ADF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

In my opinion this is the main reason. It's a response to the Chinese belt and road scam. Beyond that, until the government provides more specifics, this discussion is starting to feel like a basket weaving circle, going round and round and round

oldsig

I honestly think the Pacific support ship is partially intended to build support for smaller ASEAN/Pacific Island gov't, as well as to make inroads for Australian diplomacy. This, I suspect is in part due to PRC efforts via Belt & Road, but also in part due to concerns about US involvement and diplomacy, or a lack thereof. With US efforts and involvement having been inconsistent over the course of this current US administration and as a result an erosion of trust in what the US can and would do, it makes sense to me that Australia would seek to position itself as a regional power that weaker nations would look to and seek to follow the lead of in international situations.

By introducing an asset like a "Pacific support ship" which can be deployed to provide HADR, non-disaster medical assistance, or developmental support/reconstruction, that would provide one avenue for Australian diplomacy to aid other countries. If this was also coupled with deploying Australians to provide expertise to locals, and supporting efforts to have locals brought to Australia for additional opportunities in terms of training and developing expertise which could then be brought back to their local communities, then these would be further opportunities for Australia to build ties with and foster the improvement of ASEAN/Pacific communities.

One thing which I wonder about is whether a vessel along the lines of HMAS Jervis Bay (GT203) is available for purchase or could be ordered fairly easily. A RoRo passenger/vehicle ferry with a helipad and hangar would likely provide most if not all the desired capabilities and likely without requiring a significant infusion of funding. If ordered as a 'new' vessel, then the order could even be used to further Australia developing economic and diplomatic ties if ordered from a yard in Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia.

 

[seaspear]

If the aim of a ship is to "push back " against the belt and road is a ship the most effective means of doing so in comparison to directly providing fully-funded infrastructure projects that are very beneficial to those nations,, and providing local employment.
So that the same nations don't need to source from China loans for this.

 

[spoz]

We should of course do both so far as it is within our capacity to do so. I really don’t want this generation to be seen as a latter day version of the appeasers of the ‘30s.

I think that the Pacific ship will probably have to built in Aust for political reasons, if no other. There was quite a stink when the Sycamore build went off shore and that was both before the national shipbuilding plan was launched and a build for a commercial owner, although for government putposes.

 

[Todjaeger]

If the aim of a ship is to "push back " against the belt and road is a ship the most effective means of doing so in comparison to directly providing fully-funded infrastructure projects that are very beneficial to those nations,, and providing local employment.
So that the same nations don't need to source from China loans for this.

This is getting a little divergent from the general ADF discussion topic, but there is a real potential for over development regarding funding infrastructure projects. Indeed, it almost seems as though several of the "Belt & Road" projects either had that occur as an accidental outcome, or (this is the cynic in me speaking) perhaps the over development was deliberate.

As it is, DFAT via Australian Aid has carried out development and aid programmes across five regions covering PNG, South Asia, East Asia, the Mideast, and Pacific. Me being me, I would expect the Pacific support ship to cover Indo-Pacific areas from eastern Africa to Pacific islands, as an additional mechanism for DFAT to provide non-military aid to international communities. Depending on the scheme adopted, it could also provide a venue for Australian civilians to engage in overseas volunteer service in a manner similar to the US's Peace Corps or Mercy Ships.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think that the Pacific ship will probably have to built in Aust for political reasons, if no other. There was quite a stink when the Sycamore build went off shore and that was both before the national shipbuilding plan was launched and a build for a commercial owner, although for government putposes.

Two thoughts/questions about this. If gov't was to purchase an existing vessel for modification and then service rather than ordering a new vessel to be built, would you see there being an issue with that? I am thinking of a purchase like was done with ABFC Ocean Shield/ex-Skandi Bergen.

Secondly, if a new/purpose-built vessel was to be ordered and from an Australian yard, what is the largest size which could realistically be built without requiring infrastructure or yard expansion? As a follow-up, what yards would have capacity to engage in such a build without impacting either of the current naval builds, or the national shipbuilding plan as a whole?

From where I sit, I am not certain that the infrastructure investments which would be required to build some of the larger naval vessels like replacements for the Bay-class LSD HMAS Choules would be worthwhile, as it seems likely that the extra infrastructure capacity would see little or no use between builds. Given the timing of the orders of large vessels for the RAN, it could easily be years between orders.

