JP 2048 Ph 5 was never a like for like replacement. It was always going to be capable of independent regional operations, meaning bigger, faster with a helo capability.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
t68
Well-Known Member
Wasn't considering the a full size but the function in something like 2500/3000 ton not sure if it doable might be easier just to get a Frank S Besson type LSV or Endurance class, but as I said is have the well dock and the ability to beach itself something that the RAN needs?
Bluey 006
Active Member
I have often felt a hybrid transport/frigate type ship is a good idea. Something with both war fighting and small lift capabilities, would complement the existing fleet. It should be able to operate independently, something a little bigger than the Absalon but similar concept class would be ideal IMHO..
Last edited:
Fincantieri has a similar-sized LPD in its portfolio. Three in Italian service, built 1980s & 1990s, & one of a modernised & slightly larger variant recently delivered to Algeria. Kalaat Beni-Abbes - 143 x 21.5 metres, 8800 tons, through deck.
Interestingly, it has a 76mm gun, Sylver VLS for 16 Aster missiles, & a radar (KRONOS - an AESA set) & FREMM-like CMS to suit
If you have a well dock that can carry one or two USN type LCU or three or four LCM then you have the same or greater over beach capability than provided by an LCH. If you have an over beach capability, do you need a well dock, or will a mission deck able to carry and launch LCVP and Assault boats be sufficient?
A USN type LCU has a similar load capacity to the RAN LCH but is less capable of independent operations meaning a mother ship carrying a single, preloaded, LCU can pretty much cover the ADF requirement. Such a ship could easily have a large hanger and flight deck. Add a bit of extra size, a vehicle deck, a mission deck and some craft on davits, or launched from rails and you substantially increase capability.
Once you have all of this it's comparatively simple to add a frigate combat system and weapons and you end up with a destroyer sized amphibious assault ship able to supplement and support, as well as escort the LHDs.
A USN type LCU has a similar load capacity to the RAN LCH but is less capable of independent operations meaning a mother ship carrying a single, preloaded, LCU can pretty much cover the ADF requirement. Such a ship could easily have a large hanger and flight deck. Add a bit of extra size, a vehicle deck, a mission deck and some craft on davits, or launched from rails and you substantially increase capability.
Once you have all of this it's comparatively simple to add a frigate combat system and weapons and you end up with a destroyer sized amphibious assault ship able to supplement and support, as well as escort the LHDs.
The Australian shipbuilding discussion is quite interesting. I can see both sides of the spectrum.
One of the issues imho is that each procurement is looked at seperately.
We do have quality expertise here which we need to leverage, but there has been some issues with project cost blowouts and technical challenges along the way (which we have learned from). The real issue may be how the industry is currently perceived in certain areas (politicians, media, general public etc).
I can certainly understand the desire to build the future submarines here, same for the Aegir replacements for Success and Sirus, but we have a large body of shipbuilding ahead of us. I could see something along the lines of this happening:
Build 12 submarines overseas (perhaps in Japan with some involvement from ASC)
Build 2 Aegir 18 overseas
Build 8 Future Frigates locally (using a design with same hull as the AWDs)
Build 6 LCH replacements locally (perhaps similar to the Damen LST 100)
Build 20 OCVs to replace Armidales locally (perhaps similar to the Damen OPV 1800)
This lets us build the percieved "high risk" / large vessels overseas and with 8 FFG, 6 LST and 20 OCV have plenty of work for the local shipbuilding industry with smaller "low risk" development. The added advantage is that with successful local builds, it would go a long way to improving the perception of Australian ship building and better position the industry for bigger builds in the future.
One of the issues imho is that each procurement is looked at seperately.
We do have quality expertise here which we need to leverage, but there has been some issues with project cost blowouts and technical challenges along the way (which we have learned from). The real issue may be how the industry is currently perceived in certain areas (politicians, media, general public etc).
