Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Jack Wyatt]

I believe any further defence acquisitions outside of those already included within then WP/ budget will need to be considered in terms of the international economic outlook and that of our own economy. Immediately, I'd suggest areas such as welfare, health and education are a much higher priority than a Pacific ship.

We know this current Government has doubled net debt since it has been in power and carries a $4bn deficit this FY.

FactCheck: has Australia's net debt doubled under the current government?

There are strong indicators that the economy is in a per capita recession.

Are we in a recession? Technical recessions, ‘per capita’ recessions and other statistical dips - Ai Group Blog

"The latest ABS data indicates that in 2018, Australia experienced two quarters of negative real income growth per capita (Q2 and Q3) and two quarters of negative real output growth per capita (Q3 and Q4). This means that aggregate incomes and output grew at a slower rate than the population during these quarters (i.e. below 0.4% q/q). If these trends were sustained and if the income being affected were broad-based, this would be of major concern for national growth trends".

In addition, Australia's best independent think tank, the Grattan Institute, last week determined that if the 2nd and 3rd tier tax cuts planned by the current Government go ahead, a $40bn per year cut to services will need be to be made to fund them. Where do the cuts to funding come from? Defence?

Explainer: is the Coalition planning $40bn of secret spending cuts?

All in all, we will consider ourselves lucky to get those acquisitions included in the WP/Budge,

 

[aussienscale]

I believe any further defence acquisitions outside of those already included within then WP/ budget will need to be considered in terms of the international economic outlook and that of our own economy. Immediately, I'd suggest areas such as welfare, health and education are a much higher priority than a Pacific ship.

We know this current Government has doubled net debt since it has been in power and carries a $4bn deficit this FY.

FactCheck: has Australia's net debt doubled under the current government?

There are strong indicators that the economy is in a per capita recession.

Are we in a recession? Technical recessions, ‘per capita’ recessions and other statistical dips - Ai Group Blog

"The latest ABS data indicates that in 2018, Australia experienced two quarters of negative real income growth per capita (Q2 and Q3) and two quarters of negative real output growth per capita (Q3 and Q4). This means that aggregate incomes and output grew at a slower rate than the population during these quarters (i.e. below 0.4% q/q). If these trends were sustained and if the income being affected were broad-based, this would be of major concern for national growth trends".

In addition, Australia's best independent think tank, the Grattan Institute, last week determined that if the 2nd and 3rd tier tax cuts planned by the current Government go ahead, a $40bn per year cut to services will need be to be made to fund them. Where do the cuts to funding come from? Defence?

Explainer: is the Coalition planning $40bn of secret spending cuts?

All in all, we will consider ourselves lucky to get those acquisitions included in the WP/Budge,

Keep the political BS out of it, this has a point of what ? Just making a political statement based on a hairy fairy what if because of an article posted by Army ?

 

[DaveS124]

Keep the political BS out of it, this has a point of what ?

Agree.

There are innumerable forums, blogs, websites and whatever else where people can let rip with their politics.

Defencertalk isn't one of them. Wouldn't still exist if it was.

Just my two cents' worth.

 

[Jack Wyatt]

Agree.

There are innumerable forums, blogs, websites and whatever else where people can let rip with their politics.

Defencertalk isn't one of them. Wouldn't still exist if it was.

Just my two cents' worth.

All well and good but let's keep the dribble about the Pacific ship and acquisition fantasies out of the forum.

 

[seaspear]

Navy's billion-dollar vessels mostly 'ship-shape' after years of engine troubles
An interesting article confirming that the navy was compensated for the mechanical problems that plagued the Canberra class ships and that there would not be significant concerns in the future

 

[ngatimozart]

All well and good but let's keep the dribble about the Pacific ship and acquisition fantasies out of the forum.

