Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

Not sure if we need the additional RAS for liquids but it certainly would be good to be able to self off load diesel either internal or externally into waiting tankers

I think it was happening from memory in ET with HMNZS Endeavour making runs from Singapore/Townsville and Darwin of diesel fuel with tanker in landing craft filling up alongside to go ashore

I did actually have that though about the JSS concept and the additional RAS, and was thinking more along the lines of onshore support to the landed forces, so the capability to supply and offload fuel is paramount. I think of the JSS concept as more of a back and forth supply line carriage service, among other things leaving the likes of the Canberra class to stay on station as the floating HQ etc

I think with the current situation in Australia, looking very much like a Royal Commission into the bush fires, and a lot of media attention on the ADF and a lot of rubbish about what they can and can't do, what people think they should do, that played right, the Navy and other areas of the ADF could be in for some bonus capability !

So I believe in the washout that a JSS/HADR/Pacific Support x 2 is not our of the realm of possibility.

The RAAF and Army will not be without either ! Always believed RAAF did not get enough Spartan's, Army did not get enough MRH's, Navy either for that matter, and a whole lot of logistical and engineering get for the Army.

Cash is already flowing and there will be plenty in the wash up, depends where it will come from though ? the pie is only so big !

Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

I did actually have that though about the JSS concept and the additional RAS, and was thinking more along the lines of onshore support to the landed forces, so the capability to supply and offload fuel is paramount. I think of the JSS concept as more of a back and forth supply line carriage service, among other things leaving the likes of the Canberra class to stay on station as the floating HQ etc

Cheers

That is how I would look at it as well, because it also frees up the LHDs and AORs for other taskings etc., if required. From all the posts that I see on here about LHDs / AORs etc., everybody forgets about how are you going to sustain the forces ashore once the initial landings have been forced. If it's for only short term it's no issue, but if it's a long term OP then logistics ashore becomes a problem and how are you going to get bulk liquids ashore, for example. Do you really want to take an AOR close inshore? Logistics or the lack of win and lose battles and wars.

 

[John Newman]

Discussion on an amphibious and support fleet of 6 or more platforms does worry me .... noting we don’t have that many escorts.

It comes down to budget and currently the budget has one hull for broadly but poorly defined platform spec as (ostensively) a replacement for Choules. I suspect the Choules has a lot more life in her. We also have the completely undefined ‘pacific ship’ which is supposed to be built in Australia.

The problem with poorly defined capabilities is they can be redefined, reduced in scope or ignored by the next government......

Hi Mate, If I'm reading you post correctly, I think your interpretation and my interpretation vary on the potential numbers of amphibious and support ships (five or six), and what has or hasn't been budgeted for.

Relevant quotes from pages 71-73 of the DIIP:

Replenishment ships
3.24 Two new replenishment ships will replace the current mixed fleet of one replenishment ship and one oiler (fuel only) by the early 2020s.Replenishment ships are able to resupply fuel, water, food and weapons to ships at sea to extend their range and endurance. As the surface fleet grows with the introduction of larger frigates and larger patrol vessels, Defence will acquire another support vessel such as a third high‑capacity replenishment ship or an additional logistics support ship similar to HMAS Choules in the late 2020s. A third replenishment ship would provide an assured capacity to continuously generate one operationally available replenishment ship for Surface Task Group operations.

Logistics support ship
3.27 Defence will upgrade and extend the life of the ADF’s logistics support ship HMAS Choules, which is capable of undertaking a range of tasks across the spectrum of military operations from providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to amphibious lodgement. Planned investment includes:

* updating the ship’s battle management and command, control, communications, computers and intelligence capabilities to enable it to work effectively with the Canberra Class amphibious ships
* fitting self-defence systems for protection against torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and fast attack craft
* fitting aviation support systems.​

3.28 The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement of this logistics support ship around 2030, as HMAS Choules has demonstrated the benefits of this type of vessel in extending the reach of the ADF and enhancing our capacity to deploy larger and better‑equipped forces. HMAS Choules, together with the two Canberra Class amphibious ships, will provide scalable and flexible options for greater capacity sea lift and amphibious operations. A third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be considered in the late 2020s.


I read the above as saying (apart from the 2 x LHDs), is that there will be 2 x AOR, there will be a replacement of Choules around 2030, and that the possible 'sixth' ship will be either a 3rd AOR or an additional logistic support ship (eg, another Choules type ship).

