Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
StingrayOZ said:
The Cantabria was designed with 1 LHD in mind. Spain doesn't ever consider the possibility of deploying two heavily loaded (~400 more on each than they plan for) LHD's landing over 2200+ personnel + equipment. That is outside the capability of the Spanish defense forces.
Click to expand...
Spain has one LHD - & two LPDs - & until the recent early withdrawal without the previously planned replacement of Principe de Asturias, also had a light aircraft carrier. Their combined tonnage & number of aircraft & vehicles which could be carried were more than the two RAN LHDs. If they'd been prepared to cram 'em in tightly, they could have carried more troops. The choice not to wasn't from lack of soldiers: Spain has far more than Australia (also far more tanks, AFVs, artillery . . . ). The Spanish marine corps alone has enough men to fill the ships, but they're also equipped to carry army units with equipment the marines lack.

BTW, Cantabria isn't the only Spanish navy replenishment ship. Two in service now, & two before Cantabria was commissioned. They were intended to support PdA as well as the amphibs.
 
swerve said:
Spain has one LHD - & two LPDs - & until the recent early withdrawal without the previously planned replacement of Principe de Asturias, also had a light aircraft carrier. Their combined tonnage & number of aircraft & vehicles which could be carried were more than the two RAN LHDs. If they'd been prepared to cram 'em in tightly, they could have carried more troops. The choice not to wasn't from lack of soldiers: Spain has far more than Australia (also far more tanks, AFVs, artillery . . . ). The Spanish marine corps alone has enough men to fill the ships, but they're also equipped to carry army units with equipment the marines lack.

BTW, Cantabria isn't the only Spanish navy replenishment ship. Two in service now, & two before Cantabria was commissioned. They were intended to support PdA as well as the amphibs.
Click to expand...

Just seeking some context, Doe the Spanish Navy have more deployments then the RAN (Ships sent out, range, endurance etc)? Is there any system in place within the Euro in regards to sharing there respective AOR assets?

Just thinking that we mustn't jump to conclusions about our needs based on another nations as factor's are different between number of large assets involved, area of operation and surrounding nations (Suitability of port's to stop in).
 
swerve said:
Spain has one LHD - & two LPDs - & until the recent early withdrawal without the previously planned replacement of Principe de Asturias, also had a light aircraft carrier. Their combined tonnage & number of aircraft & vehicles which could be carried were more than the two RAN LHDs.
Click to expand...

I should have been more specific here. Spain has enviable amphibious capability, but AFAIK (which isn't much) they don't train to operate a full ARG the size that Australia has mentioned. Which is two LHD's (~2,500+ troops but a much greater aviation capability) and Choules (~700? troops) all together (most likely with additional troops on additional ships), chocked to the gills with men and equipment (every thing we have), and use it operationally in a war like situation by itself or in conjunction with tight regional allies (definitely NZ but most likely Singapore) without US involvement (ie troops) or support (ie US AOR/LHD/ operating in support).

It would then seem inappropriate to use a single Cantabria or Aegir to resupply/replenish this entire taskforce. Which as of last year is exactly what Australia intends to do when the then defense minister announced it would be only two ships, with no local builds. While there have been many political changes since then, 3 defence ministers, 2 PM's, there is no statement contradicting that. So Australia intends to only get 2 AOR. I really hope we weren't depending on NZ specing something suitable for us.

BTW, Cantabria isn't the only Spanish navy replenishment ship. Two in service now, & two before Cantabria was commissioned. They were intended to support PdA as well as the amphibs.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell the PdA had a JP-5 capacity of ~1,500t so Cantabria would have been unable to fully replenish the Jp-5 in this ship. This may not have been a significant issue as they would most likely not fill up from bone empty, and the Jp-5 that Cantabria has would still be significant for a large number of aviation sorties. PdA was a bit weird in that the propulsion gas turbines were designed originally to use the JP-5 fuel stores, it was modified in ~late 1980's to be able to use the regular marine diesel. So the size of its storage may not be relevant in terms of what was required operationally.

Australia's targeted amphibious capability should be driving (or at least a part of) all procurement. Does this meet the requirements of supporting an ARG? In many areas an ARG type operation would require the maximum capability from all services and require every asset they own or hope to own. I think we should look at what the UK, Spanish and the Americans have and use and how they are implemented.

