Amphibious ships and air power

[alexsa]

I am referring to Rolling Airframe Missile with Phalanx type CIWS complementing them. The Americans have them on the Tarawa and Wasp class LHD's.

Details of the RIM 116 RAM can be found at:

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00019001

Sea RAM is basically the Phalanx mount with the 20mm gattling gun replaced by the RAM launcher. A combination of the SeaRAM with the mistral/Typhoon system would be nice (but I am probably dreaming).

 

[alexsa]

I'd say these ships would probably have a Sea Hawk or 2 asigned to it permanently. They would be a very big (and highly valued) target for any "enemy" sub forces and the RAN would want these ships to have some capability to protect themselves, plus the Sea Hawks provide vertrep functions, utility/transport tasks and limited anti-surface warfare capabilities.

On top of this the AWD's will need some helo's too when they arrive too. This is almost guaranteed to be a Sea Hawk, unless AIR 9000 decides to replace the ASW helo's, but I seriously doubt that will happen in time...

You would have to hope that AIR9000 would eventually adopt the NH-90 ASW helo (Seahawk replacement) for the RAN along with the NH-90 utility helicopter (Seaking replacement). Information about the NH-90 ASW and transport helcopter can be found at:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nh90/

This is quite a capble ASW platform and the the dipping sonar would reintroduce a sub hunting capability to the RAN that most submariners in conventional submarines dread.

There was a general understanding that to be pinged by a single dipping helo was a problem but certainly not the end of the world. Two is a problem but you can still get away. Three is bad. Worse if they have sonar bouys as well as the helos in the dip set up the third for either a donar buoy drop or to dip. Either way you are in deep trouble.

 

[knightrider4]

I wouldn't mind them installing an 8 cell VLS with ESSM a similar setup to what you have on the San Antonio LPD's.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I imagine these ships will be fitted out with a defensive armament consisting of ESSM (probably 2x 8 cell Mk 41 VLS), 2-4 Typhoon 25mm guns, and a close in air defence system, similar to that chosen for the ANZAC short range air defence upgrade (the popular word around the "traps" is that Mistral has been chosen for ANZAC, and consequently the AWD's).

I'd also expect there would be a number of 0.50cal HMG's, possibly with "mini-typhoon" systems as well. I doubt they'd equip a ship with SeaRAM AND Mistral, given that both systems cover essentially the same mission.

A couple of 5 inch Mk 45 Mod 4 guns for these ships would be nice too. It'd help the Army out firepower wise with NGS support (the ship's going to be sitting just off the coast anyway...) plus relieve some of the pressure for RAN Frigates/AWD to conduct this role, but I doubt it'll happen, given the cost capped budget...

 

[Supe]

I wouldn't mind them installing an 8 cell VLS with ESSM a similar setup to what you have on the San Antonio LPD's.

It'd be a lethal setup for hostiles when plugged into the AWD's.

 

[cherry]

Hypothetically if the Caribou was to be replaced by Chinooks for AIR8000, would it be possible to operate the chinooks from the new amphib ships on a permanent basis (say 2-4 chinooks) if they were marinised?

 

[knightrider4]

As I understand it the Navantia design can the specs of the ship are on the forum somewhere I,m sure. I dont know about the Mistral, though there are three versions of it perhaps one of the larger Mistral designs could though personally I prefer the strategic projection ship.

 

[alexsa]

Recent news from DMO. I do like the look of the Navantia design.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/sept05/hl1.cfm

Amphibious ships, the task ahead​

​

​

The Federal Government has given first pass approval to the $2 billion Amphibious Ships project, committing $29.8 million towards its Design and Development Phase and inviting Australian shipbuilders to tender in 2006. Defence Minister Robert Hill has said that Government’s preference is to see the ships built in Australia, however Australian Industry will need to demonstrate that it can deliver the project at a competitive price.

Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) Program Manager Amphibious Development and Sustainment, Kim Gillis spoke to ‘On Target’ about what lies ahead for DMO and Australian industry members competing for preferred tenderer over the next 18 to 24 months. ‘A request for tender will be released to the Australian shipbuilding industry in the second quarter of 2006,’ Mr Gillis said. ‘They’ll have approximately four months to respond to the tender. Then we will take approximately five to six months to undertake the evaluation and then get it through the committee stages and then eventually to cabinet’. ‘The advantage that Australian industry has is that they have been working with DMO for the last 12 months on the risk reduction and design studies. They have already responded to a request for quote and they will have already started working with the designers prior to the release of the tender to develop their tenders’. ‘So, while the actual formal time for the bids is only four months my expectation is that Australian industry has been working up to this and will have had approximately two years from the time that they started preparing for tender to the time that they submit their formal bid’. Australian shipbuilders will be invited to tender for either or both of two designs: • the Spanish Navantia ship at approximately 27,000 tonne • the French Armaris Mistral ship with additional troop carrying capability at approximately 22,000 tonne Mr Gillis said the design and the shipbuilder would be selected at the same time. ‘The process that we are going through now involves working with the French and Spanish designers. We will be sending a team to both Spain and France to work on requirements definition with both the Spanish and French shipyards. We will then be releasing a tender to Australian Industry. They will be able to team with the designers, either or both of the designers,’ he said. Tender documentation will allow bidders to: • Form teaming arrangements • Submit fixed price bids • Provide innovative solutions to improve price and schedule
​

•​

​

Bid through life support solutions. ‘It is important that the shipbuilders are teaming with the designers and there may be some instances where shipbuilders would team with each other,’ Mr Gillis said. ‘But, what we will be doing is making sure we still maintain competition by requiring the ship builders to seek our permission before they make a teaming arrangement with any of the other ship builders so that we don’t end up with a non competitive sole source situation. ‘If all three of the remaining shipyards decide to team with each other then I don’t have a competitive environment. I have a sole source situation, which is not a good outcome for Government. ‘I strongly believe that competition is the best outcome, it doesn’t preclude teaming. ‘At the moment we have two designs, three ship builders plus the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) and we are still to be advised on what the ASCs future intentions will be. There may be some opportunity for teaming in Australia but not to the outcome that I end up with a sole source position. ‘Once we receive tenders back we will make a selection on which combination of shipbuilder and design best meets the cost capability trade offs and gives the ADF the best possible outcomes,’ Mr Gillis said. Senator Hill recently stated that ‘Australian companies would have to prove to the Government that they could provide the necessary skilled labour to build the new ships’. Mr Gillis said that skill development opportunities for Australian Industry would factor into the final shipbuilder decision. ‘DMO has been very proactive with Skilling Australian Defence Industry (SADI) and I’m a very strong advocate of that,’ he said. ‘It will be a requirement under the request for tender that Australian ship builders demonstrate to us that they actually have the ability and the skills to build the ships in Australia. ‘DMO is actively supporting Australian tenderers, but we will require them to give us objective evidence of their ability to actually build the amphibious ships in Australia at a price and at a quality that is required by government,’ Mr Gillis said.

However, he said the final decision would be made on a range of factors including the ability of the Australian ship builders to deliver the product, the net effect on the Air Warfare Destroyer program, and the ability to meet schedule. ‘One of the things that I think is very important here is that Warren King (Program Manager Air Warfare Destroyer) and I actually look at this as two separate programs but we are literally joined at the hip when it comes to some of the decision making processes. ‘I won’t be making decisions without consulting Warren to see what impact that decision might have on his program and vice versa. So, we are not going to treat these in isolation,' Mr Gillis said. At the moment Government has two options a military off the shelf price or the selection of an Australian shipbuilder who can make a competitive offer. DMO is required as part of the Defence Procurement Review to obtain a quote outside Australia. ‘The review recommended that we provide advice to cabinet on what the price comparisons are on getting the ship built overseas versus getting it built in Australia,’ Mr Gillis said. ‘The Minister has been very clear to say that he wants to give Australian shipbuilders the best opportunity possible but not at any price’. ‘We are taking a very commercial approach, Government is not intervening in the outcome. DMO and government are actually saying here is my requirement get together and come up with the best possible outcome for us. ‘What we are seeking from the Australian shipbuilders and the overseas designers is innovative solutions to bring the price as close as possible to the Defence Capability Plan and to bring the ships in on schedule. We are leaving this open to the ship builders and the designers to come up with an outcome,’ Mr Gillis said.
​

