Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[old faithful]

There was a reason for my warning, and i can't exactly disagree, there are a few dumb guys in the faculty, but like any job i can point out more then a few across the base in other blocks and training facultys.
Because the bosun job is not a trade or "skill" everyone thinks they can do it,but i've seen enough people try and shoot a gun at Recruit School to know that it must be a little more complicated then it seems.since BMs do mostly "manual" sort of work,the Puss feels its the dumbarse job, like Infantry in Army. you'd be surprised if you met a few rather then just narrow minded

Like i said, choose away, theres a big demand for everything at the moment, if you want to mentally challenge yourself, CIS or ATV is best bet, if you want to grease yourself up, MT. If you prefer sleeping all day, ET and Steward, and manual work goes to BM, and yes its call BM cause we can't spell BUM:coffee
Hey i'm only here for 2yrs then skipping off to Creswell, just going to enjoy my time inbetween

Dumbarse job like infantry?:lul It amazes me that people would join the defence force and look for a job to....serve tea and bickies as a steward...:shudder surely such people would be better off in a cafe in oxford st or somewhere.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Dumbarse job like infantry?:lul It amazes me that people would join the defence force and look for a job to....serve tea and bickies as a steward...:shudder surely such people would be better off in a cafe in oxford st or somewhere.

I suppose everyone needs to be able to serve in the ADF to their ability, not everyone has the ability or character to serve in infantry or frontline, just like many to have the know ho to be a pilot, just working to your strengths I reckon.

 

[Sea Toby]

The Navy needs to fill every job, that is true, but us old sailors know that the technical jobs receive much more salaries in the civilian world, along with extra resigning bonuses in the navy. In some of the technical trades, advancement in rank is quicker. But if you don't have the math and science skills, there is nothing wrong with being a boatswains mate. At times even the technical trades have to do the chipping and painting a sailor has to do to maintain the ship, at least in their areas of the ship.

 

[old faithful]

I suppose everyone needs to be able to serve in the ADF to their ability, not everyone has the ability or character to serve in infantry or frontline, just like many to have the know ho to be a pilot, just working to your strengths I reckon.

if potential recruits DONT have the ability or character to serve as an infantryman, then recruiting are not doing their job! Every soldier is an infantry man first! Recruit training is the first step, and every recruit is trained as an infantry soldier...to a point. My point is, that a boatswains mate is a job that keeps the warship running, a very important job. A war ship can operate without a steward, but not with out a boatswains mate. same as army, without infantry, there is no army, every other job in the army supports infantry.

 

[RubiconNZ]

if potential recruits DONT have the ability or character to serve as an infantryman, then recruiting are not doing their job! Every soldier is an infantry man first! Recruit training is the first step, and every recruit is trained as an infantry soldier...to a point. My point is, that a boatswains mate is a job that keeps the warship running, a very important job. A war ship can operate without a steward, but not with out a boatswains mate. same as army, without infantry, there is no army, every other job in the army supports infantry.

Good point, reassuring to know the ADF operates in such a manner.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

A warship / submarine needs a lot of people to be able to fight and win at sea.
My point is if you are smart enough to do something a little more challenging then why not.
Technical jobs will keep you more interested in your work, shooting and cleaning rifles is only fun for so long.:shudder
I was in the Navy for 13 years on DDG's Oberon's and Collins class boats i have met alot of BM's in my time most of them are pretty simple.
One of my best mates was a Bm he changed over to a ET and now is at RMIT doing a electrical engineering degree.
He could not stand being a BM.
Everyone in the navy is trained in seamanship skills you can do with out bosuns mates.
But if there was no BM's all the techo's would have to do alot of shit jobs.nfloorl:

 

[PeterM]

Has there been any news on the potential LSD to support the Canberra class?

I would imagine that the LSD options would likely be between two existing designs:

UK - Albion class LPD (16,980t, 18kts)
300 troops (600 emergency)
up to 70 vehicles (including Challenger II)
4 LCU, 4 LVP
2 medium helicoptors (NH90 size)


Spain - Galicia (13,900t, 20 kts)
543 troops
130 armoured personnel carriers or 33 main battle tanks,
six LCVP landing or a combination of LCM, LCU and LCVP
6 medium helicoptors (NH 90 size)

I imagine the Galicia would be the leading contender, but Albion would be in the mix and replaced Tobruk's RN equivalent.


I don't consider the US LPD-17 (25,300t) as a realistic option due to much higher costs

 

[swerve]

Has there been any news on the potential LSD to support the Canberra class?

I would imagine that the LSD options would likely be between two existing designs:

UK - Albion class LPD (16,980t, 18kts)
300 troops (600 emergency)
up to 70 vehicles (including Challenger II)
4 LCU, 4 LVP
2 medium helicoptors (NH90 size)

Spain - Galicia (13,900t, 20 kts)
543 troops
130 armoured personnel carriers or 33 main battle tanks,
six LCVP landing or a combination of LCM, LCU and LCVP
6 medium helicoptors (NH 90 size)

I imagine the Galicia would be the leading contender, but Albion would be in the mix and replaced Tobruk's RN equivalent.

