Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

I would disagree with that. As C2 platforms they may be alright but there are significant shortfalls in the comms suite. Not tri-service comms capable, as currently equipped, and all sorts other limitations are present as well.

Brett.

sorry you;re wrong. I'm not going to go into the details online. you can get me at work

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I must admit to a considerable degree of surprise when watching the Canberra LHD tour video to see that all the C2 space is in the island. The Americans learnt that didn’t work in the Tarawa LHA so moved them down into the hull for the Wasp LHD so there is room to make the command centre’s work.

 

[alexsa]

The problem with bill and ben was not their age, it was the absolute incompetency of the RAN assessment team who did not have the capability to assess and make a call on the vessels in the first place.

a qualified maritime engineer would have picked up the problems and we would have got them at a much more realistic price.

those ships were regarded as probably the best command assets to ever used to command various task forces in the gulf - they are highly regarded. the conversions done were very smart thinking and would have been much more beneficial if we'd had been a bit more dligent from day 1.

There are capabilities within bill and ben that are currently superior to the LHA's - and in some areas they will actually be more capable than the LHA's.

forget the internet rubbish that you hear about how superior the LHA's are compared to bill and ben, in some of the critical operational areas that is abject nonsense - nobody however is probably prepared to say it for obvious reasons.

some of the defence mags are printing rot and just reinforces how bad defence reporting is in Oz.

GF is bang on the mark, and sorry for the out of sync response.

A classification society, or other appropriate organisation, can pick these issues up (may not to 100% but t 95+ alowing an effective project spec). The problem is that this work needs to be done before your buy and involves outside stakeholders early in th the process. This is not alway feasible, particularly where a short time frame is imposed.

 

[aussienscale]

I must admit to a considerable degree of surprise when watching the Canberra LHD tour video to see that all the C2 space is in the island. The Americans learnt that didn’t work in the Tarawa LHA so moved them down into the hull for the Wasp LHD so there is room to make the command centre’s work.

Yes agree, that is the one things that bothered me, survivability is also the key for the 3 C's as well, especially for the command room for say a landing operation ? One hit in the island and promotions are looking good for a while

As far as potentially getting bay class (not within your quote but saves another post), would have thougth we could get the plans for the Galicia Class from Navantia and build in Oz ? But then again UK might be almost be giving them away looking at what the new UK Government is doing to the UK Defence Force.
Thats the problem, Politicians and Bureaucrat's take votes and Job security in the public service ahead of what is actually required :gun

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As far as potentially getting bay class (not within your quote but saves another post), would have thougth we could get the plans for the Galicia Class from Navantia and build in Oz ? But then again UK might be almost be giving them away looking at what the new UK Government is doing to the UK Defence Force.

Bay class is a variant of the same design as the Galicia. I'm sure a domestic build to follow the LHDs was probably what the framers of the DCP had in mind. But events can overtake planning.

 

[aussienscale]

Bay class is a variant of the same design as the Galicia. I'm sure a domestic build to follow the LHDs was probably what the framers of the DCP had in mind. But events can overtake planning.

Is it ? was not aware of that. So I suppose it comes down to price V age ?

But agree events (political threads) in our current climate does not bode well for the military when both parties (once again don't want to politicise this) are in a war for votes on a daily basis, forget A/stan ? The biggest war this country is currently involed in in the Labour/Liberal war :gun and the military is an easy target

 

[spoz]

The problem with bill and ben was not their age, it was the absolute incompetency of the RAN assessment team who did not have the capability to assess and make a call on the vessels in the first place.

a qualified maritime engineer would have picked up the problems and we would have got them at a much more realistic price.

.

Certainly the problem was the age of the ships; but these suggestions are off the mark. In 1993/4 when we did the procurement the assessment team contained (and, if memory serves, was led by) one of the most competent marine engineers ever to wear our uniform. However, they were only given limited access to the ships while they were in USN service; it was these ships or nothing. And we had to make a quick decision if we wanted them. A year or so before we had had our proposals for a specially built Training and Helicopter Support Ship killed. We knew they weren't in the greatest of nicks, and, although we didn't understand the full ramifications, we accepted that and the acquisition price reflected that. Get the files out of Queanbeyan and have a look at where we were then.

:duel

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A year or so before we had had our proposals for a specially built Training and Helicopter Support Ship killed.

Ahh the THSS up there with the LSM Mk 2, DDL and whatever the alternative to the Durance was as those great Australian ship missed opportunities of the post war era. I have no idea what was specifically planned but the budget and the schedule would have allowed for the Dutch to build a follow on to Rotterdam which would have been delivered to Australia by July 1999 so be useable in East Timor. Would have transformed our capability for INTERFET and provided a 15 year lead on the LHD.

 

[hairyman]

If the Ceafar and Ceamount radars prove a success, the Anzacs fitted with them will be a formidable ship for their size. Is there any chance that instead of calling for a 4th AWD, (the AWD's in my mind actually replacing the 3 CFADAMS destroyers) that Australia will consider building a larger ship fitted with Ceafar and Ceamount to replace the 6 OHPerry ships? The Anzacs are expected to remain in service for another 20 years, 2 of the OHPerrys are already decomissioned.

 

[icelord]

If the Ceafar and Ceamount radars prove a success, the Anzacs fitted with them will be a formidable ship for their size. Is there any chance that instead of calling for a 4th AWD, (the AWD's in my mind actually replacing the 3 CFADAMS destroyers) that Australia will consider building a larger ship fitted with Ceafar and Ceamount to replace the 6 OHPerry ships? The Anzacs are expected to remain in service for another 20 years, 2 of the OHPerrys are already decomissioned.

