Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[AndyinOz]

This is an interesting turn of events, have the Spanish experienced any issues with the NH90 on the Juan Carlos 1 I assumed they have used the aircraft on the vessel already or at least tried to? Perhaps the Black Hawk family of aircraft that the ADF suggested they wanted might have been the better option in the first place.

 

[Volkodav]

The issue with the Absalons is you don't get something for nothing, meaning they will either be more expensive or less capable than a large frigate or destroyer. Also new designs such as the Type 26 incorporate multi-mission decks that will likely provide more than enough additional capability and flexibility, without impacting adversely on core combat capabilities and missions or cost. At the end of the day we could install gas turbines, an all electric drive, AEGIS, DBR (SPY3 & 4), SM-3 & 6, Tomahawk, a 155mm gun, or rail gun and a HEL (high energy laser) to an LPD, all very cool but so expensive as to be totally impractical.

To me we need a sustainable number of general purpose major combatants, capable of independent operations, a smaller number of vessels capable leading and commanding Australian and multinational task groups, vessels capable of deploying useful numbers of helicopters and UCAVs, vessels capable of ballistic missile defense, extended range air defence of a task force and / or landside assets, all in a high threat environment as well as vessels capable of conducting maritime patrol and interdiction missions within our EEZ and international waters. Bare minimum is three hulls for each capability, preferably more, start adding Absalons to the mix and other capabilities will be impacted, add additional large amphibs and the same happens.

To me the logical thing to do would be build three batch II AWDs, maybe with an AEGIS back end and AUSPAR arrays possibly granting an ABM capability, then build a class off OCVs to supplement the ACPBs potentially using a scaled down CEAFAR system and weapons and other systems pulled through from the FFGs, ESSM, 76mm, Phalanx, Nulka etc. Next would be a class of through deck DDH, pretty much able to do everything an Absalon could do other than NGS and carrying tanks and a lot of things an Absalon could never do. Finally a new class of frigates which depending on budget and threat level would either be light frigates using ASMD systems pulled through from the ANZACs or something much larger and more capable, perhaps even eclipsing the AWDs and F-100 based AUSPARfrigates.

 

[Bluey 006]

If on the other hand you are talking about OPV/OCV's in other 'expanded' roles, then yes, I agree that multiple types are probably more relevant to that specific task, but maybe that should be additional hulls above the stated need for the 20 SEA1180 hulls planned to replace the 26 hulls of the four classes that SEA1180 is proposed to do.

While 20 OPV/OCV concept would be great, a lot has changed since the 2009 white paper when SEA 1180 was envisioned. Even the 2013 hinted that this wasn't going to happen this cycle.

Don't get me wrong John, your thoughts about the crewing etc certainly hold weight but i don't see 20x OPV/OCV (2000 ton vessels) happening at the moment (hopefully I am wrong).


As I have previously stated (in my wish list) as it stands, my preference is to consolidate the four ship classes into two classes of multi-role ships as a potential staged process towards an eventual 20+ OCV minor warfare fleet.

9 x Multi-Mission Offshore Combatant Vessel [OCV] * - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability)
(Based on Damen OPV-2 1800/2400 or BMT Venator)
Builder: Local build by ASC or BAE utilizing the Damen Technical Cooperation system
Aviation: 1x Panther AS 565SB ( or similar) + RQ-21A
Role: Multi mission offshore vessel* (long range EEZ border patrol, ASW,SAR, SUW, Special Forces support, Mine Warfare, Hydrographic survey etc)
Displacement: 1800-2400 tonnes
Initial operating capacity: 2018-2023

*Ability for a minimum of two or three containerised mission modules


12 x Multi Role Littoral Vessels [MRLV]* - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability) – Local build
(Austral MRV 80)
Displacement: 400 tonnes
UAV: 2 x Schiebel Camcopter S-100 or 1 x Panther AS 565SB ( or similar)
Builder: Austral Ships & General Dynamics
Role: Multi mission vessel* (EEZ, SAR, fisheries patrols, counter terrorism/drug/piracy, hydrographic surveys, MCM, pollution control etc)
Initial operating capacity: 2019-2026

*Ability for one or two containerised mission modules

This enhances capability by including some OCV/OPV that can perform long range ocean going patrol and mine warfare tasks of an expeditionary nature in support of major task groups. It also gives us enough ships to support general littoral tasks like border patrol, hydrographic survey and local mine warfare that don't require a 2000t ship.