@Jack Wyatt Up to the Moderators to determine what is dribble and what is not. You were very lucky that a highly respected Defence Pro jumped in before I or one the other Moderators did. We wouldn't have been so gentle, so don't come the raw prawn with other posters, or the Moderators will jump in with their size 16 hob nails. I know for a fact that Preceptor is real grumpy at the moment, even the other Mods are giving him a very wide berth.

 

[Takao]

@Jack Wyatt Up to the Moderators to determine what is dribble and what is not. You were very lucky that a highly respected Defence Pro jumped in before I or one the other Moderators did. We wouldn't have been so gentle, so don't come the raw prawn with other posters, or the Moderators will jump in with their size 16 hob nails. I know for a fact that Preceptor is real grumpy at the moment, even the other Mods are giving him a very wide berth.

I'm not arguing or the like, but (*shakes head*)....

@Jack Wyatt has an excellent point. Ignoring political sides, there are enough questions about the budget, its sustainability and objectives now, and that's before we add a list of political promises over the next four weeks. He hit the LNP promises, but Labour will have a similar list by mid-May.

A persistent attribute of most Defence areas (and this includes ASPI and the single service think tanks) is the kit focus at the expense of everything else. Jack's comments about Defence funding are worth considering. As it stands, LNP and Labor are not aligned, and the subtle difference between the two about the definition of 2% GDP has billions of potential $$. Money has already left the Defence budget for other areas over the past years - who is to say it won't happen again? In the absence of threat, Defence is an easy source of funds for the Government's higher priorities.

There are very few in Defence or around it who are willing to consider such budget cuts. What does the department do with a 2% cut? Or a shift to 1.8 or 1.5% GDP? Or a crisis / recession / similar?

I didn't read @Jack Wyatt's post as a dig at the government. Sure the last link might be, but I read it as him using it to reinforce his point not attack the LNP. And his point stands - what thinking / planning is there for Defence to take a cut? That is an excellent point for this forum to discuss - better than a LTCOL fantasies.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm not arguing or the like, but (*shakes head*)....

@Jack Wyatt has an excellent point. Ignoring political sides, there are enough questions about the budget, its sustainability and objectives now, and that's before we add a list of political promises over the next four weeks. He hit the LNP promises, but Labour will have a similar list by mid-May.

A persistent attribute of most Defence areas (and this includes ASPI and the single service think tanks) is the kit focus at the expense of everything else. Jack's comments about Defence funding are worth considering. As it stands, LNP and Labor are not aligned, and the subtle difference between the two about the definition of 2% GDP has billions of potential $$. Money has already left the Defence budget for other areas over the past years - who is to say it won't happen again? In the absence of threat, Defence is an easy source of funds for the Government's higher priorities.

There are very few in Defence or around it who are willing to consider such budget cuts. What does the department do with a 2% cut? Or a shift to 1.8 or 1.5% GDP? Or a crisis / recession / similar?

I didn't read @Jack Wyatt's post as a dig at the government. Sure the last link might be, but I read it as him using it to reinforce his point not attack the LNP. And his point stands - what thinking / planning is there for Defence to take a cut? That is an excellent point for this forum to discuss - better than a LTCOL fantasies.

Nothing more damaging to defence in recent times than a "surplus" being on the cards. That political holy grail has seen many a politician throw even their personal favorite causes under a bus if the money saved has a chance of pushing the budget from the red to the black. Defence is not a favorite of many polies at all, they like the photo ops but when push comes to shove they all have other priorities.

 

[Volkodav]

On the earlier discussions referencing a third amphib or AOR, verses a muti role ship, there is always the suggestion that Abe Gubbler made on here several years ago for the AOR replacement. That is a Lewis and Clark class T-AKE.

These ships are floating warehouses that also have very large, transferable, fuel loads. The US uses them both for fleet support and maritime prepositioning, and they could easily function as a defacto AOR as well. A pair of them would would be an outstanding addition to the fleet complementing existing capabilities and introducing new ones.

