I'm one of those people who get their jollys looking at tracks rather than toys.... so work it out.....
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I'm not aware of the construct being in the public domain, but what you're thrown up is not it.
NFC
force construct is also event specific.. eg location location location
The plan as I recall was to deploy two LHD's for amphibious landings. While they won't always be deployed this way it was outlined to operate this way.
I assumed that this would be as a lead as apart of a multinational mission. At which point we would host personel and equipment from wide alliance many of which do not have their own amphibious assets. I would imagine it would be forces we could tightly intergrate with. Royal Marines, NZDF, USMC who may not be able to get shipping into theatre or smaller nations who don't have the equipment etc.
Also with the LHD's in pairs you can use air assets and the flooded dock (one performing each task). Also you have twice the landing craft. You can also deploy from two vectors.
Also there was no requirement of the ADF actually being able to utilise the assets to the fullest upon delivery. We will have these assets for what 30+ years? At LHD IOC we will be lucky to be able to launch training helicopters off it.
I assumed that this would be as a lead as apart of a multinational mission. At which point we would host personel and equipment from wide alliance many of which do not have their own amphibious assets. I would imagine it would be forces we could tightly intergrate with. Royal Marines, NZDF, USMC who may not be able to get shipping into theatre or smaller nations who don't have the equipment etc.
Also with the LHD's in pairs you can use air assets and the flooded dock (one performing each task). Also you have twice the landing craft. You can also deploy from two vectors.
Also there was no requirement of the ADF actually being able to utilise the assets to the fullest upon delivery. We will have these assets for what 30+ years? At LHD IOC we will be lucky to be able to launch training helicopters off it.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I would have assumed you'd need three BCT's to sustain a brigade level deployment. Anyway having 3 Canberra's would just be about being able to deploy a brigade sized element, but also about having the flexibility to deploy a battalion sized battle-group and still have some capability up your sleeve for natural events ext. As I understand it these assets are about more than Falklands type scenarios. That being said I would have thought those dollars could have been spent elsewhere.
This seems to be what defense is thinking. A 7000tn destroyer with AUSPAR & SM6 is likely going to resemble a poor mans AWD, which is fine by me considering we're looking at 8. One more and we get to the magic 12 number of major surface combatants. A 4th AWD makes more sense as far as I can tell unless we can just tack another ANZAC II on the order and get comparable capability (with AEGIS through CEC) for less cost and more local work.StingrayOZ said:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
p.s. surely the third LHD will be named Melbourne?
Is this what you are referring to?
[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/60416857/Australian-Army-Amphibious-Road-Map"]Australian Army Amphibious Road Map[/ame]
If so, yes it is floating around the place. (See what I did there?)
Bored huh?Is this what you are referring to?
Australian Army Amphibious Road Map
If so, yes it is floating around the place. (See what I did there?)
I'd need to check the date of the slides as although 41 is close to what I've seen, it wasn't what has been discussed when I've attended JACITmtgsIs this what you are referring to?
Australian Army Amphibious Road Map
If so, yes it is floating around the place. (See what I did there?)
you can appreciate my nervousness in making claims until I see what docs are uncontrolled/controlled
JoeMcFriday
New Member
In a '.pdf' from the Brookings Institution I offer this passage for interest or comment wrt possible use of mystery funding.
Colonel John E. Angevine, US ARMY
Mind the Capabilities Gap:
How the Quest for High-End Capabilities Leaves the Australian Defence Force Vulnerable to Mission Failure
PP 43,44.
"The Canberra-class LHD was designed for the Australian Army’s legacy combat vehicle fleet. Yet DMO’s LHD modernization program is not interoperable with the Australian Army’s new Overland-Field Vehicle Project (LAND 121, Phase 4) and Land Combat Vehicle Project (LAND 400, Phase 2). Together, these two LAND projects will replace the current legacy fleet consisting of the Land Rover vehicle series (averaging 4 tons), M113AS3/4 (10-ton curb weight), Bushmaster PMV (13.7-ton curb weight), and ASLAV (12.9-ton curb weight).67 According to Australian Defence Business Review, the Australian Army Development and Plans Office briefed that the new vehicle fleets, drawing on lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, “would include: 40-tonne [44-ton] fighting vehicle; a 30-tonne [33-ton] protected mobility vehicle; a 35—70-tonne [38.6—77.1-ton] specialist vehicle; and a 10-tonne [11-ton] protected mobility vehicle-light type vehicle."
