Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[AGRA]

I doubt you will want ot 'sit' you troops for this time so suggest accomodation will be required.

The sealift requirement is not for trooplifting. Under the ADAS the LHDs will provide the deployment of the combined arms battlegroup and the sealift capability will sustain it with consumables and provide the full vehicle and equipment alotments. Moving people anyway is easily enough done with airlift. Sealift is for cargo.

The problem with the RO-RO option is draft - 6.5m - that limits access to the more established ports (like Singapore) or those lucky enough to have deep harbours (like Laha). Then there is offload. How long will the RO-RO have to sit in the port while Army terminal ops remove the cargo? A few days? Esepcially as she will have to sit in deeper water so its wichning down to lighters. The HSV can motor right up to the jetty and with 500-1,000 tonnes of cargo offload it much easier than the "eight" times the cargo load.

By having larger numbers of smaller ships you are also able to move cargos to different ports. Say we are doing an East Timor like mission - there are at least 4-5 ports or beaches you would want to offload to, not all just to Dilli. By going point to point with HSVs you can cut down on further logistical burdens.

Sailors may love RO-ROs but soliders love HSVs...

 

[erich hartman]

here is the collins-class sub in action.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHAlZrmrl_k"]YouTube - collins class sub - exterior[/ame]

 

[alexsa]

The sealift requirement is not for trooplifting. Under the ADAS the LHDs will provide the deployment of the combined arms battlegroup and the sealift capability will sustain it with consumables and provide the full vehicle and equipment alotments. Moving people anyway is easily enough done with airlift. Sealift is for cargo....

I am aware of this hence the second part of the response looked at the helo carrier and the range to DWT capacity to Timor. I used RO-PAX as an example because the last Timor evolution inlcuded troops as does the currently employed TSV. A pure conventional RO-RO makes a stronger arguement in favor of a conventional hull as a ship with a DWT of 15000 tonnes at 80 million USD will be cheaper than the milterised HSV cargo if they come in at 100 million USD as indicated. Smaller RO-RO wiht a DWT of 8000 tonnes cost less.

The problem with the RO-RO option is draft - 6.5m - that limits access to the more established ports (like Singapore) or those lucky enough to have deep harbours (like Laha). Then there is offload. How long will the RO-RO have to sit in the port while Army terminal ops remove the cargo? A few days? Esepcially as she will have to sit in deeper water so its wichning down to lighters. The HSV can motor right up to the jetty and with 500-1,000 tonnes of cargo offload it much easier than the "eight" times the cargo load.....

Ummm Singapore..!!! that port can take post panamax. 6.5m is nothing. Darwin is a limiting factor and 10m is not an issue. In fact many ports in the local area are serviced by Chief Container Serices with their Chief class vessels. These are indicative of the type of vessel used locally in undeveloped shallow ports for break bulk and containers and these have a DWT of 13500 tonnes with a summer draft of 8.5m. Thes ships can get into shallow porst such as Lae, Alotau, Wewak and so forth. 6.5m is very shallow.

A large RO-RO can off load cargo as quickly as a HSV on a tonnage rate as both use the same dischage system (i.e self conpensating ramps). In fact some RO-RO's are twin ramped and will unlaod at a faster rate.

By having larger numbers of smaller ships you are also able to move cargos to different ports. Say we are doing an East Timor like mission - there are at least 4-5 ports or beaches you would want to offload to, not all just to Dilli. By going point to point with HSVs you can cut down on further logistical burdens.

Sailors may love RO-ROs but soliders love HSVs...

