Australia choses winner of naval contracts

[rmgill]

There has been a fair bit of new naval spending in the region recently.

 

The brand-new HMNZS Canterbury

 

Ack, someone washed it on hot and it shrunk!

 

2 helos on the back deck and enough ro-ro space for what, a company of vehicles?

[swerve]

Ack, someone washed it on hot and it shrunk!

 

2 helos on the back deck and enough ro-ro space for what, a company of vehicles?

 

Based on a commercial ro-ro ferry. More a transport than an amphib.

 

Here's the official description

http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/pro...rbury-specs.htm

And what Wikipedia says -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNZS_Canterbury_(L-421)

 

I tend to follow what's happening in this sort of ship. Odd, I know.

Edited June 30, 2007 by swerve

[ross.browne]

400-odd lane meters of vehicles, 33 TEUs, hanger space for 5 10-tonne choppers (NH90). Helo deck for 2 NH90s or 1 CH-47. A pair of LCMs. Crew of 53 (aircrew not included) + 300 others.

 

More of a amphibious transport than an assault ship, but nearly an ideal size for the Pacific. And and it only cost US$100M.

[Chris Werb]

400-odd lane meters of vehicles, 33 TEUs, hanger space for 5 10-tonne choppers (NH90). Helo deck for 2 NH90s or 1 CH-47. A pair of LCMs. Crew of 53 (aircrew not included) + 300 others.

 

More of a amphibious transport than an assault ship, but nearly an ideal size for the Pacific. And and it only cost US$100M.

 

It sounds a real bargain Ross. Do you have plans to buy CH-47s?

[ross.browne]

It sounds a real bargain Ross. Do you have plans to buy CH-47s?

 

No. I suspect it was more a spin-off of being able to operate two 10-tonne choppers than a specific design requirement. The air force has recently committed to purchasing 9 NH90sn and another half-dozen light utility choppers (A109 looks most likley). Not exactly a formidable force, but more than adequate do contribute to multinational ops, or to secure the occassional pacific airport, evacuate civis, etc.

[nigelfe]

Hm, 850 m lane length, 150 vehs, 4 LCUs each capable of carrying a Leo 2 (we'll assume they can accommodate a M1, which is what Aust uses). Not too many trailers, even unhooked, methinks. Also invites the question about how much lane length is offered by each LCU and hence of-loading times for a ship a few km from shore. Is there any Aust intent to hang MEXEfloats or similar on them, good for off-loads in protected waters, even as a mini-Mulberry. I'm assuming these ships have a ro-ro capability (loading could be a bit tedious if they don't).

 

I am still totally unable to see what on earth a ski jump is needed for in the RAN, seems to me a better bet would be to scrap it and add a heli spot. Canterbury looks a good bet, how many could you get for the money being spent on the Spanish things? Of course there is life cycle cost to be considered from bigger total crew particularly dispersed maintenance of embarked heli.

 

I've not previously commented on the AAW ships. Suffice to say the RAN wanted the US design (according to the Aust media), which was more costly not least because it carried a lot more msls. Of course why the RAN wants this sort of capability at all is a tad unclear, so they probably couldn't justify more msls. Perhaps the others were also the cheapest rather than the most suitable for the job (plus well marketed to pander to the RAN's unofficial/unendorsed desire for something as carrier when govt's change).

[Archie Pellagio]

I thought we selected the C&G burke knock-off a year ago?

 

Am I mising something here?

[swerve]

I'm assuming these ships have a ro-ro capability (loading could be a bit tedious if they don't)

 

Thus showing, yet again, that you're willing to criticise the ships without reading their specs, even though they've been put in front of you. The pages you've been given links to clearly state & show (pictures!) that they have a ro-ro capability. [edit] Kick myself for not remarking on the obvious - but Mr. Evans has [/edit]

 

Here's the new URL - http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/appm...queProyEstrateg

 

 

... Canterbury looks a good bet, how many could you get for the money being spent on the Spanish things? ...

 

It's a different class of ship completely. A militarised commercial ferry. A transport, not really an amphibious ship - and it doesn't pretend otherwise. Its landing craft are not capable of landing MBTs. Specified to carry LAVs, trucks, & 20' ISO containers. Fits New Zealands needs, but Australia wants something more capable, & RAN plans call for a more capable transport or two in addition to the LHDs.

Edited July 1, 2007 by swerve

[Guest aevans]

Hm, 850 m lane length, 150 vehs, 4 LCUs each capable of carrying a Leo 2 (we'll assume they can accommodate a M1, which is what Aust uses). Not too many trailers, even unhooked, methinks.