The budget allowances made in the 20016 DIIP are for:
* Replenishment Ship/Logistics Support Ship (additional) - 2024-2030 - $1b-$2b
* HMAS Choules Upgrade and Support - 2017-2023 - $200m-$300m

There currently isn't a budget allowance for the replacement of Choules, but that doesn't surprise me as the 2016 DIIP covers the ten year period (2016-2025), I would imagine that a budget allowance for Choules would appear once it is within the usual ten year scope of the DIIP.

As for the Pacific Ship, that really is a how long is a piece of string question too.

Cheers,

 

[Brucedog]

Thanks Ngatimozart
There is a lot of scope in between high end war fighting and HADR.
Probably didn't articulate that the OPV's would be fine as is fulfilling a wide range of tasks in support of a JSS type asset. A mini task force if you wish.
Thinking more of a Solomon Islands type of contingency. Also some robust show the flag contingency at distance from home in that grey area below sending the big guns. Little guns are sometimes not so provocative.

Little gun on an ACPD and a Huon class MHC were used at different times to deter rumoured gaol breaks from the prison in Honiara, Solomon Islands. They were anchored about 100 yards off the beach. Now, they would never have fired but the locals didn't know that.

 

[Brucedog]

I tried to post while quoting, didn't come out right.

Twice the RAN sent boats, ACPB and MHC to deter gaol breaks fron the prison in Honiara, Solomon Islands. Anchored 100m off the beach right in front of the main gate. Now, they would never have fired but the locals didn't know that.

 

[John Newman]

If we are looking at ships that can respond to events in areas that may not be accessable by road and the need is the delivery of heavy plant and evacuation of civilians would an L.C.A.C type vessel as used by the U.S.N ,although hovercraft ferries seemed to have declined in service they could have been useful this though may come back to what type of merchant fleet we subsidise and use as support in times of crisis

The problem with an LCAC is that they are basically short range ship to shore connectors, assuming that a HADR need was a long distance from where they are based, they would need a mother ship to get them there. We can already do that with the LHDs, Choules and their LCMs.

What is missing is that something in the middle, that something that can operate independently and at reasonably long distances, eg, a replacement for the LCH fleet, something along the lines of a Damen LST ship for example.

 

[Brucedog]

Thanks for providing that information Mr Newman.

It is all the government's fault for raising the "Pacific ship" concept and then going silent. But i do like the JSS for the task.

And a piece of string is twice half it's length.

 

[StingrayOZ]

LCAC are really a mindfield when you look at them.

• Huge fuel usage - More akin to aircraft than seacraft.
• Huge maintenance requirement - More akin to aircraft than seacraft. Thousands of dollars per "flight" hour.
• Imposition on lifting - all removable mounts must be removed, significant fear of something coming loose and ending up in the fans
• Spray - in dock, on the sea and on the beach, sand and water will get everywhere.
• They also don't like them operating long distances and sea conditions/winds need to be favorable even in light loaded conditions.
• Still have significant requirements regarding the angle of the beach etc. Beaches ideal for landing boats may not be ideal for LCAC. Particularly in our neck of the woods where we have islands in deep water etc.

They really don't fit into RAN budgets/doctrine. If we need something like that, the Americans will be needed, it suits the Americans.

 

[swerve]

...With regard to Damen, they will be expensive and their JSS is now an older design, whereas the Navantia JSS design is a new design.

The Navantia JSS is based on the Galicia-class LPD, one of the Damen Enforcer family - just like Karel Doorman. The designs are updated.

 

[alexsa]

Crewing is an issue; Choules was built pre-automation for the RFA, hence the large crewlist, but if the JSS is automated then the numbers can be reduced. I don't believe anything >20K tonnes is really required for the RAN. Sometimes it's not how big it is, but how you use it. With regard to Damen, they will be expensive and their JSS is now an older design, whereas the Navantia JSS design is a new design.

Choules was built as a UMS vessel as far as I can tell and UMS (unmanned machinery spaces) has been around for a very long time. The RFA crew on this vesel was 60ish. Given the nature of the vessel (dock and floats) this is pretty reasonable. Ths number did not inlcude air crew etc, In RAN service the number has burgeoned.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If we are looking at local builds (a big if):
We can probably build up to a 10,000-11,000 t LPD locally in our current facilities. I don't know how this would work, maybe blocks in WA and final assembly in SA. So a smaller variant of the enforcer design is possible. In terms of size perhaps something maximum of Landing Platform Dock 11000.
However, that is a type of ship we haven't built before. But being a local build and the government now recognizing the value of pumping money into the economy and WA and SA both keen for work, that is a possibility. Looking through Damens catalog, everything between 7000-16,000 has effectively very similar crewing requirements. I kinda figure the Pacific ship, built here and being "large" would probably be something around the 7000-10,000t mark. The enforcer 10,000 can probably dock 2 LCM 1e's while the 11,000 can do 1. Embarking 520, which is more like a battalion. This can probably be reconfigured, but your not going to get wildly different numbers without giving something up.

