Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

General Note for All

can we all exercise and maintain civility in here.

There have been times over the last few weeks where the tone and general ambience in here has dropped beyond expectations

 

[Alf662]

On paper at least the LST120 are significantly more capable aren't they? Hence the reduced number to fill that gap. I wonder if the reason they were left out is due to the evolving nature of Amphibious operations and technology, and thus other potential delivery methods emerging.

I agree with most of your statement except that the size is a bit on the high side. I agree with T68 regarding a flight deck and hangar but none of the Damen LST's have a hangar. The smallest you can go and retain a medium sized flight deck is the Damen LST100. It is possible to go down to 80 metres but the flight deck is only rated for a small helicopter and does not have the stern RORO access.

I spent a bit of time trying to work out why the LCH replacements were not included in the latest DWP and a number of unrelated reasons have actually been put forward in posts over the last couple of months.

The most recent is the crawl, walk, run analogy. The RAN firstly has has to bed down the integration and operations of the LHD's and it's amphibious operations. The DWP has alluded to a replacement of the LLC and modification of the LHD's to accommodate them Their is also the acquisition of search and rescue aircraft. A realistic time frame for all of this to happen and get bedded down would be at least 15 years, so we are now up to around 2031.

The army is introducing a lot of new kit that would have to be considered for sea lift purposes, and again a lot of this is going to take a number of years to be bedded down for the RAN to actually determine what would be appropriate.

If the government is serious about domestic Naval Ship building (which I think both sides are) the earliest time slot for any production is going to be the early 2030's.

If an LCH replacement is going happen, it would need to be able to fully integrate with the LHD's, the LLC replacement and all of the new army equipment. So in that context, I am not surprised that this particular project has been kicked down the road so far, that it is no longer in the current DWP time frame.

The only thing I can see that would give the project some urgency is a glaring short coming in smaller sea lift capability due to minor incidents that do not warrant the deployment of an LHD or LST.

It could also be that the LLC replacements for the LHD's are going to be the LCH replacements.

These are just my views and I do not want to stir up a hornets nest over them.

 

[t68]

On paper at least the LST120 are significantly more capable aren't they? Hence the reduced number to fill that gap. I wonder if the reason they were left out is due to the evolving nature of Amphibious operations and technology, and thus other potential delivery methods emerging.

You good be right, I do remember reading a defence article somewhere that the LCH replacement could be anything from the LCH up to something like the Singaporean Endurance class with LCU, I have been trying to find that analysis again but no luck.

Wonder if the LST would be something the Kiwis would look at for there JATF working with Canty?

 

[Bluey 006]

You good be right, I do remember reading a defence article somewhere that the LCH replacement could be anything from the LCH up to something like the Singaporean Endurance class with LCU, I have been trying to find that analysis again but no luck.

Yer I've read something similar. That is what i was referring to regarding redirecting money to "harder" more survivable assets for amphibious operations.

Alf - yer LST 100 is likely more appropriate size but if you going to reduce the number by 50% i was working on the principle bigger is better.

 

[Alf662]

Yer I've read something similar. That is what i was referring to regarding redirecting money to "harder" more survivable assets for amphibious operations.

Alf - yer LST 100 is likely more appropriate size but if you going to reduce the number by 50% i was working on the principle bigger is better.

I understand where you are coming from Bluey.

I take the view that one vessel can only be in one place at one time. I think that is what made the LCH's so useful, they were small enough to get into small and remote locations with an acceptable sized cargo and we had the numbers available. The down side was sea keeping and speed.

You have to remember that Choules is slated for replacement in the early 2030's and their is also the possibility of a sister ship as well. So some thing like an Endurance class is probably going to be to big.

If the LCH replacements are going to happen, keep them as small as possible whilst maximising numbers and sustained close in support for army amphibious operations and wider ADF integration.

The other issue that would need to be considered is berthing and slipping. If the vessels are to large then the RAN is up for major base upgrades to accommodate them, which, in my view, would be counter productive.

See if you can find the article you have mentioned, I would be interested in reading it.

 

[Bluey 006]

I understand where you are coming from Bluey.

I take the view that one vessel can only be in one place at one time. I think that is what made the LCH's so useful, they were small enough to get into small and remote locations with an acceptable sized cargo and we had the numbers available. The down side was sea keeping and speed.