A 9 x OCV (steel hull) and 12 x MRLV (aluminum) gives us 21 vessels to replace 26 vessels and a high degree of flexibility. Remembering the rule of thirds, this means at the very least we would have 3 x OCV and 4 x MRLV available (7-8 ships) vs the 20 x OCV which under the same principle gives at the very least (6-7 ships). Consider a major operation that required 2 x OCVs to support a task group, under the 20 x OCV model then we only have x4 for all border patrol tasks. Under the 9/12 x OCV/MRLV Model we have x5, which isn't enough but allows for greater coverage. Yes the OCV are more capable but they can't be everywhere at once.

Then there is costs, aluminium ships are usually cheaper to build and yes there are plenty of arguments both ways about the costs benefit of single class/ larger common crews vs multiple classes but majority of them smaller cheaper aluminium ships with smaller crews, none of us can do the financial modelling in an open forum like this so I won't go on to much about that here.

The proposed MRLV (MRV 80) will be significantly more capable than the ACPB with a range not too far off the OCV but they aren't suitable for blue water operations which is why we have the OCV. On the other hand 2000 ton OCV is overkill for many of the tasks required by our minor vessels force, ie: MCM in our homeland harbours etc (yes ROV change the game a bit but still).

This model also splits the builds between Austral for MRV 80 and either ASC or BAE (depending on what else is in the Christmas basket) for the OCV. Delivering some work to multiple locations ( until such time as the "BIG" major combatant decisions can be made).

As others have stated the OCV shouldn't be up gunned to "Light frigate" status (that gives the government an excuse to reduce frigate numbers), but it should IMHO have significant anti-submarine capabilities (perhaps SeaRAM also) in addition to the other assigned roles (MCM,Survey etc).

I also like the idea that a mixed minor warfare fleet could operate as integrated "pods" (1 x OCV/OPV + 2 MRLV + MALE UAV) providing a layered solution in key areas (North West Australia for example) providing almost complete coverage over the zone


Everyone has their own opinions suppose...whatever happens, I hope we get more capability at an acceptable cost.

...for me the elephant in the room at the moment is the future submarines, their cost, which option is chosen, numbers built and where they are built impacts everything else, and until a decision is final!! on those, everything else is up in the air.

 

[vonnoobie]

Im not sure the Absalon realistically is that great of a vessel. Sure for small nations with limited budget's it would be a great boon but for nations such as Australia who have (or will have) vessel's with a strong ability to launch multiple LCM's, LCH's and Helicopter's having a vessel that can launch just 2 helicopters or require having to be tie up at a port would be a step backwards.

Even if the fund's and crew's could be found for them with out affecting other programs there are other options that would be better such as the Endurance class from Singapore that we know is already suited to our local water's so wont actually have the extra costs associated in modifying it.

Such a proposal should be put on the back burner and only considered once all other program's are running smoothly, No use adding to the current situation if it actually isn't needed.

Volkodav - I reckon most agree that a 3 batch II AWD's is the logical choice, Though that day we start having logical choices in government is that day hell freezes over. If we can at least get a 4th then it should buy the industry a few more years while the government sit's on there a** making thing's more complicated then necessary.

Bluey 006 - Agreed on the MRV 80's, Great concept ship that Austal could easily deliver. Wouldn't rule them out though on being able to perform ASW utilizing Seahawk's in worst case scenarios.

In regard's to the OPV's, Well if we could get 6 of those in exchange for another 3 AWD's then that would be all the better, But almost certain not to happen.

