Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Mentioned in the DWP intergrated investment program section 6.22 in passing is Special forces having a specialist watercraft

and more direct in 6.48 that a rivirine patrol craft would be acquired from around 2022 to increase tactical mobility in the littoral zone.

they already have specialist watercraft for the green/brown/grey

I suspect that the reference is about replacement of existing vessels

sometimes the DWP is more of a headache than a benefit as it doesn't provide references to impact against extant capabilties - which didn't appear in earlier iterations of the WP

 

[Milne Bay]

I just crossed the Dennis Bridge at Port Mcquarie at the Birdon Marine complex.

I only sort of saw them for a brief moment but it seems there is a couple of LCM1-E tied up. Are they having problems already or ate they trailing them for extended voyages?

I don't think that this is a LCM1-E.
There has been a landing craft type vessel moored at Birdon for a couple of years now. I don't know what designation it has but it seems to belong to the shipyard. Why it was purchased remains a mystery to me, but I thought that it might possibly be the subject of a reverse engineering study by Birdon for a possible future offering from them.
MB

 

[vonnoobie]

The reality is that slot chartering in todays market (combined with the through carriage of interstate cargo) makes a time charter on a specific Australian domestic trade difficult to sell. Even if manned by reservists (which we do not have with the required commercial tickets in the necessary numbers) the crew will still be on Australian conditions ........ and that is not cheap.

The domestic trades they could operate are not ones where you can simply withdraw the asset at a whim.

Comes down to the stupidity the the MUA and there conditions which destroyed coastal shipping in Australia.

Has left the only really viable asset's the same asset's that cant be readily taken (TT-Line, Sea Road and Toll-ANL operating out of Tasmania) without reducing one state to a standstill. If they were to roll out the same conditions that trans Tasmanian shipping operates under then things might improve (between mainland Australian port's any Australian ship that dock's to load or unload has to stay there for 24 hours regardless of how long the job will take, Tasmanian routes are an exception to this).

Economically there is an argument for coastal shipping which in turn would provide a source of roro capacity for the ADF if we can just tell the MUA to stick it where the sun don't shine. Even with higher labor cost's for Australian worker;s those same cost's apply to land based transport, Sea based shipping still actually work's out cheaper, Just not so much if you are not able to turn your ship around in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[swerve]

Even if manned by reservists (which we do not have with the required commercial tickets in the necessary numbers) the crew will still be on Australian conditions ........ and that is not cheap.

The UK's sponsored reservists are not ex-service members. They are commercial sailors who agree to become reservists.

I think that the point is being missed about the costs. The purpose of chartering the ships is not to make a profit, but reduce the cost of ownership. A commercial operator has to cover fixed costs: chartering out an underused military asset can be worthwhile as long as it covers the marginal costs.

Chartering is limited by the need to be able to withdraw the ship on short notice in an emergency (NOT on a whim), & that may affect the price of charters as well as those which are available, but it has worked for the UK.

I don't think anyone would consider that a chartering operation based on the spare capacity of military assets is a sound commercial proposition if it has to compete with standard commercial operators on the same terms, but it's been shown to be able to reduce the cost of ownership for the military - because it doesn't have to compete on the same terms to do that.

 

[alexsa]

The UK's sponsored reservists are not ex-service members. They are commercial sailors who agree to become reservists.

I think that the point is being missed about the costs. The purpose of chartering the ships is not to make a profit, but reduce the cost of ownership. A commercial operator has to cover fixed costs: chartering out an underused military asset can be worthwhile as long as it covers the marginal costs.

Chartering is limited by the need to be able to withdraw the ship on short notice in an emergency (NOT on a whim), & that may affect the price of charters as well as those which are available, but it has worked for the UK.

I don't think anyone would consider that a chartering operation based on the spare capacity of military assets is a sound commercial proposition if it has to compete with standard commercial operators on the same terms, but it's been shown to be able to reduce the cost of ownership for the military - because it doesn't have to compete on the same terms to do that.

I do understand what you are saying but I stand by my point on costs..... It is a significant issue. Even for companies that ship their own product (and making a profit out of shipping is not critical) they flag offshore.

There were efforts to try and make the Australian flag more competitive with the International Register but the benefits offered were simply not enough to attract ships.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I do understand what you are saying but I stand by my point on costs..... It is a significant issue. Even for companies that ship their own product (and making a profit out of shipping is not critical) they flag offshore.
.

and in the australian context, all departments and agencies are run on the cost and profit centre model - so any process which was not generating positive revenue will not survive an investigation by the Dept of Finance "Defence" analysis team

its the triumph of the accountants model over the pragmatist and opportunity model

ships leased when in an off service state would be seen as a discrete cost centre model and that delivery model would fail within 2 years. Fail as in the Minister winding things up

 

[ASSAIL]

I do understand what you are saying but I stand by my point on costs..... It is a significant issue. Even for companies that ship their own product (and making a profit out of shipping is not critical) they flag offshore.