The Navantia design also looks too big for a local build. 176m and 25m (length would be a big issue). But embarking 300..

For the similar crew we could operate something like Karel Doorman at 27,000t with its very significant JSS capability (near AOR level), while a large ship it has more limited in some areas than say Choules. Less embarked, but more lane metres. We don't know a whole lot about the Navantia JSS design, but a ship can't do everything and be the same size. Throw in the modified berlin and the BMT design the Canadians were looking at, and what we currently get from our spanish built AOR's. Definitely can't be built here, unless we reactivate the Cockatoo yard (never going to happen, the workforce is now retired as well).

I guess the advantage of something like that is that it could embark a company and equipment and act as the AOR for a small task force (JSS, Anzac, Afura) and move out and about in the region doing what we currently get the LHD's to do now.

What it doesn't really do is give us improvement in amphibious lift.

Not really sure the two company size lift is going to impress anyone either in the region. Even for Fiji sized problems.

So really there are number of directions things could move along.

• 8000-10000t build it here (possibly) but have significant limitations due to the size and be less of a JSS, as a single purpose ship with some side capability.
• ~15,000t build it overseas but JSS and still have limitations. Jack of all, master of...
• 20,000t+ JSS or specific amphibious ship (LHD?). Depends what you want, you get one role done really well and some side capability.

While we could crew them less, they will also be able to do less with less crew. We crew Choules to the gills because we treat it like any other amphibious ship, utilizing aircraft, the dock etc, not just as a contraption to move boxes port to port.

In the end we had to activate Choules, Sycamore and Adelaide to deal with the bushfires.

We take the LHD's into Asia and stand off Chinese fleets. We take the LHD's to Fiji to rebuild. We are talking about having detachments of US marines on board. We know Army is going to get a lot heavier and physically bigger for the same man power. Air is likely to be more important going into the future, and we already operate large air platforms like Chinook.

We operate AOR and LHD's. IMO if we need more capability acquire more of what we currently have. Approval and in service dates are going to be miles quicker ordering off rack of something that is already FOC within the RAN.

 

[MickB]

My father, ex 32 Small Ships Squadron RAE, always told me that when the navy took over the Balikpapan they nearly doubled the number of crew compared to the army.

Agree that with the ADF very much in the public eye, that this would be a good time to push for additional capability over and above that already budgeted for.

 

[ASSAIL]

Discussion on an amphibious and support

My father, ex 32 Small Ships Squadron RAE, always told me that when the navy took over the Balikpapan they nearly doubled the number of crew compared to the army.

Agree that with the ADF very much in the public eye, that this would be a good time to push for additional capability over and above that already budgeted for.

i guess that would depend on how the ship was deployed.
The RAN complement was 13. To break that down; CO and XO, Coxn, Chief Eng, PO Seaman (Buffer), Radio Operator, Cook, 3xABs, 3xMech Eng = (13) or something similar. You may add an electrical rate in lieu of a ME or other small adjustment but if you want to run the ship 24/7 that crew would be minimal for independent operation.
Halving the number is simply not practical except for short coastal day work supported by base staff.

 

[seaspear]

I can understand buying off the shelf from overseas can be cheaper than redeveloping a capability for a limited run ,the submarines come to mind as do the Hunter class ,but with naval surface vessels now becoming larger its not beyond the realms of possibility that future escort ships may be designed around the ten thousand ton range ,would be interested to know if the Osborne shipyards have this capabilty for building larger ships if required

 

[alexsa]

Hi Mate, If I'm reading you post correctly, I think your interpretation and my interpretation vary on the potential numbers of amphibious and support ships (five or six), and what has or hasn't been budgeted for.

