Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

Four AORs for the RAN? That is la la land, where is the budget and manpower going to come from to own and operate 4 x AOR's?

How is the RAN going to employ 4 x AOR's? Even if the RAN ends up with three 'pure' AOR's I would imagine that we would only ever see two in operation at any one time with two crews swapping from one to the other.

And yes of course the new RNZN AOR will be a sovereign NZ capability, but I'm sure having a total of three AOR's either side of the ditch will be worked out by both our Governments for the benefit of all.


I think you missed the point of what I actually said too, I said do we really need a 3rd 'pure' AOR.

A ship like the Karel Doorman would be a better solution, in my opinion, yes it can operate as an AOR (when required), but primarily I would see a greater need for an additional LPD/LSD capability for when Choules (or her future eventual replacement) is not available.

There could be some interesting permutations to this.

I don't think the RAN would want to go with an orphan ship class. That would seem to go against its recent efforts to consolidate its hull types as much as possible.

So to my mind it would likely want to go with either a third Cantabria class or a ship based on the Bay class.

Of course there is also a possibility that they could go for an entirely new class and perhaps use that to eventually replace the Choules as well.

 

[John Newman]

Who said anything about budget or manpower increase I'm certainty not expecting it to happen. All I raised was from my perspective if we are aiming for a two ocean fleet the optimum solution is four vessels, one available at all times East or West with additional capacity for one being deployed overseas at any one time in support of our own task group or coalition event.

As you can see with the recent Indo-Pacific Endeavour 2017 task group one of our fleet support ships is tied up with this group leaving one ship in home waters, not much spare capacity if either ships was to go unserviceable.

But from the latest DWP perspective its either a fleet support or strategic lift ship, we have a need for both, if we can combine both ships to give spare capacity within the budget I'm all for it, relying on the Kiwi fleet oiler is not something I believe the RAN should be doing as they have there own sovereign needs.

Mate, yes of course you didn't say anything about budget or manpower increases, but if you are talking about the RAN having 4 x AOR, then those things, budget and manpower, have to come from somewhere.

In an ideal world we should have a back up for just about everything (but that ain't going to happen, even in all our wildest dreams).

But (within the reality of budgets and manpower constraints), maybe there is a way for the RAN to find creative solutions, and without going overboard (no pun intended). Currently we have:

2 x LHD
1 x LSD(A)
1 x AOR
1 x AO

We have two new AOR under construction to replace the 1 x AOR and 1 x AO, and there is the plan in the DWP and DIIP for an additional AOR or an LPD/LSD type ship (decision due just prior to the mid 2020's), plus the DWP also talks about a future replacement for Choules around 2030 too. (Eg, we would see an increase in the 'heavy metal' part of the fleet from five to six ships).

My solution by 2030, would be to see the heavy metal part of the fleet look like this:

2 x LHD
2 x AOR
2 x Karel Doorman (hybrid AOR/LPD)

We've increased the overall number of ships by only one (as per the DWP), but we have also introduced two new ships with dual roles, back up AOR's apart from what I would see as their primary role, eg, LPD/LSD's.

Basically we would end up with eight capabilities from six ships and still be reasonably within the budget and manpower limits that have been set or proposed.

 

[ASSAIL]

There could be some interesting permutations to this.

I don't think the RAN would want to go with an orphan ship class. That would seem to go against its recent efforts to consolidate its hull types as much as possible.

So to my mind it would likely want to go with either a third Cantabria class or a ship based on the Bay class.

Of course there is also a possibility that they could go for an entirely new class and perhaps use that to eventually replace the Choules as well.

The Bay Class are an iteration of the Enforcer design, Galicia Rotterdam et al.
It would make sense to replace Choules with a updated and comparable vessel of this class and give it RAS capability as I suspect the Karel Doorman is probably too big. It would also be smart to have it built to incorporate all the Spanish systems which will have all our large ships compatable, Systems management, damage control etc. this simply eases the training and sustainment costs. (It would make even more sense to have Navantia chosen for SEA 5000)

There's no doubting the Brits, they can turn the quite handsome Enforcer design into a ugly dog that is the Bays. Oh well they're still very useful ships.

 

[John Newman]

There could be some interesting permutations to this.

I don't think the RAN would want to go with an orphan ship class. That would seem to go against its recent efforts to consolidate its hull types as much as possible.

So to my mind it would likely want to go with either a third Cantabria class or a ship based on the Bay class.

Of course there is also a possibility that they could go for an entirely new class and perhaps use that to eventually replace the Choules as well.

