What next for the RAN?

For all concerned, I have broken this thread up into various topics all called “Subject Studies” as the subject matter here was getting rather long and complex and also I had left a lot out from the original posting for reasons of continuing the discussion- I didn’t expect much input but thanks everyone for a great discussion

She was late, massively over budget, and that yard was closed soon after (now a museum).

Not sure what size ships the Yards in Newcastle, Melbourne and Adelaide can build, but the LHD’s are being built in Spain.

Yes Success was a bit of a problem and yes Cockatoo Island is now a Museum- well the bits that aren’t off limits due to asbestos mind you.

Newcastle can handle ships up to Tanker size with ease, they managed to do repairs there all the time to bulk carriers and Naval ships that have a bit of a plonk on various reefs 😉

Williamstown can build them without a problem

Adelaide could easily build them as could the builders in North Queensland and Western Australia, so there is no doubt we could build them here with ease.

We built HMAS Success didn’t we? We also built all the Anzacs and the up coming Hobart class vessels, so we do have a decent ship building industry!

She was late, massively over budget, and that yard was closed soon after (now a museum).

Not sure what size ships the Yards in Newcastle, Melbourne and Adelaide can build, but the LHD’s are being built in Spain.

Yeah i should have thought about that first point before hammering away on the keyboard :o.

It’s ok mate, many a time have I banged away and forgotten what I was talking about or missed the point entirely thus bringing up new points- of course most of the time mine is due to lack of sleep.

One thing i’ve wondered about with the Armidales is that the crew stated on Wiki is 21 but im guessing they will generally have more people on board, how many spare bunks are there. I ask as once you put some men in each RHIB the crew left is pretty small not accounting for people on watch during the night. I would guess most of the time however they only use one RHIB for saying hello to fishermen etc. Just wondering:)

Well as I have been aboard HMAS Wollongong, I can testify that there are a large amount of spare bunks board each of the Armidales- 30 to be precise. These are located aft on 01 deck which is usually reserved for internment of suspected assilum seekers or illegal fishermen.

There is not much out on the interweb about the FSC program we can only really have educated guesses at what is needed/wanted and what we could get.

Educated guesses are best coming from educated people, sadly I doubt any one in the navy has any decent education- they weren’t issued with it :p

I see the sense in Australia building it’s own ships but with tankers i think the money saved in a foreign build could be huge. Building classes of vessel that keep shipyards working is the best idea for home yards whereas one or two ship classes are better built abroad. Unless of course your home industry can do it for a similar price point. Keeping industries like shipbuilding running is tough as it requires them to either be commercially successful or for the nation to maintain a shipbuilding tempo for it’s naval forces.

We built HMAS Success didn’t we? We also built all the Anzacs and the up coming Hobart class vessels, so we do have a decent ship building industry!

Why others dont is politics and the lack of will to run large programs over time, for instance in the UK we could afford IMHO to produce more T45’s and then run out a line of ASW configured ships, This could save quite a lot of cash in the long term while still buying votes.

The only problem there is that it takes money away from the polies pockets and we can’t have that can we? I mean how on earth would they buy their second houses down south? :dev2:

One new Auxiliary bah thats a bit unlucky, i would say then either an enlarged Berlin class to allow more fuel bunkerage or the Aegir 18R. An additional note is that Australia has most of it’s intrests quite close to home so it only really needs auxiliaries for the odd deployment further from home.

Ummmmm actually we have continual deployments in the Arabian gulf (since 1993 in fact) and now we are to also form part of Task force 151 off the coast of Africa in order to help stem the tide of Pirates. Though this could easily be handled by the current HMAS Sirius

Woot new thread i’ll be sure to post back.

Knew you’d be happy 😉

Yeah i should have thought about that first point before hammering away on the keyboard :o. One thing i’ve wondered about with the Armidales is that the crew stated on Wiki is 21 but im guessing they will generally have more people on board, how many spare bunks are there. I ask as once you put some men in each RHIB the crew left is pretty small not accounting for people on watch during the night. I would guess most of the time however they only use one RHIB for saying hello to fishermen etc. Just wondering:)

There is not much out on the interweb about the FSC program we can only really have educated guesses at what is needed/wanted and what we could get.

