Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

Actually I didn't double the price, You'r idea that you originally put forth centered around a pair of Lewis and Clarks and a pair of T-ESD's all of which cost roughly $500m USD a piece.

As for what we are getting or have acquired, much of it is based on simple evolution from past asset's being replaced with larger more capable asset's to fill the same basic role, Not acquiring a completely new asset that we have not had before.

There is a difference between replacing an asset with an evolution of it and acquiring a new capability that we have zero history with.

But a few simple reasons we wont get anything like that, The government wouldnt buy it, the civilian population wouldn't back it and the DWP (best one we have had in a longtime) didnt even make the slightest mention about such a capability.

Sure would love to have it but there are a lot more important thing's in the budget then to acquire an asset that we may or may not use.

 

[Alf662]

In regards to using our external island territories as FOB's why did Norfolk and Lord Howe get mentioned? Best I can tell FOB's will aid in extending the range of our aircraft and our submarine's. With that in mind how do any islands on the east coast of Australia assist us in operations to the north and west? Between Australia, New Zealand and possible French (New Caledonia) the east is pretty well covered as it is now.

The only useful islands for FOB's belonging to Australia are Christmas (air) island and the Cocos (keeling)(air and naval) islands which is why the ADF (and by extension the US) is looking at there use long term.

As far as FOB's go between Diego Garcia, Cocos (keeling) islands and Guam you can pretty much have the Indian and Pacific ocean's and everything in between covered. Slight fantasy wish but wouldn't mind being able to forward base some submarines at Guam and/or Diego Garcia.

As for the ship's Volk mentioned.. Your looking at $2b+ USD just to buy them not including purchase of LCAC's, facility upgrades, extra crew's and the political and civil back lash for some ship's that would be seen as only being of use to invade another country with the entire 1st division.

If a conflict comes that requires that much shipping capability for our forces then the time has come that the government wouldn't care about any backlash in Tasmania and actually go and requisition the half dozen or so largish RoRo's operating between Tasmania and NZ.

It's also all well and good to say back in the 90's you and your mates were talking about getting the stuff that we are now getting or have in the pipe line but they are differing circumstances. Back then the ADF was extremely underfunded with the cold war wound up so Governments less willing to spend to get what we need, Now they are spending to get what we need does not mean we need more again. By that argument you could go from getting the Canberra class to getting the America class to getting the QE class carriers to getting a Gerald R Ford class carrier all because each one is a step up, regardless of what we actually need and can use.

I will also take responsibility for bringing the subject up as I had written posts regarding the commercial resupply of our more remote island territories.

During Operation Morris Dance Norfolk Island was used as a staging post and FOB and it was found to have major infrastructure problems. The army contingent was flown in and had to be transferred to the ships over night by Wessex Helicopters that were not equipped for night flying. When another incident occurs around Fiji or Samoa I am sure the RAN and defence in general would like to have an FOB that they know they can effectively use.

If infrastructure is improved in any of the Island territories it opens up other operational opportunities for defence.

It was recently announced that Norfolk Islands Cascade Pier is getting upgraded, along with a new crane and barges, you can read more about it here: $13 million upgrade to Norfolk Island's Cascade Pier

More information on the importance of Cocos / Keeling Islands can be found here:
http://ips.cap.anu.edu.au/sites/def... and defence) Ross Babbage 74p_0731503899.pdf

More upto date information specific to the RAN can be found here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/Publicati...Patrick - Submarine Force Posture article.pdf

I'm with Volkodav - If you are going to do some thing, do it properly. Any one up for a Submarine Tender or two!

 

[Volkodav]

Again look at what the types bring to the game.

The original suggestion a number of pages back was that a T-AKE could be a suitable option for the planned logistics ship / third AOR, which would be either a replacement or supplement for Choules. I speculated it as a supplement and equally that an additional ship could eventually be acquired as a replacement. This was as an alternative to the various options being speculated by others, including an additional Cantabria, a Karel Dorman, various hybrid Damen Enforcers and LPDs.

Because T-AKE are in effect floating warehouses that are fully capable of transferring all types of stores, fuel, ammunition and dry stores while underway the type would literally be able to supplement both the AORs and replace Choules in her originally intended sealift role. The one area that a T-AKE is noticeably deficient in compared to Choules is in the lack of a docking well for a UK type LCU (and by default a LCM). As such my suggestion of the T-AKE or a AKE type design is not additional to anything that isn't already being proposed or discussed.

