Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

Those Damen series of LPD look interesting something like the Enforcer 8000 would fit in very nicely, with hangers for 2x medium helicopter (MRH90) and heavy enough for Chinook.

It states the dock is capable of 2x LCM-1706 which I can't find any details on, does anyone know if they are comparable in size to the LCM-1E? Only other nitpick is the side ramps are rated at 50t Army has the Abrams at 62t

Certainly within the limits of building here at Techport. The "HNLMS JOHAN DE WItt“ is something the RNZN should look at for a Canterbury replacement if the powers to be put the kibosh on a LHD.

http://products.damen.com/~/media/P...anding_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.ashx

Was actually thinking about that and considering the Bay class is a variant of the Enforcer design would it be logical (Finances pending) to get 2+ of these and sell/lease our current bay class (HMAS Choules) to the RNZN? Allow's the RAN to operate a single variant and allow's the RNZN to acquire a very capable still quite young ship with out breaking the bank.

In regards to the HNLMS Johan de Witt (L801) I have not heard of the LCM-1706, Can't find any actual dimensions on the well deck but using the Damen LCU is a guide it has to be at least 36.6 meters by 13.6 meters however the Spanish Galicia class (also an Enforcer variant) does hold 4 LCM-1E's.

In a rush at the moment but just found this, Nothing official from what I seen but the well dock is 575 sqm .. While we're talking about LPD's: HNLMS Rotterdam LPD (L800), RHIB and Cougar NFH, August 2012 [1600x1067] : WarshipPorn

------

Bluey 006 - If we looking long term then definitely mate. And I agree we need to be more proactive then reactive, Perhaps there may be an argument to be made of fitting any future ship's built to operate in that region for but not with weapons systems?? In the short term though perhaps an expanded drone fleet? For the immediate future it wouldn't leave us with a one trick pony as UAV's could be redeployed else where in none fishing seasons.

 

[Bluey 006]

I've got serious doubts about the viability of a crossover platform, specifically when it comes to acting as a dedicated warship. The next generation surface combatant should be just that, a dedicated warship, with ASW and long range strike capabilities, per the original intent of the thing. I'd hate to see the RAN get saddled with a handful of crossover platforms that do a little bit of everything and then see future frigate numbers be cut back even further. As far as I'm concerned there's still a need for 8 warships in the 6000-7000 ton range, with the aforementioned capabilities and embarked helo (or two?).

It's not that the idea itself is bad, as such - I'm just very leery of giving the government any excuse to reduce warship numbers, and I'm sure we'd be learning in that direction with the sort of platform you're describing.

100% with you on that, you'll see I have argued that very point on here in the past, in relation to other issues.

I'd say we need 9 Frigates at a very minimum (T26 variant or MEKO 400). Which brings us up to 12 major combatants (1x AWD and 3 x Frigates - always available , based on the the rule of threes).

There is a distant lack of capability in the southern ocean and Antarctica though. Which is the point I was examining.

We still don't know exactly how many OPVs we'll get and if it will be a complete OPV fleet or mixed OPV/Littoral patrol fleet (my preference)

As I said the original requirement for the OCVs, did not require them to operate below 50 degrees south, meaning they will be unsuitable for sustained operations in Antarctic waters. NZ ice strengthened their OPVs and this has placed major limitations on capacity for future upgrades. It is also inappropriate to use frigates for these duties, and to be fair we don't have any to spare.

This is where I thought perhaps an ice strengthened Crossover type vessel could fit (in the long term). A single vessel that can support logistics ( beyond the capability of an OPV) and security tasks in the Southern ocean and Antarctica. BUT NOT AT THE COST OF MAJOR FLEET UNITS

The Crossover 115 is estimated at 4500 tonnes , with ice strengthening to say Ice Class 1B would add approximately 8-10% in weight (not sure of the exact calculations but used the Lloyd guide) , and maybe a bit more for a more powerful engine,and other enhancements. Which brings it up to around 5000 tonnes. A size capable of handling rough conditions, able to transport significant amounts of material and with a capacity to hold respectable weapons systems. Such a vessel could also be used else where as required.

