Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

The Kiowas got transferred to the Army years ago and it is rare for a Squirrel to deploy onboard a ship.

We do lease 3 A109 for advanced pilot training and liaison. I don't believe they are cleared for shipborne operation but they do winch on winch off.

We also recently leased 3 Bell 429's as well as the A109's Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence Materiel – Contract for Navy helicopters signed to develop aircrew skills which I suspect are being replaced. This is not mentioned in the media release and the A109's are still listed as an active type on the navy web site but I can imagine the navy would operate two types in the advanced training role

I didn't mean light utility roles performed on ships, but both the Squirrels and Kiowas are used for light utility helicopters tasks in general within Navy and Army.

That is a role that will remain unfulfilled, or undertaken by frontline types in future years if a training helicopter only is acquired with no additional airframes acquired.

 

[rand0m]

Does anybody have any updates (inside information) on the possibility of Australia purchasing a 4th Hobart class air warfare frigate? Being an uneducated keyboard warrior & from an overall numbers perspective, doesn't 3 Hobart class frigates/destroyers, 8 ANZAC Frigates & 12 submarines king of tip the numbers in the submarines favor, would it not make more sense to supplement a couple of subs for a couple more Hobart class AWD's? Obviously we're not talking apples with apples cost wise (both initial & ongoing) but the idea is there. Surely 5 AWD, 8 ANZAC Frigates, 10 submarines "could" be a better mix?

Opinions (less the flames) please =)

 

[winnyfield]

I didn't mean light utility roles performed on ships, but both the Squirrels and Kiowas are used for light utility helicopters tasks in general within Navy and Army.

That is a role that will remain unfulfilled, or undertaken by frontline types in future years if a training helicopter only is acquired with no additional airframes acquired.

EC-135/145 series (aka US Armys' UH-72 Lakota) has been put forward by Eurocopter-Oz for the light utility helicopter tasks. The same helicopters are used for civilian rescue/medivac duties.

Coincidentally the Bell 429 was developed as a EC-145 competitor. A109 has much less internal cargo space than then Bell 429.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Does anybody have any updates (inside information) on the possibility of Australia purchasing a 4th Hobart class air warfare frigate?

Quite clear that the Govt. doesn’t want to pay or it and the next project is SEA 5000 for eight Future Frigates. The final date for ordering a fourth AWD and being able to dovetail into the current production is probably about 3-4 years from now so anything is still possible.

Being an uneducated keyboard warrior & from an overall numbers perspective, doesn't 3 Hobart class frigates/destroyers, 8 ANZAC Frigates & 12 submarines king of tip the numbers in the submarines favor, would it not make more sense to supplement a couple of subs for a couple more Hobart class AWD's? Obviously we're not talking apples with apples cost wise (both initial & ongoing) but the idea is there. Surely 5 AWD, 8 ANZAC Frigates, 10 submarines "could" be a better mix?

While doubling the submarine fleet without changing the numbers of the surface fleet naturally changes the balance between the two it doesn’t really make for an unnatural balance. The key metric in assessing that is crew numbers. Even if the future submarine has a three shift crew (~70 sailors per boat) they will only need around 850 crew. A two shift submarine will only need around 45 sailors per boat or 540 for 12 units. But the planned surface fleet (3 DDG, 8 FF, 2 LHD, 1 LSD, 6 LSM, 20 OPC, 2 AOR) needs at least 4,000 sailors to crew. So the 12 strong submarine force is going to stay around 13.5-21.25% (two shift or three shift submarines) of the surface fleet manning.

20% of the surface fleet in submarines will be difficult to recruit unless there are improvements in conditions (which three shifts goes a long way to achieve). But it isn’t in the realm of ridiculousness.

Opinions (less the flames) please =)

You only get put to the fire if you start making unsupported declarations of an outrageous nature.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

EC-135/145 series (aka US Armys' UH-72 Lakota) has been put forward by Eurocopter-Oz for the light utility helicopter tasks. The same helicopters are used for civilian rescue/medivac duties.

Coincidentally the Bell 429 was developed as a EC-145 competitor. A109 has much less internal cargo space than then Bell 429.