You are going to put a HSV on the beach?. For the RO-RO faclity to be effective you need a wharf. Same for the the RO-RO. In fact because of the cost issues you could get four 22 knots RO-RO for the same money as 3 HSV's (likely to be the same crewing for each ship too) and have the capbiltiy delivier 32000 tonnes of cargo in two days in the same time 3 HSV can deliver 6000 tonnes. Add to this the fuel burn then the 4 conventional vessels have burnt 800 tonnes of IFO (336000 USD) for a 32000 tonne uplift compared to 864 tonnes of MGO/MDO for the 3 HSV (613440 USD) for 6000 tonnes uplift. Don't forget the RO-RO does not have to run at full draft and at a TPC of about 35 tonnes you can reduce the draft by 1.14m to less thatn 5m (pure RO-RO wiht a DWT of about 8000 tonnes have a draft of about 6.05m using the examples quoted) and still deliever 4000 tonnes of cargo. Tenha davanatge is the greater uplift capcity gives you more options but DWT on HSV is driven down by the priority based on speed.

In resepct of the sailor commont that is very patronising. I think the HSV is a tremmedous vessel for the roles it undertakes but I am aware of its limitations. There appears to be a blindness to the fact it is a light weight hull and this limits effeciveness. If disaster reponse is requred in extreme conditions (for the HSV this is force 6 and greater and I am being genrous there) don't send the HSV. As a replacment to air transport for rapid deployement of men and some equipemnt the vessel is unrivalled and the comments made by the marines in respct of the Westpac express bear this out. For sustained resupply and persistance in all conditions the convetional vesel is a far better option.

 

[alexsa]

One more issue I missed was the issue of beam. The INCAT carrier its cargo on a raised deck bridged between hulls. this keeps the submureged waterplane area down to faciltiate high speed (hence the DWT and displacement down) but also meand the vesel is very beamy for length. Over 30m in fact.

For poorly developed ports with channal cut though coral (i.e our local area) this may be more of a limitation than a 6m draft.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Would the money be there for 1 RoRo and 1 HSC? Given that each type has strengths and weaknesses would getting one of each be useful. Both would address areas of weakness Australia has. Could we not get the best of both worlds. A fast initial response, shallow hull but a large ship able to deliver the tonnage extremely efficently and in quantity.

 

[buglerbilly]

One more issue I missed was the issue of beam. The INCAT carrier its cargo on a raised deck bridged between hulls. this keeps the submureged waterplane area down to faciltiate high speed (hence the DWT and displacement down) but also meand the vesel is very beamy for length. Over 30m in fact.

For poorly developed ports with channal cut though coral (i.e our local area) this may be more of a limitation than a 6m draft.

And which Ports may they be? Y'all are assuming you will have access to a port, a nefarious assumption IF there is any kind of serious conflict. The first thing I would do is blow the Port to bits, sink everything in sight, then you'd be stuffed trying to anchor up.

I would suggest y'all take a look at RAND's report on Sea-basing and the methods to deliver to shore. Their conclusion relies on LMSR (Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off) monohull vessels allied to LCAC and large helo's, in this case CH-53K's.

Interestingly enough they value CH-53K far more than MV-22 when it comes to slung loads and moving vehicular and cargo mass. The slung load effectively negates the speed advantage of the Osprey plus it carries FAR less than a CH-53K.

Moving a Stryker or Heavy Armour combat team cum brigade can have its time-to-move-ashore halved by also including a JHSV (CAT/TRIMARAN to you and me) in the transit system from LMSR to shore.

To me the model of LMSR and JHSV is the one we need to emulate (preferably backed by a number of LCU(R) and LCS but that's another story well known to some here!) in my opinion as it allows us flexibility to operate anywhere without any reliance on Ports. LCAC is not a factor for us unless the line opens again for LCAC Mark II or we decide to procure soemthing equivalent from elsewhere.

For our purposes, CH-47F/G with folding rotors would be preferable to CH-53K.

Is the money there to do this? Fer sure, one thing we have little problem with for the foreseeable, is funding. Whether the Political will (or vision) is there, is another matter.

 

[McTaff]

Sailors may love RO-ROs but soliders love HSVs...

It is a shame that the end-user isn't the one making the decisions. I am about to slightly derail the conversation at this point, just regarding sailors and soldiers and their "grunt on the ground" wishes.

This is purely based on personal experience and also on extensive contact with current "end-users", I can categorically say the following...