 

[John Fedup]

Nothing more damaging to defence in recent times than a "surplus" being on the cards. That political holy grail has seen many a politician throw even their personal favorite causes under a bus if the money saved has a chance of pushing the budget from the red to the black. Defence is not a favorite of many polies at all, they like the photo ops but when push comes to shove they all have other priorities.

Interesting, pollies in Canada, for the most part could care less about a balanced budget. Still remember junior's line, "the budget will balance itself". Surplus is a fantasy at all government levels here, federal, provincial and municipal. They will certainly throw their pet causes under the bus to enhance their re-election prospects. As defence is the least important item for most here, it gets the fastest and biggest cuts.

 

[vonnoobie]

On the earlier discussions referencing a third amphib or AOR, verses a muti role ship, there is always the suggestion that Abe Gubbler made on here several years ago for the AOR replacement. That is a Lewis and Clark class T-AKE.

These ships are floating warehouses that also have very large, transferable, fuel loads. The US uses them both for fleet support and maritime prepositioning, and they could easily function as a defacto AOR as well. A pair of them would would be an outstanding addition to the fleet complementing existing capabilities and introducing new ones.

Sorry to say Volk but I didnt think it then and still dont think it now but the L&C are not suitable. Yes they are part of the Maritime propositioning force except the role they ill in that is to bring in the cargo, No vehicles, no troops just palatalized cargo, fuel and water as those vehicles are brought in by the RO/RO ships of that same force and troops aboard others again. Will make a great AOR for us, But in the Amphib role (Which is half of what the present debate is centered around) considering our region she will be a hindrance be it in conflict and especially in HADR as HADR tends to center around a Cyclone which will knock ports out which this ship required meaning those massive amount of supplies are next to useless.

Weather we get 1 AOR and 1 LPD or 2 JSS I dont mind but if getting a multi use ship then it actually has to have real world use in the ADF context.

• Lack of serious aviation capability - 2 aircraft is great for an AOR but if we wanted them to fill an Amphib role its woefully inadequate
• No RO/RO capability - That is a massive disadvantage both in military and HADR capabilities. Everything is slowed down to a crawl because of it.
• No well deck/dock - Means we are entirely reliant on ports (Which as we all know aren't always available) and/or those 2 helicopters to get everything ashore. For a combat operation that means more time for opposition to counter, For HADR every hour wasted is more civilians dead.
• No troop capacity - As it presently stands there is zero troop capacity on the design let alone all of the facilities to support those hypothetical forces.
• If I'm not mistaken the amount of fuel and water she carries is actually less then the future Supply class of ships Spain is presently building.

Those I can see with no experience at all and what it would take to fix those issues if History is to dictate would take an out of proportion budget with a very big risk. If you want to propose the L&C and the possible 3rd AOR sure all good for that but can we not get into proposing it as an amphibious asset because it is the furthest thing from it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

In the absence of threat, Defence is an easy source of funds for the Government's higher priorities.

Just on this, I don't think the China problem has gone away. Also the Indonesia as a peer is a very real thing, and there are fears about future leadership perhaps not being as friendly. Confused US policy continues. Australia has a growing role in the region, regardless of what ever happens. Indo-pacific endeavour type missions are definitely going to continue.

I also believe the RAN/government needs to get out of the orphan ship business. Particularly for large crew ships. In the current plan the only one of a kind will be the new icebreaker. Which is currently getting its interior fitout..

Innovative design powers new icebreaker - Australian Defence Magazine

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm not arguing or the like, but (*shakes head*)....

@Jack Wyatt has an excellent point. Ignoring political sides, there are enough questions about the budget, its sustainability and objectives now, and that's before we add a list of political promises over the next four weeks. He hit the LNP promises, but Labour will have a similar list by mid-May.