The AWDs are to replace the FFG. The DDG was deemed not needed to be replaced, so AWD will be building on Adelaide class, i agree they are really Destroyer replacements, but that would mean someones stuffed up when they decided to decomission the DDG, and no one ever does that in Govt or defence.
The follow on to AWD production is set to be Anzac MK II, but there is the possiblity of a Gap in production between the last AWD and the first Anzac II, thats one reason why a 4th AWD was proposed, the others being Operations, Upgrades etc reducing hulls in the water ready to sail in an emergency.
The RAN want to maintain Surface Combatants to 2 classes. By moving Anzac II forward with the Hobart class hull as the baseline, it would allow construction time to be shorter, but the fit out to be more complicated as it would require possibly unproven design and software/hardware. No matter how we look at it, if Anzac II doesnt come off a proven design, then it will be bogged down in delays.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Certainly the problem was the age of the ships; but these suggestions are off the mark. In 1993/4 when we did the procurement the assessment team contained (and, if memory serves, was led by) one of the most competent marine engineers ever to wear our uniform. However, they were only given limited access to the ships while they were in USN service; it was these ships or nothing. And we had to make a quick decision if we wanted them. A year or so before we had had our proposals for a specially built Training and Helicopter Support Ship killed. We knew they weren't in the greatest of nicks, and, although we didn't understand the full ramifications, we accepted that and the acquisition price reflected that. Get the files out of Queanbeyan and have a look at where we were then.

:duel

the bottom line is that we went ahead and procured vessels that were known to be busted, but didn't make the effort to establish how busted they actually were.

I don't subscribe to an excuse that we had to buy within a timeframe - the US would have delayed - and if they were not prepared to allow proper assessment (and we should have hired independants to review internal engineering findings) then we should have walked. as it was the problems of rust and structural weakness were well known in other vessels of the class that were employed elsewhere. It wasn't rocket science to expect that bill and ben would in all probability be suffering from the same cancerous malaise found in sister vessels.

all these decision results flow down the line, in this case it flowed down to govt who then decided that we would not get caught again and rejected a series of other ex USN assets which were very clean and really would have been capability enablers... It affected Govts relationship with Navy and ultimately the other services as they were branded indolent by association. Nobody in the executive cares whether it was fair, justified etc or whatever. It has impacted on how DOFD passes advice to the NSC etc....

Unfort what we have now are a string of Govts who have made us buy major capabilities via intervention - and we now have major assets which were rejected by the users and the engineers but didn't tick the govts boxes for various idealogical reasons - not capability reasons.

Tigers, MRH-90's, LHA, AWD, a string of army programs etc...; all polluted by decisions that weren't focused on getting the best asset that was identified by those who wanted the capability that was actually required.

 

[PeterM]

Tigers, MRH-90's, LHA, AWD, a string of army programs etc...; all polluted by decisions that weren't focused on getting the best asset that was identified by those who wanted the capability that was actually required.

Were there other preferred options for the LHDs than the Canberras?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Were there better preferred for the LHDs than tha Canberras?

There were three Govt. decisions made with LHD (JP 2048/4A/4B). One was to buy the Navantia design. The other was to have the split build with C4I capability within the Australian build modules, The final was to equip it with Saab Pty.Ltd. 9LV Mk 4 combat management system. The first decision was the right one. The other two...

 

[gf0012-aust]

There were three Govt. decisions made with LHD (JP 2048/4A/4B). One was to buy the Navantia design. The other was to have the split build with C4I capability within the Australian build modules, The final was to equip it with Saab Pty.Ltd. 9LV Mk 4 combat management system. The first decision was the right one. The other two...

Not entirely correct. and I say this as someone who is task effected and gets to go to the meetings that matter on these assets. (my job has expanded)

thats an offline and 55 beer discussion.

 

[hairyman]

Would the French LHD have been the better option?k

 

[StingrayOZ]

Better in which way?

I think the Mistral would have had more local construction and input, so politically it would have been better. We were apparently also concidering the upsized mistral with more space. Most people seem to dislike the mistrals, poor build quality due to the construction method, and general cost cutting.

I think from a capability standpoint, the BPE was a better choice being bigger, with greater troop carrying capability (atleast from the specs). In these types of ships volume is pretty important, so bigger should be better.

Im pretty sure either way we would have complicated either build.

 

[PeterM]

Better in which way?

I think the Mistral would have had more local construction and input, so politically it would have been better. We were apparently also concidering the upsized mistral with more space. Most people seem to dislike the mistrals, poor build quality due to the construction method, and general cost cutting.

I think from a capability standpoint, the BPE was a better choice being bigger, with greater troop carrying capability (atleast from the specs). In these types of ships volume is pretty important, so bigger should be better.

Im pretty sure either way we would have complicated either build.

How much larger is the upsized version?

 

[icelord]

Would the French LHD have been the better option?k

For now, perhaps, for the long term benefit, unlikely.
The deck is not prepared to deal with Harriers or any VTOL, so F35B would be ruled out in any capacity whether landing for excecise between other nations, or our own benefit(thats not an invite to reignite the debate!!!!)
Smaller capacity means different thinking, with something thats cost a little more for space, it allows more ability to move in the future.
The biggest factor in buying a Amphib, is that its intent is to keep long term for an ever changing role. Right now its great, and in 10years time it will be as well, but what about 20, or 30? Allowing for the chance to improve allows for the chance to evolve capability in the future.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would the French LHD have been the better option?k

No we picked the right asset, we used the wrong build model.

 

[ThePuss]

Here is some nice shots of Perth. Enjoy

View attachment 4270
View attachment 4271
View attachment 4272
View attachment 4273
View attachment 4274

The last photo is a good one to see the new enclosed AX with the scuttles open.