The Johan De Witt is an enhanced version of the Rotterdam. I'm pretty sure it can operate heavy helicopters like the Chinook, as that was a modification done to this 2nd vessel.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
the road runner
Active Member
I have to agree with that, i wonder how important lilly padding F-35B will be for future support vessels? The RAN can now play with the big boys having LHDs thats for sure.
Thanks Punta74 it seems Ospreys can land on Johan De Witt to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOLACvMROHE
Actually I'd say we shouldnt make future ship's for cross decking but rather full on supporting such helo's. The US is planning from the 2030's to be introducing helo's based on the V-22 concept. We should be planning for the possiblity that we acquire such helo's going forward.
The Bay class is a British-built version of the Royal Dutch Schelde (now Damen) Enforcer family, derived from the same joint base as Navantia's ATHLAS family. The Schelde Rotterdam & Navantia Galicia & Castilla were the originals, on which the rest are based. So the RAN already has such a ship in service, albeit a variant with no fixed hangar & IIRC a relatively small dock.
Seems everyone has finished the discussion for the LPD, so I can now post this link about sea5000.
Don't know if that's offical or not, but it mentioned the the ANZACS replacement needs to have small crew, future prove and is suppose to contribute not just ASW, but also the air defence of the task force........sounds like a 2nd tier area air defence to me. Is 48 VLS really enough for all that?
SEA5000 CEP: critical capability considerations for the future frigates | Australian Naval Institute
Don't know if that's offical or not, but it mentioned the the ANZACS replacement needs to have small crew, future prove and is suppose to contribute not just ASW, but also the air defence of the task force........sounds like a 2nd tier area air defence to me. Is 48 VLS really enough for all that?
SEA5000 CEP: critical capability considerations for the future frigates | Australian Naval Institute
Techport Upgrades
Just been looking at the possibilities for Techport Expansion based on the below link.
http://www.techportaustralia.com/upload/SP31871%20Techport%20Brochure%20FA_p20_web.pdf
SA Government has already approved an extension of the Wharf, but not to full capacity of 670m water frontage. Would this now be looked at as part of the current uplift, knowing initial OPV, Frigate and Subs are locked in ?
To me the proposed site they have for the OPV (as per map) would be better suited for future frigates, as it links to current transfer system.
The proposed site for the new Submarine assembly, seems logical to build in the same location. Without actually being to site myself, is this the best position ?
How would the maintenance on Collins/Shortfin (with both in service) be managed in the current facility ? Will the new Sub actually fit in existing buildings, or does this also need enhancing or a complete rebuild ?
Obviously this is all being designed now with input from DCNS etc, but interested in opinions on how all this would be best setup !!
Just been looking at the possibilities for Techport Expansion based on the below link.
http://www.techportaustralia.com/upload/SP31871%20Techport%20Brochure%20FA_p20_web.pdf
SA Government has already approved an extension of the Wharf, but not to full capacity of 670m water frontage. Would this now be looked at as part of the current uplift, knowing initial OPV, Frigate and Subs are locked in ?
To me the proposed site they have for the OPV (as per map) would be better suited for future frigates, as it links to current transfer system.
The proposed site for the new Submarine assembly, seems logical to build in the same location. Without actually being to site myself, is this the best position ?
How would the maintenance on Collins/Shortfin (with both in service) be managed in the current facility ? Will the new Sub actually fit in existing buildings, or does this also need enhancing or a complete rebuild ?
Obviously this is all being designed now with input from DCNS etc, but interested in opinions on how all this would be best setup !!
The linked article sounds much like an ad for the MEKO 400. The author is obviously a fan and pushes the TKMS barrow. It doesn't add anything to the discussion because all these attributes have been considered by the pros who have rejected it, which may have been on a number of aspects, one of which may have been price?
The point is it's off the team just as the Baby AB was off the team for the AWD.
I wouldn't have waited before posting
It is an interesting article. I too wonder why the Meko A400 was not included because it is a design worth looking at and does offer some different approaches. One reason that I could think for its omission is perceived cost, because of the two island principle in the design. The CEP process doesn't appear to assess the contenders on their technical specifications and naval requirements so much, but rather financial, economic and political requirements taking priority.
Which, of course, is 100% the opposite of what the good Admiral said at the announcement, but what the hell would he know when there's ample space for a good conspiracy theory and none for respecting the professionalism of the multiple senior officers doing the evaluation.
