Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Alf662]

Defence White Paper 2016: Dependency on fuel imports 'a risk' amid South China Sea te

The ABC has just posted an article regarding concerns about fuel supplies and is an interesting read:

Defence White Paper 2016: Dependency on fuel imports 'a risk' amid South China Sea tensions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I am hoping that the white paper will have bipartisan support and not be turned into a political football for short term political agendas.

 

[vonnoobie]

He's quite odd, I get the impression that he is one of the old school light infantry, light forces mafia who pride themselves in their lack of technical knowledge and believe the ANZAC spirit will carry us through with a SMLE/SLR, with fixed bayonet in hand.

Ive worked with a few blokes from the era (old boss is one of them) and even they think he is an idiot, Most know that we need to change and adapt with the times, While the past can provide a lot of useful lessons and idea's that still apply today not all of them do... Some just are too stupidly stubborn.

 

[Alf662]

I actually wonder if it will have more in common with the Rudd/Fitzgibbon "we need to deter China" paper than the Gillard/Smith "out source our security to the USA" one.

What I am particularly curious about, as the OPVs are pretty much a sure thing, is will there be any mention of the light/fast frigates/corvettes that Johnston and Kevin Andrews both seemed so enamoured with. Also what about the LCH replacements, there need not be six, they need not even specifically be flat bottomed with bow doors, but we do need something to fill the gap between the LHDs/LPD and the LCM1E.

I could not understand why the LCH's were retired with no replacement, especially considering how hard they were worked. Any replacement could go in number of different directions and I guess defence really need to bed down the LHD's so that they would be in a better position to really identify any shortcomings and what they need.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I actually wonder if it will have more in common with the Rudd/Fitzgibbon "we need to deter China" paper than the Gillard/Smith "out source our security to the USA" one.

What I am particularly curious about, as the OPVs are pretty much a sure thing, is will there be any mention of the light/fast frigates/corvettes that Johnston and Kevin Andrews both seemed so enamoured with. Also what about the LCH replacements, there need not be six, they need not even specifically be flat bottomed with bow doors, but we do need something to fill the gap between the LHDs/LPD and the LCM1E.

I do think it will be closer to Rudds. Things have become much more complicated than even a few years ago. I don't know who remembers how unbelievable Rudds paper originally sounded, it went in some respects beyond speculation even in fantasy forums. 12 super subs, replacement frigates doubled in sized, ballistic missile protection.

Rudds paper was to prepare for a situation much like what is evolving now.

The LCH is a complete mystery project. I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking at something quite different to their predecessors, hence why no announcement. Probably with some aviation capability, quite possibly much larger or more capable or more mixed. Australia is going to be the amphibious power situated in the region, I don't think that point should be understated. The impact that will have on Army and Navy and Airforce will be significant.

Japan and the US want to send strong signals to China that they are concerned. Australia is definitely part of that message, and our whitepaper should facilitate that.

Personally, I think it should be along Rudds paper but further down the trajectory. Ways and plans to enable a useful but rapid expansion of the capabilities of the ADF, with significant increase over what has already been planned.

Malcolm Turnbull sticks to Tony Abbott's defence spending pledges in long-awaited white paper - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"It does have the result of a higher level of spending on defence.

"We do live in more challenging times and it certainly will reach that 2 per cent of GDP level."

Labor's defence spokesman David Feeney said the Opposition would support increasing spending, as long as it was fiscally responsible.

"The challenge has always been for the Defence White Paper to set out that trajectory, and to do it in a way that it can become a bipartisan commitment," he said.

"The 2 per cent has its origins in Labor Party policy and it's something we'll support so long as it can be set out in a way that is real and tangible."

Bipartisan support for the spending increase. The only discussion is who's idea it was. IMO we should plan for 2.5 or greater (if required). And we should strive to get most out of that 2.5%, squeeze every dollar to go further.

Like I said, the time for dicking around has ended.People are waking up to that fact. Australia needs to put itself in the best position possible.

 

[vonnoobie]

Bipartisan support for the spending increase. The only discussion is who's idea it was. IMO we should plan for 2.5 or greater (if required). And we should strive to get most out of that 2.5%, squeeze every dollar to go further.

Like I said, the time for dicking around has ended.People are waking up to that fact. Australia needs to put itself in the best position possible.

While 2.5% would be desirable i dont think it is realistic, At least not in the short to medium term without some massive militaristic moves by regional countries that would force our hand.

First things first we need to get our acquisition program flowing more smoothly amongst all services, And in my personnal opinion based upon recent talk surrounding land, sea and air assets replace them outright at the 15 - 20 year mark rather then performing midlife upgrades/rebuilds as they still end up costing us more to use at a lower operating capability. Better for the same costs (possibly less) to get something that is more upto date and not restricted/limited in its use due to wear and tear.

Might be that such a system could provide as much benefit as an extra .5% in defence spending.

