moderately useful light carrier

Lastly a lack of desire in RAN for the capability bar one or two figures unlike sea lift which is considered far more important

 

[weegee]

not this again You will see the various arguments for and against in many places firstly their is a thread about in this forum and secondly large parts of this thread has gone over the issues and arguments of STOVL in RAN service which boil down to

Expense whole new organization has to be built up from scratch everything air traffic to pilots

issues with both Harriers and F-35b once old and borderline obsolescence and one has such huge problems they have been given only a year to solve them before cancellation

The unsuitability of Camberra class to act as a carrier due to lack of stores when acting as LHD, Modifications have to made to convert it to a moderately useful light carrier

Lastly a lack of desire in RAN for the capability bar one or two figures unlike sea lift which is considered far more important

Yes I concur this issue has been done to death but also to answer SteelTiger 177 from what I understand yes they can take our M1 tanks.

 

[John Newman]

June 2011 DCP Update relating to Largs Bay and JP2048Ph4C

Today the government announced an update to the "Public" version of the DCP. One of the points of interest in it, is the mention of Largs Bay and JP2048Ph4C.

I know at the time of Largs Bays purchase, (apart from the very obvious reason to "fill" the gap till the LHD's came into service) that there was also a lot of debate about Ph4C being dropped, moved, shifted, because Largs Bay "seems" to fit the bill, at least in the "public" version of the DCP, albeit 10-15 years early, as the right type of ship to fill that role.

DCP announcement below:

Australian Government, Department of Defence - Stephen Smith MP

Also below is the summary of that update, (the statement, above, states the details will be incorporated into the public DCP in comming weeks), see page 2 of the PDF:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/DCP_June11_Supplement.pdf

Specifically, the modification to Ph4C seems to read that Ph4C is still included in the DCP (as opposed to the RAAF forgoing the 2 x C130's for the 1 extra C17) but instead of costing in the range of $300-$500m they are now suggesting a costing of $1 - $2Billion, which is, at the higher end, a 400% increase on the original estimate for Ph4C! Is it going to have Gold plated fittings??

That leaves a few questions in my mind:

1. Does that mean that Navy doesnt see Largs Bay moving into the stategic sealift ship role onces the LHD's are in service?

1. Is Largs Bay only going to have a "short" RAN service life (Being now only 5 years old, being refitted before service, would assume she should have upto another 20 years in her)

2. Largs is costing us $100m, plus refit, mods, etc, should be well under $200m total at the most when in service early next year. New build was around $300-$400m, is that correct?

3. For between $1B -$2B what sort of capability is Navy looking for? Also there is no mention of the "dates" being moved, eg in the previous DCP the IOC was 2022-2024.

It must be one hell of a ship that the Navy wants at the price of up to $2Billion!!

 

[ADMk2]

I think it would be good for the RAN to look at adding fixed-wing capabilties for their new Canberra-class asssault ships or procurring a Stvol capable carrier also will the Canberra-class ships be capable of handling a platoon of M1 tanks?

Yes. The Canberra Class ships can handle the M1A1 Abrams and they can offload them onto a wharf via ramp or deliver them to shore from close in or over the horizon via LCM-1E landing craft (Canberra Class ships will each carry 4x LCM-1E's.).

Canberra Class - Royal Australian Navy

It is unlikely they will be operating STOVL aircraft, due to the limitations that would place on their amphibious capability. Helicopters will be all it will take most likely with a possibility of unmanned aerial vehicles at some future point.

 

[John Newman]

It is unlikely they will be operating STOVL aircraft, due to the limitations that would place on their amphibious capability. Helicopters will be all it will take most likely with a possibility of unmanned aerial vehicles at some future point.

I think the only time you will ever see a STOVL aircraft, AV-8B or F35B, operating off the Canberra's will be during a joint exercise with the US, or in the extreme case, as an additional platform in the event of a "Coalition" operation.

