Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

It quite the pity really that they did not expand it when the GFC was on, hypotheticaly speaking could have done a barter trade with the UK 2x CVS for 4x oilers, a run of 6-7 would have been welcome. Just need to look outside the box sometimes.

2 x CVS for 4 x oiler's.. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you implying we build them 4 x oiler's and they build us 2 x CVS?

If not then ignore the rest of the post with my utmost apologies, If so though...

If the idea is we get them to build us 2 x CVS and we build them 4 x oiler's then while I'm sure the British would jump at it, We would actually be doing our selves a disservice.

At what would be a cost range of $13 - $14 billion excluding Australian specific changes industry wise we would be in the dumps under such a deal. Tonnage wise they are the same, Money spent they are not.

Even allowing worst case scenario of $1 billion a ship (Took prices for the HMAS Success, doubled them for ship twice the size and used inflation from 1986 through to 2015) paying the UK to build 2 x CVS should mean we are getting paid to replace there entire replenishment fleet and then some, Allowing for long term productivity and fingers crossed no political or outside industrial interference could be the value of replacing the entire RFA in which case even if financially they come out ahead I'm all for it as such a deal would have given us 14 ships to add to Australian production slots (give or take).

That though does depend on if we could man the carrier's, Would have required us to take the less crew demanding Mistrals instead of the Canberra's i'd imagine.

 

[alexsa]

Alexsia has touched on the differences for crew habitability between military commercial standards for the new Avaiation Training Ship, but I was wondering if need be can it be pressed into service with the armaments and sensors listed in the brochure be fitted in a timely manner?

http://www.damen.com/~/media/Produc...Documents/Offshore_Patrol_Vessel_2400_DS.ashx

The vessel is not a 2400 and does not look much like this vessel from the hull up and has different machinery. The internal arrangement is also different.

It is not a warship!

So apart from the fact the ownership issue would need to be resolved fitting a medium caliber gun and associated systems will be complex.

 

[t68]

The vessel is not a 2400 and does not look much like this vessel from the hull up and has different machinery. The internal arrangement is also different.

It is not a warship!

So apart from the fact the ownership issue would need to be resolved fitting a medium caliber gun and associated systems will be complex.

Oh ok, have you got any links showing the diffrent hull and structure by chance as all the links I have came across as being the file photo from the brochure and referring to the Damen OPV 2400 as the ATS

Only reason I brought it up was if they made no changes to the vessel was wondering if space was still avalible for an armaments fit out if we ever had to use STUFT.

So by your answer I take that as no.

 

[John Newman]

One acquisition that hasn't had much in the way of comment, is the purchase of Ocean Protector at a reported cost of $130m.

Roll the clock back a few years to when the LPA's had to suspend operations and the Government purchased both Choules and Ocean Shield (OS was reported to have cost $130m too), OS was to stay under Navy control until the LHD's were to enter service, then she would be handed over to Border Force (free of charge I believe too), and in a funny twist, to replace Ocean Protector when her lease expired.

Roll the clock forward to now, the newer OS is in the hands of Border Force, the older OP is now in Navy hands (but realistically is probably going to spend the majority of her time working alongside OS in a border security role).

And the end cost to the Defence budget? More than quarter of a Billion dollars too!!

I wonder what Navy could do with a 'spare' quarter of a Billion dollars? Maybe would have gone a fair way in funding the LCH replacements (maybe at least half of the LCH replacements)?

The mind boggles!!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

So by your answer I take that as no.

commercial vessel build and eng compliance issues

a big fat no

 

[Muar River]

One acquisition that hasn't had much in the way of comment, is the purchase of Ocean Protector at a reported cost of $130m.

Roll the clock back a few years to when the LPA's had to suspend operations and the Government purchased both Choules and Ocean Shield (OS was reported to have cost $130m too), OS was to stay under Navy control until the LHD's were to enter service, then she would be handed over to Border Force (free of charge I believe too), and in a funny twist, to replace Ocean Protector when her lease expired.

Roll the clock forward to now, the newer OS is in the hands of Border Force, the older OP is now in Navy hands (but realistically is probably going to spend the majority of her time working alongside OS in a border security role).

And the end cost to the Defence budget? More than quarter of a Billion dollars too!!

I wonder what Navy could do with a 'spare' quarter of a Billion dollars? Maybe would have gone a fair way in funding the LCH replacements (maybe at least half of the LCH replacements)?

