The government has a plan at the moment to build 2 large amphibious ships for the Navy, capable of carrying Helicopters, and maybe the US Marines/Royal Navy version of the new F-35 fighter.

Each ship will be around 28,000 tonnes, thats bigger than the 20,000 tonne old Aircraft Carrier HMAS Melbourne. They are similiar to the Wasp class Helicopter Carrier of the USN that visited Australia last year.

The ships will replace 2 current smaller amphib ships that we bought from the Yanks back in the early 90's.

The Basement Military Forum
http://p207.ezboard.com/fasementfrm27.showMessage?topicID=793.topic

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1104/images/2boataug26.jpg

how is the size compared to a baby carrier, say Invincible class CVS? I suppose somewhat comparable (~12 aircraft). And the proposed designation.

The Royal Navy's HMS Invincible, one of 3 ships of the Invincible class is 20,600 tonnes.

It very nearly replaced the HMAS Melbourne in the Australian Navy, but the Falklands War, where it proved how good it was, and the newly elected Labor government in Australia prevented us from getting it.

The Royal Navy is replacing it's 3 small carriers with 2 large fixed wing US style carriers (although about 2/3 of the USN size).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/thumb/3/3a/300px-Hmsinvincible.750pix.jpg

yes I know all that :tongue2: that's why I am asking how it compared to an Invincible class CVS in terms of displacement/airwing size

I'm amazed common sense prevailed and the NH-90 was chosen as the Army's new chopper.
Will really do the job should we get the right ships.

An Izar package deal with amphibs and stretched F-100's. We can only hope...

That looks pretty good ;)

For what roles will the RAN use the carriers? Mainly as centrepieces in an amphib taskforce (for regional operations in SE Asia), or power projection like Iraqi Freedom?

The Royal Navy's HMS Invincible, one of 3 ships of the Invincible class is 20,600 tonnes.

It very nearly replaced the HMAS Melbourne in the Australian Navy, but the Falklands War, where it proved how good it was, and the newly elected Labor government in Australia prevented us from getting it.

The Royal Navy is replacing it's 3 small carriers with 2 large fixed wing US style carriers (although about 2/3 of the USN size).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/thumb/3/3a/300px-Hmsinvincible.750pix.jpg


My wife attended a reception on the deck of the Invincible when it was moored in Florida a few weeks ago.

cool, those are nice looking ships... hopefully it goes through!

Wow, that will be a fantastic toy to kill people with!

LOL YOB. what a great comment. u win 10% respect

military planes, ships, helicopters and tanks etc all look cool in a "boys toys" kinda way but without wanting to sound like a "peacenick" their purpose is to kill and destroy.gotta side with yob. looks cool on t.v but go to a warzone in person and see what they REALLY do. still, the technology and look remain funky but...

btw this is a non religious, non political, non tree hugging and not even an anti war post. just a reality check.

That looks pretty good ;)

For what roles will the RAN use the carriers? Mainly as centrepieces in an amphib taskforce (for regional operations in SE Asia), or power projection like Iraqi Freedom?

A mix of both I should think.

The current 3 Amphibs, 2 LPA's Manoora and Kanimbla (US Newport Class modified) and Tobruk (A UK RFA style LSH) are used in a mix of operations such as providing support to the recent operations in East Timor, Bouganville and the Soloman Islands. Kanimbla was involved in Gulf War 2, where it was used to provide helicopter support, boarding operations and foiling Iraqi efforts to mine the waters of the Northern Persian Gulf.

As well as being "boys toys" ships like these provide a lot of humanitarian support in regions such as the ones I mentioned above. All weapons may be at a base level for killing, but they also provide our country with the defence and protection that allows other people to live safe lives. That may sound a little melodramatic, but it's lucky that there have been boys toys around in the past to stand up to people like Hitler.

Its true, these ships are important for defence.

And like you said, they are extremely useful for humanitarian aid. Without ships like these, I'm not sure what else could be used in place (or as efficently) for that purpose.

Anyway, is that NH-90 going to be used by both the army and the navy? How many?

At the moment it's just 12 multi-role helicopters for the Army, but as we don't have Marines, and one of the big plusses that won them the contract was the ability to be run from Amphib ships, the Navy will see a bit of them as well.

