Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The outrage over this and CN’s ridiculous support for CO Albatross has caused great harm to the RAN.
Someone however has had the spine to overturn the decision and I suspect that was a pay grade or two higher than CN.
CN’s post supporting the cancellation of the march seems to have disappeared.
Royal Australian Navy
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
What’s next? No Nighttime exercises in the Bush for the Army or no Bush Exercises at all, to many trip Hazards in the Bush or to many bitey things in the Bush or to many holes in the ground.
Or is it really just the Pussers are scared of the dark:D
 
MrConservative

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
ASSAIL said:
The outrage over this and CN’s ridiculous support for CO Albatross has caused great harm to the RAN.
Someone however has had the spine to overturn the decision and I suspect that was a pay grade or two higher than CN.
CN’s post supporting the cancellation of the march seems to have disappeared.
Royal Australian Navy
Click to expand...
With all due respect the CO of HMAS Albatross should start applying for a job that her legal qualification is more suitable for.

My guess is that the PM's CoS conveyed a blunt message to Defence hierarchy - because such stuff is the last thing ScoMo would want on the day of an election date announcement. In Govt circles PM's do the good news calls and the CoS gives the bollockings. The line no one wants to hear in public service is "Excuse me the PM's CoS is on the line."
 
T

Traveller

Member
"This week The Daily Telegraph revealed air force pilots are being told to think about the “gender perspective” of destroying a bridge being used by enemy troops if it means nearby women will have to walk further to collect firewood and water.


The “Gender in Air Operations” doctrine told pilots that bombing the bridge “may provide a military advantage against the enemy” but it could also mean women had to “travel further afield, on unfamiliar and less secure … routes to gather water and firewood”.

It has been followed by the Navy’s decision to adopt the same United Nations-inspired “Women, Peace and Security Agenda” for operations."

(Not Navy but in same article as dawn march cancellation. The madness spreads...)

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph


"Following complaints from the Taliban about the noise of jets on bombing runs, the RAAF has ceased all such operations pending the introduction of electric powered strike aircraft."
Traveller News Agency 12APR19
 
Last edited:
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Traveller said:
"This week The Daily Telegraph revealed air force pilots are being told to think about the “gender perspective” of destroying a bridge being used by enemy troops if it means nearby women will have to walk further to collect firewood and water.


The “Gender in Air Operations” doctrine told pilots that bombing the bridge “may provide a military advantage against the enemy” but it could also mean women had to “travel further afield, on unfamiliar and less secure … routes to gather water and firewood”.

It has been followed by the Navy’s decision to adopt the same United Nations-inspired “Women, Peace and Security Agenda” for operations."

(Not Navy but in same article as dawn march cancellation. The madness spreads...)

We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph


"Following complaints from the Taliban about the noise of jets on bombing runs, the RAAF has ceased all such operations pending the introduction of electric powered strike aircraft."
Traveller News Agency 12APR19
Click to expand...
Can anyone post a copy of the link? I’m not a subscriber.
 
T

Traveller

Member
Last edited:
7

76mmGuns

Active Member
Recently ASPI has discussed the problems with the ANZAC's needing to stay in service til the 2040's. In for the long haul (part 3): How far can you push an Anzac? | The Strategist

Given that the OPV building has begun last Dec, what do you guys think about the idea of building , say, 15-18, instead of 12 Arafura's. The extra 3-6 can be used to reduce to take over some low threat tasks ANZAC's normal cover, to reduce the wear and tear.

Now I don't mean that they have to be fully crewed. Perhaps they are just rotated. eg Jan-mar use an ANZAC, Apr- Jun use an Arafura. you get my drift.
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
76mmGuns said:
Recently ASPI has discussed the problems with the ANZAC's needing to stay in service til the 2040's. In for the long haul (part 3): How far can you push an Anzac? | The Strategist

Given that the OPV building has begun last Dec, what do you guys think about the idea of building , say, 15-18, instead of 12 Arafura's. The extra 3-6 can be used to reduce to take over some low threat tasks ANZAC's normal cover, to reduce the wear and tear.

Now I don't mean that they have to be fully crewed. Perhaps they are just rotated. eg Jan-mar use an ANZAC, Apr- Jun use an Arafura. you get my drift.
Click to expand...
That would mean extra money and crews. At present one of the Anzacs is still on the hard stand because the crew is not available. While money can be arranged if the need calls for it crews take time. In any case it is a long term project that will see them gradually pick up the slack in border protection with the Hunters on the main missions and the Anzacs working in between both roles. There is still the possibility more of these vessels will be ordered for the future replacement of the various other ships intended but not replaced under Sea 1180. Another option to increase he numbers of them and reduce the strain on the navy would be for the marine unit of ABF to replace down the track some of their vessels with the Arafaru's. I imagine these ships will be capable of more ship days at sea then the Armidales so should improve the situation exponentially as they are commissioned.
 