 

[Bonza]

Ah I see what you mean now Bluey. Agree with your concerns as you've described them there.

 

[Stampede]

ogate

100% with you on that, you'll see I have argued that very point on here in the past, in relation to other issues.

I'd say we need 9 Frigates at a very minimum (T26 variant or MEKO 400). Which brings us up to 12 major combatants (1x AWD and 3 x Frigates - always available , based on the the rule of threes).

There is a distant lack of capability in the southern ocean and Antarctica though. Which is the point I was examining.

We still don't know exactly how many OPVs we'll get and if it will be a complete OPV fleet or mixed OPV/Littoral patrol fleet (my preference)

As I said the original requirement for the OCVs, did not require them to operate below 50 degrees south, meaning they will be unsuitable for sustained operations in Antarctic waters. NZ ice strengthened their OPVs and this has placed major limitations on capacity for future upgrades. It is also inappropriate to use frigates for these duties, and to be fair we don't have any to spare.

This is where I thought perhaps an ice strengthened Crossover type vessel could fit (in the long term). A single vessel that can support logistics ( beyond the capability of an OPV) and security tasks in the Southern ocean and Antarctica. BUT NOT AT THE COST OF MAJOR FLEET UNITS

The Crossover 115 is estimated at 4500 tonnes , with ice strengthening to say Ice Class 1B would add approximately 8-10% in weight (not sure of the exact calculations but used the Lloyd guide) , and maybe a bit more for a more powerful engine,and other enhancements. Which brings it up to around 5000 tonnes. A size capable of handling rough conditions, able to transport significant amounts of material and with a capacity to hold respectable weapons systems. Such a vessel could also be used else where as required.

Cross over class
Very much like this style of vessel
Agree that it must not be at the expence of any major fleet units. I have supported the Absalon class previously as it still retains a good weapons fit in addition to it logistics capacity. However if we are to go for a bigger fleet then 12 major fleet units supported with a mix of OCV/ crossover style ships have appeal. I guess to some extent what are the threat expectations that the patrol vessels are to encounter. Is it the minimal capability found in the current Amidales of a small calibre weapon system backed up by some .50 cal's or do we need to up the fire power and to what level. It will be interesting to see what the DWP says regarding weapon systems for the OPV/OCP's. The Cross over range should maybe be seen as more of a amphibious / patrol / transport than a surrogate warship.May be a medium cal gun and some 50 cal is all it needs for it's intended duties.This type of ship is a new concept and understandably it is difficult to see where and how it fit's into the order of battle. This style of ship will be an evolving design tailored for individual countries needs and I'm sure it will find it's way into the service of many small to medium sized navies
As bluey suggested it may be possible to ice strengthen and have the ship undertake southern ocean patrols.This sounds ideal if the engineering is good.
I can understand that many may consider having some ice capable vessels a waste patroling the northern oceans, however I feel we may need to adapt the head space that as a large Island nation with a diversity of ocean environments we may have to consider it a waste NOT to have some of our patrol fleet capable of plying the southern icy oceans even if it's only part of the time.
Kind regards S

 

[StingrayOZ]

Antartica

Antarctica is best served by other devices.

A proper ice breaker (or more).
More Antarctic bases.
Greater scientific presence.

While fishing poaching could and does occur its not the major problem. China building bases within Australian Antarctic territory, ships (proper ice breakers) getting stuck and unable to supply bases definitely are.

If things ever get complicated in Antarctica, bases will be absolutely critical. There are only a limited number of useable locations for a base in Antarctica.

We need greater scientific research, because it appears Antarctica may actually be the key indicator and play a very important role in climate change.

What we really need is:
2 x 15,000t icebreakers (IMO it is silly to try to get more than 300 operational days out of one ship - particularly one that will be in such harsh enviroments).
2 x New Antarctic bases
Doubling of the helicopter fleet to 6
Upgrading of existing bases,

It may be important that any Antartic patrols are conducted by the Australian Customs rather than a Navy ship.

