Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

But the requirements for the LHD's is 2 for deployment (yup *BIG* deployment more like USMC style than stuff we are currently able). As others have said, someone must have realised the issue with having only 2 ships when you really need 3.

I too would think the 4th AWD is more important. I would imagine many in the RAN would be putting this same point across, without stopping the 3rd LHD. Although in terms of build a 4th AWD may be more flexable, it maynot absolutely have to be built after the 3rd AWD (1st Anzac II build could be done inbetween for eg).

Australia sure will have a lot of deck area. 4,500> x 3 = 13,500 m^2.. More than a Wasp, little less than a Kitty Hawk.

 

[OpinionNoted]

If a 3rd LHD is on the cards(IF that is)then id go for a 3rd over a 4th hobart on account it would offer more to an allied expeditionary campaign.

 

[aussienscale]

IS Uk still selling one of their carriers? 65,000t carrier HMAS Australia. (THIS IS JOKE).. I would imagine suitable names would be HMAS Fyshwick HMAS Queanbeyan.. haha.

I think things seem to be going pretty well for the LHD builds (atleast the spanish side) and the platforms are what we want. Low risk, high capability, fair cost, some local build. I can't imagine anyone wanting to change that formula. You also get commonality for training purposes for Army, Navy and (air?). Doesn't mean we can't do some custom fitout for LHD #3..

Don't want to jump the gun, but fingers crossed. As these Amphibs will set our requirements interms of escorts for the rest of the fleet, it will be interesting to see where we go with this. Is a 4th AWD back on the cards?

HE HE Stop stirring the pot ! true enough though, commonality would be the smart thing to do and probably get a good price from the Spanish if you threw the carrot at them for a 3rd.

If a 4th AWD was on the cards (and not saying it is) you would do it on the back of the current program. To do a 4th in the middle of Anzac II would be a nightmare, very expensive, could have already lost skill sets and the ripple effect on the Anzac II program could be catastrophic and I believe a huge ask on the Australian ship building industry to cope.

now on the other hand you could bundle a 4th with the 3rd Canberra to be built side by side at Ferrol ? But I won't be holding my breath, hopefully we will find out their intentions soon enough when things have settled down with Largs aquisition etc

 

[Kirkzzy]

But the requirements for the LHD's is 2 for deployment (yup *BIG* deployment more like USMC style than stuff we are currently able). As others have said, someone must have realised the issue with having only 2 ships when you really need 3.

Hmm didn't know that. That is a bit much... and one AWD between two is a bit ridiculous... unlesssss.. they doubled the AWD order

 

[John Newman]

HE HE Stop stirring the pot ! true enough though, commonality would be the smart thing to do and probably get a good price from the Spanish if you threw the carrot at them for a 3rd.

If a 4th AWD was on the cards (and not saying it is) you would do it on the back of the current program. To do a 4th in the middle of Anzac II would be a nightmare, very expensive, could have already lost skill sets and the ripple effect on the Anzac II program could be catastrophic and I believe a huge ask on the Australian ship building industry to cope.

now on the other hand you could bundle a 4th with the 3rd Canberra to be built side by side at Ferrol ? But I won't be holding my breath, hopefully we will find out their intentions soon enough when things have settled down with Largs aquisition etc

Its interesting how the debate has evolved from talk of a possible 3rd LHD (now more probable that the latest DCP has increased the "budget" for JP2048Ph4C from a range of $300-$500m to now $1Billion-$2Billion, which is a 400% increase on what was budgeted, I mentioned that on the Largs Bay page yesterday). To now also of the "often talked" about 4th AWD and how it could be done at, either the end of the AWD run or at the beginning, or in between, production of the ANZAC II's.

The Government has said it wants a much larger ship to replace the Anzacs, so what if the 8 ANZAC II's were "non AEGIS" versions of the AWD's?

If we went to our "Spanish" friends and said, apart from the current purchase of 2 LHD's and 3 AWD's, how about adding an additional LHD and start planning on making 8 non Aegis versions of the AWD's (Anzac II's) for us, bulk discount??

Same hulls, same machinery, many common systems, apart from the combat systems, seems like a very cost effective way to go to me.