I would be looking very hard at the Spanish and asking the question why are we getting only two (regardless of type)?
 
rockitten said:
Probably politically impossible to build the submarine in Wa, just wonder how much is it to upgrade ASC for those cold rolling and automatic welding gears?

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Click to expand...

welding is done by hand - the best welders in the country were at ASC - thats why the mining industry tried to take them.

seawolf, virginias, astutes - etc are all hand welded (in the critical areas - very few components are jig welds)
 
Last edited:
From the sounds of it there will be 2 classes of OPV...what size of ship is he talking about here for the Armidale replacement? What is the minimum size for it to be helicopter-capable?

://adbr.com.au/first-principles-review-drives-new-maritime-systems-business-plan/RADM

Purcell added that for SEA 1180, there were a host of off-the-shelf designs that could potentially satisfy the new helicopter-capable OPV requirement: “We’ve stopped talking about corvettes – the real requirement is for a vessel that can undertake those extended deep sea voyages to offshore territories that we’ve been using the Armidales for.

“We’ll replace them first and then look at what will be most suitable to replace the existing special purpose vessels undertaking hydrography and minehunting.”
Click to expand...
 
alexsa said:
II actually fail to see the advantage. Provided fuelling connections are comparable (as they are) then the Navantia product has not advantage as there are few similarities in construction (except for the fact they are all steel the framing. steel type, subdivision, hull form and fact one ship type is a tanker make these very different ships)...... the LHD and AWD are completely different ships to the AOR in both construction and propulsion. Others systems are customer specified.

It will come down to capability and price an the Aegir is not to be written down lightly as it can be delivered very quickly.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is the end of the world if NZ and Australia chose different AORs - as you point out, the refuelling connections will still be compatible. I just think there would be advantages if all three planned ships came from the same base platform. I'm primarily thinking of of being able to run a common pool of spare parts, but the ability to run some joint training and potentially exchange crew members across the Tasman would also be positives.

The good news is that this part of the world will soon have three new AORs in service, and they'll almost certainly come in on time and on budget. That frees up funds (and staff time) to focus on more challenging parts of the fleet.

Stingray
Thanks for the thoughts on aviation fuel limitations. Not something that had occurred to me given NZ's limited aviation capabilities.Hard to imagine the manufacturers couldn't adjust the balance of storage space between between different fuel types prior to construction, as long as that is clearly written into the specs.
 
How can those Seasprite helicopters that we were told dont work, be sold to New Zealand?

How can the kiwis get the exact same helicopters to work just fine, yet Australian mechanics, engineers etc, not get them to work. Is it because they eat more lamb or something?

Seriously I do realise that the Kiwi Seasprites will be set up with a lower performance missile (maverick vs penguin from memory), and maybe some other changes as well. Just seems odd that the exact same aircraft that we were told would not work and were not safe to fly, are now to be sold the NZ navy where they seem to go just fine. Are the Kiwis just a fraction less concerned about performance and super high safety standards, such as triple redundant flight computers. Is it the colder/thicker air or is it more rainfall washing off the salt. I know there is a logical and rational reason behind it all, I just dont know what it is

Did Australia try to over-complicate things, try and push a two man crew where a three person crew would have been simpler? Was the saving of one crew person so that they could make the ship that little bit smaller?
 
peterAustralia said:
How can those Seasprite helicopters that we were told dont work, be sold to New Zealand?

How can the kiwis get the exact same helicopters to work just fine, yet Australian mechanics, engineers etc, not get them to work. Is it because they eat more lamb or something?

Seriously I do realise that the Kiwi Seasprites will be set up with a lower performance missile (maverick vs penguin from memory), and maybe some other changes as well. Just seems odd that the exact same aircraft that we were told would not work and were not safe to fly, are now to be sold the NZ navy where they seem to go just fine. Are the Kiwis just a fraction less concerned about performance and super high safety standards, such as triple redundant flight computers. Is it the colder/thicker air or is it more rainfall washing off the salt. I know there is a logical and rational reason behind it all, I just dont know what it is

Did Australia try to over-complicate things, try and push a two man crew where a three person crew would have been simpler? Was the saving of one crew person so that they could make the ship that little bit smaller?
Click to expand...

different crewing options meant different cert issues to meet safety compliance issues

at the time of disposal those helos had basically been sorted - one of the proj engineers was in my proj, and he was pretty angry that they were disposed of when they were basically sorted
 
Good luck to them

IF, Australia decides to decline the upgrade on the ARH (looks less likely now), I could see NZ going with another 'hand-me down' platform, such as the Tigers. Personally, if would be a win-win for both Govt's, with the Aus Army moving to the preferred AH-1Z's/ AH-64E's options

Obviously x22 is far to many for any future NZ defence needs and capability reqs, but I could see them taking 8-12..