"The new combat vehicle fleet is heavier by about 50%, and the footprint is larger than the legacy fleet. Consequently, the LHD will have less available lane space and more weight to bear on its decks than initially planned, rendering the current Canberra-class design less capable without redesign and reinforcement.
The Australian Army will have to reduce the size of its amphibious assault force unless DMO procures a third LHD or redesigns the current LHD, which is under construction. Fearing political rebuke due to the expected increases in cost and delays for JP 2048, DMO has not updated the LHD requirements to accommodate the increased vehicle size and weight, according to Trevor Thomas of Australian Defence Business Review.69 Additionally, with the greatly increased vehicle weights, the ship’s shifted center of gravity may make the LHD top heavy, thus reducing the sea state in which it can operate."
Cheers,
Mac
Colonel John E. Angevine, US ARMY
Mind the Capabilities Gap:
How the Quest for High-End Capabilities Leaves the Australian Defence Force Vulnerable to Mission Failure
PP 43,44.
"The Canberra-class LHD was designed for the Australian Army’s legacy combat vehicle fleet. Yet DMO’s LHD modernization program is not interoperable with the Australian Army’s new Overland-Field Vehicle Project (LAND 121, Phase 4) and Land Combat Vehicle Project (LAND 400, Phase 2). Together, these two LAND projects will replace the current legacy fleet consisting of the Land Rover vehicle series (averaging 4 tons), M113AS3/4 (10-ton curb weight), Bushmaster PMV (13.7-ton curb weight), and ASLAV (12.9-ton curb weight).67 According to Australian Defence Business Review, the Australian Army Development and Plans Office briefed that the new vehicle fleets, drawing on lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, “would include: 40-tonne [44-ton] fighting vehicle; a 30-tonne [33-ton] protected mobility vehicle; a 35—70-tonne [38.6—77.1-ton] specialist vehicle; and a 10-tonne [11-ton] protected mobility vehicle-light type vehicle."
"The new combat vehicle fleet is heavier by about 50%, and the footprint is larger than the legacy fleet. Consequently, the LHD will have less available lane space and more weight to bear on its decks than initially planned, rendering the current Canberra-class design less capable without redesign and reinforcement.
The Australian Army will have to reduce the size of its amphibious assault force unless DMO procures a third LHD or redesigns the current LHD, which is under construction. Fearing political rebuke due to the expected increases in cost and delays for JP 2048, DMO has not updated the LHD requirements to accommodate the increased vehicle size and weight, according to Trevor Thomas of Australian Defence Business Review.69 Additionally, with the greatly increased vehicle weights, the ship’s shifted center of gravity may make the LHD top heavy, thus reducing the sea state in which it can operate."
Cheers,
Mac
Trevor Thomas should be smart enough by now to realise that DMO cannot change any specs unless they are directed to do so by the Capability Manager - who also needs to get the Government to accept and sign off first.
Its a Govt issue first. DMO project manages at the direction of the Capability Manager and Sponsor. And as the Govt is talking to task anyone who changes scope - then DMO is hardly going to act without direction and blessing and multiple cabinet signatures behind it.
the man is a moron
JoeMcFriday
New Member
GF,
I'll keep that in mind.
However, it's not Thomas' flawed and politicised view I paid any attention to but the good Colonel's [is there any other kind of Colonel?] statements re. the change in vehicles requiring a rethink etc.
In other words, Is it so?
Cheers,
Mac
GF,
I'll keep that in mind.
However, it's not Thomas' flawed and politicised view I paid any attention to but the good Colonel's [is there any other kind of Colonel?] statements re. the change in vehicles requiring a rethink etc.
In other words, Is it so?
Cheers,
Mac
Comment on current constructs is not something I want to go near as I've had my problems with internet defence wannabe stalkers in the past trying to cause me grief at work (obviously not you, but the other long termers will work it out)
the good COL is passing comment on information that was originally flawed, so shouldn't be held to account for his assessment.
real politik kicks in here. The Govt has enough advice from informed senior sirs to come to a decision - everyone then just runs with their decision no matter how flawed or perfect we/they think it is.