If we had 3 x LHD's, probably only 2 at sea or in service at the one time, have two crews that can swap from to the other at anytime, no "retraining" just get in and start it and sail off!

The same with the escorts, if we eventually had up to 12 F100 hulls (3 AWD + possible 4th? + 8 ANZACII's).

Apart from the specific combat systems, the crews could reasonably easily transfer from one type to the other with very minimal re-training. Im sure there would be other major savings in the ongoing support and maintenance, same pool of spares, etc.

The US Navy has now had the DDG-51's in the water since 1991, thats 20 years, and plans to from what I have read, keep construction of Flight III Arleigh Bourkes going for another 20 years or so, must be big savings in both contruction costs and training of crews too.

 

[Kirkzzy]

now on the other hand you could bundle a 4th with the 3rd Canberra to be built side by side at Ferrol ? But I won't be holding my breath, hopefully we will find out their intentions soon enough when things have settled down with Largs aquisition etc

TBH even 4 AWDs with two LHDs puts me off as you still wouldn't get two AWDs up 52 weeks a year. Even when we had two on order (still do.. I guess) people were saying we should have five or ideally six. Now we really need two AWDs all the time (if this whole third LHD is true). Although come to think of it like South Korea, Australia seems to be heading towards a very potent blue water navy. (Looking like South Korea's future force if you chuck in that extra LHD and a couple more destroyers)

 

[aussienscale]

Its interesting how the debate has evolved from talk of a possible 3rd LHD (now more probable that the latest DCP has increased the "budget" for JP2048Ph4C from a range of $300-$500m to now $1Billion-$2Billion, which is a 400% increase on what was budgeted, I mentioned that on the Largs Bay page yesterday). To now also of the "often talked" about 4th AWD and how it could be done at, either the end of the AWD run or at the beginning, or in between, production of the ANZAC II's.

The Government has said it wants a much larger ship to replace the Anzacs, so what if the 8 ANZAC II's were "non AEGIS" versions of the AWD's?

If we went to our "Spanish" friends and said, apart from the current purchase of 2 LHD's and 3 AWD's, how about adding an additional LHD and start planning on making 8 non Aegis versions of the AWD's (Anzac II's) for us, bulk discount??

Same hulls, same machinery, many common systems, apart from the combat systems, seems like a very cost effective way to go to me.

If we had 3 x LHD's, probably only 2 at sea or in service at the one time, have two crews that can swap from to the other at anytime, no "retraining" just get in and start it and sail off!

The same with the escorts, if we eventually had up to 12 F100 hulls (3 AWD + possible 4th? + 8 ANZACII's).

Apart from the specific combat systems, the crews could reasonably easily transfer from one type to the other with very minimal re-training. Im sure there would be other major savings in the ongoing support and maintenance, same pool of spares, etc.

The US Navy has now had the DDG-51's in the water since 1991, thats 20 years, and plans to from what I have read, keep construction of Flight III Arleigh Bourkes going for another 20 years or so, must be big savings in both contruction costs and training of crews too.

There has actually been lots of talk previously, although I am not too sure where they are at with this at the moment, that the Anzac II's would indeed be based on the same hull as the AWD's. Other's on here may have more up to date info on the possibilities

Cheers

 

[John Newman]

There has actually been lots of talk previously, although I am not too sure where they are at with this at the moment, that the Anzac II's would indeed be based on the same hull as the AWD's. Other's on here may have more up to date info on the possibilities

Cheers

Thanks, I didn't know that, I only "discovered" and started my little contribution to DefenceTalk earlier this year, but it makes sense to me to have a common hull form between the two classes of escorts, if possible.

If we do have, up to 12 hulls of the same type, there has to be a lot of cost savings by doing that. If they are "common" hulls, then maybe we can afford to have 4 x AWD's and 8 x ANZAC II's. It should mean a lot of savings in support, spares and training over a 25 year service life.

 

[PeterM]

The RAN does seem to be the big winners with the June update to the DCP.

SEA 1654 3 Maritime Operational Support Capability – HMAS Success Replacement - Indicative YOD and IOC bands brought forward.

