Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

I suspect the question is very dependent on both the size and quantities of the goods/stores a vessel like this would be planned to lift and move. If the expectation would be for a HADR/hospital ship to land pallets of relief supplies (food, water, medical supplies, etc.) then one method might work. OTOH if the vessel was also anticipated to land vehicles to start or aide relief efforts (like heavy construction equipment, ambulances, etc.) then a well dock might very well be required.

Some assumptions I would make regarding a well dock, is that a hospital/HADR ship would not have quite the same requirements in terms of quantity for landing craft when compared with the Canberra-class LHD's, as the hospital/HADR ship would be a non-combatant, and would be utilized in much more benign security environments. This would in turn suggest that the ship could anchor much closer to shore than one of the LHD's might, so the round trip transit times for landing craft should be shorter. In addition since the vessel would be providing humanitarian assistance, as opposed to landing troops which might quick become engaged by hostiles, IMO there would be less pressure to land larger "waves" of personnel and resources, since there would (should?) be little concern a landed platoon or troop would be surrounded, engaged and/or overrun.

As a side note though, it would probably be a good idea for decisions to be made regarding what the actual focus of the vessel would be. A dedicated hospital ship would absolutely be useful for Australia to have in the event of a hostile situation, as well as in the event of a natural disaster or epidemic/pandemic, and during periods without emergencies involving Australia proper, could be used as a "goodwill" ship visiting Pacific islands to support local medical facilities. However, a dedicated hospital ship would not have the same capacity requirements for logistics that a more general HADR-type vessel would likely have, instead replacing at least some of that space and displacement with permanently mounted hospital beds, wards, surgical theatres and diagnostic/laboratory equipment.

Thanks for the reply to a rather vague question.
As much as I like the Canberra class I can see virtue in other vessels attending to more or the HADR stuff. This will free the Canberra class to concentrate on its core military role with the HADR vessel / vessels swinging in to support in a military emergency in what ever capacity they can contribute.
It's this capacity that is the unknown and what size and type of vessel that should full fill this role, that has of got us all speculating.

As a side note.
What is the smallest ship with a decent sized docking well to serve in recent times.
I remember France had a one off Bougainville ship class of Landing platform dock.
Good logistics capacity with large docking well. Around the 5000t mark. Helicopter platform and I'm sure some space to build in decent medical facilities.
A modern ship of similar size / capacity and features may be the ticket.

Any way just speculation.


Regards S

 

[hairyman]

What about the HSV ships built by Incat and later Austal for the USN? would they be of value to the RAN? Does anyone know their size?

 

[hauritz]

What about the HSV ships built by Incat and later Austal for the USN? would they be of value to the RAN? Does anyone know their size?

They would almost certainly be too small plus there is also the issue of sea handling.

The impression I get with the HADR ship is that it will be permanently sailing from island to island dispensing aid and medical care. It won't just be for emergencies. When you consider the full range of tasks this ship would need to perform and the amount of equipment it would be required to carry to support those operations it is hard to imagine a ship much smaller than the Choules being required.

 

[Todjaeger]

What about the HSV ships built by Incat and later Austal for the USN? would they be of value to the RAN? Does anyone know their size?

What role would such a vessel serve in the RAN? HMAS Jervis Bay from Incat was such a vessel, and proved useful in moving personnel and vehicles/goods between Darwin and Dili in Timor Leste, at a time when the RAN was rather lacking in sealift. However, what makes for a 'good' civilian/commercial high speed ferry does not really make for a good naval vessel or sealift ship.

The principle advantage such a vessel has AFAIK is that it can potentially transit much faster between two ports within range than a traditional monohull can, to deliver the embarked personnel, vehicles, and/or goods. The downside is that the comparative quantity (especially of goods) is rather low. I forget the numbers, but I seem to recall that a monohull cargo ship being able to easily deliver the same amount of supplies in a single transit that a HSV like Jervis Bay would need 10+ trips to deliver.

 

[Joe Black]

Reading these articles in "The Strategist":

A ‘Son of Collins’ submarine may one day prowl the oceans—just not under Australian colours | The Strategist

and also this...

The aggregate failure of Australia’s submarine policy | The Strategist

I do wonder if RAN should really starting thinking about a Plan B. Even if RAN is still going full steam ahead with the Shortfin, an interim "Son of Collins" class does make sense too. Build 2x "Son of Collins" if the Dutch go with the Saab design, RAN could later decide to sell "Son of Collins" to the Dutch navy when all the planned Shortfins come "online" (commissioned).

