Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Joe Black]

What exact role would it do that the LHDs dont fit?

Maybe I should explain the thought bubble more...

Given the recent F-35B debates which has been going on for a while in this forum about the capability of both LHDs to carry sufficient number of them and also the number of changes required on the LHD to faciliate them, and also the possibility of acquiring a 3rd LHD , the USS Peleliu decommissioning next year offers a quick solution if Australia is again going to re-introduce the capability of having such a capital asset.

Just purely for discussion only.

Obviously one has to consider the following:
1. logistic issues
2. Crewing
3. Suitability in RAN Orbat
etc

 

[oldsig127]

Any thoughts about acquiring something like USS Peleliu when she is decommissioned next year? She is rather young, being built in 1980.

Almost 35 years old. Sure, she could fill the same role as Manoora and Kanimbla did.

Or more seriously, I can't see what benefit she'd provide that a third LHD wouldn't do better with less ongoing maintenance expense, less crewing expense, and less store holding and supply complexity except perhaps being ready to support a fast jet component (Harriers!)

oldsig127

 

[gf0012-aust]

Any thoughts about acquiring something like USS Peleliu when she is decommissioned next year? She is rather young, being built in 1980. I think if RAN acquire her, give her a refit with some modern equipment, removed unecessary capabilities and automate some functions to reduce the crewing requirement by about half, she might be a ready-made STOVL aircraft carrier/assault ship combo for RAN?

Just interested hear some thoughts and debates.

redundant capability - also there's an aversion to getting 2nd hand US gear after the issues with bill and ben

 

[justsomeaussie]

Maybe I should explain the thought bubble more...

Given the recent F-35B debates which has been going on for a while in this forum about the capability of both LHDs to carry sufficient number of them and also the number of changes required on the LHD to faciliate them, and also the possibility of acquiring a 3rd LHD , the USS Peleliu decommissioning next year offers an quick solution if Australia is again going to re-introduce the capability of having such a capital asset.

Correct me if things have changed in the last 6 months but have the F35b ever actually been considered internal to Navy. I understood the decks on the LHD are simply not designed to handle the heat that output from a f35b so it never was really considered.

I'm still interested in hearing the actual mission operational concept that such an extra capability would bring given that the two LHD were already supposed to be redundantly supporting each other.

I would have thought that Kanimbla and Manoora would have taught us to not buy old US ships anymore.

 

[TheArchitect]

Maybe I should explain the thought bubble more...

Given the recent F-35B debates which has been going on for a while in this forum about the capability of both LHDs to carry sufficient number of them and also the number of changes required on the LHD to faciliate them, and also the possibility of acquiring a 3rd LHD , the USS Peleliu decommissioning next year offers an quick solution if Australia is again going to re-introduce the capability of having such a capital asset.

Just purely for discussion only.

Obviously one has to consider the following:
1. logistic issues
2. Crewing
3. Suitability in RAN Orbat
etc

My view would be that USS Peleliu would be too old and too large. By the time she is decommissioned she will be over 35 years old. The crew requirements would also be too great for the RAN. The costs of maintaining and running her, would be significantly greater than the Canberra Class LHDs, especially given her age.

Highlights:
Ordered: 6 November 1970
Laid down: 12 November 1976
Launched: 25 November 1978
Commissioned: 3 May 1980

1989 San Francisco earthquake
1991 volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines
1994 Operation Distant Runner at the border of Rwanda and Burundi
1999 East Timor as part of the Australian-led INTERFET
2001 She was in the port of Darwin, Australia during the September 11 attacks
2001 She took the first U.S. Marines to Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom
2008 Sent to the Indian Ocean to support Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
2010 Sent to Port of Karachi, Pakistan, to use 19 of her helicopters for rescues during the massive floods in southern Pakistan

Would these be the sort of missions that the Canberra Class LHDs would be expected to perform over the next 30-40years. I am particularly interested in the evolution of CONOPS to support these types of deployments.

 

[t68]

Correct me if things have changed in the last 6 months but have the F35b ever actually been considered internal to Navy. I understood the decks on the LHD are simply not designed to handle the heat that output from a f35b so it never was really considered.

I'm still interested in hearing the actual mission operational concept that such an extra capability would bring given that the two LHD were already supposed to be redundantly supporting each other.

I would have thought that Kanimbla and Manoora would have taught us to not buy old US ships anymore.