I see the sense in Australia building it’s own ships but with tankers i think the money saved in a foreign build could be huge. Building classes of vessel that keep shipyards working is the best idea for home yards whereas one or two ship classes are better built abroad. Unless of course your home industry can do it for a similar price point. Keeping industries like shipbuilding running is tough as it requires them to either be commercially successful or for the nation to maintain a shipbuilding tempo for it’s naval forces.

Why others dont is politics and the lack of will to run large programs over time, for instance in the UK we could afford IMHO to produce more T45’s and then run out a line of ASW configured ships, This could save quite a lot of cash in the long term while still buying votes.

One new Auxiliary bah thats a bit unlucky, i would say then either an enlarged Berlin class to allow more fuel bunkerage or the Aegir 18R. An additional note is that Australia has most of it’s intrests quite close to home so it only really needs auxiliaries for the odd deployment further from home.

Woot new thread i’ll be sure to post back.

I think the best route for finding a patrol vessel would be to have an International competition and give out some detailed information on what is needed and ask people what they have. People like VT would have some advantage thanks to the recent orders they have been won. I would hope that they could organise a visit to the Trinidad and Tobago OPV’s and allow the RAN to have a good look round to decide if it would suit their needs, im sure it will. Other contenders could do the same allowing the RAN to see and feel before they commit any cash to the project.

We do follow those procedures mate, When we bought the Armidales, the Customs Service showed the navy their Bay class (which are a smaller version), the Phillipine Coast Guard brought down one of their vessels which was another contender and the third contender, brought a company vessel down. All vessels were used for one week in a typical naval patrol fashion, so how Austral and DMO got the contract no one really knows, but the Armidales are a decent boat, I spent a bit of time aboard the new HMAS Wollongong and it was a dream compared to my time in the RAN on the old Fremantle class.

The C1 images you show are one of the few sets of images out there, that vessel in particular seems suited to UAV’s as the large hangar would allow storage of your normal manned helicopter while allowing additional UAV’s to be stored in the smaller side hangars. As you have pointed out that is one of the stated requirements for the design and will be vital in future due to the emerging UAV technology. Although the hull itself is unproven and costs unknown which would cause an issue for the bean counters it should prove to be an excellent design.

Yeah there aren’t too many images out there of this proposal, nor is there much info, but the room for growth is there!

The Royal Navy and RFA are pretty much in the bin at the current time due to the idiots in power and possibly those waiting in the wings to be elected. When times were good the Government kept borrowing money and kept spending whereas in Australia the Government paid off debts and sorted out it’s finances. I think however if and when the RFA do get new tankers ordered they will come from South Korea which should mean that they are on time and on cost. If Australia and New Zealand joined the order (if they didn’t mind the ships being built abroad) then the combined order should help lower costs as many things would be common amongst the fleet, it would also be more attractive for the yards to bid on as orders are usually for more than a few vessels when korean yards are concerned.

Yes Australia has proven itself mature with funds (wish I could learn from this example :o). While the RFA may have to settle for their vessels being built in Korean yards, Australia won’t. As stipulated in all requirements (except for the LHDs) all vessels are to be built in Australia or assembled from parts supplied by the winning contractor. The idea is to off set the costs of the vessels by creating jobs thus stimulating the economy- one problem: Ship building is a fine art, you can not just employ any manjack off the street and hand him a blow tourch and say “Knock that ship up for us will ya mate”. Guess this is why we have realised that we are facing a huge skills shortage over here and are offering favourable terms for migrants with skills.

You are correct that buying a common design would be ideal and it has been done many times in the past making it more feasible that it will happen again, common support infrastucture would be ideal to make best use of available funds and expertise in both nations.

It just makes economic sense, why others don’t do it is beyond me

The Berlin class are like mini T-AKE’s good point and they would be essential for the deployment of an LHD. My concern with the Berlin class is that they don’t carry that much fuel and i doubt it would be enough for an LHD and escorts. So i think 2 Berlin class and some larger tankers (maybe 4)would be needed for the RAN at least in the future to support the LHD’s. These new ships would allow the RAN to better support deployments in it’s region and abroad as well as supporting allied nations in the region on joint deployments. Thats just my thoughts on that and i might be totally off, I’ve also posted on the new thread.

Sadly mate so far the requirement is for only one new vessel- guess it will have to be the Aegir 18R 😀

I noticed your posts on the other thread and thank you for them- you and I seem to be thinking along the same lines. New thread coming up as well.

