Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

At the moment it is just a cutaway drawing of a modified Galacia class. By the look of it, some staff member had a few days to kill and needed to practice their AutoCAD skills.

The real question is probably whether or not Australia really wants to go down the JSS path?

Navantia might just be covering all their bases since they can now offer Australia a third Cantabria class, a modified Galicia and now a variant of the Galicia.

 

[oldsig127]

Poor old Choules, she seems to be in line for a kicking from time to time, she seems to be treated like the poor step sister at times too.

Looking at the Navantia JSS proposal firstly, one thing that is said in the Naval News video from Pacific 2019, is that the JSS will have 70% of the load capacity of Choules and 70% of the fuel capacity of Success, in other words the JSS is a compromise ship, neither fish nor fowl, listen to the video at the approx. 1.35min mark:


Anyway, just my opinion of course.

Cheers,

Yes, I think that HMAS Choules gets a bad rap, but mostly for not being something more shiny and chest beating, and for being merely a fleet workhorse without lots of things that go bang but with the capacity to fulfil many and varied taskings.

On the subject of this Navantia presentation though, don't the White Paper and IIP provide for an extra LPD or an extra AOE rather than a replacement for Choules? If so, and if the option is taken up, do we get another AOE to provide rule of threes backing to the two new ships? Leaving the Amphibious group short of an extra ship which has been widely discussed here as virtually mandatory for the whole ARG to work? Or vice versa, and rely on our Kiwi mates to cover the absence of one or other of our AOEs?

Again, without an extra bucket of money the GOTD and Navy are bound to have to choose one and only one.

Or buy a ship which is Choules-plus. Not flashy, not the biggest, but an able fill in for both AOE and LPD and able to contend with a LOT of tasks not requiring an LHD. Navantia have been quite thoughtful in proposing this.

Personally...I'd prefer another AOE and a third LHD, but then I'd like a new car and a big shed to hide away from the Dept of Finance when she finds out, but I can't afford that either.

oldsig

 

[Massive]

Personally...I'd prefer another AOE and a third LHD, but then I'd like a new car and a big shed to hide away from the Dept of Finance when she finds out, but I can't afford that either. oldsig

My view is that the RAN would be better placed when the time comes to replace Choules with 3 leased & 3rd party operated sealift ships similar to the Future Littoral Strike Ship.

Lose the dock and the naval spec but get closer to a point of being able to credibly sustain an ARG, while managing budget pressure and staffing requirements.

More broadly I think that a 3rd AOR is nice to have only and I would prioritise a lot of other things before it.

Thoughts?

Massive

 

[76mmGuns]

Read up on the Battle of Al Fawr, where apparently HMAS Anzac was prevented from providing NGS by her 5" gun. It would have been the first time since Vietnam if she had the ability...


oldsig

Thanks for that, I didn't know about this.

Still, in a way, this validates my view. The Anzac Frigate was just one of many ships, and the assault could have commenced without it. Unless there have been many other uses of the 5 inch gun, it's not used much at all.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I imagine they are chasing a Choules replacement, but also possibly export sales. I wonder how happy Canada will be with their new Protecteur auxiliary and may be chasing something with more amphibious capabilities (like a dock and two landing craft). I like the look of it. Reminds me of a mini-San Antonio class. Maybe angling for export sales. I do find it funny that Australia may end up acquiring a much better JSS than the Canadian JSS program dreamed of, and which took so long for Canada to end up with such basic capability (particularly in the amphibious capability of the new Protecteur class).

There is IMO a shortage in the current amphibious capability with the 2 x LHD's and Choules for the idealized ARG formation. So even if all three are available, there is still a shortage on lift, and that is with current platforms and formations, which are likely to change and increase from projects like Land 400 as well as others connected to it. In some cases this means much larger lane meter footprint as well as much heavier and taller platforms.

I don't see this ship replacing either of those main roles, but in a support role. 70% of either capability gives you the ability to cover some natural gaps. I can see this platform being quite busy in doing that. Maybe this is more about replacing the LCH capability than Choules.

It certainly won't on its own, solve our amphibious lift and support issues. 70% AOR capability would probably be great for that kind of capability. We are doing more task group deployment, involving multiple ships.

I am still of the view of we need some big ship to fill the amphibious/naval aviation role going into the future. That could be another LHD, or perhaps an aviation focused platform, allowing the LHD's to use their hanger space for lighter vehicles and focus on using their well docks for amphibious deployment etc. Something perhaps more like a LHA or aviation enhanced LHD, able to support rotary, drone etc operations. It could then focus on operating Chinooks, Tigers, MHR90's, MR60's. These ops can of course occur on the LHD, but with a dedicated platform it really allows Australia to maximise the LHD lift capability.