 

Which is entirely irrelevant, because armies have been eliminating trailers where they can, because they are a drag on mobility.

 

Also invites the question about how much lane length is offered by each LCU and hence of-loading times for a ship a few km from shore.

This is another irrelevancy. There's just as much lane length on four LCUs as there is on four LCUs. Offload times aren't going to be any more or less than they've ever been for that cargo capacity and landing craft outfit. You've also ignore the possibility of moving breakable cargo and light vehicles by helicopter, which would come under the hedaing of false dilemma.

 

Is there any Aust intent to hang MEXEfloats or similar on them, good for off-loads in protected waters, even as a mini-Mulberry.

 

There may or there may not be. It's a mission driven decision. And float bridges can be carried by any vessel that's large enough, they don't have to be on the phibs themselves.

 

I'm assuming these ships have a ro-ro capability (loading could be a bit tedious if they don't).

Here's the money quote proving your cluelessness. Stern gate ships come with RORO capability built-in -- you back up to the quay and drop the stern gate on it. The fact that you made even the slightest issue of it proves beyond any doubt that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

I am still totally unable to see what on earth a ski jump is needed for in the RAN, seems to me a better bet would be to scrap it and add a heli spot.

 

Do we have to use words of two syllables or less, and simple declarative sentences? It allows for a lfight deck of that size to operate fully loaded Harriers or successor VSTOL a/c. No other reason necessary. And that expansion in capability is worth more than a helo spot.

 

Canterbury looks a good bet, how many could you get for the money being spent on the Spanish things? Of course there is life cycle cost to be considered from bigger total crew particularly dispersed maintenance of embarked heli.

 

Canterbury doesn't have aviation facilities beyond a flight deck and weather shelter "hangar" in which nothing but the lightest maintenance and repairs could be accomplished. You're so hot about expeditionary capabilities and you can't see that the lack of an integrated aviation department on a large vessel would make even a whole fleet of Caterbury's essentially non-expeditionary?

[sunday]

I've not previously commented on the AAW ships. Suffice to say the RAN wanted the US design (according to the Aust media), which was more costly not least because it carried a lot more msls. Of course why the RAN wants this sort of capability at all is a tad unclear, so they probably couldn't justify more msls. Perhaps the others were also the cheapest rather than the most suitable for the job (plus well marketed to pander to the RAN's unofficial/unendorsed desire for something as carrier when govt's change).

 

1. F-100 are a existing design. The Gibbs&Cox ships were to be an evolution of Arleigh Burke. Remembering the issues with the Collins and, (I don't remember exactly), the Anzacs, surely the beancounters want to minimize risks

 

2.- Australia has a LOT of coastline, and sea surface to cover, and as the same boat could not be in two spots simultaneously, better to have more, cheaper ships.

 

3.- With 48 cells, a possible missile load for F-100 is 32 ESSMs and 40 SM-2s. 72 missiles in total. How many fighters does Indonesia have?

 

4.- The Australian version of F-100 will be equipped from the beginning with a second hangar and a towed array. The Spanish ones have one hangar and a reserve to mount in the future a towed array.

 

5.- Navantia have some interesting software developments for platform design and control, so there is an interesting technology transfer possibility

 

Maybe that five point won't be enough for justifying the offense those uncouth Aussies infllicted to ol'Blighty when they rejected that awesome, fabulous masterpiece of British naval engineering, the Type 45 AAW destroyers, but heck, it's their money.

[capt_starlight]

One aspect of the F100 vs Arleigh Burke "knock off" not commented on is cost of operating - in particular crew size. I believe the difference is around 80 crew per unit (and they are hard to come by at the best of times). Crew costs are significant parts of the operating budget and may well have been something that the RAN could not have argued about too much with the "bean counters".....

Edited July 2, 2007 by capt_starlight

[FlyingCanOpener]

Of course, how could the Dutch have done anything by themselves...

 

Been out of town for the past week, so I'm catching up on the threads...

 

Doesn't the Royal Dutch Navy have the second largest amphibious capability in Continental Europe after France (excluding Russia, of course)?

[Nandai]

A quick question about the F-100 being chosen by Australia, is there any chance that Australia will use them funky looking Meroka CIWS?

 

I dont want to try and hijack this thread, but I have always wondered how effective them Merokas are, say compated to the Phalanx, does all the barrels in the Meroka fire at once, or one at the time?

