Australia to buy RFA Largs Bay

The Portuguese company Empresa de Investigação e Desenvolvimento de Electrónica SA (EID) received in July a contract from Rohde & Schwarz Australia Pty Ltd to carry modifications on the ICCS 5 (Integrated Communications Control System) communications control system installed on the former U.K. Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) L3006 RFA “Largs Bay” large amphibious landing ship acquired by Australia.

The modifications are aimed to adapt the ICCS5 to Royal Australian Navy (RAN) requirements before it arrive in Australia by December. EID started the modifications in early July and is to conclude the work in September.

The ship named HMAS “Choules” is being refitted by A&P Group Limited in Falmouth. Works includes maintenance to the main engines, propulsion systems and painting the hull, along with major modifications and upgrades.

Between 2002 e 2006, EID delivered the ICCS 5 solution for the four RFA´s Bay Class vessels according a contract awarded by Rohde & Schwarz Nederland BV.

RFA “Largs Bay” was decommissioned in April as a result of force reductions resulting from the U.K. Strategic Defence Review (SDR).

http://defesaglobal.wordpress.com

Best regards,

largs bay

Largs Bay is in SA near Adelaide, ………………:D

Bager1968: Well, I didn’t want to seem all mushy but given your comment on another thread….

Though intent is usually most important, against all odds sometimes something good and right does happen, even if for all the wrong reasons… however political, cynical and populist this may be (dunno…), it’s the first thing I’ve come across in a long, long time that’s put a lump in this jaded, bitter old b*stard’s throat, so cheers for sharing it.

I don’t have a lefty bone in my body anymore but I was impressed with the name’s egalitarianism, and how it nodded to both RN and RAN (as Fedaykin noted) – nice symbolism all round.

Cheers.

I agree.

While I respect the man and his service, I’m not sure that this is anything better than a cheap political trick by a desperate government.

Noteworthy, but not something that merits having a ship named after him. I’m with Stevo. No disrespect to Mr Choules, but what did he do in his naval service to earn such an honour? Unless he did something outstanding, & the RAN didn’t name a ship for him before because of an aversion to naming ships for living people, this choice of name is wrong.

IMO, it’s political opportunism.

That in itself is noteworthy. Anyhow it is good to see a ship named after a non-com for a change.

Well not the name I was expecting but I like the thinking of the choice. Choosing a man who served the RN and RAN is within the spirit of this sale.

From reading other forums, this was not the intended name for the ship. This came down from PM&C after his death.

And no disrespect to Claude Choules, but i’m not real sure about the name. This gentlemen’s claim to fame is that he was the last living serviceman from WW1, not that he did anything particularly spectacular while serving. In effect he’s being honored for outliving all his contemporaries.

Maybe I should tell my neigbours that the RAN has named a ship after them. 😀 But none of the family is called Claud.

Well not the name I was expecting

Not me either. Can’t help but think that the most common response to it will be: “…….where?”

if you want to know how Aussie ships are named there is a good article in Navy magazine jun-sept2011.it gives good insight into how ships are named.

Well not the name I was expecting but I like the thinking of the choice. Choosing a man who served the RN and RAN is within the spirit of this sale.

A hearty welcome to HMAS Claude Choules L100

Moderators please note: This is an official Royal Australian Navy press release on the official RAN website, and is thus a government announcement on a government web-site, NOT a copyrighted media story!

http://www.navy.gov.au/Naming_of_Ex_RFA_Largs_Bay_-_HMAS_Choules

Today at Fleet Base West the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence announced that the ex Royal Fleet Auxilliary Landing Ship Dock Largs Bay is to commission into the Royal Australian Navy as HMAS Choules.

Many of you will recall that former Chief Petty Officer Claude Choules passed away in May of this year, our centenary year. He died in Perth at the age of 110. This was a significant moment when the world lost its last living link with those who had served in WW1.

Claude Choules was born in England two days after the birth of Australia’s Navy in March 1901. Like the ship that will bear his name, Claude started his Naval service in the Royal Navy, in his case in 1916. He came to Australia on loan in 1926 and soon decided to transfer to the RAN. He was a member of the commissioning crew of HMAS Canberra (I) in 1928 and in 1932 became a Chief Petty Officer Torpedo and Anti Submarine instructor.

During WW2 Claude was the acting Torpedo Officer in Fremantle and the Chief Demolition Officer on the west coast. He transferred to the Naval Dockyard Police after the war so that he could continue to serve, He finally retired in 1956.

In thinking about our past during our centenary year I have been struck by the stories of the tens of thousands of everyday Australians who have made the Navy what it is today. While we honour individual acts of heroism, these others also deserve some form of recognition for their service. In naming the ship after Claude Choules we not only acknowledge his forty years of service in peace and war but the contribution of all who have faced the unremitting hazards of the sea and the challenges of conflict in the last century. The naval service demands endurance and self-sacrifice and, by its nature, much goes unseen. The Navy’s history has included many fierce battles but it is also marked by the patient and devoted patrol, surveillance and escort work which has ensured that Australia and its allies have been able to use the sea to achieve victory. Our sailors past and present have gone about the vital work that we do without fuss or fanfare, often in extreme danger, generally under less than ideal conditions but always with their own unique combination of humour and devotion to duty. Claude Choules, as much as any, epitomises this tradition.

