Subject Study- RAN Future AOR

Despite having sailed on them, I had no idea that the Wave class are so much larger than a Durance.

She is crewed by 50 people and of a night time only 8 are at work as there is a high degree of automation aboard.

That’s a big watch. Wave class have four on watch – 3 on the bridge, 1 in the radio room. The engine room is unmanned between 11pm and 7am – if there’s a problem the Duty Engineer will be called by an automated alarm system. It’s a very common Merchant practice on everything except passenger ships. Most cargo ships are probably running around at night with only two people awake, both of those on the bridge.

Fairly sure one of our tankers is currently spending most of its time in the gulf, so that is not exactly true. Anyway, the purchase of the Sirius/Delos has already shown a trend towards a larger replenishment ship.

At the time you posted that I am fairly certain that there were no Australian replenishment units in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea. I saw a lot of Warramunga and Toowoomba last year and saw no sign of an AUS replenishment unit. Toowoomba was frequently replenishing from the RFA station tanker in the GoA/HoA whilst on CTF 15X tasking and I presume also from the US tanker.

I recently saw HMAS Sirius here in my area, away from her home port. Now what she was doing down here is a mystery and why she left so quickly is yet another mystery- usually when the navy are in port they make a big deal about it, this was kept very very quiet.

I know at the same time the Queen Mary 2 had just come to Sydney so my thought is that Sirius was just back from a deployment in support of Operation Slipper in the MEAO and was moved on by this huge big TARGET vessel simply because QM2 couldn’t fit anywhere else in Sydney as it’s far too big!

Yeah some people do and then others dont they just have a look what it says online and whacks it down. I prefer using deadweight tonnage and i always tell people what tonnage. The reason for that is i find it easier to compare ships using it, but i still like to find the Full load tonnage as well.

EDIT: When people talk tonnages could they also say what tonnage it is. I usually use deadweight as it’s better for comparision IMHO.

I usually use full load displacement. There can also be some confusion as to the unit of measurement.

Yep, all USN F/A-18F from Lot 32 (FY2008) have provision for conversion to EA-18G (they want provision for future expansion). They aren’t actually fully wired (the wings are), the space is left for the looms in the fuselage. There are a number of other airframes mods, and the rear cockpit is heavily modified – the EA-18G isn’t quite as common with the F/A-18F as originally planned.

The RAAF hasn’t made a decision on the EA-18G and isn’t due till the decision on the final batch of F-35 is made. Theres a number of problems – lack of ALQ-99 pods for export, export clearances for the pods, the fact that a new generation of pod/pods should replace the ALQ-99 at around the same time as RAAF EA-18G would be due.

None are showstoppers and the upgrade isn’t hard, but it will not be cheap and it will take time.

I know mate, at least we have the money for it- thank you China

Yep, all USN F/A-18F from Lot 32 (FY2008) have provision for conversion to EA-18G (they want provision for future expansion). They aren’t actually fully wired (the wings are), the space is left for the looms in the fuselage. There are a number of other airframes mods, and the rear cockpit is heavily modified – the EA-18G isn’t quite as common with the F/A-18F as originally planned.

The RAAF hasn’t made a decision on the EA-18G and isn’t due till the decision on the final batch of F-35 is made. Theres a number of problems – lack of ALQ-99 pods for export, export clearances for the pods, the fact that a new generation of pod/pods should replace the ALQ-99 at around the same time as RAAF EA-18G would be due.

None are showstoppers and the upgrade isn’t hard, but it will not be cheap and it will take time.

Peter: 12 of the F/A-18F’s are to be wired on the production line for quick conversion to Growler model for Electronic Attack.

Article from The Age

HMAS Success was a development of the French Durance class and is already at 18k weighting, so you are a little off on this one mate- think bigger!

The Durance class are about 7,600 tons deadweight they only weigh 18k tons when full loaded. Im speaking of a ship double the size that is around the mid-high 30,000 tons when fully loaded.

As for the F-35B’s I have been trying to tell everyone for some time that this is a very high probability of acquisition. Under the current planes, the RAAF are to get 76 F-35A’s divided up into three sqdns, this leaves 24 unaccounted for at present. The LHD’s are being built to the exact same standards as the Juan Carlos I retaining the ski jump fo’ard- now given that the Juan Carlos I is going to act as a secondary carrier to the Principe de Asturias and that the Spanish operate Harriers atm and are in line for F-35B’s, it is a foregone conclusion that we are getting these machines reviving the Fleet Air Arm of the RAN. This was a secret deal done under the Howard government who over night switched plans to buy a LHD without any capabilities of fixed wing aircraft, to an LHD that has a capability to operate all manner of air units and then said that the bow ramp would aid in deployment of UAV’s (cods wallop)!