 

[Redlands18]

This is getting a little divergent from the general ADF discussion topic, but there is a real potential for over development regarding funding infrastructure projects. Indeed, it almost seems as though several of the "Belt & Road" projects either had that occur as an accidental outcome, or (this is the cynic in me speaking) perhaps the over development was deliberate.

As it is, DFAT via Australian Aid has carried out development and aid programmes across five regions covering PNG, South Asia, East Asia, the Mideast, and Pacific. Me being me, I would expect the Pacific support ship to cover Indo-Pacific areas from eastern Africa to Pacific islands, as an additional mechanism for DFAT to provide non-military aid to international communities. Depending on the scheme adopted, it could also provide a venue for Australian civilians to engage in overseas volunteer service in a manner similar to the US's Peace Corps or Mercy Ships.

And your final quote gives a very good reason for it not to be a Naval Vessel and maybe given a status similar to the Antarctic Divisions Ice Breaker. A Federal Government owned Vessel but with no ties to the ADF. There are plenty of people who would not serve on a ADF Vessel on pure principal(greenies) but would like to do this type of service and i would also open it up to people from the Pacific Islands and New Zealand. I’m not quite sure it would go as far as Africa.

As to what Ships we can and can’t build in Australia i think we all need to wait until the Shipbuilding plan update is released, due towards the end of the year. From what i can gather the Hunter Class is getting close to the max size we can currently build.

 

[hairyman]

If we were to acquire a vessel similar to Jervois Bay as suggested, surely it should be built in Tassy by Incat who built the Jervois Bay.

@hairyman and @t68

A little effort and research required here. The HMAS Jervis Bay (as opposed to Jervois Bay) built by INCAT was a chartered high speed ferry leased for the Timor response.

HMAS Jervis Bay - INCAT

HISTORY Launched in 1997, the production of Incat 045 was accelerated to assist TT-Line with their Bass Strait service while their conventional... READ MORE

www.incat.com.au

The charter was discontinued after the Timor response.

The HMAS Jervis Bay (GT 203) referred to above was the ex RO-PAX ferry Australian Trader built for the Bass Strait run. This vessel was built in the Newcastle State Dockyard and served as a training ship and occasionally supported other operations.

HMAS Jervis Bay (I) | Royal Australian Navy

Royal Australian Navy

www.navy.gov.au

 

[t68]

If we were to acquire a vessel similar to Jervois Bay as suggested, surely it should be built in Tassy by Incat who built the Jervois Bay.

Yep she was originally built for ANL on the tassie run, I suppose the currrent Tassie ships would not suit, I’m pretty sure I read somewhere they were going to get replacement soon, but I imagine they would make good hospital ships with the vehicle deck able to handle a mobile hospital, but need proper docks for that

 

[hauritz]

Two thoughts/questions about this. If gov't was to purchase an existing vessel for modification and then service rather than ordering a new vessel to be built, would you see there being an issue with that? I am thinking of a purchase like was done with ABFC Ocean Shield/ex-Skandi Bergen.

Secondly, if a new/purpose-built vessel was to be ordered and from an Australian yard, what is the largest size which could realistically be built without requiring infrastructure or yard expansion? As a follow-up, what yards would have capacity to engage in such a build without impacting either of the current naval builds, or the national shipbuilding plan as a whole?

From where I sit, I am not certain that the infrastructure investments which would be required to build some of the larger naval vessels like replacements for the Bay-class LSD HMAS Choules would be worthwhile, as it seems likely that the extra infrastructure capacity would see little or no use between builds. Given the timing of the orders of large vessels for the RAN, it could easily be years between orders.

I would have thought secondhand would be the way to go. There might be a few bargains out there at the moment. I imagine it would not cause a lot of fuss with the general public, particularly since there would be at least some conversion work to be done.

As for building our own ... I doubt we have the spare capacity or facilities to build much more than a large aluminium catamaran.

 

[oldsig127]

I would have thought secondhand would be the way to go. There might be a few bargains out there at the moment. I imagine it would not cause a lot of fuss with the general public, particularly since there would be at least some conversion work to be done.

As for building our own ... I doubt we have the spare capacity or facilities to build much more than a large aluminium catamaran.