There were efforts to try an make the Australian flag more competitive with the International Register but the benefits offered were simply not enough to attract ships.

Not only ships but ports. The stevedoring company Patricks has released data on average wages paid to its employees at the various Australian ports. This was in response to a proposed stoppage because workers rejected a 3% pay rise each of 3 years, total 9%
Best paid workers in Sydney, ave. $180,000, lowest ave. in Adelaide? was $154,000.
All workers get 5 weeks seasonal leave and 6 weeks RTO leave.

These are all members of the Maritime Union of Australia, the same union which represents seafarers.

Now non Australians may realise why we don't have a viable maritime industry and Australian flagged ships without govt. subsidies are commercially impossible.

 

[swerve]

and in the australian context, all departments and agencies are run on the cost and profit centre model - so any process which was not generating positive revenue will not survive an investigation by the Dept of Finance "Defence" analysis team

its the triumph of the accountants model over the pragmatist and opportunity model

ships leased when in an off service state would be seen as a discrete cost centre model and that delivery model would fail within 2 years. Fail as in the Minister winding things up

I see the problem. We have similar problems with crazy accounting models, e.g. 'capital charges' applied to stocks of (paid for) equipment. That makes sense for stuff which has a commercial value, such as redundant forces housing which can be sold off, but applying it to tanks or missiles is insane.

 

[Beam]

Not only ships but ports. The stevedoring company Patricks has released data on average wages paid to its employees at the various Australian ports. This was in response to a proposed stoppage because workers rejected a 3% pay rise each of 3 years, total 9%
Best paid workers in Sydney, ave. $180,000, lowest ave. in Adelaide? was $154,000.
All workers get 5 weeks seasonal leave and 6 weeks RTO leave.

These are all members of the Maritime Union of Australia, the same union which represents seafarers.

Now non Australians may realise why we don't have a viable maritime industry and Australian flagged ships without govt. subsidies are commercially impossible.

Interestingly, I have just come off a tour of all 3 ports at Port Botany. Not one container crane has a human operator - all are now robotic. So much for the high wages os crane operators.

 

[Volkodav]

Interestingly, I have just come off a tour of all 3 ports at Port Botany. Not one container crane has a human operator - all are now robotic. So much for the high wages os crane operators.

No operator at all or a remote operator? I would imagine there would be some pretty highly paid individuals in a control rooms somewhere near by rather than the show being run by Robbie the Robot.

 

[ASSAIL]

Interestingly, I have just come off a tour of all 3 ports at Port Botany. Not one container crane has a human operator - all are now robotic. So much for the high wages os crane operators.

Ship mooring parties, security personnel, maintainers, system operators, box stackers etc etc. Not every wharfie drives a crane and in most Australian ports we are still well behind our competitors in handling speeds, Boxes per hour, robotic or not.

Enough OT mea culpa

 

[t68]

Ship mooring parties, security personnel, maintainers, system operators, box stackers etc etc. Not every wharfie drives a crane and in most Australian ports we are still well behind our competitors in handling speeds, Boxes per hour, robotic or not.

Enough OT mea culpa

Yep, 8 hour rotating shifts 24/7 they get a bonus if they move over X amount of boxes a shift. Can remember the number though. They are paid well.

 

[alexsa]

Interestingly, I have just come off a tour of all 3 ports at Port Botany. Not one container crane has a human operator - all are now robotic. So much for the high wages os crane operators.

Certainly straddle carriers are moving to full automation and Patricks terminal when to full autostrads but some cranes are still manned as far as I am aware. three fully automatic cranes were delivered in 2015.

 

[swerve]

No operator at all or a remote operator? I would imagine there would be some pretty highly paid individuals in a control rooms somewhere near by rather than the show being run by Robbie the Robot.

Yeah, like the building site cranes where there's no operator on the crane, but look around & you see a bloke with a remote control unit strolling around the site, usually close to whatever the crane's lifting.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I might see if I can raise Wookie from his slumber and get him to comment

He has direct first hand experience on this particular issue....

 

[Alf662]

Our more out lying territories such as Christmas Island, Cocos / Keeling Islands, Norfolk Island, Lord Howe Island and to a lesser degree Thursday Island all suffer from incredibly high freight costs (sea and air) and resupply can be 4 to 6 weeks and is some thing that the Islanders have had issues with for a very long time.