Ideally to me a fleet would consist of:

2 x LHD's (optional 3rd)
6 x AWD's
9 x Frigates
6 x OCV's
12 x OPV's
1 x Bay class
6 x LCH's
12 x Submarines (Optional follow on's, ordered in batches of 3)
2 x SSV's (Rather then a single 15,000t vessel I'd prefer something around size of the RSN Endurance class with an optional 3rd, Gives us more option's in operational use and better inter-operability with the RSN)
3 x Replenishment ships (optional 4th)

Probably reaching on some of it but I like to think it's a fairly capable list.

 

[ASSAIL]

While 20 OPV/OCV concept would be great, a lot has changed since the 2009 white paper when SEA 1180 was envisioned. Even the 2013 hinted that this wasn't going to happen this cycle.

Don't get me wrong John, your thoughts about the crewing etc certainly hold weight but i don't see 20x OPV/OCV (2000 ton vessels) happening at the moment (hopefully I am wrong).


As I have previously stated (in my wish list) as it stands, my preference is to consolidate the four ship classes into two classes of multi-role ships as a potential staged process towards an eventual 20+ OCV minor warfare fleet.

9 x Multi-Mission Offshore Combatant Vessel [OCV] * - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability)
(Based on Damen OPV-2 1800/2400 or BMT Venator)
Builder: Local build by ASC or BAE utilizing the Damen Technical Cooperation system
Aviation: 1x Panther AS 565SB ( or similar) + RQ-21A
Role: Multi mission offshore vessel* (long range EEZ border patrol, ASW,SAR, SUW, Special Forces support, Mine Warfare, Hydrographic survey etc)
Displacement: 1800-2400 tonnes
Initial operating capacity: 2018-2023

*Ability for a minimum of two or three containerised mission modules


12 x Multi Role Littoral Vessels [MRLV]* - (replaces Armidale class, Huon class, Leeuwin class, Paluma class and adds additional capability) – Local build
(Austral MRV 80)
Displacement: 400 tonnes
UAV: 2 x Schiebel Camcopter S-100 or 1 x Panther AS 565SB ( or similar)
Builder: Austral Ships & General Dynamics
Role: Multi mission vessel* (EEZ, SAR, fisheries patrols, counter terrorism/drug/piracy, hydrographic surveys, MCM, pollution control etc)
Initial operating capacity: 2019-2026

*Ability for one or two containerised mission modules

This enhances capability by including some OCV/OPV that can perform long range ocean going patrol and mine warfare tasks of an expeditionary nature in support of major task groups. It also gives us enough ships to support general littoral tasks like border patrol, hydrographic survey and local mine warfare that don't require a 2000t ship.

A 9 x OCV (steel hull) and 12 x MRLV (aluminum) gives us 21 vessels to replace 26 vessels and a high degree of flexibility. Remembering the rule of thirds, this means at the very least we would have 3 x OCV and 4 x MRLV available (7-8 ships) vs the 20 x OCV which under the same principle gives at the very least (6-7 ships). Consider a major operation that required 2 x OCVs to support a task group, under the 20 x OCV model then we only have x4 for all border patrol tasks. Under the 9/12 x OCV/MRLV Model we have x5, which isn't enough but allows for greater coverage. Yes the OCV are more capable but they can't be everywhere at once.

Then there is costs, aluminium ships are usually cheaper to build and yes there are plenty of arguments both ways about the costs benefit of single class/ larger common crews vs multiple classes but majority of them smaller cheaper aluminium ships with smaller crews, none of us can do the financial modelling in an open forum like this so I won't go on to much about that here.

The proposed MRLV (MRV 80) will be significantly more capable than the ACPB with a range not too far off the OCV but they aren't suitable for blue water operations which is why we have the OCV. On the other hand 2000 ton OCV is overkill for many of the tasks required by our minor vessels force, ie: MCM in our homeland harbours etc (yes ROV change the game a bit but still).