My suggestion of an ESD is an addition to what is being proposed in the DWP but also an enabling capability / force multiplier. It is would enable the AKEs to be operated without existing port infrastructure and independently to the LHDs. It would permit RAN LCM1Es and Army LCM-8s as well as any future green / brown water capabilities, to be operated anywhere we could conceivably send this type of ship. It would also permit many types that could conceivably be used as STUFT to be used more easily, effectively and safely, including fast ferries (HMAS Jervis Bay anyone). It would also permit the ADF to look outside the square for an eventual LCH replacement as the floating dock/base concept means the LCH(R) need no longer be able to beach, creating the possibility that it could be an EPF (JHSV).

The advantage of an EPF is apart from logistics its mission sets could be expanded to include mine warfare, hydrographic and oceanographic survey, HADR (including converting its mission bay into a hospital, special forces support (the USN plans to use SEAL Delivery Vehicles from theirs), amphibious assault etc. even potentially for the rapid deployment of submarine rescue or other time critical search and rescue equipment. So with the availability of an ESD the ADF could replace their MCMVs, survey ships and craft and LCHs with EPFs, ad well as supplement there OPVs and major combatants.

One last thing the AKE could conceivably do that has not been mentioned anywhere, is due to their considerable volume and flexibility in layout and capacity, an afloat repair function could be developed. That is spaces could be provided for workshops etc. to support a deeper level of maintenance and repair for deployed assets than we have had since the retirement of HMAS Stalwart. That capability could be extended to ground vehicles and other army equipment as well as unmanned vehicles or various types, helicopters and light aircraft.

 

[Todjaeger]

I will also take responsibility for bringing the subject up as I had written posts regarding the commercial resupply of our more remote island territories.

During Operation Morris Dance Norfolk Island was used as a staging post and FOB and it was found to have major infrastructure problems. The army contingent was flown in and had to be transferred to the ships over night by Wessex Helicopters that were not equipped for night flying. When another incident occurs around Fiji or Samoa I am sure the RAN and defence in general would like to have an FOB that they know they can effectively use.

If infrastructure is improved in any of the Island territories it opens up other operational opportunities for defence.

It was recently announced that Norfolk Islands Cascade Pier is getting upgraded, along with a new crane and barges, you can read more about it here: $13 million upgrade to Norfolk Island's Cascade Pier

More information on the importance of Cocos / Keeling Islands can be found here:
http://ips.cap.anu.edu.au/sites/def... and defence) Ross Babbage 74p_0731503899.pdf

More upto date information specific to the RAN can be found here:
http://www.defence.gov.au/Publicati...Patrick - Submarine Force Posture article.pdf

I'm with Volkodav - If you are going to do some thing, do it properly. Any one up for a Submarine Tender or two!

We might want to put any further discussion of FOB's in the ADF general discussion thread.

As for the notion of a sub tender, or any sort of tender, I think there is merit in it. Especially if future projections on RAN deployments have more vessels operating away from Australia for longer periods of time. The question of course would be, what would the cost of such a vessel be, and would that cost be worthwhile.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As for the notion of a sub tender, or any sort of tender, I think there is merit in it.

the capability is being built, but not a RAN penant.

Alexas might be able to add some clarity - or correct me if I've gotten some wires crossed.

 

[Todjaeger]

the capability is being built, but not a RAN penant.

Alexas might be able to add some clarity - or correct me if I've gotten some wires crossed.

Interesting. I would quite like to see whatever Alexsa can disclose. I have often thought that it would be good for Australia to have something like the UK's RFA. As has been previously pointed out though, there would need to be some significant changes or clarifications to existing Australian maritime rules and law.

 

[pussertas]

Could a sort of floating dock be constructed and anchored to land, to provide ships a place to tie off and dock, discharge passengers and cargo, etc? Not sure if such an arrangement could be made sturdy and secure enough to use to dock a cargo vessel, or if it would be able to to have cargo discharged onto it. The initial notion I had resembled a pontoon bridge, and then I considered the use of mexeflotes or a modular causeway system.[/QUOTE]

Back in the 1950's the Derwent River in Hobart was crossed via s series of floating concrete pontoons. They were dumb barges (ie unmotorised) and slightly curved to account for river flow.

With motors to enable re positioning could such a system solve the problem for all 3 offshore territories?