I think the best route for finding a patrol vessel would be to have an International competition and give out some detailed information on what is needed and ask people what they have. People like VT would have some advantage thanks to the recent orders they have been won. I would hope that they could organise a visit to the Trinidad and Tobago OPV’s and allow the RAN to have a good look round to decide if it would suit their needs, im sure it will. Other contenders could do the same allowing the RAN to see and feel before they commit any cash to the project.

The C1 images you show are one of the few sets of images out there, that vessel in particular seems suited to UAV’s as the large hangar would allow storage of your normal manned helicopter while allowing additional UAV’s to be stored in the smaller side hangars. As you have pointed out that is one of the stated requirements for the design and will be vital in future due to the emerging UAV technology. Although the hull itself is unproven and costs unknown which would cause an issue for the bean counters it should prove to be an excellent design.

The Royal Navy and RFA are pretty much in the bin at the current time due to the idiots in power and possibly those waiting in the wings to be elected. When times were good the Government kept borrowing money and kept spending whereas in Australia the Government paid off debts and sorted out it’s finances. I think however if and when the RFA do get new tankers ordered they will come from South Korea which should mean that they are on time and on cost. If Australia and New Zealand joined the order (if they didn’t mind the ships being built abroad) then the combined order should help lower costs as many things would be common amongst the fleet, it would also be more attractive for the yards to bid on as orders are usually for more than a few vessels when korean yards are concerned.

You are correct that buying a common design would be ideal and it has been done many times in the past making it more feasible that it will happen again, common support infrastucture would be ideal to make best use of available funds and expertise in both nations.

The Berlin class are like mini T-AKE’s good point and they would be essential for the deployment of an LHD. My concern with the Berlin class is that they don’t carry that much fuel and i doubt it would be enough for an LHD and escorts. So i think 2 Berlin class and some larger tankers (maybe 4)would be needed for the RAN at least in the future to support the LHD’s. These new ships would allow the RAN to better support deployments in it’s region and abroad as well as supporting allied nations in the region on joint deployments. Thats just my thoughts on that and i might be totally off, I’ve also posted on the new thread.

Excellent post Mr Worsley.

Thanks mate, I do try to take this work seriously, for me the future of Naval and indeed Defence Matters are not a joke but something to be seriously discussed and if i can share my knowledge then great, what makes it all the better is that I continually learn as well!

The RR design is an ugly one alright, they have sold though the French have a few for emergency towing and pollution control i think :S. They are handy ships to have when far away from help.

I don’t doubt their versitility, usually the ugliest vessel does some of the most amazing work!

Drugs are a massive problem in the caribbean and it’s nice to see VT coming up with some nice designs that people seem to like. I think they would suit patrolling Australia’s coast line and would be able to deploy easily into the surrounding areas of intrest.

VT have always come up with great designs, go back to the 70’s and have a look at the Mk7 for Kenya and Mk8 for Iran. As for what would best suite the RAN needs, well we need to study each proposal and see which best suites… I guess that means another threat- ok, coming up!

The Caimen 200 LCT would be very close to ideal for the role that it would be intended. I dont think there would be a massive problem sticking a Heli deck over the rear of the vehicle deck, that would allow light to medium helicopters to land and re-fuel.

My line of thinking as well, and as I said before, a surgery (not a hospital) would also go down well considering deployment zones.

[QUOTE=Flubba;1461163]The point raised about the ANZAC replacement is a good one, a Hobart class with no Aegis might fit the bill but what would be ideal is the planned RN C1 which will be coming along in the next decade. There seems to be a few overlaps between the RAN and RN C3 could fit the patrol vessel requirement and C1 the ANZAC replacement.

I’ve looked at the C1 and the entire family proposed there, they are indeed interesting and obviously incorporate the latest thinking along the “Stealth” lines

The question really does boil down to it’s capabilities and the risk involved in buying the design- Recent NAO reports have come down heavy on the RAN and Government over the way the SH-2G(A) was handled and as such, all future projects will be subject to clearly defined goals before purchase rather than having more capability added as we go along in the project.

Also with the RFA supposed to be getting new tankers soon and if the RAN is in the market then thats another overlap. I especially liked the idea that the RNZN might buy a Aegir 10 which would be great for commonality and cost. What am i missing about the Berlin class btw?