Soldiers - A list of things that the grunts love aboard ship:
1) The excellent food. The cooks aboard all Navy ships work their butts off to do the best they can with what they have. Soldiers always appreciate the high quality food, particularly because once they get off at the other end, they may not eat as nicely.
2) Running water, regardless of how little they are allowed (if on the way back fresh from deployment)
...and that about covers it.

A list of things they hate:
1) Constant damage control drills.
2) The extremely cramped conditions.
3) The lack of space to conduct personal fitness.
4) The limited freedom of where one can go.
5) Having menial tasks to 'keep you busy' while they lose their 'work skills'.
6) Boredom.
7) In some cases, seasickness. (Remember they aren't sailors by trade)
...amongst many, many, more. Too many to list, some which I can't talk about, (some which would surprise the folks at home in the armchair, too).

Any embarked troops mess aboard a ship is cramped, uncomfortable, and is merely a place for cramming the maximum amount of live cargo. It matters not how big the ship is for the most part, because the simple rule of thumb is 'X number of troops per Y-cubed amount of space'. Quite simply, the rule of thumb is "the bigger the space, the more grunts will be packed into it", regardless. At night, it can be oppressive given the sheer number of troops, the noise, the odd sick or noisy person...

If you ask a soldier how many days he is willing to spend aboard, his most likely answer would be either "As few as possible", or "How many of those will be in a friendly port?"

Sailors:
They like things that go quick - not just for the "big man" factor, they love it because of the ability to put more nautical miles between them and anything you care to mention.
They love shiny new things, and don't like to be accused of driving a floating bus (which is how a RO/RO is viewed).
They have a friendly rivalry with birdies; a lack of helo operations won't bother the crew of a ship too much (less stuff to worry about).
They love to get rid of embarked troops as soon as possible, the shorter the time the extra bodies are aboard, the quicker they get their space back.

Ask any 'end-user'... if you gave them a choice, they'd usually pick the 'Cat. The Army as a whole would love 'Cats for the speed they can put down, and the speed they can rotate troops to and from the zone. The Navy guys, although they aren't hugely picky, would prefer to be posted to a 'Cat than a RO/RO.

Then there is the whole "cool factor" of what we can do publicity-wise with a sleek, fast and seemingly cutting edge vessel. Point at a RO/Ro and tell someone how well engineered it is, and most people will look at you as if you are nuts. However, a glance at a 'Cat, and most people at least think "Hey! Cool!"

 

[swerve]

...
This is purely based on personal experience and also on extensive contact with current "end-users", I can categorically say the following...

Soldiers - A list of things that the grunts love aboard ship:
1) The excellent food. The cooks aboard all Navy ships work their butts off to do the best they can with what they have. Soldiers always appreciate the high quality food, particularly because once they get off at the other end, they may not eat as nicely....

Hear hear! One of my cousins retired from the RN a couple of years ago after over 20 years as a navy cook (two wars), having risen to the dizzy heights of CPO. I've eaten his cooking, & damn, he's good! Still working for the navy, as a civilian - cooks at Northwood now.

 

[FutureTank]

It is a shame that the end-user isn't the one making the decisions. I am about to slightly derail the conversation at this point, just regarding sailors and soldiers and their "grunt on the ground" wishes.

This is purely based on personal experience and also on extensive contact with current "end-users", I can categorically say the following...

Soldiers - A list of things that the grunts love aboard ship:
1) The excellent food. The cooks aboard all Navy ships work their butts off to do the best they can with what they have. Soldiers always appreciate the high quality food, particularly because once they get off at the other end, they may not eat as nicely.
2) Running water, regardless of how little they are allowed (if on the way back fresh from deployment)
...and that about covers it.

A list of things they hate:
1) Constant damage control drills.
2) The extremely cramped conditions.
3) The lack of space to conduct personal fitness.
4) The limited freedom of where one can go.
5) Having menial tasks to 'keep you busy' while they lose their 'work skills'.
6) Boredom.
7) In some cases, seasickness. (Remember they aren't sailors by trade)
...amongst many, many, more. Too many to list, some which I can't talk about, (some which would surprise the folks at home in the armchair, too).