I hope the RAN really does get F-35B’s as it will be a massive boost to what they can do alone when needed or operate as part of a larger group. A true powerfull regional naval force once more.

This is not entirely true, many of our neighbours rely upon us for tanking duties when on excercises. When on Task force duties, these days you can’t rely on the British these days as their fleet is shrinking at a fast rate and I can’t see the British ministry of defence giving up any fuel stores. The Americans are pulling back now so their fleet units are not traveling as far.

Yeah my thoughts are stuck in the past mostly, The RFA used to be a very busy and active fleet around the world and it still is to some extent but it’s been trimmed like every other defence item. The RAN could do with a larger support fleet but it’s all about money at the end of the day as usual.

In peacetime ships need fuel to outrun storms, SUBSINK or for long range rescue operations, in war the tanker might be sunk by enemy action – ships are constantly topping up fuel. Theres a certain percentage of fuel that RAN ships had to enter port with – otherwise Naval Command had to be informed by signal. Tankers result in more time at sea on station and on task.

Very true in peacetime tanking will be avoided in rough weather but in war it will happen in rough weather more often. Generally when on deployment i know the USN and RN likes to keeps it’s ships with more than 60% of total fuel left just in case they are asked to do something or something happens with their fuel supply. Smart planning as the last thing you want is you big fancy ship running outta fuel.

That’s A14. Navantia’s A15 has about 2k tonnes greater displacement

Ahh im getting confused i need to pay more attention to things.

EDIT: When people talk tonnages could they also say what tonnage it is. I usually use deadweight as it’s better for comparision IMHO.

No its either or.

1) Retain and upgrade the F/A-18F and maybe 12 to EA-18G.

or

2) Retire the F/A-18F and purchase the additional F-35A.

Ja Worsley,

76 F-35A to replace the F.A-18A+’s, 24 more to replace the F-18F’s in the strike role in the early 2020’s.

Steve, mate last I heard from the DMO is that the Superbugs are going to be kept and use in compliment with the F-35’s

Ja Worsley,

76 F-35A to replace the F.A-18A+’s, 24 more to replace the F-18F’s in the strike role in the early 2020’s.

Looking at the Picture of the A15 (i think?) tanking an F100 frigate then to me it looks like it could be too small.

That’s A14. Navantia’s A15 has about 2k tonnes greater displacement.

Note that the Dutch are looking at a substantially larger (24500 ton) Joint Support Ship, a combination of a fleet tanker and an amphibious transport ship. Likewise the Canadians, who are (were) looking to replace Protecteur class auxiliary vessel with a 28,000 tonnes JSS carrying: Fuel 7,000 – 10,000 tonnes, JP 5 650 – 1,300 tonnes, Ammunition 1,100 tonnes. Additional comparison here.

Ja: In the past (before it had any LPDs) the Dutch navy considered using its 2 AORs to as platform for air assaulting Dutch marines using 2×5 Sea Lynxes (assaulting into ex-colony Surinam, IIRC, which at the time had just witness a military coup). So, the joint concept isn’t that new …

Back in the day (1991) the RAN deployed two FFGs (HMAS Adelaide, HMAS Darwin) and a tanker (HMAS Success) to the Gulf region. It was a meaningful and worthwhile contribution. This was then replaced by HMAS Sydney, HMAS Brisbane and HMAS Westralia. With the amount of shipping spread over such a wide area (Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea, etc), you can never have too many tankers.

Its as much about making a meaningful contribution as opposed to always having to lean on our allies. HMAS Success shuttled from the main carrier groups to the forward ships.

Found my notes on the pre-HMAS Sirius proposal. Two (2009, 2015) around 8250 light, 10000 t fuel, 1300-1500 t JP-5, 100 t stores, 250 t ammo, <100 crew (no jackstays – all stores by helo). Either one or two Sea King. And a reduced acoustic signature for the reasons already given.

HMAS Sirius was a compromise with around 50% the costs of the new class. She lacks a dedicated hanger and onboard helicopter maintenance facilities, In any case she is due to replaced 2018-2020 (entered service in October 2006).

