Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Possible Australian Carriers -
PuckaMan    3/23/2004 11:43:03 PM
Just read in Warship Vol. 19 2004 about Incat's 112m LCC (Littoral Command and Control) ship, it is designed to be STOVL/VTOL and Helo Capable: Here's the link to thier site: link What do you think? Is it a Viable option for the RAN re Naval Air? Means we'd have toget the F35B as well as the RAAF version. Cheers, Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
shawn    RE:Possible Australian Carriers -    3/24/2004 3:47:54 AM
Well, the RAN could always put in a bid for the HMS Invincible again, once she's retired from RN service in 2015... ;) The Incat 112mm design seems a bit light, 1000 tons if I managed to magnify it right. More likely its a typo, and the ships deadweight is approx. 10,000 tons, which would match its troop carrying ability with most other LSTs of similar tonnage, although the design seems to have a lot of space for helicopters, vehicles or cargo. I reckon that a design about twice her size, at around 200 metres in length and 22,000 tons in weight would make a pretty good carrier, with better carrying capabilities than carriers of similar size, like the Invincible...
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Possible Australian Carriers - shawn   3/24/2004 6:31:45 AM
I received the specs for this a couple of days ago and it says 1200 tonnes. Interestingly enough I also got the schemers for a tank landing ship and it also dumps in at approx 1200 tonnes. (to carry approx 10 MBT's + assorted support vehicles)
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Possible Australian Carriers - shawn   3/24/2004 9:17:14 AM
Ah... isn't 1200 tons a bit light, considering that its supposed to be able to support Chinooks on its helipad, and heavy cargo, including what looks like USMC AAAV's which come in at around 30 tons each?
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    Possible Australian LPDs   3/25/2004 2:37:14 AM
Anybody can login to Janes? They have a report that the Australian government is leaning towards a Spanish (I assume Bazan) design for its three upcoming LPDs -as well as its AAW destroyers. Maybe a package deal? I was wondering about the INCAT design's ability to launch LCTs, if it was scaled up. How would you fit a well deck into it, if it became necessary?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Possible Australian LPDs   3/25/2004 6:45:24 AM
The Chief of the Def staff was in Sing for IMDEX, so he was looking at the Izar offer whilst there. As for the Incat solution - it was offered up as a littoral carrier - not a major combatant. But the specsheet is definitely for a 1200 tonner
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Possible Australian LPDs   3/25/2004 3:17:06 PM
1200 tonnes is barely a Landing Ship Tank
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Possible Australian LPDs   3/25/2004 6:34:03 PM
Yep, it sure is. But the design brief is for a short haul carrier. Fundamentally it's a useless design (for me anyway). I can see it having some merit in our region as a helo mover, logistics point etc.. but I'd rather having a docking vessel.
 
Quote    Reply

Massive    RE:Possible Australian Carriers -    3/26/2004 1:49:18 AM
I don't think that this is appropriate for Australia. If they can put tanks directly onto the beach they could be considered as replacelments for the LCHs when the time comes but little else. I remain keen on the idea of two of the new planned Spanish strategic projection ship - they are not expensive hulls and the flexibility they would give would be enourmous - especially if VTOL F-35s are purchased. I would then replace the Tobruk with something similar to the San Giorgio (Italian) LPH - with bow doors. I could see a role for such a high speed vessel in disaster relief in our region - carrying a field hospital, engineers and support aircraft/vehicles to wherever needed.
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Possible Australian LPDs   3/26/2004 2:30:10 AM
gf0012-aust said: "Yep, it sure is. But the design brief is for a short haul carrier. Fundamentally it's a useless design (for me anyway). I can see it having some merit in our region as a helo mover, logistics point etc.. but I'd rather having a docking vessel." Glad you said that, I didn't want to offend your aussie sensibilities by saying something similar first -I felt that from the design plans, the 112M design had very little in the way of troop endurance, and couldn't mount an amphibious assault. then there's the weight, which I for one think is a bit light for a craft that can 'apparently' support Chinook operations. Have you seen the specs for the Singaporean Endurance class LSTs? 8,500 tons with bow doors, well deck, two medium heli spots and hanger, approx. 400 troop lift with armour and vehicles and two LCVP on derricks. The RSN sure crammed a lot of multirole capabilities into them.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Stumpy carrier - Shawn   3/26/2004 2:42:19 AM
I was actually looking at it on behalf of someone else - and they know my views on it, so I would assume that it's a non starter. I'm one of those aussies who says that we should stop dicking around with inefficient yards and either get them built at a quality level to a price (cost plus agreed margin) or get them, built in Singapore or Korea. I appreciate there are national interest issues in sustaining a build capability, but we don't have to nursemaid multiple shipping yards (we have more ship building yards than car manufacturers) /rant off
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy