Thanks for posting the magazine cover.A picture of the November 2020 front cover for comparison. It doesn’t look like its been painted for some time. On the Canberra’s Facebook page it doesn’t have the new markings so it looks like the 2 ships have had different markings for some time.
November 2020 - Warships International Fleet Review
www.warshipsifr.com
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Joe Black
Active Member
You're right. I downloaded your image and zoomed in. Both front mounted ones are still indeed there. I was looking at the wrong area. Instead of looking right in front of the Nulka, I was looking at the side of it. I was happy thinking that they are finally mounting the Phalanx CIWS. My bad.
Say, aren't they suppose to get the Mk38 replaced by the Phalanx during this deep level maintenance?
I am also intrigued why they have gone with the black paint for the mast this time round.
After a sunrise shoot this morning I took a walk around Mrs Macquarie's chair and grabbed a few frames of some of FBE. A good contrast between old and new paint jobs on the LHDs (all images taken by me) :
HMAS Adelaide definitely ready for a new coat of paint :
HMAS Canberra looking nice and shiny after a few months in dry dock :
L to R : NUSHIP Supply, HMAS Sydney and HMAS Brisbane :
HMAS Adelaide definitely ready for a new coat of paint :
HMAS Canberra looking nice and shiny after a few months in dry dock :
L to R : NUSHIP Supply, HMAS Sydney and HMAS Brisbane :
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I read recently that Warren King has just retired from his role as Chairman of Navantia Australia.
As for a few new orders, the 2 x JSS project is in the pipeline, and Navantia Australia has been promoting their design.
That actually looks like quite a nice design on paper. I am quite interested in it.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Agree.
PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News
At PACIFIC 2019, the naval defense exposition held last week in Sydney, Australia, Navantia Australia, the local branch of Spanish shipbuilding group Navantia, unveiled a new Joint Support Ship (JSS) design for both the domestic and export market.
www.navalnews.com
It will be interesting to see what other design options are put forward for the JSS project.
I’d imagine that Damen will put up their own design based on a version of the Enforcer hull too.
One advantage I can see for the Navantia Australia offering is that it’s designed here (no doubt with help from Navantia Spain). I can see an argument being made that not only will there be ‘employment’ here during the build, but also growing and sustaining design capabilities in Oz is good for the economy too.
Cheers,
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
It is one of those things that is very hard to say how much help was given if any etc... To the best of my limited knowledge she is fully designed in the Aussie branch... as the article says "fully designed in-house by Navantia Australia’s new design center" But that doesn't mean no help and advice was given while they build the experience.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
There is the Karel Doorman currently in service with the Dutch Navy which is based on the Enforcer design but is a big Ship at 204m and 27,000t.Agree.
PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News
At PACIFIC 2019, the naval defense exposition held last week in Sydney, Australia, Navantia Australia, the local branch of Spanish shipbuilding group Navantia, unveiled a new Joint Support Ship (JSS) design for both the domestic and export market.
It will be interesting to see what other design options are put forward for the JSS project.
I’d imagine that Damen will put up their own design based on a version of the Enforcer hull too.
One advantage I can see for the Navantia Australia offering is that it’s designed here (no doubt with help from Navantia Spain). I can see an argument being made that not only will there be ‘employment’ here during the build, but also growing and sustaining design capabilities in Oz is good for the economy too.
Cheers,
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Yeah, nah, wasn’t thinking of Karel Doorman, just too big, I was thinking more of this:
My guess would be that a potential Damen JSS offering would be similar to Johan de Witt, its approx the same overall dimensions of the Navantia JSS and HMAS Choules, eg 176m in length, similar beam and 16,000t+ or so.
Cheers,
Given the size and number of vehicles being acquired under Land 400 Phase 2, the extra lane metres and fuel capacity of the Karel Doorman design would be ideal. The Navantia JSS design is just too limited in that it can only carry 500 tonnes of vehicles.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I doubt the Navantia Australia JSS has been designed down to the last nut and bolt at this stage, they’ve probably done enough to deliver a reasonably developed ‘proposed’ design for consideration.
And of course the JSS design is not a ‘clean sheet’ design either, it’s based on a Navantia Spain Enforcer design.
Let’s not forget that some of the recent ship designs selected for the RAN still require ‘detailed’ design work before cutting steel, the Hunter class FFGs for example.
Anyway, if the Navantia JSS is chosen, that’s when the more detailed design work will likely happen, in my opinion.
Cheers,
As we can see from FBE, Navatia has had a pretty successful relationship with Australia and the RAN. Australia has gone back to them on multiple occasions. While certainly there has been issues, the issues haven't been terminal. They have a local footprint of about 130 people locally in Australia.