The Juan Carlos/ Canberra class LHD are designed from the start to handle F35B. The Spanish requirments was for Juan Carlos to take up the slack for pilot training and act as the fleet carrier when PDA was in refit or unexpected maintenance

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Juan Carlos/ Canberra class LHD are designed from the start to handle F35B. The Spanish requirments was for Juan Carlos to take up the slack for pilot training and act as the fleet carrier when PDA was in refit or unexpected maintenance

Well the deck heat issue wasn't really finalized when the Juan was built. However, I believe its relatively minor issue, an essentially a non issue for a LHD like the Juan. The us may have more of an issue with the wasp class, or America class if they loaded them full with F-35B and ran high number of sorties. Some new deck surfacing and some other ways to manage the issues. The Spanish have decomissioned PdA and now just have Juan Carlos.

USS Peleliu

There is a reason the US is getting rid of her. Steam, old, way to big for Australia (Designed for nearly 3,000 personel). Makin Island and the new America class have diesel electric propulsion. To give you an idea how expensive these old ships (Peleliu) are compared to new ships (Makin Island and America and the Canberra class) to operate:

Fuel savings were said to be “impressive”. On an average day, the Makin Island uses 15,000 gallons of fuel, versus 35,000 to 40,000 gallons on an older steam ship of its type, said Capt. James Landers, commanding officer.

Thats per day, if your deployed for 100 days, then just fueling the sucker is a huge logistics drain and expense. The more advanced (pod) and much smaller ship like Canberra class might use half (half to a third) of what Makin Island would use or a quarter of what Peleliu might consume. Meaning less logistical load and lower operating cost.

Canberra/Juan Carlos Class are really very modern efficient ships that smaller countries could operate (even smaller than Australia), with frigate levels of crewing and operating costs.We already have two, so 3rd would be an easy fit and actually lower our operating cost per ship.

An american LHD, or even a small carrier like Cavour would be a huge burden in comparison. Thats a whole new level of operating cost, most likely for Cavour more than twice the cost of a Canberra class LHD to operate (IMO). Thats forgetting about the airwing etc.

 

[Volkodav]

The thing I don't get is the two biggest stuff ups on the AWD to date were inaccurate data that was not fit to build to that caused many delays and unnecessary rework and the extremely poor quality of work on the keel blocks. You would think the companies responsible for these expensive and time consuming issues that delayed and blew out the costs of the entire project would be punished meaning they would probably struggle to get any government work again.

The companies in question are Navantia and BAE respectively and instead of being hammered for their incompetence both are being rewarded and sold as the potential saviours of the AWD project and the RAN. Reality check, both not only screwed up on the AWD the have stuffed up big time in their home markets, they are not as proficient or competent as BIW, EB, or Ingalls and you need to question if they are any better than ASC, who at least has the excuse of inexperience.

There was even speculation that the problems on the keel blocks were deliberate sabotage to discredit ASC as a ship builder before it became apparent that it was actually due to incompetence. Before the contract was signed a number of BIW experts questioned the wisdom of contracting your biggest competitor to do such critical work instead of bringing it in house . Many of them also were stunned at the poor quality of data being received, as well as the build strategies and design features of the F-100. The experts brought in to bring ASC up to speed had serious doubts about both Williamstown (BAE) and Navantia but were ignored by the government, now the government are rewarding incompetence and punishing the company that was lumbered with them.

 

[Joe Black]

The thing I don't get is the two biggest stuff ups on the AWD to date were inaccurate data that was not fit to build to that caused many delays and unnecessary rework and the extremely poor quality of work on the keel blocks. You would think the companies responsible for these expensive and time consuming issues that delayed and blew out the costs of the entire project would be punished meaning they would probably struggle to get any government work again.

The companies in question are Navantia and BAE respectively and instead of being hammered for their incompetence both are being rewarded and sold as the potential saviours of the AWD project and the RAN. Reality check, both not only screwed up on the AWD the have stuffed up big time in their home markets, they are not as proficient or competent as BIW, EB, or Ingalls and you need to question if they are any better than ASC, who at least has the excuse of inexperience.