This model also splits the builds between Austral for MRV 80 and either ASC or BAE (depending on what else is in the Christmas basket) for the OCV. Delivering some work to multiple locations ( until such time as the "BIG" major combatant decisions can be made).

As others have stated the OCV shouldn't be up gunned to "Light frigate" status (that gives the government an excuse to reduce frigate numbers), but it should IMHO have significant anti-submarine capabilities (perhaps SeaRAM also) in addition to the other assigned roles (MCM,Survey etc).

I also like the idea that a mixed minor warfare fleet could operate as integrated "pods" (1 x OCV/OPV + 2 MRLV + MALE UAV) providing a layered solution in key areas (North West Australia for example) providing almost complete coverage over the zone


Everyone has their own opinions suppose...whatever happens, I hope we get more capability at an acceptable cost.

...for me the elephant in the room at the moment is the future submarines, their cost, which option is chosen, numbers built and where they are built impacts everything else, and until a decision is final!! on those, everything else is up in the air.

I don't normally indulge in wish lists mainly because they're usually made without reference to desired capability and concentrate on platform choices.
However, I do agree with you on SEA 1180. The budget for 20 x 2,000 tonne OPV's is not there but from all available sources it seems that the govt. will try to keep the shipyards going by constructing a number 6 -12? Depending on that number a balance of smaller ACPB replacements may eventuate.
I think we have seen the last of "patrol boat" size vessels post ACPB's That role is adequately and successfully covered by the Customs Marine Unit.
Hints to this effect have been given in speeches by the Defmin, PM and CN all of whom have commented on greater "lethality" for future RAN vessels.

In the meantime I wait patiently for the DWP and DCP without pondering the myriad choices on the international escort market (ships people ships)

 

[t68]

To me the logical thing to do would be build three batch II AWDs
.

Volk,
I agree all this talk on Absalon and DDH are not going to get over the line, moving onto Flight II Hobarts is the right thing to do, will it get the workers back that have been laid off recently that's the overriding question. Get a bit of near certantly for the short term until the next DWP comes out and hope that the politicians have now seen the light in regards to naval shipbuilding, but do not build the next ASW frigate on the F100 hull because it is the easy way out.

 

[vonnoobie]

Volk,
I agree all this talk on Absalon and DDH are not going to get over the line, moving onto Flight II Hobarts is the right thing to do, will it get the workers back that have been laid off recently that's the overriding question. Get a bit of near certantly for the short term until the next DWP comes out and hope that the politicians have now seen the light in regards to naval shipbuilding, but do not build the next ASW frigate on the F100 hull because it is the easy way out.

I'm wondering if we actually need the worker's back that have been laid off? From memory a review into the shipbuilding industry recommended 2,000 or so workers spread around two main shipyards.

As knowledge and skills have improved so has the work productivity so there is less of a need to employ larger amount's of workers.

 

[t68]

I'm wondering if we actually need the worker's back that have been laid off? From memory a review into the shipbuilding industry recommended 2,000 or so workers spread around two main shipyards.

As knowledge and skills have improved so has the work productivity so there is less of a need to employ larger amount's of workers.

Volk and Alexia would be the one in the best position to answer that, but I guess in BAE case their would have been a bit of an overlap between building AWD blocks and the structure for the Canberra's

 

[alexsa]

It is probably too late to avoid the valley of death ... Even if more AWDs were ordered tomorrow. If I were looking for a reasonable quick fix I would look at replacing the LHC first.

Why, we do not have a design or the production line set up. Even a 100m LSH is going to take time to get the logistics of the construction and delivery of blocks or the entire vessel set up along with the supporting logistics arrangements for equipment and systems.

It is not simply a case of lets build this and start next week.

 

[alexsa]

I think Austral can still play a part with the current Bay class Patrol boats to be used as a base line in reduced numbers for inshore work mixed with the Daman 2400 OPV

In regards to the Valley of Death it's already happening, I don't have any inside information in regards to how many ships would be needed to get over the hump but, but a cost benefit analysis I would imagine 3 would be the magical number unless building overseas like the Aviation Support Ship being built in Vietnam

Sorry my night to get a bit cross. The Aviation support ship is NOT a warship and while the hull form shares some commonality with the 2400 ...... it is based on an OSV design so that is no surprise.