I take it that the discussion on the RAN thread following on from your own post #28200 for a couple of pages has changed your mind about local building being good news, or even possible for the Australian ship building industry?

Personally I think that, while we don't currently have the capacity, there is an explicit intention to develop and use it. Anything further (like where, when, what) is pure guesswork until we see just what is intended through amendments to the Shipbuilding plan or direct government announcement

oldsig

 

[ASSAIL]

We should of course do both so far as it is within our capacity to do so. I really don’t want this generation to be seen as a latter day version of the appeasers of the ‘30s.

I think that the Pacific ship will probably have to built in Aust for political reasons, if no other. There was quite a stink when the Sycamore build went off shore and that was both before the national shipbuilding plan was launched and a build for a commercial owner, although for government putposes.

And, for that reason I suspect that Austal will get the job to build a version of the USNS EPF.
The USN has shown how useful these can be in both the Caribbean and West Africa for HADR and general flag waving.
They are shallow drafted for use in small underdeveloped ports, they can carry and support both air and small boat assets and can be equipped with emergency medical facilities.

I’ve advocated these in a previous post after the first mention of a PSS in the 2016 DWP but arguments were made claiming their fuel load/range was inadequate. This can be remedied by downsizing propulsion systems and sacrificing excessive speed.

I see Austal as the only alternative if an Australian build is mandated. The other yards will be at capacity.

 

[spoz]

Possibly, although the current design is a bit short-legged for our part of the world. I imagine that could be fixed, though.

As the Austal tie up with Fassmer for the OPV bid and their recent involvement in the PPB project has given them a background in building in steel, it’s also possible that you might be able to go for a build of something like one of the Damens such as Sycamore or even larger, although I do’t know the capacity of their yard.

Or, and this is a bit off the wall, you might use the build as a pipe cleaner to prove out the new submarine yard which is just starting construction at Osborne North, and is I believe due to use the CUF shiplift, which has a capacity of at least 10,000 tons (and maybe more).

 

[ASSAIL]

Possibly, although the current design is a bit short-legged for our part of the world. I imagine that could be fixed, though.

As the Austal tie up with Fassmer for the OPV bid and their recent involvement in the PPB project has given them a background in building in steel, it’s also possible that you might be able to go for a build of something like one of the Damens such as Sycamore or even larger, although I do’t know the capacity of their yard.

Or, and this is a bit off the wall, you might use the build as a pipe cleaner to prove out the new submarine yard which is just starting construction at Osborne North, and is I believe due to use the CUF shiplift, which has a capacity of at least 10,000 tons (and maybe more).

All these alternatives are possible but my gut tells me that the risk free and ready solution is the EPF.
The build in Alabama is nearing completion so timing is good, the project would be both cost and design risk free and Austal seems to have a sympathetic hearing in government circles (steady now Volk).

 

[hauritz]

I take it that the discussion on the RAN thread following on from your own post #28200 for a couple of pages has changed your mind about local building being good news, or even possible for the Australian ship building industry?

Personally I think that, while we don't currently have the capacity, there is an explicit intention to develop and use it. Anything further (like where, when, what) is pure guesswork until we see just what is intended through amendments to the Shipbuilding plan or direct government announcement

oldsig

Not really. It is good news. I was talking more about the short term prospects. I am actually a huge supporter of building as much stuff locally as possible. Short term though I don't see any real capacity at all to build large ships other than the planned new frigates. Specifically, in the case of the Pacific ship, I think we would be better to just find a secondhand vessel.

The two new JSS aren't likely to be required until much later in this decade so there is time to prepare for them.

 

[alexsa]

Yep she was originally built for ANL on the tassie run, I suppose the currrent Tassie ships would not suit, I’m pretty sure I read somewhere they were going to get replacement soon, but I imagine they would make good hospital ships with the vehicle deck able to handle a mobile hospital, but need proper docks for that

Why would you even consider this ....... The vessels are not new. They burn a lot of fuel (being converted from HFO) which suits the run they are on which demands a reasonably high speed .... but may not suit a vessel designed around persistence.

The conversion will not be cheap and this would be a poor use of resources .... especially if the hull life is limited. Both are configured for their current duties and would need to be gutted for the you Imagine they would undertake.

There is a lot to be said for purpose built as the design is likely to be less compromised. However ... this is all subjective as the mission statement is not in the public domain.

