Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

My only question on this is what do you want them to be able to carry as a maximum and how far do you want to carry them? [Know you clearly stated just a logistics ship]

The LCH had a stated range of 1300nm loaded (175t).

What might the maximum load be. Tank troop is ~300t, a squadron ~1000t? Mech platoon/company likely to be about half of this.

Thoughts?

Massive

Hi massive
A pertinent question.
Simple answer around the Tank troop plus size. ( 4 x MBT,1 x M88A2,1 x logistic vehicle )
I did mention logistics only, but would change that slightly to suggest a modest personal compliment ( 40 Pax ) in addition to the ships crew.

I'm very much mindful the above would not be a standard load.Most of the time it would most likely be any combination of vehicles / containers / pallets and stores.
Traditionally the unglamorous, non cool, boring stuff!!!!!! Generally if you can ship the above heavy vehicles, you can always move everything else and equally importantly have enough trained personal on hand integral to the ship to do the wide range of logistical stuff at the desired destination.
Ideally the ship would have its own crane to off load 20" containers and as a departure from the old Balikpapan Class, have an enclosed storage area for vehicles.
Ideal the ship could travel to our south Pacific Neighbours and the Indonesian island chain.
.
Just my opinion

Regards S.

 

[Stampede]

It really gets back to the original idea of replacing a whole bunch of hulls with something more common and modern.

I don't think the cost is really maintaining, it will be upgrading, repurposing. The hull etc will likely last forever. But you limited to a slow speed, small ship, older layout and systems, mech, power etc. Then you have specific crew, legacy systems etc. Limited range, etc. They are still a 20 year old boat.

The first two are still for sale..

Even has plans for a charter vessel or explorer conversion.. Probably make a good fishing boat too..

Maybe you could convert it into something like this:

So where, or on what could we install the now spare 30 mm DS30B rapid fire cannon ?

Regards S

 

[Massive]

have an enclosed storage area for vehicles.

Probably a small LST than a larger LCH I imagine.

Be interesting to see what happens here.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Gjwai]

Opposition brings the fight to defence debate as election race tightens - Defence Connect

A core component of the announcements made by Labor includes a $105 million commitment to invest in the defence industry infrastructure at the Australian Marine Complex at Henderson and a $10 million investment to support the creation of the Western Australian Defence Industry Support Centre.

Shorten's statement said, "Labor’s investment in the Henderson shipyard precinct will give Western Australia the modern facilities it needs to be part of Australia’s defence industry future and help defence industry businesses grow."

This investment will increase the facility's capacity to support larger vessels and its wharf and services infrastructure, including the addition of a sling lift.

And further on;
This first commitment also saw federal Labor commit to the construction of three major naval ships in WA – echoing the commitment made by the Coalition

The upgrade to the AMC sounds great in theory, there had been a lot of discussions in roundtables and industry meetings over the last two years around what form this needed to take to meet what was referenced in the shipbuilding plan - but the State Government position (in the WA Defence Strategy) was that they were still developing their proposal.

Like the earlier announcement, the timing on this is also pretty opportunistic.

The general consensus among the people I've spoken to to is that a graving dock for larger vessels is by far the highest priority for the AMC (not just for LHD in case of emergency issues, but to open up potential for maintenance of US and other allied vessels on rotation - providing a genuine alternative after the 'Fat Leonard' scandal). During the Future Frigate bidding process, Fincantieri was talking cruise ship maintenance and either they or Navantia were talking LNG carrier maintenance for the North West shelf as well, so there is also a limited commercial aspect, but this was very speculative.

I'm not sure yet what capacity the proposed sling lift is, or the exact nature of the upgrade. It could be exactly what we're hoping for over here - or it could turn into an absolute mess. Party politics aside, that the announcement comes from a Federal Opposition worries me. If the State and Feds had already agreed some kind of funding arrangement, they could have said so during the trip.

One sticking point with an upgrade would be where any graving dock would be located - the location on the hardstand could preference certain primes over others. Ensuring free access to the AMC assets is arguably just as important as the assets themselves.

The DISC-WA office is something we've been keen on for a long time, again though - we wouldn't have been a factor in that announcement and we didn't get any advance notice of it. I suspect more specifics will come out shortly, I'll see what I can find out.

