NZDF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Here's a link to the NZG press release:
beehive.govt.nz - US-NZ defence arrangement signed

There's also a PDF on the framework, known as "The Washington Declaration":
http://beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/WashingtonDeclaration.pdf

Check out para 3 where it talks about expanding cooperation by eg building the participant's maritime security presence and capabilities; strengthening the participant's maritime domain awareness and so on.

Good stuff, that'll make the bean counters' head spin :D

Ok but seriously, this is a great step for NZ considering it's been some 28 years since US-NZ trained and had high level discussions in this part of the world. It takes time to re-build this cooperation up from pretty much scratch. Onwards and upwards eh.
Thanks for the links. Yes it will make the bean counters head spin but I agree it is an excellent step. Hopefully this will translate into maritime assets like MPA such as the B350ER ISR that the USAF are getting rid of or brand new B350 ER MPA and a third frigate and maybe a third OPV. I've commented on the RNZAF thread about the USAF B350 ER ISR.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
A great feature article from the NZDF regarding the RIMPAC excercise, for those who haven't see below.

NZDF - NZDF Off To RIMPAC In Force

It really frames well what they will be doing, a little bit of how and some solid information in there.
Yes, a well written article. There's so many dimensions to this for NZDF.

And even HMNZS Endeavour would be worth pondering. From the article:

“As ENDEAVOUR is a relatively small tanker she will herself be replenished with cargo fuel at sea from larger US tankers as required,” CDR Robb said. “This will allow ENDEAVOUR to remain on station for the duration of the exercise.

Endeavour has always been a "coalition" asset (ANZ CDR, FPDA, ET etc) and will be in demand more-so now, so hopefully her replacement will be much larger (be it another AOR or JSS type)!

“When not required for replenishment it is expected that ENDEAVOUR will join other surface Task Groups to act as the High Value Unit [HVU] for warfare serials or as the target ship for Maritime Interdiction operations.”

Ouch! And whilst no doubt under the protection of escorts and other assets, perhaps consideration should be given to her having greater rudimentary self-defence systems (chaff, missile decoy, a couple of CIWS's etc)? Also all useful now for optimising her replacement vessel's self-defence systems (that she's bound to have) by figuring out from experience what will work the best and get personnel trained up with operating and maintaining the systems etc. A need to have not want to have :)
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Endeavour has always been a "coalition" asset (ANZ CDR, FPDA, ET etc) and will be in demand more-so now, so hopefully her replacement will be much larger (be it another AOR or JSS type)!

A need to have not want to have :)
BMT say that their Aegir vessels are scalable. So something between the 18-R and the 10 would be an excellent solution to replace the Endeavour.

And this (linked below) vessel is along the lines of what I would suggest should replace the Canterbury as the key cornerstone asset of the NZDF's post 2020 Joint Amphibious Task Force and be an invaluable coalition asset in the wider SP region. Not just a need to have - a must have!

www.stengg.com/download/pdf/1145a3iazembefv3e5ef.pdf
 

t68

Well-Known Member
And this (linked below) vessel is along the lines of what I would suggest should replace the Canterbury as the key cornerstone asset of the NZDF's post 2020 Joint Amphibious Task Force and be an invaluable coalition asset in the wider SP region. Not just a need to have - a must have!

www.stengg.com/download/pdf/1145a3iazembefv3e5ef.pdf
Post 2020 no doubt Canterbury should be replaced with a more flexible ship design which could integrate more efficiently with RAN vessels of a similar design, crew numbers will be the deciding factor if ST Marine could put that ship together with a crew size of double what HMNZS Canterbury (70) has now RNZN should be able to handle that, but for redundancy NZ really needs two vessels at a bare minimum. A model of the ship is about half way down the page.The Korean ship Dokdo is about the same dimensions but crewing requirements rule her out.

The Base Leg Blog: Singapore studying the STOVL F-35B?

http://www.military-today.com/navy/dokdo_class.htm


BMT say that their Aegir vessels are scalable. So something between the 18-R and the 10 would be an excellent solution to replace the Endeavour.
With HMNZS Endeavour replacement due soon I believe NZ needs to step up with her replacement, she needs not only have the capacity for liquids but room for substantial amount of dry stores embark its own helicopters for vertrep and capacity for evacuation of casualty from the AO. I believe the German Berlin class would fit the bill for NZ she not too big but brings a greater degree of flexibility to NZ.