T

thatsamguy

Member
Sideline said:
Sorry for the short post, Does anyone have any info on the status on the new Supply class AORs/NUSHIP Supply ??
Click to expand...
No new information that I've been able to find, but I am interested in the differences between the stats for Cantabria (wikipedia) vs the Supply class (Supply Class AOR | Royal Australian Navy).

Supply looks to be 3.5m longer, has slightly less storage for most provisions (inc. JP-5 & diesel), and only 1 helicopter compared to the "2-3" for Cantabria. And that's aside from the external differences near the funnel as seen from the launch video.

I wonder what other capabilities have been added/prioritised to necessitate these changes.
 
B

BPFP

Member
A great shame a third ship was not ordered - better than expected budget numbers it could easily have been added to the current production run. Not the priority in an election year, I guess.
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
A third one is still on the tables technically via the 2016 DWP baring any changes in government or military thinking/priorities or in global affairs. That being said there is an article by a member of the Australian Army advocating rather then a third AOR and a replacement for Choules that they instead acquire a pair of Karel Doorman Joint Support Ships (Variant of, exact copies or similar concept) with the intent of 1 AOR and 1 JSS on each coast.

https://www.army.gov.au/our-future/blog/amphibious-joint-interagency/support-from-the-sea-3

If the government would go that way or if the RAN would want that I dont know though off hand the 2nd or the 2 proposed JSS's could be justified as the vessel for the government Pacific Support Ship and if the Army and Navy both want it well might be enough to get the pollies on board. Any case its any ones guess in the future what happens. That aside common sense in my view would dictate if you want a 2 fleet navy as we have then you need to have a support ship at all times for each fleet as well as an Amphib/HADR asset in each fleet with another one between the two to make up for when one will inevitably be in maintenance or upgrade.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
vonnoobie said:
A third one is still on the tables technically via the 2016 DWP baring any changes in government or military thinking/priorities or in global affairs. That being said there is an article by a member of the Australian Army advocating rather then a third AOR and a replacement for Choules that they instead acquire a pair of Karel Doorman Joint Support Ships (Variant of, exact copies or similar concept) with the intent of 1 AOR and 1 JSS on each coast.

https://www.army.gov.au/our-future/blog/amphibious-joint-interagency/support-from-the-sea-3

If the government would go that way or if the RAN would want that I dont know though off hand the 2nd or the 2 proposed JSS's could be justified as the vessel for the government Pacific Support Ship and if the Army and Navy both want it well might be enough to get the pollies on board. Any case its any ones guess in the future what happens. That aside common sense in my view would dictate if you want a 2 fleet navy as we have then you need to have a support ship at all times for each fleet as well as an Amphib/HADR asset in each fleet with another one between the two to make up for when one will inevitably be in maintenance or upgrade.
Click to expand...
It would be a sensible approach insofar as the 2016 DWP seemed to indicate that the navy wanted either a refueler of logistics ship. Given that both roles are important and hardly interchangeable then something the size and capability of the Karel Doorman would seem a real option.

If the army threw its weight behind the navy and this turns into a joint project then I think there might be a chance of something like this happening. As I recall a budget estimate of $2 billion has been allocated so I assume the money is there.

Having said that I would still prefer that we get a third LHD and third tanker instead.
 
Last edited:
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
It would be a sensible approach insofar as the 2016 DWP seemed to indicate that the navy wanted either a refueler of logistics ship. Given that both roles are important and hardly interchangeable then something the size and capability of the Karel Doorman would seem a real option.

If the army threw its weight behind the navy and this turns into a joint project then I think there might be a chance of something like this happening. As I recall a budget estimate of $2 billion has been allocated so I assume the money is there.

Having said that I would still prefer that we get a third LHD and third tanker instead.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree a third AOR and LHD each would be ideal but a JSS would do in a pinch in some situations be more valuable. Could allow the RAN to surge to 4 Amphib/HARD assets rather then 3 giving one more flexibility and options. When all said and done there is no perfect answer I would say as a case could be made for either way.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
There are a number of options, I still wouldn't rule out a 3rd AOR. If we ordered one after the election, I would still guess Spain would give us a great price.

The Pacific ship is more of a thought bubble than reality. Not sure if it will survive the next election. The need for something like that will exist, but is it a separate ship, or a contracted ship, or naval or something else.

The Karel Doorman proposal isn't the craziest idea in the world. But as mentioned, it has limitations as a multirole ship, we would also be introducing a new class, from a new designer, and would likely need newly spec'd. Possibly local build, but it would completely stuff up the Frigate build in doing that. Sounds like an Army idea to me.

Going with a 3rd AOR and a 3rd LHD(fitted with RAS capabilities) would be more expensive in procurement and manpower, but efficiencies are gained by operating 3 of an existing type.

I would imagine a decision would be made after the election, bringing it up now is likely to break the bipartisan defence arrangement. Parties have enough issues at the moment, they don't need to manufacture more. Navy and Army need to work out what they want and need.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top