The mind boggles!!!

Another aborted acquisition that surprisingly doesn't receive a lot of comment is the $1.4 billion wasted on the Seasprite. Well over another $1 billion on buying 24replacement helicopters. Before we start finger pointing, we need to address the waste of billions of taxpayers dollars on this catastrophe.

 

[Volkodav]

Another aborted acquisition that surprisingly doesn't receive a lot of comment is the $1.4 billion wasted on the Seasprite. Well over another $1 billion on buying 24replacement helicopters. Before we start finger pointing, we need to address the waste of billions of taxpayers dollars on this catastrophe.

Don't forget FFGUP, its cost over runs, delays and reduced capability when finally accepted, MU-90 torpedo, Tiger and MRH90 helicopters,and my all time unfavorite waste, the ACPBs (cost and schedule were fine but quality capability and durability meant they were borderline useless). Basically out sourcing, combined with gutting the ADFs engineering and procurement capabilities, all in the name of"efficiency and cost saving" through the 90s and noughties, has proven an (extremely expensive) abject failure.

For the most part the only procurements that have worked as planned through that period were FMS and that is because they were procured through the US who actually does the things we thought unnecessary. It would be interesting to compare the average project cost, schedule, cancellation rate, failure to meet spec and need to rebaseline between pre gutting, post gutting and use FMS before and after as a baseline (I should add the US went down the rebalancing rabbit hole long before us and paid the price, that's why they are better at doing business now).

What we have is the systematic failure of much of defences procurement, sustainment and engineering that is only now starting to come good after a raft of reviews by independent experts rather than ideologically blinded, accounts, economists and sycophants. What these reviews found for the most part is things used to be done properly but then due to cost cutting and miss guided reorganisations with no technical foundation things that were once done well could be barely done at all. We wasted billions trying to save millions and damaged capability to a frightening degree at the same time.

 

[John Newman]

Another aborted acquisition that surprisingly doesn't receive a lot of comment is the $1.4 billion wasted on the Seasprite. Well over another $1 billion on buying 24replacement helicopters. Before we start finger pointing, we need to address the waste of billions of taxpayers dollars on this catastrophe.

I think we are talking about two totally different things here.

I'm not talking about 'aborted' acquisitions, I'm just making the point about one area of Government appearing to be 'carrying the can' for the acquisition costs (reasonable or otherwise) for another area of Government.

I'm sure if you go and read back though the pages of DT for the specific time you are talking about, there will be enough comments about the Seasprites.

 

[alexsa]

Oh ok, have you got any links showing the diffrent hull and structure by chance as all the links I have came across as being the file photo from the brochure and referring to the Damen OPV 2400 as the ATS

Only reason I brought it up was if they made no changes to the vessel was wondering if space was still avalible for an armaments fit out if we ever had to use STUFT.

So by your answer I take that as no.

There are no drawing that have been released into the public domain at this time. Accommodation looks like that on Besant and Stoker but with a large flight deck aft.

The ship has been designed as a training ship but not as a warship and conversion would be required to be able to take the same armament fit out as the 2400 but you will never get the speed and the engineering configurations is quite different (power is also an issue)

I would suggest it would be cheaper just to buy a 2400 than try to fiddle with this vessel.

 

[vonnoobie]

I would suggest it would be cheaper just to buy a 2400 than try to fiddle with this vessel.

Logically yes, Fingers crossed all the old crowed involved with the FFGUP and Sea Sprites have been kicked to the curb because if not there philosophy will still be to update old out dated equipment past it's prime at a premium to eventually reduce the capability of the system before eventually replacing the reduced capability with an asset that is new but only as capable as the faulty system

 

[rand0m]

What happen re the deal for 3 ships at the price of 2 for the Aegir/BMT?

 

[t68]

What happen re the deal for 3 ships at the price of 2 for the Aegir/BMT?

Unless they expand Techport building a home grown oiler is out of the question. From memory the DWP stated that when Choules was due to pay off we could in theory get a third oiler or another logistical ship, pure speculation on my part but they my combine the two like a Karel Doorman JSS type support ship, but that's a long way off.