The pennant number of HMAS Choules will be L100, further reinforcing the link to the centenary of the Royal Australian Navy and those who have served in it throughout our history. HMAS Choules will be an exceptional addition to the fleet. The ship will commission in Australia later this year.

Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, AM, CSC, RAN Chief of Navy

Jaja, easy after the fact. IMHO the issue in relation to AOR was Dock + Landingship, and no structural facilties aboard it to support helicopters (other than providing landing spots).

Yup.

The RAN have acquired one of the ‘tent hangers’ used by the Bay’s when deploying to the Carribean with helicopters based on board.

However, in an operational capacity the Bay would presumably be supported by Army MRH-90’s based aboard the LHD’s most of the time.

I specifically said that Australia does not and is not planning to operate, an LPD.

Largs Bay is *not* an LPD.

Jaja, easy after the fact. IMHO the issue in relation to AOR was Dock + Landingship, and no structural facilties aboard it to support helicopters (other than providing landing spots).

I specifically said that Australia does not and is not planning to operate, an LPD.

Largs Bay is *not* an LPD.

Ummm… wrong!!!

Largs Bay is a LSD*, not a LPD… they are two significantly different types of ship, despite the superficial external similarity.

LSD is the abbreviation for Landing Ship, Dock (a cargo/vehicle-emphasized landing ship).

LPD is the abbreviation for Landing Platform, Dock (also called Amphibious Transport, Dock…a troop-emphasized landing ship).

A LSD has about twice the floodable dock space, more vehicle/cargo storage space, and less than half the troop accommodation (usually 1/3 or so) when compared to a similarly-sized LPD.

* The RN designated it LSD(A), indicating that it was an auxiliary LSD (intended for follow-up operations), not a front-line LSD (intended for opposed combat landing operations).

Jajaja, minor issue. I know there are variants emphasizing troop versus cargo/landingcraft variants. But the distinction is besides the point given the remark I was responding to (about RAN not operating of planning an LPD): I don’t think the poster meant to say RAN does operate an LSD.

“The Bay class are based on the Royal Schelde Enforcer design, similar to Dutch HNLMS Rotterdam (L800) and Spanish SPS Galicia (L51) LPDs. They were at first classified as Alternative Landing Ship Logistics (ALSL) However, they have been reclassified as Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) (LSD(A)), as they developed into a form very much more like an LSD, with a large flight deck aft and a docking well in the stern capable of operating a LCU Mk 10.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_class_landing_ship_dock

A LSD has about twice the floodable dock space, more vehicle/cargo storage space, and less than half the troop accommodation (usually 1/3 or so) when compared to a similarly-sized LPD.

In the USN. Other navies do not necessarily follow the same practice. As Stevo says, the Bay class LSDs have much smaller docks than the RN LPDs. The RN LSD focus is on cargo space.

The RN LPDs have large docks which can be filled with landing craft, loaded & ready to go in an assault wave.

The RN LSDs are intended to land supplies, reinforcements, & additional heavy equipment. They will not necessarily do so via landing craft, while standing off. It will depend on circumstances. They carry Mexeflotes, which can offload from the dock (in sheltered waters), or be used to construct a floating jetty enabling vehicles to drive straight from ship to shore, if conditions permit.

Actually the Bay Class LSD’s have a very small dock (much smaller then the Albion class) with a correspondingly much larger Cargo area. I assume they always planned to unload the Bay’s with the Landing craft from the Albion class since the Bay’s are ‘second line’ amphibs rather then ‘first line/first wave’.

ps: FYI RAN recently bought RFA Largs Bay, which is an LPD and topic of this thread.

Ummm… wrong!!!

Largs Bay is a LSD*, not a LPD… they are two significantly different types of ship, despite the superficial external similarity.

LSD is the abbreviation for Landing Ship, Dock (a cargo/vehicle-emphasized landing ship).

LPD is the abbreviation for Landing Platform, Dock (also called Amphibious Transport, Dock…a troop-emphasized landing ship).

A LSD has about twice the floodable dock space, more vehicle/cargo storage space, and less than half the troop accommodation (usually 1/3 or so) when compared to a similarly-sized LPD.

* The RN designated it LSD(A), indicating that it was an auxiliary LSD (intended for follow-up operations), not a front-line LSD (intended for opposed combat landing operations).

What is your point?

Besides, the two LHD’s will have a combined helicopter carrying capacity of up to around 60 airframes.

Australia does not currently and does not plan in the future to operate LPD’s.

Plus, the Fort class are 20 years old (not that much younger then Success really) and single hulled. Throw in purchase cost along with refit cost and its a non-starter.

RAN will probably get two new build purpose built replenishment ships sometime in the next 10 years or so.

My point is that a navy doesn’t need the own the airframes that fly of its deck, since that appeared to be your point earlier.
And, that doesn’t mean ‘stealing airframes from the army’, see example of Dutch Helicopter command: this is formally an air force unit (for logistical/maintenance purposes) but it handles all tranport helicopter (i.e. a tri-service pool of utility choppers)
Please back track a bit and you’ll discover there was already a point in the discussion where all – incl. me – agreed the AOR would not (likely) be purchased by RAN. Since, the arguments are theoritical/hypothetical. In view of your reactions, do you have a problem with that kind of discussion?

ps: FYI RAN recently bought RFA Largs Bay, which is an LPD and topic of this thread.