Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[enghave]

Pictures of the new-look Navy working-dress uniform have been released, and can be viewed at www dot defence dot gov dot au slash media slash download

 

[Tasman]

New RAN Uniform

Here is the press release and link to the new uniform mentioned by enghave:

NEW LOOK NAVY UNIFORM



The Royal Australian Navy is set to benefit from a new two-piece fire-retardant uniform, complete with improved safety boots.



Much of the design for the replacement Navy uniform derives from the land warfare version introduced in the mid-90s by the Australian Army. The two-piece uniform will align with other ADF combat uniforms in its use of the Australian Camouflage (AUSCAM) pattern, but will be unique to Navy in terms of the littoral colours used and the addition of reflective tape on the upper arms.



An image of the Navy replacement uniform is available at: www.defence.gov.au/media/download



There are tangible benefits in moving to a two-piece uniform in terms of health, comfort and morale. The ability to ‘relax’ the level of dress, depending on the nature of the operation, is seen as advantageous in combating heat related illness and it will provide both male and female personnel at sea with an enhanced practical contemporary uniform, distinct to Navy.



Patrol Boat crews operating in the tropical and humid environments in our northern waters are particularly looking forward to the introduction of the new uniform, and are mooted to be amongst the first recipients.



There will also be a benefit of inventory rationalisation as Action Working Dress, which saw introduction in 1945, is also phased out and replaced by the two-piece uniform.



Following a review of footwear, replacement safety boots will be introduced into service to provide greater comfort and the inventory will be reduced, with the alternative boot expected to do the job of five other types of footwear currently in use.



Sixty thousand sets of the uniform are required for the initial delivery to the RAN and this represents a $13m dollar injection into the Australian textile and manufacturing industries.



Rollout of the new two-piece fire-retardant operational uniform will commence mid-2008.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=7112

Not sure about the combination of reflector tape and a camouflage uniform!

Tas

 

[barra]

Not sure about the combination of reflector tape and a camouflage uniform!

Tas,
The reflector tape is there to aid spotting a sailor who has gone over the side. Apparently makes a huge difference in helping them. Similar to the Air Force adopting DPCU's as standard work dress and then requiring crews to wear a hi viz vest on the flightline!

I am interested in whether Navy has control over the trials and development of their working dress. I understand that Army has responsibility for developing Army and Air Force clothing, unsure if they also do Navy's. Air Force techo's are still waiting for a work boot that will do all that it supposed to ie. leave no scuff marks, tread pattern that doesn't attract FOD, non slip, comfortable and resistant to oils etc. Looking at the picture the new Navy boot looks like the current fire fighters boot.

Hooroo

 

[AegisFC]

Interesting, though the reflective tape does make sense it would look better on a solid color uniform rather than camo.
Even though I hate them I think I prefer the USN's new uniforms to the new Aussie ones.

 

[Tasman]

Tas,
The reflector tape is there to aid spotting a sailor who has gone over the side. Apparently makes a huge difference in helping them. Similar to the Air Force adopting DPCU's as standard work dress and then requiring crews to wear a hi viz vest on the flightline!

I understand the value of the tape - it just looks out of place to me on a camouflage uniform. In fact I'm not sure why the navy needs a camouflage uniform except for shore parties. In that case, removable reflector tape might be the go.

Like AegisFC I can't say that I am overly impressed with the look of the new uniforms.

Tas

 

[RubiconNZ]

I do not like the look of them either, perhaps it would be better if it was tailored fit they look stupid so baggy, also the badges a just pinned on, maybe some infra badges like the new US Army ones would meld with the camo better.

 

[AegisFC]

Like AegisFC I can't say that I am overly impressed with the look of the new uniforms.

Tas

I don't understand the fad of going towards cammo uniforms for sailors, it does not make much sense. The USN is going this way as well (I don't like it becuase I have to buy all new uniforms lol) however the original idea was for a uniform you can still wear if you accidently get some paint or grease on it (the original concept pics I seen last year were haze gray and deck gray cammo) but they seem to have decided to just copy the armies BDU's.

 

[barra]

(I don't like it becuase I have to buy all new uniforms lol)

Thats bad luck mate, DPCUs are considered public clothing in the ADF and are issued free of charge. General rule of thumb if its green it is free.
As for the look of this uniform, maybe they should have washed it a few times first to take the stiffness out of it? The uniform is designed to break up the outline of the body, I guess a tailored fit wouldn't suit the majority of Navy body types. : I don't really see why it is important on a ship though.
So can anyone answer my other question, is Navy in control of the development of its combat clothing?