You have to remember that Choules is slated for replacement in the early 2030's and their is also the possibility of a sister ship as well. So some thing like an Endurance class is probably going to be to big.

If the LCH replacements are going to happen, keep them as small as possible whilst maximising numbers and sustained close in support for army amphibious operations and wider ADF integration.

The other issue that would need to be considered is berthing and slipping. If the vessels are to large then the RAN is up for major base upgrades to accommodate them, which, in my view, would be counter productive.

See if you can find the article you have mentioned, I would be interested in reading it.

All valid arguments but with size comes range. LCH only had a range of 2400 kms fully laden. An LST 120 has a range 8000 kms ( doesn't state the load). So that means it should get to a broader range of pacific nations to support low intensity or HADR operations direct from the Australian mainland is required. Which avoids the cost of deploying an LHD or Choules ( or future ship). That's is a long rough journey in a flat bottom though.

Somewhere someone will have done the bean counting. I wonder which has a better ROI and overall value - upgrading our land craft and naval facilities to support larger landing craft or absorbing the high cost of deploying and operating very large ships (LHDs etc) to support minor HADR incidents... which may or may happen. Hard to say ....

Also, I imagine that other capability sets have impact on this also - C17 for example, never have we been able to transport such volumes by air etc

 

[Alf662]

All valid arguments but with size comes range. LCH only had a range of 2400 kms fully laden. An LST 120 has a range 8000 kms ( doesn't state the load). So that means it should get to a broader range of pacific nations to support low intensity or HADR operations direct from the Australian mainland is required. Which avoids the cost of deploying an LHD or Choules ( or future ship). That's is a long rough journey in a flat bottom though.

Somewhere someone will have done the bean counting. I wonder which has a better ROI and overall value - upgrading our land craft and naval facilities to support larger landing craft or absorbing the high cost of deploying and operating very large ships (LHDs etc) to support minor HADR incidents... which may or may happen. Hard to say ....

Also, I imagine that other capability sets have impact on this also - C17 for example, never have we been able to transport such volumes by air etc

Some rough (and simple) back of the napkin comparison figures for you.

The dead weight for the LST80, 100 & 120 is 600, 1300 & 1700 tonnes respectively. Keep in mind that dead weight includes the weight of cargo, fuel, water, crew, passengers and stores. If the cargo is approximately 75% of the dead weight then the respective cargo carrying capacity will be 450 tonnes for the LST80, 975 tonnes for the LST100 and 1,275 tonnes for the LST 120.

A C17 has a cargo carrying capacity of 77.5 tonnes. For a C17 to carry the same amount of cargo we have the following:

LST80 = 5 to 6 trips
LST100 = 12 to 13 trips
LST120 = 16 to 17 trips
LCH = 2 to 3 trips (LCH has a cargo capacity of 180 tons)

Not all runways can land a C17 so they are actually very restricted in where their cargo can be landed.

At least a large landing craft can get reasonably close to where they need to get to and it can provide any required accommodation for deployed personnel (some thing that may not exist in a HADR environment).

 

[rockitten]

My sincerest apologies, that figure had been stated based on a new's article so not the smartest move. That said I did find the original publication that led to that article written by Ben Schreer on behalf of ASPI.

https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/strategic-insights-78-jump-jets-for-the-adf/SI78_jump_jets.pdf

It actually does go on to mention that other ship's would be required and estimated cost's involved, a quick break down.

$500m+ to modify each LHD
$1.5 billion to acquire an extra LHD as any useful F35 componant wuld destroy a ship's amphibious capability in that ship.
$2 billion to acquire an extra AWD to protect the third LHD
$5 billion to acquire the F-35B's
$7 billion in through life cost's for the F-35B's
Unmentioned figure to acquire AEW Helo's and extra ASW helos's to support STOVL operations.

All up it could actually be ten's of billions over the life time better spent else where.

Well, most F35Bs will be either taking-over the RAAF's existing A order, or tap on the extra 25 F-35 options. So most of the acquisition cost for the Bs has been spent for the As already.

Some cost for modifications can be easily absorbed into the major refits.

The cost of extra LHD or AWD is also a bit BS as: 1. we are not going to get any extra ADW or LHD anyway, 2. The ANZAC replacements are now much more capable and we are going to have 9 rather than 8. In the Labor's RGR regime, our surface fleet was suppose to shrink down to 11, which is not true anymore. So the cost for the extra escort has been allocated.

