Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The Bay class would make a good complement to the LHD's but I suspect that the RAN would be wary of a second hand ship after its experience with Kanimbla and Manoora. Admittedly an ex RN Bay class ship would be much younger.
I agree with your comments about the lack of defensive armament for a large ship designed to carry a battalion of troops. 4 x Typhoon should be a minimum for peacetime. IMO, they should at least be fitted 'for but not with' a couple of CIWS plus ESSM or RAM. Even the LPA's carry a Phalanx CIWS when deployed operationally.
BTW, where did you pick up the info about the LHD's armament?
Tas
Edit: Found info re the LHD armament on DID:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-canberra-class-lhds-03384/
Tas
Last edited:
FutureTank
Banned Member
As I understand it the proposed force deployed via LHDs would be about 2000 troops in the following components
Headquarters
a Reconnaissance–Strike Group
a Close-combat Group
a Manoeuvre Support Group
a Force Sustainment Group
So I figure the last would have a lot of 'baggage' given recent equipment acquisitions
given the LHD embarks only about 1000.I don't know why Beedall lists them as 13000 tons full load. The operators say 23000 gross tonnes -
http://www.aws.co.uk/awsm/currentfleet.html
Beedall lists the displacement deadweight, operator lists gross tonnage of the entire ship. The numbers look good in that regard.
Deadweight = gross tonnage - light tonnage.
In terms of size this is a longer vessel than the AOR, HMAS Success and AO, HMAS Sirius.
My point is that, like it or not (and I don't
), the reality is that the RAN has moved away from local construction of large auxilary and amphibious vessels. Australian industry seems uncompetitive when it comes to building large hulls and government is no longer willing to pay the extra premium (both cost and construction time) needed to have them built locally. The LHD contract and the purchase and local fit out of Sirius are examples of the way Australia seems to be heading in this regard.Tas
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
late night tassie???
I've been awake all night worrying about the decline in Australia's shipbuilding industry!
nfloorl: Looks like I'm not the only one. 
Seriously, it would be great if the country could become self sufficient in the defence area. Realistically, however, this is something that only a handful of countries can aspire too. I think the ADF has achieved a reasonable balance with the purchase of it's assets, importing 'off the shelf' when necessary (C-17 and FA-18F), assembling locally when possible (Hawk 127, Tiger ARH and MRH-90) and negotiating local offset agreements when we buy overseas. It will be interesting to see how well the arrangements for the construction of the Canberra class work out in practice. At least we are retaining the ability to build escorts and submarines in the country.
Tas
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I've been awake all night worrying about the decline in Australia's manufacturing industry!
Difinatly something I loose sleep over!!!
At least i've got an excuse, late shift!
I agree with you on that one. The more self sufficiency more benifits economically and the better the sustainability i think, specially in shipbuilding. I am glad we're going the whole nine yards with our next gen SSK, considering how well we've done with collins. IIRC didnt the Commonwealth Aircraft Corp assemble a good number of the F18A's here, 50 or so? Its good to see we are continuing that procedure with some smaller projects you outlined above. Production under licence would be preferable, however i doubt its viable for any of our larger platforms due to the limited numbers needed. F35 is probably the only one with eneough mass to sustain a local production line and there is no way in hell the yanks would allow that.
Anyhow, 'night mate hope you get some sleep.
FutureTank
Banned Member
sealift ship
It may be that Australian industry can get more success from being more serious about learning from past lessons. LHDs were fairly complex vessels, and due to their unusual purpose may require specialised building facilities. However a 10,000t RO/RO hull is not something local naval architects can't design, and there are at least three docks they can be built in. I appreciate that I may be up against the reality of past experience, but there is no reason not be be optimistic about Australian shipbuilding capability, or defence industry manufacturing in general.
The reason I'm suggesting this is because the hull can be can be built to incorporate features that RAN may wish to keep from public information sources, and it is far easier to ensure design security when the construction is performed domestically.
There is no reason to think that an auxiliary support vessel can not be used offensively in naval operations to provide an Australian task force with a winning edge when required. There is no maritime law that I'm aware of that says a military support vessel can not participate in combat while performing in it's primary design role.
In terms of size this is a longer vessel than the AOR, HMAS Success and AO, HMAS Sirius.
My point is that, like it or not (and I don't
It may be that Australian industry can get more success from being more serious about learning from past lessons. LHDs were fairly complex vessels, and due to their unusual purpose may require specialised building facilities. However a 10,000t RO/RO hull is not something local naval architects can't design, and there are at least three docks they can be built in. I appreciate that I may be up against the reality of past experience, but there is no reason not be be optimistic about Australian shipbuilding capability, or defence industry manufacturing in general.