I think this order of 12 is just the first part of a larger order, more NH-90 (another 28) might replace the Blackhawks, and then maybe later on, if the ADF wants to standardise on 1 type, they may replace the SeaHawks in the Navy.

Weapons of war aren't always designed or deployed to kill people. The Harpoon Missile wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to render a warship incapable of fulfilling it's mission.

The majority of these "weapons of war" are developed to counter other weapons of war. As already pointed out the aformentioned amphips will most likely see most of their active duty in a peacekeeping role (going on recent history in this part of the world).

They are also invaluable in rendering support to those who have been struck by natural disasters. One of the RAN's Newports was used to supply an entire Pacific Island with drinking water after a king tide poluted their fresh water lagoon recently. The British Navy found one of their flattops invaluable for evacuating Islanders (in the Carribean I think?) from an angry volcano.

Six spots for aircraft makes rendering aid alot easier than it would be from a ship that can only operate 2 helos at a time.

yeh definately good that the Army and RAN chose to get the NH-90 saw it perform at Airshow 03' and was mighty impressed by its meneuvrability(spelling?) for its size, gonna be awesome for Australia, far more reliable than the old Black Hawk's as we all know they dont have the best track record.

But definately i agree with Mr MacPhisto these new amphibious ships could prove to be an invaluable source of help to some of the smaller nations in our region who may need an evac for one reason or another, i'm sure they would have a lot more room to accomodate refugee's or whatever the case may be, than what is available now, the HMAS Kanimbla. Bring it on i say, about time we got an aircraft carrier, we are surrounded by water it makes no sense not to have one, especially with the rising tensions of terrorism.

Our defence chiefs are thinking big - too big

Article by Hugh White

The Age, 13 July 2004, p. 13

Cabinet ministers should be asking the Defence Department if we really need what it wants.

Australia's defence chiefs on Russell Hill in Canberra are hoping to make a little history in the next few weeks. They are asking the Federal Government to buy two new ships for the navy.

If the cabinet ministers agree, they will be signing up to buy the biggest warships to join the Australian fleet - the navy's old aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, displaced a shade less than 20,000 tonnes; the two new ships the Defence Department wants would be about 27,000 tonnes each.

To the untrained eye the new ships would look just like aircraft carriers, with a big flat deck and a small superstructure to one side. But these are amphibious ships, designed to land and support troops on hostile shores. The deck allows large numbers of troop-carrying helicopters to take off simultaneously, and down at the waterline there is a dock to load and launch landing craft as well. Hence their military-speak designation: landing helicopter dock, or LHD.

Defence wants the LHDs to replace two amphibious ships that are due to be retired after 2010. But the LHDs are three times the size of the larger of the two ships they are intended to replace. Buying such big replacements is a relatively new idea. In its defence white paper of 2000, the Government planned on replacement vessels of about 12,000 tonnes - still much bigger and more capable than the current ships, but less than half the size of the LHDs that Defence now wants.

Why the change? Defence has presented no substantive public arguments to support its decision to ask for bigger ships. And, after some erratic recommendations from Defence in recent times on issues such as the decision to buy Abrams tanks, we can expect ministers on the National Security Committee of cabinet to look this over very carefully.

There is no doubt we need to buy new ships of some kind to maintain our amphibious capability. One of the Howard Government's key defence policy achievements has been to reorient the army towards operations in our immediate neighbourhood - such as East Timor and Solomon Islands. We need amphibious ships for such missions.

But smaller amphibious ships in the 12,000-tonne range - such as the ones we were planning to buy - are fine for these kinds of lower-level operations, and they would be capable of handling tougher fights against the kinds of forces we might find in our immediate neighbourhood.

The bigger ships come into their own in high-level conflicts. They are designed specifically for what are called amphibious assaults: D-day style operations in which forces are landed directly against strong opponents in well-defended positions. An LHD can launch a lot of helicopters at the same time. That lets you put a lot of troops on the objective at once - a big advantage.

But is amphibious assault a priority for our forces? There could be scenarios in which we might need to launch a full-scale amphibious assault in our own region, but they are very remote. So amphibious assault capability comes way below a lot of other things in our list of defence force priorities.

Top of that list is more infantry. It seems strange to spend big money buying big ships for remote contingencies, when our army has too few front-line battalions to handle the kinds of crises we are likely to face in our own backyard over coming years.