Just because some political pundit from one side of politics or the other wants to smear their opposition, does not mean that anything that doesn't fit with the "politics is bad" world view is actually a lie.
I'm not a mod, so take this for what it's worth, but 50% of the discussion here would be just as appropriate on the pages of the The Shovel as here.
oldsig127
Clearly not. After all, the first tier Air Defence will have 48 VLS, so naturally the 2nd tier should be better armed on a similar or even identical displacement. Right?
oldsig
The CEP is a downselect - its not a technical evaluation.
Hence why so many people were getting their knickers in a knot over the sub selection - they didn't understand the process and assumed that it was a tech evaluation and that the CET staff doing the CEP had access to all the tech offers and that it was a full capability assessment
it wasn't.
CEP's are a brand new injection into the assessment process which has now entered the acquisition and assessment lexicon and will now stay so as to cover off some pollie being further embarassed
hence why when some in here were getting antsy about the sub selection process they clearly had no idea what a CEP was - and were getting unnecessarily twitchy
CEP = downselection
its got nothing to do with a tech comparison or vendor tech comparison
zero, zilch, zip, nada, nyet to do with a proper tech evaluation
CEP's are now the best thing since sliced bred apparently.
journos don't understand the CEP process either, so the lack of awareness will continue to be fostered to confuse the general public even further.
and because we have now entered formal caretaker mode I will have to ratchet back my comments
So not only are we being tortured with 8 weeks of spin, hot air and gaming, we also have to live through a like period of sanitised spam from our dear leader insider.
Only hope the normal acquisition processes battle on regardless without fear or favour although I did hear Chris Bowen glowingly endorse Conroy as a future Defmin.
shoot me now.
as I've said elsewhere, Conroy made Kevin Andrews look like Scipio Africanus
anyway, I'm in hibernation now for 8 weeks.
for king and country
12x Frigates / Destroyers that will each carry 48x VLS and 8x box mounted SSM's isn't enough missile capacity for you?
Compare it to what we have now and just how many missiles we actually have (publicly known) and I think you'll see it stacks up okay...
I think the ADF should be looking at something more like the UK's Point class RORO ships. The LHD's have the need to move the combat elements met but the logistical tail is only getting bigger and more important now that we are no longer a light army. A pair of these would be the objective to pair them up with the LHD's. The LCH replacement would be the project to source additional landing options.
I view it through an outsiders lense and I have no interest in the outcome because I am not Australian nor am I resident in Australia. I didn't see the announcement and I have little regard for politicians and especially in what they say or claim. With regard to the Admiral, he will have had to follow the official line. As Old Salts you and I both know that.
GF has explained the process and its importance and we will leave it at that.
Last edited:
Muar River
Member
Thanks for the advice. Is it feasible that the RAN will fit a more powerful/efficient LM2500 as well as the upgraded diesels?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Putting the PDF aside that you linked, have a look at this animated flythrough of the site:
Techport Flythrough
As far as the wharf 'extension' that is being undertaken, it's a whole whopping 22m!!
http://www.techportaustralia.com/upload/media/media-releases/Techport expansion committment.pdf
As far as where the 'initial' OPV's will be built, prior to relocating to WA, it's reasonably clear that the 'existing' AWD facility will most likely be used until the Future Frigates start construction, eg, 'no' need to build an OPV specific built facility.
Yes of course the SA Government would like all of the OPV's built there, but that's not going to happen.
One other interesting point, for those who have seen the 'flythrough' in the past, it's been modified, no longer is there talk of the shiplift extension, etc.
I'm sure Flensburger would be happy to build you a couple of militarised ro-ros. I think they'll have the Point-class design filed, & updating it a bit would be no problem.
IIRC the basic ship is a fairly standard ro-ro, but with modifications to make it more useful as a military transport, such as a vehicle deck strong enough to take Challenger tanks nose to tail, & to be able to offload to Mexeflotes - which is handy.
Sounds like we're getting back to another episode of fantasy fleets. If so - especially because some of the comment has been that the Choules replacement needs better aviation facilities - where does a RO-RO with *no* flight deck and *no* hangar fit?
And bearing in mind that the RFA vessels are effectively hostilities only, what will replace Choules when it gets to be her turn for HADR? Rock up with a dirty big RO-RO manned by civvies, with effectively transport functions only, no aviation, no hospital, no command and control facilities....
Or will our fleet need these AND a Choules replacement? Crikey, I hope I live long enough to see our fleet so big we can afford to carry such specialised vessels in the list.
oldsig
- Status