ringo said:Buying a Bay from UK would be a good move IMO, the AOR/JSS program could then be scaled back to just a pair of basic AOR's of Canatria or Berlin class the Bay providing lift that basic AOR designs lack.
Canada owns the Victoria Class.drunknsubmrnr said:It hasn't worked out well with the Victorias.
Ex-Dragoon said:All we are getting apparently is a pair. The Navy is really suffering with only a pair of AORs in service right now, so I am not a big fan of losing the 3rd AOR for a single Bay.
Rumours abound that the RAN may be acquiring an ex-RN Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD) as a result of the UK MoD defence cutbacks.
The specifications for JP2048 Phase 4C as stated in the White Paper are: “a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel”.
“Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure.”
One blogger sees this as basically a description of the Bay class, and that there was the expectation that we’d buy the design off the drawing board and contract either BAE Systems or Scheldt to build one.
“One of the Bays becoming available suits us perfectly: it saves us a fair bit of cash (budget is $150-200 million, and I’d imagine we’ll get one of the Bays for ~$70-100 million, bear in mind the dollar is strong at the moment too), and it’s available right now...
Another observer has doubts as to whether the RAN would cancel an LHD for the sake of a cheap LSD – pointing out that the LSD probably won’t do the job of a dedicated fleet supply ship, which is what Success is due to be replaced with.
However, he adds that a Bay class ship would be a perfect replacement for Tobruk (which is what they were designed for in any case).
It appears that at one stage the RAN was looking at the Dutch Rotterdam class as a replacement for HMAS Success - guess what?
The Bay class is based on the self-same design.
Even more interesting – Spain uses the same design, built by Navantia as the Galicia class...
fire fytr said:True but government owned vessels are exempt. The UK as part of the EU have decided to meet the requirements but they do not have to as a naval vessel. Even as a single hulled vessel she is more reliable and would give us the deployability we need.
At the same age as the CPF fleet she could be phased out as the CPFs are as the new SHSC arrive. This is a "gift" that is to good to be true.
It will likely come to pass that our navy like others will decrease in size over the course of the next few decades and we will be left with a smaller fleet needing only two AORs. By the time this "new" fleet is in place we are looking at about 15 years or more. Fort George would then be 30 plus years old and ready for paying off.
fire fytr said:True but government owned vessels are exempt. The UK as part of the EU have decided to meet the requirements but they do not have to as a naval vessel. Even as a single hulled vessel she is more reliable and would give us the deployability we need.
Ex-Dragoon said:Another 5-10 years and you will have 280s that will rarely leave the wall like the AORs barely do these days. The longer you wait, the more replacements are put off because we "can"make do. Then another party gets elected and sees we are making do and decide to cancel and cut defence procurement projects because we can make do...see the problem?