Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[ASSAIL]

would be interesting to see if infact Canada build the modified Absalons and arrangement in place for them to build 3x for the RAN and Australia build 3x oilers to replace their Protecteur class auxiliary oil replenishment ships or even Victoria-class submarines replacements, but I suspect it would too difficult for those in power to get right

A reality check would be sensible. Australia does not have the capacity to build large oilers atm. Maybe you could suggest where? Even if we could, there is no point in trying to compete with specialised shipbuilders in low cost economies for what is basically a modified commercial ship, the cost benefit doesn't add up.

There is however, a rationale for maintaining a specialised warship building capability within Australia so why would we make that even more difficult by farming what few building opportunities we have to Canada?

The jury is out on submarine building. It appears the current govt. is starting to make an argument for a foreign build by commenting that the expertise in building has not been practised for more than 20 odd years and therefore is lost! I don't necessarily agree with the logic because it seems that submarine building is an international affair with expert builders moving from project to project. The prospect of the Canadians allowing us to build for them is fiction. Why choose us, a high cost alternative when there is are a number of more experienced builders around the globe that could do it quicker and cheaper. Could there be some co-operation on design? Maybe but unlikely. Canadian purse strings are even tighter than Australia's.

 

[t68]

A reality check would be sensible. Australia does not have the capacity to build large oilers atm. Maybe you could suggest where?

.

Well ACS thinks they can

No Cookies | The Advertiser

Even if we could, there is no point in trying to compete with specialised shipbuilders in low cost economies for what is basically a modified commercial ship, the cost benefit doesn't add up.

the point being both nations need to shore up their national ship building and try to sustain it, my suggestion is more of leverage of each other in building a common design then having the economies of scale to both countries.

If the government of the day was so worried about a cost benefit to them no RAN ships would be built here and we would be buying straight from a hot production line, what is the difference in building x amount of hulls here in oz and Canada if at the end of the day I works out the same amount of hulls in the water

 

[colay]

As the Americans have found out its better to have a dock on a Amphib than seal it up and use it for hanger space.
.

I don't think it was ever a consideration that the Navy would abandon well decks in favor of a pure aviation approach. AFAIK, LHA-6 and LHA-7 were intended to be a limited production run to meet a key need, to provide a larger aviation force for extended durations over what came previously. LHA-8 will feature smaller well deck than current LHDs but if current development work on new ship-to-shore connectors bear fruit, they will be able to float out significantly larger loads. All the while, featuring a more capable aviation complement to support evolving CONOPs.

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree ... Australia's navy is stretched at the moment and we need ships that can handle multiple tasks. The Absalon would be even more useful for NZ.

An Absalon type may be useful to NZ if it was built to warship standards and able to operate as a frigate. Then that may cover the gap of a third frigate. If the RAN was to look at something along these lines then maybe NZ might be interested. My personal view is that I would be interested if I had some say in the matter. However this argument is off thread.

 

[Volkodav]

would rather much see a Absalon-class support ship type ship set up to support the Anzac replacement and LHD which would provide enhanced land attack capability and have the ability to support 2x CB90-class fast assault craft, would also accommodation for up to 100 for either SASR,CDO or CDT

https://web.archive.org/web/20140314145730/http://casr.ca/mp-dorschner-rcn-absalon-ddh.htm

What I am suggesting is to trade major warfare vessel numbers for increased aviation capability and overall flexibility in a complementary platform. Adding Absalon type support vessels to the mix would increase flexibility but not add capability as we already have Canberra, Adelaide and (hopefully) a more capable LCH replacement. In fact, unless you are willing to spend more on each hull, such a ship would be less capable than the frigate it replaces.

 

[Volkodav]

On Australian shipbuilding no new major construction ordered from Australian yards between the Anzacs in the early 90s and the Hobarts in the mid 2000s and now nothing since. There was plenty of capacity in between but first the Howard and then the Rudd/Gillard governments chose not to use it, deferring or buying off shore instead.

Better planning and some vision could have seen a pair of AORs, the LHDs, a class of corvettes or OPVs and replacements for the LCHs all locally constructed and in service now. No valleys of death, no money wasted on rebuilding shipbuilding capability, desperate life extensions, double hulling, or interim solutions. Just the ships we needed, locally built, when we needed them.