Blohm + Voss Naval
 

RegR

Well-Known Member
With all these countries trying to shave billions off their defence budgets and selling off military assets maybe now would be a good time for us to replace/supplement equipment and potentially pick up some good deals. There is nothing saying we need to buy brand new gear and also the equipment would already be known and proven, some examples could be British ships, American aircraft, Euro armoured vehicles etc.

I wonder if our planners are keeping tabs on the world market which is rapidly filling with surplus equipment which could at least cover us until a final solution is found if not actually fill the deficiancy outright. If we wait until we fully recover then oppourtunities could be lost as probably the other countries would be recovering as well therefore not as in need of funds themselves and less likely to sell at a good price.

We have started already with the Seasprites and the aussies aqquired a transport ship so for example the RNZAF could look into the excess German A400s, American B350s/C27Js, Dutch F16s etc(ok ok the F16s are pushing it) but if the price is right then moments should be seized. Granted we are not in the best financial shape ourselves but if we could spend millions now to save/postpone billions later then all options need to be explored and maybe even some tough decisions made.
 

exported_kiwi

New Member
BMT say that their Aegir vessels are scalable. So something between the 18-R and the 10 would be an excellent solution to replace the Endeavour.

And this (linked below) vessel is along the lines of what I would suggest should replace the Canterbury as the key cornerstone asset of the NZDF's post 2020 Joint Amphibious Task Force and be an invaluable coalition asset in the wider SP region. Not just a need to have - a must have!

www.stengg.com/download/pdf/1145a3iazembefv3e5ef.pdf
This looks like a lovely vessel and ideal for NZ in it's regional role. I can't see NZ buying one though as it's probably too large and too manpower intensive. It'd be a high value target and would soak up too many personnel.
What would the crewing requirements be on a vessel like this anyway?
 

exported_kiwi

New Member
With all these countries trying to shave billions off their defence budgets and selling off military assets maybe now would be a good time for us to replace/supplement equipment and potentially pick up some good deals. There is nothing saying we need to buy brand new gear and also the equipment would already be known and proven, some examples could be British ships, American aircraft, Euro armoured vehicles etc.

I wonder if our planners are keeping tabs on the world market which is rapidly filling with surplus equipment which could at least cover us until a final solution is found if not actually fill the deficiancy outright. If we wait until we fully recover then oppourtunities could be lost as probably the other countries would be recovering as well therefore not as in need of funds themselves and less likely to sell at a good price.


e have started already with the Seasprites and the aussies aqquired a transport ship so for example the RNZAF could look into the excess German A400s, American B350s/C27Js, Dutch F16s etc(ok ok the F16s are pushing it) but if the price is right then moments should be seized. Granted we are not in the best financial shape ourselves but if we could spend millions now to save/postpone billions later then all options need to be explored and maybe even some tough decisions made.

Ahhh, in an ideal world, I'd be happy to agree with you but given the NZ defense establishment's civilian employee's apathy, I highly doubt any of them have the cojones to take advantage of these sales....much to my chagrin!
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Ahhh, in an ideal world, I'd be happy to agree with you but given the NZ defense establishment's civilian employee's apathy, I highly doubt any of them have the cojones to take advantage of these sales....much to my chagrin!
It's not "NZ defense establishment's civilian employee's apathy" as you put it because they aren't the ones making the final decisions. It's the government and treasury who make the decisions about purchases and the Cabinet about capability. NZ doesn't have the cash to take advantage of these opportunities and the current economic climate coupled with current economic and political philosophy precludes any added expenditure.
 

exported_kiwi

New Member
It's not "NZ defense establishment's civilian employee's apathy" as you put it because they aren't the ones making the final decisions. It's the government and treasury who make the decisions about purchases and the Cabinet about capability. NZ doesn't have the cash to take advantage of these opportunities and the current economic climate coupled with current economic and political philosophy precludes any added expenditure.
Ok, I stand corrected, thanks.