In peacetime ships need fuel to outrun storms, SUBSINK or for long range rescue operations, in war the tanker might be sunk by enemy action – ships are constantly topping up fuel. Theres a certain percentage of fuel that RAN ships had to enter port with – otherwise Naval Command had to be informed by signal. Tankers result in more time at sea on station and on task.

Oh another point I forgot to mention, the Merwede design is very similar in shape and design to the RNZN’s new Canterbury, I see cost savings and fleet commonality popping up again 😀

As with the joint LPD of the Rotterdam/Galicia classes, Spain and the Netherlands have developed a common design AOR: the Patino/Amsterdam classes.

The 170m-long 17,045t auxiliary oiler and multi-product replenishment ship (AOR) was designed under a joint initiative between Navantia (formerly Bazan, then Izar) in Spain and the Dutch Netherlands United Shipbuilding Bureau Ltd (NEVESBU) based in the Hague.

The Spanish AOR, which carries the pennant number A14, was built at Navantia’s Ferrol shipyard and was launched in the summer of 1994. The Netherland’s Amsterdam class fast combat support ship, of a very similar design, was built by Merwede and Royal Shelde and commissioned in 1995.

Both have a fuel cargo capacity of 6,820t of diesel fuel, 1,660t of aviation fuel and 500t of food and ordnance stores. They have a 490m² flight deck that in Spanish service supports three Sea King SH-3D helicopters. In Dutch service is operates 4 Westland Lynx-helikopters of 3 NH90-helikopters

Both the port and starboard side of the ship have a liquid cargo and solids replenishment station. A vertical replenishment (vertrep) supply station allows fast transfer of ordnance and other stores from ship to ship or to shore. There is a stern refuelling station that is preferred for refuelling operations in high sea states.

Navantia of Spain is building a second replenishment ship, the Cantabria, for the Spanish Navy. Cantabria is a larger version of the Patino (19,500t). It is scheduled to commission in 2009.

Crew is 148 plus 19 aircrew. There is additional accommodation for 20 additional crew for example training, fleet personnel or special operations crew. The crew services include a fully equipped medical centre.

Meanwhile, the Dutch are working on a new design, to replace their oldest AOR Zuiderkruis and to augment their amphibious transport capability: the Joint Support Ship

http://www.dutchfleet.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11481

Wan: Mate thanks for joining in. Yes the Galacia class is interesting and so are the Amsterdams. The Amsterdams have a unique role of ASW and mine deploying as well as tanking. This sort of ties back to my thread about Battle Fleet Tanker idea

Thanks Swerve i should have had a look on the website im just a lazy bones and i dont know any French.

By the figures on the Marine Nationale website then most ships will be substantially larger than the Durance class which i think they will need to be if they are to support larger vessels. Looking at the Picture of the A15 (i think?) tanking an F100 frigate then to me it looks like it could be too small. Ja it’s nice to see that the Berlin class can be scaled up, by doing so i think this would fit perfectly. Overall there seems to be quite a few options for the RAN to choose when they want to replace assets.

I in my own opinion i think a ship of around 18k tons deadweight is about the size of ship that is needed to support deployments. The reason for saying this is a Canberra class is likely to deploy with a Hobart class DDG for AAW and a new frigate for ASW. Therefore i feel that the larger vessel would be needed when going further abroad or simply to extend on station endurance. Also if the RAN does acquire F-35B’s then a larger amount of aviation fuel will be needed alongside things such as missiles and bombs. On the flip side however most of the work the RAN will be doing is in their own neighbourhood so long range deployment in some ways is not a huge factor.

HMAS Success was a development of the French Durance class and is already at 18k weighting, so you are a little off on this one mate- think bigger!

As for the F-35B’s I have been trying to tell everyone for some time that this is a very high probability of acquisition. Under the current planes, the RAAF are to get 76 F-35A’s divided up into three sqdns, this leaves 24 unaccounted for at present. The LHD’s are being built to the exact same standards as the Juan Carlos I retaining the ski jump fo’ard- now given that the Juan Carlos I is going to act as a secondary carrier to the Principe de Asturias and that the Spanish operate Harriers atm and are in line for F-35B’s, it is a foregone conclusion that we are getting these machines reviving the Fleet Air Arm of the RAN. This was a secret deal done under the Howard government who over night switched plans to buy a LHD without any capabilities of fixed wing aircraft, to an LHD that has a capability to operate all manner of air units and then said that the bow ramp would aid in deployment of UAV’s (cods wallop)!

