Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

do a search for italian Lupos, Nuove Unità Minori Combattenti, otherwise k.a Comandanti class

argentinian Espora class
Meko 140 class

igus® Hubschrauber-Hangar für Schiffe

the "Musa ibn Nusayr" missile boat

so, from corvettes to large DDG's

 

[meatshield]

I do know that the RAN and DSME have very firm beliefs in what makes a good submarine and have priorities that are pretty much set in stone, the option that was most adaptable to fit those beliefs and priorities would be the prefered option.

What you need to look at is what caused the most pain to the FEG and the SPO to gauge what the deal breakers would be. If there was something they hated on the Collins and wanted gone or fixed, a contender who ignored this would be in trouble. Same if there was something they loved and wanted to keep that had been left off or overlooked.

The real killer is the RANs submariners are an elite and know that they are. They don't talk about what they can do and have done but it is well known in some circles that there are few navies that can achieve the same capabilities. They also know that their current boats were the best conventional subs in the world and that they are still competitive, the issue with them having been on the management of their sustainment (mostly on the government side). Now just imagine how having a procession of Japanese and (to a lesser degree) German experts coming through, looking down their noses and telling them how to suck eggs. "That's not how you do it", "Nobody does it like that", "you don't need that", "you don't have the skills", "you don't have the capability". Could you image, after the issues with maintenance in Australia, the RAN felt about having to go to Japan in future.

The Japanese "naval commander" you got stuck into Australia's submarine capability would have gone down well, as would the Germans coming in and claiming they could fix everything and do it better without working up a sweat. A lot of the rhetoric from options J and G in the media was condescending and dismissive of the existing Australian capability, not smart when you realise just how closely the RAN, DSME and ASC worked together on it. I was in a quite junior role in engineering at ASC but would get calls from a Chief TIFF (senior engineering CPO) on a boat with a specific query about a system, RAN were working on every project, every change, could you imagine how the JMSDF and MHI approach made them feel? How confident would the RAN feel that they could work with these people when they were so dismissive of the Australian capability.

I don't know, but suspect that option J at least may have been turfed because the only way the project would work would be through cooperation and mutual respect and the distinct impression was that there was no respect coming from the Japanese side and very little from the German.

That is one of the most interesting posts I've read on this site. Thanks for posting

 

[t68]

do a search for italian Lupos, Nuove Unità Minori Combattenti, otherwise k.a Comandanti class

argentinian Espora class
Meko 140 class

igus® Hubschrauber-Hangar für Schiffe

the "Musa ibn Nusayr" missile boat

so, from corvettes to large DDG's

Cheers for the information, I'll wait till the power comes back on to use the PC, the wind has knocked over a couple of trees and taken the power lines out. Blowing a gale out here at the moment.

 

[ASSAIL]

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...

Although the improved Saint Laurent class DDHs looked like the hangers concertinered they were fixed

 

[gf0012-aust]

Although the improved Saint Laurent class DDHs looked like the hangers concertinered they were fixed

all those years and I thought they telescoped on rails

 

[Stampede]

I wonder if we buy more amphibious ships, what exactly we will put on them?



Wanting a bigger amphibious force is great, but there are two sides to that amphibious force and we are missing (arguably) a large amount of the most important part of it...

I feel whatever class of ship, capability often equates to availability.Three of a class will ensure more insurance of availability than just a class of two. I would assume that it is usually a rare thing we would have three ships of a single class in the water and fit to go. While 2 RAR would seem a small force for 2 x LHD's, I'm thinking more in terms of the ready brigade which is not in any way a small force in numbers and equipement. Would two LHD,s be able to lift a full brigade of 2 x INF batt, ACR , Artillary,Engineer,CSB and CSSB. This will be a tight fit for a permissive operation not mentioning the realestate needs of aviation.
The pointy end aside, I see alot of the future in doing what we have seen in the last few months. Canberra helping out with HADR in Fii and Adeleide acting as a transport, taking troops and equipment from A to B ( Adelaide Today ).
Add to the list, aviation training in getting our helicopter types up to speed on this new capability.
I can see the ships spending alot of there time doing these types of missions and in doing so acting independenly of each other. Its all about Training, training and training in all the many and various capabilities that these very flexible ships can perform.
The more we have in numbers, the greater the proficiency in training and exploring the potential of these national assets.Again much better with three than two
Work Choules hard until LHD number three is built and in service and sell her off.
Add some lower end Amphib lift in the form of a LCH replacement and we will be well placed for the future.
This is not extravagance. I feel there will be a time in the service life of these ships will be caught in lack of capability with only two hulls.
Do it for commonality of training and logistical maintenance if nothing else.
We as a nation can afford this third ship and will not regret the purchase.