They would need a hinged steel gangway to rest up against and carry no crew.

In times of highly adverse weather they could travel to the lee side of the island where prepositioned anchors awaited them.

Local fishermen could be taught how to drive them..

The need for Naval lighters/ ships is a totally different matter

 

[StingrayOZ]

Again look at what the types bring to the game.

The original suggestion a number of pages back was that a T-AKE could be a suitable option for the planned logistics ship / third AOR, which would be either a replacement or supplement for Choules. I speculated it as a supplement and equally that an additional ship could eventually be acquired as a replacement. This was as an alternative to the various options being speculated by others, including an additional Cantabria, a Karel Dorman, various hybrid Damen Enforcers and LPDs.

Because T-AKE are in effect floating warehouses that are fully capable of transferring all types of stores, fuel, ammunition and dry stores while underway the type would literally be able to supplement both the AORs and replace Choules in her originally intended sealift role. The one area that a T-AKE is noticeably deficient in compared to Choules is in the lack of a docking well for a UK type LCU (and by default a LCM). As such my suggestion of the T-AKE or a AKE type design is not additional to anything that isn't already being proposed or discussed.

My suggestion of an ESD is an addition to what is being proposed in the DWP but also an enabling capability / force multiplier. It is would enable the AKEs to be operated without existing port infrastructure and independently to the LHDs. It would permit RAN LCM1Es and Army LCM-8s as well as any future green / brown water capabilities, to be operated anywhere we could conceivably send this type of ship. It would also permit many types that could conceivably be used as STUFT to be used more easily, effectively and safely, including fast ferries (HMAS Jervis Bay anyone). It would also permit the ADF to look outside the square for an eventual LCH replacement as the floating dock/base concept means the LCH(R) need no longer be able to beach, creating the possibility that it could be an EPF (JHSV).

The advantage of an EPF is apart from logistics its mission sets could be expanded to include mine warfare, hydrographic and oceanographic survey, HADR (including converting its mission bay into a hospital, special forces support (the USN plans to use SEAL Delivery Vehicles from theirs), amphibious assault etc. even potentially for the rapid deployment of submarine rescue or other time critical search and rescue equipment. So with the availability of an ESD the ADF could replace their MCMVs, survey ships and craft and LCHs with EPFs, ad well as supplement there OPVs and major combatants.

One last thing the AKE could conceivably do that has not been mentioned anywhere, is due to their considerable volume and flexibility in layout and capacity, an afloat repair function could be developed. That is spaces could be provided for workshops etc. to support a deeper level of maintenance and repair for deployed assets than we have had since the retirement of HMAS Stalwart. That capability could be extended to ground vehicles and other army equipment as well as unmanned vehicles or various types, helicopters and light aircraft.

Is it still the plan to have the JHSV/EPF operating from the ESD. Weren't there issues? Im not sure the ESD is the right fit for the RAN, it seems a bit too specific while it would seem to suit the US who can use it to augment existing capability in far away waters, I'm not entirely sure that is what we are trying to replicate independently.

I guess it will come down to are we trying to support an ARE or an ARG, and whats required to do that. Essentially the logistics ship would be something of the likes of T-AKE that can acts as a station ship.

I think money can be found for a lot of equipment as long as its possible to man and operate it and it delivers capability we need. We are unlikely to man additional ships, (unless crewing efficency can be found), but if a larger ship offers significant more capability, for not much more money in areas that we need, I don't see it as an insurmountable barrier.

 

[Volkodav]

Is it still the plan to have the JHSV/EPF operating from the ESD. Weren't there issues? Im not sure the ESD is the right fit for the RAN, it seems a bit too specific while it would seem to suit the US who can use it to augment existing capability in far away waters, I'm not entirely sure that is what we are trying to replicate independently.

I guess it will come down to are we trying to support an ARE or an ARG, and whats required to do that. Essentially the logistics ship would be something of the likes of T-AKE that can acts as a station ship.

I think money can be found for a lot of equipment as long as its possible to man and operate it and it delivers capability we need. We are unlikely to man additional ships, (unless crewing efficency can be found), but if a larger ship offers significant more capability, for not much more money in areas that we need, I don't see it as an insurmountable barrier.

My understanding is that the primary issue with EPF/ESD comparability was the design and durability of the ramp on the EPF and that a replacement ramp is being developed.