There was even speculation that the problems on the keel blocks were deliberate sabotage to discredit ASC as a ship builder before it became apparent that it was actually due to incompetence. Before the contract was signed a number of BIW experts questioned the wisdom of contracting your biggest competitor to do such critical work instead of bringing it in house . Many of them also were stunned at the poor quality of data being received, as well as the build strategies and design features of the F-100. The experts brought in to bring ASC up to speed had serious doubts about both Williamstown (BAE) and Navantia but were ignored by the government, now the government are rewarding incompetence and punishing the company that was lumbered with them.

Well, ASC is govt, whilst BAE and Navantia are private companies. When projects go bad, you can always sue the private companies and ask them for compensation. Can't do that to a govt owned company like ASC.

I think there are more things at play than meet the eyes.

When you get into an Alliance type agreements like the AWD alliance, you can't effectively sue Navantia and BAE for all their mistakes as ASC took lead in project management.

 

[swerve]

Canberra/Juan Carlos Class are really very modern efficient ships that smaller countries could operate (even smaller than Australia), with frigate levels of crewing and operating costs.We already have two, so 3rd would be an easy fit and actually lower our operating cost per ship.

An american LHD, or even a small carrier like Cavour would be a huge burden in comparison. Thats a whole new level of operating cost, most likely for Cavour more than twice the cost of a Canberra class LHD to operate (IMO). Thats forgetting about the airwing etc.

Cavour has about 75% more ship crew, is a bit longer, a bit wider & a bit heavier, has more complex equipment (e.g. sensors & weapons - though an export model needn't have the same fit-out), & is a lot faster, with much more installed power, from more engines - mostly GTs, while JC1 is all diesel. Cavour is much more expensive to build & to operate.

 

[Blackshoe]

There is a reason the US is getting rid of her. Steam, old, way to big for Australia (Designed for nearly 3,000 personel). Makin Island and the new America class have diesel electric propulsion.

This. Plus, when we are done with an amphib...you aren't going to want her anymore. We ride them hard and put them away wet. Ask the Indians how buying a second-hand US amphib works out for you.

 

[alexsa]

Cavour has about 75% more ship crew, is a bit longer, a bit wider & a bit heavier, has more complex equipment (e.g. sensors & weapons - though an export model needn't have the same fit-out), & is a lot faster, with much more installed power, from more engines - mostly GTs, while JC1 is all diesel. Cavour is much more expensive to build & to operate.

Just a clarification, The LHD and JC1 are CODLAG with one GT and DA's providng power to the pods.

 

[StingrayOZ]

To be realistic, we can afford to operate a 3rd LHD. While the inital purchase is significant, its not a deal breaker. It operating costs are relatively low, and would reduce the cost of the other 3 ships. Also we already have all the LCM's we need for 3 and even then with 3 LHD we wouldn't need 4 LCM in each all the time normally (significantly reducing crewing, eliminating I would suspect the 62 army component). Using the crew from Balikipapans would cover around 100 more crew. Leaving only 190 personnel as additional. I believe we are down some patrol boats currently as well (budgeted crew we aren't using could be as high as 100). Some could be sourced from the other 2 LHD's, and then back filled, so training wise it seems doable. There is money from the Balkipapan replacements, plus the money Choules came under budget.

So effectively the only thing we would need is approximately 100 new sailors. Australia would then have the 2nd most capable amphibious fleet in the world (arguably), one of the few globally that could operate and deploy a ARG at anytime. With a 3rd LHD, you could then ponder the idea of F-35B's, as you could fit in space and time to train this capability. Arguably, even with the LHD's limitations, we would have one of the most capable carrier forces in the world and certainly one of the most important in the region. You could also explore ASW. The LHD would be able to be deployed in and out of region and sustained deployments.

Seems like good value for ~100 sailors.

 

[t68]

G'day Stingray

Yes I was awere that the Spanish laid up PdA for economic reason and several nations showed an interst.

I actually thought she would ba a good fit for the RAN as an interim training ASW/Commando ship whilst we were waiting for the Canberra's to arrive and she could act as escort as well. In hindsight we could have leased/bought a Squadron worth of ex UK harriers and hopefully some trained pilots/support crew as well

 

[justsomeaussie]

To be realistic, we can afford to operate a 3rd LHD. While the inital purchase is significant, its not a deal breaker. It operating costs are relatively low, and would reduce the cost of the other 3 ships. Also we already have all the LCM's we need for 3 and even then with 3 LHD we wouldn't need 4 LCM in each all the time normally (significantly reducing crewing, eliminating I would suspect the 62 army component). Choules came under budget.

Seems like good value for ~100 sailors.