 

[alexsa]

Germany, France, UK may bid for frigate contract for Australia | afr.com
"by John Kerin

A fierce international competition to build a $20 billion frigate fleet is expected after the Abbott government dumped a tainted "low risk" option ahead of the release of next month's defence white paper..


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the AWD hull is out, and it will be a war between MEKO 400, Type 26 and the French FEMM. Hang on, didn't we want the Italian version? How come it is now the French bidding for the contract?

I would suggest this is speculation as no announcement has been made. There are cetainly stong indication the F105 options is still live and nobody will know for sure until the DWP is out (or at least the ship building element).

Furhter the design of the F26 is nof finalised so this is not something that can be built now ........ which is what is required. Even the 400 (which needs considerable hull desing alteration as it is not deigned for VLS at this time and the option tha tis is tsill a paper ship) will take time to toll up. I suspect what can keep the yards running will be quite a driver ..... otherwise why bother.

Put it another way .... to date the Japanese have been a shoe in for the Submarine ..... then they are not, now it is the German's ..... no wait it is the French

........... what an unmitagated load of bollocks.

 

[alexsa]

While there is no doubt we need a dedicated ice breaker, is an ice breaker going to be effective in fisheries patrol, law enforcement or search and rescue. Over the next 40 years or so this region may even become militarized and require ships with war fighting capabilities.

Something like the crossover can do all of that (patrol,war fighting, SAR, research, pollution control etc) and because of its size has a significant logistics/amphibious/deployment capability. Remembering that the crossover is a modular concept (all be it a good one) not an existing design so the ice strengthening can be added from the get go, with adjustments made accordingly.

The Knud Rasmussen-class is a good candidate but I had in mind something bigger could also do resupply and logistics, in addition to patrol functions.

We currently do have an ice breaker in the Aurora Australis, and there is a project to replace it. This is a commercially operated vessel as will be its replacement.

The project costs are not insignificant and I don't see a military ice breaker in the mix. I would suggest the best you would hope for is an ice strengthened OPV.

 

[vonnoobie]

Antarctica is best served by other devices.

A proper ice breaker (or more).
More Antarctic bases.
Greater scientific presence.

While fishing poaching could and does occur its not the major problem. China building bases within Australian Antarctic territory, ships (proper ice breakers) getting stuck and unable to supply bases definitely are.

If things ever get complicated in Antarctica, bases will be absolutely critical. There are only a limited number of useable locations for a base in Antarctica.

We need greater scientific research, because it appears Antarctica may actually be the key indicator and play a very important role in climate change.

What we really need is:
2 x 15,000t icebreakers (IMO it is silly to try to get more than 300 operational days out of one ship - particularly one that will be in such harsh enviroments).
2 x New Antarctic bases
Doubling of the helicopter fleet to 6
Upgrading of existing bases,

It may be important that any Antartic patrols are conducted by the Australian Customs rather than a Navy ship.

Agreed though looking at various icebreaker's I'm coming toward's the conclusion that size doesn't necessarily mean increased ability. The USCGC Healy is only good for 1.4m of ice and she is 16,000t, The future Canadian icebreaker is planned to be good for 2.5m of ice at 23,500t while the NS 50 Let Probedy at similar size is good for 5m of ice. Considering average ice thickness in Antarctica ranges from 1.4m to 5.5m we need to be cautious in picking what is best for us, Current plan's only call for something capable of 1.65m of ice.

 

[rjtjrt]

When talking of Antarctica, do we do not need to build any general RAN patrol boat/OPV with Antarctica in mind?
Why not a separate purchase of x number of Southern Ocean (Artic/Antarctic) capable large fishing Trawlers.
Can be Customs vessels. No one wants to militarise the Antarctic.
Arm them with a couple of 50 cal machine guns, and if you really want to go more a Carl Gustav in the locker, and then you have the capability.
The only drawback is speed of pursuit, but if they have extra fuel tanks fitted in place of fish storage, can run down a target by length of time you can steam at full speed. I guess weather may limit speed of both target and pursuer, but with lots of fuel can keep pursuing. Add a drone capability and would have a lot of capabilty, although again weather will limit drone use (still, if very high value target, can follow with Triton HALE as well).