I can certainly understand the desire to build the future submarines here, same for the Aegir replacements for Success and Sirus, but we have a large body of shipbuilding ahead of us. I could see something along the lines of this happening:
Build 12 submarines overseas (perhaps in Japan with some involvement from ASC)
Build 2 Aegir 18 overseas
Build 8 Future Frigates locally (using a design with same hull as the AWDs)
Build 6 LCH replacements locally (perhaps similar to the Damen LST 100)
Build 20 OCVs to replace Armidales locally (perhaps similar to the Damen OPV 1800)
This lets us build the percieved "high risk" / large vessels overseas and with 8 FFG, 6 LST and 20 OCV have plenty of work for the local shipbuilding industry with smaller "low risk" development. The added advantage is that with successful local builds, it would go a long way to improving the perception of Australian ship building and better position the industry for bigger builds in the future.
I believe we are over reacting to our shipbuilding. From memory, with the Collins, the only poor workmanship I can remember was the welding on the Swedish made sub. A large part of the delay with the AWD was caused by the Gillard government slowing things down to save money. I dont recall much criticism when the the last two O.H. Perrys or the Anzac class were built at Williamstown.
I hope Johnson had at least War Canoes in mind.
I doubt he would be criticising ASD if they were in W.A.
I hope Johnson had at least War Canoes in mind.
I doubt he would be criticising ASD if they were in W.A.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Heheh, the very large contingent of RN FAA Helo Aircrew to (mistakenly) help us with a Helo Aircrew shortage supposedly (early 1970s) for the Wessex 31B - when in fact there were just too many - used to like to refer to MELBOURNE as the 'Warb Canoe". We thought that was very funny indeed. :dance
warb - definition of warb by The Free Dictionary
warb - definition of warb by The Free Dictionary
Johnston is being briefed behind the scenes by both BAE and Raytheon about how incompetent ASC is and unfortunately he seems to be listening to them. The irony is BAE as the contractor who caused all of the early delays through substandard, inaccurate and incomplete work that had to be identified and fixed by ASC and Raytheon the Alliance member with th highest number of managers, leads, and teams sucking up all the key positions they could get their hands on are both more to blame for project delays than ASC is. They are both angling for the contract to be rebaselined and then appointed as prime, from which point they will be paid huge sums of money to basically let the existing work force keep doing what they are doing and blaming ASC for all past and future problems. They are engineering and inflating issues to make more money.
This is typical weak crap from "leaders"/managers/politicians with no balls or self-belief. It happens all through government in particular, from local to federal, where the more people you get on board the easier it is to find somebody to point the finger at when something goes wrong.
Build some alliances, hire some consultants, out-source the grunt work, get a sub-par result and blame one.
t68
Well-Known Member
Is imagine they could if you thru enough $$ at it. I'd be worried about the unexpected rocks and what it would do to the bottom, beaching on sand could do abit aswell
t68
Well-Known Member
They Army's LCVP are aluminium but with a full load of 7tonne LCH replacement 400t plus with rocks and riding through the surf and getting belted I'd be more inclined to go with steel myself
Where to start, I am beginning to get a facial tic every time some suggests a HSV can do this sort of thing. When you build a high speed vessel there is always a balance better speed and capacity...... often solved by building a bigger vessel.
Most HSC ferries have large volumes but limited 'uplift' as they rely on light structure and minimised hull drag to provide performance (mind you you can always stuff this up with poor design). If you want to carry a load of 400 tonnes on a HSC you are going to need a much bigger ship as the TPC (tonnes per centimetre immersion) is very low on a small vessel and the load quickly gets to the point drag stops you in your tracks. You can get a lower speed performance (say 20 knots noting most cruise at 12 to 15 knots anyway .... including HSV ....... where range is required) but a massive increase in uplift with a conventional hull.
The HSC vessels as commercial vessel are designed round fixed routes where time is critical. The LCS-2 based on a HSC is designed for a specific role flexibility but with reduced uplift compared a typical warship of the same length.
The other things to consider:
- Many HSC have operating limitations, particularly multihulls where tunnel slam becomes an issue.
- They are fuel hogs is you operate at speed.
- They are a bit fragile compared to they 'conventional' vessel of similar size
- They are more difficult to build in effective structural fire protection and to provide the same as a standard A-60 on a cargo ships will cost you a motza ...... trust me on that one
- Aluminium is more expensive than mild steel and can be more difficult to repair. If you design in a hard point you have built a life long problem that can be expensive to fix
- Large aluminium vessels do not light being run aground noting the material is
- brittle. (Tinnies are small and comparatively robust by comparison)
IMHO if you want a vessel that can operate independently it needs to be robust and able to carry a decent load.