Hooroo

 

[AegisFC]

Thats bad luck mate, DPCUs are considered public clothing in the ADF and are issued free of charge. General rule of thumb if its green it is free.

We get a clothing allowance every year but it isn't enough to cover everything you need and supposedly we'll get a larger allowance once the new uniforms come in but I doubt it will be near enough to replace or even half my replaced uniforms.

 

[Tasman]

Contract signed for AWD's

The contract for the construction of three air warfare destroyers for the RAN was signed today.

The comments made by the minister at the signing ceremony today didn't seem to add anything 'new' to what has been previously 'officially' announced. I was disappointed that there were no comments about the much talked about fourth ship and no comments (apart from "Australianised") about enhancing the baseline F-100 design.

There was also no comment re the signing of the LHD contract.

AIR WARFARE DESTROYERS – THE FOUNDATION LAID


I am pleased to announce the signing of the final contracts to build three Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs) for the Royal Australian Navy. At a total cost of approximately $8 billion, this is the largest naval shipbuilding project ever undertaken in Australia.

The signing follows two years of hard work by the AWD team in the design selection phase of the project that resulted in the Australian Government choosing the Spanish Navantia F-100 warship as the platform for Australia’s next generation HOBART Class AWDs.

The first of these Air Warfare Destroyers will be delivered in late 2014, followed by the second and third ships in early-2016 and mid-2017 respectively.

The project will provide enormous opportunities for Australia’s shipbuilding, electronics and engineering industries, creating 1,500 shipbuilding jobs in South Australia. Another 1,500 jobs will be created throughout Australia.

The Aegis equipped F100 as our next generation Air Warfare Destroyer will provide the Navy with one of the world’s most capable warships.

The Australianised F100 will be capable across the full spectrum of joint maritime operations, from area air defence and escort duties, right through to peacetime national tasking and diplomatic missions.

Since entering service with the Spanish Navy, F100s, among their many other tasks, have worked alongside the United States Navy (USN) as the first foreign Aegis equipped ship to be fully integrated into a USN Carrier Strike Group.

The principal contract signed today was the three-way Alliance Based Target Incentive Agreement between the Defence Materiel Organisation, ASC AWD Shipbuilder Pty Ltd and Raytheon Australia Pty Ltd.

This contract does not include the Commonwealth contract for the Aegis Combat System, which is a separate agreement between the Australian and United States Governments.

The other contract signed today was the Platform System Design contract between the Commonwealth and Navantia S.A.

Australian Industry will play a pivotal role in the success of the AWD project by providing specialised skills and equipment to the AWD Alliance. Australian Industry is expected to deliver products and services for around 55 per cent of the AWD Program over the next 15 years. This will be followed by high value through life support contracts into the middle of the century.

Teams from the Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance will be touring Australia in late October-early November to promote project opportunities to Australian industry.

The Australia-wide tour will see two teams from the Alliance visiting Canberra and Cairns (22 October), Newcastle and Wollongong (23 October), Sydney and Launceston (24 October), Brisbane (25 October), Melbourne (26 October), Adelaide (30 October) and Perth (2 November). More details will be announced shortly on the AWD Alliance website at www.ausawd.com.

Companies interested in becoming involved in the AWD Program can register on the AWD Alliance Supplier Registration Portal also on the AWD Alliance website.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=7136

Tas

 

[Tasman]

Nelson re 4th AWD

Interesting comments by Brendan Nelson to questions about a fourth AWD:

DR NELSON:


Today is an extremely important day for South Australia, for Australia, and for the Royal Australian Navy. We have formally signed $8 billion in contracts for three Air Warfare Destroyers that will be built by the Australian Submarine Corporation.


More than 3,000 Australians will get jobs from this. More than 1,000 contractors throughout Australia will be undertaking work to help build the ships. More than $4 billion of that will be invested directly in Australia, and importantly it means that the Royal Australian Navy will be able to protect our very large amphibious ships that we're also about to build, and make sure that Australia is able to play the key role in our area of paramount defence interest in our region, and in wider parts of the world.


QUESTION:


Dr Nelson, I guess the question everyone's asking, will we get a fourth ship?



DR NELSON:



Well I certainly am disposed to seeing a fourth destroyer being built. Obviously we have kept the option open. We will need to make that decision before the end of next year. But we'd be talking about $1.5 billion, which is a lot of money, and we've got to make sure the ink dries on the contracts that we've just signed. But certainly I would be disposed to a fourth ship. We've kept the option open, and we'll count our pennies over the next few months to a year, and see how we go.


