Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

Yes Choules has done well, and as @aussienscale has suggested in his post, maybe Navantia could offer a good deal on a couple of Galicia class. He also suggested a JSS such as the Navantia design which is not a silly idea in itself. I would suggest maybe even one of each because the JSS does offer quite a good capability set of its own, however there is the funding aspect and where is the funding for these 2 vessels going to come from. Given the current circumstances, what capabilities will the RAN / ADF have to deep six to acquire these two capabilities?

If the business case is sound it does not mean that the ADF has to reduce capability elsewhere, supplementary funding can be granted you just have to look at the C17 buy for that. When the whitetails were available was looking at four aircraft at $1.85 billion AUD, as far as I know the only defence off set for C17 was to delete the additional buy of a couple more C130J but I really would not call that a trade off.

 

[Brucedog]

I like this ship / concept on many levels.
Should we acquire that alluded to additional supply / logistic ship later in the decade and also find a replacement for Choules, then two of such a class would prove a good investment.
With our two LHD's and Two new Supply Class AOR's, we should be able to provide with two Joint Support Ships that rule of three's providing continuous capability of supply and amphibious options across the fleet most of the time
I cannot see a third LHD or AOR been acquired, but the JSS looks achievable and certainly looks both a good political and logical fit for the Navy.
I could also envisage this type of ship as a task force leader in a wide variety of roles being escorted by a couple of ANZAC's or OPV's.

Probably one for New Zealand to look at as well!
The JSS would prove ideal as the suggested extra Amphibious ship and or HMNZN Canterbury replacement.

A class of four built on the east coast of OZ, with work shared either side of the ditch, may interest some Australian and New Zealand politicians!

Any way just my two cents worth.



Regards S

I'm Brucedog and i approve of this message.
@Brucedog One line posts are against the rules. There are expectations that posters, especially newbies, will post at least two lines of worthwhile discussion.
Ngatimozart.

 

[Brucedog]

I like the JSS concept. If you needed one to stand in for a Supply class, could you add supplementary fuel tanks in the dock or vehicle park? Add some extra containers for fridge and freezer storage?

 

[ASSAIL]

I like this ship / concept on many levels.
Should we acquire that alluded to additional supply / logistic ship later in the decade and also find a replacement for Choules, then two of such a class would prove a good investment.
With our two LHD's and Two new Supply Class AOR's, we should be able to provide with two Joint Support Ships that rule of three's providing continuous capability of supply and amphibious options across the fleet most of the time
I cannot see a third LHD or AOR been acquired, but the JSS looks achievable and certainly looks both a good political and logical fit for the Navy.
I could also envisage this type of ship as a task force leader in a wide variety of roles being escorted by a couple of ANZAC's or OPV's.

Probably one for New Zealand to look at as well!
The JSS would prove ideal as the suggested extra Amphibious ship and or HMNZN Canterbury replacement.

A class of four built on the east coast of OZ, with work shared either side of the ditch, may interest some Australian and New Zealand politicians!

Any way just my two cents worth.



Regards S

I can’t see anything extra being built in Australian yards and there is no yard on the East coast capable of building anything bigger than a yacht. the skilled workforce is simply not there and when they do get up to speed with the programme it would be foolish to put strain on them for a one or two off.
When Choules is replaced and if a JSS is considered I would imagine Navantia Spain would be a preferred bidder.
Common Ship Management software, common DC equipment et al would be a tempting proposition.
Two x LHDs, two x AORs, two x JSS all built from a single source sounds good to me. Think manning, training, sustainment.

 

[ngatimozart]

I like this ship / concept on many levels.
Should we acquire that alluded to additional supply / logistic ship later in the decade and also find a replacement for Choules, then two of such a class would prove a good investment.
With our two LHD's and Two new Supply Class AOR's, we should be able to provide with two Joint Support Ships that rule of three's providing continuous capability of supply and amphibious options across the fleet most of the time
I cannot see a third LHD or AOR been acquired, but the JSS looks achievable and certainly looks both a good political and logical fit for the Navy.
I could also envisage this type of ship as a task force leader in a wide variety of roles being escorted by a couple of ANZAC's or OPV's.

