Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[FormerDirtDart]

USN has now got three MLP called the Montford Point Class which marry up with the AKE, it's not exactly how the US envisaged it due to budget concerns. only problem with the way you suggested it is that once it draws down everything must be in the landing craft, the US use 3x LCAC (landing craft air cushioned) for MLP operations.


Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Ship - Naval Technology

The USN has two MLPs. USNS Montford Point (T-MLP-1) & USNS John Glenn (T-MLP-2).
USNS Lewis B. Puller (T-MLP-3) is configured as a AFSB and does not have LCAC landing bays, it will never function as a sea-base transfer point for AKR class Large, Medium-Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) ships as the regular MLPs will.

 

[Goknub]

The acronym soup can be overwhelming and the current trend to invent new terms for old designs doesn't the help either. The US Army LSV for example is realistically just an LCH. LCS are Corvettes to the rest of the world. The Australian OCV is a particular bug bear of mine. An "Offshore Combatant Vessel" could mean anything, a fishing boat with a shotgun or a battle cruiser.

Most of the planet know drones as "UAV" but now UAS is the gucci term and RPV has even popped up.

 

[vonnoobie]

The reason I favour the Point class RORO type over the T-AKE is that the RORO has a much greater chance of being sellable considering its smaller crew and less complex design.

Crew size:
Point-class - 22
T-AKE - 136

The 136 is for when fully operational but then again how likely is the general public to make that connection? I agree with the Point class, Allow's us to acquire a larger fleet of vessel's over a limited number of T-AKE's. That aside the Lewis & Clark T-AKE's, How big a marine force are they meant to be able to support? We should only be aiming to suit our force deployment capability which will be much less then that of the US .

I didn't realise the confusion over the LSV beach landing capability. That makes more sense now.

My argument is that a larger force of LSVs could be acquired compared to a force of LSTs. If there are no heavier sealift ships then the Damen LSTs would be the better bet. But with decent sealift ships it is of more value to get the LSV design. It should also operate more easily with the LHDs

And that makes even more sense now as I viewed the LST's operating independently but if you view them operating with the LHD's then the LSV is probably the better bet.

 

[Volkodav]

Fair call on the acronyms, it's not so much that I remember all of them, (damn near impossible as there's always new ones popping up, existing ones changing and some with dual or even multiple meanings, it is rather you get used to noting them down and checking the acronym list (I kid you not, mot projects have them). This habit carried on into here where I should have followed the practice of including the title in full along side the acronym.

 

[Volkodav]

The great advantage of an AKE such as the Lewis and Clark is, although designed as dry cargo ships, their liquid cargo capacity (diesel fuel, JP5 etc.) is quite large, comparable in fact to many medium AOR designs and can actually be increased. Much of their dry cargo stowage is in warehouse type arrangements, accessed by forklifts making the types of stores carried incredibly flexible. This means these ships can be used as AORs,, amphibious support and HADR, due to their size it is possible they could carry a modular hospital or even have some compartments converted to workshops to provide the some of the type of support we haven't seen since Stalwart retired.

The attractive thing with the Lewis and Clark design is its potential to replace, not just Success and Sirius but also to serve in an amphibious logistics capacity in support of not only the LHDs but forward deployed replacement heavy and medium landing craft.

 

[vonnoobie]

The great advantage of an AKE such as the Lewis and Clark is, although designed as dry cargo ships, their liquid cargo capacity (diesel fuel, JP5 etc.) is quite large, comparable in fact to many medium AOR designs and can actually be increased. Much of their dry cargo stowage is in warehouse type arrangements, accessed by forklifts making the types of stores carried incredibly flexible. This means these ships can be used as AORs,, amphibious support and HADR, due to their size it is possible they could carry a modular hospital or even have some compartments converted to workshops to provide the some of the type of support we haven't seen since Stalwart retired.

The attractive thing with the Lewis and Clark design is its potential to replace, not just Success and Sirius but also to serve in an amphibious logistics capacity in support of not only the LHDs but forward deployed replacement heavy and medium landing craft.