QUESTION:


Dr Nelson, you may have to make that decision in the next few weeks, given the pending federal election, of course, but has that put any pressure on you to come to a decision more quickly?



DR NELSON:


Well firstly, the decision as to whether we do have a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer, which means just over $1.5 billion more, is a decision that does not have to be made until the end of next year, because Raytheon, which makes the Aegis combat system, which is the fighting part of the ship, will have a production line going until then.



We've got to make sure that we keep Australia moving in the right direction, we're in a strong economic position at the moment, but let's just bed down the three ships we've just signed up for, before we start looking at another one.



QUESTION:


So it won't be a pre-election announcement?


DR NELSON:


Well, we'll just watch this space.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMinTranscripttpl.cfm?CurrentId=7137

I guess we will just have to "watch this space."

Tas

 

[Tasman]

HMAS Melbourne to be provisionally accepted back into service

HMAS Melbourne in being provisionally accepted back into service on 8/10/07, following its FFGUP,

It marks the return of the second of four FFGs (Sydney is the first - Tas) to the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). Provisional Acceptance marks the beginning of the next phase of the contract to achieve operational acceptance by the RAN.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/AlertTpl.cfm?CurrentId=7146

Sydney is currently undergoing trials in North American waters as part of the progression to operational acceptance- see Post 563.

Tas

 

[Tasman]

More info re FFGUP

HMAS Melbourne was handed from Thales Australia to DMO today.

HMAS MELBOURNE PROVISIONAL ACCEPTANCE


The FFG Upgrade Project achieved another milestone today with Provisional Acceptance of the second upgraded vessel, HMAS MELBOURNE.


Provisional Acceptance is a contractual arrangement that facilitates the return of HMAS MELBOURNE back to the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) from the Prime Contractor, Thales Australia.


HMAS MELBOURNE will commence Navy activities today. Further Navy trials over the coming months will assess the operational performance of upgraded systems.


The FFG Upgrade Project provides for the upgrade of four ADELAIDE class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy.


HMAS SYDNEY was the first FFG to achieve Provisional Acceptance on 15 December 2006 and is currently conducting operational trials of the newly fitted Evolved Sea Sparrow missile system in Hawaii.


HMAS DARWIN is currently in the production phase at Garden Island, Sydney, and will commence Sea Trials early 2008. HMAS NEWCASTLE is the last of the four FFGs to be upgraded and commences its upgrade this month.


Media contact:

Defence Media Liaison (02) 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=7147

Tas

 

[AGRA]

Hi Tassie, i suggest that the AWDs will be TLACM capable (fitted for but not with). Even the MK41 VLS has this capability on the ANZACs or FFGs, so i wouldnt be too worried about this. If there is some security reason to arm them i wouldnt doubt that the RAN will have this capability sometime in the future. I think its way things are going in the region.

Ye gods still pushing this barrow. Now the FFH and FFG are Tomahawk capable!

There are three types of Mk 41 VLS with differing cell depths. The FFH and FUG FFGs are fitted with what's called 'tactical' Mk 41. These cells are too short to fit a Tomahawk. Tomahawk's need 'strike' Mk 41 (hence the name). These cells will be fitted to the AWDs so could be loaded with a Tomahawk canister. However the ship's will not have Tomahawk mission planning and control stations [Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC)/Afloat Planning System (APS) and Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TWCS)], just like the Collins don't have. While Collins doesn't have the room for Tomahawk stations the AWDs might have the spare room designed in. A land attack missile capability is part of the AWD's growth option conception.

Fitted for but not with, not!

 

[battlensign]

That's interesting. I had thought that because the ESSM was to (from what I had heard) be quad-packed, I had assumed that there were strategic (strike) length Mk 41 VLS installed........

Yep.......we screwed the AWD choice....... Would have been nice to have one that would be able to fit the Sea-RAM CIWS, Harpoon, Tomahawk, 2 Helo's and a decent number of SAMs (ESSM, SM2/3/6) ...... Thank god for coalitions.

Brett.

 

[AGRA]

That's interesting. I had thought that because the ESSM was to (from what I had heard) be quad-packed, I had assumed that there were strategic (strike) length Mk 41 VLS installed........

Quad packed ESSM canisters can be loaded into the shortest Mk 41, the SDL, which is expressly designed for 4xESSM. The quad pack is not one on top of the other but all four side by side in quarters of the canister.

