Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm confused, how can it be "ADF's civil service at war approach" when the suits have no involvement with determining force composition or command structure??

We are talking cross purposes. I was trying to rationalise why the RAN wouldn’t have an escort task group command as part of the amphibious task force as you appear to be suggesting. Therefore alluding to the ‘civil servicisation’ of the uniforms’ approach to command management seen throughout the ADF. Where traditional and contemporary military structures are replaced by bloated and centralised ‘risk free’ structures.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue that the RAN is signed up to USN task force structures when its pretty apparent what roles they're defining for the LHnn's.

It’s not about the LHD. The RAN follows the US guide in basic naval warfighting since 1951. As does the rest of the NATO aligned world. Part of this is the TF/TG construct where a task force is given an area of responsibility (ie mission) and certain forces and then divides them up into role/mission specific task groups.

if they're (LHA) in the force mix, they will be the command asset - not the smaller skimmers.

MEAO TF structures were the anomaly with small skimmers leading in the sense that they led when no big assets were avail.

And a task group as part of a TF isn’t really a command element. For example in a carrier strike group the “commodore” (senior Captain, the USN doesn’t’ have this rank) is in charge of the ‘destroyer squadron’ and sits onboard the lead AEGIS ship. He reports to the Rear Admiral in charge of the CSG onboard the carrier but has responsibility for air defence (ASuW is taken care of by the air wing and ASW by the escorting submarine). When the CSG is formed into a TF the destroyer squadron becomes one or more TGs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

We are talking cross purposes. I was trying to rationalise why the RAN wouldn’t have an escort task group command as part of the amphibious task force as you appear to be suggesting. Therefore alluding to the ‘civil servicisation’ of the uniforms’ approach to command management seen throughout the ADF. Where traditional and contemporary military structures are replaced by bloated and centralised ‘risk free’ structures.

ok, gotcha now.

It’s not about the LHD. The RAN follows the US guide in basic naval warfighting since 1951. As does the rest of the NATO aligned world. Part of this is the TF/TG construct where a task force is given an area of responsibility (ie mission) and certain forces and then divides them up into role/mission specific task groups.

ok, I guess I wasn't looking at the further devolved construct and was assuming that the TG was autonomous

And a task group as part of a TF isn’t really a command element. For example in a carrier strike group the “commodore” (senior Captain, the USN doesn’t’ have this rank) is in charge of the ‘destroyer squadron’ and sits onboard the lead AEGIS ship. He reports to the Rear Admiral in charge of the CSG onboard the carrier but has responsibility for air defence (ASuW is taken care of by the air wing and ASW by the escorting submarine). When the CSG is formed into a TF the destroyer squadron becomes one or more TGs.

ta, I'd missed the sequence here.

 

[SASWanabe]

Could this be a possible replacement for Success+Sirius? or would 30k tons be too big for the RAN?

it kinda reminds me of the Canadian JSS, primarily AOR but with a small sealift capacity aswel.

Google Translate

 

[swerve]

Don't you mean the Dutch JSS? AFAIK the Canadian JSS is still just a paper project, & keeps changing definition.

 

[SASWanabe]

no, i mean the original outline of the Canadian JSS, a large AOR with secondary sealift capability. the Dutch JSS has far more sealift capacity than its originaly intended Canadian counterpart.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Don't you mean the Dutch JSS? AFAIK the Canadian JSS is still just a paper project, & keeps changing definition.

Will that Canadain ship ever get built seems like its been on the board for ages.

Its an interesting design. With our sealift capability, I would imagine we would want something that is more focused as a AOR.

 

[John Newman]

Will that Canadain ship ever get built seems like its been on the board for ages.

Its an interesting design. With our sealift capability, I would imagine we would want something that is more focused as a AOR.

Does anybody know if the Canberra class LHD's have the capacity to replenish their escorts at sea?

Certainly they could do vertrep of dry stores to escorts, they have the size and space to carry cargo and deliver from their embarked helicopters.

I remember see photos of the old carrier Melbourne refueling her escorts.

And no, im not suggesting a "new" role for the LHD's, but I would have assumed that being the size they are that it was possible for them.

And I'm sure that Success and Sirius will be eventually replaced by an appropriate AOR design.

 

[Jhom]

Does anybody know if the Canberra class LHD's have the capacity to replenish their escorts at sea?

Certainly they could do vertrep of dry stores to escorts, they have the size and space to carry cargo and deliver from their embarked helicopters.

I remember see photos of the old carrier Melbourne refueling her escorts.

