Nice post. Well thought out and structured.
This is a BZ (well done) for a good quality post and does not imply that I agree or disagree with the contents.
Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD
- Thread starter BOFORS
- Start date
- Status
This is a BZ (well done) for a good quality post and does not imply that I agree or disagree with the contents.
Maybe for your health it's time that you migrated to Australia before you're reported to the Mounties as a being treasonous CanuckGet the RCN personnel mailing list, should have no trouble getting recruits considering we can’t get ships built for the RCN.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
As almost nobody GAS about defence here, I don’t think I have much to worry about.
Thanks again for the detailed post.
I participially agree with the opportunity of placing an order sooner than later for both an extra LHD and AOR.
It may not be in the DWP 16,however I agree the stars have aligned for a good deal from Spain / Navantia. Timing should be good for price and while there up to speed with their workforce.
A win for both country's and a decision that will be appreciated by Navy / army and maybe The Air force for decades to come.
Regards S
Great to see some activity on this thread.
Moving to a different subject that of the LHD's connectors, the LCM1e
I do want to like these craft and wish they could do all that we want, but I feel with weight issues of transporting an MBT and the increased weight of the Land 400 project vehicles they may not meet the needs of the future.
I propose an alternative combination of LCU and LCVP.
The Dutch offer a combination of these two in their LCU 3607 and LCVP .1604.
There are other alternatives out there but in essence you could have the LCU to carry any heavy vehicle in Army stock with LCVP tasked as a fast connector for the lighter stuff.
The LHD should be able to accommodate TWO LCU and three LCVP behind in the docking well. ( NO RHIB )
The LCU in a modern design could have some crew accommodation to provide independent activity. By example Britains Mk10 can operate for up to 2 weeks un supported
These LCU could in part could be both a LCH replacement and a LHD housed connector. It should be a good fit for both Navy and Army littoral needs.
LCVP's are very flexible craft.- I'm confident they could be designed to carry in weight a bushmaster sized vehicle. Somewhere between a LCM6 and a LCVP
Ideally something that maintains its speed but with some extra weight carrying capacity. Should be a good craft for the type of littoral fast craft we want to introduce. As for to Air cushion vehicles. well their good but probably for a bigger navy than the RAN.
Tried, agricultural and practical still has a place and the above may be just what is needed.
Not sexy, but practical!
Thoughts
Regards S
Moving to a different subject that of the LHD's connectors, the LCM1e
I do want to like these craft and wish they could do all that we want, but I feel with weight issues of transporting an MBT and the increased weight of the Land 400 project vehicles they may not meet the needs of the future.
I propose an alternative combination of LCU and LCVP.
The Dutch offer a combination of these two in their LCU 3607 and LCVP .1604.
There are other alternatives out there but in essence you could have the LCU to carry any heavy vehicle in Army stock with LCVP tasked as a fast connector for the lighter stuff.
The LHD should be able to accommodate TWO LCU and three LCVP behind in the docking well. ( NO RHIB )
The LCU in a modern design could have some crew accommodation to provide independent activity. By example Britains Mk10 can operate for up to 2 weeks un supported
These LCU could in part could be both a LCH replacement and a LHD housed connector. It should be a good fit for both Navy and Army littoral needs.
LCVP's are very flexible craft.- I'm confident they could be designed to carry in weight a bushmaster sized vehicle. Somewhere between a LCM6 and a LCVP
Ideally something that maintains its speed but with some extra weight carrying capacity. Should be a good craft for the type of littoral fast craft we want to introduce. As for to Air cushion vehicles. well their good but probably for a bigger navy than the RAN.
Tried, agricultural and practical still has a place and the above may be just what is needed.
Not sexy, but practical!