Probably one for New Zealand to look at as well!
The JSS would prove ideal as the suggested extra Amphibious ship and or HMNZS Canterbury replacement.

A class of four built on the east coast of OZ, with work shared either side of the ditch, may interest some Australian and New Zealand politicians!

Any way just my two cents worth.

Regards S

You presume that the OPVs will be suitable equipped and armed. That is a presumption to far at the moment.

The NZ 2018 Defence Policy Statement and 2019 DCP talk about two Enhanced Sealift Vessels with the first being acquired in 2028 / 29 and the second replacing Canterbury around 2035. The Defence Policy Statement used an LPD as an example, and both documents were non commital on what capabilities / platform types were being envisaged, but the indicative budget in the DCP was NZ$1 billion for the first vessel. The DCP budget only goes up to 2030. Therefore such a vessel as the proposed Navantia JSS theoretically could be within that budget. A four ship build run may be attractive to both govts and 2026 - 2028 may be about the right time for both govts. As you say, work share either side of the ditch could be a nice bait.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I can’t see anything extra being built in Australian yards and there is no yard on the East coast capable of building anything bigger than a yacht. the skilled workforce is simply not there and when they do get up to speed with the programme it would be foolish to put strain on them for a one or two off.
When Choules is replaced and if a JSS is considered I would imagine Navantia Spain would be a preferred bidder.
Common Ship Management software, common DC equipment et al would be a tempting proposition.
Two x LHDs, two x AORs, two x JSS all built from a single source sounds good to me. Think manning, training, sustainment.

On this. I am sure that WA is keen for more work to come its way. They are eyeing off the submarine upgrade and maintenance contracts. I think something could be arranged if 3-4 JSS type ships were to spring forth as a requirement. My worry is that we are getting 3-4 JSS because WA wants them, not because Navy/Army need. However, something fairly useful based off the enforcer class is entirely possible and could be made with high commonality with Choules/LHD's and other RAN ships. The Navantia JSS design is similar in size to choules and significantly larger than the original Galacia class.

I didn't think WA (or SA for that matter) could make anything that size (length, weight) without significant upgrades. Which costs money, and would unlikely be paid off for the work of 3-4 ships that could be built much cheaper elsewhere. (with perhaps local fit-out or content or supply contracts).

However, very crystal ball at this stage. Obviously Navantia believes that is the way the RAN is heading, a JSS is a flexible design. I guess it would finally slot in as a sort of replacement of the LCH. Crewing is probably the key factor here. Crewing 4 JSS ships is going to take as much crew as 2 LHD's or 4 Hunter class. That is a lot of crew.

Which is why IMO RAN probably needs to look up supersizing ships, to get a net increase in lift capability that will be required with new larger and heavier Army platforms. Platforms that will challenge the landing capability of Enforcer type designs (particularly with a LCM-8).

 

[Brucedog]

I'm Brucedog and i approve of this message.
@Brucedog One line posts are against the rules. There are expectations that posters, especially newbies, will post at least two lines of worthwhile discussion.
Ngatimozart.

My sincere apologies. Please forgive my attempt at humerus support for Stampede's post. I did follow it up with a post of my own but obviously that was unsatisfactory. Again, my sincere apologies.

 

[Volkodav]

On this. I am sure that WA is keen for more work to come its way. They are eyeing off the submarine upgrade and maintenance contracts. I think something could be arranged if 3-4 JSS type ships were to spring forth as a requirement. My worry is that we are getting 3-4 JSS because WA wants them, not because Navy/Army need. However, something fairly useful based off the enforcer class is entirely possible and could be made with high commonality with Choules/LHD's and other RAN ships. The Navantia JSS design is similar in size to choules and significantly larger than the original Galacia class.