Could even be sold-on with the same soft moniker of 'just armed recon' and not gunships.
 
peterAustralia said:
How can those Seasprite helicopters that we were told dont work, be sold to New Zealand?

How can the kiwis get the exact same helicopters to work just fine, yet Australian mechanics, engineers etc, not get them to work. Is it because they eat more lamb or something?

Seriously I do realise that the Kiwi Seasprites will be set up with a lower performance missile (maverick vs penguin from memory), and maybe some other changes as well. Just seems odd that the exact same aircraft that we were told would not work and were not safe to fly, are now to be sold the NZ navy where they seem to go just fine. Are the Kiwis just a fraction less concerned about performance and super high safety standards, such as triple redundant flight computers. Is it the colder/thicker air or is it more rainfall washing off the salt. I know there is a logical and rational reason behind it all, I just dont know what it is

Did Australia try to over-complicate things, try and push a two man crew where a three person crew would have been simpler? Was the saving of one crew person so that they could make the ship that little bit smaller?
Click to expand...

Sorry to make your day worse, but the Kiwis bought our Penguin missiles as well, so no they don't have a 'lower performance missile...'

;)
 
We tried to save money by cutting a crew member and automating enough functions so as not to make the type tactically useless, before moving the certification goal posts and making everything that much harder to achieve. As I understand it NZ kept the good bits and dumped the not so good stuff, while putting the third crew member back on board, a simple, effective solution that we could have done years earlier.

Interestingly the Romeos we bought to replace the SH-60B and S-2G have a three man crew as well. Its pretty standard in Australia to stretch too far, scare those in charge when it doesn't work first up and then run scared and flush the entire effort down the toilet once all the hard work has been done to make it all work and we are positioned to do better on a new project, buying MOTS instead.
 
ADMk2 said:
Sorry to make your day worse, but the Kiwis bought our Penguin missiles as well, so no they don't have a 'lower performance missile...'

;)
Click to expand...

Peruvian Navy to acquire Super Seasprite helos from Canada - IHS Jane's 360

The initial five Maverick-equipped Seasprites have been sold on to Peru, once they go through an upgrade in Canada. When the deal is done, NZ will have eight flying Seasprites and two spare airframes, all ex-RAN.

I've never quite grasped how Australia became fixated on turning the Seasprite into a two-crew platform. Sure, it saves on wages and adds margin for lift, but why didn't someone somewhere say 'Hang on, guys. Is this REALLY a good idea?'

To me, it sounds uncomfortably like a you-beaut scheme to update granddads trusty HD Holden with google's self-drivng vehicle software.

Speaking of you-beaut conversions...

DCNS Prepares Final Offer for Australian Sub Tender
 
Volkodav said:
We tried to save money by cutting a crew member and automating enough functions so as not to make the type tactically useless, before moving the certification goal posts and making everything that much harder to achieve. As I understand it NZ kept the good bits and dumped the not so good stuff, while putting the third crew member back on board, a simple, effective solution that we could have done years earlier.

Interestingly the Romeos we bought to replace the SH-60B and S-2G have a three man crew as well. Its pretty standard in Australia to stretch too far, scare those in charge when it doesn't work first up and then run scared and flush the entire effort down the toilet once all the hard work has been done to make it all work and we are positioned to do better on a new project, buying MOTS instead.
Click to expand...

Despite the enormous waste and politicking surrounding the SH-2's, the outcome with us acquiring Romeo's and the Kiwi's taking the Seasprites is a pretty good result for both countries.
 
gf0012-aust said:
please lord, shoot me now....
Click to expand...

Wow lots of jobs!

DCNS has brought the Barracuda program under control after earlier running into problems of lateness and cost overrun, the spokesman said. The company has gone through a reorganization, including appointing a new Barracuda program director last October. A first delivery of the Barracuda is still expected to be in 2017 but some six months later than previously scheduled.
Click to expand...

Awesome. The first is expected after the decision who will build the Australian subs is made. New guy has been in the chair 12 months. Cost overruns and lateness and they aren't even at the tail end of the project or IOC (how many projects struggle to get there!). We would want them to build ours?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top