The Canberra's can take STOVL, their Spanish sister is a backup for their carrier, but unless there is a major change in government policy to arm the LHD's with aircraft, as I said, the only time a STOVL will land on a Canberra will be during an exercise or an extreme emergency with some coalition operaton.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think the only time you will ever see a STOVL aircraft, AV-8B or F35B, operating off the Canberra's will be during a joint exercise with the US, or in the extreme case, as an additional platform in the event of a "Coalition" operation.

the day that we have USN stumpys hopping on and off the phatships will be a day when the defence forums will see a few aussie posters demonstrating a rush of blood to their heads and fingers....

 

[aussienscale]

the day that we have USN stumpys hopping on and off the phatships will be a day when the defence forums will see a few aussie posters demonstrating a rush of blood to their heads and fingers....

My heart is already palpatating with.....................anticipation

On a serious note, anyone have any insights into the PH4C amended costings as quoted in the Largs Bay thread ?

Also noted that Sea 1654 Ph3 is now named "Maritime Operational Support Capability" for the Success replacement not AOR replacement, is this a possible indication of the type of ship we could be looking at for the success replacement ? IE a joint logistics ship

 

[ADMk2]

I think the only time you will ever see a STOVL aircraft, AV-8B or F35B, operating off the Canberra's will be during a joint exercise with the US, or in the extreme case, as an additional platform in the event of a "Coalition" operation.

One thing I find curious about this argument is whether or not the Canberra Class flight deck will actually be rated to handle an F-35b? I'm not talking about the Juan Carlos, I'm talking about the Canberra Class.

For these particular vessels, what is the deck weight rating? What are it's thermal and kinetic limits? What are the chances of direct exhaust "deck personnel burns"? What is the impact of flight deck operations noise on personnel below deck and in the Island superstructure? Personnel Blow down and "off gassing"? F-35b outwashing of other aircraft? Deck materials and structure?

It's well and good to say it's got a flight deck and therefore the F-35b will be capable of landing there, but US Navy Supercarriers have a flight deck too. One much more suitable for operating fixed wing aircraft and they have ruled out operating F-35b aircraft from their decks...

As you can see below, even a vertical landing at NAS Patuxent River (an actual air base) requires a special vertical landing pad for the F-35b and whilst I can't rule out that the LHD's couldn't handle an F-35b operating off it's deck, it certainly won't be a priority for the RAN and the special material surface required is most unlikely to be used.

http://tinyurl.com/3cqx8b5

 

[aussienscale]

One thing I find curious about this argument is whether or not the Canberra Class flight deck will actually be rated to handle an F-35b? I'm not talking about the Juan Carlos, I'm talking about the Canberra Class.

For these particular vessels, what is the deck weight rating? What are it's thermal and kinetic limits? What are the chances of direct exhaust "deck personnel burns"? What is the impact of flight deck operations noise on personnel below deck and in the Island superstructure? Personnel Blow down and "off gassing"? F-35b outwashing of other aircraft? Deck materials and structure?

It's well and good to say it's got a flight deck and therefore the F-35b will be capable of landing there, but US Navy Supercarriers have a flight deck too. One much more suitable for operating fixed wing aircraft and they have ruled out operating F-35b aircraft from their decks...

As you can see below, even a vertical landing at NAS Patuxent River (an actual air base) requires a special vertical landing pad for the F-35b and whilst I can't rule out that the LHD's couldn't handle an F-35b operating off it's deck, it certainly won't be a priority for the RAN and the special material surface required is most unlikely to be used.

http://tinyurl.com/3cqx8b5

Well I assume the Canberra's are to the same spec as JC1 so should not be a problem, I do remember though some time ago the issue, not just for the JC1 but any ship that will have F35B is a deck paint that can handle the thrust and heat from them ? Not sure if that has been sorted

 

[icelord]

My heart is already palpatating with.....................anticipation

On a serious note, anyone have any insights into the PH4C amended costings as quoted in the Largs Bay thread ?

Also noted that Sea 1654 Ph3 is now named "Maritime Operational Support Capability" for the Success replacement not AOR replacement, is this a possible indication of the type of ship we could be looking at for the success replacement ? IE a joint logistics ship

We could always link with the Canadians, who have been planning a JLS for their navy