In my POW, is it more about what sort of operation(s) our ADF is expected to fight. Are we going to sacrifice a bit of RAAF's control of their fighters and the availability of the amphibious capability for a much more capable sea control/naval strike capability?

If the answer is yes, then a F-35B on LHD is a very cost effective investment.

If the answer is no, then it is another story.

 

[t68]

Well, most F35Bs will be either taking-over the RAAF's existing A order, or tap on the extra 25 F-35 options. So most of the acquisition cost for the Bs has been spent for the As already.

Some cost for modifications can be easily absorbed into the major refits.

The cost of extra LHD or AWD is also a bit BS as: 1. we are not going to get any extra ADW or LHD anyway, 2. The ANZAC replacements are now much more capable and we are going to have 9 rather than 8. In the Labor's RGR regime, our surface fleet was suppose to shrink down to 11, which is not true anymore. So the cost for the extra escort has been allocated.

In my POW, is it more about what sort of operation(s) our ADF is expected to fight. Are we going to sacrifice a bit of RAAF's control of their fighters and the availability of the amphibious capability for a much more capable sea control/naval strike capability?

If the answer is yes, then a F-35B on LHD is a very cost effective investment.

If the answer is no, then it is another story.

Yep agree with most of what you said except for the extra amphib, if their is a need for martime fixed wing an extra platform is a given, go to be hard enough with only 2x pseudo carrier that 2will be avalibile when things turn too custard

 

[vonnoobie]

I am curious if you actually did read the link as it does go on to cross over some of the points.

Well, most F35Bs will be either taking-over the RAAF's existing A order, or tap on the extra 25 F-35 options. So most of the acquisition cost for the Bs has been spent for the As already.

We can't exactly say most or any of the F35B's will be taking over the F35A slots from the RAAF for a few simple fact's,

- We have committed to 72 F35A purchases
- Redirecting any F35A acquisitions into B's would have a negative effect on the force make up of the RAAF for mainland Australia and over seas deployments.
- For the foreseeable future the F35B's have been flat out taken off the table for us.
- Any extra F35's in the B configuration would have to come from the other 28 possible purchase slots thus the $5 billion figure does apply in full.

Some cost for modifications can be easily absorbed into the major refits.

Not so sure that is possible as the current systems aboard are still very different to what would need to be fitted and built into the ship. That said I'm sure there are other's on here that would have a better understanding of what would be involved and if there is any over lap between your average major refit and modifying the ship to perform a role it was not built to do.

The cost of extra LHD or AWD is also a bit BS as: 1. we are not going to get any extra ADW or LHD anyway, 2. The ANZAC replacements are now much more capable and we are going to have 9 rather than 8. In the Labor's RGR regime, our surface fleet was suppose to shrink down to 11, which is not true anymore. So the cost for the extra escort has been allocated.

If you read the article you would see mention that while having the LHD's be configured on a mission based requirement (ie: Having F35B's part time) sounds great in theory, In reality there is a risk that with only 2 LHD's the ADF could compromise it's ability to prepare for either role properly. In effect by trying to do everything you risk being unable to do anything effectively.

It is for that reason the article made mention of a third LHD being required if we desired F35B's because any capable F35B compliment would all but destroy the amphibious capability for that ship. If you dont get an extra LHD then we effectively wipe out 1/3rd of our amphibious fleet just in unit numbers or 41% of troop transport capacity.

As for the extra AWD that would be contingent on any extra LHD acquisition, AWD's have been the one ship mentioned numerous times as being the vessel that would be escorting the LHD's in hostile environments. If we don't get any extra LHD's then current number's could suffice however any further purchases would need at least 1 AWD per an LHD with an extra AWD in reserve. I just dont see a frigate, even one more capable then the Anzac class cutting it.

In my POW, is it more about what sort of operation(s) our ADF is expected to fight. Are we going to sacrifice a bit of RAAF's control of their fighters and the availability of the amphibious capability for a much more capable sea control/naval strike capability?

If the answer is yes, then a F-35B on LHD is a very cost effective investment.

If the answer is no, then it is another story.

As mentioned in the article the cost benefit for STOVL operations off the LHD's just don't stack up, The scenarios where STOVL would be of use are extremely vague while significantly impacting the amphibious capability of the fleet.