 

[John Newman]

I would suggest this is speculation as no announcement has been made. There are cetainly stong indication the F105 options is still live and nobody will know for sure until the DWP is out (or at least the ship building element).

Furhter the design of the F26 is nof finalised so this is not something that can be built now ........ which is what is required. Even the 400 (which needs considerable hull desing alteration as it is not deigned for VLS at this time and the option tha tis is tsill a paper ship) will take time to toll up. I suspect what can keep the yards running will be quite a driver ..... otherwise why bother.

Put it another way .... to date the Japanese have been a shoe in for the Submarine ..... then they are not, now it is the German's ..... no wait it is the French

........... what an unmitagated load of bollocks.

And let's not forget there was a news story a little while ago that Sweden wanted to team up with Japan for the subs, then a little while later it was the French supposedly wanting to team up with Japan, and the latest is the UK wanting to team up with Japan.

I'm just waiting for the next news report where it will be the Germans and Japanese teaming up!!!

 

[uuname]

I'm just waiting for the next news report where it will be the Germans and Japanese teaming up!!!

Oh, that never ends well...

We currently do have an ice breaker in the Aurora Australis, and there is a project to replace it. This is a commercially operated vessel as will be its replacement.

It makes me worry that the only company willing to bid is the same one doing the Armadales...
I realise that a major issue is the boats being unsuited for the role, but it still doesn't sound like they are getting great value.
If the government is going to craft contracts of such complexity that only one company can bid, they are setting themselves up to be taken for a ride.

 

[Stampede]

Antarctica is best served by other devices.

A proper ice breaker (or more).
More Antarctic bases.
Greater scientific presence.

While fishing poaching could and does occur its not the major problem. China building bases within Australian Antarctic territory, ships (proper ice breakers) getting stuck and unable to supply bases definitely are.

If things ever get complicated in Antarctica, bases will be absolutely critical. There are only a limited number of useable locations for a base in Antarctica.

We need greater scientific research, because it appears Antarctica may actually be the key indicator and play a very important role in climate change.

What we really need is:
2 x 15,000t icebreakers (IMO it is silly to try to get more than 300 operational days out of one ship - particularly one that will be in such harsh enviroments).
2 x New Antarctic bases
Doubling of the helicopter fleet to 6
Upgrading of existing bases,

It may be important that any Antartic patrols are conducted by the Australian Customs rather than a Navy ship.

Stingray

Just to clarify the need for southern ocean patrols by the suggsted ice strengthened cross over stye ship is for the start of the ice belt only with any any dedicated antartic resupply having a dedicated civilian run ice breaker. I do suggest that the replacement ship for Antartic service be a class of two like ships to reduce redundancy. If cost is a problem maybe look at a joint project with NZ or look at supplementing the cost with eco tourism.

Regards S

 

[Richo99]

All this talk about additional amphibs to replace/expand upon Choules is a pipe dream.

As far as I am aware jp 2048 phase 4c (ie the strategic sealift ship) was replaced by jp3030, and is now dead and buried...Choules filled the slot. Whilst her purchase was pretty much an urgent operational requirement, and the timing of her availability was very fortuitous, she was pretty much exactly what was specified. Consequently replacing her now with a single new and expensive ship (let alone two) is off-with-the-fairies thinking.

The replacement of the LCHs is the only amphibious game in town at the moment, and from what I can tell this is going to end up being somewhere between the old LCHs and Tobruk in size...maybe 2500 tonnes. This will allow for independant sea going ops as required, and can cover some of the lower scale ops currently covered by Tobruk.

Anyone got a feel for the displacement if thee Damen lst100 ?

And as for the crossover types, they really provide the best of nothing, and should be left to navies that can only field a few ships and therefore need to combine roles....I think the RAN can and should do better.

 

[Stampede]

All this talk about additional amphibs to replace/expand upon Choules is a pipe dream.