MODs; sorry about the one liner, just a thanks is all.
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This looks like a lovely vessel and ideal for NZ in it's regional role. I can't see NZ buying one though as it's probably too large and too manpower intensive. It'd be a high value target and would soak up too many personnel.
What would the crewing requirements be on a vessel like this anyway?
Try this site for info:

Senang Diri: LOTS to deliver: Singapore Technologies Marine unveils Endurance 160 helicopter support ship

great thing about Singapore is that they love automation so im sure they could get the crew size down more if we requested it, it scales to the same crew size as our ANZACs.

CD
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Try this site for info:

Senang Diri: LOTS to deliver: Singapore Technologies Marine unveils Endurance 160 helicopter support ship

great thing about Singapore is that they love automation so im sure they could get the crew size down more if we requested it, it scales to the same crew size as our ANZACs.

CD
Interesting. I am wondering if the elevators would take the NH90s. It's a shame the NZG were to stingy and didn't go for the automated rotor folding option on the NH90 along with the FLIR option. Mind you that was uncle helen and its mob. FLIR was to aggressive. The author does raise some important questions about the design. This would have to be looked at as a Canterbury replacement not an Endeavour. IIRC Mr C's like was a RAS fuel and dry stores vessel. But I agree Dave about the Singaporeans and automation. Mind you probably could say the same for the Koreans as well.
 

exported_kiwi

New Member
Try this site for info:

Senang Diri: LOTS to deliver: Singapore Technologies Marine unveils Endurance 160 helicopter support ship

great thing about Singapore is that they love automation so im sure they could get the crew size down more if we requested it, it scales to the same crew size as our ANZACs.

CD
If this is the case, RE; crewing and automation, would NZ be able to afford such a vessel. Is the any indication to cost in NZD?
If it's in the linked info, sorry, can't open a helluva lot links over here in the PRC.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If this is the case, RE; crewing and automation, would NZ be able to afford such a vessel. Is the any indication to cost in NZD?
If it's in the linked info, sorry, can't open a helluva lot links over here in the PRC.
Nah mate no indication of price. This what the link had.
LOTS to deliver: Singapore Technologies Marine unveils Endurance 160 helicopter support ship

Singaporean naval yard Singapore Technologies Marine (ST Marine) has unveiled a new variant of its Endurance-class Landing Platform Dock (LPD).

Dubbed the Endurance 160, the 14,500 tonne warship is the first one designed by ST Marine with a full length flight deck.

The length overall is quoted as 163.7m, with the flight deck estimated at around 146m long by 25.6m wide with five deck landing spots.


Endurance 160 drawings provided by ST Marine appear to show two deck elevators. One is sited on the starboard side forward and the other amidships close to the aft end of the island superstructure.

The island is of a blockhouse design with a single mast and funnel and two levels. The flight control station is aft of the island.

The complement is quoted as 140 personnel, with another 150 for its air wing. Troop capacity is given as 400 troops.

It is noteworthy that the new class of warship has a quoted top speed of 22 knots - five knots better than the quoted 17 kts top speed for its Endurance 140 cousin. Max range is mentioned as "more than 7,000 nautical miles" when sailing at 15 kts.

Gun armament options on the foc'sle and stern quarter are presumed to be indicative of customer options for placing medium calibre guns and close-in weapon systems (CIWS). The weapon stations do not appear to require deck penetration.

It is not known if the Endurance 160 will offer bow doors, as seen on the 141-metre long Endurance 140 class. The 22 kts max speed of this class probably excludes bow doors as such a feature and the associated ramp would weaken the forward end of the ship.

It also remains to be seen if the new Endurance variant can carry floating pontoons strapped to the side of its hull. These self-propelled pontoons are used to discharge vehicles and troops during logistics-over-the-shore (LOTS) operations.


The design draws heavily upon the Republic of Singapore Navy's (RSN) experience with its four 141-metre long Endurance-class tank landing ships (LST), which, interestingly, have been referred to by at least three standard naval designations.

The Endurance ships were introduced in 1998 as LSTs but referred to by naval authorities as Landing Platform Docks (LPD) as they have a well dock aft for four Fast Craft Utility water-jet propelled landing craft.

During Operation Flying Eagle (OFE), the Boxing Day tsunami relief mission off Sumatra in Dec 2004/Jan 2005, three Endurance ships deployed for the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief mission were referred to as Helicopter Support Ships.