Relevant quotes from pages 71-73 of the DIIP:

Replenishment ships
3.24 Two new replenishment ships will replace the current mixed fleet of one replenishment ship and one oiler (fuel only) by the early 2020s.Replenishment ships are able to resupply fuel, water, food and weapons to ships at sea to extend their range and endurance. As the surface fleet grows with the introduction of larger frigates and larger patrol vessels, Defence will acquire another support vessel such as a third high‑capacity replenishment ship or an additional logistics support ship similar to HMAS Choules in the late 2020s. A third replenishment ship would provide an assured capacity to continuously generate one operationally available replenishment ship for Surface Task Group operations.

Logistics support ship
3.27 Defence will upgrade and extend the life of the ADF’s logistics support ship HMAS Choules, which is capable of undertaking a range of tasks across the spectrum of military operations from providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to amphibious lodgement. Planned investment includes:

* updating the ship’s battle management and command, control, communications, computers and intelligence capabilities to enable it to work effectively with the Canberra Class amphibious ships
* fitting self-defence systems for protection against torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and fast attack craft
* fitting aviation support systems.​

3.28 The Integrated Investment Program also provides for the replacement of this logistics support ship around 2030, as HMAS Choules has demonstrated the benefits of this type of vessel in extending the reach of the ADF and enhancing our capacity to deploy larger and better‑equipped forces. HMAS Choules, together with the two Canberra Class amphibious ships, will provide scalable and flexible options for greater capacity sea lift and amphibious operations. A third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be considered in the late 2020s.


I read the above as saying (apart from the 2 x LHDs), is that there will be 2 x AOR, there will be a replacement of Choules around 2030, and that the possible 'sixth' ship will be either a 3rd AOR or an additional logistic support ship (eg, another Choules type ship).

The budget allowances made in the 20016 DIIP are for:
* Replenishment Ship/Logistics Support Ship (additional) - 2024-2030 - $1b-$2b
* HMAS Choules Upgrade and Support - 2017-2023 - $200m-$300m

There currently isn't a budget allowance for the replacement of Choules, but that doesn't surprise me as the 2016 DIIP covers the ten year period (2016-2025), I would imagine that a budget allowance for Choules would appear once it is within the usual ten year scope of the DIIP.

As for the Pacific Ship, that really is a how long is a piece of string question too.

Cheers,

Yep agree table 5 shows the budget allowances made in the 2016 DIIP are for:
* Replenishment Ship/Logistics Support Ship (additional) - 2024-2030 - $1b-$2b
* HMAS Choules Upgrade and Support - 2017-2023 - $200m-$300m

Section 3.27 discusses the upgrade of Choules while section 2.28 goes on to look at the replacement of this logistics support ship (Choules) in 2030 noting the benefit Choules has demonstrated. I suggest this is the Replenishment Ship/Logistics Support Ship (additional).

Either way, my main point is that we are postulating about multiple JSS noting the current plan is two LHD, two AOR, one logistics support ship and an ill defined Pacific Ship.

Even with the Replenishment Ship/Logistics Support Ship (additional) .... what is the primary focus. Even section 3.28 is not clear on this stating .... a third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be considered in the late 2020s. I am impressed by the funding considered hence my comment regarding the greater size and aviation capacity.

 

[John Newman]

I can understand buying off the shelf from overseas can be cheaper than redeveloping a capability for a limited run ,the submarines come to mind as do the Hunter class ,but with naval surface vessels now becoming larger its not beyond the realms of possibility that future escort ships may be designed around the ten thousand ton range ,would be interested to know if the Osborne shipyards have this capabilty for building larger ships if required

Can Australia design and build 10,000t future escorts (I assume you mean future DDG and FFG)? The current answer is both yes and no.

Firstly infrastructure, the shiplift, transfer systems, hardstands are all in place at Osborne SA to handle a 10,000t ship, the fabrication sheds from the Hobart class build are in place and the fabrication and assembly halls for the Hunter class are almost complete (and there is scope for future enlargement of the shiplift to even larger ships).

Secondly design capability, well not quite yet, but it's worth looking at the announcement by the Turnbull Government 18mths ago regarding the Hunter build:

Doorstop: Future Frigates Announcement: Osborne Shipyards, South Australia | Malcolm Turnbull

The relevant paragraphs:

"ASC Shipbuilding will do this as a subsidiary of BAE Systems during the period of the build, with the Commonwealth retaining a sovereign share. That sovereign share gives us certain rights during the build period in relation to any decisions or actions that have national security or other relevant strategic implications. But it also means that, at the end of the build period, the ASC Shipbuilding entity, with the intellectual property, a highly skilled workforce and all of the associated equipment, returns to Commonwealth ownership.