Interesting thought, With around 25,000 cubic meters of space at least half of that would have to go towards fuel storage to make it comparable to the other ships on offer for the AOR replacement (Aegir 18R, Berlin class, SPS Cantabria). Guess it comes down to if it is cost effective and operationally sound to have one ship that can do a bit of everything or to have 2 ships that can do less but probably do it better.

 

[t68]

Interesting thought, With around 25,000 cubic meters of space at least half of that would have to go towards fuel storage to make it comparable to the other ships on offer for the AOR replacement (Aegir 18R, Berlin class, SPS Cantabria). Guess it comes down to if it is cost effective and operationally sound to have one ship that can do a bit of everything or to have 2 ships that can do less but probably do it better.

Even if L&C got up we will still need more than one if it takes over the job of the oilers.

On the LSV -LST - small LPD it's complex all have advantages and disadvantages which design shines over the others is a matter of personal opinion, we most definatly need an LCH replacement maybe we should go mixed fleet. A small LCH will still be compatable with a LST and the LST also gives us more options as they can carry up to four LCM-1E increasing its versatility

 

[FormerDirtDart]

On the LSV -LST - small LPD it's complex all have advantages and disadvantages which design shines over the others is a matter of personal opinion, we most definatly need an LCH replacement maybe we should go mixed fleet. A small LCH will still be compatable with a LST and the LST also gives us more options as they can carry up to four LCM-1E increasing its versatility

I'm sorry, just trying to follow along. But, which LST are you suggesting will carry up to 4 LCM-1E?
The LST that I understand as be discussed is the Damen Landing Ship Transport 120. The LST120 appears to have the capability to carry up to 4 LCVP, which are significantly smaller than LCM-1E's

 

[vonnoobie]

Even if L&C got up we will still need more than one if it takes over the job of the oilers.

On the LSV -LST - small LPD it's complex all have advantages and disadvantages which design shines over the others is a matter of personal opinion, we most definatly need an LCH replacement maybe we should go mixed fleet. A small LCH will still be compatable with a LST and the LST also gives us more options as they can carry up to four LCM-1E increasing its versatility

Just a bit of clarification, I wasn't implying we only grab a single ship but rather do we get 3 L&C's or do we get 3 AOR's and 3 RoRo's.

On the LST debate, I'd actually support a mixed fleet though I should point out that with the Damen LST's being able to carry upto 4 LCM-1E's, While they can carry up to 4 landing craft those are based on the Damen design which is much smaller then the LCM-1E. The LCM-1E dimensions are 23.3 x 6.4 compared o the Damen LCVP of 16 x 4.2, The Damen ship would have to be lengthened 20 odd meters and widened 4 off meters to support 4 LCM-1E's for the largest variant though that would also have it's own advantage in creating more RoRo area.

 

[t68]

I'm sorry, just trying to follow along. But, which LST are you suggesting will carry up to 4 LCM-1E?
The LST that I understand as be discussed is the Damen Landing Ship Transport 120. The LST120 appears to have the capability to carry up to 4 LCVP, which are significantly smaller than LCM-1E's

Yep your right must have got my wires crossed when shuffling between diffrent sites

 

[Stock]

Latest (July) issue of Defence Technology Review provided below:

Defence Technology Review : DTR JUL 2015, Page 1

 

[Volkodav]

Its not as clear cut as tabulated data on number of barrels cargo because the Lewis and Clark design has a range of 14000NM at 20kt, or more than twice the range attributed to the Cantabria. According to Global Security it is USN practice to count any fuel over what is required to achieve 10000NM as cargo with this class having 25000bbl bunkerage, plus either 18000 or 23450bbl cargo. Rough calculation assuming a required range in RAN service of 6000NM (as for Cantabria) that gives the AKE another 14280bbl for a total of 47700bbl or 7580m cubed which is much closer, drop the speed requirement from 20kt to 18 or even 15kt and the fuel available for transfer will pretty much match that of Cantabria.