Any embarked troops mess aboard a ship is cramped, uncomfortable, and is merely a place for cramming the maximum amount of live cargo. It matters not how big the ship is for the most part, because the simple rule of thumb is 'X number of troops per Y-cubed amount of space'. Quite simply, the rule of thumb is "the bigger the space, the more grunts will be packed into it", regardless. At night, it can be oppressive given the sheer number of troops, the noise, the odd sick or noisy person...

If you ask a soldier how many days he is willing to spend aboard, his most likely answer would be either "As few as possible", or "How many of those will be in a friendly port?"

Sailors:
They like things that go quick - not just for the "big man" factor, they love it because of the ability to put more nautical miles between them and anything you care to mention.
They love shiny new things, and don't like to be accused of driving a floating bus (which is how a RO/RO is viewed).
They have a friendly rivalry with birdies; a lack of helo operations won't bother the crew of a ship too much (less stuff to worry about).
They love to get rid of embarked troops as soon as possible, the shorter the time the extra bodies are aboard, the quicker they get their space back.

Ask any 'end-user'... if you gave them a choice, they'd usually pick the 'Cat. The Army as a whole would love 'Cats for the speed they can put down, and the speed they can rotate troops to and from the zone. The Navy guys, although they aren't hugely picky, would prefer to be posted to a 'Cat than a RO/RO.

Then there is the whole "cool factor" of what we can do publicity-wise with a sleek, fast and seemingly cutting edge vessel. Point at a RO/Ro and tell someone how well engineered it is, and most people will look at you as if you are nuts. However, a glance at a 'Cat, and most people at least think "Hey! Cool!"

The only problem with Cats is what to do with them while they are not zooming around South Pacific delivering troops and disaster relief teams/supplies?

If they are multi-roled, what happens to the (for example) mine hunting fittings and equipment when they need to deploy troops?
Australia can sure use four fast mine-hunters given our reliance on sea-trade routes, and the speed with which they can be mined, and need to be cleared.

This is something that even New Zealand would need to look at for capability because they are "in the same boat" if you pardon the pun, but lack any mine-hunting capability.

This is the only other role other then expeditionary that actually does require all the characteristics of a Cat, including speed, and would warrant the expense given a mine-laying campaign could cost Australia tens of millions in lost trade daily.

Huons, although relatively new, are of course coastal vessels with a top speed of 14knots that could not rapidly respond to reported mining 1000nm away.

Another role is for multinational counter-piracy operations since the Cats can enter very shallow waters (usual refuge used by pirate small craft), engage in pursuit with the fastest vessels available to such offenders, and bring a relatively large Army detachment for land operations if need be rather then using naval personnel.

 

[StingrayOZ]

A list of things they hate:
1) Constant damage control drills.
2) The extremely cramped conditions.
3) The lack of space to conduct personal fitness.
4) The limited freedom of where one can go.
5) Having menial tasks to 'keep you busy' while they lose their 'work skills'.
6) Boredom.
7) In some cases, seasickness. (Remember they aren't sailors by trade)
...amongst many, many, more. Too many to list, some which I can't talk about, (some which would surprise the folks at home in the armchair, too).

Isn't this what the LHD's are for? 27,000t of comfort. Half a dozen gyms, ~6500 m^2 of flattop to run around on, large mess areas, actual room for troops, maybe even enough room in the hanger to have a half court basket ball game or something, possibly a us carrier/lhd style retail area.

The HSC are fast short range ships. Get on, blast, get off. Given australia will have 2 LHD's I would imagine these would do most of the troop movement. Which makes the RoRo a choice for heavy equipment. In particular cranes, construction equipment and of course tanks etc. None of which can really be carried on a HSC.

 

[Tasman]

Interesting to hear McTaff's thoughts about soldiers' and sailors' love and hate lists!