Thoughts
Regards S
t68
Well-Known Member
@Stampede
One worth a look at is the new US Army Maneuver Support Vessel (Light). which is rated to move Abrams M1A2 (hopefully at combat weight) we could take advantage of a hot production line under FMS
Army awards billion-dollar contract for 100-foot landing ships
One worth a look at is the new US Army Maneuver Support Vessel (Light). which is rated to move Abrams M1A2 (hopefully at combat weight) we could take advantage of a hot production line under FMS
Army awards billion-dollar contract for 100-foot landing ships
I don't think the LCAC type links will ever fit into the RAN, you are talking V-22 operating costs (and logistics) per hour. In our region, there are just more options for landings than trying to support links like that. It can't operate far from its mothership or do it for a period of time.
I would imagine once Land 400 is finalized they will have another look at landing craft. I think this is partly why the LCH weren't replaced when they decom. The MSV(l) an carry two bradleys , so I would imagine they should be able to carry two Land 400 heavies.
I would imagine once Land 400 is finalized they will have another look at landing craft. I think this is partly why the LCH weren't replaced when they decom. The MSV(l) an carry two bradleys , so I would imagine they should be able to carry two Land 400 heavies.
I have a few questions concerning the past few posts;
- How would the ADF and the government adopt the 'carrier' to the specified role of HADR and other goodwill based missions?
- Would the well deck be utilized to achieve this outcome; or am I misunderstanding the implied spending of $2 billion in the thread?
Going on from the possibility of introducing a 'carrier' focused LHD;
- Would the self-defence of the ship need to be enhanced to include ESSM, RAM or other short ranged air defence measures?
- The manning of this ship's Air Arm could easily be supplemented by the USMC and other allied navy's (F-35B operators) so that is likely a null issue.
- Without meaning to stir up any laughter, would a modified America Class ship be better suited to this role if the crew demanded could be reduced (450~ max)?
- As to ASW, the number of Romeos in the RAN concerns me due to the high requirement for these birds in a likely war scenario. Should the RAN also pursue increasing the numbers to around 35? Allowing for 4 deployable on each LHD (12, assuming a third LHD is purchased), 20 to be spread between MSC's and 3 for training and AOR stationing; which would total 35 assuming that the birds can be rotated between ships, workups, maintenance and standby. (Could someone please shed some light into whether or not the RAN has enough Romeo's for a potential conflict in the South China Sea or otherwise.)
Thanks, H
- How would the ADF and the government adopt the 'carrier' to the specified role of HADR and other goodwill based missions?
- Would the well deck be utilized to achieve this outcome; or am I misunderstanding the implied spending of $2 billion in the thread?
Going on from the possibility of introducing a 'carrier' focused LHD;
- Would the self-defence of the ship need to be enhanced to include ESSM, RAM or other short ranged air defence measures?
- The manning of this ship's Air Arm could easily be supplemented by the USMC and other allied navy's (F-35B operators) so that is likely a null issue.
- Without meaning to stir up any laughter, would a modified America Class ship be better suited to this role if the crew demanded could be reduced (450~ max)?
- As to ASW, the number of Romeos in the RAN concerns me due to the high requirement for these birds in a likely war scenario. Should the RAN also pursue increasing the numbers to around 35? Allowing for 4 deployable on each LHD (12, assuming a third LHD is purchased), 20 to be spread between MSC's and 3 for training and AOR stationing; which would total 35 assuming that the birds can be rotated between ships, workups, maintenance and standby. (Could someone please shed some light into whether or not the RAN has enough Romeo's for a potential conflict in the South China Sea or otherwise.)
Thanks, H
I wasn’t aware of the design of the MSL V others may be so to satisfy my idle curiosity I went digging.
http://www.kvichak.com/images/MSVL 02.jpg
http://www.kvichak.com/images/MSVL 01.jpg
An additional LHD would have all the HADR, amphibious and aviation capability of the existing LHD's, which is to say they are the most capable platforms in the fleet. But as part of this, the crewing would come from re-purposing Choules, which would actually free the LHD's up more so for additional capabilities. By moving Choules along, the government would then have a platform to enable its other pacific nation building initiatives and would focus on a civilian role for that ship with a civilian crew.
