Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

I was under the impression he was suggesting the same size displacement not reduced as tech improves with propulsion systems it might be more viable to go with a proven design

Physically larger subs are for a purpose - the fundamental requirements for a country like australia to continue to field long range capability and submarine strike are starting to be met by other technology solutiuons.

we don't need a virginia size sub to achieve long range objectives and strike.

 

[t68]

Physically larger subs are for a purpose - the fundamental requirements for a country like australia to continue to field long range capability and submarine strike are starting to be met by other technology solutiuons.

we don't need a virginia size sub to achieve long range objectives and strike.

I thought it was being a requirement, I am only guessing here but the larger the sub the more space for battery storage, longer subsurface transit/loiter times.

When the design of Collins came about it had a requirement for further range/speed, it was originally spec’d for submerged transit of 16 knots over 10; 000nm but reduced to 10 knots over 9,000nm but had to be comprised due to battery power output

 

[gf0012-aust]

I thought it was being a requirement, I am only guessing here but the larger the sub the more space for battery storage, longer subsurface transit/loiter times.[

Newgen technologies doesn't require the same battery space to achieve the same relative output. Range is more than just battery capacity etc..

When the design of Collins came about it had a requirement for further range/speed, it was originally spec’d for submerged transit of 16 knots over 10; 000nm but reduced to 10 knots over 9,000nm but had to be comprised due to battery power output

I worked on Collins at various points. It's more complicated than that.

Bow/front hull design was awful - certain knots impacted upon acoustic mgt issues. Fixed through Australian developed sig mgt tech and the cousins stepping in and providing nuke sub technology/facilities

initial batteries were awful - first generation but actually quite good for first gen. again, nugatory problem with current tech.

there are a few errors in that book (and I assume you're sourcing off the most recent pub).

generally a good read - but misses out on a number of critical details. some would have been excluded out of national interest sensitivities, but nonetheless...

 

[swerve]

Submarine design is an area where Australian co-operation with the Japanese would seem to make a great deal of sense, if political agreement could be reached - which is, of course, the difficult bit. Very difficult, but not necessarily impossible. Japan has for many years had a standing exception to its military equipment export licencing requirement (i.e. export ban), covering joint projects with the USA, & it was stated a couple of years ago that there is no objection, in principle, to similar arrangements with other friendly countries. The context for this was a possible Eurofighter deal, in which Japan was being offered joint development of future enhancements, but it could, in theory, apply to other joint projects.

I have no inside information, of course, but from my distant viewpoint Australian & Japanese submarine requirements appear remarkably similar. Both want long-range, high-performance, conventionally-powered subs.

 

[Navor86]

Im trying to dig up some quotes and ciataions,but it seems that RAN wants to have a dedicated Diver Team with the same Capabilities like US Navy Seals in terms of DA and SR and other SOF Tasks. As it seems talk is about a 200 Man Team withe core drown from CD Maritime Tactical Operations Element Platoons and than will split into a traditional CD Team withe EOD/Battle Damage Repair and a SEAL/SBS Team.
Sounds like a logical step after the RAAF sets up ist own SOF

 

[gf0012-aust]

Im trying to dig up some quotes and ciataions,but it seems that RAN wants to have a dedicated Diver Team with the same Capabilities like US Navy Seals in terms of DA and SR and other SOF Tasks. As it seems talk is about a 200 Man Team withe core drown from CD Maritime Tactical Operations Element Platoons and than will split into a traditional CD Team withe EOD/Battle Damage Repair and a SEAL/SBS Team.
Sounds like a logical step after the RAAF sets up ist own SOF

I'd have to say that I have a strong degree of doubt re this. I'll check with one of the blokes doing the RAN part of the WhitePaper.

If you have an ADF email addy I'll explain why. PM me if you do.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was under the impression he was suggesting the same size displacement not reduced as tech improves with propulsion systems it might be more viable to go with a proven design

It was all about demonstrating the kind of capability the new tech brings to the table. Of course sanitised for open source.

What will really drive the design for the Sea 1000 and for the force structure is what the Government wants done on the other end. Ie what kind of things being done underwater and over how much area and in how many spaces.

Using the Virginia benchmark gave the opportunity to say do you want all this high end stuff - like a Virginia SSN - in a conventional form. Even then the design was using current technology, stuff that is in boats right now. Come 2020 that stuff, especially batteries, is going to look steam powered.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Im trying to dig up some quotes and ciataions,but it seems that RAN wants to have a dedicated Diver Team with the same Capabilities like US Navy Seals in terms of DA and SR and other SOF Tasks. As it seems talk is about a 200 Man Team withe core drown from CD Maritime Tactical Operations Element Platoons and than will split into a traditional CD Team withe EOD/Battle Damage Repair and a SEAL/SBS Team.
Sounds like a logical step after the RAAF sets up ist own SOF

The RAAF isn't setting up its own SOF in DA/SR sense but the Special Tactics capability is to develop a dedicated operationally deployable terminal attack control and forward air control capability. So the RAAF can own the bomb from build to bang. It will also - hopefully - leverage some other USAF style SOF capabilities like the forward airfield guys.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The RAAF isn't setting up its own SOF in DA/SR sense but the Special Tactics capability is to develop a dedicated operationally deployable terminal attack control and forward air control capability. So the RAAF can own the bomb from build to bang. It will also - hopefully - leverage some other USAF style SOF capabilities like the forward airfield guys.