 

[t68]

What I am suggesting is to trade major warfare vessel numbers for increased aviation capability and overall flexibility in a complementary platform. Adding Absalon type support vessels to the mix would increase flexibility but not add capability as we already have Canberra, Adelaide and (hopefully) a more capable LCH replacement. In fact, unless you are willing to spend more on each hull, such a ship would be less capable than the frigate it replaces.

how many would you like to trade and what is the your expected increase to MH-60R numbers if the current 24 airframes are split between the current Anzacs, Adelaide and soon to be Canberra?

 

[RobWilliams]

While I would not doubt the JC1 design is more limiting in carrier operations than say Cavour, in amphibious operations its 3-4 times more effective. Carrying nearly a 1000 extra personnel, twice as many tanks as Cavour and with the dock can deploy that quickly etc.

Don't underestimate the requirement for helicopters in such an endeavour, after reading Brigadier J Thompson's book about commanding 3 Commando in the Falklands I've got a whole new appreciation how critical helicopters are for supplies and following maneuverability.

IIRC, move forward a battery (6 guns) and 500 rounds per gun (the amount required for a serious engagement according to Thompson), that required 8 Sea Kings do 11 trips each.

 

[Volkodav]

how many would you like to trade and what is the your expected increase to MH-60R numbers if the current 24 airframes are split between the current Anzacs, Adelaide and soon to be Canberra?

Assuming Melbourne and Newcastle are retained after the AWDs are delivered that gives the RAN 13 hulls and 15 helicopter slots, with 80% of the ships, or 10 hulls available most of the time (at sea or in harbour) that means a maximum (both FFGs available) 12 helicopters deployed onboard ships at any given time leaving 12 ashore.

Now lets say each DDH replaces two frigates, starting with the FFGs, there are three DDHs, leaving 3 DDGs and 4 new frigates. Of the 10 hulls we assume a maximum of 8 available including two of the DDHs which would embark 6 Romeos plus up to a dozen aircraft of other types each, for 18 Romeos and 24 other types able to go to sea at a time. These are very rough, best case, calculations and usually there would be fewer hulls, hence fewer embarked helicopters at any given time.

Basically adding DDHs to the mix dramatically increases the number of Romeos the RAN can deploy at any time, it gives them the ability to deploy existing rotary wing assets, including MRH-90, Tiger, Blackhawk and Chinook, but also AEW and MCM helicopters and F-35B if acquired.

Now factor in that the DDH will be faster, better defended and will be actual warships that will add not just to the capability and flexibility of the current majors but will better defend support and complement the fat ships than current and planned majors could. Keep in mind these would be combatants that would deploy with the DDGs all the time as opposed to only some of the time with the LHDs.

Maybe we could look at replacing the current frigates with 3 DDH and 3 land attack destroyers / frigates to support the DDGs and reviving the OCV concept, unless Johnstons fast, light frigate gets off the ground.

Getting a long way off topic but long story short the Canberra's are not warships, they are almost defenceless, 20kt, troop transports. Highly capable, with alot of flexibility and potential, but a completely different proposition to the DDH.

 

[ASSAIL]

]Well ACS thinks they can

Yes they did, provided someone extended the ship lift at Techport or spent extra dollars at Henderson. My point was ATM there is no yard with capacity.

the point being both nations need to shore up their national ship building and try to sustain it, my suggestion is more of leverage of each other in building a common design then having the economies of scale to both countries.

Agree but we end up with winners and losers under your preferred scenario. Australia does not benefit from building supply ships for the reasons I explained (these are done quicker and cheaper by expert builders).
There is a strategic benefit in building surface combatants which far outweighs cost. Our government is willing to pay upwards of plus 30% to keep the capability here and we won't be giving that premium to Canada for no return.

Having stated the above, there are still defence analysts who promote closure of building yards in Oz in favour of foreign sourced ships and specialised repair yards. They argue that this would give Australia better value for our defence spend. I think the current govt is juggling with these issues and will end up with a bet each way, frigates here, subs here? and tankers o/s

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think it was ever a consideration that the Navy would abandon well decks in favor of a pure aviation approach. AFAIK, LHA-6 and LHA-7 were intended to be a limited production run to meet a key need, to provide a larger aviation force for extended durations over what came previously. LHA-8 will feature smaller well deck than current LHDs but if current development work on new ship-to-shore connectors bear fruit, they will be able to float out significantly larger loads. All the while, featuring a more capable aviation complement to support evolving CONOPs.