The well deck would remain. Key to this is actually getting the same type of ship as the other LHD's. There are many crewing, cost, time saving and operational, capability reasons for this. It is really able beefing up what we already have and finding ways to operate new capabilities off it, rather than whole new cleansheet problems and challenges. Keeping the well deck would be essential for Army support.
The ship wouldn't have to be armed any different from the existing LHD's. Although the LHD's could be armed with ESSM/RAM/phalanx if we wanted to. The idea is they would be at the centre of a group protected by AWD's and hunters which are quite capable ships.
USS America is really too much ship, and has been designed around US operational principles. With over 1000 crew. You would also be giving up the amphibious capability, and have to support a new type of ship and systems. This adds additional risk, operational issues (availability) of operating only one ship capable of operations of this type, and tremendous costs. Even if you could find something that had a reduced crewing and more appropriate capability (Elizabeth Class, Japanese Carrier based off its helicopter destroyers, cavor etc), you would have to go through a proper tender process, then after it is built develop support contracts, train the crew, find ways to make operation efficient and cost effective. Something like Cavor (or the japanese ships) have 4 LM2500 engines, the LHD has one. Crewing is typically double or more of the LHD. So on many of these platforms your operation costs may be double or quadruple the LHD's. Realistically it is never going to happen for Australia to go down any of those paths. At best you could probably argue for a slightly modified LHD. The LHD also have tremendous avalibility, they were built from the ground up for long deployments. Australia has had great success with the LHD avalibility, it was last year it communicated, each Australian LHD has had double the sea time of the Spanish JC1, we are now probably approaching three times. Other countries would really struggle to get that kind of operational tempo out of their platforms.
The advantage of the LHD is you get the capability you need, but costs are tiny. As it is an in service type, you don't have to go through a competitive tender process, and crew training, support contracts, logistics, operational costs, AOR requirements,they are all in place and proven. Infact your operational costs are reduced per unit, because it is the same type and supporting a 3rd really isn't significantly more work than supporting 2.
It becomes more like how the RAAF gets additional C-17's. This is a very low risk, low cost, high gain in capability for the government and the ADF. We currently have two AOR on order from the LHD builder, who is building on time and on budget. So we could easily slip in an order after that last ship for a LHD and/or AOR combination and get a good price on both.
The additional of an extra LHD takes nothing away from the existing LHD fleet. Effectively we would have 3 carrier capable ships. If requirements dictated us to operate as many carriers as possible, we could operate all three that way, or sustain deployment of one indefinitely. If you get another type, then you still have tremendous issues trying to use the existing LHD's as a carrier, your back to a single ship, that would take more money and time to do.
We could embark F-35 from the US, UK or Japan (or Singapore possibly). I think it is entirely possible Singapore would base their squadron in Australia in that situation. We already support the US marines in Darwin, so I would imagine them basing a squadron here wouldn't be impossible. So that would be 3 F-35B squadrons. Its highly possible that the UK and Japan would be interested in joint operations with us as well. So we aren't building some sort of orphan capability on our lonesome. US and UK are already way ahead of us on this.
Does anyone have enough of anything for a war? The RAN has a meaningful amount. In combination with P8's, subs and other capabilities, it is suitable for our current readiness and threats. With a third LHD you could also look towards putting something together for a ASW taskforce, like how japan does it. That would be additional money if you wanted to go and fully stock that capability, but you might be able to train for it with allies, and evaluate if it is something we want to acquire, or just train with allies for. The key platform would at least be available and exist.
A 3rd LHD is more than just carrier dreams. Its about bring the ADF into a full spectrum force. Its about giving Australia real regional presence and credibility. Its acquisition would allow us to realise a lot of our latent capability. It really would be the last major piece in the Naval capability puzzle.