A persistent attribute of most Defence areas (and this includes ASPI and the single service think tanks) is the kit focus at the expense of everything else. Jack's comments about Defence funding are worth considering. As it stands, LNP and Labor are not aligned, and the subtle difference between the two about the definition of 2% GDP has billions of potential $$. Money has already left the Defence budget for other areas over the past years - who is to say it won't happen again? In the absence of threat, Defence is an easy source of funds for the Government's higher priorities.

There are very few in Defence or around it who are willing to consider such budget cuts. What does the department do with a 2% cut? Or a shift to 1.8 or 1.5% GDP? Or a crisis / recession / similar?

I didn't read @Jack Wyatt's post as a dig at the government. Sure the last link might be, but I read it as him using it to reinforce his point not attack the LNP. And his point stands - what thinking / planning is there for Defence to take a cut? That is an excellent point for this forum to discuss - better than a LTCOL fantasies.

@Takao if you have a problem about a Moderator's rulings take it up with said Moderator or another by PM not on the open forum.

I am aware that it's election time in Australia and there are rules here about politics, to whit:

18. Discussion of politics is prohibited apart from that which is directly involved with or impacts defense matters, like procurement and budgetary decisions.​

I read it as a partisan political post and in Jack's case no warnings were issued, just a tart reminder so that there are no repeat offences by Jack or others.

Some guidance:

1. If you are going to bring politics into the discussion, partisan politics on it's lonesome isn't welcome, so make sure that you are fair to all sides, not just one.
2. Ensure that the political discussion is defence specific as per rule No 18, not just a discussion in general.
3. We don't care or want to know what political party you support, so don't go disparaging other posters posts because they don't agree with your party of choice.
4. Argue the point, not the politics.
5. No rants.
6. The Moderators will be monitoring all Australian topics closely.
7. Be nice.

 

[Volkodav]

Sorry to say Volk but I didnt think it then and still dont think it now budded at the L&C are not suitable. Yes they are part of the Maritime propositioning force except the role they ill in that is to bring in the cargo, No vehicles, no troops just palatalized cargo, fuel and water as those vehicles are brought in by the RO/RO ships of that same force and troops aboard others again. Will make a great AOR for us, But in the Amphib role (Which is half of what the present debate is centered around) considering our region she will be a hindrance be it in conflict and especially in HADR as HADR tends to center around a Cyclone which will knock ports out which this ship required meaning those massive amount of supplies are next to useless.

Weather we get 1 AOR and 1 LPD or 2 JSS I dont mind but if getting a multi use ship then it actually has to have real world use in the ADF context.

• Lack of serious aviation capability - 2 aircraft is great for an AOR but if we wanted them to fill an Amphib role its woefully inadequate
• No RO/RO capability - That is a massive disadvantage both in military and HADR capabilities. Everything is slowed down to a crawl because of it.
• No well deck/dock - Means we are entirely reliant on ports (Which as we all know aren't always available) and/or those 2 helicopters to get everything ashore. For a combat operation that means more time for opposition to counter, For HADR every hour wasted is more civilians dead.
• No troop capacity - As it presently stands there is zero troop capacity on the design let alone all of the facilities to support those hypothetical forces.
• If I'm not mistaken the amount of fuel and water she carries is actually less then the future Supply class of ships Spain is presently building.

Those I can see with no experience at all and what it would take to fix those issues if History is to dictate would take an out of proportion budget with a very big risk. If you want to propose the L&C and the possible 3rd AOR sure all good for that but can we not get into proposing it as an amphibious asset because it is the furthest thing from it.

As I stated the ships are floating warehouses, than can and do carry vehicles. They can supplement the AORs as required and also serve as warehouses for the amphibs with docks. They are a supersized version of the type of ship the army used to operate for themselves, but far more versatile.