The ESD is precisely the sort of capability that is needed when you lack suitable port infrastructure and would be far cheaper than procure and maintain than building the required facilities at a handful of strategically important island territories. The added advantage is ESDs can also be deployed where they are needed and can also provide yet another niche capability with which to support and assist our friends and neighbours.

 

[swerve]

If infrastructure is needed at particular places, then providing it via two ships will restrict it to being available at no more than two of those places, & sometimes at no more than one.

The justification of something like the T-ESD is for one-off use at places usually outside ones control, or which do not usually need such infrastructure. If you have territories which need port infrastructure, a T-ESD is not an appropriate way of providing it.

 

[vonnoobie]

With regards to the EPF and it's ramp the issue was the ramp originally designed for it had been with cargo being loaded and unloaded inside harbors with sea state 1 and has performed such task's successfully but when tested in open ocean conditions at just sea state 2 a truck pinning the ramp to the deck of the ESD caused the hydraulic ram to tear free from it's anchor. A replacement ramp is being developed as mentioned by Volk though if it will work is another matter, Time will tell.

As for an ESD vs a hand full of strategically located island territories, Those hand full of island territories should really be called what they are and that is only the Coco's (Keeling) islands, everything else is either too small (Lord Howe) or coastal conditions limit there use to air (Norfolk and Christmas islands) so we are unlikely to be building facilities at all of them but more likely just the one which does fit in with the fact the government has only really made any mention of Coco's and nothing else.

Other factor's that need to be considered though, On one hand an ESD can be shifted to were it is needed while at the same time said ship can also be put out of commission far more easily then a fixed fortified island. Investing in an ESD will acquire us a niche capability that may from time to time come in use, investing in turning Coco's into a FOB will acquire is a fixed more easily defended facility that could add some 5,900 - 6,000km to the range of our submarines (Being roughly 3,000km each way).

I'd say we are better off turning Coco's into an FOB and talking the American's into stationing one of the ESD's and possibly a pair of T-AKE's at there or Darwin even if requiring us to split the cost to gain use of them. We gain access to the capability at the fraction of the cost while the US get's there ship's forward based but not so forward based that they are at risk (major risk anyway).

 

[Volkodav]

If infrastructure is needed at particular places, then providing it via two ships will restrict it to being available at no more than two of those places, & sometimes at no more than one.

The justification of something like the T-ESD is for one-off use at places usually outside ones control, or which do not usually need such infrastructure. If you have territories which need port infrastructure, a T-ESD is not an appropriate way of providing it.

If you read back, particularly alexsa's comments, but others as well, you will see the discussion was around the difficulty of improving the facilities at the locations in question. It was also quite clear that the existing facilities are so limited the rapid reinforcement of those territories in the event of an emergency would be difficult to impossible from what I have read from those familiar with those territories.

I'm not looking for ways to justify a platform I'm attached to but rather looking at a problem and seeing a possible solution. AKEs would be much easier to sell, in particular with their added flexibility in underway replenishment and possible utility as floating workshops as well as warehouses. The thing is they would also work even better with an ESD, which I had on my mind when reading the discussions on the difficulties of upgrading / expanding facilities as CI etc. Then I recalled my own arguments against the ADF acquiring HSVs as replacements for the LCHs, the life extensions deferring the replacement of the MCMVs and the possible civilianisation / commercialisation of the hydrographic capability, acquisitions of green and brown water capabilities, as well as enhanced special forces capabilities and it occurred to me that an ESD would complement and enhance these ad well as making HSV/EPF I was previously dismissive of, viable.

Not a must have or a need to have, just something that looks more interesting and possible to me the more I look at the big picture.

 

[Volkodav]

Caught a press conference the PM gave in Henderson at one of Austals facilities where he announced / re-announced a number of things.

Austal to build 19-21 PPBs

ASC to build 2 OPVs

Remaining OPVs to be built at Henderson (PM said here at Henderson as he was sand in at Austal which seems to indicate they will get the work)

When pushed about Melbourne shipbuilding he said large ships will be built in Adelaide from now on an small ships in Henderson but maintenance would be conducted in the eastern states.

He made particular reference to PPBs and OPVs being maintained primary in Cairns.

 

[Joe Black]

Austal to build 19-21 PPBs

ASC to build 2 OPVs

Remaining OPVs to be built at Henderson (PM said here at Henderson as he was sand in at Austal which seems to indicate they will get the work)

Volk, as per my previous post, that's how I understood it.