/political correctness off
JoeMcFriday
New Member
GF,
I should have worded my question better [Is it so?] to a more general tone.
I didn't expect a direct answer from you personally, I understand very well the tightrope walking involved.
Thanks for replying as you did though.
Cheers,
Mac
Ha, thats an interesting and descriptive document. Slide 42 would be roughly what would be looked at, and as gf said anything would have to be tailered to the location. Operating out of Fiji would be different to PNG, Thailand, or Indonesia or West Irian Jaya. Page 28 proberly gives more of a hint about how we intend to operate.Is this what you are referring to?
Australian Army Amphibious Road Map
If so, yes it is floating around the place. (See what I did there?)
Page 37 I also found interesting.
Nothings confirmed until its sitting in the harbour (not even then..)
weegee
Active Member
Hey guys I came across this the other day:
The navy's newest $100 million amphibious ship has been tagged "HMAS Lemon Scented" | thetelegraph.com.au
It seems very strange to me? After doing 2 independent "thorough" Surveys and with those showing green lights, we made an offer. After sea trial earlier this year again all green lights we committed to purchasing RFA Largs Bay.
So after all these promising signs by people who know what they are doing why has this now come up? Or is it just people talking and running their mouth again, turning something that is a good buy into political fodder?
The navy's newest $100 million amphibious ship has been tagged "HMAS Lemon Scented" | thetelegraph.com.au
It seems very strange to me? After doing 2 independent "thorough" Surveys and with those showing green lights, we made an offer. After sea trial earlier this year again all green lights we committed to purchasing RFA Largs Bay.
So after all these promising signs by people who know what they are doing why has this now come up? Or is it just people talking and running their mouth again, turning something that is a good buy into political fodder?
The last. Don't believe everything you read in the media.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I'll second that!
Seems like a bit of a beat up. Apparently non critical systems are fragile, like the toilet, chilled water, etc. What does fragile mean? Just that it has Non redundant systems? Or quite likely to fail at anytime. No doubt it hasn't been built with particular focus for hot climate usage. I would imagine many of these things will perform perfectly fine until a refurb/refit at which point old clacked out stuff would be replaced with something more suitable.
However with a third LHD if the LSD is out of action, we can get along just fine. At a pinch out of the four ships we should be able to make it so we can get atleast 3 in the water. 2 LHD's and either the LSD or the other LHD with some planning and notice.
I wouldn't think so. I haven't heard much on the HSV front, Austal seems interested but not falling over themselves to get business from ADF for the HSV. I do wonder about that aluminium cat landing craft I think the french built (tenix?). If we wanted to do something local, I would have thought those would have atleast have been useful for green water island hopping or operating with the LHD/LSD. While still chewing fuel they would be doing shorter runs, intratheatre. Having something that could travel at 30kt between the LHD and shore with a decent load but not the running costs of the hovercrafts..alexsa said:
did the advise go something like this ?
buy the other ship, buy the other ship ...
Even though Defence is basically embargoed from the same funding restraints as other departments, the reality is that the Govt has competing priorities to pay for.
all the talk about a 3rd LHnn and a 4th AWD ignores the reality of this.
More so when the Govt is engaged in holding a number of Defence entities to account but conveniently ignoring the reality that the governance process itself has caused a number of projects and planning cycles to become "challenged"
in days of old even though uniforms would tow the company line, public servants had the capacity to and would still stand up and give frank, robust and fearless advice. that culture has been assassinated by both sides of politics.
re the other comment about exchange rate benefits, DMO has already recovered some $"nn"00million from international vendors. They've been doing that for the last 12 months and its been drummed into every project to go back and maximise the money against projects. Its a damn shame that the press has discovered it this week - some 12 months after DMO has been beavering away already pulling money back into the coffers.
if you were a private company and had an underspend as well as recovered monies againts the exchange rate your Board would be feted, everyone would hold hands, sing and be jolly.
In any other company if the Directors had governance processes which contributed to delay or inefficiency, you'd get the bullet
unfort this is a bit more complex than whats portrayed in the press, and they are apparently disinterested in making the effort to drill further.
/speech off
Last edited:
- Status