Can you sell it to me why 3 LHDs? What operational scenario requires three LHDs and not two?

It's all great to talk about just more capability but there is a pretty big cost associated with it and with any capability the cost of it is a trade off with another capability in a limited Defence budget.

So what is 3 doing that 2 can't and what are you trading out to get the capability?

 

[t68]

Can you sell it to me why 3 LHDs? What operational scenario requires three LHDs and not two?

It's all great to talk about just more capability but there is a pretty big cost associated with it and with any capability the cost of it is a trade off with another capability in a limited Defence budget.

So what is 3 doing that 2 can't and what are you trading out to get the capability?

An ARG is predicated on both LHD and Choules that the entire Amphiboius a afloat ships of the RAN, with three LHD that gives a a good guarantee two LHD would be avalible 85% of the time and three if everything fell into place at the time which frees up Choules if she is avalible for strategic sealift.

We have to consider that the LHD are replacing the 2x Kanimbla class ships and Choules is the brought forward replacement for Tobruk and we know how overworked Bill&Ben were.

Edit
Even with three LHD whilst workable I am still not in favour of putting F35 on board unless we got a fourth( no way will it happen) that way all ships can rotate with being the dedicated Assualt or ASW/escort carrier with third ship avalible to make two amphibious Assualt ship avalible without compromising each ship core job. That way we could in theory the third surged ship could be either a LHD or a ASW/sea control ship and being able to rotate them if nessacerly

 

[StingrayOZ]

An ARG is predicated on both LHD and Choules that the entire Amphiboius a afloat ships of the RAN, with three LHD that gives a a good guarantee two LHD would be avalible 85% of the time and three if everything fell into place at the time which frees up Choules if she is avalible for strategic sealift.

Pretty much. With 3 you can plan and manage things so its workable. With 2, there is really no point even talking about ARG, because it will essentially never happen. A 3rd LHD doesn't give the ADF ARG on day one, but it allow army and navy to put the elements together in future acquisitions. This will never happen with 2, we will always have the wrong mix with 2, because you will never form an ARG.

Even with three LHD whilst workable I am still not in favour of putting F35 on board unless we got a fourth( no way will it happen) that way all ships can rotate with being the dedicated Assualt or ASW/escort carrier with third ship avalible to make two amphibious Assualt ship avalible without compromising each ship core job

That would be ideal, but as you mention it would never happen. I too think the F-35B is a distraction, but with 3 you can look at having a small amount of capability. Enough to train, make small deployments, without compromising the core amphibious capability. Realistically I think this would be all the capability Australia would ever need. We really only need enough to cover small operations, until a UK or US carrier is able to turn up.

But you would be getting the 3rd LHD for the amphibious capability. Its for the army.

The army has some pretty strong arguments:
http://www.defence.gov.au/opex/exercises/caex/pdf/hawkins.pdf
http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Publications/Australian-Army-Journal/Past-editions/~/media/Files/Our%20future/LWSC%20Publications/AAJ/2012Autumn/10-AmphibianDeploymentAndS.pdf
Developing the Australian Amphibious Force - Australian Army

The ARG concept is very strong, and as you can read the Army is aggressively adopting it, the americans have been suggesting it for decades. However Casually mentioning it would be made up of 2x LHD's and Choules, requiring all three ships to be some how all available, in terms of sustainment they would also need to never break down or require service or maintenance. On top of this, they don't just have to be available for actual operations they also need to be available for training otherwise you will only be training a force element. So all three ships to be available 365 for the next 10 years.

A 3rd LHD doesn't solve all the problems, but will make sure you have your two most important, unique assets available nearly all the time.

 

[Volkodav]

Well, ASC is govt, whilst BAE and Navantia are private companies. When projects go bad, you can always sue the private companies and ask them for compensation. Can't do that to a govt owned company like ASC.

I think there are more things at play than meet the eyes.

When you get into an Alliance type agreements like the AWD alliance, you can't effectively sue Navantia and BAE for all their mistakes as ASC took lead in project management.

The Alliance took the lead in project management and after the government replaced Greg Tunny with Steve Ludlum ASC got rid of their top layer of experienced shipbuilding managers leaving most of the top jobs to Raytheon and DMO. Following cut backs DMO also stepped back leaving most key positions in the hands of Raytheon, at the same time most the the contracts for BIW staff who had been critical for their corporate knowledge and shipbuilding experience came up for renewal and weren't. At this point an ever increasing number of ex-BAE and Rolls Royce people started to appear in senior ASC roles.