"So at the end of this process what we will have is a significant strategic national asset. We will have a ASC Shipbuilding business which will be in a position to design, to develop and to lead the construction of highly complex naval warfare shipbuilding projects."

As you can see, the plan is that by the end of the Hunter program, ASC will be handed back to the Commonwealth, with all the knowledge that has been gained and should be in a position to produce designs for 'complex naval warfare' projects.

But that is a wait and see, assuming all goes well, by the mid 2030s when planning will probably start to look at replacements for the Hobart DDGs, ASC may well be in a position to either produce a design from scratch, or more likely, be able to take an existing design and make significant design modifications.

And lets not forget Henderson WA, the current floating dock has an approx. 10,000t capacity too, but from what I've read the transfer system is well less than that (not to say transfer and hardstands can't be upgraded in the future), the new assembly hall being built by Civmec (firstly for use in the OPV program) is huge, maybe even larger than the assembly hall at Osborne, in the future large ships could be built at Henderson, with design input from ASC in Osborne.

And lets not forget Austal, they have been designing ships for decades, not large complex warships (but you could include the USN Independence class LCS), but who know what the future holds.

Cheers,

 

[seaspear]

Future Submarine Program- ANAO Reoprt Reviewed
Yahoo/Inbox

• There seems more suggestions of expensive delays from the ANAO in the SEA1000 project ,there was also the suggestion the report was released with the timing of the current bushfires ,certainly there was a previous suppression of an ANAO report
• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/22/coalition-suppressed-auditors-finding-that-13bn-thales-arms-deal-could-have-cost-half-with us

You would have to hope this is just unwarrated pessimism in these estimates

 

[Brucedog]

So the government have outlined their plan for the amphib and AOR fleet. Let's leave that aside for a momemt (please keep posting about them, I'm learning so much).

What are the forum members ideas of size, type and capabilities for the "Pacific ship" requirement? The government said it was to be built in Australia. Is this realistic? Is it a stand alone vesel? How could/should it be manned? Where would the medical staff come from? It would be a great learning experience for medicos from all over the region.

I know a lot has been said already but I'd like to just narrow the focus.

 

[MickB]

i guess that would depend on how the ship was deployed.
The RAN complement was 13. To break that down; CO and XO, Coxn, Chief Eng, PO Seaman (Buffer), Radio Operator, Cook, 3xABs, 3xMech Eng = (13) or something similar. You may add an electrical rate in lieu of a ME or other small adjustment but if you want to run the ship 24/7 that crew would be minimal for independent operation.
Halving the number is simply not practical except for short coastal day work supported by base staff.

I know that the LSMs in army service often deployed for months at a time, (FNQ, PNG, Pacific Islands and of course Vietnam) but I do not know about the LCH in its short life with the army.
Perhaps the army crew would need to have been increased if it had performed the same tasks as above.

 

[Todjaeger]

So the government have outlined their plan for the amphib and AOR fleet. Let's leave that aside for a momemt (please keep posting about them, I'm learning so much).

What are the forum members ideas of size, type and capabilities for the "Pacific ship" requirement? The government said it was to be built in Australia. Is this realistic? Is it a stand alone vesel? How could/should it be manned? Where would the medical staff come from? It would be a great learning experience for medicos from all over the region.

I know a lot has been said already but I'd like to just narrow the focus.

Unfortunately at this point, there has not really been much more in the way of news or announcements by gov't in nearly a year about what the gov't plans or requirements are for the "Pacific ship". Pretty much right now what is known is that it is to be large-hulled, new, not be particularly complex but have the basic provisions for any RAN vessel, it would a humanitarian and disaster relief vessel operating on a semi-permanent basis in the southwest Pacific, and that funding would be drawn from the existing department budget causing some training programmes to be deferred.

Sources I found are here, here, and here.

There is an enormous range available for the potential scope of such a vaguely worded requirement. Absent more information I suspect much discussion on the topic would be more along the lines of capability and/or kit wish lists.

I can say that a number of systems found on vessels like the amphibs are very useful in HADR operations, since there is always a need for logistics, stores, and transportation in disasters. The same goes for communications and a stable CP/HQ/EOC. Depending on the nature and scope of the disaster, the ability transport and augment/support DMAT, DVAT or even worse, DMORT.

However, since there has been no mention of the size of the budget for such an acquisition (apart from funding coming at the expense of other programmes in the existing budget) we have very little to use as a frame of reference.