I didn't think WA (or SA for that matter) could make anything that size (length, weight) without significant upgrades. Which costs money, and would unlikely be paid off for the work of 3-4 ships that could be built much cheaper elsewhere. (with perhaps local fit-out or content or supply contracts).

However, very crystal ball at this stage. Obviously Navantia believes that is the way the RAN is heading, a JSS is a flexible design. I guess it would finally slot in as a sort of replacement of the LCH. Crewing is probably the key factor here. Crewing 4 JSS ships is going to take as much crew as 2 LHD's or 4 Hunter class. That is a lot of crew.

Which is why IMO RAN probably needs to look up supersizing ships, to get a net increase in lift capability that will be required with new larger and heavier Army platforms. Platforms that will challenge the landing capability of Enforcer type designs (particularly with a LCM-8).

To a degree, steel is cheap and air is free. If we are talking a particular baseline of systems and crew, irrespective of whether the ship is 6000, 10000 or 20000t, the bigger, probably the better the value for money.

 

[ASSAIL]

Clearance Diving Team One (CDT1) has recovered a helo ditched in the Eden water supply during the bushfire crisis and with the help of some Army plant it’s now out of the water.
Latest video showing the operation Helicopter Recovery Ben Boyd Reservoir - Op Bushfire Assist

BZ Team One

 

[John Newman]

Poor old Choules, she seems to be in line for a kicking from time to time, she seems to be treated like the poor step sister at times too.

Looking at the Navantia JSS proposal firstly, one thing that is said in the Naval News video from Pacific 2019, is that the JSS will have 70% of the load capacity of Choules and 70% of the fuel capacity of Success, in other words the JSS is a compromise ship, neither fish nor fowl, listen to the video at the approx. 1.35min mark:

The JSS is a long way from being an enhancement of the RAN amphibious capability, it is actually a backward step from what Choules currently delivers, 30% less. Yes she was a purchase of opportunity, but at $100m, I think she was a bargain, and especially when you look at the ship she replaced, eg, Tobruk, she is a massive leap in capability (equally when you look at the two LHDs vs the two LPAs, all three ships are a massive leap in amphibious capability across the board).

The reported dimensions of the JSS appears to be pretty much the same as Choules, which is pretty much the same as the Netherlands Johan de Witt, all three ships are approx. 176m in length.

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf

Personally I'd rather see Choules be replaced by a Johan de Witt over the JSS any day of the week, if Government does decide to add that second LPD, then two copies wouldn't go astray either.

If Government decides on a 3rd AOR and just replace Choules one for one (no second LPD), then I'd rather see the 3rd AOR be another Supply AOR and the Choules replacement a single Johan de Witt.

Anyway, just my opinion of course.

Cheers,

I see that the JSS concept ship has raised it's head again.

I posted the above on page 1357 back on 13 October 2019 (three months ago today!) at the time of the Pacific 2019 Conference.

As I said then (and still believe today), the Navantia JSS concept is a compromise ship, it is 70% of the capability of an AOR and 70% of the capability of Choules too, both capabilities proposed by Navantia within one 16,000t ship (same displacement as Choules and 3,000-4,000t less than the soon to commission Success and her sister Stalwart).

If the Govt was seriously looking at a JSS with 'full' capabilities of an AOR and an LPD, then a jump in size is probably necessary, I'd suggest that you'd have to go up to the size of the Damen designed Karel Doorman at approx. 27,000, that is a hell of a large ship too (same displacement as the LHDs).

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...p/Docs/Damen_Joint_Support_Ship_RNL_YN412.pdf

Probably time to stop the bus, back it up a bit, get out and look at the landscape ahead (yes I know I say that a bit often too!!).

We all want to see the RAN with as much amphibious and replenishment capabilities as possible (more is better, more is good!), but of course it all has to stay within the realms of reality, budget and manpower.