The aviation training ship will be a commercial vessel operated by a commercial crew build to merchant ship rules.

 

[t68]

Sorry my night to get a bit cross. The Aviation support ship is NOT a warship and while the hull form shares some commonality with the 2400 ...... it is based on an OSV design so that is no surprise.

The aviation training ship will be a commercial vessel operated by a commercial crew build to merchant ship rules.

My reference to the aviation support ships was for a single build or one off, it being cheaper to build overseas than start up for a one off here in oz

 

[StingrayOZ]

it appears that the new MRH Taipans are having difficulty with high winds on the LHD, "Some issues were encountered starting and stopping rotors under certain environmental conditions," what the conditions were I don't know if it the super structure while the ships is moving above a certain speed and creating a vortex of some sort, hopefully we will know the detail's soon enough

Navy, army helicopters proving difficult to operate in strong winds during sea trials on HMAS Canberra - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Frigates usually have the aviation facilities at the back, fairly protected from wind. The LHD is completely exposed. Much higher, open deck. Still, of all the issues I wouldn't have thought that would be a big one. Many helos have a rotor brake. Most of europe doesn't have a nice sized LHD. Although France, Spain definitely do. Australia hasn't operated a flat top in a long time. Many of our equipment, procedures and experiences have drifted away from "flat top experience".

IMO Australia needs to consolidate its platforms. Every different ship or platform brings its own issues.

IMO Australia is going to have to make a call how important and what priority its Amphibious capability will be. Otherwise we will keep acquiring equipment in a haphazard way with differing requirements driven by something other than amphibious capability.

 

[Stampede]

If I recall correctly, the US Army has a number (~8-10) of Runnymede-class vessels prepositioned in Yokohama, Japan (Similar number pre-po in Kuwait).
The class are also about to experience an extensive SLEP. I believe this will include being re-engined, as the current systems are no longer in production.
So, I honestly find the notion of the RAN leasing a number of the vessels pretty much akin to the fantasy of the US Air Force leasing out C-17s so often seen within the forum.

Thanks for the response
Just looking at ideas for a quick fix for what IMO is a missing capability right now.
Not sure what other options are out there. Maybe a commersical vessel, I really don't know, but I'm sure this class of vessel will be missed and needed before a new class is designed ,selected, and worked up to an operational capacity.
The LCH replacement was not going to be big dollars. It just should have been addressed to avoid the void!

 

[t68]

Frigates usually have the aviation facilities at the back, fairly protected from wind. The LHD is completely exposed. Much higher, open deck. Still, of all the issues I wouldn't have thought that would be a big one. Many helos have a rotor brake. Most of europe doesn't have a nice sized LHD. Although France, Spain definitely do. Australia hasn't operated a flat top in a long time. Many of our equipment, procedures and experiences have drifted away from "flat top experience".

IMO Australia needs to consolidate its platforms. Every different ship or platform brings its own issues.

IMO Australia is going to have to make a call how important and what priority its Amphibious capability will be. Otherwise we will keep acquiring equipment in a haphazard way with differing requirements driven by something other than amphibious capability.

Thanks for that infomation, but I am guessing that the Blackhawks must have had the rotor brakes as Army have used USN assets on a number of ocassions on single flights and multiple spots concurrently. Don't remember hearing anything adverse about those.

 

[Stock]

I don't normally indulge in wish lists mainly because they're usually made without reference to desired capability and concentrate on platform choices.
However, I do agree with you on SEA 1180. The budget for 20 x 2,000 tonne OPV's is not there but from all available sources it seems that the govt. will try to keep the shipyards going by constructing a number 6 -12? Depending on that number a balance of smaller ACPB replacements may eventuate.
I think we have seen the last of "patrol boat" size vessels post ACPB's That role is adequately and successfully covered by the Customs Marine Unit.
Hints to this effect have been given in speeches by the Defmin, PM and CN all of whom have commented on greater "lethality" for future RAN vessels.