As far as I am aware jp 2048 phase 4c (ie the strategic sealift ship) was replaced by jp3030, and is now dead and buried...Choules filled the slot. Whilst her purchase was pretty much an urgent operational requirement, and the timing of her availability was very fortuitous, she was pretty much exactly what was specified. Consequently replacing her now with a single new and expensive ship (let alone two) is off-with-the-fairies thinking.

The replacement of the LCHs is the only amphibious game in town at the moment, and from what I can tell this is going to end up being somewhere between the old LCHs and Tobruk in size...maybe 2500 tonnes. This will allow for independant sea going ops as required, and can cover some of the lower scale ops currently covered by Tobruk.

Anyone got a feel for the displacement if thee Damen lst100 ?

And as for the crossover types, they really provide the best of nothing, and should be left to navies that can only field a few ships and therefore need to combine roles....I think the RAN can and should do better.

Richo99
I can understand where you are coming from as the crossover style ship is not suggested at all in previous planning. Again your correct in what you have stated that HMAS Choules was a fortuitous purchuse for jp4028 phase 4c and we are yet to see the outcome for the LCH replacement.
As alot of the fleet is to be replaced I guess we are only postulating that rather than replace one for one of like ships we look at other alternatives. Again I know the crossover style is not on the radar but I would suggest it would fall more in line with replacing some of the Armadales as part of a OPV order rather than existing amphibious craft replacements.
These ships are not a substitute for a next generation of LCH. They are however a small increase overall in the navys amphibious options. Whatever the number of hulls in the DWP all I can suggest is that it's a mixed fleet with some cross overs as apart of that mix.
Regarding the Damen lst 100 by 3, well that would be gold. Stern and bow ramp for 70t and should be good for a comapany size lift of vehicles and personnel.Ideal for independant duties and would cover the full range of opperations from HADR, to working with other larger amphib's in higher intensity engagements.

Hopefully we will all know much more late next month

Regards S

 

[Goknub]

I believe for the most part it is understood that a significant enlargement of the amphibious fleet is unlikely.

At least from my point of view, the topic of the amphibious fleet is centred around the desire for a more capable army and the ability to sell that to a political class that needs justification before it opens the wallet.

The DOA strategy is a navy/air force show for the most part so if the army wants to be seen as worth the extra expense it needs to embrace the expeditionary role. That means lifting lots of heavy stuff and sustaining it.

The question then is, will the existing assets be enough?

I wouldn't say it is all pipe-dream stuff.
There has been mention of a possible 3rd AOR in the DWP which would greatly enhance an amphibious force.
Whether the sea lift ship requirement means the replacement of the Choules, is in addition to it or IS the Choules is a legitimate question. It is heavily dependant on what is chosen as the LCH replacement.

There's obviously a big difference between a 40m LCH compared to a 100m LST. A penny-pinching govt could opt for a like-for-like replacement, a more adventurous one has many more options.

 

[Volkodav]

I believe for the most part it is understood that a significant enlargement of the amphibious fleet is unlikely.

At least from my point of view, the topic of the amphibious fleet is centred around the desire for a more capable army and the ability to sell that to a political class that needs justification before it opens the wallet.

The DOA strategy is a navy/air force show for the most part so if the army wants to be seen as worth the extra expense it needs to embrace the expeditionary role. That means lifting lots of heavy stuff and sustaining it.

The question then is, will the existing assets be enough?

I wouldn't say it is all pipe-dream stuff.
There has been mention of a possible 3rd AOR in the DWP which would greatly enhance an amphibious force.
Whether the sea lift ship requirement means the replacement of the Choules, is in addition to it or IS the Choules is a legitimate question. It is heavily dependant on what is chosen as the LCH replacement.

There's obviously a big difference between a 40m LCH compared to a 100m LST. A penny-pinching govt could opt for a like-for-like replacement, a more adventurous one has many more options.

With the LCH replacement I wonder if we should be looking to LAND400 and what type of vehicles but also what number of vehicles would be required to be lifted before discussing types of vessels. For example the LCH could lift an APC Troop / CAV Sqn, or a Troop of Centurions (later Leopards), or for instance the US Army's Frank S Besson Class is sized to lift a company (plus 1) of M-1A1s.