As it stands today, and within the scope of DWP 2016, the RAN has two x Canberra LHDs, one x Choules LPD and two x Supply AORs (soon to commission to replace AOR Success and AO Sirius). The DWP also allows, and budgets, for the eventual replacement of Choules (around 2030ish), and the possibility of either a 3rd AOR or a 2nd Choules type LPD (but not both).

If it was my choice to make the decision (and to stay reasonably within the realms of reality, budget and manpower), I'd end up with the following capabilities:
* 2 x Canberra class LHDs
* 2 x Supply class AORs
* 2 x Damen designed Johan de Witt LPDs ( see link below) as the Choules replacement and 2nd LPD:

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf

We could pit both Damen and Navantia against each other to deliver the two Enforcer design ships for the best price possible too, that all stays within the scope of the DWP, budget, manpower, etc.

But what about additional replenishment capabilities I hear you say?

Two things, firstly our Kiwi cousins across the ditch will shortly commission their new large AOR, the 26,000t HMNZS Aotearoa, I'm sure there is probably already arrangements between our two Governments that in times of need our assets are available to support each other.

Secondly, I'd place the still reasonably young HMAS Sirius into a ready reserve for use if and when required, yes she is not a fully capable AOR and has lots of limitations, but as an AO (a big fat fuel tanker), she is still reasonably useful.

So there you go, problem solved! (just my opinion of course too!).

Cheers,

(PS, a belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all too!!).

 

[StingrayOZ]

To a degree, steel is cheap and air is free. If we are talking a particular baseline of systems and crew, irrespective of whether the ship is 6000, 10000 or 20000t, the bigger, probably the better the value for money.

Crewing, I think its a bit easier to manage a lighter crew on a big ship than a tiny crew on a medium sized ship. The RAN will always be short on crew, it always has been. We will never have a 500 ship navy.

But many of these ships were designed around some very old specs of military hardware. Something that was designed around M113's probably won't give full amphibious capability with something much bigger. Watering that original capability down to 70% doesn't help in that regard.

I would argue the Damen JSS (which is a more recent design) is a bit small for the future, but is a bigger platform to work with and could meet with our needs with some modifications, we would want to be able to embark more than 150 + crew. But the crew being 150 is similar to what we currently crew Choules with. Australia isn't constrained with locks or docks, IMO it would be worth assessing the larger solutions to see if they are more suitable. I think an argument of 2 x full sized JSS could be made. BMT, Damen, Navantia would all have something they could offer in that size 20-30k tonns

But again depends on the priorities and the needs.

 

[seaspear]

If we are looking at ships that can respond to events in areas that may not be accessable by road and the need is the delivery of heavy plant and evacuation of civilians would an L.C.A.C type vessel as used by the U.S.N ,although hovercraft ferries seemed to have declined in service they could have been useful this though may come back to what type of merchant fleet we subsidise and use as support in times of crisis

 

[Brucedog]

I see the JSS as more the prime HADR ship with enough AOR or amphib capacity to be useful when needed. That ship should be separate from any additional AOR or LHD/LSD/LPD requirement. I am all for a bigger ship of any type.

As i asked earlier, would it be possible to fit auxiliary fuel tanks and fridge/freezers in the dock and/or vehicle park to increase the JSS's AOR capabilities?

We can't plan on the RNZN tanker being available when we need it.

I'm relying on those that know to help me understand how much our current ships lift compared to what we need and what types of ships are best suited to provide it. Help me!!!!

 

[Todjaeger]

I see the JSS as more the prime HADR ship with enough AOR or amphib capacity to be useful when needed. That ship should be separate from any additional AOR or LHD/LSD/LPD requirement. I am all for a bigger ship of any type.

As i asked earlier, would it be possible to fit auxiliary fuel tanks and fridge/freezers in the dock and/or vehicle park to increase the JSS's AOR capabilities?