Tonne for tonne, ST Marine's Endurance 140 design can carry more landing craft than any other LST/LPD design available today. The mothership can land a battalion-size team in one wave using its onboard FCUs and Fast Craft Equipment Personnel (FCEP) landing craft.

Each Endurance 160 is designed to carry two FCU-type landing craft and a pair of smaller FCEPs. It is likely that the landing craft complement will include the new drive-thru design, which ST Marine designed specifically for LOTS operations involving main battle tanks, which could include but are not limited to Leopard 2-type MBTs.

The Endurance 140 cannot operate hovercraft as the well dock is not heat-shielded from jet blasts. It will be interesting to see if the enlarged Endurance with the full flight deck will have a protected well dock for hovercraft.

The Singaporean Navy's experience off Sumatra showed that the Endurance-class ships are more versatile than former East German Navy Frosch-class LSTs operated by the Indonesian Navy. The Frosch-class LSTs were designed to discharge vehicles, personnel and deck cargo by direct beach assault in the Baltic area and European coastlines and do not carry their own landing craft.

In addition to small craft, the Endurance LSTs are the RSN's first ships that can embark a CH-47D Chinook on its flight deck. The ship can operate two Super Puma-type helos simultaneously, or one Chinook.

The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has been deployed as part of a multinational task force for counter-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. These missions were spearheaded by Endurance-class warships, equipped with two Super Puma/Cougar type choppers as part of its air element.

The Endurance 160's designers may want to relook the design and operation of WW2 escort carriers for takeaways.

Specifically:
* Deck edge lifts would allow out-size helos to manoeuvre into the hangar bay. United States Navy LPHs and the Spanish Navy helicopter carrier (which was derived from Admiral Zumwalt's Sea Control Ship design) all have a deck elevator at the stern which allows rapid movement of helos from hangar to flight deck.

* Loading the Endurance 160 with landing craft and naval aviation assets in a hull of that size means operational compromises. Is the ship meant to operate close inshore, close to the surf zone of a contested coastline so it can deploy landing craft expediently, or is it meant to lurk farther offshore and hit the zone of operations using its embarked air wing?

* Going by the Endurance 140 design, it does not appear that the Endurance 160 will have sufficient hangar space for helos to be struck down for all-weather protection. It thus appears the air wing will be embarked for short duration missions to its area of operations before withdrawing back to base. In the case of a peacetime HADR mission, the vehicle deck would presumably not be filled with war material and some space would probably be reserved for helo maintenance.

* The closest design to the Endurance 160 is the Italian Navy's 133-metre long San Giorgio-class LPDs, a mid-80s era design. The RSN encountered the San Giorgio-class in the Persian Gulf during Operation Blue Orchid 1 and came away impressed with the capabilities packed into the compact hull form.

* The onboard armament will need to be upsized if the ship is to fight and survive against enemy frigates, missile-armed small craft and SSKs. As an interesting aside, notice the number of GPMGs added to the bow of an Endurance-class LST sent for duty in the Persian Gulf. Incidentally, the bow was a popular spot for smokers during the OFE mission.


* An enclosed hurricane bow may result in a drier flight deck in heavy seas. Early escort carrier designs which were converted from merchant ship designs had open bows which could not keep out a green sea.
Posted by David Boey at 12:23 PM
There were also some graphics which I wasn't able to paste into the quote above for you. With reagrd to the last comment about the GPMGs on the bow, it looked like 1 GPMG right on the bow by the ensign mast and 2 further back on the starboard side about maybe 2 - 3 metres apart if that, so would hazard a guess maybe same setup portside.
 

exported_kiwi

New Member
Nah mate no indication of price. This what the link had.

