Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
John Newman said:
Whilst it has been said by the Government that the planned Mine Warfare and Hydrographic ships will be based on the Arafura class ships, I can well imagine they will look significantly different.

Probably something like this:

www.navalnews.com

Naval Group On Track with MCM program - Sets Foot in Belgium - Naval News

The Belgian-Dutch Mine Counter Measure (MCM) program is making significant progress according to Naval Group. After the successful initial trials, the French shipbuilder is quietly progressing towards the industrialization phase. The current ramp-up phase will soon result in the creation of a...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

I can imagine they will look something like the Naval Group design being built for Belgium and the Netherlands.

The big change will probably be from the funnel back to the stern, a large hangar type structure (mission bay) to house the various USVs and UUVs and a landing pad on top for UAVs.

From what I’ve read, the Naval Group design is just over 80m, 81.4m to be precise, Arafura is approx 80m.

We’ll just have to wait and see, but that’s what I think they may end up looking like.
Click to expand...
I don't know because a lot of MCM appears to be platform agnostic now with the introduction of USV and UUV capabilities. With this there is a way of remotely operating well outside of a minefield so you are not having to design and build a MCM specific hull. It also means that the capability can be moved by air if necessary.

For instance the RNZN MCM capability is designed to operate out of 2 x 20ft containers and that includes cooking and accommodation facilities for the crew if based ashore. For at sea deployments the accommodation and cooking facilities are not not shipped. The dive team also deploy from helicopters USN MCM style by entering the water from the ramp of a low slow flying helicopter.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
ngatimozart said:
I don't know because a lot of MCM appears to be platform agnostic now with the introduction of USV and UUV capabilities. With this there is a way of remotely operating well outside of a minefield so you are not having to design and build a MCM specific hull. It also means that the capability can be moved by air if necessary.

For instance the RNZN MCM capability is designed to operate out of 2 x 20ft containers and that includes cooking and accommodation facilities for the crew if based ashore. For at sea deployments the accommodation and cooking facilities are not not shipped. The dive team also deploy from helicopters USN MCM style by entering the water from the ramp of a low slow flying helicopter.
Click to expand...

You must have missed this from the 2020 DSU, page 40:

“4.12 To support further advanced operations throughout the ADF’s strategic operating environment, the Government will improve its capability options through:

“• Mine warfare capabilities to secure Australia’s maritime approaches, focused on modern, smart sea mine systems.

“• Enhancements to mine countermeasures and hydrographic capabilities through the acquisition of up to eight additional vessels, built in Australia – potentially based on the Arafura class Offshore Patrol Vessel design.

“• Clearance diving and therapeutic hyperbaric systems to support ship and clearance diving capabilities across the spectrum of operations.”


Clearly the Government has plans for up to eight mine warfare/hydrographic ships based on the Arafura class OPVs.

It would appear they will not be ‘traditional’ MCM vessels compared to the MCM vessels they will replace, but rather more of a ‘mothership’ for the various types of UUV, USV and UAV required for operations, eg, along the same lines of the NG design ships.

But that’s not to say that the various UUV, USV and UAV craft can’t be transported to an operational area by containers too.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Stampede said:
I find this project most interesting, but really there is very little to go with.

The 2020 Force structure Plan has the following.

4.15 To further expand the ADF’s ability to support an increased presence in the region, Government’s plans include: • Design, development and acquisition of two Australian-built multi-role sealift and replenishment vessels to replace HMAS Choules. This will greatly extend Navy’s ability to project and sustain the joint force.

The graph according to my middle aged eyes list the dates for the project as about 2023 to 2034.

This is all we know and as has been suggested, we should not get ahead of our selves!

What we do know is that HMAS Choules was launched in 2005 and if she gets a thirty year life then she will need replacing with a " Something " in the mid 2030's
Planning for that inevitability and ramping up to build HMAS Choules replacement will take time.
So when does this project commence?
If just a one for one replacement, then we are probably not in a hurry at this stage.
If we want to expand the numbers and the second ship of this new class is to replace HMAS Choules, then I'd suggest we would want to get thing moving fairly soon.
I hope this is the case

I think such a vessel is a good fit for a balanced RAN, as are the increase in numbers of such a vessel.

Hopefully a Defence White paper is forth coming to give some clarity, which I suspect will come with whoever forms government after the next federal election.


Regards S
Click to expand...
As noted above (30271) I understand the prospective JSS project has commenced but is at a very early stage not having received any external approvals as yet.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Todjaeger said:
JSS? You mean the Joint Support Ship? AFAIK that is a RCN project, not a RAN one. IIRC the RAN has mentioned possibly ordering a vessel to replace Choules towards the end of the decade, with the replacement vessel potentially being another sealift vessel of some sort, or an AOR of some type, or possibly a design that has elements of both like a JSS. Other than that, I have not heard anything,
Click to expand...
More than RCN, or even RCN & RAN. HMLNS Karel Doorman was commissioned in 2015, & IIRC was called a Joint Support Ship when ordered, several years earlier.
Joint Support Ship RNLN
 
M

Massive

Well-Known Member
Thanks John,

Much appreciated.

My interest here is that I feel that the number ordered will give a sense as to how serious the government & the ADF is about the ARG concept.

Given the commentary on this site about the challenge faced in terms of STUFT, if the ARG is to be effectively supported the RAN will need to build the majority of the required sealift itself - my sense is that this would need to involve both multiple JSS as well as additional logistics support such as the Point Class.