Interested to hear this thought and all the pros and cons you god folks might be able to come up with in regards to this idea.

 

[oldsig127]

I do wonder if RAN should really starting thinking about a Plan B. Even if RAN is still going full steam ahead with the Shortfin, an interim "Son of Collins" class does make sense too. Build 2x "Son of Collins" if the Dutch go with the Saab design, RAN could later decide to sell "Son of Collins" to the Dutch navy when all the planned Shortfins come "online" (commissioned).

Interested to hear this thought and all the pros and cons you god folks might be able to come up with in regards to this idea.

I wonder where you have the evidence that there's no Plan B?

I'm also a little unconvinced by (not just your) most of the proposals here to "cure" various situations which we only understand from the inept reporting in newspapers and the axe grinding of various academics. I think we need to know a lot more before doubling the defence budget to buy everything "needed" .

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

I wonder where you have the evidence that there's no Plan B?

I'm also a little unconvinced by (not just your) most of the proposals here to "cure" various situations which we only understand from the inept reporting in newspapers and the axe grinding of various academics. I think we need to know a lot more before doubling the defence budget to buy everything "needed" .

oldsig

Bravo Zulu, Sir.

 

[Joe Black]

I wonder where you have the evidence that there's no Plan B?

oldsig

No evidence if there exists a Plan B or not, or perhaps a better worded sentence could be the defence dept / RAN could drop hints as to what a Plan B might look like and calm some fears. The Sea1000 project could quickly end up being a deep black abyss if they are not careful, a rerun of the early days of the Collins class will certain give the media and the political circus the opportunity to have a field day.

The discussion of a "cure" is a fun topic for discussion. Lets look at what's plausible and feasible. Could be seen as an armchair general exercise, but nevertheless, it is useful to think and debate on the "what ifs" scenarios. Naturally we don't want to go overboard. Just suggesting.

 

[Wombat000]

I wonder where you have the evidence that there's no Plan B?

Whilst I am obviously no expert,
Perhaps an "evolved Collins" would offer another navy extend certain capabilities, and as the article suggests, be appealing to THEM?
Perhaps that "evolved Collins" would not be such the capability gain over what the RAN already has?

Considering the loooong lead times, it's perhaps plausible that the Collins will indeed be tuned & tweaked during this interim time, even if not the total cohort, to evolve into what today we may refer to as a version of the articles "evolved Collins"?

 

[ngatimozart]

No evidence if there exists a Plan B or not, or perhaps a better worded sentence could be the defence dept / RAN could drop hints as to what a Plan B might look like and calm some fears. The Sea1000 project could quickly end up being a deep black abyss if they are not careful, a rerun of the early days of the Collins class will certain give the media and the political circus the opportunity to have a field day.

Just because there is not evidence in the public domain of a Plan B does not preclude such a plan from existing. I would be very wary of building a case out of a mountain of unknowns because such cases will be built on foundations of quick sand and liquefaction.

The discussion of a "cure" is a fun topic for discussion. Lets look at what's plausible and feasible. Could be seen as an armchair general exercise, but nevertheless, it is useful to think and debate on the "what ifs" scenarios. Naturally we don't want to go overboard. Just suggesting.

We don't like what if scenarios because that's getting into the realm of fiction and we prefer to deal in facts. Submarines because of the very nature of their missions have a strong wall of security surrounding them and all you will be doing is rehashing already rehashed material, rumours and innuendo. Strong suggestion - let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Stampede]

No evidence if there exists a Plan B or not, or perhaps a better worded sentence could be the defence dept / RAN could drop hints as to what a Plan B might look like and calm some fears. The Sea1000 project could quickly end up being a deep black abyss if they are not careful, a rerun of the early days of the Collins class will certain give the media and the political circus the opportunity to have a field day.

The discussion of a "cure" is a fun topic for discussion. Lets look at what's plausible and feasible. Could be seen as an armchair general exercise, but nevertheless, it is useful to think and debate on the "what ifs" scenarios. Naturally we don't want to go overboard. Just suggesting.

SEA 1000 will always be a bit of a mystery until we start to see some physical construction of the first vessel.
Even then the gestation period till we have a sea going vessel able to perform as expected will still be many years away.
I some how think think conversations around plan B will continue for some time, unless there is some reputable positive feedback from industry and defence.