I don't consider the US LPD-17 (25,300t) as a realistic option due to much higher costs

The Dutch have a larger version of the Galicia/Rotterdam class, Johann de Witt, 16680 tons full load. Should be significantly cheaper than Albion.

http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/lpd.htm

Or for a straight LSD, rather than LPD, a Bay-class (16000 tons) or similar. Like Galicia & Johann de Witt, it's a variant of the Schelde Enforcer family.

But if the RAN is looking for more of a straightforward transport ship, it may not need a dock, & a lightly militarised ro-ro like the Point-class (22000 tons), but perhaps bigger, as StingrayOz says, could fit the bill - and should be much cheaper per ton than an LSD or LPD.

 

[Sea Toby]

No specifications have been made. The third amphibious ship could end up as a carrier version of the Juan Carlos I, at the high end down to something similar to the MV Zeran, a 13000 ton container ro-ro cargo ship Ireland hired to move its army equipment. Speculation has included a ship much alike the Bob Hope class, to the Rotterdams LHD or LSD, to a larger Canterbury type or the same, to just a ro-ro container ship, not to mention an Austal styled high speed ferry. Speculation is just that speculation, I would think its best to wait for some speculations laid down, and then there will be even more speculation. Images of all of these type of ships can be googled. Australia should settle for nothing less than a Canterbury. The former admiral in chief wanted a third Canberra, designed as a carrier, LPH.

With Labor back into power, I would suspect Labor will rein in the former Liberal government's defence department's purse strings. I would expect either a Rotterdam LPD, LSD or a larger Merwede Canterbury. With a new government writing the white paper, the third ship may disappear. This one act alone could save half the funds they say that defense is overspending, i.e. a third Canberra. And this is with the F-35 pending. Considering that the RAN will discard the three current amphibious ships, and four of its FFG-7s during the next decade, the RAN may not be able to crew a third ship.

 

[PeterM]

The Dutch have a larger version of the Galicia/Rotterdam class, Johann de Witt, 16680 tons full load. Should be significantly cheaper than Albion.

Or for a straight LSD, rather than LPD, a Bay-class (16000 tons) or similar. Like Galicia & Johann de Witt, it's a variant of the Schelde Enforcer family.

But if the RAN is looking for more of a straightforward transport ship, it may not need a dock, & a lightly militarised ro-ro like the Point-class (22000 tons), but perhaps bigger, as StingrayOz says, could fit the bill - and should be much cheaper per ton than an LSD or LPD.

The larger version of the Galicia/Rotterdam looks interesting. It seems that the main difference between the Rotterdam and the Johann de Witt is that the latter will be equipped with command and control facilities for a combined joint task force. With the two Canberra class, this is probably not needed, I think the slightly smaller and cheaper option is more likely.

It is worth mentioning that our current vessels:

HMAS Tobruk:
5,800 tons, Length: 126m, Beam: 10m, Draught: 4.9m, Speed 16kts
300 troops, 18 Leopard Is, 40 APCs, 2 LCM-8, 2 LCVPs, helicopter landing only

HMAS Kanimbla:
8,534 tons, Length: 159.2m, Beam: 21.2m, Draught: 5.3m, Speed 22 Kts
400 troops, 955 square metres of useable tank deck space, 2 LCM-8 and 3 Med Helicoptors

Galicia:
13,900t, Length: 166.20m, Beam: 25.00m, Draft: 5.80m, Speed: 20 kts

A Galicia/Rotterdam would offer a substantial increase in capability. Of particular utility will be the ability to carry up to 6 LCUs, allowing us to effectively deploy our M1A1 MBTs (Canberra Class carry 4 LCM), something that the LCM-8 cannot do.

It would be likely that Navantia would be a primary contractor considering they are already in that role with both the AWDs and Canberra class, allowing us to leverage existing relationships and methodologies.

 

[PeterM]

I have found it difficult to dig up more than sketchy info as to what exactly the LHDs (and the projected additional sealift ship) are to be able to embark. I have one close naval contact but he is not associated with the project and even if he was he would certainly not reveal info that was not in the public domain. Also I imagine that the lift capability is really an army matter unless the ships were serving in a secondary sea control or command function.

Here is a some very good info on the Canberra class

navy.gov.au/spc/semaphore/2007_14.pdf

 

[Tasman]

Here is a some very good info on the Canberra class

navy.gov.au/spc/semaphore/2007_14.pdf

I seem to remember discussing this in the RAN thread. The aviation component shown in the navy semaphore site is less than half what could actually be carried by a Canberra class LHD and probably describes a typical peacetime complement. The Canberra's will be capable of carrying 12 MRH-90 type helos in the hangar and a further half dozen, or more, could be carried on the flight deck. The suggested complement of 8 MRH-90/Tiger ARH helos seems rather small (although it is double what can be carried by the existing LPAs!).

