Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Endurance 160 is actually 14,500 tons. Weight isn't just added from increased length but also the breadth of the ship increasing.

The in service Endurance class has a beam of 21m, the San Giorgio 20.5m. for the 160 that increased to 25.6m. a width of 30m and 155m length would more then likely put it in the 14,000 ton range unless your planning for it to be all but a civilian spec ship with a hanger, flight deck and bare basic well dock.

ST Engineering › media › en...PDF ENDURANCE CLASS LANDING PLATFORM DOCK
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There was a proposal for something very like that about 30 years ago - the Training and Helicopter Support Ship. The last design study I recall was about 8,000 tons with 4 spots which could take the then current ASW helo, the Sea King. It was also to give some amphib capability but that was a secondary role. The design was quite well developed but the Gov of the day said "no" - possibly because it looked a bit too much like an aircraft carrier (albeit a very small one) for their liking
Wasn't this the program kicked off by Vice Admiral Hudson following the Fiji Coup?

Less than a decade after Melbourne was retired without replacement it was realised the Australia now no longer had any capacity at all to evacuate Australian citizens during civil unrest, even in our immediate region. I recall Hudson pushing for it at the time and, I could be mistaken, this proposal evolved into a LPD type with a large flight deck and hangar, before being canned in favour of what became Kanimbla and Manoora.

Looking at how inexpensive HMS Ocean was, something like that would have been great. The RAN could have retained the Sea Kings in the ASW role and Wessex as utility, meaning Lynx or a standard Super SeaSprite could have been acquired for the FFGs, for less money and more capability than the SH-60B and FFG mods to support them.
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Yep, but it was very much triple (or if you like quadruple) purpose - in priority order, replace JB as a training ship, get the Sea Kings to sea in reasonable numbers to provide ASW, supplement the amphib capability of Tobruk, and HADR. Design was by the then extant Director of Naval Ship Design and really was very neat. And the whole thing got me a trip to Italy to look at the San Giorgios! Containing the size against those who did want to increase the capability (please sir, just a little more and we can handle SHARs - not ours, no of course not...)(but it will only handle a reinforced company, why not a battalion?) was going to be a challenge; and may have also played in the cancellation decision.

When it was cancelled we then went with the twins which of course had the advantage from a perception point of view of not having a through deck; the argument there was mainly amphib/HADR but (surprise, surprise) until the capability was stripped out of them by one of the reviews the intent was also to be able to employ the embarked SKs in ASW. And of course they also continued the training function. You can knock those ships, and they sure had the odd problem, but the way they could be used (and where we were without them) was undoubtedly one of the prime movers behind getting the government to approve the LHDs.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, it's all coming back to me now. Bill and Ben were unexpectedly valuable and capable but hideously expensive due to the poor condition of the platforms as delivered. It quite literally would have been cheaper to build or buy new ships.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Oh, undoubtedly. I can't remember the figures after all this time, but a project cost somewhere in the $200 millions sticks in my mind - but it was 1990.

Vonnoobie, I can't get that link to open on any of my platforms; and I haven't been able to find any displacement figure for the 160 elsewhere in the public arena. Do you know of any - when I did a quick calculation based on size, presumed hull form and a bunch of other (but fairly standard) assumptions I came out at a tick over 11,000 standard, that could easily be 14,000 full load (I presume the 19,000 of the 170 is full load). I'd like to see how close I actually was!

BTW, I don't think you would actually need a 30 metre beam, or 150m length, for the kind of capabilities StingrayOZ was talking about.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Oh, undoubtedly. I can't remember the figures after all this time, but a project cost somewhere in the $200 millions sticks in my mind - but it was 1990.

Vonnoobie, I can't get that link to open on any of my platforms; and I haven't been able to find any displacement figure for the 160 elsewhere in the public arena. Do you know of any - when I did a quick calculation based on size, presumed hull form and a bunch of other (but fairly standard) assumptions I came out at a tick over 11,000 standard, that could easily be 14,000 full load (I presume the 19,000 of the 170 is full load). I'd like to see how close I actually was!

BTW, I don't think you would actually need a 30 metre beam, or 150m length, for the kind of capabilities StingrayOZ was talking about.
I googled ' endurance 160 lhd width beam ' was the 5th link down pdf file from ST engineering.