There were also some graphics which I wasn't able to paste into the quote above for you. With reagrd to the last comment about the GPMGs on the bow, it looked like 1 GPMG right on the bow by the ensign mast and 2 further back on the starboard side about maybe 2 - 3 metres apart if that, so would hazard a guess maybe same setup portside.
Good stuff, thanks Ngatimozart. I wonder if NZ would ever "go" for something like this. As has been said, it'd have be part of a task force as we alone couldn't escort it with only 2 aging frigates.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I wonder if NZ would ever "go" for something like this. As has been said, it'd have be part of a task force as we alone couldn't escort it with only 2 aging frigates.
I personally think this type of vessel is eventually inevitable since we are restructuring towards an amphibious taskforce orientated defence force. Of course a small - medium LHD will be part of a Taskforce if it is under a Chp VII op because that is the way we operate - jointly with our partners in the region - as for a Chp VI / Humanitarian / Disaster op which are frequent in our part of the globe its ideal and a 14000 tonner is the right size and would be a highly flexible platform. The future Anzac would escort it into a Chp VII scenario in the post 2020 - 2050 timeframe that this vessel would exist.

A small-medium LHD of around 13000-15000 tonne is the next capability gateway we need to extend towards. The build costs are not hugely extravagant especially for a vessel with such high utility and would be the central platform in the JATF. Far cheaper build costs than a frigate and can be low manned due to ever increasing automation.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I personally think this type of vessel is eventually inevitable since we are restructuring towards an amphibious taskforce orientated defence force. Of course a small - medium LHD will be part of a Taskforce if it is under a Chp VII op because that is the way we operate - jointly with our partners in the region - as for a Chp VI / Humanitarian / Disaster op which are frequent in our part of the globe its ideal and a 14000 tonner is the right size and would be a highly flexible platform. The future Anzac would escort it into a Chp VII scenario in the post 2020 - 2050 timeframe that this vessel would exist.

A small-medium LHD of around 13000-15000 tonne is the next capability gateway we need to extend towards. The build costs are not hugely extravagant especially for a vessel with such high utility and would be the central platform in the JATF. Far cheaper build costs than a frigate and can be low manned due to ever increasing automation.
And as time goes by automation on a frigate progresses as well so part of the ongoing sustainment cost in crewing is reduced. The initial outlay isn't but 10 years is a long time now as far as technology is concerned. I see that the RAN are having problems with the HMAS Choules (ex RFA Largs Bay). It appears to be a transformer issue and talk is six months to a year alongside before it is repaired. Choules was supposed to be en route to an exercise off Queensland when it packed a sad. So when we replace Endeavour and Canterbury we want to go down the new build track and not a cheap second hand track. The RAN just got caught with Choules and they had big issues with the ex USN landing vessels Manoora and Kanimbla.
 

exported_kiwi

New Member
I personally think this type of vessel is eventually inevitable since we are restructuring towards an amphibious taskforce orientated defence force. Of course a small - medium LHD will be part of a Taskforce if it is under a Chp VII op because that is the way we operate - jointly with our partners in the region - as for a Chp VI / Humanitarian / Disaster op which are frequent in our part of the globe its ideal and a 14000 tonner is the right size and would be a highly flexible platform. The future Anzac would escort it into a Chp VII scenario in the post 2020 - 2050 timeframe that this vessel would exist.

A small-medium LHD of around 13000-15000 tonne is the next capability gateway we need to extend towards. The build costs are not hugely extravagant especially for a vessel with such high utility and would be the central platform in the JATF. Far cheaper build costs than a frigate and can be low manned due to ever increasing automation.
Yes, I could see how this vessel would have much more utility and usage. It'd actually be a fine investment for the RNZN. What would the useful life of a ship like this be.

A good call on automation. I wonder though, how would damage control be managed with ever decreasing crew sizes?
 
Last edited:

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, I could see how this vessel would have much more utility and usage. It'd actually be a fine investment for the RNZN. What would the useful life of a ship like this be.
Mr C assessment ref JATF is spot on out of all the ships proposed so far I believe that the Endurance 160 meets the NZDF requirements the closest. Just hope that NZDF can convince treasury & the PM that it is the ship we need.

