Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

...
The French and English are working on a new conventionally-powered carrier. It will be built by DCNS. But I cant find the design of the new ship or the size, do you think this might complement the LHD when they are all sorted out, and see if we get the fourth AWD I was thinking of a time frame of 2017-20

REGARDS
TOM

...]

For anything to do with the RN, Richard Beedalls site is very good indeed. He tends to be pessimistic when speculating about the future, but always within the range of realism.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html

 

[Tasman]

HMAS Arunta departs for Gulf

HMAS Arunta has left Fleet Base West for her second deployment as part of Operation CATALYST. As is usual with these deployments she is carrying her full outfit of Harpoon missiles and Mini Typhoon.

A good high resolution photo can be seen using the following link from the ADF website:

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/Nov/20071113/index.htm

A low res photo is attached below.

Tas

 

[enghave]

Armidale Class PB status

Blah blah blah. Hype from the media.

Looks like you're right, I was taken in by the story which I'd describe as seriously biased at best. Defence responded to each of the twenty allegations separately.

On The Record (scroll down to 7 Nov 07 Status of Armidale Class Patrol Boats).

The serious allegation that Defence "kept it secret" was simply untrue, they published it on their website HMAS MAITLAND TOXIC HAZARD INCIDENT.

I think I need to be more cynical about the media.

 

[McTaff]

I think I need to be more cynical about the media.

I have such a pessimistic view of anything the media puts out regarding Defence that I often find myself wanting to have the media put under a "truth test" each week.

Sadly, the public eats up the first story it sees, and the retraction or correction posted at the bottom of page 43 three days later (if any, as usually there isn't) doesn't warrant a read.

Hype sells news, regardless of voracity. But we all get sucked in from time to time, don't feel bad.

I was surprised at the number of real Fires and Toxic Hazards that actually do occur across the fleet each quarter - it really is a well drilled and rehearsed procedure. Plus, most sailors have 'seen the elephant' as it were, so none of them are particularly fazed by it, which tends to reduce panic.

 

[JokerJason]

Australia should have one Carrier Battle Group, possibly with some F-35B's?

Mod edit: A joker you might be, but you're also breaching the rules with repeated one liners.

Just like everyone else on the boards, you are expected to understand and obey the rules.

This sort of offhand comment achieves nothing. Argue why youthink Australia should have a carrier battle group and justify your argument, or don't bother at all.

AD

 

[McTaff]

Australia should have one Carrier Battle Group, possibly with some F-35B's?

No offense intended, but that has been done to death on this forum. Try a quick search to look it all up.

 

[FutureTank]

No offense intended, but that has been done to death on this forum. Try a quick search to look it all up.

That was a joke

 

[t68]

here mate,
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

Thanks Jezza

It certainly looks the goods ,intresting that they are moveing from stovl to ctol so that they can get heavier loads in the air.

With The standard airgroup of 40 aircraft includes the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, the EH-101 Merlin helicopter and the Maritime Surveillance and Control aircraft.

Does this mean they can get 40 f35b on plus the helos and surveillance?

Even if we only get one of these in the future it will provide good overall air coverage for the LHD and leave them for what they were design to do .

I would prefer two one on each coast and when one is in dock for extended period of time one available at all times.

To keep the cost down do you think puting super hornets on in place of f35 be a step in the right direction as RAAF are getting them and we would have systems in place to service them,and also i read somewhere USN are keeping them out till 2030

But also we would have to look at other asset protection for the carrier.

REGARDS
TOM

 

[swerve]

Thanks Jezza

It certainly looks the goods ,intresting that they are moveing from stovl to ctol so that they can get heavier loads in the air.
...

REGARDS
TOM

No, not "moving from STOVL to CTOL". The RN is buying STOVL carriers. Full stop. The design allows for the relatively easy fitting of catapults in a future refit -
(1) as insurance against the cancellation of F-35B
(2) as insurance against the future non-availability of STOVL aircraft, since the carriers are expected to outlast F-35B
(3) because the design is being done in co-operation with the French, who want a CTOL carrier, so the CTOL convertibility sort of emerges from the design process unless avoided

 

[perfectgeneral]

Swerve: items 1 & 2 are right, but the french didn't get onboard the programme until most of the design was fixed. They bought the design to adapt to CTOL. the MoD might be buying back the adapting design from the french later (who knows), but at present you couldn't really call it a joint venture. There might be some joint purchasing of common parts, but they are being built separately.