The whole plan was to let Austal get good at building steel boats with the PPBs, before transferring the OPV building to them.

As I was asking, who will own the OPV design? The commonwealth or the shipyards?

I suppose this arrangement will be similar to how the Japanese utilise two shipyards to build the Soryu class subs (except the arrangement is a little different) or the US utilises Ingalls and BIW to build the Burke class DDGs.

 

[Volkodav]

Volk, as per my previous post, that's how I understood it.

The whole plan was to let Austal get good at building steel boats with the PPBs, before transferring the OPV building to them.

As I was asking, who will own the OPV design? The commonwealth or the shipyards?

I suppose this arrangement will be similar to how the Japanese utilise two shipyards to build the Soryu class subs (except the arrangement is a little different) or the US utilises Ingalls and BIW to build the Burke class DDGs.

Some may recall that Warren Entsch a government MP from Queensland went ballistic when it was announced PPB was going to Austal but after a chat he settled down and was publicly supportive of the decision, leaving me to wonder what sort of carrot he got to tow the line. The answer appears to be maintenance for the PPBs and OPVs being centred on Cairns which is bad news for Darwin.

 

[John Newman]

Volk, as per my previous post, that's how I understood it.

The whole plan was to let Austal get good at building steel boats with the PPBs, before transferring the OPV building to them.

As I was asking, who will own the OPV design? The commonwealth or the shipyards?

I suppose this arrangement will be similar to how the Japanese utilise two shipyards to build the Soryu class subs (except the arrangement is a little different) or the US utilises Ingalls and BIW to build the Burke class DDGs.

Whilst I agree that Austal is getting the job to do the 19-21 PPB's, who said Austal was getting the OPV's??

All I've seen is that the OPV's will start construction in Techport (gap filler between end of AWD's and Future Frigates, and presumably using the ASC facility building the AWD's) before moving construction to Henderson, haven't heard boo of who is actually going to build them, or which design yet, in either Techport or at Henderson.

It may well be that the 'winner' of the OPV design 'rents' the ASC facility at Techport before the transfer.

Apart from Austal, for example, it could easily be BAE that does the build on the OPV's.

We don't know who the winning design for the OPV's is yet, so how could we also know who the builder will be either?

 

[StingrayOZ]

My understanding is that the primary issue with EPF/ESD comparability was the design and durability of the ramp on the EPF and that a replacement ramp is being developed.

The ESD is precisely the sort of capability that is needed when you lack suitable port infrastructure and would be far cheaper than procure and maintain than building the required facilities at a handful of strategically important island territories. The added advantage is ESDs can also be deployed where they are needed and can also provide yet another niche capability with which to support and assist our friends and neighbours.

Can a small navy like Australia get maximum use out of an ESD with only say 8 small and slow landing craft in theatre? Are our LCM's suitable for more open ocean operation? How well would they operate from an ESD? Would it not be better/cheaper to dump at a nearby port and use a HSV type vessel to fast foot it several hundred miles to an austere pier or wall? Or use a LARCV/Captive air or LCM to shift it from the JHSV in a small protected bay. Or dump loads from C-17's? Or just use cranes to plonk it directly onto a JHSV.

Actually all of these questions could be levelled at any of the logistics choices that we take up.

Its certainly an interesting idea, worthy of discussion. I certainly see the power in it the way the US can use it, with half a dozen (or more) LCAC in theatre flying 60+t cargo at 40kts shuffling to a huge deployed force.

Are we considering LCAC's?

Personally I think LCAC are just to much for ADF. Fuel useage of 1000 gallons per hour, on average (inc empty load returns!), each. Multiple jet engines (4 engine maintenance! There is no fuel efficient running), the thing kicks up masses of seaspray. Expensive to buy and operate. You are talking aviation levels (think V-22) of maintenance/operational costs and procurement.

Something like an EDA-R would be more realistic and usable. Move 110 tons max (at LCM-1e speeds?), 80 tons at 20kts (so more cargo at basically twice the speed of a LCM-1e). Return journeys will be at 30+kts. Range of 1000 nm loaded. You could use them as mini-HSV's or as fast landing craft. You could fit two of them into a Canberra (probably?), or a single one and 2x LCM-1e to give a hybrid approach. The EDA-R can operate from US amphibious ships. You could drop them off let them operate for a couple of weeks by themselves from a regional port. Austal or Incat could build them.The EDA-R are big enough to go island hoping or offer intra theatre lift (something the LCAC or LCM can't). They really could replace a lot of what the heavy landing craft used to do in the region.

