Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[icelord]

Yeah I hear that the Canberra's are going to be huge it will be a sight seeing 2 in Sydney at the same time, someone on here has been saying for a long time that not many people seem to grasp the size of these ships this video showed their size for sure.

The joke is russel crowe wont see the sun till 12 each day...

Theres also Largs bay which should stay in RAN service, as well as a AWD and Anzac II so by 2020 FBE will be a little packed in, which explains the review of force projection by the Govt. Largs bay west, LHDs East or vice versa

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Theres also Largs bay which should stay in RAN service, as well as a AWD and Anzac II so by 2020 FBE will be a little packed in, which explains the review of force projection by the Govt. Largs bay west, LHDs East or vice versa

And if 1 Bde can move some if not all of its units from Darwin to Perth then that would be a big win for Army. They can train all year round and young soldiers can have a more normal home life in the big city. So lets hope Russ and Nic get upset about the LHDs so they go to FBW and the Army follows them out there.

 

[old faithful]

And if 1 Bde can move some if not all of its units from Darwin to Perth then that would be a big win for Army. They can train all year round and young soldiers can have a more normal home life in the big city. So lets hope Russ and Nic get upset about the LHDs so they go to FBW and the Army follows them out there.

Yeah, and the single mums of Palmerston will be lonley once more....
darwin is a great place to live Abe, just the Army of today is very soft, to hot to train here in the build up these days....it must have been a lot cooler when I did exercises here in the 80,s and 90,s....short trip to Bali, or for defence personel, Thailand , Singapore, or malaysia for a week off after an excercise. I still work with heaps of ex defence personel who have stayed on in Darwin after discharge, for the life style, maybe its not the location, but the job and conditions of service that effects the retention rate, which funny enough, was woeful under Hawke and Keating, as it is under Rudd/Gillard.

 

[aussienscale]

Just a quick one for those interested here is a link to some great pics of RFA Cardigan Bay, will give you a good idea of what we are up for with the Largs

fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - L 3009 RFA Cardigan Bay

 

[Kirkzzy]

I have a question regarding the AWD. I have been reading up and as we all know the Gibbs and Cox design had more fire power. (64 as opposed to 48) and was capable of being upgraded to 80. Seeing as we went with the other design, it seems now that I think about it that while 48 cells may be enough for air defence, what if we decided to add tomahawks later or other types of missiles? Is the F100 variant "Future proof" in that we are able to add more launch cells later?

 

[Bonza]

I have a question regarding the AWD. I have been reading up and as we all know the Gibbs and Cox design had more fire power. (64 as opposed to 48) and was capable of being upgraded to 80. Seeing as we went with the other design, it seems now that I think about it that while 48 cells may be enough for air defence, what if we decided to add tomahawks later or other types of missiles? Is the F100 variant "Future proof" in that we are able to add more launch cells later?

There's a requirement for a long range land attack capability in the ANZAC replacement and I think possibly the Collins replacement, so I imagine weapons of a type similar to Tomahawk will be carried by one or both while the AWD is focused on the anti-air mission. No reason the loadout couldn't be changed up, of course, but I believe the intention is for the "ANZAC II" to take on the surface strike role. I could be mistaken though, and others here could probably give you a more concrete answer.

There's a bit of information here: Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update

 

[t68]

Just out of curiosity, how long would it take a Bay class when it arrives at a specific location to conduct operations would it take to start well dock ops and can they move away from an area if a there was a unexpected threat to the ship and speed was an crucial factor in its safety?

Would the Canberra class have the same limitations once the well docks was flooded?

 

[Kirkzzy]

There's a requirement for a long range land attack capability in the ANZAC replacement and I think possibly the Collins replacement, so I imagine weapons of a type similar to Tomahawk will be carried by one or both while the AWD is focused on the anti-air mission. No reason the loadout couldn't be changed up, of course, but I believe the intention is for the "ANZAC II" to take on the surface strike role. I could be mistaken though, and others here could probably give you a more concrete answer.

There's a bit of information here: Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update

Mmm 7000 ton can't just all be for ASW, although it seemed at the time the AWD was supposed to be the big tier 1 ship of the fleet... Although i'm glad the ANZAC IIs will be filling the spot.

 

[Anixtu]

1) how long would it take a Bay class when it arrives at a specific location to conduct operations would it take to start well dock ops

2) and can they move away from an area if a there was a unexpected threat to the ship and speed was an crucial factor in its safety?

3) Would the Canberra class have the same limitations once the well docks was flooded?