Thank goodness you jumped in, I was waiting for to bust this interminable myth that high speed, or even normal cats, are useful for carrying heavy loads, it drives me nuts, they are useless for carrying much other than passengers and their vehicles at most. The very thought of putting an Alu hull on the beach regularly gives me nightmares.
Further, they are expensive to build, everything has to built twice, including alarm systems steering, fire suppression systems, etc.
I own a 25 mtr passenger cat, its great for carrying passengers around the harbour but in a seaway its horrible, tunnel slam, rigid stiff action and the very reason why they don't work in rough passages such as cook strait in NZ and why in winter, the Bass strait cat service was suspended.
Lets please face reality and focus on a proper landing craft design.
Thanks Alex and Chris as always your real world experience and knowledge is valuable and brings these discussions back to reality.
Aluminium was selected for use on the ACPBs as it was lighter and potentially permitted lower operating costs, through lower fuel burn, compared to a steel hulled vessel of similar size. Where it fell down was in maintenance costs as they lacked the durability of their steel hulled predecessors, requiring mode expensive work to keep them seaworthy, both in structural repairs and corrosion rectification work. While it is fine for a commercial, or even customs, vessel to ride out rough weather in a safe harbour this is often not an option for a naval vessel.
Compare the experience of of the ACPBs to the proceeding Fremantles, they are basically shagged after only half their expected fourteen year life while the Freos made thirty years of often hard service. Now look at the forty plus years the RAN has gotten out of the LCHs, had they been larger, able to lift a troop of Abrams tanks and better suited to independent operations it is likely they would have been retained in service even longer. The only thing an aluminium HSV would bring is higher operating speed but would typically be less durable and less versatile than a steel hulled equivalent.
Aluminium was selected for use on the ACPBs as it was lighter and potentially permitted lower operating costs, through lower fuel burn, compared to a steel hulled vessel of similar size. Where it fell down was in maintenance costs as they lacked the durability of their steel hulled predecessors, requiring mode expensive work to keep them seaworthy, both in structural repairs and corrosion rectification work. While it is fine for a commercial, or even customs, vessel to ride out rough weather in a safe harbour this is often not an option for a naval vessel.
Compare the experience of of the ACPBs to the proceeding Fremantles, they are basically shagged after only half their expected fourteen year life while the Freos made thirty years of often hard service. Now look at the forty plus years the RAN has gotten out of the LCHs, had they been larger, able to lift a troop of Abrams tanks and better suited to independent operations it is likely they would have been retained in service even longer. The only thing an aluminium HSV would bring is higher operating speed but would typically be less durable and less versatile than a steel hulled equivalent.
If all goes well and the Damen aviation training ship is found to be a suitable replacement for the ACPB I do wonder if the RAN would go for the 1800, 2400 or 2600 OPV.The 1800 has lowest crew requirements and fits in the stated 2000t OPV
displacment. The 2400 and 2600 have the same crew size with the 2600 offering a higher top speed and range. Could additional systems/weapons be fitted to any of them if required? Would 2 container mission modules be enough for non patrol roles?
Considering the size over the ACPB, where would they be berthed?
displacment. The 2400 and 2600 have the same crew size with the 2600 offering a higher top speed and range. Could additional systems/weapons be fitted to any of them if required? Would 2 container mission modules be enough for non patrol roles?
Considering the size over the ACPB, where would they be berthed?
If these are the chosen platform there is no reason to suspect that they would not continue to berth at Darwin naval Base. Although they are larger I suspect that we would not be getting 20 hulls anytime soon and a hull for hull replacement for the ACPB would be unlikely.
The berth at DNB will hold 9 Armidales (3 x 3 abreast) and that is not utilising the original berth alongside the synchro runway.
The problem will be the Synchrolift which is currently limited to 500 tons The Pearl Marine Synchrolift (in Frances Bay)has a 2,500t capacity and may suffice in the short term but ultimately the DNB lift will need to be larger. This is not a hugely difficult exercise, we did this at Pearl marine when I was the GM at Paspaley and upgraded/changed the lift from 400t to 2,500t with a not unreasonable cost, certainly within the lofty financial realms of the Feds.
Ultimately though, DNB needs to be upgraded with a larger jetty suitable for frigate sized ships and this is entirely doable.
- Status