With the LCH the Abrams were already too heavy for the ramp and they would have had insufficient space for as many LAND400 vehicles as they did for M-113s. Will the LCH(R) be required to lift a troop or a squadron or perhaps a combined arms combat team including AIFVs, MBTs and an ARV? Basically its pointless discussing vessels or even sizes of vessels until we see the requirements of what they will be expected to do.

It is different with frigates as we know as a minimum the RAN required an enhanced ASW capability, the potential to deploy land attack cruise missiles and almost certainly a MOTS or modified MOTS design. Same with submarines, the RAN needs something more capable than the Collins, including the ability to operated over the same sort of distances. In both cases this pretty much defines the alternatives that can seriously be considered.

OPVs are interesting as there are no defining requirements to be derived from another capability except for possibly the ability to operate a helicopter of given size, i.e. hanger a Romeo, land an MRH90 and possibly refuel (without landing) a CH-47F. They will be so far in advance of the preceding patrol boats that realistically anything could be looked at for the role, the question being the trade off between cost and capability.

So realistically we are not really in a position to speculate on specific designs for the LCH until it is announced (hopefully in the DWP) what they need to do, the future frigate almost definitely already exists in-service or is about to be ordered by a major western navy, the future submarines will be one of three well understood options and the OPVs are probably the most open to speculation as a multitude of potentially suitable designs exist across a broad range of sizes.

 

[Stock]

I believe for the most part it is understood that a significant enlargement of the amphibious fleet is unlikely.

At least from my point of view, the topic of the amphibious fleet is centred around the desire for a more capable army and the ability to sell that to a political class that needs justification before it opens the wallet.

The DOA strategy is a navy/air force show for the most part so if the army wants to be seen as worth the extra expense it needs to embrace the expeditionary role. That means lifting lots of heavy stuff and sustaining it.

The question then is, will the existing assets be enough?

I wouldn't say it is all pipe-dream stuff.
There has been mention of a possible 3rd AOR in the DWP which would greatly enhance an amphibious force.
Whether the sea lift ship requirement means the replacement of the Choules, is in addition to it or IS the Choules is a legitimate question. It is heavily dependant on what is chosen as the LCH replacement.

There's obviously a big difference between a 40m LCH compared to a 100m LST. A penny-pinching govt could opt for a like-for-like replacement, a more adventurous one has many more options.

My understanding is that JP2048 Ph 4C is complete. Choules, whilst an urgent acquisition at the time, was very quickly taken up as a permanent and long-term member of the fleet a couple of years ago. Choules IS the sealift capability, and a pretty handy one at that. She was the buy of the century and has at least another 15-20 years left in her.

I cannot see an acquisition of another major amphib asset happening at all, if for no other reason than manning limitations. A third AOR might be a possibility, although I've really heard nothing.

Very quiet on the LCH-R, although I suspect the requirement remains.

 

[Stock]

With the LCH replacement I wonder if we should be looking to LAND400 and what type of vehicles but also what number of vehicles would be required to be lifted before discussing types of vessels. For example the LCH could lift an APC Troop / CAV Sqn, or a Troop of Centurions (later Leopards), or for instance the US Army's Frank S Besson Class is sized to lift a company (plus 1) of M-1A1s.

With the LCH the Abrams were already too heavy for the ramp and they would have had insufficient space for as many LAND400 vehicles as they did for M-113s. Will the LCH(R) be required to lift a troop or a squadron or perhaps a combined arms combat team including AIFVs, MBTs and an ARV? Basically its pointless discussing vessels or even sizes of vessels until we see the requirements of what they will be expected to do.

It is different with frigates as we know as a minimum the RAN required an enhanced ASW capability, the potential to deploy land attack cruise missiles and almost certainly a MOTS or modified MOTS design. Same with submarines, the RAN needs something more capable than the Collins, including the ability to operated over the same sort of distances. In both cases this pretty much defines the alternatives that can seriously be considered.