All of the above is without any changes to the layout of the basic ship, with a new build there would be little difficulty in significantly increasing fuel stowage by reducing dry stowage. What is interesting with the design is that its dry cargo areas are reconfigurable between ammunition, dry cargo, refrigerated and freezer capacity in addition to fuel and potable water.

So in an apples for apples comparison to the Cantabria, i.e. 6000NM at 18kt the Lewis and Clark quite probably has a similar volume or transferable fuel but much greater dry stowage as well as the flexibility to carry general cargo, military equipment and the possibility to convert some of the space for other rolls either through the use of containerised systems or even permanently outfitting compartments.

These are big ships but very modern and efficient with their medium speed diesel generators feeding an all electric propulsion system and the latest in efficient cargo handling systems. They are very well built to worlds best practice, NASSCO being the bench mark for such civil / military construction. Yes South Korea, Vietnam and China can pump out bulk carriers and oil tankers fast and cheap but they can not compete on complex vessels like these which were designed using 3D modelling (Catia I believe) with a methodology more akin to an airliner or state of the art factory, they even modelled forklift access to shelving and time and motion studies. They are the sort of ship you could justify building locally with the proven assistance from General Dynamic (engineers and specialists from BIW also move around NASSCO and EB as required by project load, these are some of the people who were brought in at great expense but their advice was ignored on the AWD).

Three modified AKEs would easily cover the AOR and strategic sealift roles with the possibility of being easily modified to offer a level of maintenance support, less for the RANs escorts but rather small craft, vehicles and possibly helicopters.

 

[oldsig127]

'Better ways to spend the money'

PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence | afr.com

Not at all unexpected, including a bit of half right analysis, but with two salient sentences which bear heavily on the last several pages of paper fleet development.

"The cost-benefit analysis is not in favour of developing [the assault ship-jump jet proposal]," the paper said.

"The scenarios in which the capability would be realistically required and make an important impact are operationally vague at best.

oldsig127

 

[rockitten]

PM's floating fighter jet plan quietly sunk by Defence | afr.com

Not at all unexpected, including a bit of half right analysis, but with two salient sentences which bear heavily on the last several pages of paper fleet development.

"The cost-benefit analysis is not in favour of developing [the assault ship-jump jet proposal]," the paper said.

"The scenarios in which the capability would be realistically required and make an important impact are operationally vague at best.

oldsig127

That's a bad news for the ADF. Have our FAA didn't abandoned the fast jet capabilities, our LHD may have the fast jet facilities installed........

 

[Goknub]

I would say it is good news for the ADF.

Putting F35Bs on the LHD would have severely impacted their ability to carry sufficient Army equipment. It would trade a widely used amphibious capability for a little used air combat capability.

The cost would also have negatively impacted other more useful capabilities.

 

[Volkodav]

That's a bad news for the ADF. Have our FAA didn't abandoned the fast jet capabilities, our LHD may have the fast jet facilities installed........

I honestly doubt we would have a single LHD, let alone two, if the FAA was still flying fast jets. Fast jets means at least one carrier and a very different RAN, actually a very different ADF. For example a carrier means we wouldn't have been caught with our pants down during the Fiji coup or Timors post independence violence.

 

[vonnoobie]

I honestly doubt we would have a single LHD, let alone two, if the FAA was still flying fast jets. Fast jets means at least one carrier and a very different RAN, actually a very different ADF. For example a carrier means we wouldn't have been caught with our pants down during the Fiji coup or Timors post independence violence.

While I don't doubt the RAN would be very different if we had a carrier I'm not sure I agree in regard's to the Fiji coup and Timor's post independence violence. The asset's we had at the time where quite capable of dealing with both situations, A carrier would not have made them magically disappear.

On the carrier debate, Quite honestly I don't ever see us getting one unless the UK decides to sell one of the QE's which had been on the table a few years ago, Less likely now. While the LHD's are capable of supporting F-35B's it simply divert's there main role to much for a limited capability that would be rarely if ever used so I dont see us ever getting F-35B's.