And no, im not suggesting a "new" role for the LHD's, but I would have assumed that being the size they are that it was possible for them.

And I'm sure that Success and Sirius will be eventually replaced by an appropriate AOR design.

The LHD has some capacity to transfer aviation fuel, it has the equipment to do so onboard, but it cannot transfer naval fuel

 

[Sea Toby]

Will that Canadain ship ever get built seems like its been on the board for ages.

Its an interesting design. With our sealift capability, I would imagine we would want something that is more focused as a AOR.

From the blogs I have read Canada will most likely order the ships after the upcoming election... Its the top defense item on the agenda...

 

[RubiconNZ]

From the blogs I have read Canada will most likely order the ships after the upcoming election... Its the top defense item on the agenda...

Unfortunately any real debate is stifled by the JSF drama. The election I get the impression will determine a great deal in Canada's defense policy.

 

[swerve]

no, i mean the original outline of the Canadian JSS, a large AOR with secondary sealift capability. the Dutch JSS has far more sealift capacity than its originaly intended Canadian counterpart.

Ah, I see.

Last I heard, the Canadian JSS seemed to be turning into a fairly standard AOR with modest sealift capabilities. They were looking at the Berlin & Cantabria classes 6 few months ago.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Lt Col. Smith from the Armies Amphip capability group has stated that two mexifloats and a temp aircraft hangar will be purchased along with the Largs Bay.
The hangar will be of the same type the Royal Navy uses. For the rest of the article see page 5 of the latest release of army news here.

Good news, puts an end to some speculation

 

[PeterM]

Lt Col. Smith from the Armies Amphip capability group has stated that two mexifloats and a temp aircraft hangar will be purchased along with the Largs Bay.
The hangar will be of the same type the Royal Navy uses. For the rest of the article see page 5 of the latest release of army news here.

Good news, puts an end to some speculation

That is interesting

It certainly resolves all the helicopter hangar discussions.

The metroflexes will prove very useful

 

[Todjaeger]

It is Ironic! But you would assume that "if" the need arises, a couple of Phalanx could be easily installed on the LHD's

Pretty much, yes. The RAN has several Phalanx units in a pool, which are then fitted to various vessels with the appropriate space and connections when there is an appropriate operational need. I do not recall just how much time it takes to install/swap out a Phalanx, but ranges from a few hours to a day in port.

I would curious to know if the RAN's Phalanxes were ever upgraded to include anti-FAC CIWS.

-Cheers

 

[StevoJH]

Pretty much, yes. The RAN has several Phalanx units in a pool, which are then fitted to various vessels with the appropriate space and connections when there is an appropriate operational need. I do not recall just how much time it takes to install/swap out a Phalanx, but ranges from a few hours to a day in port.

I would curious to know if the RAN's Phalanxes were ever upgraded to include anti-FAC CIWS.

-Cheers

Fairly sure at least some of them were upgraded to 1B, unless i'm getting them mixed up with the Kiwi Phalanx units which definately were.

 

[John Newman]

Lt Col. Smith from the Armies Amphip capability group has stated that two mexifloats and a temp aircraft hangar will be purchased along with the Largs Bay.
The hangar will be of the same type the Royal Navy uses. For the rest of the article see page 5 of the latest release of army news here.

Good news, puts an end to some speculation

Yes it does end some of the speculation. The article also states:

"Between now and the end of the year, the Largs Bay will go through a regeneration refit and rectification process in the UK" and "Modifications will be made to its existing communications, weapons and navigational systems ....... etc"

So that answers the question about the ship being refitted in the UK rather than Australia. I wonder if they considered doing the refit here? Taxes paid by the shipyard here would go back into the government purse, experience on maintaining the ship, etc, but I supposed its all tied together with the sea trial tests before final acceptance.


Which brings me to some other points that I have wondered about, what is going to be the "final" cost of the ship when she enters service at the end of this year / beginning of next year?

Are the sea trials going to be done "before" the refit and monies spent, or after?

I assume the $100m purchase price was for the ship on an "as is, where is" state.

The hardware for the comms and weapons will be taken from the retired LPA, so it should then be just the cost of fitting and intergrating and not the hardware itself.

But what will be the cost of the "regeneration and refit" be? Spares, support equipment, Hangar, Mexifloats, etc, etc?

I remember when the RAAF purchased the 15 second hand F111G's, they cost (figures I saw published) $70m, but also another $74m was spent for logistic support, total around $150m, still a great price compared to when new.