 

[Punta74]

Should we be expecting any contract announcements with the DWP ?

IE: Sea 1654 / Replenishment Vessel.

 

[Alf662]

I do think it will be closer to Rudds. Things have become much more complicated than even a few years ago. I don't know who remembers how unbelievable Rudds paper originally sounded, it went in some respects beyond speculation even in fantasy forums. 12 super subs, replacement frigates doubled in sized, ballistic missile protection.

Rudds paper was to prepare for a situation much like what is evolving now.

The LCH is a complete mystery project. I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking at something quite different to their predecessors, hence why no announcement. Probably with some aviation capability, quite possibly much larger or more capable or more mixed. Australia is going to be the amphibious power situated in the region, I don't think that point should be understated. The impact that will have on Army and Navy and Airforce will be significant.

Japan and the US want to send strong signals to China that they are concerned. Australia is definitely part of that message, and our whitepaper should facilitate that.

Personally, I think it should be along Rudds paper but further down the trajectory. Ways and plans to enable a useful but rapid expansion of the capabilities of the ADF, with significant increase over what has already been planned.

Malcolm Turnbull sticks to Tony Abbott's defence spending pledges in long-awaited white paper - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)



Bipartisan support for the spending increase. The only discussion is who's idea it was. IMO we should plan for 2.5 or greater (if required). And we should strive to get most out of that 2.5%, squeeze every dollar to go further.

Like I said, the time for dicking around has ended.People are waking up to that fact. Australia needs to put itself in the best position possible.

Bipartisan support for spending would be great as both sides of politics are trying to claim it as an initiative, but will the actual white paper get bipartisan support?

As far as the LCH replacements go, I am hoping that the white paper will shed a little bit more light on time frames & capabilities. I also think that Defence are looking at some thing that will give a lot more capability, but that is only my opinion.

 

[StingrayOZ]

While 2.5% would be desirable i dont think it is realistic, At least not in the short to medium term without some massive militaristic moves by regional countries that would force our hand.

I would say unlikely but certainly possible.

First things first we need to get our acquisition program flowing more smoothly amongst all services, And in my personnal opinion based upon recent talk surrounding land, sea and air assets replace them outright at the 15 - 20 year mark rather then performing midlife upgrades/rebuilds as they still end up costing us more to use at a lower operating capability.

There are other benefits. Having a continuous build makes it fairly easy to be able to increase the size of your fleet. You just start stretching life or do mid life refits.

I wouldn't go to 2.5% immediately, heck it will take 10 years to get to 2%. But we should have plans to get to 2.5 % if required, efficiently. We shouldn't have maxed everything out just to get to 2%. Part of getting to 2% is doing the planing to get to 2.5%.

2% – can we, should we, will we?

Defence budget: 2% target essential for Australia's alliance

Getting to 2% means stronger US backing, but it should be seen as a minimum. It also means other countries will take Australia much more seriously in alliances as we will be walking the walk and bring significant capability.

It seems certain now that we will get to 2%. But its not just about spending money. Its about identifying capability we need and how to get it effectively. Start embedding people in programs we may be interested in the future.

 

[Volkodav]

While 2.5% would be desirable i dont think it is realistic, At least not in the short to medium term without some massive militaristic moves by regional countries that would force our hand.

First things first we need to get our acquisition program flowing more smoothly amongst all services, And in my personnal opinion based upon recent talk surrounding land, sea and air assets replace them outright at the 15 - 20 year mark rather then performing midlife upgrades/rebuilds as they still end up costing us more to use at a lower operating capability. Better for the same costs (possibly less) to get something that is more upto date and not restricted/limited in its use due to wear and tear.

Might be that such a system could provide as much benefit as an extra .5% in defence spending.

Prior to the Washington Naval treaty the planned service lives of destroyers, protected/light cruisers, etc was sixteen years and those of armoured cruisers, battlecruisers and battleships was not much longer at twenty or for ships held in reserve, maybe twenty-five years. If technology advanced in certain critical areas ships were even replaced sooner, i.e. Dreadnoughts themselves, not just younger pre-Dreadnoughts were seen as near useless if not dangerous to use in fleet actions by the start of WWI when Dreadnought herself was only thirteen years old.

Only after this treaty, with its strict restrictions on the minimum age a ship had to be (no mater how tactically useless is was) before it could be replaced was when navies started down the path of upgrading and modernising older ships because they couldn't replace them. This continued during the war to a degree because the atrophied shipbuilding sectors could not build at the rates they once could and there were many additional bottlenecks relating to specialised systems (shortage of particular weapons, mounts, radars, fire controls etc.) and materials. Then post war there was a surplus of newly constructed platforms with, less than state or the art, combat systems and little money for new construction.

