Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Bonza]

Hey guys i happen to come across an old recorded documentary on HMAS Melbourne on youtube and it mentioned that when she went to see she had a battle group accompany her. It did not mention what it was but by the footage it was a Perth class and a couple of river class.

My first question is would an Oberon Sub been along for the ride?

Second question is will we see the same sort of escort arrangement when the LHD's are up and running?

Thanks

This is conjecture, so please correct me if I get things wrong.

I assume you mean if the LHD were headed into a hostile environment, as opposed to doing something like regional natural disaster relief. Depending on threat level I think it'd be likely for a Hobart destroyer to be deployed. Other potential companions include a combination of ASW assets sufficient to coordinate a decent sub hunter/killer team - which I'm guessing would include one or more frigates, as well as ASW helos (possibly including some embarked on the LHD itself).

If the sub threat was sufficiently high I think the area would be pretty heavily canvassed by Collins (or its replacement) before and during the LHD's deployment - in fact I'd expect Collins to be the first unit/s on the scene, and to have been operating in the area long before the arrival of the LHD.

As I said this is conjecture, but given the value of the LHDs I can only assume the precautions would be substantial. And I've only mentioned units from the RAN - if there was a friendly airfield in range you can bet the RAAF would have additional assets in the area, and "soft" capabilities, such as reliable and accurate intelligence on opposing forces, should also be considered. And if we're talking about a real high threat area, there's a possibility the RAN are operating as part of an international coalition, which again would alter things somewhat.

I don't know a lot about HMAS Melbourne so can't help you there, sorry. Others here would know though.

 

[ASSAIL]

Hey guys i happen to come across an old recorded documentary on HMAS Melbourne on youtube and it mentioned that when she went to see she had a battle group accompany her. It did not mention what it was but by the footage it was a Perth class and a couple of river class.

My first question is would an Oberon Sub been along for the ride?

Second question is will we see the same sort of escort arrangement when the LHD's are up and running?

Thanks

If Melbourne deployed she would go as an ASW Hunter/killer group. This would include a DDG for terminal air defence, the A4 CAP would be the stand off air defence and the remaining group would be a number of River class, ASW helos and S2 Trackers for ASW. Present also would be Supply the fleet Oiler

To answer your question re subs, the Oberons were not fast enough to be part of the Task Group but would inevitably be independently tasked. A formation such as this would have a Speed of Advance ( net speed towards the destination after taking into account counter measures ie zig zags ) of around 12 - 14 knots, way too fast for an O boat to be effective ( in fact for any conventional boat

 

[harryriedl]

I'm from the North East - I'm pissed off as hell that Swan Hunter were left to die - they had a gap in the order books, then a long chain of work - if something MARS like had slipped in there, I'd have been like a pig in shite (to coin the relevant phrase)

Overdue, overly delayed but yes, when ordered today, we look to be getting the best deal possible.

Swan Hunter poor delivery of Bay's with overruns and BAE taking over project did not enamour them either to HMG or RN. The poor delivery of the two Bay made HMG nervous about ordering anything else from Swan Hunter.

 

[swerve]

Indeed. One ship was delivered late, over budget & needing remedial work, & progress on the second one was so poor that it was taken off Swan Hunter's hands incomplete, after it had already cost more than contracted for, to be completed by BAe.

The MoD didn't want to go anywhere near Swan Hunter after that.

 

[t68]

Not sure about the shipping tycoon story having legs. There was issue with how the ship would be purhased and operated before conversion and how this transaction would be managed.

Yep you were right, I found the project managers story for Sirius. According to this from DMO that the money had not transfered to London upon completion of transfer title and the shop was uninsured Captain Panagiotis Nikolas Tsakos the CEO of Tsako shipping sorted out our problems and any warranty work with the Koreans

What is interesting according to that article the Koreans push out a tanker every nine days and at that time had over 100 orders for ships.


http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/adas/sea1654/getting_sirius.pdf

 

[ASSAIL]

I found the article a bit self congratulatory. Many of the reported routines in buying/financing, chartering, insuring and classing ships may be new to navy but these are routines encountered all the time in commercial maritime operations for ships big and small.
If this exercise is repeated one would hope that Teekay or other entity would be part of the project team from the outset to provide appropriate expertise.
Chris

 

[alexsa]

I found the article a bit self congratulatory. Many of the reported routines in buying/financing, chartering, insuring and classing ships may be new to navy but these are routines encountered all the time in commercial maritime operations for ships big and small.
If this exercise is repeated one would hope that Teekay or other entity would be part of the project team from the outset to provide appropriate expertise.
Chris

I quite agree. It was a cock up not cause for self congratulation. The ship broker will only do as instructed and a letter of credit would have resolved the funding issue as the funds would have been held by a third party bank and transferred as soon as the documents were in place.