 

[Joe Black]

I honestly doubt we would have a single LHD, let alone two, if the FAA was still flying fast jets. Fast jets means at least one carrier and a very different RAN, actually a very different ADF. For example a carrier means we wouldn't have been caught with our pants down during the Fiji coup or Timors post independence violence.

But should a 3rd LHD made available, theoretically it could become viable to have F-35B onboard if two LHD could be used simultaneously with one acting as mini carrier while still being able to carry some additional army assets.

SIngapore/RSN will embark on their JMMS (LHD) journey and put some F-35B onboard in the coming decade, my guess is that RAN/ADF might then start to look into it. When it comes down to military doctrine and getting what is needed in the ORBAT, I don't see us as being innovative and being in the forefront.

 

[Volkodav]

But should a 3rd LHD made available, theoretically it could become viable to have F-35B onboard if two LHD could be used simultaneously with one acting as mini carrier while still being able to carry some additional army assets.

SIngapore/RSN will embark on their JMMS (LHD) journey and put some F-35B onboard in the coming decade, my guess is that RAN/ADF might then start to look into it. When it comes down to military doctrine and getting what is needed in the ORBAT, I don't see us as being innovative and being in the forefront.

I seriously doubt a third LHD will be procured in the foreseeable future, especially if one of the main reasons we are getting it is to make an F-35B purchase viable, it would actually be cheaper and better value for money (not necessarily the same thing) if fast jets were the objective, to acquire a light carrier. This is because if you strip all the amphibious / LHD specific overheads away, for a given aircraft capability and capacity the carrier will always be cheaper to acquire and own, as well as better at doing the job of a carrier.

The other advantage of a light carrier is once you have covered off all the overheads associated with getting your fast jets to sea it will be much cheaper and easier to certify the LHDs to operate the type as well, either as an alternate carrier, or even as a permanent addition to their air group. For example if we only have one light carrier it may make strategic sense to have one of the LHDs cover for it during refits etc. If we have more than one light carrier, i.e. my three to five DDH type light carriers, the LHDs could still, especially in a deteriorating strategic environment, justify having an organic group of four to six Lightenings, a couple of Romeos and an AEW helo, in addition to the army aviation detachments.

 

[Alf662]

I seriously doubt a third LHD will be procured in the foreseeable future, especially if one of the main reasons we are getting it is to make an F-35B purchase viable, it would actually be cheaper and better value for money (not necessarily the same thing) if fast jets were the objective, to acquire a light carrier. This is because if you strip all the amphibious / LHD specific overheads away, for a given aircraft capability and capacity the carrier will always be cheaper to acquire and own, as well as better at doing the job of a carrier.

The other advantage of a light carrier is once you have covered off all the overheads associated with getting your fast jets to sea it will be much cheaper and easier to certify the LHDs to operate the type as well, either as an alternate carrier, or even as a permanent addition to their air group. For example if we only have one light carrier it may make strategic sense to have one of the LHDs cover for it during refits etc. If we have more than one light carrier, i.e. my three to five DDH type light carriers, the LHDs could still, especially in a deteriorating strategic environment, justify having an organic group of four to six Lightenings, a couple of Romeos and an AEW helo, in addition to the army aviation detachments.

Hi guys, I have been sitting on the dock for while and have been quite intrigued by the debate, so I have decided to get my feet wet.

I tend to agree with Volk here, but for the following reasons.
1. I can not see the government agreeing to a dedicated aircraft carrier
2. A third AOL is going to be difficult to justify even though we do need it
3. I cannot see a T-AKE getting of the ground as other assets would take priority.

If the government decided to go down the F35 route then a third LHD could be justified, especially if the fuel capacity is beefed up and the amphibious capacity used more for dry / bulk storage. Any storage can be based on standard ISO containers so that modifications can be minimised and any flexibility is retained. You also get another asset that can be used more for ASW requirements.

Rather than 3 separate hulls, look at doing it with one hull. It might not be perfect, but in a financially tight environment it could be a cheaper out come.

Personally I think the F35 would be a good acquisition as the RAAF would not need dedicated runways and it opens up a lot of other infrastructure options that otherwise could not be used. The use of an LHD would only be one of the options.