I can see the advantage of joining up with the UK on buying a tanker, though I doubt the way the poms are going that they will have much of a force soon. Their ever decreasing fleet and defence budget is alarming even to someone this far away. I feel that if we signed up with the British for a tanker program, we’d be subject to huge amounts of delays as they sort out what they want and where they would get the money from- this is totally unacceptable to our forces and our population would not stand for it.

If we enter into an agreement with New Zealand on the Aegir program, then I expect the ground work would be done already as we already have common needs and common goals and indeed we have already got the infrastructure in place- Anzac class, Project Protector vessels, need I go on? Them buying the 10 and us buying the 18 or 18R would only add to that back ground!

The Berlin class vessels are more akin to the large T-AKE’s of the USNS but vastly smaller, thus posessing a capability like these vessels have would put the RAN certainly at the forefront in the region in terms of support capabilities and turn our limited blue water navy into a credible blue water navy!

Excellent post Mr Worsley. The RR design is an ugly one alright, they have sold though the French have a few for emergency towing and pollution control i think :S. They are handy ships to have when far away from help.

Drugs are a massive problem in the caribbean and it’s nice to see VT coming up with some nice designs that people seem to like. I think they would suit patrolling Australia’s coast line and would be able to deploy easily into the surrounding areas of intrest.

The Caimen 200 LCT would be very close to ideal for the role that it would be intended. I dont think there would be a massive problem sticking a Heli deck over the rear of the vehicle deck, that would allow light to medium helicopters to land and re-fuel.

The point raised about the ANZAC replacement is a good one, a Hobart class with no Aegis might fit the bill but what would be ideal is the planned RN C1 which will be coming along in the next decade. There seems to be a few overlaps between the RAN and RN C3 could fit the patrol vessel requirement and C1 the ANZAC replacement. Also with the RFA supposed to be getting new tankers soon and if the RAN is in the market then thats another overlap. I especially liked the idea that the RNZN might buy a Aegir 10 which would be great for commonality and cost. What am i missing about the Berlin class btw?

L-CAT is just a LCU replacement, far too small to replace LSTs. The article linked by me also gives a mid-scale CNIM system, the 60m long MPC 2.

Back : MPC, 30m long, L-CAT with patrol functionality added
Front : MPC 2, 60m long, enlarged L-CAT with accomodations top deck and helo platform.

The 90m MPV is the next-biggest step. There are some design differences in the four units of the family (L-CAT, MPC, MPC 2, MPV), e.g. on whether they can be loaded from both front and back, on how much space is dedicated to RoRo cargo and accomodations and so on.

MPC 2 data:
– dimensions 60m x 17m
– displacement 600 tons
– max speed 30 knots
– cargo capacity 200 tons / ~160 lane meters
– cargo deck loadable from front and back
– helo platform for medium, afaik no hangar (that’s just an access gate there)
– fully beachable for amphibious insertion

Kato: mate that MPC2 does indeed suit the bill for consideration, Helo deck is something the RAN are looking for on the replacement LCH and it does indeed have all the right qualities, there is a list below of some of the things I’ve heard mention by certain Navy officials that they want in the new LHC class.

on a personal note, I love the MPC, that little beast is going to do well in the right hands- now to see if anyone snaps them up!

The Rolls Royce UT-527 is an ugly ship but it is also very practical does what it says on the Tin basically. Can do almost any job the RAN would need it to do and more.

I don’t doubt their capability mate, but seriously, it is really an eyesore- good luck to Rolls Royce trying to sell it!

My vote for a Patrol ship for Australia would be the OPV’s being built by BVT for Trinidad and Tobago. They are large ships that can operate medium helicopters although they do not have a hangar, they have a fairly good range. The ships also can carry TEU containers to store additional equipment. They seem like a great OPV suitable for the Australian specification. The only thing missing is a medium caliber gun, but that should not be of great difficulty to fix.

If the money was avaliable then the BMT Venator would make the perfect choice as it is designed for this role in response to the British C3 specification.

I had a look at that Trinidad project, it is very interesting, now couple that with the fleet of patrol vessels they just bought from Austral and they seem to be getting really serious about their Drug Offencive program over there, about time too- I have a friend over there and he keeps me updated on this issue and it really is a problem in that area, not just that country.

I have no idea about the LCT replacement, the french will replace the BATRAL’s soon so getting the same would not be that bad of an idea.