The new Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) contract specifies private owned helicopters. Of which there is a certain number of hours per annum that will be made available to the ADF for light utility tasks. But limited to domestic, non operational missions. I have posted on this forum before exactly how many hours and how many dedicated LUH aircraft that equals but I can’t remember now. I think it was something like 800 hours which is about the same as 3-5 LUH.

This requirement is unlikely to meet the Navy’s need for LUH flights to be attached to hydrographic survey ships and border protection missions with the new SEA 1180 boat. Nor will it meet the Army’s need for LUH to support SOF and as a warzone runabout. The Army’s requirement for LUH was 20 aircraft and this remains unapproved by the Government. For the Navy to provide HS and BPC LUHs would probably require around 20 units with most of the patrol configured SEA 1180 boats with a shipboard flight. Which would considerably improve their performance.

Remember the Navy originally wanted 27 Seasprites to provide adequate maritime surveillance and strike capability. Simiarly a LUH assigned to border protection would need a radar and FLIR like the Seasprite to be truly effective. Also their LUH and the Army LUH would need a EWSP system to be survivable in the battlefield. The Lynx Wildcat (6-7 tonne) is probably overkill for such a role. A four tonne helo (EC-145, S-76) would probably be sufficient.

 

[Al Rogers]

Greetings, I've been following the thread for a while, this is however my first post.

We do lease 3 A109 for advanced pilot training and liaison. I don't believe they are cleared for shipborne operation but they do winch on winch off.

We also recently leased 3 Bell 429's as well as the A109's (link removed) which I suspect are being replaced. This is not mentioned in the media release and the A109's are still listed as an active type on the navy web site but I can imagine the navy would operate two types in the advanced training role

The A109 is not approved for deck landings, it is cleared for VERTREP and Transfer from almost all fleet units.
The Bell 429's will replace the A109 next year, the A109 contract expires in March.

 

[ngatimozart]

Greetings, I've been following the thread for a while, this is however my first post.


The A109 is not approved for deck landings, it is cleared for VERTREP and Transfer from almost all fleet units.
The Bell 429's will replace the A109 next year, the A109 contract expires in March.

Welcome mate, and thanks for answering a question I posed earlier.

 

[koxinga]

Refit done and handled over on 14 October.

A&P Falmouth Marks End of Multi-Million Pound Refit of RFA Largs Bay

A&P Group’s Falmouth yard has marked the end of the multi-million pound refit of RFA Largs Bay – the second ship in her class to undergo a major refit at the docks.

The RFA Largs Bay was formally handed over to the Australian Department of Defence, which bought the ship, at an official signing ceremony on Friday (Oct 14th).

The ship has been renamed ADFS Choules, after Claude Choules, the last combat veteran of the first world war, who died earlier this year aged 110. British born, he began his 41-year military career with the Royal Navy, later relocating to Australia and joining the Royal Australian Navy. The new name was chosen to recognise the strong links that bind Australia and Great Britain.

Work began in June and was completed on September 29 – one day early. The major refit included:

• Overhauling the main propulsion system, including diesel generators and azimuths
• Repainting the hull and flight deck
• Upgrading the tropical cooling system
• Upgrading and maintaining the salt water system
• Overhauling the stern ramp
• Extending the bridge front walkway
• Various safety enhancements
• Supplying and installing Mexeflote pontoon
• Installing temporary air shelter

In a speech during the ceremony, Australian Cmdre Steve McDowall praised the “seemingly limitless flexibility” and “highly professional performance” of A&P Falmouth and the Cluster Support Team.

In August A&P Falmouth welcomed Australian Defence Minister Jason Clare MP and Australia’s Chief of Navy Ray Griggs to the docks to inspect RFA Largs Bay.

The grey ship, which has become a recognisable sight on the Falmouth skyline, is due to leave the docks later this month, arriving in Freemantle, Australia in mid December.

Gerald Pitts, A&P’s Cluster Director, said: “Building on the successful first of class refit on the Mounts Bay in 2010, the sister vessel to Largs Bay, we were delighted to undertake this project.

“Due to programme changes the Cluster Support Team and the team at A&P had a very tight timescale to develop a specification, plan the work and complete the project, but I am pleased to say work was completed on schedule.

“We learned a great deal during the refit of the RFA Mounts Bay last year. We were able to put these lessons into action while we worked on the RFA Largs Bay and a number of improvements were made. No doubt we will have more improvements to put into practice when we perform the next major refit, which is due on the RFA Lyme Bay next year.”