As you will see with my reply to t68 above, I'm not suggesting an 'orphan' class of ship to be introduced to the RAN, but rather a class of two ships, one that would be the additional AOR or LSD type ship mentioned in the DWP, and a second identical ship that would eventually replace Choules.

Six ships overall (an increase of one ship as per the DWP), but those two new ships, the Karel Doorman class (or a version of), would have dual roles.

Again, maybe we can have our cake and eat it too if there is a creative approach to find a solution to the problem and stay within the bounds of budget and manpower constraints.

 

[John Newman]

The Bay Class are an iteration of the Enforcer design, Galicia Rotterdam et al.
It would make sense to replace Choules with a updated and comparable vessel of this class and give it RAS capability as I suspect the Karel Doorman is probably too big. It would also be smart to have it built to incorporate all the Spanish systems which will have all our large ships compatable, Systems management, damage control etc. this simply eases the training and sustainment costs. (It would make even more sense to have Navantia chosen for SEA 5000)

There's no doubting the Brits, they can turn the quite handsome Enforcer design into a ugly dog that is the Bays. Oh well they're still very useful ships.

Mate, I wouldn't be surprised if our Dutch (and Spanish) friends have a follow on design (evolution) in the pipeline for the eventual replacement of their respective Rotterdam and Galicia class ships (and maybe even for the UK Bay's one day too?).

An enlarged design (maybe not as large as Karel Doorman), but somewhere in between, approx. in the 20,000t range, that could be an appropriate replacement for Choules and that additional AOR or LSD/LPD ship mentioned in the DWP, both dual role with an AOR capability.

And having all of the basic Spanish systems that are installed in the LHD's, AWD's, AOR's and potentially Future Frigates (if the modified AWD is chosen), would appear to be a big winner.

Now if only the Government would listen to us (ha ha!).

 

[aussienscale]

It would make sense to replace Choules with a updated and comparable vessel of this class and give it RAS capability as I suspect the Karel Doorman is probably too big.

And on that note, I always thought it was a mistake to take away the RAS capability of our LHD's, as is the case with JC1, but guess we had our reasons/internal layout changes maybe meant that change had to be made ?

Cheers

 

[John Newman]

And on that note, I always thought it was a mistake to take away the RAS capability of our LHD's, as is the case with JC1, but guess we had our reasons/internal layout changes maybe meant that change had to be made ?

Cheers

Yes I do member that, and all the discussions here at the time as to why.

I do wonder if possibly there was a reduction in fuel storage, or possibly more likely that the fuel storage available wasn't worth splitting between the LHD and any accompanying ships that might have needed a top up.

Just because they are large ships, doesn't necessarily mean they have fuel to spare, and probably with the distances to be travelled in our part of the world too.


Though I do remember that HMAS Melbourne II had the capacity to refuel her escorts (I'm just looking at my very old copy of 'Warships of Australia', published back in 1977, where there is an old photo of Melbourne refuelling Quickmatch whilst Gannets are being launched, now that is a loooong time ago too!).

 

[ASSAIL]

Yes I do member that, and all the discussions here at the time as to why.

I do wonder if possibly there was a reduction in fuel storage, or possibly more likely that the fuel storage available wasn't worth splitting between the LHD and any accompanying ships that might have needed a top up.

Just because they are large ships, doesn't necessarily mean they have fuel to spare, and probably with the distances to be travelled in our part of the world too.


Though I do remember that HMAS Melbourne II had the capacity to refuel her escorts (I'm just looking at my very old copy of 'Warships of Australia', published back in 1977, where there is an old photo of Melbourne refuelling Quickmatch whilst Gannets are being launched, now that is a loooong time ago too!).

Melbourne had a 12500 mile range at 14 kts so she carried a fair load of FFO (Furnace Fuel Oil for those youngsters on here). Fuelling escorts was routine as most of those RN designs were short legged. Fresh water was the critical limiter Though and they were flat out providing enough feed water for the boilers which took priority over all,else.

Sydney had even less fuel, her range was only 7,500 nms

By 1977 Gannets were long gone, she undertook a year long refit at Codock from Jan 68 until Feb 69 in order to accommodate the new A4's and S2's
Quickmatch was placed in reserve in Apr 1963.

 

[John Newman]

Melbourne had a 12500 mile range at 14 kts so she carried a fair load of FFO (Furnace Fuel Oil for those youngsters on here). Fuelling escorts was routine as most of those RN designs were short legged. Fresh water was the critical limiter Though and they were flat out providing enough feed water for the boilers which took priority over all,else.