I think if anything we should be following in the US example here. If you really wanted a more aviation focused LHD, then with the JC1 design, it might be possible to have a well deck either half as wide or half as long (or both?!). Thus more room for fuel, troops, vehicles and aviation while having minimal impact on amphibious capability. (it would be similar in size to say Choules). You would only be able to carry half (or a quarter) the number of landing craft, but this may not be as big as issue, particularly if deployed with another LHD or Choules. You can still deliver tanks and heavy equipment onto beaches (abit at a slower rate), you can still move equipment onto the ship using the dock.

I don't think Australia will adopt some of the more innovative SSC stuff, but I can see potential in using a JHSV type ship with transfers from LHD's to JHSV for fast delivery particularly of amphibious or lighter vehicles to austere piers.

Where as before you would move a few vehicles or tons onto LCMs which would then move along at 10kts, you could move dozens of vehicles (including MBT) or 600t at a time from LHD to JHSV which moves at 30-40kt. You can move a company of troops + equipment at speeds at a rate that fixed wing aircraft struggle to match. So even though the dock size is smaller, your able to move more through it in shorter amounts of time. Improved aviation means you can do more lift through air.

Which leads me to believe a better partner to the LHD would be a JHSV, as you are getting a complimenting multiplier that connects your sea basing to shore a much larger coastline. She can do intra and inter theatre lift plus useful for ASW etc.

Which then brings up the issue of air support, because you no longer have a single beachhead or sea base, you can now own a much larger area.

 

[alexsa]

I think if anything we should be following in the US example here. If you really wanted a more aviation focused LHD, then with the JC1 design, it might be possible to have a well deck either half as wide or half as long (or both?!). Thus more room for fuel, troops, vehicles and aviation while having minimal impact on amphibious capability. (it would be similar in size to say Choules). You would only be able to carry half (or a quarter) the number of landing craft, but this may not be as big as issue, particularly if deployed with another LHD or Choules. You can still deliver tanks and heavy equipment onto beaches (abit at a slower rate), you can still move equipment onto the ship using the dock.

I don't think Australia will adopt some of the more innovative SSC stuff, but I can see potential in using a JHSV type ship with transfers from LHD's to JHSV for fast delivery particularly of amphibious or lighter vehicles to austere piers.

Where as before you would move a few vehicles or tons onto LCMs which would then move along at 10kts, you could move dozens of vehicles (including MBT) or 600t at a time from LHD to JHSV which moves at 30-40kt. You can move a company of troops + equipment at speeds at a rate that fixed wing aircraft struggle to match. So even though the dock size is smaller, your able to move more through it in shorter amounts of time. Improved aviation means you can do more lift through air.

Which leads me to believe a better partner to the LHD would be a JHSV, as you are getting a complimenting multiplier that connects your sea basing to shore a much larger coastline. She can do intra and inter theatre lift plus useful for ASW etc.

Which then brings up the issue of air support, because you no longer have a single beachhead or sea base, you can now own a much larger area.

I hate to hark on this issue but the dead weight of the JHSV is only 600 tonnes, and that includes crew, weapons, ships stores and fuel (and helicopters and other gear if you intend using them for ASW). They are no competition where the shuttle service is more than a day or so (i.e Timor where the JB was very effective) and there they are best at reaplacing aricraft not ships with a large uplift. This is how the US use them. Over longer distances you are at the mercy of the conditions (i.e they stop working when it get rough or slow down A LOT) and you ahve to do a lot of repeat trips to have the same uplift (which gets tricky if you have to slow down because the weather gets up).

Even with the new ramp this is condition limited and you do need a wharf in all other cases. The cannot race up and down looking for a beach as independent units as the discharge is only as quick as the vehicles and lighters they use can move the off load ashore. They would be sitting ducks unless part of a combiend force doing their assigned job. I annot remmber who posted it but the idea that they could outpace tanks ashore and land at a deserted beach is just silly.

