Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[treehuggingaj]

I would hope in the new vessels they do actually dedicate decent space for a gym (and not just left over space). (Although won't be a roomy as a second hanger). While the AWD will be tight, the Anzac II & OCV's have seen significant growth over predecessors. For example the room to house 100 refugees on the OCV could easily be flexible space, gym, food and aid stores, make shift hospital/triage, troop space, ideally be able to load shipping containers/equipment, combat growth (ESSM) etc. With helo facilities this all becomes more capable.
All the rec space will be on the LHD's. Until we get some more helo's I would imagine its going to be very empty. I would imagine its hanger would look more like an indoor sports centre than an aircraft hanger. Then on deck you have all that deck space to run fitness, even a hill sprint area. Army guys will love it. Then at the rear you have an indoor/out door pool/spa area. Although it’s probably a bit too tall to throw a cargo net down the side and jump off.

I wonder if the RAN would consider purchasing and deploying A109's or squirrels on the OCV for aid delivery, basic search and rescue, EEZ enforcement/policing. While not a true naval helicopter, this would free up more larger more expensive helos for what they were intended for while these operated in shore or around coasts (not blue water gallivanting). For going 1 NH-90, we could pick up 8-10 smaller helicopters enough to supply any OCV that would benefit with one. It would also help with pilot training and hours. You might also be able to fit on 109 and one UAV rotary asset in the same small hanger (or 2 109s/as350).

I can't see the Army having a Squadron of MRH ready to embark anytime soon so there will be some very fit LHD crew members in the future!

The Navy deployed squirrels to Gulf war 1 with the Adelaide class and by all accounts served well and saved Seahawk hours on small jobs. Therefore I think 109's are the way to go for Navy and Army. Get a whole heap to replace Kiowa (not one for one I guess, but close) and have them at an ADF Helo school, 723 (i think??) sqn Nowra and 173 Holsworthy. An awesome multi role chopper that can train, embark, do CT support from Holsworthy, SAR, light utility, command and liason....I think thats it! There is probably more but the point is they are a cost effective way of taking pressure of the Blackhawks and Seahawks. And MRH when it comes in.........around 2050

 

[Ozymandias]

JP 2048 | Defence Capability Plan 2011

Revised DCP came out today (not just the changes summary)

JP 2048/4C calls for a $1-2B spend, but still for a 10,000 - 15,000 tonne ship. Clearly not an LHD, just a bloody expensive supply ship. What are they thinking in Canberra - or are they thinking at all?

 

[gf0012-aust]

JP 2048/4C calls for a $1-2B spend, but still for a 10,000 - 15,000 ship. Clearly not an LHD, just a bloody expensive supply ship. What are they thinking in Canberra - or are they thinking at all?

You would have to ask Navy that question as they set the requirements - not Govt. Govt endorses the proposal.

 

[Kirkzzy]

This is ridiculous, the just bought a "sea lift" ship for God's sake. Either buy another Canberra and increase our amphibious capability, something similar to a Bay class with a similar price (extremely low cost) or just drop it and spend the money elsewhere.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is ridiculous, the just bought a "sea lift" ship for God's sake. Either buy another Canberra and increase our amphibious capability, something similar to a Bay class with a similar price (extremely low cost) or just drop it and spend the money elsewhere.

If its ridiculous then maybe ask Navy what they think the operational construct was that made them think that this is the tactical requirement?

we buy and/or build on the basis of a tactical and strategic need

its not like we just go to the local car yard and buy stuff because "more and big" is better....

it never ceases to amaze me how there's no shortage of people who know more about service requirements than the service planners themselves.....

i reckon that maybe, just maybe they might have a clue as to what force construct and force balance, as well as what force development is all about....

 

[StevoJH]

Actually, I'd be interested to see what has changed, since Largs/Choules pretty much meets the sea lift requirement to a tee. Was it decided at some point that two rather then one ship was required?

Or was the requirement a bit more ambitious then it appears when looking in from the outside? Aka. Largs/Choules doesnt meet the requirement.

 

[Kirkzzy]

I thought someone listed about 10 pages ago that we needed three LHDs so that two could be operational in a time of need. I don't see how that is happening with what we currently have.

 

[StevoJH]

I thought someone listed about 10 pages ago that we needed three LHDs so that two could be operational in a time of need. I don't see how that is happening with what we currently have.