To a lesser degree the post WWII situation was repeated in the 90s. The cold was had ended, removing the necessity to renew the fleet, thus instead of replacing destroyers and frigates at twenty to twenty-five years (or less) as we had done in the 60s, 70s and 80s, we were suddenly life extending and retaining them past 30years. The Battle, Daring and River Classes were replaced at about twenty years each, while the succeeding Perth, Adelaide and ANZACS all exceeded, or will exceed thirty years.

Realistically the Perths should have been replaced with Flight 1 Burkes in the early 90s and the Adelaides with Flight IIs in the early 2000s, had we continued with our traditional procurement cycles.

 

[gf0012-aust]

interesting to see that Austal are prepared to set up shop in SA at Techport.....

 

[t68]

interesting to see that Austal are prepared to set up shop in SA at Techport.....

Is that a good or bad omen?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is that a good or bad omen?

its a recognition that state based partisan politics doesn't work and that working smart will..... using extant infrastructure even if in another state is about common sense business

 

[Oberon]

Should we be expecting any contract announcements with the DWP ?

IE: Sea 1654 / Replenishment Vessel.

Unusual to see contract announcements in a white paper; but as the DWP is supposed to be fully costed we should see funds provided for it in the Forward Estimates at Budget time in May.

 

[Volkodav]

Is that a good or bad omen?

Not sure, you should read the employer reviews on Seek about Austal, even the ones that say they're ok complain of poor, disconnected management. My first visit to their Henderson facility I was impressed but as I became more familiar with it I became progressively less impressed, then concerned and now completely unimpressed at how they do business. I believe them to be totally over rated and assume a lot of it is due to the influence of the WA mafia as the reality of their performance is the complete opposite of the public and official perception.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not sure, you should read the employer reviews on Seek about Austal, even the ones that say they're ok complain of poor, disconnected management. My first visit to their Henderson facility I was impressed but as I became more familiar with it I became progressively less impressed, then concerned and now completely unimpressed at how they do business. I believe them to be totally over rated and assume a lot of it is due to the influence of the WA mafia as the reality of their performance is the complete opposite of the public and official perception.

they used to do good work, in fact they were a golden mile ahead of INCAT in build quality...

I'd even suggest that INCAT have now reversed that position.

 

[Jezza]

In the aftermath of Tropical Cyclone Winston which struck the islands of Fiji last weekend Australia has contributed significant Defence assets and personnel to Operation Fiji Assist, with the Minister for Defence confirming that the LHD HMAS Canberra would be despatched to arrive in the disaster zone by March 1.
Operation Fiji Assist widens - LHD deployed

This should be a good test for HMAS Canberra.

 

[Nick underscore]

Very good to see the quick response. Half the Aus C-17 fleet supporting the operation too.

Confident once all the assets in place, Aust & NZ will be well placed to support our SW pacific neighbours, in their time of need.

Really would like us to put in a cheeky offer for another UK Bay..

 

[Trackmaster]

In the aftermath of Tropical Cyclone Winston which struck the islands of Fiji last weekend Australia has contributed significant Defence assets and personnel to Operation Fiji Assist, with the Minister for Defence confirming that the LHD HMAS Canberra would be despatched to arrive in the disaster zone by March 1.
Operation Fiji Assist widens - LHD deployed

This should be a good test for HMAS Canberra.

I understand the Canberra is at Fisherman Island in Brisbane.

I understand she docked yesterday. If supplies are being loaded, it's been very low key.

 

[Volkodav]

they used to do good work, in fact they were a golden mile ahead of INCAT in build quality...

I'd even suggest that INCAT have now reversed that position.

I don't think the US management solution worked out too well for them. I was quite surprised at the culture and vibe of the place, reminded me of a company I worked for in the mid noughties, looked good from the outside but something was just off, a bit like an abusive marriage with a controlling personality projecting an image of normalcy in public but behind closed doors......

Back in 2007 there was a rumour that Austal would front GD to buy ASC, a lot of people, including me thought that would be great but now I think most are glad it didn't happen as it would have been disastrous. The first inkling I had that all was not good was in conversation with ABS surveyors who had worked on LCS 2 and their description of design and management issues with the project, a couple of years latter I was working with ACPBs but not Austal and started to become very concerned at some of the issues I was seeing and confused about why they were there at all.

It was only when I had the opportunity to visit Henderson and see Austal in action, through an availability, that I came to realise at least part of the issue, they are more like TVR than Porsche, let alone Toyota. Looks good but really isn't and reliability doesn't come into it, should anything brake, or simply not work properly, then its someone else's fault, or at least problem.

I honestly believe they do not have the management or technical depth to conduct a major defence project.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I understand the Canberra is at Fisherman Island in Brisbane.

I understand she docked yesterday. If supplies are being loaded, it's been very low key.

its been long in the planning though.....

things are put into play just in case as soon as these events occur. - so by the time there is an official announcement there are only basic things left to trigger