JP 2048 4C Strategic Sea Lift Capability Indicative cost band has increased (from $300m-$500m to $1b-$2b).

JP 2048 5 Landing Craft Heavy Replacement Indicative cost band has increased (from $100m-$300m to $300m-$500m).

JP 3030 1 Largs Bay Approved. This phase is not listed in Dec 2010 update to the 2009 DCP nor in the 2011 revision.

It is interesting that Success replacement has been brought forward, considering problems with other vessels, is there major issues that has prompted this? I will be curious to find out just how much earlier.

Interesting that Largs Bay allocated to JP 3030, they are not only continuing with the strategic sealift, but also majorly increasing the price. A third LHD is an obvious option considering the new cost projections, that seems to be the only realistic option for the new price tag. Are there any practical options that would require/justify the increased spending?

Also not to be overlooked is the increased cost projection for the 6 LCH replacements. Is this due to projected cost increases or are we looking at more capable platforms?

Is there a realistic chance we could be operating 2 LHDs, the $1bn-$bn "strategic sealift vessel", Largs Bay and 6 LCH replacements? That seems to be a major increase in amphibious capability. Or is Largs Bay expected to retire after the sealift vessel enters service?

All of this is understandably very light on detail, I for one will be very curious to see how these programs unfold.

 

[Volkodav]

The other possibility that could explain the increased allocation to JP2048 4C is that they have decided to build an Australianised Bay at Williamstown and have just factored in the cost blow out and schedule slip.

 

[Kirkzzy]

The other possibility that could explain the increased allocation to JP2048 4C is that they have decided to build an Australianised Bay at Williamstown and have just factored in the cost blow out and schedule slip.

:hehe nice


...Although I think we may have all jumped the gun here, all of the above is just speculation.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If a 3rd LHD is on the cards(IF that is)then id go for a 3rd over a 4th hobart on account it would offer more to an allied expeditionary campaign.

Escorts might be easier to find than a LHD. Japan, US, Korea, Spain all have escorts that should link in well with us, with UK and other also offering some. With 4 AWD and some close allies backing us we can proberly make it okay.

4 AWD would also be more bareable if the 8x ANZAC II are based off the same hull and are fighting fit (with ABM, Sm6, ESSM, harpoon, tlam etc they should be).

If we get the LHD, it should be in addition to the Bay. So 3 x LHD, 1 x Bay. HSV would proberly be leased under flexable options if we wanted/needed something like that. Which really would be something like a fast deploy force and a mothership for SAS etc. A commerical Ro/Ro we can contract when needed would also proberly be a smart move.

The 3rd LHD would actually make resupplying a LHD easier, as you could swap them in and out of theatre with crew, troops, equipment, etc. Bay would still be able to resupply in the intrim between the big swaps, but wouldn't be so flat out as to trying to support 2 ships in a sustained deployment. 6-12 month deployment the helos, crew, equipment will be pretty shagged and ready for major overhaul stuff.

However, this is only helpful on a sustained deployment.

 

[hairyman]

What seems odd to me is that we are replacing a fleet of 6 OHP's and 8 Anzacs, with 3 AWDs and 8 Anzac replacements. a down grading of 3 vessels.
I still consider the AWD to be a replacement for the 3 Charles F Adams Destroyers . The Anzac II should be OHPII, with a view to replace the Anzacs after that.

 

[PeterM]

Other than a 3rd LHD, is there any other option that could justify spending $1-2bn?
I guess a San Antonio would be in that kind of ballpark, but wouldn't be as useful as a 3rd LHD.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the revised LCH replacement options? looks like we can get more capable vessels than originally thought.

 

[PeterM]

What seems odd to me is that we are replacing a fleet of 6 OHP's and 8 Anzacs, with 3 AWDs and 8 Anzac replacements. a down grading of 3 vessels.
I still consider the AWD to be a replacement for the 3 Charles F Adams Destroyers . The Anzac II should be OHPII, with a view to replace the Anzacs after that.

But it isn't 6 Adelaide class vessels, there are only 4 in service. Canberra and Adelaide were paid off in 2005 and 2008 respectively.

