Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

Hull rationalisation might also help support an ongoing shipbuilding program.

For example, would we really need different hulls to replace Our two LHDs, the Choules, the proposed logistic/tanker and the Pacific Support ship?

I realise that in a perfect world you would want to have a perfectly optimised ship but would that outweigh the benefits of maintaining, operating and building a single hull form?

 

[Takao]

Hull rationalisation might also help support an ongoing shipbuilding program.

For example, would we really need different hulls to replace Our two LHDs, the Choules, the proposed logistic/tanker and the Pacific Support ship?

I realise that in a perfect world you would want to have a perfectly optimised ship but would that outweigh the benefits of maintaining, operating and building a single hull form?

Yes - because there is more to the capability than just the hull.

LHD hulls need the watercraft bay (and I'm sorry USN / USMC - but to be an amphib ship you need a dock capability!) that the other logistic ships don't really need. Plus the landing force brings design criteria unique to an amphib; lots of helicopter space and heavy vehicle lines with links to the bay demand design elements that impact dramatically on the hull design.

There might be some hull commonalities between the Joint Support Ship and the Large Hull Vessel; but what is the mission? The former requires lots of oil space and lots of 'hangar' space for storing bulk stores or vehicles. It needs to be large, it has to have the range to match an ARG or a SAG, and carry sufficient materiel for them. The latter has less range, needs to carry less and probably doesn't need oil tanks. It's probably also going to be many helo v one helo. All of that will impact hull shape.

Furthermore, there needs to be consideration of cost and crewing. The LHD and JSS are ships that sit within the core mission of the ADF. They cost a lot, move a lot and demand a lot of crew. While there may be some crewing advantages in adopting civilian engine rooms, there still needs to be crew to take into account mechanical or personnel casualties. The LHV is not such a vessel (humanitarian assistance is not a force design consideration) and as such will be smaller as crewing and operating budgets are simply not a priority.

Now, there are other craft that the LHV may match - submarine tenders, Antarctica support ship or aviation training vessel. That would give you three logistic hulls, an amphib, a JSS and a minor support vessel. That may work.

 

[aussienscale]

A

Australia suffers from a strategic deficit by only having one large ship drydock.
The location of the building yards is a seperate matter but we are constrained as a maritime nation, not just naval, by not having a large ship facility in the west which could be utilised in the same way as the Captain Cook dry dock at FBE.

Graving Dock continues to serve the nation at 75

The RAN is growing in both numbers and tonnage.
Since the closures of Cockatoo Island in Sydney which had two dry docks, one capable of docking a Majestic class light carrier, and a large building slipway, the closure of the large Cairncross dry dock on the Brisbane River (medium cruise ship capable), the State Dockyard in Newcastle and the loss of Williamstown, we are in poorer shape to react to marine incidents involving large naval and civilian ships.

Both Osborne and Henderson can handle ships up to around 12000 tonnes displacement this creates a ridiculous situation where anything larger must transit to the eastern seaboard to carry out either routine or emergency dockings.
It would be a sensible investment to build (drydock) or buy (floating dock) and give the West a much needed strategic asset.
I won’t post here but if you search for large dockyards online the number of them in ROK, Japan and China is gobsmacking, makes us look like the Hobbit Shire.

As a side note, I was on the last navy ship to be re-fitted at Cockatoo Island, we were in Sutherland Dock.

6 month's longer than planned as the union decided to conduct rolling strikes protesting the closure, not much we could do when we were high and dry !! Can't remember which one it was but one of the Oberon's was also in re-fit when we arrived cold towed from GI/FBE, she was in the smaller Fitzroy dock. Some may also remember that Success was built there too, among many others, a very interesting history at Cockatoo !

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

We probably should have plan to replace our major ships every 25 years.

I like the sound of a large dock in WA. Two docks at either end would seem to be prudent these days. Something able to handle say 40,000t ought to do it. Given how many 20,000+t-30,000t ships we currently or will shortly operate and the general trend to increase tonnage.

If the ice does start melting down at Antarctica, a second or third vessel may be required if we want to actively keep any of our claim supporting new construction and base programs.

 

[seaspear]

If there was a case for more visits to Antartica is there a case for the recommissioning of H.M.A.S Huon naval base in Tasmania at 4000 kilometres from Perth and almost 1500 hundred from Sydney it would be a much shorter sailing time at only 2500 kilometres from there?

 

[Tasman]

If there was a case for more visits to Antartica is there a case for the recommissioning of H.M.A.S Huon naval base in Tasmania at 4000 kilometres from Perth and almost 1500 hundred from Sydney it would be a much shorter sailing time at only 2500 kilometres from there?

The Australian Antarctic Division (a civilian organisation) operates out of Hobart now. The slip at the facility that was HMAS Huon is only able to support small vessels. Following World War II, a single vessel was based at HMAS Huon and used for training reservists. These included a general purpose vessel, a harbour defence motor launch (HDML) , a small survey vessel (HMAS Bass) and finally an Attack class patrol boat (HMAS Ardent) which was based there from 1982 until 1994. It was a sad day when Ardent was decommissioned and left Hobart without replacement.

Much as I would personally love to see RAN vessels operating out of Hobart they would realistically need to operate out of Fleet Base East and use the southern capital for resupply and recreation.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

I could certainly see ADV ships operating frequently out of Tassy. I'm less confident of combatants. But then again, the new Arafura class are big enough and long ranged enough that they could head down there if things get competitive. Not to the continent perhaps but could certainly do patrols and mapping down there in that region. Certainly would be able to enforce EEZ around Australia's southern regions.

Colombia recently took their Fassmer-80 based 20 de Julio 1,700t patrol ship to the continent in conjunction with Chile.

Colombia's Navy plans to establish permanent base on Antarctica | The City Paper Bogotá

The Colombian Navy is heading to earth's southernmost continent to conduct scientific research on climate change. The Armada plans to establish a permanent base on Antarctica.

thecitypaperbogota.com

.

 

[ngatimozart]

I could certainly see ADV ships operating frequently out of Tassy. I'm less confident of combatants. But then again, the new Arafura class are big enough and long ranged enough that they could head down there if things get competitive. Not to the continent perhaps but could certainly do patrols and mapping down there in that region. Certainly would be able to enforce EEZ around Australia's southern regions.

Colombia recently took their Fassmer-80 based 20 de Julio 1,700t patrol ship to the continent in conjunction with Chile.

Colombia's Navy plans to establish permanent base on Antarctica | The City Paper Bogotá

The Colombian Navy is heading to earth's southernmost continent to conduct scientific research on climate change. The Armada plans to establish a permanent base on Antarctica.

thecitypaperbogota.com

.

But will they be able to handle the seas down there? The Protector class OPVs get hammered down there and they were built with ice strengthening. The RNZN dropped a wave buoy in the Southern Ocean last year and it's provided some very interesting data about the wave climate. It's contains bigger seas than previously thought. So now they realize that using North Atlantic data to design ships for use in the Southern Ocean is not valid because the wave climates are different.

 

[ASSAIL]

But will they be able to handle the seas down there? The Protector class OPVs get hammered down there and they were built with ice strengthening. The RNZN dropped a wave buoy in the Southern Ocean last year and it's provided some very interesting data about the wave climate. It's contains bigger seas than previously thought. So now they realize that using North Atlantic data to design ships for use in the Southern Ocean is not valid because the wave climates are different.

The defined Op Area for the SEA 1180 (Arafura) ships is as far south as 48degS

 

[ngatimozart]

The defined Op Area for the SEA 1180 (Arafura) ships is as far south as 48degS

That's cool. When I reread what Stinger wrote just now I realised I had the boat hook by the wrong end. Mea culpa.

 

[spoz]

50 south actually, but that is quibbling! (Sorry Chris....). They could certainly go further, but of course the risk level would go up. But the purpose of the buy is to operate in the traditional areas to the north. Not to say that there might not be a future decision to use them for other things, but that’s not really on the table at the moment; or, at least, not visibly so.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The priority it no doubt to the north at the moment.

However, any existing or future ship could certainly be stationed in Tasmania and operate in the southern waters. They obviously aren't icebreakers, but they could operate in that area particularly in the busy summer period. Chasing fishing ships, whaling ships, protesting ships, shadowing other nations "coast guard" ships.