1) Immediately (more or less). You ballast down in advance. A matter of minutes to go from seagoing pre-action condition to fully docked with the door open.

2) Immediately. With the dock flooded and the stern door partially closed the ship can still proceed at significant speed.

3) I don't know, but the Bays are more capable in this regard than many of their contemporaries.

 

[weegee]

Hey Guys I came across the fact that the RAN is apparently still looking at the Big Cat from INCAT in the Sydney Morning Herald.
I thought the RAN was only considering the aluminium CAT if we lost out on the Largs Bay? It seems as though the RAN is still looking at this vessel (that's if this article can be believed).
I suppose if INCAT is desperate in selling her we could possibly pick up another cheap vessel well lets hope anyway, If we did get her as well would she stay when the LHD's come on line? If they did keep her with the Largs Bay and the 2 LHD's we would have a pretty potent amphibious force.

 

[weegee]

Hey Guys I came across the fact that the RAN is apparently still looking at the Big Cat from INCAT in the Sydney Morning Herald.
I thought the RAN was only considering the aluminium CAT if we lost out on the Largs Bay? It seems as though the RAN is still looking at this vessel (that's if this article can be believed).
I suppose if INCAT is desperate in selling her we could possibly pick up another cheap vessel well lets hope anyway, If we did get her as well would she stay when the LHD's come on line? If they did keep her with the Largs Bay and the 2 LHD's we would have a pretty potent amphibious force.

I found the link for it please have a look here:
Big cat steams on to the radar for crisis work

I would love to hear what people think about this?

 

[ADMk2]

I found the link for it please have a look here:
Big cat steams on to the radar for crisis work

I would love to hear what people think about this?

Seems the Government's intention to lease something like this. I doubt she'll become part of the permanent force.

Largs Bay may well become permament, the catamaran's life within RAN will be short-lived as Jervis Bay was back in the Interfet days...

 

[Milne Bay]

Seems the Government's intention to lease something like this. I doubt she'll become part of the permanent force.

Largs Bay may well become permament, the catamaran's life within RAN will be short-lived as Jervis Bay was back in the Interfet days...

It would be a pity if it was only temporary.
The ship is relatively cheap, its crewing is minimal and it is a very fast response asset able to haul large tonnages quickly. Something that no other naval asset can accomplish. Furthermore it can operate easily in the littorals so would be the ideal platform for disaster relief as first on scene.
I hope the navy gets it and keeps it if they get it.

 

[Todjaeger]

It would be a pity if it was only temporary.
The ship is relatively cheap, its crewing is minimal and it is a very fast response asset able to haul large tonnages quickly. Something that no other naval asset can accomplish. Furthermore it can operate easily in the littorals so would be the ideal platform for disaster relief as first on scene.
I hope the navy gets it and keeps it if they get it.

No, it would not automatically be a pity if the RAN only leased/operated it for a short period of time.

Such vessels like fast cats are of limited use to transit open ocean. Moving troops, equipment and supplies from port to port along the north of Australia and the various neighbouring islands is one thing. Being able to move much further from that is another story.

Also, one of the things about most fast cats, is that they can move cargo quickly, the overall amount of cargo transported on multiple trips via fast cat can often be transported in a single lift by a slower, conventional cargo vessel. Something like a fast cat is useful when speed to initial delivery is paramount. Given everything else going on within the ADF, as well as limitations on budgetary spending, I would just as soon spend money for a fast cat on something else.

-Cheers

 

[Milne Bay]

No, it would not automatically be a pity if the RAN only leased/operated it for a short period of time.

Such vessels like fast cats are of limited use to transit open ocean. Moving troops, equipment and supplies from port to port along the north of Australia and the various neighbouring islands is one thing.

I imagine that this is what it would be used for.

Being able to move much further from that is another story.

Also, one of the things about most fast cats, is that they can move cargo quickly, the overall amount of cargo transported on multiple trips via fast cat can often be transported in a single lift by a slower, conventional cargo vessel. Something like a fast cat is useful when speed to initial delivery is paramount.

You are right - this is their forte and what they would be used for. Follow up tonnages would arrive via the bigger ships.


Given everything else going on within the ADF, as well as limitations on budgetary spending, I would just as soon spend money for a fast cat on something else.

Well it will buy about 1-1/4 F-35's. I still think it is money well spent.

-Cheers

I think it is too valuable an asset for the tasks that only it can do. Navy seems to be assigned disaster relief more and more, and these events are more and more often close to home.

Cheers
MB

 

[Todjaeger]

I think it is too valuable an asset for the tasks that only it can do. Navy seems to be assigned disaster relief more and more, and these events are more and more often close to home.

