Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

CREF my prev comments yonks ago about the force model construct of a USN/USMC ARG/MEU

I believe a TAKE would be a good fit as the US uses them to support MEUs, afloat support and prepositioned forces, they could supplement both our AORs and amphibs. Then the is the ESD, or even ESB options, cheaper to buy and own than an additional LHD, better or more suitable at some things worse at others.

Aside from these phat options there are various small/medium LST/LPD/LSD options that could complement the existing big ships. Looking outside the square we could buy/build anything from a straight LCH replacement, an LSV, something like Singapore's Endurance Class, a small Enforcer type, through to something like Japans Osiumi that is basically a through deck LSD that is mostly dock, a short vehicle deck topped with what looks like a flight deck but is actually an exposed vehicle deck that can operate helicopters.

 

[Goknub]

I've mentioned them previously but I believe a RORO ship similar to the UK Point class would be the better option, albeit as a grey ship rather than the rented deal of the RN. They can haul the quantities a deployed force would need and have tiny crews.
Much more far fetched but I'm curious if Navantia could use the AOR hull to build a logistics transport with a roro capability. It would allow wider commonality in terms of systems and training with the RAN's future tanker fleet.

Either way, the amphibious fleet should be a higher priority than it is.

 

[swerve]

A Point-class can reportedly be operated by a crew of 12, though that's not recommended. Usual crew is 18-22, or no more than one per thousand tons. They can & sometimes do offload onto & load from Mexeflotes. Sea state permitting, of course.

 

[t68]

I understand where you are coming from Bluey.

I take the view that one vessel can only be in one place at one time. I think that is what made the LCH's so useful, they were small enough to get into small and remote locations with an acceptable sized cargo and we had the numbers available. The down side was sea keeping and speed.

You have to remember that Choules is slated for replacement in the early 2030's and their is also the possibility of a sister ship as well. So some thing like an Endurance class is probably going to be to big.

If the LCH replacements are going to happen, keep them as small as possible whilst maximising numbers and sustained close in support for army amphibious operations and wider ADF integration.

The other issue that would need to be considered is berthing and slipping. If the vessels are to large then the RAN is up for major base upgrades to accommodate them, which, in my view, would be counter productive.

See if you can find the article you have mentioned, I would be interested in reading it.

Not the article I read but this gives a guide,

http://www.army.gov.au/~/media/Army/Our future/Publications/Papers/BoB_Part2/BoB_7.pdf

Land Craft Heavy Replacement. There is a joint Royal Australian Navy and Army requirement for the current Landing Craft Heavy fleet to be replaced as these vessels are now inadequate and ineffective in performing their significant auxiliary role for an amphibious force in addition to their independent low-level sea lift / amphibious and littoral mobility operations. Whether this includes a similar replacement craft or a ship-pairing arrangement (such as mother-daughter ships) remains to be finalised, but Army and Navy are jointly writing a capability needs statement to outline the effect required.

This is from a couple of years ago, haven't come across anything in bold, not to say they have not done so but may not have been released for political/opspec reason

 

[Stampede]

The LHDs are huge and very capable and while I understand the desirability of numbers to guarantee availability as well as to be able to provide greater coverage, the question has to be asked is a third LHD the best way to do it? No navy pairs LHDs together, not the USN, not the RN, no one, so why would we, except to cover off the unavailability of Choules.

Look at the USN, they are deploying each LHD/LHA, with an LPD and an LSD, the RN operates (or did operate) an LPH (either Ocean or one of the Invincibles), Albion and Bays together, with individual ships able to be detached as required. With our fleet we can dispatch one or two LHDs and or an LPD and nothing else. We have no way to deploy LCM1E or LCM-8 without the phatships and we have nothing in between. In the future we will also have a riverine and littoral capability that will also need to be lifted for deployment.

All of this suggests to me that rather than AUD 1.2-2bn on a third LHD we should be looking at other options to complement, rather than duplicate the existing fleet.