If we end up build 20-30 of the OPV's, then its conceivable that a few might acquire southern duties. Again, in favorable conditions, no need to put people and equipment at risk for no purpose. In winter, the new icebreaker could do anything we needed it to do (which is probably more about rescue than enforcement).

I imagine once Australia starts building its paved Antarctic runway, things will heat up quite quickly. Particularly with the treaty coming to a juncture which may end in its termination. Not likely but entirely possible.

 

[spoz]

More years ago than I like to think about, while at Staff College I did a paper on the potential strategic importance of Antarctica to Australia, the effects of the treaty, and potential impacts on the RAN. I seem to remember that my premise was (gently) pooh poohed at the time. I might have to see if I still have a copy!

 

[ASSAIL]

50 south actually, but that is quibbling! (Sorry Chris....). They could certainly go further, but of course the risk level would go up. But the purpose of the buy is to operate in the traditional areas to the north. Not to say that there might not be a future decision to use them for other things, but that’s not really on the table at the moment; or, at least, not visibly so.

It must have changed Spoz.
Para 11 of the linked doc defines the area, in latitude 48S to 5N
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=bf32c3ce-39e7-4463-835a-0ff69404cc7a
Granted this is a July 2011 version

 

[seaspear]

Assail I read that the cost of ensuring the ships for seas keeping in that region was not economical for the entire build and that only some would have that level ,is there any idea how many would be built to operate in that region and wouldnt that suggest that those that are are based somewhere closer to their patrol zones not being large ships ?

 

[ASSAIL]

Assail I read that the cost of ensuring the ships for seas keeping in that region was not economical for the entire build and that only some would have that level ,is there any idea how many would be built to operate in that region and wouldnt that suggest that those that are are based somewhere closer to their patrol zones not being large ships ?

Not sure where you are headed with this but if you are referring to insurance then during my time in the service the fleet was self insured ie the Govt did not use commercial insurers at all and simply accepted the cost of any damage.
Ships are constructed to various standards dependent upon which region of the world they operate. These standards are defined by the various classification societies, Lloyds, DNV etc.

 

[seaspear]

I was refering to the definition of ensuring as" the success of an undertaking " in this case only some of those hulls would have the strengthening for those waters thats what I was trying to ask in numbers how many that the vessels would be built to operate in those waters and would those vessels have a longer patrol time based near Hobart than for instance East base

 

[spoz]

At the moment all 12 are being built to the same spec, although admittedly only three are actually under construction.

Given there is no practical difference, I suspect 48 was rounded to 50 at some point in the requirements development process. Unfortunately I can’t provide a link.

On insurance, ships are currently insured commercially up to the point of commissioning, and after that when they enter specified deep maintenance periods (effectively, when they are in the custody of contractors).

 

[seaspear]

There is a difference between ensure insure and assure ,I meant ensure ,Websters dictionary says to make something happen you use ensure
Page four chapter nine does state about ice protection and special sea frames that would not be economical across the build suggesting such vessels are hardly likely to be based in Perh

 

[ngatimozart]

The priority it no doubt to the north at the moment.

However, any existing or future ship could certainly be stationed in Tasmania and operate in the southern waters. They obviously aren't icebreakers, but they could operate in that area particularly in the busy summer period. Chasing fishing ships, whaling ships, protesting ships, shadowing other nations "coast guard" ships.

If we end up build 20-30 of the OPV's, then its conceivable that a few might acquire southern duties. Again, in favorable conditions, no need to put people and equipment at risk for no purpose. In winter, the new icebreaker could do anything we needed it to do (which is probably more about rescue than enforcement).

I imagine once Australia starts building its paved Antarctic runway, things will heat up quite quickly. Particularly with the treaty coming to a juncture which may end in its termination. Not likely but entirely possible.

If you are talking about operating below 48° South then I suggest that you read my previous answer to you. You just can't go waltzing into Southern Ocean waters below 55°S on ships that are built for the seas down there. The RNZN have found that and that is one of the reasons why they are building a bespoke ship for those waters. Like I said in my prior post, the wave climate is unique to the region.