Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[icelord]

Is this what you are referring to?

Australian Army Amphibious Road Map

If so, yes it is floating around the place. (See what I did there?)

Umm...WTF is that "ultra heavy lift ampbi connector in PH5 off the slide show...ive never seen that concept and im quiet fascinated, and realise the RAN would never go so radical but still

 

[Kirkzzy]

HMAS Tobroken was originally scheduled to sail last week, anyone whos been past GI this week would have seen her covered in scaffolding, indicating how close that is. this seems to be a bad week to be a techo, a great few weeks to be a contractor wanting some overtime though, theres more then one ship in dire need of urgent repairs, wont say too much but duct tape is a holding a few engines together at the moment:lol3

Do you know how much the refit/repair/maintenance is roughly costing?

 

[riksavage]

I find it funny that people now complain that the aircon isn't powerful enough in warships.. Oh how terrible it would be if it was 25 instead of 21 degrees.

I can think of a couple of british ships we bought a few years back that didn't have any aircon at all, and tiny little spaces to sleep and eat on. You had hammocks stacked 3 or 4 high! HMAS Vampire is always an interesting experience, pictures of it with an open bridge with not even a shade cloth shows how far we have come.

Yes, dealing with the big issues. The papers completely miss the fact most of our current fleet is rustbuckets, and next to useless, and our new aquisition done in record time and price has a european specd aircon system.

The Bays have been operating without any drama in the gulf (Cardigan Bay for three years), no reports of crews dripping over lack of aircon. What do journo's expect -QEII living standards, afternoon tiffin, deck chairs on the flightdeck!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Umm...WTF is that "ultra heavy lift ampbi connector in PH5 off the slide show...ive never seen that concept and im quiet fascinated, and realise the RAN would never go so radical but still

Its one of the concepts the USN and DARPA played with for their SeaBase ship to shore connector before going back to hovercrafts, transformable and non-transformable. The stern lander, Australian designed, is a far more likely concept for the LCH replacement.

 

[Anixtu]

Bays operating in the Persian Gulf have received the upgrades mentioned. Largs had not, until the current refit. 25C is about right for summer in the Gulf, with the upgrades. Not ideal, but tolerable.

As with the QE2, there is a hierarchy for where your deck chair goes. Senior officers use the 1st Class Sundeck (bridge roof and vicinity). Junior officers and Senior Rates use the 2nd Class Sundeck (bridge wings). Junior rates use the f'oc'sle. The flight deck is out of bounds if the nets are down but can otherwise be used for PT.

 

[SASWanabe]

i just found this news report.

Paralysed by our anti-nuclear hysteria | The Australian

yes, it is from The Australian but it does raise some interesting points even tho he does quote Ross Babbage.

seems like this bloke agrees with my personal view that defence spending should be raised

 

[icelord]

i just found this news report.

Paralysed by our anti-nuclear hysteria | The Australian

yes, it is from The Australian but it does raise some interesting points even tho he does quote Ross Babbage.

seems like this bloke agrees with my personal view that defence spending should be raised

i did see that other day and totally agree, one of the few times the media has made sense. its a long running scare campaign against nuclear anything, and with the current minority govt i can guarantee it will stay forever as a never to have discussion.

Do you know how much the refit/repair/maintenance is roughly costing?

From what i gather, selling it for razor blades would pay for the paint job...if we could paint it, since theres a freeze on painting in the fleet atm...
im stopping by there next week for a look around, see how good/bad it really it is

 

[JoeMcFriday]

i did see that other day and totally agree, one of the few times the media has made sense. its a long running scare campaign against nuclear anything, and with the current minority govt i can guarantee it will stay forever as a never to have discussion.

Sadly I agree.

The lack of sensible nuclear debate in Australia is tragic and the odd proposal verges on cretinous due largely to that debating/researching vacuum.

There was a proposal floated [under Howard?] to build a nuclear power plant in my area. Close to the sea for cooling the circular stated, only a few hundred metres. Easy Peasy you might think.

Where it was proposed was 1m below sea level and on sand, separated from the sea by sand dunes and a hundred or so metres from where the ocean seeks to join a lake every Xmas. A flaming king tide could have swamped it, no need for Tsunami. The salt water table under the adjoining golf course fairway is only about a metre down, less in places. It was such a stupid proposal that maybe it was a setup for the anti-nuclear lobby.

This siting lunacy did not get far but the real tragedy was the lack of rational debate on safer siting or researching possibly safer and more affordable reactor alternatives eg LFTR reactors. It's claimed thorium reactors can dispose of existing nuclear waste while producing valuable medical by-products. The LFTR supporters also claim it's cleaner, safer, simpler, smaller than currently used methods and therefore most suitable for maritime use.

As a starter:- [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw&feature=related"]‪TEDxYYC - Kirk Sorensen - Thorium‬‏ - YouTube[/nomedia]

Any attempt to discuss nuclear power, current reactor technology or researching alternative reactor technology [in the public forum] is instantly squashed by [IMO] luddites whose blind and deaf mantra is 'No Nuclear-Not Now-Not-Ever'.