 

[hairyman]

Thanks for the information moderator. I always thought that Incat built the Jervis Bay, particularly since on my last trip to Hobart I saw what I thought was the Jervis Bay tied up near the Hobart Wharf. Maybe it was one of the fast vessels built for the USN.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the information moderator. I always thought that Incat built the Jervis Bay, particularly since on my last trip to Hobart I saw what I thought was the Jervis Bay tied up near the Hobart Wharf. Maybe it was one of the fast vessels built for the USN.

There have been two RAN vessels named Jervis Bay. The one I had been talking about, which is why I included the pennant, HMAS Jervis Bay (I) GT203, was a RoRo ferry the RAN purchased for training and transport duties. The second one is the one you are thinking of, a fast cat built by Incat, HMAS Jervis Bay (II) which was acquired to support the East Timor deployments.

Why would you even consider this ....... The vessels are not new. They burn a lot of fuel (being converted from HFO) which suits the run they are on which demands a reasonably high speed .... but may not suit a vessel designed around persistence.

The conversion will not be cheap and this would be a poor use of resources .... especially if the hull life is limited. Both are configured for their current duties and would need to be gutted for the you Imagine they would undertake.

There is a lot to be said for purpose built as the design is likely to be less compromised. However ... this is all subjective as the mission statement is not in the public domain.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I had thought the current Tasmanian ferries were rather... large. While having ships of that size would permit many options for a Pacific support ship, that would really be overkill. Not to mention probably outside of the AUD$180 to 220 mil. budget, never mind the crew and sustainment costs. I just do not see a vessel which approaches the LHD's in size, and with greater displacement, being a viable option for the Pacific support ship.

 

[Todjaeger]

All these alternatives are possible but my gut tells me that the risk free and ready solution is the EPF.
The build in Alabama is nearing completion so timing is good, the project would be both cost and design risk free and Austal seems to have a sympathetic hearing in government circles (steady now Volk).

I hope not. The EPF seems to be the new name the USN uses for JHSV. While such craft can have their place and be useful, I cannot really see one being appropriate for transiting to and then supporting ASEAN/Pacific nations and communities. One of their real big advantages is that under the correct conditions, they are able to make sustained rapid transits in Sea State 3 or less of ~35 kts. However that speed drops to 15 kts in Sea State 4, and 5 kts in Sea State 5. Beyond Sea State 5 an EPF has to hold position and await calmer seas. AFAIK the US intention is to use the EPF's to shift forces around over water within a region more easily, in areas where there would not really be long blue water transits. Given some of the areas where I suspect the Pacific support ship would be deployed, they are considerably more remote than Dili was during Interfet.

 

[StingrayOZ]

With the pacific ship I see it more as a mostly civilian manned multipurpose ship with strong medical and HDAR capability. Funded out of DFAT. But able to embark ADF specialists as well as basically representatives from AusGov. They will be particularly designed around long term regional persistence and low operational machinery costs. An aluminium and/or HSV is the very opposite of this.

I would expect it to look more like perhaps a LST120 or SLV at least as a starting point for discussions. Probably as a follow on variation on the new amphibious type landing ship. However, I doubt the ship would need to be even that specialized and may give up much of its specialised capabilities. But able to embark significant numbers of personnel, equipment, resources, etc while also possessing capability to self unload and load. Both those type of designs could be built at SA/WA or even other yards. ~ 2000t the WA yard would have significant experience in building ships of this size. Crewing would be <30.

I would imagine it would basically stay in region almost all of the time, and crew and specialists would fly in fly out. As it passes through major ports. I would also imagine it would be able to embark significant numbers of personnel from regional nations as it performs its missions. Able to provide permanent presence in the region and able of provide a platform to oversea a wide variety of aid and development projects, not just performing HDAR after natural disasters.

 

[alexsa]

Thanks for the information moderator. I always thought that Incat built the Jervis Bay, particularly since on my last trip to Hobart I saw what I thought was the Jervis Bay tied up near the Hobart Wharf. Maybe it was one of the fast vessels built for the USN.

As indicated in my edit.... there have been two. One INCAT vessel chartered for the Timor response for a limited period and one that served a long time as a general purpose/training vessel. It was the latter alluded to by Tod.