 

[alexsa]

Logically yes, Fingers crossed all the old crowed involved with the FFGUP and Sea Sprites have been kicked to the curb because if not there philosophy will still be to update old out dated equipment past it's prime at a premium to eventually reduce the capability of the system before eventually replacing the reduced capability with an asset that is new but only as capable as the faulty system

Err ..... We are talking about a civilian vessel where there is no intention to 'update' it to a warship by anybody currently connected with it. The vessel is still in design build phase and is being built as a civilian vessel so the whole idea is moot and any connection to previous defence procurements is illogical.

 

[Alf662]

Unless they expand Techport building a home grown oiler is out of the question. From memory the DWP stated that when Choules was due to pay off we could in theory get a third oiler or another logistical ship, pure speculation on my part but they my combine the two like a Karel Doorman JSS type support ship, but that's a long way off.

The Karel Doorman is a big ship and has a similar displacement to the LHD's, so any upgrade of Techport would allow future replacement of any current RAN vessels.

Karel Doorman has a respectable replenishment capability (7,700 cubic metres of fuel and 1,000 cubic metres of JP5) and has a hangar for 6 NH90's. It's biggest draw back is that it lacks a well dock which means it cannot carry an LCM1e but it can carry smaller water craft. Any transfers by an LCU are done via a steel beach.

Any type of JSS is going to involve capability trade off's. Time will tell if the Navy is prepared to forego a well dock and all of the capabilities it brings with it.

Details on the Karel doorman can be found here: Joint Support Ship for multi mission naval support it also has a link to PDF data sheet which has more information.

 

[ASSAIL]

Any type of JSS is going to involve capability trade off's. Time will tell if the Navy is prepared to forego a well dock and all of the capabilities it brings with it.

It's not a purely RAN matter. Choules performs a role which includes a formidable
Troop carrying capacity which fits the ADFs ARG CONOPS.
Her replacement will have the capability to fit these CONOPS and the JSS is not that platform, it doesn't have the same lift and deliver role.

The matter of a third resupply vessel is separate and maybe the JSS could be considered and that would effectively boost the ADFs amphibious capability by providing added aviation assets with the resupply role.

 

[t68]

It's not a purely RAN matter. Choules performs a role which includes a formidable
Troop carrying capacity which fits the ADFs ARG CONOPS.
Her replacement will have the capability to fit these CONOPS and the JSS is not that platform, it doesn't have the same lift and deliver role.

The matter of a third resupply vessel is separate and maybe the JSS could be considered and that would effectively boost the ADFs amphibious capability by providing added aviation assets with the resupply role.

If we want to sustain the capabilty long term it would make sence to add another 2x Canberra class with perhaps 2-3 Endurance class LPD to keep it scaleable, with Choules being replaced with JSS keeping tactical and stratigic shipping seperate from the ARG.

I can't see either party increasing our lift capabilty y more than 100%

 

[StingrayOZ]

It's not a purely RAN matter. Choules performs a role which includes a formidable
Troop carrying capacity which fits the ADFs ARG CONOPS.
Her replacement will have the capability to fit these CONOPS and the JSS is not that platform, it doesn't have the same lift and deliver role.

I would say what ever we get would have to at least match Choules as a minimum base line for amphibious capability. Even Choules will be tight. I would say its replacement would have to be greater in every way than Choules. More than 1000 lane metres, more than 400 troops (700 Surge).

Looking at that leaves only a handful of LSD/LPD and LHD's. If you want to throw AOR capability on top of that there are very limited numbers of ships that can do that.

Im not sure JSS is the ultimate answer. Not unless the JSS is more than 30,000t.

 

[swerve]

Karel Doorman is 28000 tons, 2000 lane metres. She has much, much greater replenishment at sea capacity than the Bay class. But not the passenger space. She's not meant for that.

 

[vonnoobie]

Let's be realistic, if we want something like the Bay class in capability such as the air and naval deployment capabilities with the ability to surge forces up to 700 along with some form of replenishment capability then that ship quite simply does not exist anywhere and will have to be designed specifically for us (Unless we get some other nations interested) rather then any MOTS option.

Quite frankly such a ship could easily end up larger then the LHD's.

 

[ASSAIL]

Karel Doorman is 28000 tons, 2000 lane metres. She has much, much greater replenishment at sea capacity than the Bay class. But not the passenger space. She's not meant for that.

Absolutely, and that's the point. She is a fantastic capability but her lack of a proper dock for unloading heavy equipment limits her utility in some circumstances.