Sure, thats true enough, but while the amount of money allocated might be just about enough for a 3rd LHD, the tonnage listed is much too low. Something a little strange might be going on here.

 

[Ozymandias]

Sure, thats true enough, but while the amount of money allocated might be just about enough for a 3rd LHD, the tonnage listed is much too low. Something a little strange might be going on here.

OTOH, it could be that the lackey in Defence who updates the DCP just put in the new $$$ amounts from the update summary, and didn't know enough/couldn't be bothered updating the text

Edit: Or didn't want to make it too obvious that LHD has been decided upon? So Navantia and BAE don't jack up their fees.

 

[StevoJH]

OTOH, it could be that the lackey in Defence who updates the DCP just put in the new $$$ amounts from the update summary, and didn't know enough/couldn't be bothered updating the text

Possible but unlikely. Fairly sure the public DCP isnt the "real deal" anyway.

Edit: Or didn't want to make it too obvious that LHD has been decided upon? So Navantia and BAE don't jack up their fees.

They wouldn't do that, because if they did the government could just turn around and say, "well, we were going to buy it, but you guys tried to rip us off so now we'll buy elsewhere"

 

[t68]

They wouldn't do that, because if they did the government could just turn around and say, "well, we were going to buy it, but you guys tried to rip us off so now we'll buy elsewhere"

I think Navantia would be lobbying the government about a third LHD to keep the workforce going, makes sense to order now to while Nuship Adelaide is on the blocks being built. If what they are saying is true there is no work for the yard after the both LHD are built, Canberra might actually have some bargaining power.

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't mind ships being named after former naval heroes or sailors, the US has been doing so for years. But I don't like it when they name ships after politicians, unless they have had wartime service. I prefer states, cities, counties, battles, and geographical features: mountains, rivers, islands, bays, and points.

 

[StingrayOZ]

One of our Spanish members said that Natavia wanted a 3rd LHD much more than the RAN did. I would imagine they are desperate to do a deal, spains finances are on the brink, I wouldn't be surprised if they were offering cost price, clearance sale to us.

I would imagine the RAN is trying to wrangle a third LHD. It looks like they have the money available for it, now they need to convince everyone they need a 3rd LHD instead of a measly sealift ship. The LHD haven't seemed to have copped any media flack, no media about build stuff ups (unlike the AWD), seem popular with the military, and have local build elements popular with voters and the economy.

If we were to go a 10-15,000t ship what would we get? A bay? Uk built? A Spanish build Galicia? Even with that two Bays or a LHD and a bay won't give us the amphibious capability we require (and would most likely cost the same possibly with less local build). There will be times (admittedly rarely) where we needed a 3rd LHD. 3 secures our capability. While LPD's are often available, there is only 1 other LHD of Canberra’s size and that’s in inconveniently located Spain. The UK will be short in amphibious capability for the next few decades, US will be tightening its belt and less able and likely to deploy USMC amphibs on issues that affect Australia socially or politically (not physically threaten her soverenty). Can anyone honestly tell me the US would love to step into some SEA/pacific civil unrest to stop hundreds of thousands of refugee migrants ending up in Australia? That leaves us with no backup plan, and us to clean up messes on our own doorsteps. We need that capability to act to prevent and secure our region against instability particularly contagious instability. How confident are we that Indonesia won't do a Egypt, Syria?

 

[t68]

One of our Spanish members said that Natavia wanted a 3rd LHD much more than the RAN did. I would imagine they are desperate to do a deal, spains finances are on the brink, I wouldn't be surprised if they were offering cost price, clearance sale to us.

I would imagine the RAN is trying to wrangle a third LHD. It looks like they have the money available for it, now they need to convince everyone they need a 3rd LHD instead of a measly sealift ship. The LHD haven't seemed to have copped any media flack, no media about build stuff ups (unlike the AWD), seem popular with the military, and have local build elements popular with voters and the economy.

BAE Williamstown is slated to build the island structure. Different builder I wonder if they can read the plans sent by the Spanish for this one as well, Navantia would have a vested interest to make sure everything was in order to show other countries it can build without to many large problems to win other contracts. I would imagine defence would have someone inspecting the build quality at various time so not to get a repeat of the same problems encountered with the Collins class bow section built in Sweden.