Supporters of the big ships will argue another advantage: they make it easier to deploy land forces over long distances. However, the Government has made clear that, despite the war on terrorism, our own region remains Australia's strategic priority. As last year's defence capability review said: "The defence of Australia and regional requirements should be the primary drivers of force structure."

So ministers need to ask some very searching questions about why Australia needs these LHDs. They won't come cheap. The 2004 defence capability plan provides between $1.5 billion and $2 billion for them. But that is only about 20 per cent more than was budgeted for the original replacements that were half the size. So there is real doubt that there is enough money in the budget to build the bigger ships.

Crewing and operating costs will also need careful attention.

Above all, there is a question about whether these big ships will do the job we need done.

Two big amphibious ships might be less useful than three or four smaller ones, as some recent studies within Defence have suggested. Our key need is not to be able to mount one full-scale operation against a major enemy, but to be able to handle multiple smaller crises across our region. So numbers and flexibility count more than size.

A decision to buy LHDs would also turn our backs on new technologies. The most important of these is the high-speed catamaran. One of these ships, which the RAN had on lease, was invaluable in East Timor in 1999. The US Marines have a major project - with an Australian company - to develop them as an alternative to conventional amphibious ships. The catamarans have drawbacks, of course, but they also have advantages.

Before agreeing to Defence's proposals, ministers will want to be sure that this Australian technology does not provide a better option.

And lastly, ministers will need to ask where all this leads the navy in future. Big ships such as LHDs take a lot of defending from aircraft and submarines. Soon the Government will be faced with a decision about buying new destroyers, price tag up to $6 billion. Their primary role will be - you guessed it - to defend the LHDs.

Perhaps we need to go back to basics and ask what the role of our surface fleet will be in the 21st century. It may be time for a bit less history, and a bit more foresight.

^Wow. Mr White clearly has his wires crossed.

The aquisition and runninng costs associated with three 13,000 tonnes ships along the lines of the Rotterdam Class would most likely surpass that of the two propossed LHD's.

The airgroup supported by the two LHD's is far greater than 3 smaller ships hauling 4 NH-90's each.

Why the change Mr white?
Because steel is cheap and air is free. Building them big doesn't necessarily mean a large increase in costs, but it invariably leads to greater capability and the opportunity for future upgrades if needed. Large flat-tops generally stay in service much longer than smaller ships. The British are of the opinion that they can replace 3 ageing 20,000 tonne ships with 2 much larger (and more reliable) modern carriers.

One can only wonder why he singled out "Amphibious Assault" as the primary role of these ships. They are multirolled vessels and will be invaluable for Command and Control, Search and Rescue, Humanitarian Aid/Evacuation, Peacekeeping, anti-submarine warfare and more.

The decision to purchase Abrams tanks, whilst surprising, is justifiable.
The authors reference to the cost of these vessels can be addressed simply by looking at the costs associated with purchases of similar hulls in Europe (add a few bucks for the Australian Ship Building Industries innevitable cost blowout).

The catamaran reference is a joke. The government is looking at two LHD's AND a sealift ship for transporting troops and equipment. The cost of hiring or purchasing a ship like Jervis Bay is negligible in comparison to these purchases, and at any rate they are no substitution for a real warship anyway.
In a nutshell, purchasing big ships makes us no less likely to consider another catamaran in future should the need arise.

It's also worth noting that New Zealand's aquisition of a small amphib will greatly contribute to minor troubles in the region.

Mr White appears to be trying to paint this as some hastily contrived attempt by the Navy to get some shiny new toys. The reality is it's been considered for years. That includes several studies, trips to shipyards overseas and detailed analysis of Australia's strategic needs now and in the future. As the author alludes to, another report did suggest that there may be a case for 3 smaller ships, but that's what reports are all about, considering alternative options and making suggestions (not neccesarily recomendations).

The author is certainly pushing an agenda.

Totally agree with you Mr MacPhisto

Wow, that will be a fantastic toy to kill people with!

Better to kill than be killed ;)

dont you wish that people like him didnt get to publish in newspapers. That or people like Macphisto were able to put up a response.

Recently in study of society at school we were being tought about the bias seen in the media. this is a prime example, and whats sad is that many will be taken in by this Nimby and his irrelivent comments.