Fairly sure one of our tankers is currently spending most of its time in the gulf, so that is not exactly true. Anyway, the purchase of the Sirius/Delos has already shown a trend towards a larger replenishment ship.

Exactly mate, and with larger ships on the way, larger support vessels are desperately needed. And As our fleet is supporting Task Forces 150, 151 and 152 as well as partaking in more and more excercises with other navies as far away as South America and South Africa not to mention further strengthening ties with Asia (Japan and South Korea), tankers of larger size are needed.

Australian tankers do spend quite a bit of time in the gulf but i dont think it will be a huge amount as there are plenty of freindly Auxiliaries already operating there. There are also freindly ports that are visited to re-fuel etc when on patrol. Australia also like every other nation operates with allies who bring tankers etc with them such as off somalia most of the vessels there are using US fleet support assets and the RFA also always have a ship as part of the task group.

Australia needs tankers dont get me wrong but the RAN usually co-operates with other nations when far from home. Most of these other nations mainly the UK and USA bring their own support regardless of who they work with so it makes sense for the RAN to use the assets already there as they mostly deploy a single ship or 2.

This is not entirely true, many of our neighbours rely upon us for tanking duties when on excercises. When on Task force duties, these days you can’t rely on the British these days as their fleet is shrinking at a fast rate and I can’t see the British ministry of defence giving up any fuel stores. The Americans are pulling back now so their fleet units are not traveling as far.

Australian tankers do spend quite a bit of time in the gulf but i dont think it will be a huge amount as there are plenty of freindly Auxiliaries already operating there. There are also freindly ports that are visited to re-fuel etc when on patrol. Australia also like every other nation operates with allies who bring tankers etc with them such as off somalia most of the vessels there are using US fleet support assets and the RFA also always have a ship as part of the task group.

Australia needs tankers dont get me wrong but the RAN usually co-operates with other nations when far from home. Most of these other nations mainly the UK and USA bring their own support regardless of who they work with so it makes sense for the RAN to use the assets already there as they mostly deploy a single ship or 2.

Fairly sure one of our tankers is currently spending most of its time in the gulf, so that is not exactly true. Anyway, the purchase of the Sirius/Delos has already shown a trend towards a larger replenishment ship.

Thanks Swerve i should have had a look on the website im just a lazy bones and i dont know any French.

By the figures on the Marine Nationale website then most ships will be substantially larger than the Durance class which i think they will need to be if they are to support larger vessels. Looking at the Picture of the A15 (i think?) tanking an F100 frigate then to me it looks like it could be too small. Ja it’s nice to see that the Berlin class can be scaled up, by doing so i think this would fit perfectly. Overall there seems to be quite a few options for the RAN to choose when they want to replace assets.

I in my own opinion i think a ship of around 18k tons deadweight is about the size of ship that is needed to support deployments. The reason for saying this is a Canberra class is likely to deploy with a Hobart class DDG for AAW and a new frigate for ASW. Therefore i feel that the larger vessel would be needed when going further abroad or simply to extend on station endurance. Also if the RAN does acquire F-35B’s then a larger amount of aviation fuel will be needed alongside things such as missiles and bombs. On the flip side however most of the work the RAN will be doing is in their own neighbourhood so long range deployment in some ways is not a huge factor.

As with the joint LPD of the Rotterdam/Galicia classes, Spain and the Netherlands have developed a common design AOR: the Patino/Amsterdam classes.

The 170m-long 17,045t auxiliary oiler and multi-product replenishment ship (AOR) was designed under a joint initiative between Navantia (formerly Bazan, then Izar) in Spain and the Dutch Netherlands United Shipbuilding Bureau Ltd (NEVESBU) based in the Hague.

The Spanish AOR, which carries the pennant number A14, was built at Navantia’s Ferrol shipyard and was launched in the summer of 1994. The Netherland’s Amsterdam class fast combat support ship, of a very similar design, was built by Merwede and Royal Shelde and commissioned in 1995.

Both have a fuel cargo capacity of 6,820t of diesel fuel, 1,660t of aviation fuel and 500t of food and ordnance stores. They have a 490m² flight deck that in Spanish service supports three Sea King SH-3D helicopters. In Dutch service is operates 4 Westland Lynx-helikopters of 3 NH90-helikopters

Both the port and starboard side of the ship have a liquid cargo and solids replenishment station. A vertical replenishment (vertrep) supply station allows fast transfer of ordnance and other stores from ship to ship or to shore. There is a stern refuelling station that is preferred for refuelling operations in high sea states.