Since France has a huge base down in this part of the world, sharing a design work load and Australia buying into the game would make a heap of sence- thus the L-Cat seems very likely.

The German Berlin class is an excellent ship but is more of a multipurpose vessel than a pure supply ship. The hospital facilities on board would maybe not be needed as the canberra class should have similar facilities? However it still should fit the bill fine. The Aegir 18R would not be too shabby and could be built for peanuts in a South Korean yard.

I think you are overlooking one very major point in terms of the Berlin Class- yes they have hospital facilities, these could compliment the Canberra class- especially when one of them is down for major maintenance. If I was in a position to offer advice to the powers that be, then these vessels would be one of my recommendations.

I looked into the Aegir 18R and the other vessels of this class- very interesting! I can see potential in the design and application and should we go for that design, then the RNZN could go for the Aegir 10 as a replacement to RNZS Endeavour which is coming soon for them, thus reducing costs again across the Tasman, just like we did with the Anzac class.

The Aegir 18R

On the issue of the ACPB replacement, my concern would be the loss of hulls, by increasing the costs and thus risking smaller numbers being bought. I would certainly look at something along the lines of the Danish Knud Rasmussen class offshore patrol ships. These would be affordable, relatively, and yet could be up-gunned for other tasks. This would allow the normal EEZ patrol duties to be performed with limited armament such as the Typhoon mount. At the same time, they could be forward deployed, to support peacekeeping missions, up-gunned to include a 76mm gun, a couple of Harpoons and a modest defensive anti-air capability using RBS-70 or similar.

This modular fit would allow them to be bought relatively cheaply, and then work on increasing the number of armament ‘kits’ available. Obviously I wouldn’t necessarily just copy the Knud Rasmussen, but with modest changes it should still be pretty cheap. It would need the space for MCM gear, mounted in shipping containers, and a pair of good size RHIBs, plus space for UUVs aft.

Ed: mate I too am worried about the loss of hull numbers, sure I understand the reasoning behind such a move, and coupled with the current MHC, SMV and SMS vessels currently also undertaking patrol duties due to a major influx of illegal immigrants traveling here via boats that are no bigger than shoe boxes, a move towards an OPC capable of packing some punch as well as undertaking other duties does send a message to those people wishing to sell tickets on their craft to come to our shores.

What worries me is that these vessels will spend more time on the line rather than keeping our accurate charts fully updated- and another thing, dedicated survey vessels have the best equipment of the time, these ad-hoc mongrels might have to settle for lesser sensors because they can’t pack what is really needed into the container for shipment aboard for duties. As for the RBS-70, that system is being replaced soon, a program to find a replacement has been launched already!

As for the ANZAC replacement, I do like the idea of an Aegis-less version of the Hobart class, rather than a whole new design. Ideally, though, these should still be pretty darned capable ships, with the CEAFAR radar, a good size VLS. By using pretty much the same design as the Hobart, crews can move around within the fleet with few problems. It makes support a lot easier, and overall would help with streamlining of the fleet.

I believe that it the line of thinking. the Anzacs are due to start undergoing their modernization very soon and in that they will be getting both CEA-FAR and CEA-Mount systems. The new Frigates are to be BIGGER than the Anzac class with more emphasis on the ASW role, but not limited to that role. There is also talk of TLAM’s (Tactical Land Attack Missiles, aka Tomahawks) also being fitted to these vessels, just like the new AWD’s and new Subs we are to get- Australia does seem to be stepping up it’s game wouldn’t you think?

In terms of the replacement of the Balikpapan class LCHs, a large question is the actual rationale behind their operation. If you are looking for a straight replacement, albeit a bit bigger, then a modern BATRAL would be okay. If you are looking for an ability to deliver heavy equipment throughout the region, then a modified version of the American Frank Besson class could be ideal. It may be possible to take the Besson class, and add in davits for a couple of LCMs, as will be used on the Canberra class. The size would allow them to carry a useful load ashore, in support of amphibious ops, or move heavy engineering gear for disaster response ops.

The decision behind replacing the LCH’s is simple, they are old- we aren’t looking to increase the size much as these vessels have proven to be just what the doctor ordered. I can however, see a few improvements being made to the role in order to allow the RAN to better support the army in the current role, improvements would be: Helo deck (no need really to go all out and have an organic helo detachment), a small surgery- not a hospital- would go well considering where we usually send these vessels and why, and lastly capability to deploy all manner of Army equipment (The LHCs can’t take the new MBTs).