A good call on automation. I wonder though, how would damage control be managed with ever decreasing crew sizes?
Have a look at the fol between a RNZN ANZAC & a RSN Formidable ruffly the same size however the big difference is the crew size in which the RSN went for automation it does not answer your question about damage control but hopefully someone on here will have the answer

Type: Formidable Class Frigate

Displacement: 3,200 tonnes (3,150 long tons; 3,530 short tons)
Length: 114.8 m (376 ft 8 in)
Beam: 16.3 m (53 ft 6 in)
Draught: 6.0 m (19 ft 8 in)
Installed power: 4× ISM V1708 diesel generators, each producing 800 kilowatts (1,070 shp)[1]
Total output: 3,200 kW (4,290 shp)
Propulsion: 4× MTU 20V 8000 M90, each rated at 8,200 kW (11,000 shp)[2] (CODAD)
Total output: 32,800 kW (44,000 shp)
Speed: Maximum: 27 knots (50.0 km/h; 31.1 mph)
Cruising: 18 kn (33.3 km/h; 20.7 mph)
Range: 4,200 nautical miles (7,780 km)
Complement: 71, excluding air crew detachment of approx. 19
Sensors and processing systems: Search radar: Thales Herakles multi-function radar

Navigation radar: Terma Electronic Scanter 2001
Sonar: EDO Model 980 active low frequency towed sonar (ALOFTS)
Electronic warfare and decoys: ESM: RAFAEL C-PEARL-M
Decoys: Sagem Défense Sécurité New Generation Dagaie System, 2× forward & 1× aft.
Armament: Anti-ship: 8× RGM-84C Harpoon SSM, Anti-air: MBDA Aster 15/30[3] launched from 4× Sylver A50 8-cell VLS, Anti-submarine: EuroTorp A244/S Mod 3 torpedoes launched from 2× B515 triple tubes with reloads
Guns: Oto Melara 76mm Super Rapid gun (mounted in stealth cupola), 4× CIS 50MG 12.7 mm (0.50 in) HMG
Aircraft carried: 1× S-70B Seahawk multi-mission capable naval helicopter
Aviation facilities: Flight deck and enclosed hangar for up to two medium-lift helicopters

General characteristics
Class and type: Anzac class frigate

Displacement: 3,600 tonnes full load
Length: 118 m (387 ft)
Beam: 15 m (49 ft)
Draught: 4 m (13 ft)
Propulsion: 1 × General Electric LM2500+ gas turbine providing 30,000 hp (22.5 MW)
2 × MTU 12V1163 TB83 diesel engines providing 8,840 hp (6.5 MW)
two shafts with controllable pitch propellers in CODOG configuration

Speed: 27 knots (50 km/h; 31 mph)
Range: 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km; 6,900 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)
Complement: 178 Officers and ratings (25 Officers, 153 ratings)
Sensors and processing systems:
Sonars: Thomson Sintra Spherion B Mod 5; hull-mounted; active search and attack; medium frequency. Provision for towed array,
Air search radar: Raytheon AN/SPS-49(V)8 ANZ (C/D-band)
Surface search radar: CelsiusTech 9LV 453 TIR (Ericsson Tx/Rx) (G-band)
Navigation: Atlas Elektronik 9600 ARPA (I-band)
Electronic warfare and decoys: ESM: Racal modified Sceptre A (radar intercept), Telefunken PST-1720 Telegon 10 (comms intercept)
Countermeasures: Decoys: G & D Aircraft SRBOC Mk 36 Mod 1 decoy launchers for SRBOC
Armament: Guns and missiles: 1 × 5 in/54 (127 mm) Mk 45 Mod 2 gun, Phalanx CIWS, various machine guns and small arms, Mk 41 Mod 5 VLS for Sea Sparrow and Evolved Sea Sparrow
Torpedoes: 2 × triple 324 mm Mk 32 Mod 5 tubes
Fire control: CelsiusTech 9LV 453 (J-band)
Combat data systems: CelsiusTech 9LV 453 Mk 3.Link 11
Weapons control: CelsiusTech 9LV 453 optronic director with Raytheon CW Mk 73 Mod 1
Aircraft carried: One KAMAN SH-2G Super Seasprite helicopter
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Navantia have a smaller version of the Juan Carlos/Canberra Class LHD, IIRC, around the 180-190 mark, 15-17,000 ? No ski jump and still has the well dock. Im sure Spain would do a very good deal on that ? and would also have supply chain commonality with the RAN LHD's.

On the Choules, the problem has been described as "very unusual" all reports from the crew are that she is a very good ship, the problem is the Government has done this and rushed her into service for points, but she has arrived 6 months ahead of the supply chain. If the supply chain had been put properly into place to actually support her she would only have been alongside a week at most to rectify such issues
 
Top