The pdf file also lists down for the 120 and 140 with weight for the 140 given at 7600 tons which is smaller then the full load 8500 tons listed on wiki but heavier then the 6500 standard load also stated on wiki so I'm not sure what to make of their calculations.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
@alexsa Just remember that for the last 18 years USN ASW has slipped quite a bit because its been concentrated on asymmetric warfare in the Middle East. So they have a lot of catching up to do, mostly on the training side. I wouldn't discount the use of flush decks or LPD like vessels with large flight decks in the ASW role, but I agree that it shouldn't be their raison ďetre.

However if you had the available aviation assets to warrant the use of any of the flat decks for ASW then that would be great. I agree that they would require escorting unless you had the appropriate sensors and weapons mounted. I am a fan of the distributed lethality concept that if it floats it fights and imho all amphibs and logistics ships should be fitted with the appropriate sensors and SAMS such as ESSM or Sea Ceptor and NSM or an equivalent. It gives them good self defence capability and an offensive capability if they need it.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
@alexsa Just remember that for the last 18 years USN ASW has slipped quite a bit because its been concentrated on asymmetric warfare in the Middle East. So they have a lot of catching up to do, mostly on the training side. I wouldn't discount the use of flush decks or LPD like vessels with large flight decks in the ASW role, but I agree that it shouldn't be their raison ďetre.

However if you had the available aviation assets to warrant the use of any of the flat decks for ASW then that would be great. I agree that they would require escorting unless you had the appropriate sensors and weapons mounted. I am a fan of the distributed lethality concept that if it floats it fights and imho all amphibs and logistics ships should be fitted with the appropriate sensors and SAMS such as ESSM or Sea Ceptor and NSM or an equivalent. It gives them good self defence capability and an offensive capability if they need it.
Italy's Giuseppe Garibaldi is a tidy little package.
Has both a significant aviation compliment and weapons suite.
However like any vessel, at what point have you tried do too much within a given space.

For LHD's I'd say the first question to ask is if you actually want to employ the F35B off them. ( Post Harrier era )
If yes, then the size of the Juan Carlos is the minimum to to the job.
If not, then much smaller vessels are an option, but for rotary wing only.

In hindsight would the RAN have been better served with THREE smaller Garibaldi sized LHD's for a total tonnage equal to our TWO Canberra's ????

Thoughts

Regards S
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
In hindsight would the RAN have been better served with THREE smaller Garibaldi sized LHD's for a total tonnage equal to our TWO Canberra's ????
Small nitpick but Garibaldi is 14,150 tons full load compared to 27500 tons full load for Canberra. The two Canberra's would still have 12,500 tons more then 3 Garibaldi's. Rather it should be a question around the Mistral's as 3 of those would equal out the 2 Canberra's.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Italy's Giuseppe Garibaldi is a tidy little package.
Has both a significant aviation compliment and weapons suite.
However like any vessel, at what point have you tried do too much within a given space.

For LHD's I'd say the first question to ask is if you actually want to employ the F35B off them. ( Post Harrier era )
If yes, then the size of the Juan Carlos is the minimum to to the job.
If not, then much smaller vessels are an option, but for rotary wing only.

In hindsight would the RAN have been better served with THREE smaller Garibaldi sized LHD's for a total tonnage equal to our TWO Canberra's ????

Thoughts

Regards S
Small nitpick but Garibaldi is 14,150 tons full load compared to 27500 tons full load for Canberra. The two Canberra's would still have 12,500 tons more then 3 Garibaldi's. Rather it should be a question around the Mistral's as 3 of those would equal out the 2 Canberra's.
Yep I agree that the Garibaldi class isn't large enough being for all intents and purposes half the size of the Canberra class and 3 definitely wouldn't meet the same tonnage. I also remember something said about 7 years ago or so on this thread about the Mistrals. Think GF may have been the one to have made the comment, but something is tugging at the back of my mind about their unsuitability for RAN service. Something to do with the welldock or lack of one. Can't quite remember :(
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Italy's Giuseppe Garibaldi is a tidy little package.
Has both a significant aviation compliment and weapons suite.
However like any vessel, at what point have you tried do too much within a given space.