Strong cases have been made in this thread for both the RoRo and the HSV's. If we can afford it (and the current Australian financial situation suggests we can) I agree with StingrayOZ that there is a place for both. My suggestion would be one RoRo for heavy lift and 2 HSV's with primary sealift and secondary minehunting, patrol and training roles. As has been pointed out a few times in the thread the sealift force could be supplemented fairly quickly by leasing additional HSV's from Incat and or Austal. There are usually a couple of cats floating around the Incat yards 'between' lease.

This force would make an excellent complement to the planned future amphibious assets (LHD's and smaller landing craft).

Tas

 

[McTaff]

Interesting to hear McTaff's thoughts about soldiers' and sailors' love and hate lists!

I love being at sea. Others don't

Strong cases have been made in this thread for both the RoRo and the HSV's. If we can afford it ... My suggestion would be one RoRo for heavy lift and 2 HSV's with primary sealift and secondary minehunting, patrol and training roles.

See, there is a whole 'nother topic: Training vessels.

At the moment, the closest things we have to active training vessels are the Kanimbla, Manoora and Tobruk. These are the only ships with a TS Officer posted to them, and the only vessels regularly employed to take trainee sailors and officers aboard.

I wish we had a training vessel wholly and solely dedicated, but that will never happen. Instead, I think we'll probably wind up with the trainees on LHD's, but IMHO this would be not the greatest idea, given that it doesn't teach new recruits anything about really being at sea.

Kanimbla and Manoora are pretty decent at it, given that they have enough deck space, enough embarked forces space, and are nice and old. New flashy ships do no good because everything is new, works and has loads of automation. We need to throw trainees in the deep end - clunky stuff, hard work and user unfriendliness.

Sure would make them appreciate thse new flashy ships they get to later.

 

[alexsa]

Interesting to hear McTaff's thoughts about soldiers' and sailors' love and hate lists!

Strong cases have been made in this thread for both the RoRo and the HSV's. If we can afford it (and the current Australian financial situation suggests we can) I agree with StingrayOZ that there is a place for both. My suggestion would be one RoRo for heavy lift and 2 HSV's with primary sealift and secondary minehunting, patrol and training roles. As has been pointed out a few times in the thread the sealift force could be supplemented fairly quickly by leasing additional HSV's from Incat and or Austal. There are usually a couple of cats floating around the Incat yards 'between' lease.

This force would make an excellent complement to the planned future amphibious assets (LHD's and smaller landing craft).

Tas

I am not so sue we can afford both, particularly with an election on the horizon. Mind you there is the chance flashy and faxt (built in Tasmainia) will win under labour where political implications will often take presedence over capability.

As I said the HSV has tremendous capability in repsect of men and equipment over shorter voyages (less than 24 hours) as a subsititue for air. For cargo movement thay lack uplift and given the small DWT would not be very suitable for pre-storage of some equipment long term on the vessel.

 

[alexsa]

And which Ports may they be? Y'all are assuming you will have access to a port, a nefarious assumption IF there is any kind of serious conflict. The first thing I would do is blow the Port to bits, sink everything in sight, then you'd be stuffed trying to anchor up..

Its not just posrt but also chocke points. As an example in our locla area we have raven passage which provides access to the top half of PNG after trasiting china strait. Gettting a vesel with a beam of 22m through there takes care. 30m wiht high windage at slow speed woutl be 'interesting'.

I would suggest y'all take a look at RAND's report on Sea-basing and the methods to deliver to shore. Their conclusion relies on LMSR (Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off) monohull vessels allied to LCAC and large helo's, in this case CH-53K's.

Ummm...... I have been advocating medium sized - medium speeds ships! Such ships allow the option of lighterage equipment fitted to the sides of the hull as well to facilitate discharge. I don't think we need to go to large hulls (40000 DWT plus) given the limitations of the local region.

But the vessel in question is a support vessel and unassisted landing (i.e. no port) will normally be undertakne by the LHD.

Moving a Stryker or Heavy Armour combat team cum brigade can have its time-to-move-ashore halved by also including a JHSV (CAT/TRIMARAN to you and me) in the transit system from LMSR to shore.

