Great shots on a beautiful clear day.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Clearly the Johan de Witt LPD, as the design currently stands, is not a JSS, that’s obvious, but that was not what I suggested.
To go back to the start, Navantia Australia has taken the Spanish Galicia LPD design (based on the Enforcer ship design), modified it and has come up with their JSS design.
My point was that Damen can do exactly the same, take an existing Enforcer ship design, eg, the JdW LPD design, and do exactly the same exercise as the Spanish.
If Navantia can do it, why can’t Damen?
After all, they are all variations on the same basic ship design.
Cheers,
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
She must be pretty close to going to San Diego for CSSQT.
I’m a week behind here but I think the take on the article was that aircraft can RTB, rearm and go out again where a magazine with 5 or 10 missiles, once fired is a lot slower to rearm. Let’s assume the available number of missiles was equal (regardless of stocks or budget) the pitch is an aircraft with an in range base, can throw more weight than a ship in a strike role in some circumstances ....albeit over multiple missions.
I came across an article on the Italian LHDs and Aircraft carriers. They look to be a taking an approach to enable the ships to defend them selves if stuck without an escort with VLS for aster missile and even arming with 2 x 76m raid fire Otto Malera guns On the carrier and 3 x on the LHDs. All You Need To Know About Italy’s F-35 Carrier That Just Arrived In The US
Fincantieri Launched LHD 'Trieste' for the Italian Navy - Naval News. Italy to Strengthen its Amphibious Power Projection Capabilities - European Security & Defence which is a contrast to the self defence capabilities on the AU LHDs.
Not disagreeing and yes they can modify the design but I suspect it will essentially be the hull form and aspects of the design due to the impact of fitting significant fuel tanks and the associated systems. All I was stressing is that it is not a simple task and the resulting design will essentially be a clean sheet for much of the internal structure as well as the associated systems.
I am just noting that using the JdW as a parent may not save much coin. I have been involved in an evolution of a design ... and they ended up doing just that ... accommodation and bridge were essentially a drop on module but the design of the majority of the internals for the rest of the ship was new. Even the hull was slightly different. The changes resulted in tank testing and a complete review of stability.
The unknown here is exactly what the ADF want.... You would hope that the Navantia product was based on their best guess but until the RFT comes out who knows.
I think this one will be quite hard to crystal ball as meeting the requirements of ADF and gov. There is more in selection that just meeting the minimum criteria. There are usually local industry involvement, sustainment, support, and some special criteria.
Navantia showed their design over a year ago, so they have quite obviously been working on it for some time and seem to have a pretty good connection to the RAN and industry. They knew of these requirements before a project had even been officially announced. Obviously with the LHD, AOR, the DDG's, LCM etc they have a pretty good on the ground knowledge.
Damen is not quite in the same company there. Not sure if they want people to bring up the RSV Nuyina, but it is what it is. Some issues, IMO that seems down to their build partner than any design capability (IMO the design is great, and overseas builds, you get what you pay for) and COVID messes things up. But in a world as risk adverse as this, it would appear that Damen has at least an uphill battle if it wants to compete, purely on the spanish hold on these types of ships where it can offer high commonality to its other family designs. No announcement or statement is forth coming, they may not even see it commercially useful to put a tender in. They seemed quite competitive on the Patrol ships, and IMO I quite liked their design, which was high on capability.
BTW talking of Damen, saw this image of Nuyina doing trials in the north Sea..
In January this year the Everest left Hobart to resupply and recrew bases.
www.antarctica.gov.au
Navantia showed their design over a year ago, so they have quite obviously been working on it for some time and seem to have a pretty good connection to the RAN and industry. They knew of these requirements before a project had even been officially announced. Obviously with the LHD, AOR, the DDG's, LCM etc they have a pretty good on the ground knowledge.
Damen is not quite in the same company there. Not sure if they want people to bring up the RSV Nuyina, but it is what it is. Some issues, IMO that seems down to their build partner than any design capability (IMO the design is great, and overseas builds, you get what you pay for) and COVID messes things up. But in a world as risk adverse as this, it would appear that Damen has at least an uphill battle if it wants to compete, purely on the spanish hold on these types of ships where it can offer high commonality to its other family designs. No announcement or statement is forth coming, they may not even see it commercially useful to put a tender in. They seemed quite competitive on the Patrol ships, and IMO I quite liked their design, which was high on capability.
BTW talking of Damen, saw this image of Nuyina doing trials in the north Sea..
In January this year the Everest left Hobart to resupply and recrew bases.
‘State-of-the-art’ resupply ship departs Hobart for Antarctica – Australian Antarctic Program (News 2021)
Australia's first Antarctic voyage for 2021
www.antarctica.gov.au
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The thing about ASPIs Hellyer is that he is a reasonably good writer and story teller.
But....
He is rather predictable and a bit too smart in his more recent articles, he paints a picture in a certain way, all the negatives for the RAN surface fleet to be effective with Tomahawk, leads the reader on the journey he has painted and right there in the very last paragraph is the ‘solution’, the B-21!
And by the way he conveniently forgets to mention the RAN ‘sub surface’ fleet, funny that?
I could sit here all night and write a reply to his article painting it in completely the opposite direction, but I won’t.
Does my heart want to see the RAAF with a dozen B-21? Yes it does, but in my head? I just can’t see it happening, so it’s pointless getting into ‘what if’s’.
Cheers,
What blows my mind about the new Italian amphib is how much aviation fuel it now carries. 2000m3 F44.
I hope fuel JSS/AOR acquisitions take in account aviation fuel requirements.