For LHD's I'd say the first question to ask is if you actually want to employ the F35B off them. ( Post Harrier era )
If yes, then the size of the Juan Carlos is the minimum to to the job.
If not, then much smaller vessels are an option, but for rotary wing only.

In hindsight would the RAN have been better served with THREE smaller Garibaldi sized LHD's for a total tonnage equal to our TWO Canberra's ????

Thoughts

Regards S
Fantasy fleet comes to mind.

Oldsig
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Small nitpick but Garibaldi is 14,150 tons full load compared to 27500 tons full load for Canberra. The two Canberra's would still have 12,500 tons more then 3 Garibaldi's. Rather it should be a question around the Mistral's as 3 of those would equal out the 2 Canberra's.
Probably didn't articulate myself very well.

More a refence to a smaller carrier style ship.

2 X 27500 = 55000 divide by 3 = 18333.t
Realistically as you say a Mistral...........................well done

France seem to get good service from their three of this class.

Still think the Juan Carlos was a good choice though.
Yep I agree that the Garibaldi class isn't large enough being for all intents and purposes half the size of the Canberra class and 3 definitely wouldn't meet the same tonnage. I also remember something said about 7 years ago or so on this thread about the Mistrals. Think GF may have been the one to have made the comment, but something is tugging at the back of my mind about their unsuitability for RAN service. Something to do with the welldock or lack of one. Can't quite remember :(

Regards S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Yep I agree that the Garibaldi class isn't large enough being for all intents and purposes half the size of the Canberra class and 3 definitely wouldn't meet the same tonnage. I also remember something said about 7 years ago or so on this thread about the Mistrals. Think GF may have been the one to have made the comment, but something is tugging at the back of my mind about their unsuitability for RAN service. Something to do with the welldock or lack of one. Can't quite remember :(
I think one element with the Mistral was as is; their troop accommodation capacity was about half that of the Juan Carlos.
I believe it was to do with Frances need to conduct longer distance operations and the living spaces providing some extra comfort for longer voyages.
Probably not a deal breaker as it was mentioned there Mistral offering could be reconfigured to meet RAN needs.

In the end we got the Canberra Class and that was a good call but for the total number purchased.

Regards S
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Garibaldi was one of the short listed designs to replace Melbourne, it was eliminated leaving the Sea Control Ship and modified Iwo Jima as the final two contenders. This all went out the window when Invincible was offered, accepted, offer withdrawn and entire program cancelled.

Apparently according to cabinet papers the experts from PM&C summarising the expert reports into the carrier replacement advised the government of the day that the Sea Harrier was inferior to the A-4 and F-5 therefore a waste of time, the dunking sonar on the Sea King was inferior to the Barra Sonar Buoys deployed by the P-3C, and the purchase of a second batch of P-3Cs was far more vital to Australian defence than a replacement carrier as they were superior to the entire RAN ASW capability and sonar buoys launched from frigate based helos would be superior to the dunking sonar on the sea king so the RAN would actually have more capability than with a carrier. Besides there would be no need for the RAN to operate out side of RAAF fighter and MPA air cover.

Sadly none of what I have written is fictional or exaggerated, it was the official expert PM&C advice provided to the Def Min who then recommended the carrier program be cancelled in favour of buying more P-3Cs.

I almost wish the RAN had gone for three Vosper Thornycroft Harrier Carriers, if necessary forgetting about fixed wing ASW and even V/STOL / STO/VL, just to keep the sea kings at sea in the ASW role and therefore maintaining the relevance of Ikara, as well as retaining the FAAs skills.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
Looking at how inexpensive HMS Ocean was, something like that would have been great. The RAN could have retained the Sea Kings in the ASW role and Wessex as utility, meaning Lynx or a standard Super SeaSprite could have been acquired for the FFGs, for less money and more capability than the SH-60B and FFG mods to support them.
Ocean wasn't quite as cheap as the headine figure, IIRC: needed extra work done. But still cheap, & excellent value for money. She wasn't meant for a long hard life, but the Brazilians seem content with her.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think one element with the Mistral was as is; their troop accommodation capacity was about half that of the Juan Carlos.
I believe it was to do with Frances need to conduct longer distance operations and the living spaces providing some extra comfort for longer voyages.
Probably not a deal breaker as it was mentioned there Mistral offering could be reconfigured to meet RAN needs.

In the end we got the Canberra Class and that was a good call but for the total number purchased.