Thanks Volk for the reply
We toss around ideas.
To answer the question I guess I see Australias needs as different to that of the larger navies of the USA and UK. We need to get the most flexibility from our ships for our given size .We dont have the critical mass to replicate their force structure and range of specialist vessels.We need to do more with less.
This is in no way a critisism of their professionalism or force structure its just that they are in a different league. We can work and trian with their forces and contribute to joint missions but I feel we need a different approach to satisfy both our indepentant needs and coalition requirements.
I look at our navies large ships as a group of five in number and see that as been the norm for some time and into the future to satisfy our refueling and amphibious needs.
The two lhd's Choulce and the two new Cantabria class ships reflect in numbers this group. I would like it expanded to six and trust that number eventuates in the 2020'S.
For me 3 x LHD and 3 x AOL would be the right mix backed up with some smaller amphibious units.
I see most of our amphibious commitments more around company and battalion sized groups. Therfore I have no problem with the Canberras wearing many hats. Force projection and supply.( HMAS Sydney circa 1960's ).
After all we only have so many ships, we may as well get the big flexible ones.

Regards S

 

[Mark_Evans]

Thanks Volk for the reply
We toss around ideas.
To answer the question I guess I see Australias needs as different to that of the larger navies of the USA and UK. We need to get the most flexibility from our ships for our given size .We dont have the critical mass to replicate their force structure and range of specialist vessels.We need to do more with less.
This is in no way a critisism of their professionalism or force structure its just that they are in a different league. We can work and trian with their forces and contribute to joint missions but I feel we need a different approach to satisfy both our indepentant needs and coalition requirements.
I look at our navies large ships as a group of five in number and see that as been the norm for some time and into the future to satisfy our refueling and amphibious needs.
The two lhd's Choulce and the two new Cantabria class ships reflect in numbers this group. I would like it expanded to six and trust that number eventuates in the 2020'S.
For me 3 x LHD and 3 x AOL would be the right mix backed up with some smaller amphibious units.
I see most of our amphibious commitments more around company and battalion sized groups. Therfore I have no problem with the Canberras wearing many hats. Force projection and supply.( HMAS Sydney circa 1960's ).
After all we only have so many ships, we may as well get the big flexible ones.

Regards S

My first post so please keep that in mind when replying please. I know - don't use wikipedia
Mobile Landing Platforms - Any reason we couldn't use this kind of ship?
Hmm - first lesson learnt - need to have 10 posts before I can post a link. Naval Technology link about US mobile landing platforms with only 33 crew
naval-technology.com/projects/mobile-landing-platform-mlp-ship/
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Ship - Naval Technology
Seems ideal for our needs for our civil disaster and low intensity conflicts

 

[t68]

My first post so please keep that in mind when replying please.�� I know - don't use wikipedia����
Mobile Landing Platforms - Any reason we couldn't use this kind of ship?
Hmm - first lesson learnt - need to have 10 posts before I can post a link. Naval Technology link about US mobile landing platforms with only 33 crew
naval-technology.com/projects/mobile-landing-platform-mlp-ship/
Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Ship - Naval Technology
Seems ideal for our needs for our civil disaster and low intensity conflicts

There was this very debate a few pages ago about these things, I see the versatility in them but from my pov the RAN does not have the capability or the capacity to fully exploit it to its full potential unlike the US Military Sealift Command.

Oh in US parlance they have a new term for them, they have had a name change to Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD)

 

[pussertas]

The LHDs are huge and very capable and while I understand the desirability of numbers to guarantee availability as well as to be able to provide greater coverage, the question has to be asked is a third LHD the best way to do it? No navy pairs LHDs together, not the USN, not the RN, no one, so why would we, except to cover off the unavailability of Choules.

Look at the USN, they are deploying each LHD/LHA, with an LPD and an LSD, the RN operates (or did operate) an LPH (either Ocean or one of the Invincibles), Albion and Bays together, with individual ships able to be detached as required. With our fleet we can dispatch one or two LHDs and or an LPD and nothing else. We have no way to deploy LCM1E or LCM-8 without the phatships and we have nothing in between. In the future we will also have a riverine and littoral capability that will also need to be lifted for deployment.

All of this suggests to me that rather than AUD 1.2-2bn on a third LHD we should be looking at other options to complement, rather than duplicate the existing fleet.

Due to Britexit the value of the UK Pound has fallen.