The main prob being that this particular prog is already "off the reservation"

 

[gf0012-aust]

Come 2020 that stuff, especially batteries, is going to look steam powered.

exactly 2020 will be a quantum leap in a number of techs, some of which are already mature but not at a military deployable level.

by 2020 they will be, and even more likely they'll be redundant tech compared to other emergent opportunities.

the need for big displacement subs to perform australian/japanese/US/UK mission profiles is rapidly diminishing

 

[diggumsbang]

Will it be necessary to upgrade infrastructure at Fleet Base West (HMAS Stirling)?

Hi guys,

I was curious as to whether there will be a requirement to upgrade existing wharf facilities and/or supporting infrastructure at FBW once the Canberra Class LHD's come online? I am unsure whether there are currently adequate facilities to support loading/unloading of the current amphibious ships at the moment?

Or would this be typically carried out in the Fremantle harbour if it was ever required?

Thanks,

Anthony

 

[Sea Toby]

When the ships were bought, there were plans to upgrade several ports around Australia for their use. I am not even sure where Australia will home base the LHDs, but one could assume Fleet base East and/or West would be most likely.
If a port can handle a large containership, they should be able to handle the LHDs as well. The LHDs are 230 meters in length.

I am more worried about drydocking the ships. I have read that there are plenty of drydocks which can handle them in Australia, including Garden Island.

 

[StevoJH]

When the ships were bought, there were plans to upgrade several ports around Australia for their use. I am not even sure where Australia will home base the LHDs, but one could assume Fleet base East and/or West would be most likely.
If a port can handle a large containership, they should be able to handle the LHDs as well. The LHDs are 230 meters in length.

I am more worried about drydocking the ships. I have read that there are plenty of drydocks which can handle them in Australia, including Garden Island.

Garden Island can easily handle them, it was designed and built as a back up to the dry docks in Singapore and was built large enough to handle all the British Carriers and battleships of the WWII era. Its 1,140 feet long, 147 feet wide and 45 feet deep. Big enough to fit even a Nimitz class carrier.

 

[Todjaeger]

Garden Island can easily handle them, it was designed and built as a back up to the dry docks in Singapore and was built large enough to handle all the British Carriers and battleships of the WWII era. Its 1,140 feet long, 147 feet wide and 45 feet deep. Big enough to fit even a Nimitz class carrier.

As an aside, I believe the Garden Island dock is actually the largest graving dock in the southern hemisphere. If anything below the equator would be sufficient, it should be.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The "Vung Tau Ferry" that is being built for the AMC at Henderson, WA (a mobile dock/pontoon being used to lift vessels to the hard stand) has a growth option to make it big enough to lift an LHD. However the LHDs will be based at FBE in place of the Kanmibla class LPAs.

As for docking I doubt they would use FBW to lift any loads because its such a long drive from where everything is in the greater Perth region. Fremantle or Henderson would be better options. Being an LHD its designed for taking onboard loads without much infrastructure. With two roll on roll off ramps on the starboard side it just needs a wharf.

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall, one of the piers at Williamstown will either have to be lengthened or its area dredged to fit out the LHDs. As I look at Google Earth the pier looks long enough to me, but I have no idea how deep the waters are around this pier. Whatever the reason, whatever the small costs, if any is needed I am sure whatever will get done. Fitting out piers aren't as expensive as drydocks.

As I look at Goggle Earth I wonder whether there are enough housing units for the crew nearby. Maybe a few apartments (quarters) are needed as well. Even if this is so, I expect some will be built if necessary. Being an American who has never been to Williamstown, I am sure the Aussies would be a bit more informed.

 

[StevoJH]

As an aside, I believe the Garden Island dock is actually the largest graving dock in the southern hemisphere. If anything below the equator would be sufficient, it should be.

-Cheers

There might be a bigger one in Brazil or one of the other South American countries now, but i'm not sure. There is a Dock in Brisbane owned by fornac's, that is also capable of fitting the LHD's.

It seems their site in Newcastle constructed HMAS Tobruk and Aurora Australis. With a 150metre undercover construction shed i wonder if they would be possible bidders for the ANZAC replacement.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would like to think they home port one in WA and one on the East coast (sydney).

While crewing the ship itself is not a massive task. Assembling 1000+ personel, landing craft, bushmasters, doctors, escorts vessels, stores, helicopters, fuel etc is a huge task. And to do it quickly.

If you wanted to surge both at the same time you would want them in two seperate ports.

Hence my favour for a two fleet (indian and pacific) system. Which would also solve many manning issues (subs, surface ships etc).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

They will both be based at FBE (Sydney). The ADAS is designed to carry 2,000 soldiers, a 1,200 combined arms battlegroup and a 800 support group (including helos). Both LHDs are needed in order to carry this minimum force to carry out and sustain a landing. Any half decent port can handle the onload to the LHDs, the number of vehicles, stores and troops is a drop in the ocean compared to the civil trade movements that go on daily.

You can't assemble an amphibious group from two sides of the country. More important than fast loading is loading a formed unit made up of sub units and commanders who know how to work together. Also there is no potential amphibious landing force in Perth. After the HNA/ELF is complete there will be such units in Townsville (3), Brisbane (3), Adelaide (1) and Darwin (3). The LHDs will sail to where the landing group is and onload them.

 

[ThePuss]

FBW has a pier that would be big enough to take the LHD,s as I have seen a massive USNS prepositioning ship along side there a few years back.
Not a big issue though as east based ships rarley come to FBW, they all go to Fremantle as that town is MUCH more fun than Rockingham! :