A bit and fat BZ to StingrayOz for that post.
Best original post I've seen in DT in 2018.
Agree with much of it, shall think about other bits, some quibbles about a few points, but no matter.
Truly superb and rational thinking, and very well expressed.
Again, SO, Sir, BZ.
Best original post I've seen in DT in 2018.
Agree with much of it, shall think about other bits, some quibbles about a few points, but no matter.
Truly superb and rational thinking, and very well expressed.
Again, SO, Sir, BZ.
Takao
The Bunker Group
This is key, and something that should be pushed more. The ship-to-shore connectors and Army watercraft is in such a hole that it's embarrassing to talk about. This includes the over-reliance on one or two people for their 'feelings' v an actual assessment of our needs.
I think you've nailed it in your last comment @Stampede . We need a bunch of landing craft that are simple and agricultural. These aren't complex beasts, nor should they be. They should be able to take the mass of an M1A2 and the height of a HX77 fuel tanker or Boxer. And there should be a number. Lets stop talking about each LHD has 4; lets talk about the ARG getting a 'mothership' that brings 8 - 12 into the theatre with them; lets talk about craft that can conduct ops through the CLEAR environment (as medium trucks) with some waterbourne escorts (as ASLAVs or Boxers). Most of our region an use these.
Then let's talk about how simple these boats are - and look at the boatbuilding industry (especially in SE Qld). We could, and should be able to, build bucketloads of them. Now we can export to neighbours and sell on the civilian market for North Australia....
Grrr.....
Thanks, Oz!
So the Choules would act as a pacific relationships ship, whilst the 3rd LHD would carry out a role of amphibious assault ship/potential 'carrier'. - Sounds like a plan.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Interesting discussion going on here.
I'll put my 'two bobs worth' in too, (for those unfamiliar with pre-decimal currency, that's 20 cents worth!).
To me the thing that is missing for the RAN, is 'balance' when it comes to amphibious lift capabilities.
Firstly as an example, have a look at the RAAFs Air Mobility Group (AMG), they have C-17A, KC-30A, C-130J-30, C-27J, King Air 350s (plus the 5 airframes in the VIP fleet), pretty much an airframe solution for whatever is required, or a combination of airframes, very large to very small and all in between too.
Whilst in the last decade the lift capabilities of the RAN have dramatically changed and significantly increased in ship size and displacement, I don't think the balance is right.
We've got the 2 LHDs and 1 LPD at one end (nothing in the middle) and the LCM-1Es and Army watercraft at the other end, the LCMs and watercraft are going no where without the big ships at the top, it's all or nothing!
My personal opinion is that the RAN (and ADF), would be better served with a more 'balanced' fleet (yes a 3rd LHD sounds great in theory, but I don't think that is the right way to go).
My ideal fleet would be the 2 x LHDs, 1 x LPD (when Choules is due to be replaced, replace it with an upgraded ship equivalent to Johan de Witt), 4-6 Damen LST 120s, improved LCMs that are more than capable of transporting all of Army's heavy vehicles (in all sea states), and a renewal of the Army watercraft fleet as appropriate.
https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf
https://products.damen.com/-/media/.../Product_Sheet_Landing_Ship_Transport_120.pdf
And yes, I haven't mentioned the Morrison Governments proposed 'Pacific HADR' ship (that is still pie in the sky and will have to survive the upcoming election and more than likely a change of Government too), too many unanswered questions, how big? What type? Who will operate? Out of which budget will it come from? Will extra dollars be allocated? Etc, etc), it if I had my way it would be based on Johan de Witt.
The only thing we do know, according to the 2016 DWP (which may well change with a change of Government), is that the LPD Choules is planned to be replaced at end of life, and additionally a proposed 2nd LPD or 3rd AOR.
Anyway, just my opinion of course, but I think a better 'balance' is certainly desirable and is realistically more financially achievable too.