My boss made the point from the start of the project that things would go wrong. There would be mistakes and delays for the simple reason that we were working on the first ship of a new, state of the art design, in a new yard, using a new project structure, following a long break in local shipbuilding and it didn't matter whose fault the actual issues were ASC would be blamed as they were the ship builder and their name may as well have been painted on the side of the ship. He went on to explain that was why he wanted the test group involved in every facet of the project from day one, so at least we would know what was heading our way, even if we couldn't stop it.

 

[Raven22]

An ARG is predicated on both LHD and Choules that the entire Amphiboius a afloat ships of the RAN, with three LHD that gives a a good guarantee two LHD would be avalible 85% of the time and three if everything fell into place at the time which frees up Choules if she is avalible for strategic sealift.

The ARG is also predicated on every single helicopter in the ADF being serviceable at the same time and embarked on the LHDs. There are a whole lot of capabilities that might cause the ARG to fall over, the LHDs are just one of many.

It's worth remembering, the ARG is not a full time capability. It's not even a part time capability. It's an 'in the event of war, break glass' capability that if enacted would be an ADF main effort. It will get tested once when the second LHD comes online just to prove we can do it, but that's it.

 

[TheArchitect]

Pretty much. With 3 you can plan and manage things so its workable. With 2, there is really no point even talking about ARG, because it will essentially never happen. A 3rd LHD doesn't give the ADF ARG on day one, but it allow army and navy to put the elements together in future acquisitions. This will never happen with 2, we will always have the wrong mix with 2, because you will never form an ARG.

That would be ideal, but as you mention it would never happen. I too think the F-35B is a distraction, but with 3 you can look at having a small amount of capability. Enough to train, make small deployments, without compromising the core amphibious capability. Realistically I think this would be all the capability Australia would ever need. We really only need enough to cover small operations, until a UK or US carrier is able to turn up.

But you would be getting the 3rd LHD for the amphibious capability. Its for the army.

The ARG concept is very strong, and as you can read the Army is aggressively adopting it, the americans have been suggesting it for decades. However Casually mentioning it would be made up of 2x LHD's and Choules, requiring all three ships to be some how all available, in terms of sustainment they would also need to never break down or require service or maintenance. On top of this, they don't just have to be available for actual operations they also need to be available for training otherwise you will only be training a force element. So all three ships to be available 365 for the next 10 years.

A 3rd LHD doesn't solve all the problems, but will make sure you have your two most important, unique assets available nearly all the time.

Building a 3rd LHD for the RAN has been discussed many times in this thread, and although it offers the benefit of increased availability of LHD’s during maintenance periods and major refits, it does so at a significant additional cost. A 3rd LHD could also provide flexibility for utilising at least one of the LHD’s for other secondary capabilities like operating the F35B, without compromising or reducing overall amphibious operations capabilities.

I don’t believe the RAN is large enough to support a carrier or specialist F35B ship as this would distract too greatly from other capabilities. Even a third large Canberra class LHD or other simular large ship would also require significant additional crewing requirements, which would stretch RAN resources.

One option would be to build 2 smaller LHD’s based on the Navantia Athlas class LHD 13000 design. Build one of the LHD’s for the RAN and one for the RNZN. The option of a small LHD for the RNZN has been previously mentioned by (ngatimozart) in the RNZN thread, as an option for a Canterbury replacement.

Although no Athlas class LHD 13000 Class ships have currently been built, the Spanish navy currently operates 2 Athlas LPD 13000 Galicia class ships (Galicia and Castilla) which are very similar in design. The Athlas class LHD 26000 which the Canberra class is based on, is a design evolution of these ships.

The Athlas class LHD 13000 Class ships offer significant capability in a smaller cheaper to operate ship. It offers a 13,000 ton ship supporting 4 x LCM-1E (885m2 Dock), 500–600 Deployment Personal, 12 Bed Hospital, 4 Helicopter landing spots and base Crew of 113. The overall design, systems and layout are very similar to the larger Athlas class LHD 26000 which the Canberra is based on.

Not sure what the cost to build would be, but I do know that they built using approximately half the number of build modules as the Canberra Class LHD. It would provide flexibility to deploy the right sized LHD for different operations lowering the overall operational costs.