 

[Preceptor]

Just taking the time to point out that the last few posts have strayed into a discussion of fixed wing aircraft, as opposed to the Royal Australian Navy. Please try and remain on topic.

-Preceptor

 

[icelord]

New Government means new policys, and i since Fitzgibbon got Defence i'm sure he would push for a Coast Guard, since it was a co-idea with his mate Latham in 2004. I've asked around here and a few officers doubt it would get through for obvious reasons, but it was a policy and i'd be intregued on the re-berth of the idea(and it has been kicked around, but now theres a better chance then previously)

 

[McTaff]

New Government means new policys, and i since Fitzgibbon got Defence i'm sure he would push for a Coast Guard, since it was a co-idea with his mate Latham in 2004. I've asked around here and a few officers doubt it would get through for obvious reasons, but it was a policy and i'd be intregued on the re-berth of the idea(and it has been kicked around, but now theres a better chance then previously)

Chances of military being deployed overseas is lessened, which means Fitzgobbon might take the chance to up the ante in Op Resolute with the 'idle' ships and aircraft. Whether Customs gets a bigger slice of the government pie is another matter though, as they could benefit from more vessels and aircraft.

 

[alexsa]

New Government means new policys, and i since Fitzgibbon got Defence i'm sure he would push for a Coast Guard, since it was a co-idea with his mate Latham in 2004. I've asked around here and a few officers doubt it would get through for obvious reasons, but it was a policy and i'd be intregued on the re-berth of the idea(and it has been kicked around, but now theres a better chance then previously)

I understand this idea may be quietly shelved along with the department of home land security due to cost and complexity (i.e it may turn out to be a massive and expensive white elephant, not good for a 2nd term). I don't ahve the link for the attached article.

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

Labor flirts with first broken promise
Tom Allard National Security Editor
November 28, 2007

LABOR'S proposed Department of Homeland Security, which would incorporate national security and border protection agencies, will be abandoned, say senior figures in the incoming Rudd government.
The decision, expected to be confirmed as early as this week when the prime minister-elect, Kevin Rudd, announces his front bench, represents Labor's first broken election promise.

However, the concept pre-dates Mr Rudd's leadership and Labor cancelled its national-security policy launch during the campaign.

It is understood that Mr Rudd has been told by senior bureaucrats during discussions this week about his transition to government that the creation of a department of homeland security would be hugely disruptive with negligible benefit.

Security chiefs and bureaucrats have been dreading the prospect of moving to a new mega-department, especially as a similar bureaucracy in the US has been beset by big problems.

"It's not going to happen," said one Labor frontbencher, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Another Labor source said: "I suppose you could put it in the non-core promise category. No one thinks it's a particularly good idea."

The proposed department would have brought together ASIO, the federal police, the Coastguard, as well as elements of Customs, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Attorney-General's department and the Department of Transport.

"It's a proposal that needs to be looked at very carefully," said Hugh White, head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University.

"The experience in the US has been so negative and it's not clear that it would do much to improve the co-ordination of Australia's agencies. There's a number of things to be done but setting up a department of homeland security may not be one of them."

One option being considered is to have a smaller co-ordinating authority for national security to bolster co-operation between the arms of government charged with addressing the terrorism threat, including intelligence agencies, police and Customs.

Mr Rudd told the National Press Club last week that he was anxious to have minimal disruption to the bureaucracy if he took power.

But asked later that day by the Herald whether that meant he no longer favoured a homeland security department, Mr Rudd gave a carefully worded response that gave the impression he would implement the long-standing policy without committing to it.

"The need underpinning our proposal for a department of homeland security is to ensure that the silos are talking to each other," he said.
The problem is how to negotiate the sensitive politics of the about-face. But with the Coalition in disarray, Labor insiders said now was as good a time as any.

Mr Rudd's spokesman yesterday declined to endorse the introduction of the department or comment on whether it was being dumped.
Mr Rudd's new Office of National Security - headed by a national security adviser - could also take over the co-ordinating role.