In terms of self protection, 3 x 20mm CIWS, are reasonable. I'm not sure I agree with the italians about covering in larger caliber guns. There are issues with launching missiles from a carrier. There is space reserved for ESSM at the rear. But even our lowly frigates carry that and at this stage IMO its not a priority.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Agree, it is an unknown until the Government releases an RFI/RFT, as I said on the previous page, it’s a guessing game.
I’m not pushing a barrow either way, what I don’t want to see is the win being handed to Navantia Australia on a silver platter, if they win, good for them.
I’d like to see a competition where Navantia, Damen and others push each other hard with the ‘best’ solution possible.
The only certainty we have currently is that the two JSS will be built here in Oz (WA to be specific), anything on top of that is a bonus.
To be fair to Damen here this vessel is unlike any other ice breaker they have built (or any body else has built for that matter) due to the requirement to undertake science, carry bulk liquids, unitised cargo and carry a lot of folk. The science impact huge as this has resulted in a lot of hull openings that you would not normally see in a breaker. In addition they went for a lot of redundancy in systems arising from experience with onboard fires and the grounding with the Aurora Australis. A lot of lessons were learnt.I think this one will be quite hard to crystal ball as meeting the requirements of ADF and gov. There is more in selection that just meeting the minimum criteria. There are usually local industry involvement, sustainment, support, and some special criteria.
Navantia showed their design over a year ago, so they have quite obviously been working on it for some time and seem to have a pretty good connection to the RAN and industry. They knew of these requirements before a project had even been officially announced. Obviously with the LHD, AOR, the DDG's, LCM etc they have a pretty good on the ground knowledge.
Damen is not quite in the same company there. Not sure if they want people to bring up the RSV Nuyina, but it is what it is. Some issues, IMO that seems down to their build partner than any design capability (IMO the design is great, and overseas builds, you get what you pay for) and COVID messes things up. But in a world as risk adverse as this, it would appear that Damen has at least an uphill battle if it wants to compete, purely on the spanish hold on these types of ships where it can offer high commonality to its other family designs. No announcement or statement is forth coming, they may not even see it commercially useful to put a tender in. They seemed quite competitive on the Patrol ships, and IMO I quite liked their design, which was high on capability.
BTW talking of Damen, saw this image of Nuyina doing trials in the north Sea..
View attachment 48020
In January this year the Everest left Hobart to resupply and recrew bases.
‘State-of-the-art’ resupply ship departs Hobart for Antarctica – Australian Antarctic Program (News 2021)
Australia's first Antarctic voyage for 2021
COVID-19 also seriously impacted schedule.
Agree, what does the ADF really want.
Speculation only, but I'd guess Navantia had a bit more of an idea than just a " best Guess".
Await the RFT and final outcome with interest.
Regards S
PS - not too fussed as to which Company / design wins, provided its fit for purpose and delivered on time.
I would like to see this as somewhat a priority project.
Apologies in advance for the change of subject.
I'm confused by land 8710, from what I understand this covers the LCM8 and LARC-V but does this cover the LCH (Balikpapan-class)? If so is the Army or Navy going to operate them? Is there any details on requirements for replacements?
Thanks in advance
I'm confused by land 8710, from what I understand this covers the LCM8 and LARC-V but does this cover the LCH (Balikpapan-class)? If so is the Army or Navy going to operate them? Is there any details on requirements for replacements?
Thanks in advance
I have yet to see any detail on manning requirements, but I personally think the sensible option would be small watercraft operated by Army and larger individual landing craft manned by RAN crews.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Do you think they would have a permanent Army Detachment like the Canberra’s?
I’m at a complete loss as to what they are going to replace the LARC-Vs with. The LCH replacement will come later, suggest they want to get the LCM-8 replacement bedded down first. Doubt the Army would have the expertise to operate a ship of this size, so as to wether it ends up in RAN or ARA service, the Navy is going to have to be heavily involved getting this capability to FOC.
Also a few interesting "options/concepts" for the Malaysian MRSS project, including an adaptation from Damen of the Enforcer design, thinking there is a lot more sitting in the background than most realise, multi role ships or joint support ships are on a lot of radars !
Cheers
Not sure if we should move this discussion to the Army thread..
But DTR mentioned the Americans are apparently looking at this fearsome machine.. I can see it rolling up as the first stage of an amphibious landing.
The US did a complete SLEP rebuild of its LARC-V, new trans, new engine, the works. IMO that would seem to be a fairly appropriate fit.. Or just effectively new builds those hulls are getting ancient.
The Terrex ICV is originally amphibious, I imagine could have a bed stuck on the back. The Iveco Super AV would be another obvious platform to look at. They don't need to be heavily armored, but some resistance against light arms would seem reasonable.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Probably the best LARC-V replacement would be brand new LARC-V-NG, fitted with modern Diesel Engines, Transmissions, running Gear, fitted for carrying Modules with a Cab armoured at least against 12.7mm, unfortunately Australia’s low numbers would probably make it too expensive.
Yeah okay... It doesn't look very intimidating like that. But who knows, maybe a smart looking camo paint job would help!?! But it does look like a cool vehicle, I would want one if I had a super-yacht or something... drive it right up the beach. It doesn't look like that bad of a replacement to me anyway.
I think you're right! Whether it's moving personnel and materiel around or disaster relief, most navies would be interested in acquiring, renewing or expanding their amphibious capabilities. And especially for smaller navies it would be nice to also add RAS capabilities to their fleet. But depending on the operational tempo putting both eggs in one basket can have it's downsides. The Dutch navy found that out, which was one of the reasons why they made their new supply ship a priority. But they operate a lot over long distances and with many different allies and RAS is a valuable capability within NATO.
But aside from that, with the future moving toward UAV and USV operations ships like these could become motherships for drone swarms. Or at least a testbed to explore future strategies and operations like that.
- Status