Perchance now is the time to approach the UK Treasury with an offer to purchase another Bay Class vessel. The Royal Navy would be most unhappy to give up another Bay Class but can be overruled by the UK Treasury.

If manning is a severe problem for the RAN then possibly another South American country may be highly intrested,:rel

 

[vonnoobie]

Due to Britexit the value of the UK Pound has fallen.

Perchance now is the time to approach the UK Treasury with an offer to purchase another Bay Class vessel. The Royal Navy would be most unhappy to give up another Bay Class but can be overruled by the UK Treasury.

If manning is a severe problem for the RAN then possibly another South American country may be highly intrested,:rel

While any oppertunity to acquire another Bay class vessel (or any similar size ship near size and age) at a bargain price is desirable and should be jumped on nothing in regards to the pound falling or Brexit will have any indication what so ever on whether or not the UK decides to retire and sell another ship.

Brexit and the pound are short term hiccups economically, Has been stated that a mild recession is likely but nothing major that would see the British government looking to sell there asset's on the cheap.

 

[Volkodav]

While second hand ships can deliver significant advantages, i.e. a rapid increase in capability to meet changing circumstances or to plug a gap (expected or unexpected), if poorly planned can lead to block obsolescence, increase the average age and maintenance requirements / bill for the fleet and damage local industry reliant on the work on deferred replacement vessels.

Procurement of Largs Bay got us out of a hole that was caused by cost cutting on maintenance and poor planning on the replacement of the existing fleet (over estimation of the remaining life, that seemed to conveniently forget they were already old ships, two of which were bought second hand. In the time the RAN operated Success she served alongside the second hand Westralia and the modified commercial tanker Sirius, neither of which was ever as satisfactory as a second, new build tanker would have been.

I personally believe the acquisition of the four Kidd class DDGs offered to us in the mid to late 90s, or even a number of early Ticonderoga class CGs, would have been ideal. They would have provided, without modification or upgrade, substantially greater capability, at lower cost than the upgraded FFGs. Their larger crews, than the FFGs, while more expensive, would even have reduced the impact to the RANs technical manpower retention following the retirement of the Perth class DDGs and the governments short sighted cost cutting. Above all, the would have easily filled the gap between the DDGs and AWDs as well as averting the reduction in hull numbers caused by the badly run FFGUP.

The flipside is, if we had acquired the Kidds somebody in Canberra likely would have decided we could delay AWD for a decade, just deferring the problem. Had we acquired the Upholder class submarines to supplement or replace the Collins class we would have either had to spend far more to build / maintain the capability, or worse, spent the same money and had less capability as a result.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Had we acquired the Upholder class submarines to supplement or replace the Collins class we would have either had to spend far more to build / maintain the capability, or worse, spent the same money and had less capability as a result.

we dodged a bullet passing up on the Upholders as an interim and eventual 2nd squadron

they would have cost more to bring up to suitability and really would have screwed forward acquisition models across all services as post ET budgets started to be a joint consideration rather than just a single service effort

 

[t68]

While second hand ships can deliver significant advantages, i.e. a rapid increase in capability to meet changing circumstances or to plug a gap (expected or unexpected), if poorly planned can lead to block obsolescence, increase the average age and maintenance requirements / bill for the fleet and damage local industry reliant on the work on deferred replacement vessels.



.

Volk make a good point in regards to second hand shipping and block obsolescence, if we were to get another bay by chance. Don't see it happening as I think it degrades UK amphibious capabilty with Ocean going in 2018

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think Australia has to be very careful selecting 2nd hand equipment, quick and cheap have historically not ended up as such in practice.

Choules I see as a one off gift, the UK has never indicated that they intend to dispose of any more, Australia specifically asked. If we want anymore we will have to build them or get a similar off another nation.

My personal feeling is that amphibious operations (in particular Australia's) will have a greater aviation focus in the future, while having a dock offers the best of both worlds. Given our region its unlikely we will be shifting tank columns, but more likely moving troops and equipment via air, across difficult terrain.

Certainly the US is pioneering a number of different ship concepts that might fit the ADF, with a much lower manning, procurement and operational costs.

 

[oldsig127]

I think Australia has to be very careful selecting 2nd hand equipment, quick and cheap have historically not ended up as such in practice.