Here is another design I have just found that could fit the bill- albeit with some mods to incorporate what I mentioned above- the BMT Fast LCT: Caimen-200

Hopefully AUSPAR will be ready by the time the ANZAC replacement is being constructed. Supposed to be much better then the current CEAFAR.

As for the ANZAC replacement, I do like the idea of an Aegis-less version of the Hobart class, rather than a whole new design. Ideally, though, these should still be pretty darned capable ships, with the CEAFAR radar, a good size VLS. By using pretty much the same design as the Hobart, crews can move around within the fleet with few problems. It makes support a lot easier, and overall would help with streamlining of the fleet.

I think your right on with this and think it would be the best move for the RAN

Nomad: I’ve had a look at the Gowind designs and I feel that they are just a little too big for the OPC role, now granted there are smaller designs on the board, I feel that these vessels might actually be better proposed as the replacement Frigate vessels of which we need a new design to replace the Anzac class and which have been stated they must be bigger- one proposal on the board is the F-100 modified without the SPY-1 radar. This would bring commonality to the fleet and allow a huge reduction in costs of logistics support, but could that really be a proposal?

As for the replacement Seahawk helo, From what I am hearing with my contacts in defence- the NH-90 NFH is going to be the winner due to the strict compliance with the Air 9000- specifically to reduce the number of different types operated- besides, the NFH does offer better quallities than the Seahawk in any form- especially in growth potential!

On the issue of the ACPB replacement, my concern would be the loss of hulls, by increasing the costs and thus risking smaller numbers being bought. I would certainly look at something along the lines of the Danish Knud Rasmussen class offshore patrol ships. These would be affordable, relatively, and yet could be up-gunned for other tasks. This would allow the normal EEZ patrol duties to be performed with limited armament such as the Typhoon mount. At the same time, they could be forward deployed, to support peacekeeping missions, up-gunned to include a 76mm gun, a couple of Harpoons and a modest defensive anti-air capability using RBS-70 or similar.

This modular fit would allow them to be bought relatively cheaply, and then work on increasing the number of armament ‘kits’ available. Obviously I wouldn’t necessarily just copy the Knud Rasmussen, but with modest changes it should still be pretty cheap. It would need the space for MCM gear, mounted in shipping containers, and a pair of good size RHIBs, plus space for UUVs aft.

As for the ANZAC replacement, I do like the idea of an Aegis-less version of the Hobart class, rather than a whole new design. Ideally, though, these should still be pretty darned capable ships, with the CEAFAR radar, a good size VLS. By using pretty much the same design as the Hobart, crews can move around within the fleet with few problems. It makes support a lot easier, and overall would help with streamlining of the fleet.

In terms of the replacement of the Balikpapan class LCHs, a large question is the actual rationale behind their operation. If you are looking for a straight replacement, albeit a bit bigger, then a modern BATRAL would be okay. If you are looking for an ability to deliver heavy equipment throughout the region, then a modified version of the American Frank Besson class could be ideal. It may be possible to take the Besson class, and add in davits for a couple of LCMs, as will be used on the Canberra class. The size would allow them to carry a useful load ashore, in support of amphibious ops, or move heavy engineering gear for disaster response ops.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lsv/

The Rolls Royce UT-527 is an ugly ship but it is also very practical does what it says on the Tin basically. Can do almost any job the RAN would need it to do and more.

My vote for a Patrol ship for Australia would be the OPV’s being built by BVT for Trinidad and Tobago. They are large ships that can operate medium helicopters although they do not have a hangar, they have a fairly good range. The ships also can carry TEU containers to store additional equipment. They seem like a great OPV suitable for the Australian specification. The only thing missing is a medium caliber gun, but that should not be of great difficulty to fix.

If the money was avaliable then the BMT Venator would make the perfect choice as it is designed for this role in response to the British C3 specification.

I have no idea about the LCT replacement, the french will replace the BATRAL’s soon so getting the same would not be that bad of an idea.

The German Berlin class is an excellent ship but is more of a multipurpose vessel than a pure supply ship. The hospital facilities on board would maybe not be needed as the canberra class should have similar facilities? However it still should fit the bill fine. The Aegir 18R would not be too shabby and could be built for peanuts in a South Korean yard.

