Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The Hobart-class AWD is a variant of the Spanish F100/Alvaro de Bazan Aegis-equipped FFG. I do believe the Spanish vessel was originally designed by Gibbs & Cox (a US company) I could be mistaken on that. Interestingly, Gibbs & Cox had also submitted an entry for the Australian AWD programme which was known as the "Baby Burke," which was apparently liked by the Admiralty but did not make it past final selection.
-Cheers
the road runner
Active Member
I am under the impression they will be taken out of service,once we have our Hobart AWD.
Anzacs will be replaced by 8- 7000 tonne frigates
That is my understanding
Regards
Many think Australia had 14 warships with six Adelaides and 8 Anzacs, but the RAN never got to 14 ships, as 2 Adelaides were struck before the last 2 Anzacs were finished.
The 3 new Hobart AWDs will be much better ships than 4 remainding Adelaide FFGs.
Hopefully the fourth Hobart will be financed and built, but I am not holding my breathe.
the road runner
Active Member
I read in a forum once that 16 warships was around the number that Australia needs to operate.
I have also read 14 warships was a desired number for NAVY.ie 6 Adelaide and 8 Anzacs?
Is there a required number of warships ?
Regards
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Sort of, the situation is somewhat dependent on type of ship and usage. As a general rule, in order to have a single vessel always available for deployment, three ships are required. This provides for the one ship available for deployment, one ship engaged in training and work ups, and a third undergoing refit. Now if there is to be a ship also regularly deployed away (like to the Persian Gulf), then at a minimum a fourth ship would be required.
My preference is to keep to the 3:1 ratio, as it can allow for a greater number of vessels available for surge deployments. Along these lines, I would prefer that there be 9 Anzac II vessels ordered, instead of a 1:1 replacement. This would keep the RAN at 12 vessels (assuming only 3 Hobarts are ordered) and allow for the 3:1 ratio across all major warships.
-Cheers
i don't know, I would think the White Paper might mention a required number. There is talk of increasing the submarine fleet to twelve from six... Also keep in mind that the amphibious ship fleet was increased to three from one when the Newports were bought...
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
From 1 to 3 or 2 to 3? Didn't the RAN have a helicopter training ship or something? Presumably you could use that as a makeshift amphib?
I was under the impression Tobruk was bought after the Sydney was struck. So make that one....
Oh, are you thinking of the old Jervis Bay, which was a training ship which could be used as a transport. I never considered her a warship, but I guess one could call her half a warship.... Was she ever used during exercises as a transport?
Last edited:
it's nothing to get upset about
Yes, I wouldn't think buying a few more new LCMs is going to break the budget. What is a few million compared to a few billion dollars? One could always use the badly built LCMs as survey barges... or sale/gift them to a South Pacific island nation as a simple vehicle ferry... During the recent tusammi both Samoa and Tonga would have found them handy...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Having looked up the specs of the LCM8, it can carry an M60 tank/60 tons (US). The weight of an M1A1 is listed as being 63 tons (US). At the same time, global security mentioned that that M1A1 Abrams issued to the USMC's 26th MEU topped the scales at 68 tons (US) and one could be carried by a LCAC or two at a time by LCU. These Marine M1A1s were fitted with some extra kit like extended air intakes and exhaust to assist in fording and while operating in surf areas.
Given that the new LCM8 had been selected prior to the Australian M1A1 AIM tank, it does seem likely that the new craft does not have the margin needed to safely transport the tank. It likely has the ability to do so under some conditions, but not enough to be considered operationally viable or deployable.
-Cheers
In evaluations and assessments you normally add in an extra 20% to cover off safety and hazard requirements. they can carry extra in extremis, but I imagine that the team leader covering off SHAR would get their butt kicked if they tried to skate the assessment in for anything less.
add 20% to an M60 and thats cutting right into the SHAR safety margins. Thats obviously different from the design capability which may well be higher. If Alexas is lurking he's better placed to add a design perspective
I think it as a given that the army will be acquiring LCM-1e's to operate of the future amphibs.
They where custom designed to operate from Juan Carlos I with four able to fit in the well deck (as well as four RHIB's as well from memory). They are also a RO/Ro design which make's loading / unloading operations in the well deck much more efficient (To be fair the failed LCM 200's where a RO / RO design as well) and they can carry a Abrams so they are ideal for our requirements.
However I have often wondered that were the LCM 2000’s really a "Failed" design or really a class with a few "Teething" problems that where (VERY) quietly shelved when it was realised that they would not meet revised load carrying requirements?.
Either way they are not much use to the ADF now so I agree that they should be gifted to the pacific nations.
They where custom designed to operate from Juan Carlos I with four able to fit in the well deck (as well as four RHIB's as well from memory). They are also a RO/Ro design which make's loading / unloading operations in the well deck much more efficient (To be fair the failed LCM 200's where a RO / RO design as well) and they can carry a Abrams so they are ideal for our requirements.
However I have often wondered that were the LCM 2000’s really a "Failed" design or really a class with a few "Teething" problems that where (VERY) quietly shelved when it was realised that they would not meet revised load carrying requirements?.
Either way they are not much use to the ADF now so I agree that they should be gifted to the pacific nations.
Last edited:
Sorry, I had a bit of a brainfart there. I was thinking of the LCM-1E, the Spanish landing craft ThePuss refers to. Oops!
"En su interior se podrán albergar simultáneamente cuatro embarcaciones de desembarco del tipo LCM1E, capacitadas para transportar hasta 100 toneladas de carga distribuida, o un carro de combate del tipo Leopardo"
Lcm1e: 100 tonnes of distributed charge, or tank type leopard...source "revista fuerza naval 07".
As far as i know, the f100 is spanish design, it meets different rules of construction and security, etc, some of them according to us navy standards, a reference. but the design is spanish, with heritage in the shape or some studies etc froom a previous proyect, with other europeans.
with the cash saved with the f100 design instead burke.....4th awd vs f35b-harriers
well, I heard some stories that Gibbs & Cox used to designed an ACS frigate (a frigate with a PESA/AESA based on a Perry hull) for the Taiwanese navy, which eventually Taiwanese didn't build the ship. G&C furter developed that design and later sell the idea to Spanish and becomes the F100.As far as i know, the f100 is spanish design, it meets different rules of construction and security, etc, some of them according to us navy standards, a reference. but the design is spanish, with heritage in the shape or some studies etc froom a previous proyect, with other europeans.
with the cash saved with the f100 design instead burke.....4th awd vs f35b-harriers
The newest issue of the Defence today did mentioned the 4th AWD, a 3rd LPD but not a single word about F-35 on LPD. So if the possibility of the 4th AWD, a 3rd LPD is slim, I will say the idea of F-35 on LPD is very likely long dead. Even I myself is a big fan of that idea
2- Status