It's an extremely costly affair that if you want done with out impacting current/planned amphibious capability will require a 3rd dedicated ship, In fact they say an actual aircraft carrier would be the best bet if we are to aim for F35B's at all.

One way or another, It's not as simple as changing some of the F35A orders to B's and modifying one or both of the ships, there is a lot more to do and a hell of a lot more to spend if you dont want to do it half a**ed while buggering up the ADF force structure.

 

[Volkodav]

And the drop to eleven majors was a result of the decisions to make the AWDs a replacement for the four remaining FFGs instead of the already retired DDGs happened under Howard not Rudd.

Recall the rhetoric that Labor didn't order a single ship in almost six years in power? The ships entering service now are the ones ordered, literally, in the last year of the Howard government, after not ordering a single major for ten years and nothing at all for seven or eight if you count the twelve plus two "coke cans" from WA Inc. The ANZACs, Collins and even the last pair of FFGs were ordered under Hawke after about six years of nothing, if you want to go back further it was similar was Frazer with his government only rubber stamping the Whitlam Governments selection of the FFG-7 after cancelling the DDL.

I wont bother going into the Menzies years as they were rife with cancellations, buying off shore and only dropping the occasional contract if there were votes to be bought. Moral of the story is even the governments who seem to have done right by defence and navy in particular, have had, at best, a couple of terms of doing nothing, if not actually cutting capability (Menzies and Hawke with carriers for instance).

 

[ngatimozart]

How many of you have failed to take note of Bonzas warning about fantasy discussions Re: F35B RAN FAA?

Bugger me, the F-35B FAA conversation is becoming pretty bloody circular fellas... and I see now we have a suggestion to buy a whole new LHA? What do you think that does to the RAN's STATED REQUIREMENTS? Crewing, funding, raising a whole new capability, operating a single ship of the class and thus paying no heed to needs to maintenance cycles or training requirements?

I've had it. Either start making sense, or stop talking. If this pie in the sky nonsense keeps going around I'm going to start pruning - posts first, but members if necessary. I've had a bloody gutful and so has everyone else who wants to discuss real issues instead of fantasy wishlists. Take it to PM, find another forum to discuss it, whatever you need to do, but leave the RAN thread out of it.

He's already swung his ban hammer once in the last couple of days so don't tempt him again.

 

[alexsa]

Some rough (and simple) back of the napkin comparison figures for you.

The dead weight for the LST80, 100 & 120 is 600, 1300 & 1700 tonnes respectively. Keep in mind that dead weight includes the weight of cargo, fuel, water, crew, passengers and stores. If the cargo is approximately 75% of the dead weight then the respective cargo carrying capacity will be 450 tonnes for the LST80, 975 tonnes for the LST100 and 1,275 tonnes for the LST 120.

A C17 has a cargo carrying capacity of 77.5 tonnes. For a C17 to carry the same amount of cargo we have the following:

LST80 = 5 to 6 trips
LST100 = 12 to 13 trips
LST120 = 16 to 17 trips
LCH = 2 to 3 trips (LCH has a cargo capacity of 180 tons)

Not all runways can land a C17 so they are actually very restricted in where their cargo can be landed.

At least a large landing craft can get reasonably close to where they need to get to and it can provide any required accommodation for deployed personnel (some thing that may not exist in a HADR environment).

Deadweight of the LST80 is 450 tonnes to 600 tonnes on the specification sheet. This also includes the embarked landing craft and helicopters in addition to the fuel, stores, ammunition, crew, victuals, spares etc etc etc.

Suggest your 450 tonnes is optimistic. However, simply assuming a weight calculation for the C17 is also too simplistic as some cargoes will max out on size before the weight limit is hit and weight distribution needs to be considered.

The big advantages is persistence and cost of transport noting the hourly operating cost for a C17 is likely to exceed the daily cost for a LST80

 

[Alf662]

Deadweight of the LST80 is 450 tonnes to 600 tonnes on the specification sheet. This also includes the embarked landing craft and helicopters in addition to the fuel, stores, ammunition, crew, victuals, spares etc etc etc.

Suggest your 450 tonnes is optimistic. However, simply assuming a weight calculation for the C17 is also too simplistic as some cargoes will max out on size before the weight limit is hit and weight distribution needs to be considered.