This will be a long journey.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Reading these articles in "The Strategist":

A ‘Son of Collins’ submarine may one day prowl the oceans—just not under Australian colours | The Strategist

and also this...

The aggregate failure of Australia’s submarine policy | The Strategist

I do wonder if RAN should really starting thinking about a Plan B. Even if RAN is still going full steam ahead with the Shortfin, an interim "Son of Collins" class does make sense too. Build 2x "Son of Collins" if the Dutch go with the Saab design, RAN could later decide to sell "Son of Collins" to the Dutch navy when all the planned Shortfins come "online" (commissioned).

Interested to hear this thought and all the pros and cons you god folks might be able to come up with in regards to this idea.

The second article
"The aggregate failure of Australia’s submarine policy | The Strategist"

Certainly highlights the concern re our lack of time for our submarine build.

I hope the general public are made aware of this predicament.

Regards S

 

[ASSAIL]

Reading these articles in "The Strategist":

A ‘Son of Collins’ submarine may one day prowl the oceans—just not under Australian colours | The Strategist

and also this...

The aggregate failure of Australia’s submarine policy | The Strategist

I do wonder if RAN should really starting thinking about a Plan B. Even if RAN is still going full steam ahead with the Shortfin, an interim "Son of Collins" class does make sense too. Build 2x "Son of Collins" if the Dutch go with the Saab design, RAN could later decide to sell "Son of Collins" to the Dutch navy when all the planned Shortfins come "online" (commissioned).

Interested to hear this thought and all the pros and cons you god folks might be able to come up with in regards to this idea.

Naturally the “strategists” would like to see an elevated production schedule for our future submarine force as many strategic scenarios play out in our region. However, the governments of the day deal in absolutes, they make plans and decisions around implementation which are interrelated to the economic circumstances of the day/decade.
The strategists don’t have that impediment and so they can make judgements and offer solutions devoid of the reality of the governing process.
This is in no way critical of what the two authors have postulated because that’s where they provide context to strategy but we really shouldn’t get excited when the way forward is more cautious and more constrained.

If things get ugly in our region I’d suggest that the drumbeat would quicken and the scope would widen and the sub force would attract a great deal of energy from above.

 

[spoz]

Neither of those articles strike means as authoritative, and indeed nor does the magazine. Academics, journalists and others don’t make their reputations by articles saying “those in power got it right”, and as Assail points out, governments, but not journalists, have to take holistic views.

 

[Redlands18]

http://www.australiandefence.co.au
Construction of the future HMAS Arafura began this morning, confused? she will get 11 Sisters built at Osborn & Henderson.
We are definitely seeing a major change in Australian Ship naming, I actually like it. They will spend much of their time off the Northern Coasts of Australia.

 

[Redlands18]

Australian Defence Magazine - Australian Defence Magazine
Construction of the future HMAS Arafura began this morning, confused? she will get 11 Sisters built at Osborn & Henderson.
We are definitely seeing a major change in Australian Ship naming, I actually like it. They will spend much of their time off the Northern Coasts of Australia.

Sorry that should be .com.au of course. Link fixed in this post

 

[Sideline]

I thought the winning OPV80 did not have a hanger? Photo
the ADM image has a different exhaust arrangement OPV90, ADM Cover
which is correct?

 

[ASSAIL]

ASC has been contracted to SAAB and Jeumont Electric to provide engineering expertise to European submarine makers.
Although many of ASC engineers and designers have departed since the hiatus in design work at Osborne some expertise remains.
This simply illustrates what Volk and others have been saying in reply to to the incessant chatter here that we should bow to the knowledge of other European sub designers and disregard the Expertise/IP held at ASC.
To reiterate, there are only two nations with currency in building large conventional subs, Japan and Australia.

Europeans look to ASC for submarine expertise - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[BPFP]

Presumably this is an image of the final design - which suggests capacity for a Romeo.

Agree with Redlands on the naming - a nice change of tack for both this and the Hunter class naming.

 

[Redlands18]

I thought the winning OPV80 did not have a hanger? Photo
the ADM image has a different exhaust arrangement OPV90, ADM Cover
which is correct?

I wouldn't take to much notice of the Photo probably just a standard Lurssen promotional Photo for their OPV range. I would wait for something released by Navy.