Whatever happens don’t expect any certainty soon. I would imagine the likely result of the current round of government decision making on the submarines is to do a repeat of the AWD competition: have companies compete for fully funded design competitions for Australianised off the shelf versus new design.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Although up in the air for reasons pointed out, RADM Rowan Moffatt's presentation at the Sea Power Conference 2012 is definately worth a look at, Oh what could be ?
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwByDZSfXiU"]Sea Power Conference Session 6 - YouTube[/nomedia]
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwByDZSfXiU"]Sea Power Conference Session 6 - YouTube[/nomedia]
LHD/LSD dock sizes and TLCs
There was talk some time ago on this forum about the tactical littoral craft (TLC) requirement.
Abe noted that the CB90 was too big to be considered if part of the requirement (as would seem logical) was for this craft to fit in the LHD docks behind the 4 LCM-1Es. He noted that a craft limited to a maximum of 13m was required.
Open source info states that the LHD dock is 69.3m long, and that an LCM-1E is 23.3m long. Simple maths suggests there is 22.7m available to accommodate other craft behind each pair of LCM-1Es. No I assume there is a clearance requirement between craft in the dock, but it still seems that there would be sufficient room to accommodate a 15.9m long CB90.
What am I missing? Is it that the quoted LHD dock length includes the ‘beach’ which cant actually store watercraft?
Another question, maybe for Stores Basher: what are the dock dimensions for Choules? Cant find anything open source. Can a RAN LCVP be squeezed in behind an LCM-8/LCM-1E? Was a full sized mexeflote carried in the dock on the delivery voyage?
There was talk some time ago on this forum about the tactical littoral craft (TLC) requirement.
Abe noted that the CB90 was too big to be considered if part of the requirement (as would seem logical) was for this craft to fit in the LHD docks behind the 4 LCM-1Es. He noted that a craft limited to a maximum of 13m was required.
Open source info states that the LHD dock is 69.3m long, and that an LCM-1E is 23.3m long. Simple maths suggests there is 22.7m available to accommodate other craft behind each pair of LCM-1Es. No I assume there is a clearance requirement between craft in the dock, but it still seems that there would be sufficient room to accommodate a 15.9m long CB90.
What am I missing? Is it that the quoted LHD dock length includes the ‘beach’ which cant actually store watercraft?
Another question, maybe for Stores Basher: what are the dock dimensions for Choules? Cant find anything open source. Can a RAN LCVP be squeezed in behind an LCM-8/LCM-1E? Was a full sized mexeflote carried in the dock on the delivery voyage?
Landing craft are rarely packed in too tightly in well decks as it can make things more difficult to launch, all the small boats getting in the way and so forth. From videos I have seen of the Albion class I know the British seem to have a big gap at the back which allows people to get into either the well deck, the check landing craft condition/maintanance I guess, or just to go swimming out the back door instead of having to jump off the side which is pretty risky for obvious reasons.
The LHD has the ability to carry 4 x LCM-1E's, 2 port and stbd each side of the central fender, leaving enough room behind, depending on mission for up to 4 RHIB sized boats, the length of the Well is up to conjecture, plus take into account the actual usable space from an operational point of view. IIRC, and Abe may fly by and clarify, you don't want to be going to far beyond the central fender, otherwise how do you get access to the boats ?
Not sure if you have found it yet ? But some really good reading and discussion on the JC1 and Canberra Class in general in this old thread
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/sea-trials-lhd-jci-9587/
Last edited:
The LCM's bows can overhang the beach but if you go and park your boat with the bottom up on the beach you will do a lot of damage raming it in there when ballasted down and then stressing the keel when the dock is empty.
As to the size of the well dock I don't have all the numbers in front of me at the moment but its all been worked out before. Also Navantia roll around with models of the LHD with the four RHIBs shoe horned in there (and someone stole one of them back in Pac 06) behind the LCMs. Anyway see the picture and there is not much room.
I think we are a long way from the TLC being sourced and I think a CB90 type would be best for operational reasons.
http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/thumb/Lhd_cutaway.jpg/450px-Lhd_cutaway.jpg
I've not found published dimensions, but it's supposed to hold two LCVP Mk (15.5 x 4.3 metres ea.) or one LCU Mk 10 (29.74 x 7.4 m). I suspect it's sized for the latter.
There's a photo of the dock at Warships and Auxiliaries: RFA Largs Bay, but if you can work out the dimensions from it, you'll do better than I did. You can get an idea of the width from a photo of her under construction at Navy Matters | LSD(A) -
Anixtu
New Member
You can carry a full length raft (same size as side-loaded) in the dock, fully built and engines attached, but only the after four (IIRC) pontoon sections sit on the dock bottom. The remainder are separated and lashed to the beach.
weegee
Active Member
Thanks Swerve heaps of helpful info there, good sites to remember for the future.
At least it give a pretty good idea of the nature of the 'tent' hanger which appears to be very large volume and quite robust.
A pretty good video of HMAS Choules is online now, giving a good insight into loading and unloading in the well dock.