The JHSV is a fantastic asset for the US who use in lieu of aircraft but it not about to replace a larger convnetional vessle when you need to move a lot of gear. These are not cheap vessels and you could buy a good number of 18 knot new generation LCH for the cost of just one ...... provided nobody had a rush of blood to the head and tried to make them something they are not. In the RAN situation it is hard to justify such an expensive niche capability.

If we need this ability we can charter it. As an example there are a number of hulls at INCAT at the moment (including HSV Swift) which would suit if needed.

PS: if we were to buy JHSV at the cost of say the OCV then there is a pretty good chance it would never be built here as the unit cost of start up in WA would be quite high given these are in production else where. So we would end up with a niche capability with a large helicopter pad at the expense of what could be a true combatant vessel that may be able to undertake escort duties or other war fighting functions (provided they are actually built that way noting we - Australia - have a habit of not doing that with our smaller vessels) with not potential benefit to the Australian ship building industry. (I admit that unless something happens soon that may be a moot point).

 

[StingrayOZ]

I hate to hark on this issue but the dead weight of the JHSV is only 600 tonnes, and that includes crew, weapons, ships stores and fuel (and helicopters and other gear if you intend using them for ASW). They are no competition where the shuttle service is more than a day or so (i.e Timor where the JB was very effective) and there they are best at reaplacing aricraft not ships with a large uplift. This is how the US use them. Over longer distances you are at the mercy of the conditions (i.e they stop working when it get rough or slow down A LOT) and you ahve to do a lot of repeat trips to have the same uplift (which gets tricky if you have to slow down because the weather gets up).

I'm not talking about replacing ships other than supplementing LCM type craft. Specifically giving the LHD seabase greater range than what the traditional LCM type craft can give it. Also in intra-theatre lift between ports with ASW and inter-theatre lift as secondary missions. I wouldn't limit the conversation specifically to JHSV either, as variations of the US SSC evolve and come into the picture. Also other high speed cats like the EDA-R which can land onto a beach.

As this is the JC1 thread I brings these up regarding perhaps modifying the well dock to fit in with modern evolving CONOPs (as an abstract concept, not for Oz, Spain etc). Not as part of replacing RAN or vessels or even purchase/operation by the RAN. Given the US history, assistance with lift and the JHSV have been ships that they have been free to deploy for humanitarian or allied missions. As you mentioned we can even lease it from within Australia.

I cannot remember who posted it but the idea that they could outpace tanks ashore and land at a deserted beach is just silly.

That was me. The context of that was moving equipment in an archipelago region where roads are poor and non existent (or destroyed by disaster), are not direct and don't connect islands. PNG for example, has many disconnected road systems, you can't simply drive equipment around. Port Morsby for example to pretty much any where (Daru, Popondetta, Lae). You want to move things to Lae because from there you can get into the mountains a bit. East Timor isn't much better, and even in countries that have at least a 3rd world road network (or land suitable to build one) like Fiji,you can't get to islands and typically aren't very direct and may not be the fastest way to move cargo. I still stand by that. However, I acknowledge a JHSV wouldn't be the only ship of being faster, a dingy with a 5 hp motor would also be faster and safer.

But getting back to my original point if you can improve the connectors (which the US is trying to do) then you can make do with a smaller Dock, allowing for perhaps an additional 500-600m^2, and additional space for fuel and stores.

 

[alexsa]

I'm not talking about replacing ships other than supplementing LCM type craft. Specifically giving the LHD seabase greater range than what the traditional LCM type craft can give it. Also in intra-theatre lift between ports with ASW and inter-theatre lift as secondary missions. I wouldn't limit the conversation specifically to JHSV either, as variations of the US SSC evolve and come into the picture. Also other high speed cats like the EDA-R which can land onto a beach.

As this is the JC1 thread I brings these up regarding perhaps modifying the well dock to fit in with modern evolving CONOPs (as an abstract concept, not for Oz, Spain etc). Not as part of replacing RAN or vessels or even purchase/operation by the RAN. Given the US history, assistance with lift and the JHSV have been ships that they have been free to deploy for humanitarian or allied missions. As you mentioned we can even lease it from within Australia.