Regards S
Troop layout is significantly different. Mistral can only really carry 450. JC1 was designed for ~850, Canberra can embark 1200 troops, feed them, sleep them, etc. Even then we are surging two LHD's and a LPD to give the full amphibious capability.

I recall there was a lot of talk about getting rid of the 2 lhd and going for 4 lpds. But then perhaps we would have struggled with things like MV22/chinooks, and the aviation component was never going to be as strong.

The JC1 really is the sea control ship for the modern age. I think its a great design. Designed and built by people that had previously designed built and operated small carriers, LPD's etc.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The RAN went from being almost totally focused on ASW for a generation after the Korean War until the late 1970’s to being focused on AAW and ASuW for the following 30+ years.
This was due to a number of factors: the demise of the Soviet sub forces, the Middle East conflicts, the loss of its CVS, the loss of dipping sonar equipped helos and the changes in basing to the West away from the Oberons and subsequently the basing of all the Collins in the West away from the EAXA’s.
Most tellingly, the choice of the Anzacs was a sub par ASW platform and it just seemed natural to allow ASW skills to atrophy while all the noise was happening elsewhere.

Thankfully the SSK buildup in the Indo Pacific has refocused the capability planners and the T26 and Romeos brings ASW back into balance.
(Scribed by this anonymous ex PWO ASW) ;)
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The RAN went from being almost totally focused on ASW for a generation after the Korean War until the late 1970’s to being focused on AAW and ASuW for the following 30+ years.
This was due to a number of factors: the demise of the Soviet sub forces, the Middle East conflicts, the loss of its CVS, the loss of dipping sonar equipped helos and the changes in basing to the West away from the Oberons and subsequently the basing of all the Collins in the West away from the EAXA’s.
Most tellingly, the choice of the Anzacs was a sub par ASW platform and it just seemed natural to allow ASW skills to atrophy while all the noise was happening elsewhere.

Thankfully the SSK buildup in the Indo Pacific has refocused the capability planners and the T26 and Romeos brings ASW back into balance.
(Scribed by this anonymous ex PWO ASW) ;)

The reality for a nation with Australia's geography is that we need to be able to do pretty much everything in the maritime environment and do this over great distances.
Certainly a challenge for any medium sized navy. I can understand priorities change over the decades, but you still need the range of vessel types to meet any challenge.
I can see the push for naval platforms having greater flexibility within their design to swap modules for specific tasks at hand.
The Arafura and Hunter Class will cater for this evolution. The Canberra Class with their inherent large flexible spaces can certainly accommodate the equipment to meet a wide range of contingency's.
This ship in particular will evolve in the decades ahead.
Navatia's Joint Support Ship concept is another that has merit. In this case both Supply and Amphib.
While may not like the jack of all trades concept; sometimes flexibility over speciality has a place.
I feel the RAN has this need for some of the fleet

Realistically medium sized navy's can only do so much, even if so, so much more is always asked of them.



Regards S
 

DMcRae

New Member
Yep I agree that the Garibaldi class isn't large enough being for all intents and purposes half the size of the Canberra class and 3 definitely wouldn't meet the same tonnage. I also remember something said about 7 years ago or so on this thread about the Mistrals. Think GF may have been the one to have made the comment, but something is tugging at the back of my mind about their unsuitability for RAN service. Something to do with the welldock or lack of one. Can't quite remember :(
The Mistrals definitely do have a welldock, but there were a number of reasons why we chose the Spanish design over the French. For starters, the Canberra class is larger...can carry more heavy equipment, troops for an ambhip operation etc.
And we needed to be able to use larger landing craft so we can haul our heavy armour.

BTW, came across this story about an ex-RAN getting up to no good in the news today. Do remember seeing his name over the journey but thought others who may have known him might be interested to know about it.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Mistrals definitely do have a welldock, but there were a number of reasons why we chose the Spanish design over the French. For starters, the Canberra class is larger...can carry more heavy equipment, troops for an ambhip operation etc.
And we needed to be able to use larger landing craft so we can haul our heavy armour.

BTW, came across this story about an ex-RAN getting up to no good in the news today. Do remember seeing his name over the journey but thought others who may have known him might be interested to know about it.
Thanks.

There are some sick units about.
 
Top