Not sure about relying on Teekay all the time but if they knew Teekay would charter (which they did) then they could have had a demise charter in place that would have come into effect a the hand over and that would address crew AND insurance if that was captured in the agreement.

As far as 'record time' for buying a tanker .......... maybe for DMO.

 

[ASSAIL]

I quite agree. It was a cock up not cause for self congratulation. The ship broker will only do as instructed and a letter of credit would have resolved the funding issue as the funds would have been held by a third party bank and transferred as soon as the documents were in place.

Not sure about relying on Teekay all the time but if they knew Teekay would charter (which they did) then they could have had a demise charter in place that would have come into effect a the hand over and that would address crew AND insurance if that was captured in the agreement.

As far as 'record time' for buying a tanker .......... maybe for DMO.

Yep, say no more.

 

[alexsa]

I will add another comment about the DMO paper that deserves its own post...

The statement that the life of a sailor is more demanding than a merchant seaman is one of the most arrogant and delusional statements I have ever seen.

Sorry this is garbage. Merchant seamen spend extended time onboard and work every day while on board (it used to be over 12 months at a time but MLC is cutting that back to 6 months at a time). The ships are at sea for the maximum time as you don't make money sitting in harbour........ only when carrying cargo.

In todays climate merchant seamen have limited opportunity to get ashore (security and the crappy locations of a lot of commercial ports see to this) and cannot head home while onboard as Merchant Ships are not 'home ported' as such. Essentially the do not see much apart from the confines of the ship while onboard.

Dockings are conducted in the minimum time (in and out in the time it take to paint the hull usually) and involve a lot of work for the crew.

Have been an officer in the Navy and in the Merchant Navy I have to say this is the most inaccurate and gross generalisation (absolute twaddle) I have heard. There is a very good reason the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 has been adopted internationally and that is because the lives of many merchant seaman are pretty awful.

Rant over

 

[ASSAIL]

I will add another comment about the DMO paper that deserves its own post...

The statement that the life of a sailor is more demanding than a merchant seaman is one of the most arrogant and delusional statements I have ever seen.

Sorry this is garbage. Merchant seamen spend extended time onboard and work every day while on board (it used to be over 12 months at a time but MLC is cutting that back to 6 months at a time). The ships are at sea for the maximum time as you don't make money sitting in harbour........ only when carrying cargo.

In todays climate merchant seamen have limited opportunity to get ashore (security and the crappy locations of a lot of commercial ports see to this) and cannot head home while onboard as Merchant Ships are not 'home ported' as such. Essentially the do not see much apart from the confines of the ship while onboard.

Dockings are conducted in the minimum time (in and out in the time it take to paint the hull usually) and involve a lot of work for the crew.

Have been an officer in the Navy and in the Merchant Navy I have to say this is the most inaccurate and gross generalisation (absolute twaddle) I have heard. There is a very good reason the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 has been adopted internationally and that is because the lives of many merchant seaman are pretty awful.

Rant over

Much of the misconception about seafarers within Australia are formed by what is known about our major employer, the offshore Gas and oil industry and not about genuine ships of trade or the RPT (regular public transport/ferries), fishing and tourist marine industries. The is no glamour and only hard work in the latter group.

Whist not denying the isolation in the oil and gas industry ships, the EBA's negotiated make life in board very rewarding and not too strenuous and would make the workers in other marine jobs shake their heads with envy.
There is concern by the industry that costs here are out of hand and becoming uncompetitive and yet the MUA shows no restraint (sounds like the automotive industry) For example; costs in Australia are 30% higher than Canada, Integrated seamen are paid $170,000 normal rate and $240,000 for Schedule 8 (construction) work and the MUA is claiming a 26% increase in wages and all allowances over the next 4 yearsExcessive wages threaten Australia's offshore oil and gas industry - Deloitte report - AMMA

Its also of interest to know that the average age of MUA membership is 45yrs.