A&P Group has a contract with the MOD to provide upkeep support to Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. The partnership has led to a more economical approach to ship repair and maintenance throughout the RFA flotilla, through advanced planning, knowledge of the vessels, continuous improvements in working practices, the reliable quality of work and availability of the docks.

The new approach is estimated to deliver millions of pounds of savings to the MOD over 30 years on the previous arrangements, which saw individual contracts competed for as and when they were required, and has already been praised in Parliament.

Peter Child, Managing Director of A&P Falmouth, said: “The Ministry of Defence has strong ties with Falmouth and we are delighted to celebrate the continuing success of the partnership between A&P Group and the RFA and to showcase what has been achieved.

“The contract helps provide the company – and it’s highly skilled employees – with vital security for the future. We provide excellent value for money, as we proved last year with the RFA Mounts Bay, which was the first ship in its class to undergo a major refit.

“We have a worldwide reputation for excellence and efficiency and continue to develop our resources and invest in our skills base.”

Former Royal Navy and RFA vessels are in considerable demand as a cost effective alternative to new build options. The A&P Group has a good record of regenerating UK MoD vessels and has a specialist team of experts available, not only to regenerate the ships but also to install new equipment and train personnel in its safe and effective operation.

Mr Child said: “As the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary accepts new warships and auxiliaries into the fleet, older ships that still have a service life are potentially very attractive assets for overseas navies.

“Warship regeneration is a complex and demanding requirement and A&P Group has responded to this new business stream by becoming a major provider to the UK MoD and overseas navies in the past three years by returning these ships to service with the new owners.”

Next on the agenda for A&P Falmouth is the major refit of the RFA Cardigan Bay, which arrived in the port in August. Work is due to be completed by January 2012, and will include further improvements and efficiencies identified during work on the RFA Largs Bay.

Planning is also already underway for the RFA Lyme Bay refit period next June.

A&P Group celebrates the end of RFA Largs Bay re-fit | A&P Group

 

[weegee]

Costs of Aussie subs?

Hi guys another day another news paper going on about how much our subs cost to run.
It seems that the Herald Sun has got their hands on "obtained figures" that show the submarine fleet will cost for the 2011-2012 year $630 mil and that equates to $105Mil per boat for the year. They then go on to say that the Ohio class in the USN only cost $50M a year to operate? Is it me or does that figure seem a little low? they have crap loads more crew on their boats are they leaving a lot of costings out of Ohio equation.

Or do our boats really cost a ridiculous amount to run compared to other navies? (which I doubt they would)

 

[riksavage]

Refit done and handled over on 14 October.

A&P Falmouth Marks End of Multi-Million Pound Refit of RFA Largs Bay

A&P Group’s Falmouth yard has marked the end of the multi-million pound refit of RFA Largs Bay – the second ship in her class to undergo a major refit at the docks.

The RFA Largs Bay was formally handed over to the Australian Department of Defence, which bought the ship, at an official signing ceremony on Friday (Oct 14th).

The ship has been renamed ADFS Choules, after Claude Choules, the last combat veteran of the first world war, who died earlier this year aged 110. British born, he began his 41-year military career with the Royal Navy, later relocating to Australia and joining the Royal Australian Navy. The new name was chosen to recognise the strong links that bind Australia and Great Britain.

Work began in June and was completed on September 29 – one day early. The major refit included:

• Overhauling the main propulsion system, including diesel generators and azimuths
• Repainting the hull and flight deck
• Upgrading the tropical cooling system
• Upgrading and maintaining the salt water system
• Overhauling the stern ramp
• Extending the bridge front walkway
• Various safety enhancements
• Supplying and installing Mexeflote pontoon
• Installing temporary air shelter

In a speech during the ceremony, Australian Cmdre Steve McDowall praised the “seemingly limitless flexibility” and “highly professional performance” of A&P Falmouth and the Cluster Support Team.

In August A&P Falmouth welcomed Australian Defence Minister Jason Clare MP and Australia’s Chief of Navy Ray Griggs to the docks to inspect RFA Largs Bay.

The grey ship, which has become a recognisable sight on the Falmouth skyline, is due to leave the docks later this month, arriving in Freemantle, Australia in mid December.