Re the Tobruck replacement I agree with Sea Toby. Until such time as the specifications for the third amphibious ship are announced we can do nothing but speculate. We know that the retiring navy chief wants a third Canberra class (possibly aviation enhanced) and I would personally love to see that. As has been stated elsewhere, in the sealift role a Canberra class LHD could operate with a skeleton crew whilst at the other end of the spectrum it could provide additional aviation support. Above all, a third LHD would ensure that at least two would usually be available for operations. However, as Sea Toby pointed out, the navy now finds itself in changed circumstances and a third LHD may have to make way for a cheaper alternative. Until the White Paper determines the future direction of Australia's amphibious requirements it is very difficult to try and predict what kind of ship (or ships) will fill the backup sealift role. The best case scenario is probably an aviation enhanced LHD. The worst case may be no replacement at all! :shudder

Tas

 

[swerve]

...A Galicia/Rotterdam would offer a substantial increase in capability. Of particular utility will be the ability to carry up to 6 LCUs, allowing us to effectively deploy our M1A1 MBTs (Canberra Class carry 4 LCM), something that the LCM-8 cannot do.

Schelde also offer smaller versions.

The LHDs will be able to deploy the MBTs, as long as the right landing craft (e.g. the Spanish LCM-1E landing craft, capable of carrying a Leopard 2E or M1A1) are bought.

 

[werty]

canberra class landing helicopter dock

THE Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion wish list that includes an aircraft carrier, extra destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarines.

It wants a third 26,000-tonne amphibious transport ship equipped with vertical-takeoff jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer to defend the big ships and submarine-launched cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away.

The list comes as the Navy can barely find enough technically qualified sailors to crew its existing fleet.

Displacement: 27,851 tonnes (30,700 tons) maximum
Length: 230.8 m (760 ft)

capacity to transport up to 1,000 troops and 150 vehicles, including the new M1A1 Abrams tank
Taxpayers will spend more than $11 billion to provide the Navy with the two 26,000-tonne amphibious ships and three air-warfare destroyers equipped with 48 vertical launch missile cells. The two amphibious ships, known as landing helicopter docks, are capable of carrying more than 1000 fully equipped troops and heavy vehicles such as tanks and armoured trucks.

The Navy wants a third to carry vertical-takeoff and short-landing jets to provide it with a carrier-based force projection capability.

a small aircraft would be awsum for the RAN with the f-35b even better....

link: find later

 

[gf0012-aust]

link: find later

I think you'll find that this is already in here somewhere....

on another note, if anyone thinks that JP2048 means mini aircraft carrier capability, then they're incredibly optimistic.

 

[Tasman]

I think you'll find that this is already in here somewhere....

Yep, it was an article written by Ian McPhedran four weeks ago and reported in Post 1085 on P73 in this thread.

Tas

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yep, it was an article written by Ian McPhedran four weeks ago and reported in Post 1085 on P73 in this thread.

Tas

mate, you should have a job as an auditor...

 

[werty]

okk looks like i didnt search hard enough bakk

short note:happy anzac day to all australians an new zealanders we will never forget

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, I'm sure the RAN would love to have another one designed as a light carrier operating F-35Bs, but that would probably mean having three replenishment ships instead of two, plus at least one more air warfare destroyer. This would allow the RAN to operate their Canberras as semi-carriers when not being used as an amphibious assault ship in exercises, even when the carrier is in refit. Without the purchase of the F-35Bs, there is no reason to do so. So far, I have not been convinced of the need to fund either a carrier version, much less the F-35Bs.

While its nice to think of the third amphibious ship as that large, I think the RAN and the government would prefer a smaller sized ship, either moving a company group like the Canterbury or a battalion much like a Rotterdam or larger Canterbury, an image a few pages ago. I think a Canberra sized vessel may be too large for many operations, an overkill.

I shall wait for the new white paper, I expect it should have some specifications for the third amphibious ship. I also expect the white paper will provide information on how much the government is willing to spend too, considering the defence over budget problems the new government claims. One route the new Labor government can take is to spend much less on a third amphibious ship the Liberals may have funded. The new government has many choices to choose, including cancellation depending upon a new white paper.

One thing Labor cannot do is blame the Liberals for buying to small a sea/air lift capacity. Not with the purchase of two Canberras and the four C-17s.

 

[Sea Toby]

Its a given that larger small landing craft capable of handling the M1-A1s are available to be purchased. A new third amphibious ship may be more a ro-ro container cargo ship than an amphibious ship for strategic sea lift instead of tactical sea lift. Labor could buy a ship that costs as little as $150 million instead of $1.5 billion each. The US Navy bought their Bob Hopes, up to 40,000 tons, for about $200 million each. And New Zealand bought their Canterbury, of 8-9,000 tons, for NZ$ 138 million, or around US$ 100 million.