Sydney had even less fuel, her range was only 7,500 nms

By 1977 Gannets were long gone, she undertook a year long refit at Codock from Jan 68 until Feb 69 in order to accommodate the new A4's and S2's
Quickmatch was placed in reserve in Apr 1963.

When I mentioned 1977, that was when the book was published (I purchased it new at the time, cost me a bomb too!!). For those who have been lucky enough to either own or read 'Warships of Australia', apart from all the individual ships histories, it also has a really great selection of photo's going way back into the late 1800's and all they way forward through to when the book was published.

The photo in the book I referred to, would have come from the late 50's or very early 60's, because as you said, Quickmatch was out of service in early 1963.

 

[aussienscale]

I do wonder if possibly there was a reduction in fuel storage, or possibly more likely that the fuel storage available wasn't worth splitting between the LHD and any accompanying ships that might have needed a top up.

Just because they are large ships, doesn't necessarily mean they have fuel to spare, and probably with the distances to be travelled in our part of the world too.

I think your probably right on the later, not the former. I could not see that we would reduce our fuel bunkerage in our region, so more than likely that it is probably a good thing to have when you are travelling around the Med etc and not applicable or useful in our region, and how we use our assett's.

A smaller version of the K Doorman might be viable, would have no doubt Damen could come up with something. But I could not see one or two based on the KD for the RAN. 30+ m longer, wider, 7k+ heavier, and carries not too much less fuel, JP, water etc than the Cantabria Class. And over 2k lane meters, 2 spot helo deck and hangar for 6

They are a pretty neat piece of kit though, as Assail alluded too, a modified enforcer/Galicia Class could be interesting ?

Cheers

 

[Stampede]

Mate, I wouldn't be surprised if our Dutch (and Spanish) friends have a follow on design (evolution) in the pipeline for the eventual replacement of their respective Rotterdam and Galicia class ships (and maybe even for the UK Bay's one day too?).

An enlarged design (maybe not as large as Karel Doorman), but somewhere in between, approx. in the 20,000t range, that could be an appropriate replacement for Choules and that additional AOR or LSD/LPD ship mentioned in the DWP, both dual role with an AOR capability.

And having all of the basic Spanish systems that are installed in the LHD's, AWD's, AOR's and potentially Future Frigates (if the modified AWD is chosen), would appear to be a big winner.

Now if only the Government would listen to us (ha ha!).

Hi All

Yes, certainly a fan of the Karl doorman class
.
A question.
How much life is left in HMAS Choule's

This maybe part of the answer for both her replacement in vessel numbers and type.


Thoughts


Regards S

 

[John Newman]

Hi All

Yes, certainly a fan of the Karl doorman class
.
A question.
How much life is left in HMAS Choule's

This maybe part of the answer for both her replacement in vessel numbers and type.

Thoughts

Regards S

Choules (originally RFA Largs Bay), was laid down in 2002 and commissioned in 2006, so as an operational ship she is now 11 years old, should still have plenty of life left in the hull yet.

According to last year's DWP, she is set for an upgrade (which should happen reasonably soon?), the DWP also goes on to state that Choules will be replaced somewhere around 2030, by that time she will be about 25 years old.

And if you also look at the DWP with the plan for the possible 3rd AOR or additional Choules type ship, then yes, there is the possibility of two ships of the same type entering service in the late 2020's to early 2030's, one as a replacement, one as an addition.

A decision is still a way down the road, but as I said, there is the potential for two ships of the same type entering service closely together too.

Time will tell, expect a few changes of Government between now and then, and of course the odd new DWP to be delivered too.

 

[Stampede]

Choules (originally RFA Largs Bay), was laid down in 2002 and commissioned in 2006, so as an operational ship she is now 11 years old, should still have plenty of life left in the hull yet.

According to last year's DWP, she is set for an upgrade (which should happen reasonably soon?), the DWP also goes on to state that Choules will be replaced somewhere around 2030, by that time she will be about 25 years old.

And if you also look at the DWP with the plan for the possible 3rd AOR or additional Choules type ship, then yes, there is the possibility of two ships of the same type entering service in the late 2020's to early 2030's, one as a replacement, one as an addition.

A decision is still a way down the road, but as I said, there is the potential for two ships of the same type entering service closely together too.

Time will tell, expect a few changes of Government between now and then, and of course the odd new DWP to be delivered too.