Are you suggesting transferring from a large MV to a large (112m or 127m) HSV? If you are there would be some challaneges even is very sheltered waters with this would all take time. The fact is the HSV needs a wharf in any case so you are better off taking the the amphibious support vessel straight in and ensuring it is fitted for self discharge.

 

[Tasman]

RAN Sea Kings cleared for flying again

RESUMPTION OF SEA KING FLYING OPERATIONS


Sea King flying operations will resume tomorrow following a three week flying suspension.



A temporary suspension of flying operations was imposed on 2 October 2007 as a precautionary measure to allow a maintenance incident to be fully investigated and appropriate inspections to be carried out on all Sea King aircraft.



A thorough investigation was conducted into the circumstances surrounding the tail rotor anomaly on one of the aircraft. No further anomalies were detected in any of the other aircraft.



While a maintenance error occurred, the subsequent steps taken by the Squadron to identify and resolve the issue are positive indicators of cultural change as a result of the Maintenance Reinvigoration Program (MRP) implemented in 2005. The MRP is aimed at fundamentally improving naval aviation maintenance.



“Having thoroughly investigated this matter through an independent technical airworthiness authority, and upon the recommendation of this authority, the Commander Naval Aviation Group and the Commanding Officer 817 Squadron, I am satisfied to lift this suspension,” said Commander Australian Fleet and Naval Operational Airworthiness Authority, Rear Admiral Nigel Coates, AM, RAN.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=7205

The RAN Sea King has been causing a bit of a stir lately with the grounding of the fleet coinciding with a claim that aircrews regarded the aircraft as unsafe. The navy categorically denied this but I expect there will be a collective sigh of relief when the MRH-90 becomes operational in the RAN and the veteran Sea Kings are finally withdrawn.

Tas

 

[Tasman]

Photo of HMAS Sydney showing new Mk 41 VLS

There is a good photo of HMAS Sydney on the ADF website showing the Mk 41 VLS forward of the Mk 13 launcher. The photos in this series were taken as Sydney departed for North America for trials associated with the FFGUP.

You will need to view the high definition photo to get a clear view.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/Oct/20071019a/index.htm

A low resolution version of the photo that shows the VLS is attached below:


Tas

 

[battlensign]

There is a good photo of HMAS Sydney on the ADF website showing the Mk 41 VLS forward of the Mk 13 launcher. The photos in this series were taken as Sydney departed for North America for trials associated with the FFGUP.

You will need to view the high definition photo to get a clear view.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/Oct/20071019a/index.htm

A low resolution version of the photo that shows the VLS is attached below:


Tas

Thanks for the photos Tas.

I think that there was probably space for another 8 cells .....but hey, 32 ESSM is still good!

Brett.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Thanks for the photos Tas.

I think that there was probably space for another 8 cells .....but hey, 32 ESSM is still good!

Brett.

At the moment they've go the same payload as an F100 (if tehy didnt cary any harpoons). Not bad . At least they have a three layered ASMD now. Standard, ESSM and Phalanx.

 

[battlensign]

That's quite interesting actually.....I hadn't really thought about it that way.

To be honest I have been focusing on the ANZAC upgrades and not really thinking about the totality of the FFG upgrades. If what you say is the net result there may be more merit to keeping them around longer than I had previously thought (though they obviously do not have the radar or multiple simultaneous launch capability of an Aegis networked Mk 41 VL system).

Brett.

 

[Tasman]

That's quite interesting actually.....I hadn't really thought about it that way.

To be honest I have been focusing on the ANZAC upgrades and not really thinking about the totality of the FFG upgrades. If what you say is the net result there may be more merit to keeping them around longer than I had previously thought (though they obviously do not have the radar or multiple simultaneous launch capability of an Aegis networked Mk 41 VL system).

Brett.

If the RAN can man them the two youngest Australian built ships (Darwin and Newcastle) might definitely be worth keeping. IIRC the RAN has previously expressed a desire for a force of at least 14 major surface combatants. 4 x F-100's (I know we haven't ordered the fourth yet ), 8 x Anzacs and 2 x FFG's would provide that number.

Tas