So we are replacing 4 Adelaide Class and 8 Anzacs with 3 Hobart Class and 8 Future Frigates, all of whom will be much larger than the vessels they are replacing.

 

[John Newman]

Other than a 3rd LHD, is there any other option that could justify spending $1-2bn?
I guess a San Antonio would be in that kind of ballpark, but wouldn't be as useful as a 3rd LHD.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the revised LCH replacement options? looks like we can get more capable vessels than originally thought.

If the reason that the Ph4C budget top end has been increased from $500m to $2b is to have a much more capable ship than originally planned, then to me the logical choice would be another Canberra, same pool of spares, support, training, crewing, etc, and the ability to ensure 2 are always available.

And Im sure the reason all this extra money is being put against these projects is because of the way the Government / Navy were stung with the state of the LPA's and Tobruk when all the natural disasters over the last 12mths occured. Don't think they want to get caught with their pants down again in the future!

Seriously doubt a ship like a San Antonio would be considered, yes its in the $ range of the new budget allowance, but then we would end up in the situation of another totally separate class of ship to support and maintain, plus the crewing which, I believe, is around another 100 more than a Canberra LHD.

The LCH budget top end going from $300m to $500m could mean an even larger and more capable vessel than originally planned, or could it be extra hulls? (the LCH were originally a class of 8, with two given to PNG many years back), or it could just be a bit more "rubber" room in the budgeting allocation.

Interesting to see whats in the "detail" of these projects when the DCP is updated and released.

 

[Todjaeger]

What seems odd to me is that we are replacing a fleet of 6 OHP's and 8 Anzacs, with 3 AWDs and 8 Anzac replacements. a down grading of 3 vessels.
I still consider the AWD to be a replacement for the 3 Charles F Adams Destroyers . The Anzac II should be OHPII, with a view to replace the Anzacs after that.

As others have pointed out, the 3 AWD and ~8 ANZAC II's are not a replacement for 6 FFG's and 8 ANZAC's. By the time the last two RAN ANZAC's were entering service, the most worn pair of FFG's were being decomissioned. The RAN had been running a fleet of a dozen skimmers, not 14. Personally I would prefer that the RAN maintain a dozen skimmer (3 AWD, 9 ANZAC II's, or 4 AWD and 8 ANZAC II's...) but that is just me.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

The LCH budget top end going from $300m to $500m could mean an even larger and more capable vessel than originally planned, or could it be extra hulls? (the LCH were originally a class of 8, with two given to PNG many years back), or it could just be a bit more "rubber" room in the budgeting allocation.

Interesting to see whats in the "detail" of these projects when the DCP is updated and released.

I suspect its a bit more "rubber" room. I believe they would want to build the new LCHs in Australia, so double the price over a foreign build...

Plus PeterM is correct, the RAN never got to 6 FFGs and 8 FFHs, two of the FFGs were struck before the final two FFHs were delivered...

 

[Milne Bay]

I suspect its a bit more "rubber" room. I believe they would want to build the new LCHs in Australia, so double the price over a foreign build...

Plus PeterM is correct, the RAN never got to 6 FFGs and 8 FFHs, two of the FFGs were struck before the final two FFHs were delivered...

Interestingly, once the FFG's all pay off there will be six 76mm rapid fire and four sets of VLS looking for a new home.
Wonder what will happen to them?

 

[Kirkzzy]

As others have pointed out, the 3 AWD and ~8 ANZAC II's are not a replacement for 6 FFG's and 8 ANZAC's. By the time the last two RAN ANZAC's were entering service, the most worn pair of FFG's were being decomissioned. The RAN had been running a fleet of a dozen skimmers, not 14. Personally I would prefer that the RAN maintain a dozen skimmer (3 AWD, 9 ANZAC II's, or 4 AWD and 8 ANZAC II's...) but that is just me.

-Cheers

If we were going with a fleet of 12, 6 of each would be best. Giving us 2 available all the time. This gives us a pretty good fleet of 2 AAW ships and 2 ASW ships in a fleet. Instead of the AAW ships having a chance of not being there for the whole year.