Cheers
MB

The inter-related questions which need to be asked are, how important is it to have rapid sealift able to deliver a comparatively small amount of supplies to a port facility rapidly as an initial delivery, and the second one is just what capabilities one is willing to give up to gain and maintain the ability?

HSV definately have their uses. Their uses tend to be a bit specialized, and a relatively small amphibious force should likely focus on more conventional and general purpose amphibs.

-Cheers

 

[alexsa]

It would be a pity if it was only temporary.
The ship is relatively cheap, its crewing is minimal and it is a very fast response asset able to haul large tonnages quickly. Something that no other naval asset can accomplish. Furthermore it can operate easily in the littorals so would be the ideal platform for disaster relief as first on scene.
I hope the navy gets it and keeps it if they get it.

Sorry this is nonsense. Look up the dead weight of the vessel and you will find is is in the hundreds of tonnes (about 627 tonnes at 38 knots and only 300 at 42knots) not thousands. This is borne out of the fact it is a HSC and is, by virtue of that, tonnage limited. This DWT includes fuel, water, food, sewage, crew and stores.

Now look a fuel cost (noting you are burning MDO) . The HSV2 has a normal capcity of 190 cubes. If you sacrifice dead weight (i.e. less cargo) you can increase this to 210 cubes. At normal capacity - in smooth water - the range at 35 nots is just 1100nm meaning 31 hours operating. That is 125 tonnes a day. A 33000 tonne RO-RO burn about 90 tonnes of HFO.

380 cs currently sells for about $630 USD a tonne, MDO/MGO at about $900 USD a tonne. So for a 24 hour period you can carry 630 dwt tonnes for about $112.5K or 33000 dwt tonnes for $56.7K........... and you can carry it further .......... and in adverse weather you can carry it at the same speed or faster.

Note: those speeds quoted by INCAT are only a a smooth sea state and anything above calm reduces your achievable speed and your fuel burn. Anything approaching force 5 and you head for a port ...... at reduced speed.

Where the HSC wins out is when its operating economics are compared to aircraft when you what to get personnel and some light gear to a place quickly and over a short range. This is what the USN use them for and it is quite successfuly, however, the fact taht they run so few indicates they are not about to replace the heavy lifters. Also don't forget they noramlly only have sitting accomodation. The HSV-02 is better but only has sleeping berths (spatan bunk rooms for most) for 107. It can only feed 35 at a time. The washrooms and sewage facilites are not desinged for extended operations either.

By the way these girls need a port to unload. If you want to carry choppers to do the job then deduct a whole lot more off the dwt to do it as the aircraft, crew, stores, fuel etc are all deductions.

Given our budget and these issues why would we spend $100m on a HSC when you can charter them in if needed. For that money chase another heavy lifter that can go to a place and provide sustaind support.

 

[aussienscale]

$100m Would rather try and get another Bay for that. As has been said in the above replys, limited real usage, it is not critical to get a limited amount of gear somwhere fast after a natural disaster when in all likelyhood it will then have to sit off shore and wait for a Canberra or Bay to get it ashore Port facilities probably won't be looking to crash hot ! Money definately better spent elsewhere, and lease one IF the need should rear its head

 

[gf0012-aust]

$100m Would rather try and get another Bay for that. As has been said in the above replys, limited real usage, it is not critical to get a limited amount of gear somwhere fast after a natural disaster when in all likelyhood it will then have to sit off shore and wait for a Canberra or Bay to get it ashore Port facilities probably won't be looking to crash hot ! Money definately better spent elsewhere, and lease one IF the need should rear its head

there are a few lessons learnt that came out of using Jervis Bay during the Timor crisis.

there are reasons why we won't buy them...

even if we lease one for an emergency (such as a rapid evac from Fiji) the problems that we experienced in ET with Jervis Bay have not gone away - in actual fact we're worse off as Tobruk is basically busted so the vessel to vessel exchange that was even partially possible is non existant.

Largs is the far better option

 

[Sea Toby]

Given our budget and these issues why would we spend $100m on a HSC when you can charter them in if needed. For that money chase another heavy lifter that can go to a place and provide sustaind support.

Very well said. A fast ferry is a fast ferry, not a logistics ship or a large cargo ship. They are great as fast ferries, but don't confuse one as an amphibious ship that can sustain a battalion of troops for up to a month. They can be useful in a squeeze, but they can be leased for a short time when the time comes in the same manner as airliners can be leased to provide more air tankers.