Choules I see as a one off gift, the UK has never indicated that they intend to dispose of any more, Australia specifically asked. If we want anymore we will have to build them or get a similar off another nation.

(My emphasis, above)

To be fair, Choules was indeed second hand but had only been in service 5 years when commissioned into the RAN. In car terms, almost a demo model.

That said, it's true that another similar ship of similar age to her now would be a mistake unless there was a pressing need and no new build options. The DWP at least predicts no imminent need, but one never knows.

oldsig

 

[John Fedup]

we dodged a bullet passing up on the Upholders as an interim and eventual 2nd squadron

they would have cost more to bring up to suitability and really would have screwed forward acquisition models across all services as post ET budgets started to be a joint consideration rather than just a single service effort

Dodged a bullet is putting it mildly!!:hehe

 

[t68]

Dodged a bullet is putting it mildly!!:hehe

John,
Do you think the Victoria/Upholder's have left a sour taste in people mouths and the submarine will not be replaced, or could you see that they might take a wait and see approach in regards to Sea 1000 now that the French have got their foot in the door.

 

[ASSAIL]

we dodged a bullet passing up on the Upholders as an interim and eventual 2nd squadron

they would have cost more to bring up to suitability and really would have screwed forward acquisition models across all services as post ET budgets started to be a joint consideration rather than just a single service effort

We "dodged" by sending a team over to inspect them who knew what they were looking at and had the determination to report the condition correctly.
Something that was compromised with the purchase of the Fairfax Counties.

 

[Volkodav]

We "dodged" by sending a team over to inspect them who knew what they were looking at and had the determination to report the condition correctly.
Something that was compromised with the purchase of the Fairfax Counties.

Very true, I wonder if we got as far as sending a team to look at the Kidds?

To me they, once the decision had been made not to build a replacement for the Perths straight up, would have been the best solution to our air warfare gap. With NTU they were already more capable than the upgraded Adelaides were intended to be (not sure they ever reached the originally required capabilities either), their modular nature would have made further upgrades very easy and the availability of large numbers of retiring Spruances, as well as the USNs retention of the Ticonderogas, would have made them highly supportable and sustainable.

The early retirement of two Adelaides to free up crew and the resulting reduction in projected major combatant numbers from a never achieved seventeen to sixteen or even fifteen (assuming only three Kidds were active at any time), would still have seen the RAN larger and more capable than it has been in reality. In fact all the Adelaides, including the virtually new Melbourne and Newcastle could have been sold, or we could have done a deal with NZ on an additional ANZAC or two at a bargain basement price and still had the RAN better off in terms of capability and numbers.

There would have been no impact on shipbuilding as it was already screwed by the failure to place orders in the late 90s. It could be argued that the Kidds would have given us greater flexibility to rebuild the industry through taking the urgency off the AWD requirement, i.e. we could have invested in the planned (then cancelled) corvettes to replace the Fremantles, or at least a class of OPVs, done a 100% local build on the LHDs (perhaps earlier too) and the AOR replacements, before then turning the completely revitalised industry to new AWDs.

 

[Goknub]

My personal feeling is that amphibious operations (in particular Australia's) will have a greater aviation focus in the future, while having a dock offers the best of both worlds. Given our region its unlikely we will be shifting tank columns, but more likely moving troops and equipment via air, across difficult terrain.

I would disagree somewhat, even with HADR operations the majority of equipment will still need to be landed via sea if we are to conduct more than a token effort. This is the key reason why I'm disappointed the LCH replacement isn't a higher priority. The ADF will be less effective if it doesn't have a vessel to conduct small port, intra-theatre lift and remote island operations. This is relevant for everything from HADR to war fighting. This isn't to say aviation isn't also a vital component.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't imagine Australia will be pursuing 2nd hand options very often now, its all sustainable local building, with Australian steel (tm).

Australia does have enough need that a local military shipbuilding industry should be pretty viable. I think both sides have agreed to that now. We just need a tight efficient sustainable model that is going to work for us, with the right partners. I do wonder how NZ fits into that plan, I would assume its not.

While I think we should have invested in infrastructure to build local LHDs, AOR's etc that is not going to happen now. But I would still think buying new is a heck of a lot better than 2nd hand hunting.