Something like T-AKE could then unload at the regional/nearest port, EDA-R and leased JHSV's would then shuffle it within theatre. If the US came to the party, well then an ESD could be made available. If not we could work with what we have.

If we are to replace Choules, I would go with another LHD, but lengthened (10-20m) to carry more fuel (marine and aviation) with full size bunkerage for ammunition. I don't really see the point in going with less amphibious capability than we have now. But 2017 will probably need to happen to put that front and centre.

 

[Volkodav]

Whilst I agree that Austal is getting the job to do the 19-21 PPB's, who said Austal was getting the OPV's??

All I've seen is that the OPV's will start construction in Techport (gap filler between end of AWD's and Future Frigates, and presumably using the ASC facility building the AWD's) before moving construction to Henderson, haven't heard boo of who is actually going to build them, or which design yet, in either Techport or at Henderson.

It may well be that the 'winner' of the OPV design 'rents' the ASC facility at Techport before the transfer.

Apart from Austal, for example, it could easily be BAE that does the build on the OPV's.

We don't know who the winning design for the OPV's is yet, so how could we also know who the builder will be either?

Well the PM had a press conference this morning when he said the first two OPVs will be built in Adelaide and the rest will be built, in his words, "here in Henderson", while he was standing at Austals Henderson HQ. No he didn't specifically say "Austal" but it was pretty obvious that is what he intended it to mean, I will be very surprised if the work goes to anyone else.

 

[hairyman]

Well lt us hope Austel do a better job than they did with our current aluminium patrol boats. And I hope the OPV design selected is big enough to do all that the RAN require with room for expansion.

 

[Volkodav]

Can a small navy like Australia get maximum use out of an ESD with only say 8 small and slow landing craft in theatre? Are our LCM's suitable for more open ocean operation? How well would they operate from an ESD? Would it not be better/cheaper to dump at a nearby port and use a HSV type vessel to fast foot it several hundred miles to an austere pier or wall? Or use a LARCV/Captive air or LCM to shift it from the JHSV in a small protected bay. Or dump loads from C-17's? Or just use cranes to plonk it directly onto a JHSV.

Actually all of these questions could be levelled at any of the logistics choices that we take up.

Its certainly an interesting idea, worthy of discussion. I certainly see the power in it the way the US can use it, with half a dozen (or more) LCAC in theatre flying 60+t cargo at 40kts shuffling to a huge deployed force.

Are we considering LCAC's?

Personally I think LCAC are just to much for ADF. Fuel useage of 1000 gallons per hour, on average (inc empty load returns!), each. Multiple jet engines (4 engine maintenance! There is no fuel efficient running), the thing kicks up masses of seaspray. Expensive to buy and operate. You are talking aviation levels (think V-22) of maintenance/operational costs and procurement.

Something like an EDA-R would be more realistic and usable. Move 110 tons max (at LCM-1e speeds?), 80 tons at 20kts (so more cargo at basically twice the speed of a LCM-1e). Return journeys will be at 30+kts. Range of 1000 nm loaded. You could use them as mini-HSV's or as fast landing craft. You could fit two of them into a Canberra (probably?), or a single one and 2x LCM-1e to give a hybrid approach. The EDA-R can operate from US amphibious ships. You could drop them off let them operate for a couple of weeks by themselves from a regional port. Austal or Incat could build them.The EDA-R are big enough to go island hoping or offer intra theatre lift (something the LCAC or LCM can't). They really could replace a lot of what the heavy landing craft used to do in the region.

Something like T-AKE could then unload at the regional/nearest port, EDA-R and leased JHSV's would then shuffle it within theatre. If the US came to the party, well then an ESD could be made available. If not we could work with what we have.

If we are to replace Choules, I would go with another LHD, but lengthened (10-20m) to carry more fuel (marine and aviation) with full size bunkerage for ammunition. I don't really see the point in going with less amphibious capability than we have now. But 2017 will probably need to happen to put that front and centre.

The whole idea behind the ESD concept is to provide a means for JHSV, now EPF to unload their cargo when they can not access port facilities. If you want your fast catamarans an ESD would actually make them useful in the absence of existing facilities.