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/sept05/images/hl1_amph_Armaris_lg.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/sept05/images/hl1_amph_Armaris.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/sept05/images/hl1_amph_Navantia_lg.jpg

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/sept05/images/hl1_amph_Navantia.jpg

 

[alexsa]

Has any body got any images of the the Navantia BPE (LHD) currently under construction? The first steel was cut well over 12 months ago so there should be a substancial amount of work done to date.

 

[Cootamundra]

You would have to hope that AIR9000 would eventually adopt the NH-90 ASW helo (Seahawk replacement) for the RAN along with the NH-90 utility helicopter (Seaking replacement). Information about the NH-90 ASW and transport helcopter can be found at:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nh90/

This is quite a capble ASW platform and the the dipping sonar would reintroduce a sub hunting capability to the RAN that most submariners in conventional submarines dread.

There was a general understanding that to be pinged by a single dipping helo was a problem but certainly not the end of the world. Two is a problem but you can still get away. Three is bad. Worse if they have sonar bouys as well as the helos in the dip set up the third for either a donar buoy drop or to dip. Either way you are in deep trouble.

I agree. It makes real sense to reduce the number of airframes in operation and the NH-90 for anit-surface, anti sub looks the business. It would also be an improvement on the current SeaHawk fleet. Only problem is the Sprog, unless the DefMin decides to bin that program we are destined to a fleet of those plus some new birds at some undefined time in the future. Better to cop it sweet with the Sprog, enlarge the NH order and drive Aus Aerospace and NH-Industries for some really good rates for going with their bird.

 

[Sea Toby]

ADI Limited as upgraded its website concerning their enlarged Mistral design offered, including carrying 1000 troops. I suggest surfing over to their website.

There have been deck plans of the Navantia design, I believe at the Spanish navy's website. However, its in Spanish, but the drawings are universal. I wish Tenix would update their website better for the LHD. While the Navantia website is in Spanish and English, it doesn't provide much information on the LHD.

Here is the link to the Spanish BPE:
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/Antecedentes.asp?SecAct=05201

Here is the link to the ADI Limited LHD:
http://www.adi-limited.com/default.asp?page=229
Scroll down to the navy and the LHD adobe acrobat link

 

[alexsa]

Thanks Toby, had a look at both the ADI, Tenix and Navantia websites and have been underwelmed by the amount of information provided.

I was hoping somebody may be able to point to pictures of the BPE that is being built for the Spanish navy.

In respect to the Mistral as far as I can ascetain ther will be no significant change in the physical appearance of the vessels offered to Australia and modifications wil be limited to rearranging the interanals to provide more accomodation.

My vote is definately for the Navatia BPE.

 

[contedicavour]

In respect to the Mistral as far as I can ascetain ther will be no significant change in the physical appearance of the vessels offered to Australia and modifications wil be limited to rearranging the interanals to provide more accomodation.

.

At Euronaval there were 3 modified Mistrals in mockups, from 167 meters to 230 meters long. The version offered to Australia is probably the largest one, which is 30 meters longer than the original French Mistrals.

cheers

 

[alexsa]

The first Navantia BPE will be named Juan Carlos I and the Spanish navy web site gives some useful information on it capability

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h...ev=/search?q=Juan+Carlos+I+BPE&hl=en&lr=&sa=G

It appears that it will be able to carry a reasonable air wing an still have the lower deck and well deck available, albeit for a reduced carrying capacity. Ten to eleven VSTOL aircraft and 12 NH-90 size aircraft is a pretty good load.

I may be daydreaming but it would be nice to see these ships built for tnhe RAN and carry something like the F-35B.