We can't plan on the RNZN tanker being available when we need it.

I'm relying on those that know to help me understand how much our current ships lift compared to what we need and what types of ships are best suited to provide it. Help me!!!!

A number of years back I had asked about the potential for fitting some sort of containerized fuel tanks/ISO containers aboard ships, which could augment on board fuel bunkerage and/or be used to replenish other vessels. IIRC @alexsa provided the answer which the basic gist of it was, "no."

The reason being that there are a number of risk factors and safety requirements for storing and moving fuel. Things which need to be designed into the systems and compartments where the fuel is to be stored and/or moved through.

 

[alexsa]

I see that the JSS concept ship has raised it's head again.

I posted the above on page 1357 back on 13 October 2019 (three months ago today!) at the time of the Pacific 2019 Conference.

As I said then (and still believe today), the Navantia JSS concept is a compromise ship, it is 70% of the capability of an AOR and 70% of the capability of Choules too, both capabilities proposed by Navantia within one 16,000t ship (same displacement as Choules and 3,000-4,000t less than the soon to commission Success and her sister Stalwart).

If the Govt was seriously looking at a JSS with 'full' capabilities of an AOR and an LPD, then a jump in size is probably necessary, I'd suggest that you'd have to go up to the size of the Damen designed Karel Doorman at approx. 27,000, that is a hell of a large ship too (same displacement as the LHDs).

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...p/Docs/Damen_Joint_Support_Ship_RNL_YN412.pdf

Probably time to stop the bus, back it up a bit, get out and look at the landscape ahead (yes I know I say that a bit often too!!).

We all want to see the RAN with as much amphibious and replenishment capabilities as possible (more is better, more is good!), but of course it all has to stay within the realms of reality, budget and manpower.

As it stands today, and within the scope of DWP 2016, the RAN has two x Canberra LHDs, one x Choules LPD and two x Supply AORs (soon to commission to replace AOR Success and AO Sirius). The DWP also allows, and budgets, for the eventual replacement of Choules (around 2030ish), and the possibility of either a 3rd AOR or a 2nd Choules type LPD (but not both).

If it was my choice to make the decision (and to stay reasonably within the realms of reality, budget and manpower), I'd end up with the following capabilities:
* 2 x Canberra class LHDs
* 2 x Supply class AORs
* 2 x Damen designed Johan de Witt LPDs ( see link below) as the Choules replacement and 2nd LPD:

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf

We could pit both Damen and Navantia against each other to deliver the two Enforcer design ships for the best price possible too, that all stays within the scope of the DWP, budget, manpower, etc.

But what about additional replenishment capabilities I hear you say?

Two things, firstly our Kiwi cousins across the ditch will shortly commission their new large AOR, the 26,000t HMNZS Aotearoa, I'm sure there is probably already arrangements between our two Governments that in times of need our assets are available to support each other.

Secondly, I'd place the still reasonably young HMAS Sirius into a ready reserve for use if and when required, yes she is not a fully capable AOR and has lots of limitations, but as an AO (a big fat fuel tanker), she is still reasonably useful.

So there you go, problem solved! (just my opinion of course too!).

Cheers,

(PS, a belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all too!!).

Discussion on an amphibious and support fleet of 6 or more platforms does worry me .... noting we don’t have that many escorts. If we are going to spend this much coin I would suggest an enhanced aviation capability is a good idea (i.e. LHA esk and above the 27000 tonne mark) and add additional bunkering to fuel other vessels. A much better force multiplier than a hybrid like the JSS. It would be nice if that was built for organic air but this is a long stretch at this stage (ah day dreaming again).

It comes down to budget and currently the budget has one hull for broadly but poorly defined platform spec as (ostensively) a replacement for Choules. I suspect the Choules has a lot more life in her. We also have the completely undefined ‘pacific ship’ which is supposed to be built in Australia.