 

[ngatimozart]

Opposition brings the fight to defence debate as election race tightens - Defence Connect

... etc.

The old adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating applies and what is said and claimed during elections have to be turned into action once the treasury benches are attained. At least your main political parties campaign on defence, unlike here in NZ where the mongrels have a backroom agreement not too.

 

[Gjwai]

The old adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating applies and what is said and claimed during elections have to be turned into action once the treasury benches are attained. At least your main political parties campaign on defence, unlike here in NZ where the mongrels have a backroom agreement not too.

Absolutely agree - excuse my exuberance, there is a lot of announcements coming all at once.

 

[rossfrb_1]

So where, or on what could we install the now spare 30 mm DS30B rapid fire cannon ?

Regards S

Would we really want them? Although using the 30x173 round the DS30B is Bushmaster based (according to Google), the 30mm coming with the new IFVs is Mauser Mk.30-2 as far as I can tell. The DS30B mount is unstabilised.
What does it offer apart from a larger logistics footprint for so few units?
If the IFVs come with the Bushmaster cannon then maybe transfer the cannon across but the DS30B mounts are orphans for the ADF.
Maybe the Poms would want them?
rb

 

[StingrayOZ]

The old adage that the proof of the pudding is in the eating applies and what is said and claimed during elections have to be turned into action once the treasury benches are attained. At least your main political parties campaign on defence, unlike here in NZ where the mongrels have a backroom agreement not too.

I wouldn't expect either libs or Lab to back out, as the whole viability of the the continuous build is at stake. Decommissioning 4 x 20 year old boats (instead of maintaining and upgrading) and building 3 new ones isn't exactly terrifyingly expensive or risky. Particularly when your 3 new is added onto a batch of 12 of ships probably very similar.

I wouldn't be surprised if this then starts a chat about either selling or donating 6 ex-huons to some other nations government. Which then gets offset as aid. So the whole chain of events might get a fair bit of mileage.

I think labor is quite happy to have libs make announcements on defence, and then they announce they will match them or up the offer. Labor doesn't then have to justify to its looneys why its spending money on defence, and libs get to break the announcement. Anything that is being announced would have had a an in-principle deal between the two anyway. They can argue which party is the better manager or implementer, but actual projects I think will be basically the same.

The general consensus among the people I've spoken to to is that a graving dock for larger vessels is by far the highest priority for the AMC (not just for LHD in case of emergency issues, but to open up potential for maintenance of US and other allied vessels on rotation - providing a genuine alternative after the 'Fat Leonard' scandal). During the Future Frigate bidding process, Fincantieri was talking cruise ship maintenance and either they or Navantia were talking LNG carrier maintenance for the North West shelf as well, so there is also a limited commercial aspect, but this was very speculative.

Well going to the two fleet idea, you have AOR, LHD, sealift, then all those commercial ships over in the Indian ocean, other Indian ocean navies. It will be interesting to see what eventuates. Captain Cook is pretty busy these days, and ships aren't getting smaller.

 

[Massive]

The DS30B mount is unstabilised.

It is stabilised.

DS30B | Royal Australian Navy

That said, it's obsolete.

Regards,

Ben

 

[Redlands18]

I wouldn't expect either libs or Lab to back out, as the whole viability of the the continuous build is at stake. Decommissioning 4 x 20 year old boats (instead of maintaining and upgrading) and building 3 new ones isn't exactly terrifyingly expensive or risky. Particularly when your 3 new is added onto a batch of 12 of ships probably very similar.

I wouldn't be surprised if this then starts a chat about either selling or donating 6 ex-huons to some other nations government. Which then gets offset as aid. So the whole chain of events might get a fair bit of mileage.

I think labor is quite happy to have libs make announcements on defence, and then they announce they will match them or up the offer. Labor doesn't then have to justify to its looneys why its spending money on defence, and libs get to break the announcement. Anything that is being announced would have had a an in-principle deal between the two anyway. They can argue which party is the better manager or implementer, but actual projects I think will be basically the same.