The big advantages is persistence and cost of transport noting the hourly operating cost for a C17 is likely to exceed the daily cost for a LST80

Thanks Alexsa, I value your feedback, I just found the figures you referred to. I admit that it is a very simplistic comparison and it was based on the information that was available as some of the specifications are very vague.

I agree about the persistence and cost of transport. Just for a HADR response that could last a couple of weeks, sea lift would have to be the way to go.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Thanks Alexsa, I value your feedback, I just found the figures you referred to. I admit that it is a very simplistic comparison and it was based on the information that was available as some of the specifications are very vague.

I agree about the persistence and cost of transport. Just for a HADR response that could last a couple of weeks, sea lift would have to be the way to go.

I would imagine for HADR a combination approach would be useful. C-17 fly in quickly, deliver medical, food, etc.

Ships pull up a few days later, with hundreds of personnel, desalination, fuel, heavy equipment, hospital facilities etc. Stay for weeks. As we saw in Fiji, the planes arrive first, but the big symbol that help has arrived is a big ship sitting off the coast, and that gets the PM texting. HMAS Canberra was probably the most filmed object in Fiji after it appeared. They really are objects of influence, they literally come with their own press kit.

I would assume that the LST would be better at delivering heavy equipment like M1A1 to the beach in a wide variety of sea states. HADR are also likely to cover a large area and include multiple countries, something that a small number of ships would give Australia greater flexibility.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would imagine for HADR a combination approach would be useful. C-17 fly in quickly, deliver medical, food, etc.

Ships pull up a few days later, with hundreds of personnel, desalination, fuel, heavy equipment, hospital facilities etc. Stay for weeks. As we saw in Fiji, the planes arrive first, but the big symbol that help has arrived is a big ship sitting off the coast, and that gets the PM texting. HMAS Canberra was probably the most filmed object in Fiji after it appeared. They really are objects of influence, they literally come with their own press kit.

I would assume that the LST would be better at delivering heavy equipment like M1A1 to the beach in a wide variety of sea states. HADR are also likely to cover a large area and include multiple countries, something that a small number of ships would give Australia greater flexibility.

There's some interesting data in the current RAAF news mag on how much material they shifted to antarctica in 5 sorties late last year. as always the issue of shifting bombs and biscuits gets down to efficiencies and economies of scale etc.....

 

[t68]

sorry to change the topic but have a question.

I came across a small US made OCV/Corvette from a company called Swiftships, what really perked my interest was the telescopic hanger suitable for up to Seahawk. what sort of material would these hangers be built out of and would it be suitable for use over a few weeks use if need be, should something like this be incorporated into our ACPB replacement>


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xilYlZgqZl4

Swift Corvette - Swiftships

 

[gf0012-aust]

sorry to change the topic but have a question.

I came across a small US made OCV/Corvette from a company called Swiftships, what really perked my interest was the telescopic hanger suitable for up to Seahawk. what sort of material would these hangers be built out of and would it be suitable for use over a few weeks use if need be, should something like this be incorporated into our ACPB replacement>


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xilYlZgqZl4

Swift Corvette - Swiftships

telescopic hangars have been around since the 50's. The canadians used to be big users for a while

they were generally FRP or alloy - became less popular as mil stds tightened up

 

[t68]

telescopic hangars have been around since the 50's. The canadians used to be big users for a while

they were generally FRP or alloy - became less popular as mil stds tightened up

Thanks GF, I had not seen these before and did not know they had been used on military ships..

I jumped to a couple of quick incorrect thought's on how it could be used in a similar fashion to the tented hanger on Choules.

I did a search on who makes them, I guess they make more sence on a civillan ship for temporary storage and light maintenance needs and protection from the elements.


https://www.curtisswrightds.com/products/naval-systems/hangars-doors/

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks GF, I had not seen these before and did not know they had been used on military ships..

I jumped to a couple of quick incorrect thought's on how it could be used in a similar fashion to the tented hanger on Choules.

I did a search on who makes them, I guess they make more sence on a civillan ship for temporary storage and light maintenance needs and protection from the elements.


https://www.curtisswrightds.com/products/naval-systems/hangars-doors/

they did appear on the older frigate, DDE and DDG classes

resident canadians on here might be able to throw up some pics, but they used them in the northern waters to protect helos from harsh environments etc...