Regards S

 

[Alf662]

I feel whatever class of ship, capability often equates to availability.Three of a class will ensure more insurance of availability than just a class of two. I would assume that it is usually a rare thing we would have three ships of a single class in the water and fit to go. While 2 RAR would seem a small force for 2 x LHD's, I'm thinking more in terms of the ready brigade which is not in any way a small force in numbers and equipement. Would two LHD,s be able to lift a full brigade of 2 x INF batt, ACR , Artillary,Engineer,CSB and CSSB. This will be a tight fit for a permissive operation not mentioning the realestate needs of aviation.
The pointy end aside, I see alot of the future in doing what we have seen in the last few months. Canberra helping out with HADR in Fii and Adeleide acting as a transport, taking troops and equipment from A to B ( Adelaide Today ).
Add to the list, aviation training in getting our helicopter types up to speed on this new capability.
I can see the ships spending alot of there time doing these types of missions and in doing so acting independenly of each other. Its all about Training, training and training in all the many and various capabilities that these very flexible ships can perform.
The more we have in numbers, the greater the proficiency in training and exploring the potential of these national assets.Again much better with three than two
Work Choules hard until LHD number three is built and in service and sell her off.
Add some lower end Amphib lift in the form of a LCH replacement and we will be well placed for the future.
This is not extravagance. I feel there will be a time in the service life of these ships will be caught in lack of capability with only two hulls.
Do it for commonality of training and logistical maintenance if nothing else.
We as a nation can afford this third ship and will not regret the purchase.

Regards S

Unfortunately a third LHD is not in any of the plans, but a Choules replacement is, along with the possibility of a sister. So either way the RAN would have either 3 or 4 large amphibious ships.

As far as the lower end amphibious vessels go that is bit of a mystery. The LLH have been flagged for replacement but nothing has been said about the LCH replacements.

The only contenders I can think of are the SSC (LCAC replacements), UHAC, EDA-R or an SLV. All contenders would require serious modifications to the LHD's and these modifications have been budgeted for.

If range and payload are more important than speed then the LSV could be a contender as it can also land a helicopter, can self deploy and operate indepently. More details and a video can be found here: Military Services | Sea Transport
Some additional information regarding stability can be found here: http://www.sname.org/HigherLogic/Sy...tFileKey=490ebd48-62d0-4c02-85ab-1b1ee0429999

 

[vonnoobie]

Like it or not until a new white paper (Finger's crossed this doesnt occur as who knows what they will do to the rest of our future plans) is bought out calling for a third LHD we won't be getting one.

That aside, With our 2 LHD's with out even counting the HMAS Choules we already have an aviation capability that we can't even fill. Getting a third LHD to acquire more aviation capability is a pointless waste of good funds as it will either have no aviation complement or the aviation complement available will be further stretched between the three ship's reducing the overall effectiveness of any single ship.

We are unlikely to ever deploy a brigade size force in an amphibious operation, that being said if something like that did occur something far more valuable then an LHD is a logisitcs support ship, We now need ships able to transport supplies and vehicles then we need a ship to transport helicopters in mass.

 

[alexsa]

Unfortunately a third LHD is not in any of the plans, but a Choules replacement is, along with the possibility of a sister. So either way the RAN would have either 3 or 4 large amphibious ships.