That was me. The context of that was moving equipment in an archipelago region where roads are poor and non existent (or destroyed by disaster), are not direct and don't connect islands. PNG for example, has many disconnected road systems, you can't simply drive equipment around. Port Morsby for example to pretty much any where (Daru, Popondetta, Lae). You want to move things to Lae because from there you can get into the mountains a bit. East Timor isn't much better, and even in countries that have at least a 3rd world road network (or land suitable to build one) like Fiji,you can't get to islands and typically aren't very direct and may not be the fastest way to move cargo. I still stand by that. However, I acknowledge a JHSV wouldn't be the only ship of being faster, a dingy with a 5 hp motor would also be faster and safer.

But getting back to my original point if you can improve the connectors (which the US is trying to do) then you can make do with a smaller Dock, allowing for perhaps an additional 500-600m^2, and additional space for fuel and stores.

At hundreds of million dollars each this is a very expensive way of supplementing LCM's. For that additional Chooks and chartered tonnage would be a better option for flexibility.

For my money a modern LCH with reasonable turn of speed offers good value for our budget and provides a better capability for both wartime peace time roles.

 

[Magoo]

Re helos, we bought 24 Romeos with a view to being able to deploy eight at any one time. If we wanted to deploy 18, we'd need 40+.

A number of JHSVs make far more sense than one or two larger vessels. They are built to commercial standards and thus are far cheaper, they have a much smaller crew, and with a modular mission packages can conduct multiple low-intensity missions sets; e.g. amphib ops, fast ferry, patrol/border security, special ops support, mine-hunter, submarine tender...the possibilities are endless.

 

[Todjaeger]

A number of JHSVs make far more sense than one or two larger vessels. They are built to commercial standards and thus are far cheaper, they have a much smaller crew, and with a modular mission packages can conduct multiple low-intensity missions sets; e.g. amphib ops, fast ferry, patrol/border security, special ops support, mine-hunter, submarine tender...the possibilities are endless.

Disagree re: a number of JHSV's making more sense.

They are indeed built to commercial standards, for some fairly specific roles. Which means that operations aside from those specific roles be done poorly, at best.

The HSC code which Alexsa has mentioned on more than one occasion specifies that cargo/passenger vessels not go more than 4 hours from refuge, and that cargo (only) vessels above 500 gross tons not go more than 8 hours from a port of refuge. And the vessels are built to those standards.

JHSV's make sense for operations in some littoral areas where the operations are going to be consistently in mild sea states and that port facilities will be available. Given how much (or how little, really) of the vessel's displacement would be available in a sealift capacity, then a single mono-hull STUFT vessel could in a single transit carry more than a comparable costing JHSV in several transits.

As for adapting a JHSV for other roles like patrol, MCM, etc... Unless one is talking about an LCS-type vessel (which AFAIK is really quite different from a JHSV) then such modifications would likely be problematic, not to mention the underlying issues a JHSV has in terms of seakeeping.

-Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

At hundreds of million dollars each this is a very expensive way of supplementing LCM's. For that additional Chooks and chartered tonnage would be a better option for flexibility.

For my money a modern LCH with reasonable turn of speed offers good value for our budget and provides a better capability for both wartime peace time roles.

Its part of a whole package. While a new build JHSV could be $200mil, there are several options available for far less than that, as you mentioned Swift for example. But EDA-R/supercat would be what, a 1/10th of that cost? For that you could/may extend the lowest deck on the LHD 500-600m2 which would require no additional crewing or running costs.

Or forget the LHD modifications, what option do we have for deploying equipment, aid, troops around 500 km from and to the LHD? What are our connectors for beyond ~170km? Fiji, Timor, PNG, Samoa. Any deployment to these region and we will be short of medium lift in particular to and from the LHD's and major ports.

JHSV, EDA-R, Chinooks, squirrels on jet skis. Platform not important. Most likely best solution might be a combination. Costs are minimal.

Additional chinooks (I think everyone agrees on this)
Two EDA-R to provide high speed lift and lift for 200-600km.
3 month a year lease agreement for a HSV type vessel (or training with US JHSV) for longer range intra-theatre lift, ASW, insertion/removal, etc.

Thoughts?