So much for informed debate in an area in which Australia has the capacity, through research, to become a world leader, or at least keep up with the Chinese.

I don't know if we should have nuke powered boats but I'd sure like to see it discussed without the luddites obfuscating every issue. I don't have an issue with us having them if they best suit our needs.

I'm not sure if this LFTR tech is all it's cracked up to be but I'd sure like to see it researched here, the Chinese seem to think it's got a future.

Maybe it's just what they need for affordable nuke powered ships?

Cheers,
Mac

 

[Kirkzzy]

From what i gather, selling it for razor blades would pay for the paint job...if we could paint it, since theres a freeze on painting in the fleet atm...
im stopping by there next week for a look around, see how good/bad it really it is

Thanks, as I was wondering if it was really worth the patching up. As we only have both vessels till 2015 (Kanimbla and Tobruk).

 

[icelord]

Thanks, as I was wondering if it was really worth the patching up. As we only have both vessels till 2015 (Kanimbla and Tobruk).

Nope, tobroken is it. All word from everyone but the government at this stage is she will be towed out and sunk as a wreck or target practice(please please please the latter!) im expecting the announcement after Largs bay gets here and tobruk to do about 5 weeks a year at sea to keep it as an "in case of extreme extreme emergency"

 

[StingrayOZ]

yes, it is from The Australian but it does raise some interesting points even tho he does quote Ross Babbage.

seems like this bloke agrees with my personal view that defence spending should be raised

Its an interesting article. And does raise some points:

Subs
* Labor is unwilling to commit serious dollars to a collins II project under its current regime. Too much risk for politicans (not driven by actual compency of the subs).
* We are now pushing into the cost area of nuclear submarines.
* We have a particular need of our subs that conventionals don't usually have.
* (we might push to basically have conventional Virginas, however approprate that is)

Funding
* We haven't spent up big on defence in real terms. We need to spend more.
* Lets rob one service to pay for another. All services are pretty thin, robbing one will just cause infighting to explode and degrade all services.

Nuclear
* There is no nuclear debate in Australia and our current policy is wrong, so very wrong.
* This has large effects inside and outside australia.

Personally I think yes we need a nuclear industry. We should outline sites now where facilities could be located so people get used to the idea. With nuclear isomers and other related technology comming online in the future we can not longer ignore this with our head in the sands of ignorance. It would be like Australia not allowing electricity because it is dangerous and thus living 1880's style in a 2011 world.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Its an interesting article. And does raise some points:

Subs
*

1. Labor is unwilling to commit serious dollars to a collins II project under its current regime. Too much risk for politicans (not driven by actual compency of the subs).
2. * We are now pushing into the cost area of nuclear submarines.
3. * We have a particular need of our subs that conventionals don't usually have.
4. * (we might push to basically have conventional Virginas, however approprate that is)

2) not really, but its tied to local build issues and the cost is about sustainment on through life - not on build
4) nope

Funding

1. * We haven't spent up big on defence in real terms. We need to spend more.
2. * Lets rob one service to pay for another. All services are pretty thin, robbing one will just cause infighting to explode and degrade all services.

1) bottom line whether they argue that its accounted for or not, is that money allocated to civli programs has taken a belting - and that Defence is now looking like the fattened calf under these circumstances - hence why a few programs are at risk. JSF isn't, Subs aren't.

2) separate service issues are not as pronounced even though the assets might appear to be service specific. programs are invariably chaired by another service member and rotate. Services can't stovepipe service specific interests as all services are involved in the blessing. Single service bias can't occur through playing off the services. Govt makes the decisions, not the uniforms. Ministerial staff are not public servants - different employment conditions etc....

If I was going to be flippant and generalise out of convenience I'd argue that Ministerial Staff are loyal to the Minister, whereas Public Servants have an obligation to the national interest. There is a subtle difference. I say that as someone who worked in Ministerial Support and saw the day to day impacts of ministerial staff who thought that they had been imbued with god like powers because they worked to a Minister. To be fair, a lot of Ministers are unaware of how much damage their staff can do through rampant ego - it doesn't help though if the Minister is also an egomaniac. (Reith being a perfect example)

Hence, when you see some dumbing down the debate to people within the ADO stuffing up it is a convenient popular but invariably ill informed view which resonates with the public but which is usually as accurate as a Tom Clancy novel being used for tactical planning.

 

[alexsa]

Its an interesting article. And does raise some points:

.......Personally I think yes we need a nuclear industry. We should outline sites now where facilities could be located so people get used to the idea. With nuclear isomers and other related technology comming online in the future we can not longer ignore this with our head in the sands of ignorance. It would be like Australia not allowing electricity because it is dangerous and thus living 1880's style in a 2011 world.

I don't disagree but a lot of politicians and the public are very ignorant about nuclear power and propulsions systems. For power generation most are not aware that thorium is an option and almos zero understanding about the manufacture of Uranium fuel rods and the need for reprocessing.