Cheers,
I'll put my 'two bobs worth' in too, (for those unfamiliar with pre-decimal currency, that's 20 cents worth!).
To me the thing that is missing for the RAN, is 'balance' when it comes to amphibious lift capabilities.
Firstly as an example, have a look at the RAAFs Air Mobility Group (AMG), they have C-17A, KC-30A, C-130J-30, C-27J, King Air 350s (plus the 5 airframes in the VIP fleet), pretty much an airframe solution for whatever is required, or a combination of airframes, very large to very small and all in between too.
Whilst in the last decade the lift capabilities of the RAN have dramatically changed and significantly increased in ship size and displacement, I don't think the balance is right.
We've got the 2 LHDs and 1 LPD at one end (nothing in the middle) and the LCM-1Es and Army watercraft at the other end, the LCMs and watercraft are going no where without the big ships at the top, it's all or nothing!
My personal opinion is that the RAN (and ADF), would be better served with a more 'balanced' fleet (yes a 3rd LHD sounds great in theory, but I don't think that is the right way to go).
My ideal fleet would be the 2 x LHDs, 1 x LPD (when Choules is due to be replaced, replace it with an upgraded ship equivalent to Johan de Witt), 4-6 Damen LST 120s, improved LCMs that are more than capable of transporting all of Army's heavy vehicles (in all sea states), and a renewal of the Army watercraft fleet as appropriate.
https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf
https://products.damen.com/-/media/.../Product_Sheet_Landing_Ship_Transport_120.pdf
And yes, I haven't mentioned the Morrison Governments proposed 'Pacific HADR' ship (that is still pie in the sky and will have to survive the upcoming election and more than likely a change of Government too), too many unanswered questions, how big? What type? Who will operate? Out of which budget will it come from? Will extra dollars be allocated? Etc, etc), it if I had my way it would be based on Johan de Witt.
The only thing we do know, according to the 2016 DWP (which may well change with a change of Government), is that the LPD Choules is planned to be replaced at end of life, and additionally a proposed 2nd LPD or 3rd AOR.
Anyway, just my opinion of course, but I think a better 'balance' is certainly desirable and is realistically more financially achievable too.
Cheers,
Nice post. Well thought out and structured.
This is a BZ (well done) for a good quality post and does not imply that I agree or disagree with the contents.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think there would be a lot of support for some LST-120s(or eqiv) but get the feeling it was probably one of those that simply could not be fitted into the 2016-2026 IEP, the Budget only goes so far and the RAN only has X number of People.
Correct John
There are at this stage too many unknowns and political variables
Regards S
I understand that in APEC Assist that the RAN had a Task group of an LHD, Supply ship,one FFG and Two Anzac's. Also Two Armidales were involved closer to shore. This is not an insignificant force and with recent deployments such as Indo-Pacific Endeavour one can envisage future task groups centred around a Hobart class destroyer,supply ship, LHD and a number of ANZAC's.
Add to the mix in the future the new OPV,s and we will a number and variety of ships for a range of blue water task force options.
Maybe not strictly a blue water fleet but getting close.
Greenish / Blue?
Regards S
Add to the mix in the future the new OPV,s and we will a number and variety of ships for a range of blue water task force options.
Maybe not strictly a blue water fleet but getting close.
Greenish / Blue?
Regards S
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Lots of words here speculating upon 'Oz F-35Bs for Oz LHDs via the RAAF' but no details - especially about costs - and just hand waving about 'structural changes' so really nothing new except lordy lordy the benefits to local industry and of course the growing regional interest in the F-35B with the added bonus of the UK CVF/F-35B testing experience going so well because of the CVFs being designed for the F-35B and computer modelling and so forth and so on....
Defence Connect 27 Nov 2018 Louis Dillon F-35 countdown: Royal Navy completes carrier flight tests
Defence Connect 27 Nov 2018 Louis Dillon F-35 countdown: Royal Navy completes carrier flight tests
- Status