Although this is not directly related to Alexsa's post, I support everything he ranted about the DMO paper, I've added to it because we often get an unrealistic view of seafarers. Like him I have worked in the commercial marine world, albeit with smaller ships, but both my grand father and my father were Masters in Trading ships. It gives one perspective.
Chris

 

[Sea Toby]

I actually think it has a lot more to do with killing unions and cutting Labors financial lifeline than many think. There is definitely a disproportionate number of white collar non technical people in parliament but the over arching thing seems to be to subsidize, protect and support non unionized sectors and starve unionized ones. Very short sighted but the UK went through similar under Thatcher.

The unions went too far. They were great at providing good salaries and benefits for the workers as they were paid by the workers. Unfortunately, the union advocates and lawyers attempted to run the businesses which led to failure. Simply put, one cannot run a business as if it is a democracy. Thatcher faced a reality of mountains of coal in stock, several years of, and a union, the Labour Party, not willing to face cuts in pay or production. The free enterprise concept of supply and demand won, sound business principles always do especially in a global economy. Everyone wishes to pump more oil, but eventually the well runs dry. Government is great at providing government services, but rarely does a good job running a business, that is turn a profit. The simple truth is that a government will gladly pay meager welfare benefits than provide the masses well paying jobs. Why? It is cheaper. The Australian auto manufacturing is facing this reality, it is cheaper for the government to provide meager welfare benefits than it is to subsidize auto manufacturing. Probably the same with ship building.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well instead of solving the problem, we just get rid of industries that are coming up to the problem first.

So manufacturing, we will just get rid of it because globalisation is just too hard. The FTA are a waste of time if your not going to progress the rest of your economy and industrial relations.

 

[ngatimozart]

Well instead of solving the problem, we just get rid of industries that are coming up to the problem first.

So manufacturing, we will just get rid of it because globalisation is just too hard. The FTA are a waste of time if your not going to progress the rest of your economy and industrial relations.

Off topic and bordering on politics but from the NZ experience FTAs, globalisation and neoliberal economic and social polices have lead to a low wage economy and a very marked increase in deprivation and inequality. However having gone through that pain etc., from the late 1980s we were better situated to ride out the greatest economic storm since the Great Depression. But I wonder if the social price paid is worth it.

 

[Volkodav]

The unions went too far. They were great at providing good salaries and benefits for the workers as they were paid by the workers. Unfortunately, the union advocates and lawyers attempted to run the businesses which led to failure. Simply put, one cannot run a business as if it is a democracy. Thatcher faced a reality of mountains of coal in stock, several years of, and a union, the Labour Party, not willing to face cuts in pay or production. The free enterprise concept of supply and demand won, sound business principles always do especially in a global economy. Everyone wishes to pump more oil, but eventually the well runs dry. Government is great at providing government services, but rarely does a good job running a business, that is turn a profit. The simple truth is that a government will gladly pay meager welfare benefits than provide the masses well paying jobs. Why? It is cheaper. The Australian auto manufacturing is facing this reality, it is cheaper for the government to provide meager welfare benefits than it is to subsidize auto manufacturing. Probably the same with ship building.

What goes around comes around, automotive manufacturing was caught between a high A$ (making imports comparatively cheaper), and low unemployment (both caused by the mining construction boom) and very low, by world standards, tariffs combined with lop sided free trade agreements that put primary producers before manufacturers (both government policies). Well now two of the three remaining manufacturers are shutting shop just as the mining construction boom winds up and the dollar loses 25-30% of its value....Doh!
No local manufacturers plus expensive imports, mmm....hello high inflation and increased cost of living, welcome to the third world, thanks to unions, selfish billionaires and their bought politicians and stupid politicians on the left.

Too cap it all off, where are the next generation of professionals and para professions going to come from with no industry left to train them? Welcome to dumb ar$e bogansville formally known as Australia.

 

[ASSAIL]

What goes around comes around, automotive manufacturing was caught between a high A$ (making imports comparatively cheaper), and low unemployment (both caused by the mining construction boom) and very low, by world standards, tariffs combined with lop sided free trade agreements that put primary producers before manufacturers (both government policies). Well now two of the three remaining manufacturers are shutting shop just as the mining construction boom winds up and the dollar loses 25-30% of its value....Doh!
No local manufacturers plus expensive imports, mmm....hello high inflation and increased cost of living, welcome to the third world, thanks to unions, selfish billionaires and their bought politicians and stupid politicians on the left.