HMAS Choules - YouTube
HMAS Choules - YouTube
Defence Ministers » Prime Minister, Minister for Defence, Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – Next stage of future submarine project announced
Does this mean a Japanese submarine (military off the shelf) will not be considered? From a casual perspective, the Soryu class does seem a little closer to what the RAN wants.
The Europeans are only being looked at as an OTS. I don't think OTS will ever get up, they are so far from what we want even the manufacturers would have a hard time convincing themselves. Doesn't mean a lot cannot be learnt by looking at these designs, it also will eliminate criticism that they weren't considered. The benchmark is Collins, I can't see the OTS europeans exceeding collins (which is an evolved european design) in capabilities we are interested in.
Evolving Collins. Well if we pour more money into it Im sure it could be better. But if there was any problems, who the hell would want to be known as the person who signed off on more tainted by the media collins? Not only that it seems we would involve Kockhams again. It also runs the risk of seasprite. An update costing more, way more than it should and cheaper than just starting from scratch or buying something way more capable.
Japans existing solutions doesn't seem to be entering into the equation. Not sure of the reason, if it was simple they would have been considered as well. The best way of working with the Japanese might be by working with the Americans.
I would guess and say looks like we are building a new boat with the Americans. Given we have looked at OTS, did the evolved OTS before. Working with the Americans would also have lots of other benefits.
They have serious money to do a study now. Hopefully it doesn't take too long and in a few months we know exactly what we want and who we are working with to get it.
If this is the case, then a good product might ensue.
Why throw nearly quarter of a billion at the Europeans then?
Puzzled .....
- again!
MB
I also wondered why on earth we would involve Kockhums again other than them still perhaps having intellectual rights to the original Collins design.
Tas
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC Kockums is now either partially or wholely owned by HDW of Germany, so unless Gov't wished to keep any Euro OTS offering restricted to France or Spain, there would not be much of a way to exclude some sort of potential Kockums imput.
What is frusterating is why so much money would be spent to review potential designs which have little relevance to RAN subs needs, or involve designers who lack experience designing a sub relevant to RAN needs.
-Cheers
Heah it gets worse. The opposition are now saying we should consider importing subs. So we could end up with a submarine that do the RAN's mission, brought in large numbers from overseas so without any industrial benefit to Australia. What would they be for?
I don't see it as completely wasted money if the right decision comes out. Apparently we are talking about a 40 billion $ project. (surely that can't be right?)
Assessing OTS European systems would be useful for a number of reasons, many of our allies and foes would be assessing or buying these exact solutions.
I can't imagine that money is just going to be spent assessing European OTS systems/solutions.
If we did decide to undertake a $40 billion sub design/build project with the Americans, clean sheet. That is a massive undertaking on every level.
Also in terms of looking at by the DSTO
Eg. Out of the submarine project we could have the basis of building a large scale advanced battery/energy storage industry in Australia. Implications for local automotive, transport etc. Well it would be nice to think something like that could happen after spending $40 billion.
Assessing OTS European systems would be useful for a number of reasons, many of our allies and foes would be assessing or buying these exact solutions.
I can't imagine that money is just going to be spent assessing European OTS systems/solutions.
If we did decide to undertake a $40 billion sub design/build project with the Americans, clean sheet. That is a massive undertaking on every level.
Also in terms of looking at by the DSTO
Its really looking at the future of submarine technology and what's going to happen. No doubt some of this is going to have repercussion in other areas, in military systems and civilian.
Eg. Out of the submarine project we could have the basis of building a large scale advanced battery/energy storage industry in Australia. Implications for local automotive, transport etc. Well it would be nice to think something like that could happen after spending $40 billion.
the road runner
Active Member
HDW is 75% owned by a US company named "One Equity Partners."???
Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft AG (HDW)
I wonder if this will play into Australia's benefit in the construction of our future subs.
Surely we will be building our new subs with a guiding hand from our closest allies,the USA.
Is it correct not to include the Japanese in the construction of Australia's future subs?
I would have hoped the Government would have looked at the option of using Japanese company's such as Mitsubishi heavy Industry.I have alot of respect for the Japanese(as well as Germany) when it comes to Engineering and products.
Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft AG (HDW)
I wonder if this will play into Australia's benefit in the construction of our future subs.
Surely we will be building our new subs with a guiding hand from our closest allies,the USA.
Is it correct not to include the Japanese in the construction of Australia's future subs?
I would have hoped the Government would have looked at the option of using Japanese company's such as Mitsubishi heavy Industry.I have alot of respect for the Japanese(as well as Germany) when it comes to Engineering and products.
It is a complete waste of taxpayers money with these expensive "job creation" programs. By all means build a servicing dock or two but forget trying to do the whole things. The limited numbers we buy of everything make it uneconomical [more comical].
Buy proven kit only and lots of it. Put the extra funds into training and support. These idiots in Canberra at Navy Office and DMO dream up stuff that even the yanks cannot do or afford. No use having Champagne tastes on a beer budget...
Buy proven kit only and lots of it. Put the extra funds into training and support. These idiots in Canberra at Navy Office and DMO dream up stuff that even the yanks cannot do or afford. No use having Champagne tastes on a beer budget...
- Status