Navantia of Spain is building a second replenishment ship, the Cantabria, for the Spanish Navy. Cantabria is a larger version of the Patino (19,500t). It is scheduled to commission in 2009.

Crew is 148 plus 19 aircrew. There is additional accommodation for 20 additional crew for example training, fleet personnel or special operations crew. The crew services include a fully equipped medical centre.

Meanwhile, the Dutch are working on a new design, to replace their oldest AOR Zuiderkruis and to augment their amphibious transport capability: the Joint Support Ship

Dutch Plan for Their Largest Naval Ship Ever
Posted by Joris Janssen Lok at 1/15/2008 6:16 AM

The backbone of a modern, 21st-century navy isn’t its surface combatants or submarines. It is the large amphibious and/or logistic support ships it can deploy to trouble spots around the world, carrying helicopters, hospital facilities, an embarked landing force, supplies, fuel and a suite of C4I facilities. The Netherlands is planning to build its largest ship ever to be able to do just that.

The new ship is designated the Joint Support Ship (JSS) and will have a displacement of 26,000 tons — making it a tight fit to squeeze into Den Helder Naval Base.

The JSS is to be ready by 2014 and design of the ship (by the Defense Materiel Organization DMO in close conjunction with TNO Defence & Security, Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, Imtech, Thales, and other industry partners) is starting for real now that the program to build four new Patrol Ships has moved into the production phase.

The plan to build a JSS was first published in the 2005 Naval Study. The ship is to replace the fleet replenishment oiler HrMs Zuiderkruis. The JSS will have a large flight deck capable of supporting Boeing CH-47F Chinook helicopters.

It will also be able to replenish other naval ships at sea, provide strategic sealift of strategic military equipment, and act as a seabase during crisis response operations worldwide.

The JSS will join two Landing Platform Dock (LPD)-type ships that entered service with the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) in 1998 and 2007, respectively (see the Jan/Feb issue of Defense Technology International (DTI) for more detail about these).

Like these LPDs, the JSS will be based on Schelde’s Enforcer family of large support ship designs (this was also used as the design for Britain’s four new Bay-class amphibious support ships).

Although senior sources in the RNLN so far have not been willing to confirm this, a logical step would be to try and get approval for a second JSS to replace the other fleet replenishment oiler in the Dutch fleet, HrMs Amsterdam, toward the end of the coming decade.

After all, one JSS equals no JSS if the ship happens to be in dock for a major refit at the time a sudden crisis erupts.

With a ship like the JSS, the Netherlands will be able to sea-base a significant aviation, logistic, C4I, disaster relief and humanitarian aid capability right offshore a crisis area struck by a natural or man-made disaster, a civil war or other major disruption.

http://www.dutchfleet.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11481

The current HMAS Sirius is the West coast fleet tanker.

She was bought on the second hand market and was formerly the MV Delos

She is only a temporary measure as she won’t be able to supply the LHD’s and other fleet units at the same time.

As it stands, the RAN are not interested in buying a second hand unit, nor are we looking at building the vessel in a yard in South Korea despite costs being saved! It will be built here.

The Wave class are a nice looking vessel I grant you and the Fort class has advantages of the large amount of helo capability- thus allowing a vessel of this type to be a self sustained emergency support unit, as HMAS Success has been in the past.

Allow me to spell out a few requirements that I can see the RAN will pose for this vessel:
[INDENT]

[/INDENT]

I have stated before that the Berlin Class would seem to be a good type to have as a replacement especially because of the hospital facilities already built into the design

But as pointed out to me, these vessels are a bit on the small side. Well a bit of research on this design, I have found that there is a stretched version available, so it is still in with a chance.

The other contender I feel has a chance is the Aegir class

This class comes in two forms that the RAN could look at, the 18 as above and the 18R

These vessels are tailorable to the customers needs so we could get what we want right from the outset.

As for the RNZN, She too will need a new vessel for her fleet and the Aegir 10 could fit their bill

As I stated in the other thread, a high degree of commonality with the RAN and having the ship built here as a tack on order for them would reduce costs all round and keep both countries ship building industries going.

HMNZS Endeavour,

[IMG]http://www.navy.mil.nz/nr/rdonlyres/12fc8718-2491-4b0f-9a3a-b8ed643c9c9…

recently underwent a conversion to comply with the new IMO laws pertaining to tankers needing to be double hulled. She is expected to remain in service for a further five years and a replacement is being sought in about two years.