I feel that the CNIM proposal may be along the lines of what is needed but it in this form is way too big and thus has no chance- As I said above, have a look at the L-Cat that France is working on- this is the size of vessel we need and this particular vessel being capable of ro/ro just goes to add more to it being a winner!

L-CAT is just a LCU replacement, far too small to replace LSTs. The article linked by me also gives a mid-scale CNIM system, the 60m long MPC 2.

Back : MPC, 30m long, L-CAT with patrol functionality added
Front : MPC 2, 60m long, enlarged L-CAT with accomodations top deck and helo platform.

The 90m MPV is the next-biggest step. There are some design differences in the four units of the family (L-CAT, MPC, MPC 2, MPV), e.g. on whether they can be loaded from both front and back, on how much space is dedicated to RoRo cargo and accomodations and so on.

MPC 2 data:
– dimensions 60m x 17m
– displacement 600 tons
– max speed 30 knots
– cargo capacity 200 tons / ~160 lane meters
– cargo deck loadable from front and back
– helo platform for medium, afaik no hangar (that’s just an access gate there)
– fully beachable for amphibious insertion

Large LST are not terribly popular any more.
What about participating in the LCU-X?
Or T-Craft?

Hey Dis: mate I had a look around at these projects and I found very little on the LCU-X but found some very interesting designs on the T-Craft.

ONR’s concept does seem to be right out there, but is the RAN ready to move towards a hover craft design?

Here are some of the designs for the T-Craft that I came across.

I also found info on the HLCAC

And more interestingly the L-Cat which France is currently working on, now this project seems to be of interest to me!

http://defense-technologynews.blogspot.com/2008/11/france-navy-test-new-l-cat-landing.html

Depends on the force you’re trying to project into a specific theater. If it’s about mopping up coup attempts on pacific islands, 200 men with a couple vehicles, these LSTs are pretty much the only size needed.

There are a number of proposals for the BATRAL replacement:

Rolls-Royce proposal (UT-527):
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=102955

– 1800 tons displacement
– dimensions 92.4 x 18 meters
– high automatisation, 12 men crew
– range 20.000 nm @ 16 knots (!), max speed 20 knots
– heavy helicopter platform, no hangar
– capacity for up to 320 troops, or 120 troops with 20 vehicles including some armoured
– multi-purpose with towing and firefighting capability

Proposal is for 6 ships for the Marine Nationale, to replace the BATRALs and the southern patrol cutter Albatros, possibly also a candidate for P400 replacement. Proposed introduction 2013-2018.

CNIM proposal for BATRAL replacement (MPV):
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108703
(well, somewhere in there)

– dimensions: 90 meters long, catamaran
– range 12.000 nm @ 12 knots, cruise speed 20 knots, max speed 25 knots
– crew: 25 men
– platform and hangar for medium helicopter and/or UAV
– capacity: up to 300 troops or those 120 men with 20 vehicles (160 lane meters / 500 m² 5-m-roof flex deck)
– beachable

The primary concerns for “Projet BIS” from the MN seems to be :
– massive range for worldwide autonomous use
– standardized troop capacity identical to BATRAL
– helicopter capability

The rest seems to be … negotiable.

Kato: Mate that Rolls Royce proposal is ugly, I mean as far as ugly is concerned, this thing fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down!

I feel that the CNIM proposal may be along the lines of what is needed but it in this form is way too big and thus has no chance- As I said above, have a look at the L-Cat that France is working on- this is the size of vessel we need and this particular vessel being capable of ro/ro just goes to add more to it being a winner!

[QUOTE=Nomad;1456113]

[IMG]
So what other vessels could be in the running? Would the RAN consider the Visby class? are there any other designs to be considered?

While there are many good designs currently available both in service and on the drawing board the design that to my mind comes closest to the the White paper description is the Gowind from DCNS.

But which ever design is eventually chosen by/for the RAN, IMHO the design should include the ability to launch/recover and support on board a Seahawk class replacement sized helicopter.