 

[StevoJH]

I don't mind ships being named after former naval heroes or sailors, the US has been doing so for years. But I don't like it when they name ships after politicians, unless they have had wartime service. I prefer states, cities, counties, battles, and geographical features: mountains, rivers, islands, bays, and points.

The RAN has plenty of names that could be used. Personally I think it should have been Jervis Bay.

 

[Kirkzzy]

One of our Spanish members said that Natavia wanted a 3rd LHD much more than the RAN did. I would imagine they are desperate to do a deal, spains finances are on the brink, I wouldn't be surprised if they were offering cost price, clearance sale to us.

I would imagine the RAN is trying to wrangle a third LHD. It looks like they have the money available for it, now they need to convince everyone they need a 3rd LHD instead of a measly sealift ship. The LHD haven't seemed to have copped any media flack, no media about build stuff ups (unlike the AWD), seem popular with the military, and have local build elements popular with voters and the economy.

If we were to go a 10-15,000t ship what would we get? A bay? Uk built? A Spanish build Galicia? Even with that two Bays or a LHD and a bay won't give us the amphibious capability we require (and would most likely cost the same possibly with less local build). There will be times (admittedly rarely) where we needed a 3rd LHD. 3 secures our capability. While LPD's are often available, there is only 1 other LHD of Canberra’s size and that’s in inconveniently located Spain. The UK will be short in amphibious capability for the next few decades, US will be tightening its belt and less able and likely to deploy USMC amphibs on issues that affect Australia socially or politically (not physically threaten her soverenty). Can anyone honestly tell me the US would love to step into some SEA/pacific civil unrest to stop hundreds of thousands of refugee migrants ending up in Australia? That leaves us with no backup plan, and us to clean up messes on our own doorsteps. We need that capability to act to prevent and secure our region against instability particularly contagious instability. How confident are we that Indonesia won't do a Egypt, Syria?

Indonesia has had many sepratist movements now and in the past, Aceh and West Papua come to mind. Yet the Indonesian government has dealt with these problems pretty well (as in their is no problem or at least not a credible threat.. this however includes giving Aceh Sharia law and torturing random West Papuans... ) yet the point is I think this is unlikely. Indonesia is a large country separated by thousands of islands, if one island falls... there's still another thousand.

 

[StevoJH]

Indonesia has had many sepratist movements now and in the past, Aceh and West Papua come to mind. Yet the Indonesian government has dealt with these problems pretty well (as in their is no problem or at least not a credible threat.. this however includes giving Aceh Sharia law and torturing random West Papuans... ) yet the point is I think this is unlikely. Indonesia is a large country separated by thousands of islands, if one island falls... there's still another thousand.

It is the nightmare scenario for Australia, it always needs to be taken into consideration. And the previous issues make it clear that it definately must be considered a possibility, no matter how unlikely. If one island falls, there are another 1000 that might follow.

 

[alexsa]

The RAN has plenty of names that could be used. Personally I think it should have been Jervis Bay.

I agree, it is a name from both RN and RAN service related to ships built under commerclal rules with a heroic past. Only the politicinas could miss the link.

 

[aussienscale]

I agree, it is a name from both RN and RAN service related to ships built under commerclal rules with a heroic past. Only the politicinas could miss the link.

They did not miss it ! It was unfortunately a political point scoring/brownie points/photo op/deversionary (and anything else you can think of) tactic for a government that is on the brink of loosing power. Unfortunate but can't be undone now

 

[Aussie optimist]

It is the nightmare scenario for Australia, it always needs to be taken into consideration. And the previous issues make it clear that it definately must be considered a possibility, no matter how unlikely. If one island falls, there are another 1000 that might follow.

There is indeed many challenges that the defence force planners are facing at the moment, and from what im seeing they seem to be making the right decisions and enlarging our capabilities to present more of a roadblock for any country in the region with designs on threatening our national security. Correct me if im wrong but over the last ten years the government is rapidly building up our navy to be bigger and stronger. Of course there will be a grand plan of the type of navy the defence force ultimately wants I would be interested to see what that is. Will there be more escorts ordered maybe on the anzac II procurement to cover the enlarged amphib and force projection capability? I think at the moment the guys in the decision jobs are doing a fantastic job I just hope the government continues to allow them to do their job.