But maybe that is a bridge too far. Maybe we just shrink our amphibious capabilities back as larger Army platforms come on line, and reduce aviation capability as well.

 

[spoz]

Thanks for that, I didn't know about this.

Still, in a way, this validates my view. The Anzac Frigate was just one of many ships, and the assault could have commenced without it. Unless there have been many other uses of the 5 inch gun, it's not used much at all.

I suggest you read this article:

https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/SC10-3 Paget.pdf

Most serious Navies in addition to the RAN including the USN, the RN and the Indian Navy who have all employed it in the past few years, continue to regard the ability to provide NGS as a significant capability driver; of course they may all be wrong....

 

[Redlands18]

I suggest you read this article:

https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/SC10-3 Paget.pdf

Most serious Navies in addition to the RAN including the USN, the RN and the Indian Navy who have all employed it in the past few years, continue to regard the ability to provide NGS as a significant capability driver; of course they may all be wrong....

DDG 1000 Elmo Zumwalt Class Destroyer
Lets not forget the US has spent $20b+ on building a class of Destroyers with NGS as a major Mission requirement. Including a brand new Gun system(which they can’t afford the shells for).

 

[ngatimozart]

DDG 1000 Elmo Zumwalt Class Destroyer
Lets not forget the US has spent $20b+ on building a class of Destroyers with NGS as a major Mission requirement. Including a brand new Gun system(which they can’t afford the shells for).

Yep, but that's the USN being a bit over optimistic, bit like the RAN and 2 man crewing Seasprite helos. NGS is a mission requirement for the RAN, RNZN, RN & USN. You still have to suppress enemy forces during an amphib op and air power can't do it all the time and / or it is either unavailable, unable to, or impractical too. NGS is floating mobile artillery in support of landing forces ashore.

 

[Volkodav]

I wonder if something like the Expeditionary Mobile Base (ESB) would be suitable for the Pacific Ship Requirement? Adapted from a commercial design, in service with the US, and intended for a variety of roles including HADR.

 

[spoz]

Possibly, but I rather suspect that, assuming the Pacific ship goes ahead and was not just a figment of Pyne's election eve imagination, the ESB at about 80,000 tons might be seen as a bit more ship than they really want for the task. Not sure how good it might be around some of the islands; she has a fairly deep draft and probably needs tugs to manoeuvre in confined waters, something I think you would want to try to avoid in the sort of HADR role she would likely to be used for. The ESB is seen as more of a standoff helo base in HADR from what I can gather..

 

[ngatimozart]

I wonder if something like the Expeditionary Mobile Base (ESB) would be suitable for the Pacific Ship Requirement? Adapted from a commercial design, in service with the US, and intended for a variety of roles including HADR.

Possibly, but I rather suspect that, assuming the Pacific ship goes ahead and was not just a figment of Pyne's election eve imagination, the ESB at about 80,000 tons might be seen as a bit more ship than they really want for the task. Not sure how good it might be around some of the islands; she has a fairly deep draft and probably needs tugs to manoeuvre in confined waters, something I think you would want to try to avoid in the sort of HADR role she would likely to be used for. The ESB is seen as more of a standoff helo base in HADR from what I can gather..

If 80k tonnes is too much ship, are there any commercial designs in the 30 - 40k tonne range, for example, that would be meet the requirements? I note that the USN ESB sink slightly to allow the use of hovercraft, would it be feasible for them to sink low enough for landing craft to utilise them as steel beaches? Maybe amidships?

 

[spoz]

In my mind, in any case, this is cart before the horse. Let's decide what role we want this ship to play in a little more detail than just "HADR, helping out the Pacific and trying to forestall outside involvement"; and then select a ship design, or have one designed, that meets those perceived needs. I accept to some extent the "build it and they will come" argument, but it's probably not the most efficient use of public money. And, I haven't heard much about it from the Government since the election....

 

[FormerDirtDart]

If 80k tonnes is too much ship, are there any commercial designs in the 30 - 40k tonne range, for example, that would be meet the requirements? I note that the USN ESB sink slightly to allow the use of hovercraft, would it be feasible for them to sink low enough for landing craft to utilise them as steel beaches? Maybe amidships?