Would they be an option if they were the only platform the RAN was getting? No. Would they complement and be a force multiplier for existing capabilities? Yes.
Are they more affordable than additional LHDs or the acquisition of LPDs? Yes.
Are they more versatile than additional AORs? Yes.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think that where both Australia and NZ have a deficiency in the amphib role, is how do they logistically support the ground forces after they've landed and gone inland. The LHDs & AORs only carry so much and one could argue that a sizeable proportion of that could / will be used up in the first few days or first week. So how will they support the ground forces after that? It could take a long period for a LHD to return to port to resupply and return. Neither nation has a merchant fleet that it can press gang into service and whilst a L & C per se may not be the ideal option, something along its lines would be worth while in either or both nations service. A converted VL tanker or container ship that is a floating supply depot that is able to supply forces ashore long term, have a hospital, fitted with workshops able to undertake vehicle, helo, machinery, equipment repairs etc. It could also do same for HADR and stay longer than the LHDs etc., do and undertake annual humanitarian missions in the Pacific during peace time as a soft power program outside of HADR.

 

[Traveller]

In relation to points and questions in this thread I found a series reflecting on naval logistics from the Army perspective. Given part of the logistics demand is to support Army, I thought it pertinent to post the links.

A three part Army perspective:

Support from the Sea: Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship – why it really matters to Army - Part 1 - Lieutenant Colonel Mick O'Sullivan | Australian Army

Support from the Sea: Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship – why it really matters to Army - Part 2 - Lieutenant Colonel Mick O'Sullivan | Australian Army

Support from the Sea: Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship – why it really matters to Army - Part 3 | Australian Army

 

[hauritz]

Canada approached Navantia to provide a design for the Joint Support Ship Project based on Cantabria. I have never been able to find any details on just what changes would have been made to the Cantabria design.

However, the requirements for the JSS at the time were for 1,000–1,500 lane meters of deck space for carrying vehicles and containerized cargo, hospital and RO/RO dockside facilities.

This would seem to pose the question as to whether or not the basic Cantabria design could be adapted for the RAN requirements as a logistics/AOR ship.

 

[ASSAIL]

Canada approached Navantia to provide a design for the Joint Support Ship Project based on Cantabria. I have never been able to find any details on just what changes would have been made to the Cantabria design.

However, the requirements for the JSS at the time were for 1,000–1,500 lane meters of deck space for carrying vehicles and containerized cargo, hospital and RO/RO dockside facilities.

This would seem to pose the question as to whether or not the basic Cantabria design could be adapted for the RAN requirements as a logistics/AOR ship.

I’m not sure why Navantia would even want to provide such a conversion when more suitable option are around.
Cantabria is too narrow, she has a centreline single shaft and it would take heroic re-engineering to make an unsuitable JSS.
Do you have any references as to Canada’s request to them and if you doi would question the competence of those requesting.

 

[hauritz]

I’m not sure why Navantia would even want to provide such a conversion when more suitable option are around.
Cantabria is too narrow, she has a centreline single shaft and it would take heroic re-engineering to make an unsuitable JSS.
Do you have any references as to Canada’s request to them and if you doi would question the competence of those requesting.

The Canadians never seem to be all that forthcoming with this sort of info but the Cantabria and Berlin classes were the final shortlisted designs.

While I haven't been able to find any details on the Navantia proposal the Protecteur class seems to offer more capability than the standard Berlin. I would be the first to admit these claims seem pretty dodgy ... and yes it is a wikipedia page.

 

[aussienscale]

In relation to points and questions in this thread I found a series reflecting on naval logistics from the Army perspective. Given part of the logistics demand is to support Army, I thought it pertinent to post the links.

A three part Army perspective:

Support from the Sea: Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship – why it really matters to Army - Part 1 - Lieutenant Colonel Mick O'Sullivan | Australian Army

Support from the Sea: Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship – why it really matters to Army - Part 2 - Lieutenant Colonel Mick O'Sullivan | Australian Army

Support from the Sea: Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship – why it really matters to Army - Part 3 | Australian Army

And just to add, a US perspective on the subject, good source, and so so many links to go back through, a wealth of info if you click through all the different links

Cheers

Sealift - Navy Ships