[sunday]

A quick question about the F-100 being chosen by Australia, is there any chance that Australia will use them funky looking Meroka CIWS?

 

I dont want to try and hijack this thread, but I have always wondered how effective them Merokas are, say compated to the Phalanx, does all the barrels in the Meroka fire at once, or one at the time?

 

 

Not a chance. Meroka is not currently in production, Spain is retiring gun CIWS, and current doctrine, or funds, is to use ESSM. Spanish F-100s have a couple of 25mm autocannons for dealing with HAS threats.

 

Barrels in the 20mm Meroka fire three at a time, with short-term rate of fire of 15,000rpm, intending to achieve a buckshot effect with APDS rounds.

 

Meroka has mixed reviews in Spain. I think it was the first CIWS with integrated electrooptics, and uses a very powerful 20mm round, but looks like it's kind off maintenance intensive.

[baboon6]

Been out of town for the past week, so I'm catching up on the threads...

 

Doesn't the Royal Dutch Navy have the second largest amphibious capability in Continental Europe after France (excluding Russia, of course)?

 

They have two LPDs, Enforcer-class, while Italy has three, San Georgio-class, which I think are a bit smaller but with more aviation capability. Spain has two LPDs (of basically the same type as the Dutch) and I think still two old US LSTs. Both the Dutch and Spanish have larger Marine units than Italy. So I think Spain might be able to put a bigger landing force together than the Netherlands.

Edited July 2, 2007 by baboon6

[swerve]

They have two LPDs, Enforcer-class, while Italy has three, San Georgio-class, which I think are a bit smaller but with more aviation capability. Spain has two LPDs (of basically the same type as the Dutch) and I think still two old US LSTs. Both the Dutch and Spanish have larger Marine units than Italy. So I think Spain might be able to put a bigger landing force together than the Netherlands.

 

The Italian Santi LPDs are only 8000 tons, but mostly flight deck. The Dutch Rotterdam & Johann de Witt are about 14000 & 17000 tons respectively, full load. Rotterdam is much the same as the Spanish Galicia & Castilla, (all Enforcer) & de Witt is a larger version of the same design.

 

Spain has two old LSTs, of which one is in reserve, & will retire them when Juan Carlos enters service. At that point, Spain will have 2 LPDs & a 27000 ton LHD. The new Italian STOVL carrier (slightly larger) Cavour has limited amphibious capability, & will enter service soon.

 

Italy & Spain each have a light STOVL aircraft carrier, which could function as an LPH (though not ideal for the role), if needed. The Netherlands has no equivalent.

 

In summary: I'm sure Spain is ahead of the Netherlands at the moment, & will remain so. When Cavour is in service I think Italy will be ahead of the Netherlands, at least in shipping.

Edited July 2, 2007 by swerve

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Not a chance. Meroka is not currently in production, Spain is retiring gun CIWS, and current doctrine, or funds, is to use ESSM. Spanish F-100s have a couple of 25mm autocannons for dealing with HAS threats.

 

At least F-101 had a couple of ex Army Oerlikon 20/120mm guns last year when I visited her. These guns are quite easy to use and maintenance friendly, but unfortunately are local operated and are not marinized, so they tend to last not too much. In any case the Navy "inherited" hundres of guns from the Army and once they became unserviceable they are simply thrown away and replaced........

 

BPE will have a very light armament suite, probably still based around locally controlled GAI-BO 20mm guns but will have a ful EW suite for self defence.

 

Meroka has mixed reviews in Spain. I think it was the first CIWS with integrated electrooptics, and uses a very powerful 20mm round, but looks like it's kind off maintenance intensive.

 

The original model was quite primitive and mostly human-controlled, wich affected its usefullness against sea skimmenrts, not to mention supersonic ASMs! On the good side, it had a day/night channel incorporated. The Imrpoved model (all mounts in service were borught to this standard) is fully automatic and the only thing operator has to do is authorize opening fire. The full manual mode is still available and the orginal LLTV was replaced by a FLIR, so the system is ideal for engaging small crafts and other asymetrical threats so much in vogue today.

 

The mount itself uses a lot of high pressure hydraulic lines and has shown to be quite a pain in the ass for maintenance, although this was also improved, as was rapid reload given the small ammunition capability of the mount (720rds)

 

As Sunday mentioned, the Spanish Navy will got rid of gun based CIWS in the near future. 20mm systems have a very short range and are increasingly obsolete. The Navy would like to go to a full missile solution with ESSM/RAM, but as always cash is short.......