From a strategic and military point of view these islands have proven to be very important both historically and in a modern context.

From memory at least two articles were submitted to the 2016 DWP for consideration (I will try and find them and include them in another post). One paper concerned Norfolk Island and the other was Christmas Island and Cocos / Keeling Islands. Both papers called for improved shipping access and the prepositioning of emergency supplies and an increase in the fuel storage so that Navy ships could resupply.

If the infrastructure of these Islands are improved and a strategic decision made to use them as forward operating bases then they would need appropriate vessels to service them.

The vessels currently serving most of the Islands are getting old and are reaching a point where they would need to be retired. Commercially it would be very difficult to replace any of these vessels and remain viable.

Would it be possible and viable (from a strategic context) for the Government to supply appropriate vessels that can be contracted out to resupply the Islands mainly for military purposes, but also to reduce the high cost of freight for the Islanders (a win win situation). Bear in mind a vessel resupplying an FOB island territory would not necessarily need to be pulled from it's normal operations, but it's tempo would certainly increase.

 

[ngatimozart]

I wonder if you could use Canterbury for the logistics roll. It's basically a RO / RO so would have the ability for wheeled transport, e.g., A & B trains etc. Maybe an agreement could be reached with the NZDF.

 

[oldsig127]

I wonder if you could use Canterbury for the logistics roll. It's basically a RO / RO so would have the ability for wheeled transport, e.g., A & B trains etc. Maybe an agreement could be reached with the NZDF.

What? When Choules retires? I can't see the slightest interest being shown in a much smaller ship just one year younger.

oldsig

 

[Volkodav]

What? When Choules retires? I can't see the slightest interest being shown in a much smaller ship just one year younger.

oldsig

I could be wrong but I read it as a Canterbury type vessel rather than the actual Canterbury, to which my answer would be, unless we were considering a multi ship buy something larger would be necessary.

If we were to consider multiple medium sized vessels instead of one or two large ones it may even be worth looking at the US construct using one or two expeditionary mobile bases, a couple of T-AKE and several multirole high speed transports, which may not end up costing much, if any more than large numbers of Canterburys.

This may sound excessive but considering the need for greater maritime logistics support for our remote island territories plus the need to support fluctuating but still vital peak effort requirements Border Protection and HADR the high speed vessels could prove to be very useful and effective. A couple could service each island territory and a couple more used by the ADF for training, tests and trials, SOF and Mine Warfare support as well as reserve training, justifying their existence and leaving them available for emergencies.

 

[alexsa]

Our more out lying territories such as Christmas Island, Cocos / Keeling Islands, Norfolk Island, Lord Howe Island and to a lesser degree Thursday Island all suffer from incredibly high freight costs (sea and air) and resupply can be 4 to 6 weeks and is some thing that the Islanders have had issues with for a very long time.

From a strategic and military point of view these islands have proven to be very important both historically and in a modern context.

From memory at least two articles were submitted to the 2016 DWP for consideration (I will try and find them and include them in another post). One paper concerned Norfolk Island and the other was Christmas Island and Cocos / Keeling Islands. Both papers called for improved shipping access and the prepositioning of emergency supplies and an increase in the fuel storage so that Navy ships could resupply.

If the infrastructure of these Islands are improved and a strategic decision made to use them as forward operating bases then they would need appropriate vessels to service them.

The vessels currently serving most of the Islands are getting old and are reaching a point where they would need to be retired. Commercially it would be very difficult to replace any of these vessels and remain viable.

Would it be possible and viable (from a strategic context) for the Government to supply appropriate vessels that can be contracted out to resupply the Islands mainly for military purposes, but also to reduce the high cost of freight for the Islanders (a win win situation). Bear in mind a vessel resupplying an FOB island territory would not necessarily need to be pulled from it's normal operations, but it's tempo would certainly increase.

Actually the problem in these port is ........ well getting into port. Christmas Island really does not have a port and ships tie up to buoys with a crane and cantilever used for cargo. For RO-RO operations you would need a vessel that can take landing craft of the type that can be lifted out of the water in flying fish Cover. Anchoring and mooring is at the whim of the weather.

Cocos - Keeling are not much better. Norfolk Island transfer cargo ashore by boat while Lord Howe Island has a proper wharf ...... sort of.....

* BLACK DIAMOND IMAGES * | ISLAND TRADER | Island Trader Lord Howe Island Wharf

Not sure a large RO-RO is really what you want. New small multipurpose tonnage is more suited as the volumes at not there. Critical stuff is often flown in.