The problem with poorly defined capabilities is they can be redefined, reduced in scope or ignored by the next government......

As an aside the HMAS Sirius is a seriously compromised conversion. It really has never been great at what it does, it Is a bit slow for what it needs to do and the aviation capability was poorly executed. I expect it will be disposed of pretty quickly.

If I was to spit ball an idea it would be to wind back to 1950 and implement the RAFA plan that was being considered at that time. This would catch quite a few vessels such as:
1. The Besant and Stoker
2. The Sycamore
3. The Ocean Protector
4. The Suppy and Stalwart
5. The four oil fuel lighters

It will help with manning, build skills in the the merchant marine (which are draining away like water) and also means you do not need to own the vessels as you could demise charter them...... allowing the cost to the spread over time as OPEX. So if more support capability was required it could be acquired without the torturous multi pass approval process. Then we could sink CAPEX into war fighting capability,

Any ... rant off

 

[Brucedog]

So what I'm hearing is...... maybe?! I mean, if 2 handsome and intelligent people thought of the idea it can't be all bad!

Well then, if that is so...... what do we need more, AOR or uplift? Is my thinking the JSS as a HADR unit first and RAN asset second reasonable? Build it bigger and add more of..........?

SORRY ALEXSA! I was pondering and typing and posted before i saw your post.

 

[ngatimozart]

I see that the JSS concept ship has raised it's head again.

I posted the above on page 1357 back on 13 October 2019 (three months ago today!) at the time of the Pacific 2019 Conference.

As I said then (and still believe today), the Navantia JSS concept is a compromise ship, it is 70% of the capability of an AOR and 70% of the capability of Choules too, both capabilities proposed by Navantia within one 16,000t ship (same displacement as Choules and 3,000-4,000t less than the soon to commission Success and her sister Stalwart).

If the Govt was seriously looking at a JSS with 'full' capabilities of an AOR and an LPD, then a jump in size is probably necessary, I'd suggest that you'd have to go up to the size of the Damen designed Karel Doorman at approx. 27,000, that is a hell of a large ship too (same displacement as the LHDs).

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...p/Docs/Damen_Joint_Support_Ship_RNL_YN412.pdf

Probably time to stop the bus, back it up a bit, get out and look at the landscape ahead (yes I know I say that a bit often too!!).

We all want to see the RAN with as much amphibious and replenishment capabilities as possible (more is better, more is good!), but of course it all has to stay within the realms of reality, budget and manpower.

As it stands today, and within the scope of DWP 2016, the RAN has two x Canberra LHDs, one x Choules LPD and two x Supply AORs (soon to commission to replace AOR Success and AO Sirius). The DWP also allows, and budgets, for the eventual replacement of Choules (around 2030ish), and the possibility of either a 3rd AOR or a 2nd Choules type LPD (but not both).

If it was my choice to make the decision (and to stay reasonably within the realms of reality, budget and manpower), I'd end up with the following capabilities:
* 2 x Canberra class LHDs
* 2 x Supply class AORs
* 2 x Damen designed Johan de Witt LPDs ( see link below) as the Choules replacement and 2nd LPD:

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf

We could pit both Damen and Navantia against each other to deliver the two Enforcer design ships for the best price possible too, that all stays within the scope of the DWP, budget, manpower, etc.

But what about additional replenishment capabilities I hear you say?

Two things, firstly our Kiwi cousins across the ditch will shortly commission their new large AOR, the 26,000t HMNZS Aotearoa, I'm sure there is probably already arrangements between our two Governments that in times of need our assets are available to support each other.

Secondly, I'd place the still reasonably young HMAS Sirius into a ready reserve for use if and when required, yes she is not a fully capable AOR and has lots of limitations, but as an AO (a big fat fuel tanker), she is still reasonably useful.

So there you go, problem solved! (just my opinion of course too!).

Cheers,

(PS, a belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all too!!).