Hi John

I think you have mapped it out pretty well.
The key is your last bit about a number of changes in government and if I can add, the uncertainty of future Geo politics in the region both near and far.
For myself the DWP is a guide to planning for the future only.
It is not necessarily a fait accompi of what we will get or have in 2030. Sure I can see the big planning options of a dozen OPV's,submarines and 9 destroyers being fairly solid but still there is never a guarantee all will go as planned.These numbers could very well contract or expand depending on the circumstances of the time. This also goes for the rest of the fleet. The amphibious / support vessels will also not be immune from the demands of the day.
Currently we have a Chief of Navy keen to have the Navy sailing further a field in task force sized groups.Whether this is a Navy decision or a directive of government I don't know but I envisage it will be part of the RAN's future.
As such the fleet will need long legs which also means afloat support.
Even with two impressive new supply ships I can see their numbers being inadequate when it comes to meeting the fleets future demands...............2030 starts to look a long way away.
So whether it's in the DWP or not. It would not surprise me if an additional supply ship is acquired in the early 2020's.
Who knows HMAS Sirius may well sail in RAN colours for a few more years yet,or another Cantabria class ordered; or maybe another supply ship of opportunity acquired in the early 2020's.

I feel we are looking at an RAN seeking a modest blue water navy with the ability to both project and sustain influence at distance.

I suspect this will be government driven and will be an expectation of defence to deliver.
The RAN budget may well have some future surprises.

Regards S

 

[PeterM]

Mate, I wouldn't be surprised if our Dutch (and Spanish) friends have a follow on design (evolution) in the pipeline for the eventual replacement of their respective Rotterdam and Galicia class ships (and maybe even for the UK Bay's one day too?).

An enlarged design (maybe not as large as Karel Doorman), but somewhere in between, approx. in the 20,000t range, that could be an appropriate replacement for Choules and that additional AOR or LSD/LPD ship mentioned in the DWP, both dual role with an AOR capability.

The Johan DeWitt is an improved version of the Rotterdam. It was launched in 2007 (10 years after Rotterdam) and at 16,800t it is an enlarged design.

Something along these lines could be a decent option for an eventual replacement of Choules.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Yes I do member that, and all the discussions here at the time as to why.

I do wonder if possibly there was a reduction in fuel storage, or possibly more likely that the fuel storage available wasn't worth splitting between the LHD and any accompanying ships that might have needed a top up.

Just because they are large ships, doesn't necessarily mean they have fuel to spare, and probably with the distances to be travelled in our part of the world too.


Though I do remember that HMAS Melbourne II had the capacity to refuel her escorts (I'm just looking at my very old copy of 'Warships of Australia', published back in 1977, where there is an old photo of Melbourne refuelling Quickmatch whilst Gannets are being launched, now that is a loooong time ago too!).

For some of us (even though I never saw this happening with Gannets) this is an inspiring photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)#/media/File:Melbourne_Quickmatch_301029.jpg

Then 1979-80 RAS HMAS Perth pic attached. Similar but VERY LOW QUALITY - not worth attaching - photo of MELBOURNE RASing PARRAMATTA is in this PDF: http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Navy-News-April-8-1977.pdf (8.3Mb) on page numbered 7 top (physical page 6).

 

[Muar River]

The Johan DeWitt is an improved version of the Rotterdam. It was launched in 2007 (10 years after Rotterdam) and at 16,800t it is an enlarged design.

Something along these lines could be a decent option for an eventual replacement of Choules.

The Castilla, sister ship of the Galacia, is fitted with two operations rooms, one for amphibious operations and the other for combat group operations. I am unsure as to whether the Bays are similarly equipped or they have not been included in the design (like the fixed hangars of the Enforcer design).

 

[spoz]

Brisbane sailed for builders' sea trials at about 0900 K/L this morning.

 

[Joe Black]

Brisbane sailed for builders' sea trials at about 0900 K/L this morning.

Great to hear. How's Sydney?

 

[spoz]

Great to hear. How's Sydney?

Looking good, due for float off about May next year.

 

[alexsa]

Brisbane Sea Trials

If NUSHIP Brisbane has sailed today then I am yet again gob smacked and the lack of news out of ASC, BAE and DoD. Talk about a media black hole.


No real news on the keel laying of NUSHIP Supply either which is staggering, just a tweet and a facebook post

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalAustralianNavy/photos/pcb.1935026496512041/1935026433178714/?type=3

Really .... WTF are they doing from a media perspective ....at least Navantia provided something in their news


https://navantia.com.au/news/