The reason I'm suggesting this is because the hull can be can be built to incorporate features that RAN may wish to keep from public information sources, and it is far easier to ensure design security when the construction is performed domestically.
There is no reason to think that an auxiliary support vessel can not be used offensively in naval operations to provide an Australian task force with a winning edge when required. There is no maritime law that I'm aware of that says a military support vessel can not participate in combat while performing in it's primary design role.
Well, this all depends on what you want from it. Do you want a relatively cheap auxiliary transport, slightly militarised (vehicle deck capable of handling nose-to-tail Chally 2s, & I think secure military comms), which is what the Point-class is? The RN & British army find them exceedingly useful, & like the price & operating costs. In which case, the Koreans (I presume you'd rather not buy Chinese, though they could do them cheaper, though perhaps to a lower standard) would do you a deal for fine ships at a good price. They'd even build you Point clones, & probably cheaper. Any secret bits, such as comms, you could fit yourself after delivery. Or do you want something more warship-like, but costing three times as much? In which case, design & build it in Australia, by all means. But I don't see the point of incorporating super-secret features into the hulls of transports, except for the shopping-as-entertainment principle.
Agree about the last point. If we had to do a major amphibious assault, a la Falklands, no doubt all six ro-ros would go along. They'd unload as soon as we captured a harbour, or even a sheltered anchorage where they could unload onto Mexeflotes.
FutureTank
Banned Member
F-35Bs on older LHDs - Garibaldi
For those interested, I received this reply from elsewhere on the forums
Are the Italian F-35Bs expected to be operated from Garibaldi before it is decommissioned?
We'll certainly see some landing and taking off from Garibaldi between 2014 and 2020. However it will mostly be for training and not for operational missions (unless it's an emergency and Cavour is under maintenance) because the elevators are a bit too small for confortable moving of F35Bs to the hangar, and the flight deck would get very crowded with just 6 F35Bs...
Anyway non specialists (including the politicians deciding the budgets) will see F35Bs on the Garibaldi because the Navy will use it as a reminder that Cavour needs a sister ship (more or less similar) to be able to operate at anytime a F35B squadron.
Anyway, Garibaldi will undergo a major update as of 2009 and the list of changes hasn't been finalized yet. If the elevators are enlarged then it would be a major sign that F35Bs will be aboard for more than showing off the flag.
The Canberra class LAS has Length: 230.8 m (760 ft)
The Garibaldi has Length: 180.2m
Should I cross-post this to the RAAF forum?
For those interested, I received this reply from elsewhere on the forums
Are the Italian F-35Bs expected to be operated from Garibaldi before it is decommissioned?
We'll certainly see some landing and taking off from Garibaldi between 2014 and 2020. However it will mostly be for training and not for operational missions (unless it's an emergency and Cavour is under maintenance) because the elevators are a bit too small for confortable moving of F35Bs to the hangar, and the flight deck would get very crowded with just 6 F35Bs...
Anyway non specialists (including the politicians deciding the budgets) will see F35Bs on the Garibaldi because the Navy will use it as a reminder that Cavour needs a sister ship (more or less similar) to be able to operate at anytime a F35B squadron.
Anyway, Garibaldi will undergo a major update as of 2009 and the list of changes hasn't been finalized yet. If the elevators are enlarged then it would be a major sign that F35Bs will be aboard for more than showing off the flag.
The Canberra class LAS has Length: 230.8 m (760 ft)
The Garibaldi has Length: 180.2m
Should I cross-post this to the RAAF forum?
FutureTank
Banned Member
Operating F-35B off the Canberra class LAS
It seems I was misinformed.
I was told that the LAS design does not have the lifts to cope with the F-35B.
However the Spanish site
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/
(click on "Unidades del futuro", then "Buque LHD Juan Carlos I")
says the MV-22 Osprey can also be operated from the class, and this has a larger maximum take off weight then the F-35B. The lifts would therefore need to be able to cope with both aircraft, particularly since it explicitly says Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
AV-8B+ Harrier II Plus
Length: 46 ft 4 in (14.12 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 4 in (9.25 m)
Height: 11 ft 8 in (3.55 m)
Max takeoff weight: Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,000 kg)
F-35B
Length: 50 ft 6 in (15.37 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m)
Height: 17 ft 4 in (5.28 m)
Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (27,200 kg)
MV-22B Osprey
Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)
Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)
Wingspan: 46 ft (14 m); 84 ft 7 in (including rotors))
Height: 22 ft 1 in (overall - nacalles vertical) (17 ft 11 in 5.5 m (at top of tailfins))
Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)
Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)
As least 6 x F-35Bs can be carried in addition to the 6 x CH-47 Chinooks.