Man power is a key limitation. I don't think Australia should be afraid of the size of a ship, at least anymore. Modifying smaller/existing designs is always costly.
Reasonable, however, it would require a significant reconfiguring to provide the AOR capabilities the RAN is looking for. Much like what Navantia has done with their proposal.
Man power is a key limitation. I don't think Australia should be afraid of the size of a ship, at least anymore. Modifying smaller/existing designs is always costly.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I don’t think the effort of taking an existing Enforcer LPD design will be anymore difficult for either the Dutch or Spanish, what Navantia has done will be easily duplicated by Damen, basically it will be variations of the same theme.
As to the eventual size of JSS for the RAN, it’s all a guessing game at the moment, at least until the Government releases an RFI, then we’ll likely know.
But I wouldn’t mind betting that when Navantia Australia came up with their proposed design back in 2019 (a year prior to the Government announcing a requirement for two JSS in the 2020 Strategic Update), they probably had a fair idea of what ‘size’ of ship the Government is looking for.
That's not the point and not what the JSS would necessarily be used for. You have two 27,000 tonne LHDs that cover that. A JSS is a different beastie and has a different mission. It rolls up afterwards and supports the amphib forces on the ground with FOL, dry stores etc., freeing up the LHDs and AOR for other taskings. They can also be used on taskings where a LHD / AOR isn't available, or are to much ship, or where it can fill both roles. Size isn't everything and it's the old adage of it's isn't how big it is, but how you use it. The JSS is another force multiplier that fits within its own niche and gives the RAN another string to its bow.
Damen has designed & built two LPDs; designed four LSDs for building in the UK (one now in service with the RAN); designed & built a considerably bigger JSS with both amphibious transport & replenishment capabilities; and has designed & is currently building an AOR similar in size to Johann de Witt, all on the same basic template (which originated with Damen) as Navantia has used.
I think Damen would probably know exactly how to reconfigure the design of JdW into a JSS.
Damen is certainly capable of reconfiguring, its another question if they are chasing this particular requirement with that particular configuration.
They also have the LSV 19000 which broadly achieves the same thing, if perhaps a touch lighter on the amphibious capability. With lighter crewing capability. I wonder if something like that is what is being looked at for the pacific ship.
The 27,000 JSS Karel Doorman IMO isn't out of the realm of possibility. Crewing is ball park right, it certainly has the capability boxes ticked. There is already and existing example built and in service.
I used to think the smaller designs would probably be of more interest if it was going to be built/sustained at Osborne. That doesn't seem to be the case, and clearly the government is quite happy to spend a lot of money to ensure WA has its share of work.
Modifying designs and building in a new yard can get expensive. The Canadians have a great case study in that. Building a multirole ship by adapting an existing design.
They also have the LSV 19000 which broadly achieves the same thing, if perhaps a touch lighter on the amphibious capability. With lighter crewing capability. I wonder if something like that is what is being looked at for the pacific ship.
The 27,000 JSS Karel Doorman IMO isn't out of the realm of possibility. Crewing is ball park right, it certainly has the capability boxes ticked. There is already and existing example built and in service.
I used to think the smaller designs would probably be of more interest if it was going to be built/sustained at Osborne. That doesn't seem to be the case, and clearly the government is quite happy to spend a lot of money to ensure WA has its share of work.
Modifying designs and building in a new yard can get expensive. The Canadians have a great case study in that. Building a multirole ship by adapting an existing design.
Except that vessel does not have the capacity to carry fuel for discharge. Not something that is easy to retrofit into an existing design as it is essentially a complete redesign as the load, discharge, bunker and fir protection arrangements have a very significant impact on the design.
I suggest if other builders are going to put in an offer it will need to be a design built to have 'oiler capacity' or a clean sheet design.
I fully agree that we will not be getting a 27,000 tonne JSS and I expect other makers will be offering options.
I do wonder how this design would fit with the RNZN as it would provide some commonality between the RAN and RNZN in respect to the fit and operation of these platforms. The 2019 capability plan did elude to an LPD and the JSS concept would give the RNZN an option in place of their AOR when this is in maintenance. I do not a lot are suggesting an LHD would be better.
I had the same thought. The Navantia JSS would seem a pretty close match to the RNZN requirement of an 'enhanced' sea lift vessel (ie an LPD, similar to one of the Enforcer variants), to supplement / replace HMNZS Canterbury. Probably what they should have got in the first place if the NZ Govt hadn't been so cheap about it.
- Status