Look at the storm over the waste site (called a dump to add the emotive slant to it). Most of this waste occurs as a result of radiopharmacuital production and i don't see anybody objecting to that service reamining available.............. they all protest about the dump.

I spoke to a pollie on a a plane and he stted categorically that nuclear was bad and he wouel never support it. I ask if he understood the technicalities of the process and he addimited he did not but that did no alter his opinion.

All pretty tragic, until the public and the politicians are educated and the issues is examined objectively I don't think it has a snow balls hope in hell.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Its an interesting article. And does raise some points:

Subs
* Labor is unwilling to commit serious dollars to a collins II project under its current regime. Too much risk for politicans (not driven by actual compency of the subs).
* We are now pushing into the cost area of nuclear submarines.
* We have a particular need of our subs that conventionals don't usually have.
* (we might push to basically have conventional Virginas, however approprate that is)

Funding
* We haven't spent up big on defence in real terms. We need to spend more.
* Lets rob one service to pay for another. All services are pretty thin, robbing one will just cause infighting to explode and degrade all services.

Nuclear
* There is no nuclear debate in Australia and our current policy is wrong, so very wrong.
* This has large effects inside and outside australia.

Personally I think yes we need a nuclear industry. We should outline sites now where facilities could be located so people get used to the idea. With nuclear isomers and other related technology comming online in the future we can not longer ignore this with our head in the sands of ignorance. It would be like Australia not allowing electricity because it is dangerous and thus living 1880's style in a 2011 world.

The current Labor government is anti-nuclear and with what happened in Japan they won't for some time. Although luckily people have short memories. Although Anna Bligh however seems to if not support it wants a review at least. And Colin Barnett strongly supports nuclear power. Unfortunately however this will not change as long as the Greens have Labor by the balls and are "nuclearphobic".

 

[Kirkzzy]

All pretty tragic, until the public and the politicians are educated and the issues is examined objectively I don't think it has a snow balls hope in hell.

Misinformation is society's biggest enemy today.

 

[alexsa]

Misinformation is society's biggest enemy today.

Just so you know what you are up against. a summary fo the Greens objectives

For the Greens, a pristine global environment represents earthly perfection. It underpins their “ecological wisdom”[41] and is at the core of the new ethic.[42] It is to be protected and promoted at all costs. Hence, all old growth forests are to be locked up;[43] logging is to be prohibited; wealth is to be scorned;[44] economic growth is opposed;[45] exclusive ownership of property is questioned;[46] there should be a moratorium of fossil fuels exploration;[47] dam construction should be discouraged;[48] genetic engineering and agricultural monoculture is rejected;[49] world trade should be reduced;[50] and a barter economy encouraged.[51]

It explains why the Greens believe the world’s population is excessive and should be reduced,[52] and why human consumption should be cut.[53]
The Greens also call for “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be amended to include rights to a healthy natural environment and intergenerational rights to natural and cultural resources”.[54] In turn, the Greens would be able to rely on international courts and fora to press their agenda. It also explains their concept of “intergenerational rights”:[55] a concept squarely aimed at the defence of their belief in “Gaia”, or the perfect pristine earthly environment.

Basically a non agressive agrerain society with reduce population which regionally insular. I do agree with managed population reduction as we cannot keep growing but this manefesto concerns me as it implies individual rights are secondary to the outcome.

Don't know if some of the emerging powers would care to join in either.

Quadrant Online - The Greens' Agenda, in Their Own Words

 

[gf0012-aust]

It might pay to return to topic. As I have contributed to this derailment I can see some of my fellow Mods belting me over the head as well..

 

[alexsa]

It might pay to return to topic. As I have contributed to this derailment I can see some of my fellow Mods belting me over the head as well..

My bad, sorry about that.hwell

In short I love the idea of going Nuclear but don't see it happening.

 

[gf0012-aust]

My bad, sorry about that.hwell

In short I love the idea of going Nuclear but don't see it happening.

no need to apol, I kind of started and then dragged the train off the rails....

as for nuclear - in GF's world I'd love to see a nuke engined sub fleet....sustainment cost ratios are better....etc...

 

[Volkodav]

no need to apol, I kind of started and then dragged the train off the rails....

as for nuclear - in GF's world I'd love to see a nuke engined sub fleet....sustainment cost ratios are better....etc...

Nuclear propulsion fits well with small to medium sized navies of wealthy nations where the true limitations are in crewing and sustainment rather than unit cost, i.e. the individual capability and persistance of each of a limited number of platforms out weighs the advantages of being able to afford additional conventionally powered hulls.

This true for submarines but also for surface combatants. The USN built 27 conventional Ticonderoga class AEGIS CGs (originally DDGs) inplace of a class of AEGIS CGNs as numbers were more important than individual capability. The RAN on the otherhand never has more than couple of first rate surface combatants so, on the basis that there is no economy of scale, could justify spending more up front to gain the greater sustainability and capability provided by nuclear powered vessels.

Now I will wait to get shot down.