It seems I was misinformed.
I was told that the LAS design does not have the lifts to cope with the F-35B.
However the Spanish site
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/
(click on "Unidades del futuro", then "Buque LHD Juan Carlos I")
says the MV-22 Osprey can also be operated from the class, and this has a larger maximum take off weight then the F-35B. The lifts would therefore need to be able to cope with both aircraft, particularly since it explicitly says Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
AV-8B+ Harrier II Plus
Length: 46 ft 4 in (14.12 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 4 in (9.25 m)
Height: 11 ft 8 in (3.55 m)
Max takeoff weight: Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,000 kg)
F-35B
Length: 50 ft 6 in (15.37 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.65 m)
Height: 17 ft 4 in (5.28 m)
Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (27,200 kg)
MV-22B Osprey
Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)
Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)
Wingspan: 46 ft (14 m); 84 ft 7 in (including rotors))
Height: 22 ft 1 in (overall - nacalles vertical) (17 ft 11 in 5.5 m (at top of tailfins))
Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)
Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)
As least 6 x F-35Bs can be carried in addition to the 6 x CH-47 Chinooks.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure its warranted to get a third LHD. The capability is for a single LHD with the second as an operational backup since it is doubtful given recent history that the Army will require a two battalion deployment in a hurry.
It seems to me that crewing a third LHD as pointed out earlier would be beyond RAAN's capability at this time (it takes a good 2-3 years to get a crew together).
The question is, can the civilian market provide what had to be a purpose-built vessel with Tobruk. If it can, can it be built in Australia (which would be great IMHO), and I'm not even from Adelaide or Newcastle
I'm also thinking that a larger support vessel could provide storage for a possible option of F-35s down the road.
If we ever do go down the Light carrier path then a 3rd is a must, till then its a pipedream.The 2 LHDs will see a lot of work, as the current LPAs are the "hardest working"(according to their crews) in the RAN. If one LHD is deploying troops in combat landings, the other would be ready to surge forward with more, and the Sealift would mainly provide logistics and support equipment.
Theres little ability here in newcastle for the construction of a large vessel as we are stating, unless they build a dry dock on the old BHP site, which won't happen. Most newie can do is Huon Minehunter sized vessels.
Was the replacement of HMAS Success to be incorporated into phase 4 of JP2048? I understand Canada is also looking at a AOR in the near future and could go hand in hand with Aus.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Not sure why I used the US designation, but the Canberra class are LAS.
What about Garden Island? Or is that completely out of the question?
Last ship built at Garden Island was the Success. The set up would be substantial, its more used for upgrades such as the current FFG program. I think perth is clamming for a larger Infrastructure, unsure as to whether they want or have a dry dock for an LHD sized ship, anyone?
FutureTank
Banned Member
No, I meant the replacement for Tobruk as the sealift auxiliary.
confusion in the ranks. I was saying that perth want to be able to do LHD upgrades, seeing how sealift would be bout as large i'd see it able to be built here, but highly unlikely, especially with 4 AWD and 2 LHD ships at work, the lack of skilled workers would make construction hard. And setting up for one ships construction is a bit expensive.
Its easier to do off the shelf as was pointed out with the C-17 and Sirius. and Like i said earlier, Canada and a few nations are looking at AOR ships, and co-operation would benefit in terms of cost.
Its easier to do off the shelf as was pointed out with the C-17 and Sirius. and Like i said earlier, Canada and a few nations are looking at AOR ships, and co-operation would benefit in terms of cost.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Thanks Icelord. Probably right.
Success was built at Cockatoo Island naval dockyard. The Henderson CUF does not have a dry dock but is a hardstand with a new floating dock able to lift ships to the hardstand. The new dock is being built in Vietnam and at Henderson by Strategic Marine. It will only be able to transfer ships of 3,500 tonnes size to the hardstand but can lift up 12,000 tonnes from the sea for work.
However of course the LHDs will be maintained at the Captain Cook graving dock at Garden Island. Or perhaps at the commercial dry docks in Newcastle and Brisbane.
The replacement of Success and Sirius is under projct Sea 1654 (?) and is seperate to the ADAS project JP 2048. The Navy's preferred hull design for the Sea 1654 is the US Navy's 'Lewis and Clark' ship.
- Status