Yes it has and yes there are arrangements that will have carried over from the Endeavour days. I do think that the Navantia JSS has a place in the RAN fleet, however I would be tempted to increase its full load displacement to that of Choules which is ~17,000 tonnes, or even take it to 20,000 tonnes.

Crewing, I think its a bit easier to manage a lighter crew on a big ship than a tiny crew on a medium sized ship. The RAN will always be short on crew, it always has been. We will never have a 500 ship navy.

But many of these ships were designed around some very old specs of military hardware. Something that was designed around M113's probably won't give full amphibious capability with something much bigger. Watering that original capability down to 70% doesn't help in that regard.

I would argue the Damen JSS (which is a more recent design) is a bit small for the future, but is a bigger platform to work with and could meet with our needs with some modifications, we would want to be able to embark more than 150 + crew. But the crew being 150 is similar to what we currently crew Choules with. Australia isn't constrained with locks or docks, IMO it would be worth assessing the larger solutions to see if they are more suitable. I think an argument of 2 x full sized JSS could be made. BMT, Damen, Navantia would all have something they could offer in that size 20-30k tonns

But again depends on the priorities and the needs.

Crewing is an issue; Choules was built pre-automation for the RFA, hence the large crewlist, but if the JSS is automated then the numbers can be reduced. I don't believe anything >20K tonnes is really required for the RAN. Sometimes it's not how big it is, but how you use it. With regard to Damen, they will be expensive and their JSS is now an older design, whereas the Navantia JSS design is a new design.

If we are looking at ships that can respond to events in areas that may not be accessable by road and the need is the delivery of heavy plant and evacuation of civilians would an L.C.A.C type vessel as used by the U.S.N ,although hovercraft ferries seemed to have declined in service they could have been useful this though may come back to what type of merchant fleet we subsidise and use as support in times of crisis

The USN LCAC still require LHDs / LPA / LPDs to transport them to their areas of operation and they are expensive to operate. The latter is probably why they've declined in service.

I see the JSS as more the prime HADR ship with enough AOR or amphib capacity to be useful when needed. That ship should be separate from any additional AOR or LHD/LSD/LPD requirement. I am all for a bigger ship of any type.

As i asked earlier, would it be possible to fit auxiliary fuel tanks and fridge/freezers in the dock and/or vehicle park to increase the JSS's AOR capabilities?

We can't plan on the RNZN tanker being available when we need it.

I'm relying on those that know to help me understand how much our current ships lift compared to what we need and what types of ships are best suited to provide it. Help me!!!!

I would suggest that you read back through the thread because there is quite a bit of info here about what the RAN lift capability is.

 

[Brucedog]

I have read a lot of the posts but the Army keep buying bigger, heavier toys and i don't know how that affects the available space on what we already have. What does the government want to shift in one lift? Do we need an LST to get heavy kit on the beach fast?

There has been posts on lifting a Brigade. But what type of Brigade, heavy, light? Do we need another bigger LHD to take Tiger to the party?

Do we need more escorts for these extra assets? Is RAFA even possible to solve manning issues?

There are so many posts but it's still disjointed and my brain hurts!!

 

[Stampede]

You presume that the OPVs will be suitable equipped and armed. That is a presumption to far at the moment.

The NZ 2018 Defence Policy Statement and 2019 DCP talk about two Enhanced Sealift Vessels with the first being acquired in 2028 / 29 and the second replacing Canterbury around 2035. The Defence Policy Statement used an LPD as an example, and both documents were non commital on what capabilities / platform types were being envisaged, but the indicative budget in the DCP was NZ$1 billion for the first vessel. The DCP budget only goes up to 2030. Therefore such a vessel as the proposed Navantia JSS theoretically could be within that budget. A four ship build run may be attractive to both govts and 2026 - 2028 may be about the right time for both govts. As you say, work share either side of the ditch could be a nice bait.