 

[Tasman]

The first Navantia BPE will be named Juan Carlos I and the Spanish navy web site gives some useful information on it capability

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?h...ev=/search?q=Juan+Carlos+I+BPE&hl=en&lr=&sa=G

It appears that it will be able to carry a reasonable air wing an still have the lower deck and well deck available, albeit for a reduced carrying capacity. Ten to eleven VSTOL aircraft and 12 NH-90 size aircraft is a pretty good load.

I may be daydreaming but it would be nice to see these ships built for tnhe RAN and carry something like the F-35B.

Very interesting to see the hanger layout.

I strongly agree that the selection of this class of vessel would provide great flexibility for future operations by Australia, particularly as the option to acquire F35Bs as part of the RAAF's future air combat force should remain open for some time (providing of course it goes ahead as planned which seems likely IMO). It may seem like a daydream at the moment but things can change quickly as a government finds that its defence services are unable to carry out missions desired by it (e.g. the C17 and M1A1 purchases).

The Mistral design would also be a huge advance on what the RAN currently possesses but I can't see it matching the Spanish vessel for versatility.

 

[PETER671BT]

I totally agree, the ship has not a good opertational space,instead it's got all these sub sections for weapons and so on. The ship should probably have more deck,more like a Tarawa class.There one real good thing about usa navy and marines,they really know how design a ship.

 

[alexsa]

I totally agree, the ship has not a good opertational space,instead it's got all these sub sections for weapons and so on. The ship should probably have more deck,more like a Tarawa class.There one real good thing about usa navy and marines,they really know how design a ship.

Actually I am pretty impressed with the BPE and think it is the correct option for Australia. The segregation of the hanger deck appears to be intended as part of the damage control arrangements. The lower vehicle deck has to be divided up or you run the risk of having an MV Estonia type incident. The stockholm rules for commercial RO-RO ships were adopted for precislely this reason.

For their size and crewing levels these appear to be very capable vessels. The Wasp class vessel is a third as big again but can only carry an additional 400 troops over the BPE and has a crew of about 1300 compared to the 270 on the BPE. For a navy like the RAN crew size is a significant issue. According to Naval technolgy the vessel will carry 8 to 10 VSTOL aircraft and helos but I understand its capacity in this regards is bigger than the BPE as would be expected.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wasp/

The BPE can take much the same weapons as the Wasp being desinged to take ESSM, CIWS and 20 to 25mm guns. The Wasp appears is faster than the BPE with the latter having a stated speed of 21 knots. As you noted the Wasp has a bigger deck space being just over 20m longer in LOA but in so far as effective flight deck length is concerned is is probably in the order of 40m due to the stern arrangment on the BPE. Despite this the BPE can launch 6 NH-90 size helos or 4 CH47 simultanously.

Finally there is the cost ..... for the capability it provides the BPE is signficantly cheaper than the Wasp both to purchase and to operate (the latter is significantly effected by crew size). The BPE is fitted wiht an electric drive system using podded propulsion which is ahead of the in service Wasp class and provides additional efficiencies. This is not to say the USN are not addressing this isuse but the first hybrid electic drive system will not be in service on an LHD until LHD8 USS Makin Island, is commissioned in 2007.

The USN are very good at designing ships for thier purposes but htis does not always translate well to the needs of other Navies.

 

[Gladius]

the first hybrid electic drive system will not be in service on an LHD until LHD8 USS Makin Island, is commissioned in 2007.

About the USS Makin Island, a little question Alexsa.

I believed that the sea trials would be carried out during 2007 and the USS Makin Island commission in the US Navy was programmed to late fall 2008. The calendar was altered? Thanks.

 

[alexsa]

You are correct delivery is 2008, sorry about that

http://www.makin-island.navy.mil/default.htm

 

[Galrahn]

Is support for the JSF a core requirement envisioned for Australia's aviation projection ship? Is a well deck a core requirement or is it a secondary requirement?

Is offloading a M1A1 an expected capability? What type of connectors is Australia envisioning for the ship, LCAC or LCU? What aviation platforms is Australia looking into for medium/heavy lift on the aviation platform?

Is there any plan for supporting helicopter gunships or only fixed wing strike aircraft?