Well going to the two fleet idea, you have AOR, LHD, sealift, then all those commercial ships over in the Indian ocean, other Indian ocean navies. It will be interesting to see what eventuates. Captain Cook is pretty busy these days, and ships aren't getting smaller.

I believe at present that the only place the RAN can take a Ship over 160m out of the water in Australia is the Dry Dock at GI? If this is correct then it may be getting towards time we fixed that. Our Warships are not getting smaller and I doubt that will change in the future. If the growth we have experienced in the current generation Ships over previous generations continues then the Hobart replacements due from about 2044 are going to be getting close to that 160m mark and 10,000t.

 

[SteveR]

I believe at present that the only place the RAN can take a Ship over 160m out of the water in Australia is the Dry Dock at GI? If this is correct then it may be getting towards time we fixed that. Our Warships are not getting smaller and I doubt that will change in the future. If the growth we have experienced in the current generation Ships over previous generations continues then the Hobart replacements due from about 2044 are going to be getting close to that 160m mark and 10,000t.

As I recall when our 230m 19000 tonne LHDs (Canberra or Adelaide) first had their pod problems one of them was Dry Docked at GI?

 

[ASSAIL]

I believe at present that the only place the RAN can take a Ship over 160m out of the water in Australia is the Dry Dock at GI? If this is correct then it may be getting towards time we fixed that. Our Warships are not getting smaller and I doubt that will change in the future. If the growth we have experienced in the current generation Ships over previous generations continues then the Hobart replacements due from about 2044 are going to be getting close to that 160m mark and 10,000t.

We’ve certainly reached the time where continuous presence in the Indian Ocean is required and with an AOR permanently there and an LHD on regular rotation, a graving dock is a strategic imperative.
I think the C of A should subsidise a commercial operator to build and operate the dock, it doesn’t warrant full RAN ownership.
Captain Cook dock at GI is becoming busier and even if one of the Supply Class dock in the west, that slot will be taken by HNNZS Aoateroa

 

[hauritz]

I wouldn't expect either libs or Lab to back out, as the whole viability of the the continuous build is at stake. Decommissioning 4 x 20 year old boats (instead of maintaining and upgrading) and building 3 new ones isn't exactly terrifyingly expensive or risky. Particularly when your 3 new is added onto a batch of 12 of ships probably very similar.

Can't help but feel that there might be a little smoke and mirrors involved with the government announcement of these extra ships. If two extra ships are built to replace the Huon class does that mean that the rate of production will be accelerated to accommodate these extra ships or does it simply mean that the current build rate will continue and the project completion date will be pushed back a couple of years?

If it is the later then all it is really doing is confirming that there will be follow on orders that will push production into the 2030s ... which was always going to be the case.

In the end you might just see a couple of the early build Arafuras take over from the Huons. From what little I have read and heard of this there seems a good case for the early retirement of the Huons and I couldn't really see why either party would have problems with building a couple of additional ships to replace them.

I think this podcast gives a reasonable state of play of the navy's current minehunting stance.

PODCAST: How the integration of autonomous systems is shifting the future of minehunting, Gene Cumm, Northrop Grumman - Defence Connect

 

[SteveR]

As I recall when our 230m 19000 tonne LHDs (Canberra or Adelaide) first had their pod problems one of them was Dry Docked at GI?

Just a late edit - The Henderson Maritime Complex in WA already has a floating Dock to lift ships of up to 12000 tonnes:
Common User Facility | Australian Marine Complex

Janes Fighting Ships indicates the light load of Armada AORs on which Supply and Success are based is about 6000 tonnes so they should easily be supported by Henderson floating Dock.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Captain cook GI dock can take the LHD's, but obviously only 1 at a time. Choules has also been in there. If we were to get any more sealift amphibious lift then I guess they would need to use it as well.

Also we have that new 26,000t ice breaker too. I would imagine that would have to go into dock every now and then. Then you have some of the larger cruise ships, ferries etc. Ships aren't getting smaller. Future Choules replacement, perhaps a 3rd AOR, other large ships as well.

Pacific Jewel was in there last year, at ~70,000t she isn't small either..
Pacific Jewel in Drydock

Pacific jewel is being sold off, P&O bought the larger 110,000t Star princess.. I don't even know if they would fit in CC..