 

[battlensign]

Quad packed ESSM canisters can be loaded into the shortest Mk 41, the SDL, which is expressly designed for 4xESSM. The quad pack is not one on top of the other but all four side by side in quarters of the canister.

Thanks for the clarification AGRA.

All I knew was that the ESSM could come quad-packed, that we are getting it and that this was REALLY good! I never really thought about HOW they were quad-packed. oops....:redface

Brett.

 

[StingrayOZ]

While Collins doesn't have the room for Tomahawk stations the AWDs might have the spare room designed in. A land attack missile capability is part of the AWD's growth option conception.

Fitted for but not with, not!

One would assume that the AWD would be able to operate Tomahawk, given that Spain is operating them from even the early build ships, and the dutch frigates can also operate the tomahawk. Both smaller than the AWD design.

Hanging around spainish forums, it seems there is a design to place two helicopters on the F-100 design. But apparently it is tied to that radar used on the ship. I belive its entirely possible to put two helos on it.

There is room on a collins to provide such stations if absolutely required. The AIP units were never fitted to the ships, providing a very useful freespace on the boats. If it was absolutely required, it could be done. But would mean missions the subs current perform would not be able to be done, but it is possible. Even to have extra crew to operate it.

4 x AWD is absolutely required. They were 100% the right choice so as long as we get atleast four and two helicopter hanger. The Two helicopter hanger was a requirement so I am 100% confident that will happen. the 4th AWD is critical to the operation of the AWD as escorts, sustainability of ASC, and of ship building industry as a whole.

 

[Tasman]

4 x AWD is absolutely required. They were 100% the right choice so as long as we get atleast four and two helicopter hanger. The Two helicopter hanger was a requirement so I am 100% confident that will happen. the 4th AWD is critical to the operation of the AWD as escorts, sustainability of ASC, and of ship building industry as a whole.

I agree totally about the need for a fourth ship but, much as I would like to see it, I'm not as confident as you that the Hobarts will be able to operate two helos. Mind you, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

The Defence Minister said a few days ago (see Post 592):

Well I certainly am disposed to seeing a fourth destroyer being built. Obviously we have kept the option open. We will need to make that decision before the end of next year. But we'd be talking about $1.5 billion, which is a lot of money, and we've got to make sure the ink dries on the contracts that we've just signed. But certainly I would be disposed to a fourth ship. We've kept the option open, and we'll count our pennies over the next few months to a year, and see how we go.

I was hoping that the fourth destroyer would be included in the present contract or would at least receive a firm commitment before the election. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Labor Party have to say about a fourth ship during the election campaign.

Re Tomahawk I agree that there should be no problem integrating it into the Hobarts if required. So far as the Collins are concerned I will have to rely on the Collins class 'experts' in the forum to comment.

Tas

 

[AGRA]

One would assume that the AWD would be able to operate Tomahawk, given that Spain is operating them from even the early build ships, and the dutch frigates can also operate the tomahawk. Both smaller than the AWD design.

Assume away, however as I've clearly stated from an iformed perspective (inform yourself at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm) operating Tomahawk is not as simple as loading a Tomahawk filled canister into a Mk 41 Strike length VLS. What Spain did is fit the Tomahawk management system to the Alvao de Bazan and it has nothing to do with the order of build. Without this equipment you can't even target the missile with mission planning from an off-board source.

Hanging around spainish forums, it seems there is a design to place two helicopters on the F-100 design. But apparently it is tied to that radar used on the ship. I belive its entirely possible to put two helos on it.

Totally wrong. Having hung around on the Alvao de Bazan itself the problem with widening the hangar is the torpedo magazines on each beam. Magazines are not just normal ship's compartments but heavily armoured spaces. Removing this magazines is a significant redesign effort. Having spoken to the AWD program manager about this he said it was too big a redesign.

There is room on a collins to provide such stations if absolutely required. The AIP units were never fitted to the ships, providing a very useful freespace on the boats. If it was absolutely required, it could be done. But would mean missions the subs current perform would not be able to be done, but it is possible. Even to have extra crew to operate it.

Collins was never designed for AIP so there is no surplus AIP space. The whole AIP idea was to fit an entire new hull section, lengthening the ship, with the API engines. However the Collins boats could be fitted with Tomahawk weapons management system by cutting into accommodations and other spaces. The Tomahawks themselves would cut into the 22 strong torpedo and Harpoon magazine. But to call this state of affairs ‘fitted for but not with’ is laughable.