Don't get me wrong, Largs Bay is a great ship, (age, capability, etc, gets the RAN out of the poo before the LHD's arrive and into the future too), but what is the final cost to bring her into Australian service going to be?

$120m, $150m $200m? Probably at the lower end, I assume that at some point the will be an announcement of the "actual" full cost of the project.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes it does end some of the speculation. The article also states:

"Between now and the end of the year, the Largs Bay will go through a regeneration refit and rectification process in the UK" and "Modifications will be made to its existing communications, weapons and navigational systems ....... etc"

So that answers the question about the ship being refitted in the UK rather than Australia. I wonder if they considered doing the refit here? Taxes paid by the shipyard here would go back into the government purse, experience on maintaining the ship, etc, but I supposed its all tied together with the sea trial tests before final acceptance.


Which brings me to some other points that I have wondered about, what is going to be the "final" cost of the ship when she enters service at the end of this year / beginning of next year?

Are the sea trials going to be done "before" the refit and monies spent, or after?

I assume the $100m purchase price was for the ship on an "as is, where is" state.

The hardware for the comms and weapons will be taken from the retired LPA, so it should then be just the cost of fitting and intergrating and not the hardware itself.

But what will be the cost of the "regeneration and refit" be? Spares, support equipment, Hangar, Mexifloats, etc, etc?

I remember when the RAAF purchased the 15 second hand F111G's, they cost (figures I saw published) $70m, but also another $74m was spent for logistic support, total around $150m, still a great price compared to when new.

Don't get me wrong, Largs Bay is a great ship, (age, capability, etc, gets the RAN out of the poo before the LHD's arrive and into the future too), but what is the final cost to bring her into Australian service going to be?

$120m, $150m $200m? Probably at the lower end, I assume that at some point the will be an announcement of the "actual" full cost of the project.

Lower end.

Quite frankly, and personally, I agree with getting the changes to fitout incl the CSS done in the UK - it will be part of the acceptance testing.

Looking at some of the quality of work done recently in australian yards - it kind of speaks for itself.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Lower end.

Quite frankly, and personally, I agree with getting the changes to fitout incl the CSS done in the UK - it will be part of the acceptance testing.

Looking at some of the quality of work done recently in australian yards - it kind of speaks for itself.

From a spectator I would have to agree, we need a lower risk great entry of the vessel.

I also would think that price negotiations would of included the potential to have the ship fitted in the UK, thus adding a offset to the sale from the UK perspective, if I use the term correctly.

 

[John Newman]

Lower end.

Quite frankly, and personally, I agree with getting the changes to fitout incl the CSS done in the UK - it will be part of the acceptance testing.

Looking at some of the quality of work done recently in australian yards - it kind of speaks for itself.

Lower end is probably right, still, be interesting to see the final cost.


In regard to question of quality of work here vs the UK, well, this makes an interesting read:

Navy Matters | LSD(A)

Its a very very long article, well worth the read. It documents the history of the building of the Bay's in the UK and all the problems associated with the project.

Some of the specific points that I noticed are:

"It seems that engineering tests during April 2005 revealed major problems in the two Swan Hunter ships that would cost a further £20 million to rectify, and by June Swan Hunter sources confirmed that they were asking for more money."

And:

"The Swan Hunter built RFA Largs Bay finally began sea trials on 2 March 2006 and was accepted and delivered to the RFA on 25 April 2006 "in good condition" - although it was unclear whether her defect list had been fully resolved and that no additional "get well" expenditure would be incurred by the MOD."

And, in reference to Largs sister built at Swan Hunter:

"The last uncompleted Swan ship, RFA Lyme Bay was towed to BAE Systems' Scotstoun shipyard just a week after the termination announcement. Sources indicated that initial surveys suggested that 6-9 months of rectification and completion work would be required, mostly to be undertaken at the BAE Govan yard. The ship now seems likely to undertake contractor sea trials in Spring 2007. The Swan Hunter shipyard, still employing about 160 staff in July 2006, closed soon after her departure."


So to suggest that there are questions about the quality of work in Australian yards, true or not, I'm not in a position to say, but there certainly seemed to be a significant amount of issues during their initial construction.

Hope all the problems were sorted out(?), but we will see in the fullness of time!

 

[StevoJH]

Swan hunter closed after the LSD(A) contract was completed. Therefore the staff at the yard probably considered it to be in their best interests to drag the build out as long as possible, and with their jobs finishing up after the build finished they probably didn't have anywhere near the motivation to maintain a high standard of workmanship as a yard like the BAe yard at Goven would.