The Expeditionary Mobile Base (ESB) do not sink. They do not have facilities to operate LCACs or any type of hovercraft. They might be able to operate a couple light LCPLs or LCVPs. Only the Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD) has the ability to launch and recover LCACs. But, they lack the aviation facilities, berthing, equipment staging support, and command and control assets.of the ESB

 

[pussertas]

Attack Class Submarines

Somewhere many months ago I came across an article that showed a large hatch aft of the conning tower.

It was to enable the removal of machinery from the hull far repair or replacement.

Can anyone give me a web site that mentions this aspect?

 

[StingrayOZ]

In my mind, in any case, this is cart before the horse. Let's decide what role we want this ship to play in a little more detail than just "HADR, helping out the Pacific and trying to forestall outside involvement"; and then select a ship design, or have one designed, that meets those perceived needs. I accept to some extent the "build it and they will come" argument, but it's probably not the most efficient use of public money. And, I haven't heard much about it from the Government since the election....

It only ever came out of Pynes mouth. I would wait for a white paper before getting too excited about this. I would be very surprised if it ends up as a military ship, and even more surprised if it has a sailing crew of ~160. I would be even more surprised if it isn't being built here.

SA and WA are effectively going to war with each other over ship work. I would expect something locally built and < 10,000t.

We really are at the point now where we are looking at a new defence white paper, a new dfat white paper, a specific "pacific paper" that deals in detail with these combined issues.

As for the 5" gun. It has purpose. It fills in those situations between firing a million dollar missile with 200kg+ of explosive and firing a 20mm round. Its always ready to go and is accurate enough and useful enough to stop silly attacks. The Naval support role is very much a real one, particularly in modern asymmetric battlefields. Modern rounds have anti-shipping and anti air capability. Just because it doesn't get much of a kill count doesn't mean its not invaluable.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Expeditionary Mobile Base (ESB) do not sink. They do not have facilities to operate LCACs or any type of hovercraft. They might be able to operate a couple light LCPLs or LCVPs. Only the Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD) has the ability to launch and recover LCACs. But, they lack the aviation facilities, berthing, equipment staging support, and command and control assets.of the ESB

Thanks for that. I stand corrected.

 

[John Newman]

Possibly, but I rather suspect that, assuming the Pacific ship goes ahead and was not just a figment of Pyne's election eve imagination, the ESB at about 80,000 tons might be seen as a bit more ship than they really want for the task. Not sure how good it might be around some of the islands; she has a fairly deep draft and probably needs tugs to manoeuvre in confined waters, something I think you would want to try to avoid in the sort of HADR role she would likely to be used for. The ESB is seen as more of a standoff helo base in HADR from what I can gather..

Pyne's election eve imagination? What do you consider election eve? A day, a week, couple of weeks, how about a month?

The first reported mention by then Def Min Pyne of the Pacific/HADR ship was actually in the SMH back on 9 November 2018, more than six months prior to the Federal election, held on 18 May 2019.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...vot-to-the-south-pacific-20181108-p50es8.html

And lets not forget that PM Morrison was the first to mention the HADR ship, a press release from 8 November 2018:

Strengthening Australia's commitment to the Pacific | Prime Minister of Australia

The relevant quote is:

Our Government will put in place arrangements to ensure Australia has a dedicated vessel to deliver support to our partners in the Pacific, including for humanitarian assistance and response.

I'm not here to defend the Government (they are big and ugly enough to defend themselves), all I'm interested in is a bit of accuracy.

Cheers,

PS, as for the Pacific/HADR ship itself (it will soon be a year since the announcement), yes we do need an update from Government of where this plan is heading, or not.

 

[John Newman]

It only ever came out of Pynes mouth.

Wrong, it was mentioned by PM Morrison first, see my post above.

Cheers,

 

[StingrayOZ]

Wrong, it was mentioned by PM Morrison first, see my post above.

You're right. But it has been a pretty hollow announcement so far.

However, I would want to see a greater commitment and planning and explanation. Its not just a ship, its a type of mission and capability Australia hasn't had in decades if ever.

Given the recent reshuffling in defence and foreign affairs, it would be appropriate to hear more about this from them. We don't know its mission, size, capabilities, cost, who operating it, etc. So its pretty hard to speculate on a platform if you don't know anything about it.

Also this space, pacific relations, is highly fluid. PNG is out arresting its former PM, West Papua is in all sorts of chaos, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga continue to indicate they are receiving continued pressure from China. While war in the middle east or with china is a possibility, its almost a certainty that we will be doing something big in the South Pacific shortly.

 

[Raven22]

While war in the middle east or with china is a possibility, its almost a certainty that we will be doing something big in the South Pacific shortly.

That’s a pretty bold statement. Who when and where?