 

[alexsa]

Its part of a whole package. While a new build JHSV could be $200mil, there are several options available for far less than that, as you mentioned Swift for example. But EDA-R/supercat would be what, a 1/10th of that cost? For that you could/may extend the lowest deck on the LHD 500-600m2 which would require no additional crewing or running costs.

Or forget the LHD modifications, what option do we have for deploying equipment, aid, troops around 500 km from and to the LHD? What are our connectors for beyond ~170km? Fiji, Timor, PNG, Samoa. Any deployment to these region and we will be short of medium lift in particular to and from the LHD's and major ports.

JHSV, EDA-R, Chinooks, squirrels on jet skis. Platform not important. Most likely best solution might be a combination. Costs are minimal.

Additional chinooks (I think everyone agrees on this)
Two EDA-R to provide high speed lift and lift for 200-600km.
3 month a year lease agreement for a HSV type vessel (or training with US JHSV) for longer range intra-theatre lift, ASW, insertion/removal, etc.

Thoughts?

EDA-R only displace 300 tonnes and is limited to three decent sized vehicles, This is LCM-E territory.

JHSV are not cheap ships, You could get three and a half OPV for the same outlay. Add all the other capability you are looking at in modular form and the price will go up a lot. They are are are not as robust as a typical merchant hull as will be discussed below and their speed is limited by sea state.

Looking at speed of advance over a long voyage (i.e Fiji as mooted) the cargo you can carry to theatre (ignoring transfer within theater for the time being) will be very low compared to the typical merchant LO LO or RO RO ship. This does not take the burden off the LHD LSD/A assets in any case.

The speed of advance (noting the range issue at anything above 25knots) to theater will be much the same as a 17 to 22 knot merchant derived hull (or LCH) depending on design based on the range and fact it is part of the package. They burn prodigesous qunaties of fuel when using that speed and will need refuelling support at any distance from Australia. Not always easy for a small navy with limited AOR capability.

Second hand vessel are built to the HSV code which is based on short haul and you cannot use commercial crews (it that is what you suggest) unless it is something like the USNS as this will not cut it for normal commercial operations from a regulatory perspective, particularly over extended voyages and sustained operations such as those you envisage to Fiji. Also begs the question why buy such a niche assest when you can charter if you are looking at second hand tonnage.

The very small crews used on these vessels in commercial use is based on shore infrastructure. They would offer no advantage over the crewing of 100 to 130m long merchant vessel which can be between 7 (which is too low from a fatigue perspective) to 15 (which allows for self maintenacne for all but docking and emergency).

Even if you go for the bare bones crewing (say 7 which is madness) for long haul and managing your own discharge operations will increase the crew and facilites to support them. If you are carrying troops then you can add the weight and impact of accomodation facilities, supplies and galley, water and sewage systems/holding tanks (noting if they are warships you can ignore MARPOL but port may object). Tod is correct in noting that in commercial use HSC are limited to 4 hours from a safe haven for PAX and 8 hours for cargo in the commerical world. They are also certified on the basis of a certificate to operate whiohjc defines the routes they may travel. This is captured in the HSC Code in recognition that they do not comply wiht the more stringent standards for merchant ships that can operate without such restrictions. Again if they warships you can ignore this but it should be noted these restrictions are ther for a reason.

Finally the JHSC is a brilliant asset for the US where is is one asset in a broad range of capabilites. The US are probably have the only ORBAT that can absorb and utilise such platforms in their anticpated role effectively as they have the depth of capability that allows this. We are better of chartering as we did with the Jervis Bay in Timor. It provided a capability when we needed and where it coudl be best used. We don't need a full blown JHSV even on long term lease noting that owners tend to recover the full cost of the vessel over a long term lease.

 

[Joe Black]

A good read about Australia's emerging amphibious capability

Australia’s Emerging Amphibious Warfare Capabilities | The Diplomat

Now I am thinking throw in some F35Bs on a 3rd LHD, would that not drastically up the capability and essentially make ADF a very useful "persuasive tool"?

 

[ADMk2]

Re helos, we bought 24 Romeos with a view to being able to deploy eight at any one time. If we wanted to deploy 18, we'd need 40+.

At a standard rate of deployment, I'm certain surge capacity resides within the 24 strong fleet to put more aircraft at sea for varying lengths of time if necessary...