In the meantime I wait patiently for the DWP and DCP without pondering the myriad choices on the international escort market (ships people ships)

No idea as to eventual numbers, but then Head of Navy Capability presented a paper at Avalon (late Feb 2015) indicating that Sea 1180 is indeed back on the agenda. Only this time reference was made to an 'OPV' rather than OCV (as per 2012 DCP). The roles envisaged were very much vanilla: patrol, rapid environmental assessment, MCM and HS. No warfighting roles were listed.

 

[Stock]

Why, we do not have a design or the production line set up. Even a 100m LSH is going to take time to get the logistics of the construction and delivery of blocks or the entire vessel set up along with the supporting logistics arrangements for equipment and systems.

It is not simply a case of lets build this and start next week.

Agree. Cannot see work on the OPVs, for instance, commencing within 2 years. The tender, even if it were to be restricted, has not yet been released, let alone a preferred design selected. It is hard, therefore, to imagine contract signature before early 2017 at the most optimistic. No contract, no start work.

As for the LCH-R, I'm not even sure the capability requirement has been finalised yet. Unless the DWP fast-tracks it, I don't expect to see the first vessel this decade.

 

[SASWanabe]

This was good for a laugh.

Garden Island would transform from navy base into 20bn Sydney harbor playground

 

[t68]

This was good for a laugh.

Garden Island would transform from navy base into 20bn Sydney harbor playground

Clover must be drooling into her latte over that proposal

 

[Volkodav]

Agree. Cannot see work on the OPVs, for instance, commencing within 2 years. The tender, even if it were to be restricted, has not yet been released, let alone a preferred design selected. It is hard, therefore, to imagine contract signature before early 2017 at the most optimistic. No contract, no start work.

As for the LCH-R, I'm not even sure the capability requirement has been finalised yet. Unless the DWP fast-tracks it, I don't expect to see the first vessel this decade.

Unfortunately instead of following up the pretty good 2009 DWP with real projects and which could have resulted in orders by 2011/12 Labor instead changed leaders, to the left factions Julia Gillard, and appointed Steven Smith as def min niether of whom gave a stuff about defence or, despite their rhetoric, the defence industry, in particular shipbuilding. All they needed to do was follow normal process and there could have been orders for AORs, OCVs and LCHs in place by 2013.

The smartest move, instead of reorganizing ASC and making pivotal management, engineering and production people redundant in an ultimately wasteful efficiency drive, would have been to leave things as they were and order a fourth AWD as part of the stimulus. The reorg aimed to save money by amalgamating functions across shipbuilding and submarines which saw many experienced ship builders made redundant and their counterparts in submarines given both jobs, which effectively removed almost the entire group of experienced and competent people head hunted at the start of the project to minimize risk, train and mentor the new work force. Thanks Julia and Penny and Steve.

 

[Stock]

Unfortunately instead of following up the pretty good 2009 DWP with real projects and which could have resulted in orders by 2011/12 Labor instead changed leaders, to the left factions Julia Gillard, and appointed Steven Smith as def min niether of whom gave a stuff about defence or, despite their rhetoric, the defence industry, in particular shipbuilding. All they needed to do was follow normal process and there could have been orders for AORs, OCVs and LCHs in place by 2013.

The smartest move, instead of reorganizing ASC and making pivotal management, engineering and production people redundant in an ultimately wasteful efficiency drive, would have been to leave things as they were and order a fourth AWD as part of the stimulus. The reorg aimed to save money by amalgamating functions across shipbuilding and submarines which saw many experienced ship builders made redundant and their counterparts in submarines given both jobs, which effectively removed almost the entire group of experienced and competent people head hunted at the start of the project to minimize risk, train and mentor the new work force. Thanks Julia and Penny and Steve.

And not a single one of them will be held accountable.