Too cap it all off, where are the next generation of professionals and para professions going to come from with no industry left to train them? Welcome to dumb ar$e bogansville formally known as Australia.

Your wrong about primary producers. Australia abandoned subsidies for primary production during the Hawke Keating years but apparently what the farmers had to endure was too hard for the unions and so manufacturing became inefficient and moribund and primary industry adapted and survived.
Ren
Member that there remain huge agricultural subsidies within the EU and US economies which is costing their taxpayers a motza.

 

[Volkodav]

Your wrong about primary producers. Australia abandoned subsidies for primary production during the Hawke Keating years but apparently what the farmers had to endure was too hard for the unions and so manufacturing became inefficient and moribund and primary industry adapted and survived.
Ren
Member that there remain huge agricultural subsidies within the EU and US economies which is costing their taxpayers a motza.

I was referring to the FTAs granting access to foreign markets while manufactured goods were specifically excluded in some or negated by increased excises or taxes on others. Primary producers still get a lot of support such as rebates on varies excises, taxes and fees other industries have to pay in full. Also look what happens every time there is a drought, bush fire or floods, state and federal governments open the till for the primary producers.

IMO free trade is a bit like communism, great on paper but screws the majority over in reality as it makes the rich richer and the more powerful rich as well.

I worked in manufacturing for many years, not in production but in product development, quality and continuous improvement. I have seen what was achieved and more to the point what could have been achieved but for unions, politicians and greedy or lazy individuals.

If not forced to provide jobs for the dumb and lazy, greater automation could have been used, reducing costs and increasing competitiveness therefore export potential. If fat billionaires weren't given a free ride money could have been available to invest in infrastructure, training and innovation that benefits the economy as a whole.

Basically I believe Australia's political class (both sides), going back 20 years has a lot to answer for.

Anyway, way off topic now, it just fires me up when people judge Australia manufacturing sector on the work ethic (or lack of it) of the blue collar and the decisions of the often imported or otherwise inbred local management, rather than on the worlds best practice efforts and innovations of the poor skilled and talented people being let down by the shop floor and management.

 

[Volkodav]

Back on topic, I notice that both Malaysia and Singapore are looking to building LCS type corvettes / light frigates yet Australia seem fixated on buying another generation of patrol boats.

A bit of extra size, helicopter facilities and sheltered launch facilities for boats and craft would make so much difference to the capability of the patrol fleet. A more durable hull with flexible mission sets would be another boon, but due to increased upfront costs appear very unlikely to get across the line.

It would be nice if someone could actually explain the concept of through life costs to a politician.

 

[ausklr76]

Back on topic, I notice that both Malaysia and Singapore are looking to building LCS type corvettes / light frigates yet Australia seem fixated on buying another generation of patrol boats.

A bit of extra size, helicopter facilities and sheltered launch facilities for boats and craft would make so much difference to the capability of the patrol fleet. A more durable hull with flexible mission sets would be another boon, but due to increased upfront costs appear very unlikely to get across the line.

It would be nice if someone could actually explain the concept of through life costs to a politician.

You dont use frigates or corvettes to catch "illegal maritime arrivals". That is all "Rabbot" and co. seem to be fixated on.

 

[John Newman]

You dont use frigates or corvettes to catch "illegal maritime arrivals". That is all "Rabbot" and co. seem to be fixated on.

I think it's a bit early in the piece to be blaming the current Government for lack of OCV's, Corvettes, etc, they have only been back behind the wheel for a few months. And yes of course they are focusing on illegal arrivals, after all it was one of the main planks in their election campaign.

I think we will all just have to wait and see what the 2015 DWP is going to look like, the new Def Min in some interviews just after the election did talk about LCS type ships.

Things can change, let's not forget that the Rudd Government put up a plan for OCV's in the 2009 DWP and then in the 2013 DWP the Gillard Government put them on the back burner and decided to go with another replacement class of PB's instead.

Potentially the new Government could change that and go back to something like what the 2009 DWP promised when it delivers its new DWP.

Anyway, just have to wait and see!

 

[Volkodav]

You dont use frigates or corvettes to catch "illegal maritime arrivals". That is all "Rabbot" and co. seem to be fixated on.

Well actual we have been using frigates as well because of the limitations of the selected patrol boat design. A helicopter and embarked fast interceptor craft on a larger OPV or OCV would be far better at the current "Sovereign Borders" mission than the ACPB, let alone any of the other intended or possible roles