If anything was to happen while our larger units were in the Indian ocean, it would be a very long trip to the east coast. We have a task force operating there now, and I assume in the future too. Same for our allies. UK touts their new carrier operating in this region, US has limited Indian ocean capabilities, etc. Plenty of large shipping occurring off the WA coast. I know Civmec was keen to perhaps go for some maintenance of the future frigate, they can probably use the new civmec facilities, but there would be synergies if something bigger existed.

 

[Stampede]

Would we really want them? Although using the 30x173 round the DS30B is Bushmaster based (according to Google), the 30mm coming with the new IFVs is Mauser Mk.30-2 as far as I can tell. The DS30B mount is unstabilised.
What does it offer apart from a larger logistics footprint for so few units?
If the IFVs come with the Bushmaster cannon then maybe transfer the cannon across but the DS30B mounts are orphans for the ADF.
Maybe the Poms would want them?
rb

Surprisingly I actually agree with yourself and Massive.
20mm, 25mm, 30mm , 40mm (OPV ) Too much in training and logistics + regardless of the attributes of the DSB30 it's soon to be on just 4 units on only one class of ship.
So do we keep the DSB30 in service or replace it with a new weapon when the Huons get a refit?

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Probably a small LST t
han a larger LCH I imagine.

Be interesting to see what happens here.

Regards,

Massive

Thanks Massive

Add 6 x LCH and divide by 3 and you kind of get a small LST - Something a bit bigger than the Runnymede Class Large landing craft

Runnymede-class large landing craft - Wikipedia

Regards S

Please forgive the wikilink!

 

[ngatimozart]

Surprisingly I actually agree with yourself and Massive.
20mm, 25mm, 30mm , 40mm (OPV ) Too much in training and logistics + regardless of the attributes of the DSB30 it's soon to be on just 4 units on only one class of ship.
So do we keep the DSB30 in service or replace it with a new weapon when the Huons get a refit?

Regards S

Well if I had any say, I'd ditch two calibres of auto cannons and either standardise on 30 mm and 40 mm or 25mm and 35 mm using the 35 mm Millennium guns on the OPVs and as CIWS. The Army has gone 30 mm with its Boxer vehicles so if a good 30 mm CIWS was around I'd definitely ditch Phalanx because I don't think that the 20 mm has the range or hitting power to knock out a supersonic ASM quickly enough. Now if they were able to replace the 20 mm gun in the Phalanx with the 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger it would be one mean beasty and effective. That leaves the 40 mm for the OPV.

 

[Massive]

Well if I had any say, I'd ditch two calibres of auto cannons and either standardise on 30 mm and 40 mm or 25mm and 35 mm using the 35 mm Millennium guns on the OPVs and as CIWS. The Army has gone 30 mm with its Boxer vehicles so if a good 30 mm CIWS was around I'd definitely ditch Phalanx because I don't think that the 20 mm has the range or hitting power to knock out a supersonic ASM quickly enough. Now if they were able to replace the 20 mm gun in the Phalanx with the 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger it would be one mean beasty and effective. That leaves the 40 mm for the OPV.

30 & 35 would work too.

30mm for lance turret and ship RWS. 35mm for CIWS, SHORAD.

Either would work for the OPV.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Todjaeger]

Would we really want them? Although using the 30x173 round the DS30B is Bushmaster based (according to Google), the 30mm coming with the new IFVs is Mauser Mk.30-2 as far as I can tell. The DS30B mount is unstabilised.
What does it offer apart from a larger logistics footprint for so few units?
If the IFVs come with the Bushmaster cannon then maybe transfer the cannon across but the DS30B mounts are orphans for the ADF.
Maybe the Poms would want them?
rb

No, the MSI DS30M is based on the 30 mm Mk 44 Bushmaster II, but the DS30B is based on the Oerlikon 30 mm/75 KCB gun, which has a cyclic RoF of ~650 rounds per minute, vs. ~200 rounds per minute for the Bushmaster II.

As I have mentioned (repeatedly IIRC) in the past, it would be good for a number of reasons for the RAN to rationalize the small calibre guns in service into just one or two types and calibres in place of the current and planned four different types, each with their own parts and muntions support requirements.