Thanks again,

Massive
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Yay I can post again.

These SM-6 will be a huge boost but these missiles only seem to be specified for the Hunter class. Really we need to get them onto the Hobarts as well.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
Yay I can post again.

These SM-6 will be a huge boost but these missiles only seem to be specified for the Hunter class. Really we need to get them onto the Hobarts as well.
Click to expand...
Hunter class 'Destroyers' there appears to be some confusion there, I would be pretty sure they are for the Hobarts as well
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Redlands18 said:
Hunter class 'Destroyers' there appears to be some confusion there, I would be pretty sure they are for the Hobarts as well
Click to expand...
It would make more sense if the news release was about the Hobart class since the first of the Hunters is still more than a decade away and as you point out ... they aren't technically destroyers. I am going to guess that they identified the wrong ship class.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Redlands18 said:
Hunter class 'Destroyers' there appears to be some confusion there, I would be pretty sure they are for the Hobarts as well
Click to expand...
I would imagine SM-2 and SM-6 will be a share pool across both Hunters and Hobarts. But its quite possible that the Hunters may be fitted with them first. AFAIK this FMS doesn't actually include any missiles, but support to integrate and operate.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
H

Hoffy

Member
K

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
swerve said:
More than RCN, or even RCN & RAN. HMLNS Karel Doorman was commissioned in 2015, & IIRC was called a Joint Support Ship when ordered, several years earlier.
Joint Support Ship RNLN
Click to expand...
When she was ordered she was indeed officially called "Joint Support Ship" in English with the abbreviation JSS, you can find the name in dutch documentation e.g. from the parliament from ca 2010-2014. The Dutch term at the time though was already "Joint Logistiek Ondersteuningsschip" (Joint Logistics Support Ship). Both English and Dutch terms were used interchangably.

The current official terminology for the ship is "Zr.Ms. Karel Doorman is een logistiek ondersteunings- en bevoorradingsschip, oftewel joint logistic support ship (JSS)" - "A logistics support and supply ship, in other words a joint logistics support ship (JSS)". And yes, the abbreviation JSS was kept - it's not JLSS.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hoffy said:
Very good & well timed question , from The Conversation:
Australia's plan for manufacturing missiles to be accelerated (theconversation.com)
And this refers to the "Sovereign Industrial Capability Priorities" announcement (Australian Manufacturing Forum):
New Sovereign Industrial Capability Priorities released | Australian Manufacturing Forum (aumanufacturing.com.au)
Apologies if already posted.
Click to expand...
It does seem that part of it relates to local manufacturing of SM-2 and SM-6 locally. I suspect its more likely are remanufacturing existing stocks of SM-2 to become later versions of missiles. Possibly building up to local building of missiles with high local content. No doubt most of Australian missile acquisition will be of SM-2/SM-6/ESSM etc.

Navantia had a JSS model for some future RAN project. It was also hunting for malaysian multirole project.
www.navalnews.com

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News

At PACIFIC 2019, the naval defense exposition held last week in Sydney, Australia, Navantia Australia, the local branch of Spanish shipbuilding group Navantia, unveiled a new Joint Support Ship (JSS) design for both the domestic and export market.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

The crew of that is ~160, so about half of the Doorman. The Malaysian multirole ship Damen put forward the enforcer 10000 design, which is a LPD, and doesn't seem to have any AOR capability.
 
Mark_Evans

Mark_Evans

Member
With the ability to build our own missiles i wonder if there has been any thought in Aegis Ashore located in Northern Australia.
Japan announced they were setting up two stations but have cancelled those plans.
Article from 2019 Defence Connect
www.defenceconnect.com.au

Aegis ashore, NORFORCE and an integrated Aussie BMD and A2/AD network

With the increasing proliferation of advanced ballistic and cruise missile threats in the Indo-Pacific, the Australian mainland has never been more exposed - meanwhile the cost effectiveness of conte
www.defenceconnect.com.au www.defenceconnect.com.au
 
Flexson

Flexson

Active Member
StingrayOZ said:
Navantia had a JSS model for some future RAN project. It was also hunting for malaysian multirole project.
www.navalnews.com

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News

At PACIFIC 2019, the naval defense exposition held last week in Sydney, Australia, Navantia Australia, the local branch of Spanish shipbuilding group Navantia, unveiled a new Joint Support Ship (JSS) design for both the domestic and export market.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

The crew of that is ~160, so about half of the Doorman. The Malaysian multirole ship Damen put forward the enforcer 10000 design, which is a LPD, and doesn't seem to have any AOR capability.
Click to expand...
Please no, no more Navantia ships.

Damen has what is reported to be a very capable ship in HNLMS Karel Doorman. We should do a deep dive (as much as commercial in-confidence contracts will allow) into of the problems dealt with by Serco in the acquisition and delivery of RSV Nuyina and MV Sycamore and compare that to the problems we have faced dealing with Navantia before we decide to just go with the Devil we know.

As I'm sure it will be bought up; HNLMS Karel Doorman is a BIG ship, on par with the LHD's. If it was decided it's more ship that we want then I am sure Damen would be able to modify their Rotterdam class to suit our requirements. Much the same as Navantia Australia has done to the Galicia class for their JSS concept. Considering the Galicia and Rotterdam classes are both part of the Dutch/Spanish Enforcer family of ships.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top