As far as the lower end amphibious vessels go that is bit of a mystery. The LLH have been flagged for replacement but nothing has been said about the LCH replacements.

The only contenders I can think of are the SSC (LCAC replacements), UHAC, EDA-R or an SLV. All contenders would require serious modifications to the LHD's and these modifications have been budgeted for.

If range and payload are more important than speed then the LSV could be a contender as it can also land a helicopter, can self deploy and operate indepently. More details and a video can be found here: Military Services | Sea Transport
Some additional information regarding stability can be found here: http://www.sname.org/HigherLogic/Sy...tFileKey=490ebd48-62d0-4c02-85ab-1b1ee0429999

The stern landing craft concept and it has not been widely adopted and it would be considerably less capable compared to the LSH80 from Damen noting the lack of a drive through capability, addition of LCU's and aviation facilities.

The comparison provided in the link looks at a 45m craft and is essentially looking at a typical land barge with after accommodation and a bow ramp (aka the Balikipapan Class LCH). This is not the same as the ship hull form used on the Damen class or other ships of this type.

The existing vessels are not exactly fast either noting the best speed is around 13knots (most are slower). The hull form of vessels such as the Wunma and Aburi are essentially barges (with a large block coefficients) and the propellers and rudders need to be in tunnels to operate as a SLV. Certainly the tankage system provides a large buoyant volume but if you start fitting holds down there for cargo that advantage diminishes.

The other issue is that landing in heavier weather there is a risk of being driven ashore as the hull form is such that a broad flat area is beached to allow the ramp to be lowered and cargo to be discharged.

 

[Alf662]

The stern landing craft concept and it has not been widely adopted and it would be considerably less capable compared to the LSH80 from Damen noting the lack of a drive through capability, addition of LCU's and aviation facilities.

The comparison provided in the link looks at a 45m craft and is essentially looking at a typical land barge with after accommodation and a bow ramp (aka the Balikipapan Class LCH). This is not the same as the ship hull form used on the Damen class or other ships of this type.

The existing vessels are not exactly fast either noting the best speed is around 13knots (most are slower). The hull form of vessels such as the Wunma and Aburi are essentially barges (with a large block coefficients) and the propellers and rudders need to be in tunnels to operate as a SLV. Certainly the tankage system provides a large buoyant volume but if you start fitting holds down there for cargo that advantage diminishes.

The other issue is that landing in heavier weather there is a risk of being driven ashore as the hull form is such that a broad flat area is beached to allow the ramp to be lowered and cargo to be discharged.

Thanks Alexsa, I see what you mean about the possibility of a beaching in inclement weather. I don't think the SLV has a cargo hold, it only appears to have the covered cargo deck which is also used as the flight deck. If I recall correctly the propeller tunnels result in smaller diameter propellers which in turn affects the speed.

I have had a look at the Damen LST80 and it does not appear to have the rear RORO access and the flight deck is only rated for a small helicopter. But I am sure it is some thing that Damen could rectify.

 

[Raven22]

I feel whatever class of ship, capability often equates to availability.

The problem with this post is that your point is essentially that 'more is better.' While undoubtedly true, the LHD is hardly unique in that regard - every capability would be better with more.

The biggest argument against a third LHD is that the number of LHDs is not the limiting factor when it comes to the amphibious capability. The limiting factor is the stuff that goes on it, particularly aviation. It is hard to justify a third LHD when heads are being scratched as to how two fill the first two as it is is.

 

[t68]

What it comes down too is it better to have excess room and not need it then need the extra room and not have it.

How much lifting did we do for third party in ET?
which also showed we did not have enough at the time for our own needs, if Bill and Ben we're available would we still have had enough?

 

[Bonza]

What it comes down too is it better to have excess room and not need it then need the extra room and not have it.

How much lifting did we do for third party in ET?
which also showed we did not have enough at the time for our own needs, if Bill and Ben we're available would we still have had enough?