For the ASW role – Helicopter with dipping sonar

Offshore/Littoral combat – Helicopter with Penguin class ASM’s

Hydro/Oceanographic – VTUAV/LUH

Special Forces support – Utility helicopter/VTUAV/LUH

Border Protection – Utility helicopter/VTUAV/LUH

Counter Terrism/Piracy -ARH/Utility helicopter/VTUAV/LUH

My thoughts
Nomad

Nomad: I’ve had a look at the Gowind designs and I feel that they are just a little too big for the OPC role, now granted there are smaller designs on the board, I feel that these vessels might actually be better proposed as the replacement Frigate vessels of which we need a new design to replace the Anzac class and which have been stated they must be bigger- one proposal on the board is the F-100 modified without the SPY-1 radar. This would bring commonality to the fleet and allow a huge reduction in costs of logistics support, but could that really be a proposal?

As for the replacement Seahawk helo, From what I am hearing with my contacts in defence- the NH-90 NFH is going to be the winner due to the strict compliance with the Air 9000- specifically to reduce the number of different types operated- besides, the NFH does offer better quallities than the Seahawk in any form- especially in growth potential!

[QUOTE=Ja Worsley;1454004][IMG]
So what other vessels could be in the running? Would the RAN consider the Visby class? are there any other designs to be considered?

While there are many good designs currently available both in service and on the drawing board the design that to my mind comes closest to the the White paper description is the Gowind from DCNS.

But which ever design is eventually chosen by/for the RAN, IMHO the design should include the ability to launch/recover and support on board a Seahawk class replacement sized helicopter.

For the ASW role – Helicopter with dipping sonar

Offshore/Littoral combat – Helicopter with Penguin class ASM’s

Hydro/Oceanographic – VTUAV/LUH

Special Forces support – Utility helicopter/VTUAV/LUH

Border Protection – Utility helicopter/VTUAV/LUH

Counter Terrism/Piracy -ARH/Utility helicopter/VTUAV/LUH

My thoughts
Nomad

I do agree that large LST’s are now a bygone age, sort of like Battleships really. Better to throw everything in a large Sealift ship and have landing craft take them the final distance.

Depends on the force you’re trying to project into a specific theater. If it’s about mopping up coup attempts on pacific islands, 200 men with a couple vehicles, these LSTs are pretty much the only size needed.

There are a number of proposals for the BATRAL replacement:

Rolls-Royce proposal (UT-527):
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=102955

– 1800 tons displacement
– dimensions 92.4 x 18 meters
– high automatisation, 12 men crew
– range 20.000 nm @ 16 knots (!), max speed 20 knots
– heavy helicopter platform, no hangar
– capacity for up to 320 troops, or 120 troops with 20 vehicles including some armoured
– multi-purpose with towing and firefighting capability

Proposal is for 6 ships for the Marine Nationale, to replace the BATRALs and the southern patrol cutter Albatros, possibly also a candidate for P400 replacement. Proposed introduction 2013-2018.

CNIM proposal for BATRAL replacement (MPV):
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=108703
(well, somewhere in there)

– dimensions: 90 meters long, catamaran
– range 12.000 nm @ 12 knots, cruise speed 20 knots, max speed 25 knots
– crew: 25 men
– platform and hangar for medium helicopter and/or UAV
– capacity: up to 300 troops or those 120 men with 20 vehicles (160 lane meters / 500 m² 5-m-roof flex deck)
– beachable

The primary concerns for “Projet BIS” from the MN seems to be :
– massive range for worldwide autonomous use
– standardized troop capacity identical to BATRAL
– helicopter capability

The rest seems to be … negotiable.

Interesting Dis, I had a look for info and pics of the proposed LCU-X and found only info on the FAS site (And we all know what those guys are like).

The T-Craft produced more results and what I see there is interesting but would the Government- let alone the RAN go for something in the Air Cushioned range? I was talking to someone from the navy- one of the high ups, and I asked why the RAN wasn’t looking at LCAC’s for the new Canberra Class LHD’s, the reply I got back somewhat stunned me- he said that they weren’t interested in LCAC’s because those particular landing craft have more that can go wrong with them than normal landing craft! Now thinking about this, the only thing I can think of would be ingestion to the bags of certain wildlife that frequent our areas of excercise but this shouldn’t usually be a problem surely!

I do agree that large LST’s are now a bygone age, sort of like Battleships really. Better to throw everything in a large Sealift ship and have landing craft take them the final distance. Of course my justification in saying that is simple, the days of beach head warfare (such as the landings at Normandy) are well over, these days wars are fought very differently.

Large LST are not terribly popular any more.
What about participating in the LCU-X?
Or T-Craft?