Candidates being mooted for the powerful new position of national security adviser include the Lowy Institute director, Alan Gyngell, a former senior defence official, Alan Behm, and the US ambassador, Dennis Richardson.

 

[alexsa]

Sorry I should qualfy this. it does not mean ther will be no changes, you can expect Boarder Protection Command will absorb other functions but it may not run into a full blown coast guard. For example there has been serious speculation (suggestion) the the RCC (and its 5 FLIR/radar equipped Dorniers) will go to Boarder potection command but the rest of AMSA will remain independent.

There are certainly funding and operational considerations that would mean this is a better and lower risk model tahtn full aabsorbtion of all such functions.

 

[Tasman]

Sorry I should qualfy this. it does not mean ther will be no changes, you can expect Boarder Protection Command will absorb other functions but it may not run into a full blown coast guard. For example there has been serious speculation (suggestion) the the RCC (and its 5 FLIR/radar equipped Dorniers) will go to Boarder potection command but the rest of AMSA will remain independent.

There are certainly funding and operational considerations that would mean this is a better and lower risk model tahtn full aabsorbtion of all such functions.

I can see some sense in the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) aircraft going to Border Protection Command. I think there would also be some merit in putting the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and Border Protection Command together. That would effectively provide a coastguard, in all but name, using existing assets. I'm not saying this should happen but it may be worth considering.

Tas

 

[AGRA]

I can see some sense in the Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) aircraft going to Border Protection Command. I think there would also be some merit in putting the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and Border Protection Command together. That would effectively provide a coastguard, in all but name, using existing assets. I'm not saying this should happen but it may be worth considering.

Absolutely not. And this is what Rudd rightly rejected this week on the advice of the practitioners. BPC and AMSA are responsible for two very different jobs. One deals with illegal activities in our border zone the other perfectly legitimate use of our maritime zone that’s gone wrong thanks to nature and/or inadequate boating operations.

The two missions share almost nothing in common. Sure most of the border enforcement happens over the ocean as we are an island nation. But that doesn’t mean managing the two separate missions has much in common. It means some of the assets can be dual rolled – like the AMSA Dorniers doing border surveillance and NMU and RAN ships helping in sea rescues. But there are no real sharp edge savings available through amalgamation.

Coastguard is just a nice name and in the 21st century an anachronism.

 

[Tasman]

Absolutely not. And this is what Rudd rightly rejected this week on the advice of the practitioners. BPC and AMSA are responsible for two very different jobs. One deals with illegal activities in our border zone the other perfectly legitimate use of our maritime zone that’s gone wrong thanks to nature and/or inadequate boating operations.

The two missions share almost nothing in common. Sure most of the border enforcement happens over the ocean as we are an island nation. But that doesn’t mean managing the two separate missions has much in common. It means some of the assets can be dual rolled – like the AMSA Dorniers doing border surveillance and NMU and RAN ships helping in sea rescues. But there are no real sharp edge savings available through amalgamation.

Coastguard is just a nice name and in the 21st century an anachronism.

If there are no savings through amalgamation I have to agree that bringing the two bodies together to form a kind of defacto coastguard would be a poor idea. BPC seems to be evolving into a reasonably effective organisation and it's ability to draw on assets from the RAN, RAAF and RCC when required makes economical use of resources.

Having given more thought to the idea of amalgamation of BPC and AMSA I don't think it is an idea worth pursuing.

Tas

 

[octopus7]

I hope this isn't too off topic, but I have started a 3D model of an Armidale class patrol boat if interested post replies etc in this thread.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7100

cheers.
BTW I hope Rudd doesn't stuff up our air warfare destroyers as they will be a great addition to our navy. The free medical and dental for ADF family members will be a bonus though.

 

[Tasman]

BTW I hope Rudd doesn't stuff up our air warfare destroyers as they will be a great addition to our navy.

Shouldn't be a problem. The ALP Defence Policy Statement says, "A Rudd Labor Government is committed to the acquisition of three Air Warfare Destroyers with the strong option of acquiring a fourth vessel."

http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/071112___labors_plan_for_defencexx.pdf

Tas