Well remember with regard to the "better to have it and not need it" perspective is that sure, you can have it, and it's nice to have it, but if it doesn't fill an immediate need then it's still billions of dollars in both initial investment and ongoing costs... nice-to-haves are still governed by their costs, and a warship approaching 30,000 tons is pretty bloody costly...

 

[t68]

Well remember with regard to the "better to have it and not need it" perspective is that sure, you can have it, and it's nice to have it, but if it doesn't fill an immediate need then it's still billions of dollars in both initial investment and ongoing costs... nice-to-haves are still governed by their costs, and a warship approaching 30,000 tons is pretty bloody costly...

That's certainly true but it would be inplace of Choules, and a third would decrease the logistic and training burden for the crew and you can almost guarantee two ships if need, the rule of threes spring to mind

 

[gf0012-aust]

What it comes down too is it better to have excess room and not need it then need the extra room and not have it.

How much lifting did we do for third party in ET?
which also showed we did not have enough at the time for our own needs, if Bill and Ben we're available would we still have had enough?

the problem lies in the original dimensions assumptions - no shortage of maritime examples where all of a sudden the change in region of interest, change in tech, change in interoperability, change in additional reqs means that the original real estate starts to cause distress.

buying another vessel is not always the answer - and the problem is that if you built absolute fat into something like the phatships - you'd end up with LHA/LHD's the size of USS Midway..... - and that is worse as you start killing the service budget and warping the joint budget

there's always tradeoff at work

 

[Raven22]

What it comes down too is it better to have excess room and not need it then need the extra room and not have it.

Again, that is exactly the same for any other capability. You can argue for more of anything with the justification 'better to have and not need'. Since it is all a zero sum game, it comes down to what would you give up to get an extra LHD?

 

[ngatimozart]

Instead of replacing Choules with a LHD / LHA would it not be better to replace it with something along the lines that can add more of a logistics support capability? Something that is capable of bringing stores to the area, not the beach, for the forces once they have crossed the beach. I'm thinking along the lines of ammo, food, fuel, spares, all the 1001 things required over in addition to that which is carried by the LHDs.

 

[vonnoobie]

Instead of replacing Choules with a LHD / LHA would it not be better to replace it with something along the lines that can add more of a logistics support capability? Something that is capable of bringing stores to the area, not the beach, for the forces once they have crossed the beach. I'm thinking along the lines of ammo, food, fuel, spares, all the 1001 things required over in addition to that which is carried by the LHDs.

That post is precisely what the DWP points towards. They state explicitly that in the late 2020's they want to get either a third Replenishment ship or a logisitics support ship similar to HMAS Choules.

We now have a level of troop transport that we have never had before (not outside of a world war) with more room then we can fill, If we truly do desire to transport an entire Brigade overseas in one hit then it isn't more troop space or helo capacity that we need but rather a ship that can move the vast amount's of stores needed to sustain said force. Throwing in a third LHD to increase any deployed force will only further strain the logistics supply line causing more harm then good.

 

[Volkodav]

The LHDs are huge and very capable and while I understand the desirability of numbers to guarantee availability as well as to be able to provide greater coverage, the question has to be asked is a third LHD the best way to do it? No navy pairs LHDs together, not the USN, not the RN, no one, so why would we, except to cover off the unavailability of Choules.

Look at the USN, they are deploying each LHD/LHA, with an LPD and an LSD, the RN operates (or did operate) an LPH (either Ocean or one of the Invincibles), Albion and Bays together, with individual ships able to be detached as required. With our fleet we can dispatch one or two LHDs and or an LPD and nothing else. We have no way to deploy LCM1E or LCM-8 without the phatships and we have nothing in between. In the future we will also have a riverine and littoral capability that will also need to be lifted for deployment.

All of this suggests to me that rather than AUD 1.2-2bn on a third LHD we should be looking at other options to complement, rather than duplicate the existing fleet.

 

[gf0012-aust]

All of this suggests to me that rather than AUD 1.2-2bn on a third LHD we should be looking at other options to complement, rather than duplicate the existing fleet.

CREF my prev comments yonks ago about the force model construct of a USN/USMC ARG/MEU