Thanks Ngatimozart
There is a lot of scope in between high end war fighting and HADR.
Probably didn't articulate that the OPV's would be fine as is fulfilling a wide range of tasks in support of a JSS type asset. A mini task force if you wish.
Thinking more of a Solomon Islands type of contingency. Also some robust show the flag contingency at distance from home in that grey area below sending the big guns. Little guns are sometimes not so provocative.

I actually think the stars may align for a joint project between Australia and New Zealand for our respective Amphibious / Supply requirements.
There would have to be some give and take, but the timing looks good and a common vessel built in significant numbers looks promising.
The JSS concept has merit as have others such as suggested by John with the Karel Doorman Class.
But a commonality of type certainly ticks a lot of boxes.
There would be pressure to build locally, but as Assail has suggested finding the work force would be a challenge. Also it would probably be cheaper to build in Spain or somewhere else.
Concurrent work on Submarines OPV's and Destroyers may prove more than enough for our ship building capacity, or then again maybe not. Could still look local or do we do with the Canberra Class and have the hull built over seas with the final work completed locally.

Something to consider

Regards s

 

[Stampede]

I see that the JSS concept ship has raised it's head again.

I posted the above on page 1357 back on 13 October 2019 (three months ago today!) at the time of the Pacific 2019 Conference.

As I said then (and still believe today), the Navantia JSS concept is a compromise ship, it is 70% of the capability of an AOR and 70% of the capability of Choules too, both capabilities proposed by Navantia within one 16,000t ship (same displacement as Choules and 3,000-4,000t less than the soon to commission Success and her sister Stalwart).

If the Govt was seriously looking at a JSS with 'full' capabilities of an AOR and an LPD, then a jump in size is probably necessary, I'd suggest that you'd have to go up to the size of the Damen designed Karel Doorman at approx. 27,000, that is a hell of a large ship too (same displacement as the LHDs).

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...p/Docs/Damen_Joint_Support_Ship_RNL_YN412.pdf

Probably time to stop the bus, back it up a bit, get out and look at the landscape ahead (yes I know I say that a bit often too!!).

We all want to see the RAN with as much amphibious and replenishment capabilities as possible (more is better, more is good!), but of course it all has to stay within the realms of reality, budget and manpower.

As it stands today, and within the scope of DWP 2016, the RAN has two x Canberra LHDs, one x Choules LPD and two x Supply AORs (soon to commission to replace AOR Success and AO Sirius). The DWP also allows, and budgets, for the eventual replacement of Choules (around 2030ish), and the possibility of either a 3rd AOR or a 2nd Choules type LPD (but not both).

If it was my choice to make the decision (and to stay reasonably within the realms of reality, budget and manpower), I'd end up with the following capabilities:
* 2 x Canberra class LHDs
* 2 x Supply class AORs
* 2 x Damen designed Johan de Witt LPDs ( see link below) as the Choules replacement and 2nd LPD:

https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf

We could pit both Damen and Navantia against each other to deliver the two Enforcer design ships for the best price possible too, that all stays within the scope of the DWP, budget, manpower, etc.

But what about additional replenishment capabilities I hear you say?

Two things, firstly our Kiwi cousins across the ditch will shortly commission their new large AOR, the 26,000t HMNZS Aotearoa, I'm sure there is probably already arrangements between our two Governments that in times of need our assets are available to support each other.

Secondly, I'd place the still reasonably young HMAS Sirius into a ready reserve for use if and when required, yes she is not a fully capable AOR and has lots of limitations, but as an AO (a big fat fuel tanker), she is still reasonably useful.

So there you go, problem solved! (just my opinion of course too!).

Cheers,

(PS, a belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all too!!).

Push the boundary

* THREE x Canberra class LHDs
* 2 x Supply class AORs
* 2 x Damen designed Johan de Witt LPDs ( see link below) as the Choules replacement and 2nd LPD:

Regards S