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

One aspect of the F100 vs Arleigh Burke "knock off" not commented on is cost of operating - in particular crew size. I believe the difference is around 80 crew per unit (and they are hard to come by at the best of times). Crew costs are significant parts of the operating budget and may well have been something that the RAN could not have argued about too much with the "bean counters".....

 

The Spanish Navy has a serious manpower shortage (slightly improved in recent years) so all new designs include as low as possible crew complements. F-100 had a small complement for her size just because that and further crew nuber cuts are desired in the improved fith unit.

 

On F-100 capabilities, F-104 currently being doing weapon system trials in the use has already succesfully tracked simulated ballistic missile threats validating the new Aegis software included. The F-100 if desired only new software changes to act in ballistic defence roles just like their bigger BURKE cousins.

[RETAC21]

The Italian Santi LPDs are only 8000 tons, but mostly flight deck. The Dutch Rotterdam & Johann de Witt are about 14000 & 17000 tons respectively, full load. Rotterdam is much the same as the Spanish Galicia & Castilla, (all Enforcer) & de Witt is a larger version of the same design.

 

Spain has two old LSTs, of which one is in reserve, & will retire them when Juan Carlos enters service. At that point, Spain will have 2 LPDs & a 27000 ton LHD. The new Italian STOVL carrier (slightly larger) Cavour has limited amphibious capability, & will enter service soon.

 

Italy & Spain each have a light STOVL aircraft carrier, which could function as an LPH (though not ideal for the role), if needed. The Netherlands has no equivalent.

 

In summary: I'm sure Spain is ahead of the Netherlands at the moment, & will remain so. When Cavour is in service I think Italy will be ahead of the Netherlands, at least in shipping.

 

It should also be noted that French, Spanish and Italian Marines are conventional combined forces units while the RM and the Dutch Marines are light infantry units, so the comparison of tonnage is not strictly relevant as the filosofies are quite different.

[sunday]

Meanwhile, the Indonesians have been busy:

 

http://www.kommersant.com/p779002/r_529/Ru..._for_Indonesia/

 

The name of the Spanish shipyard is unknown yet (people don't think Navantia possible, but...), and the naval architecture will be Russian entirely.

 

I could not stop finding kind of amusing this situation. Spain is going to build high tech destroyers to sink Indonesian hulls built in Spain, or well, the Aussie LHDs will be targets for those Russo-Spanish corvettes, in spite of them being primarily ASW.

 

And (wild speculation) Venezuela wanted Spanish patrol boats

 

More info, and a nice video: http://www.almaz.info/20382.htm

[Tony Williams]

At least F-101 had a couple of ex Army Oerlikon 20/120mm guns last year when I visited her. These guns are quite easy to use and maintenance friendly, but unfortunately are local operated and are not marinized, so they tend to last not too much. In any case the Navy "inherited" hundres of guns from the Army and once they became unserviceable they are simply thrown away and replaced........

 

I take it that the Army guns are the Oerlikon KAA in 20x128 (as used in the RN's GAM-B01 mounting), or are they the Oerlikon KAD or Rh 202 in 20x139?

 

Meroka uses 20x128 but with electric rather than percussion priming, so it's not interchangeable with the ammo for the Oe KAA. The 20x128 is substantially more powerful than the 20x102 used in Vulcan Phalanx (see pic), but I don't think they use APDS.

 

[shep854]

Sunday, for your (and other's) information, when I clicked on the kommersant.ru website, my anti-virus (PC-cillin) popped up a warning that the site was "unsafe".

 

Just a heads-up.

[Catalan]

It's fine - I went on it and nothing happened [that I know of].

[ross.browne]

Canterbury doesn't have aviation facilities beyond a flight deck and weather shelter "hangar" in which nothing but the lightest maintenance and repairs could be accomplished. You're so hot about expeditionary capabilities and you can't see that the lack of an integrated aviation department on a large vessel would make even a whole fleet of Caterbury's essentially non-expeditionary?

 

I wouldn't get too carried away. It's not a LPD, but I would put money on it being able sit operate its choppers for a reasonable time period. Maybe not 5, 3 perhaps. It's not expeditionary in the USMC sense, but in the true sense of the word, it is. Better to think of it as a floating support facility rather than an assault ship.

[sunday]

It's fine - I went on it and nothing happened [that I know of].

 

Sorry, my ZoneAlarm didn't see anything. Anyway, googling Russian corvettes Indonesia should give a few related hits.