Gerald Pitts, A&P’s Cluster Director, said: “Building on the successful first of class refit on the Mounts Bay in 2010, the sister vessel to Largs Bay, we were delighted to undertake this project.

“Due to programme changes the Cluster Support Team and the team at A&P had a very tight timescale to develop a specification, plan the work and complete the project, but I am pleased to say work was completed on schedule.

“We learned a great deal during the refit of the RFA Mounts Bay last year. We were able to put these lessons into action while we worked on the RFA Largs Bay and a number of improvements were made. No doubt we will have more improvements to put into practice when we perform the next major refit, which is due on the RFA Lyme Bay next year.”

A&P Group has a contract with the MOD to provide upkeep support to Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. The partnership has led to a more economical approach to ship repair and maintenance throughout the RFA flotilla, through advanced planning, knowledge of the vessels, continuous improvements in working practices, the reliable quality of work and availability of the docks.

The new approach is estimated to deliver millions of pounds of savings to the MOD over 30 years on the previous arrangements, which saw individual contracts competed for as and when they were required, and has already been praised in Parliament.

Peter Child, Managing Director of A&P Falmouth, said: “The Ministry of Defence has strong ties with Falmouth and we are delighted to celebrate the continuing success of the partnership between A&P Group and the RFA and to showcase what has been achieved.

“The contract helps provide the company – and it’s highly skilled employees – with vital security for the future. We provide excellent value for money, as we proved last year with the RFA Mounts Bay, which was the first ship in its class to undergo a major refit.

“We have a worldwide reputation for excellence and efficiency and continue to develop our resources and invest in our skills base.”

Former Royal Navy and RFA vessels are in considerable demand as a cost effective alternative to new build options. The A&P Group has a good record of regenerating UK MoD vessels and has a specialist team of experts available, not only to regenerate the ships but also to install new equipment and train personnel in its safe and effective operation.

Mr Child said: “As the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary accepts new warships and auxiliaries into the fleet, older ships that still have a service life are potentially very attractive assets for overseas navies.

“Warship regeneration is a complex and demanding requirement and A&P Group has responded to this new business stream by becoming a major provider to the UK MoD and overseas navies in the past three years by returning these ships to service with the new owners.”

Next on the agenda for A&P Falmouth is the major refit of the RFA Cardigan Bay, which arrived in the port in August. Work is due to be completed by January 2012, and will include further improvements and efficiencies identified during work on the RFA Largs Bay.

Planning is also already underway for the RFA Lyme Bay refit period next June.

A&P Group celebrates the end of RFA Largs Bay re-fit | A&P Group

Once ADFS Choules returns to Aus will she fall under a similar maintnence agreement as described below with one of the local shipyards? The Bay's operational seatime with the RFA has been pretty high and I was wondering whether the Aus Gov would try and set-up a similar contract to maximise operational availabiltiy.

"A&P Group has a contract with the MOD to provide upkeep support to Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. The partnership has led to a more economical approach to ship repair and maintenance throughout the RFA flotilla, through advanced planning, knowledge of the vessels, continuous improvements in working practices, the reliable quality of work and availability of the docks."

 

[Milne Bay]

Once ADFS Choules returns to Aus will she fall under a similar maintnence agreement as described below with one of the local shipyards? The Bay's operational seatime with the RFA has been pretty high and I was wondering whether the Aus Gov would try and set-up a similar contract to maximise operational availabiltiy.

"A&P Group has a contract with the MOD to provide upkeep support to Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships. The partnership has led to a more economical approach to ship repair and maintenance throughout the RFA flotilla, through advanced planning, knowledge of the vessels, continuous improvements in working practices, the reliable quality of work and availability of the docks."

As long as its not the same maintenance agreement that looked after HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora.
A very good idea though unless the RAN has another plan in mind.

 

[riksavage]

As long as its not the same maintenance agreement that looked after HMAS Kanimbla and Manoora.
A very good idea though unless the RAN has another plan in mind.

They should tie any maintenance contract to a pre-agreed number of operational days at sea (subject to acts of god/open conflict). The contractor benefits from guaranteed work over an extended period (can hire qualified personnel) and the RAN gets a guaranteed number of days at sea.

Ref subs, Defenseindustrydaily summarizes recent press releases and those potential foreign buys, which have been ruled out.