OPVs are interesting as there are no defining requirements to be derived from another capability except for possibly the ability to operate a helicopter of given size, i.e. hanger a Romeo, land an MRH90 and possibly refuel (without landing) a CH-47F. They will be so far in advance of the preceding patrol boats that realistically anything could be looked at for the role, the question being the trade off between cost and capability.

So realistically we are not really in a position to speculate on specific designs for the LCH until it is announced (hopefully in the DWP) what they need to do, the future frigate almost definitely already exists in-service or is about to be ordered by a major western navy, the future submarines will be one of three well understood options and the OPVs are probably the most open to speculation as a multitude of potentially suitable designs exist across a broad range of sizes.

Army will already know what size and GVM the Land 400 CRV and IFV solutions will come in at, and has been planning for around 35 and 42 tonnes respectively for amphibious movement purposes.

With the LCM-1Es severely limited by sea state when loaded with an M1 Abrams, the LCH-R becomes critical in moving tactically meaningful numbers of heavy AFVs across the beach.

The spec for the LCH-R should definitely include consideration of the type and number of heavy AFVs Army needs it to carry and land. As a minimum this would be the capability to sail in open ocean (Sea State 5) with three 63 tonne M1 Abrams (a tank troop). I believe an ASLAV troop is nine vehicles but unsure how Beersheba or Land 400 CRV affects that. Others on this forum might know.

Not expecting the DWP to shed much light on the LCH-R, only broad guidance. More detail might be provided in the new DCP.

 

[alexsa]

Oh, that never ends well...



It makes me worry that the only company willing to bid is the same one doing the Armadales...
I realise that a major issue is the boats being unsuited for the role, but it still doesn't sound like they are getting great value.
If the government is going to craft contracts of such complexity that only one company can bid, they are setting themselves up to be taken for a ride.

It was an open bidding process for a complicated (and expensive) operation. At the end of the day the other bidders did not materialise. It leaves you with tow options, take the one or not do it at all.

The other issue is you should not confuse DMS with the builder. I am not advocating for DMS here but there were responsible for sustainment on a platform provided by the builder. The issues to do with the ACPB were wide and many parties were involved in that selection.

They appear to have done well with the EGS/RGS project so we will just have to wait and see.

 

[Alf662]

All this talk about additional amphibs to replace/expand upon Choules is a pipe dream.

As far as I am aware jp 2048 phase 4c (ie the strategic sealift ship) was replaced by jp3030, and is now dead and buried...Choules filled the slot. Whilst her purchase was pretty much an urgent operational requirement, and the timing of her availability was very fortuitous, she was pretty much exactly what was specified. Consequently replacing her now with a single new and expensive ship (let alone two) is off-with-the-fairies thinking.

The replacement of the LCHs is the only amphibious game in town at the moment, and from what I can tell this is going to end up being somewhere between the old LCHs and Tobruk in size...maybe 2500 tonnes. This will allow for independant sea going ops as required, and can cover some of the lower scale ops currently covered by Tobruk.

Anyone got a feel for the displacement if thee Damen lst100 ?

And as for the crossover types, they really provide the best of nothing, and should be left to navies that can only field a few ships and therefore need to combine roles....I think the RAN can and should do better.

Tobruk had a range of 8,000 nautical miles and was one of the things that made her so use full as she was able to self deploy.

I like the Damen LST's, but the only one that could truly self deploy is the 120 as it also has a range of 8,000nm. The 80 whilst appealing for it's small size only has a range of 2,000nm and the 100 has a range of 4,000nm. Keep in mind that the retired LCH's had a range of 3,500nm.

I see the Damen cross over range as being a very useful asset. Many of the OPV's now come with some sort of multi mission deck and the Damen crossovers are an evolution of that concept. I also see these particular types of vessels as offering a lot more options in moving army units around if we had to as well as any HADR requirements. If you need a small navy / army contingent for an activity then you would have additional choices other than an LHD or LST as they can also self deploy a small landing craft or CB90.

The downside on these particular vessels is that the smallest one is 4,500 tons and is a lot larger than the 2,000 ton OPV that I think was actually specified.