Australia’s Next-Generation Submarines

"Figures obtained by the Herald Sun, show the six Collins subs cost about $630 million a year – or $105 million each – to maintain, making them the most expensive submarines ever to put to sea…. The annual price for “sustainment” (maintenance and support) is $415.9 million for 2011-12 with operating costs running at $213.4 million for the year, for a total of $629.3 million. A US Navy Ohio Class nuclear attack submarine – more than three times the size of a Collins boat – costs about $50 million a year to operate.”

This statement is a bit confusing, Colins 630 million to 'maintain' (does this also include manning?) vs Ohio @ 50 million ot 'operate' (does this also include maintenance)?

A second article published by APDR discusses potential combat systems for SEA-1000, which as a submarine layman is pretty insightful.

SEA 1000 - COMBAT SYSTEMS SELECTION FOR SEA 1000 | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

 

[John Newman]

Refit done and handled over on 14 October.

A&P Falmouth Marks End of Multi-Million Pound Refit of RFA Largs Bay

A&P Group celebrates the end of RFA Largs Bay re-fit | A&P Group

I noticed something interesting in the photo of the A & P press release.

It appear, from looking at the photo (click on it to enlarge), that Choules hasnt had the same exhaust stack modification/relocation work that was done to RFA Mounts Bay.

Back in June in the "Largs Bay / Choules" discussion page, when there was mention of the Mounts Bay mods, AG posted the link below:

: Ship Photos

I wonder if that also means, apart from the Australian specific mods, that Choules hasn't gone though the exact same modifications that the other three Bays are going though.

The "tent" hangar can be can also be seen in the background.

 

[rand0m]

The cost figures are revealed as Defence officials say at least two possible contenders for the navy’s new submarine fleet – the Spanish S-80 and French-Spanish Scorpene class boat – have been ruled out of the future submarine project.”

Wow, the S-80 being ruled out is a big blow. I was suspecting if all the Navantia built ships (LHD & AWD) came out to spec, on cost & performing well that they'd most certainly be building a modified version of the S-80 (I've read unconfirmed reports they were planning a S-90 version for Australia) in conjunction with our builders here in Australia.

Does anybody know the reasoning as to why the French & Spanish boats were ruled out?

A good article I've found;
Spain’s S-80: the SEA 1000 dark horse? | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

 

[Bonza]

Wow, the S-80 being ruled out is a big blow. I was suspecting if all the Navantia built ships (LHD & AWD) came out to spec, on cost & performing well that they'd most certainly be building a modified version of the S-80 (I've read unconfirmed reports they were planning a S-90 version for Australia) in conjunction with our builders here in Australia.

Does anybody know the reasoning as to why the French & Spanish boats were ruled out?

A good article I've found;
Spain’s S-80: the SEA 1000 dark horse? | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

The S-80 was never in the running to the best of my knowledge, though it's come up over and over again in public commentary. GF might be able to give more information, though as I said the topic has come up many times before... if you have a hunt through this very thread you'd be able to find some of his previous posts on the topic.

EDIT: Regarding submarine costs, Rik the numbers you posted come from an article written by Ian McPhedran - my advice would be to avoid anything he has to say for one's own good. The man is clueless, and I'm sure others in here will confirm that if asked.

 

[aussienscale]

EDIT: Regarding submarine costs, Rik the numbers you posted come from an article written by Ian McPhedran - my advice would be to avoid anything he has to say for one's own good. The man is clueless, and I'm sure others in here will confirm that if asked.

DITTO

What an idiot, I am so sick of moronic people like him talking out of his ...... and getting into the public arena and misleading the public about the ADF

Anyway rant over :flame

 

[Volkodav]

Wow, the S-80 being ruled out is a big blow. I was suspecting if all the Navantia built ships (LHD & AWD) came out to spec, on cost & performing well that they'd most certainly be building a modified version of the S-80 (I've read unconfirmed reports they were planning a S-90 version for Australia) in conjunction with our builders here in Australia.

Does anybody know the reasoning as to why the French & Spanish boats were ruled out?

A good article I've found;
Spain’s S-80: the SEA 1000 dark horse? | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

The key issue is access to US technology, we have a very close relationship with the USN and choosing any design that is seen as incompatable (whether technically or politically) with US submarine combat systems will have a very tough job to be short listed.

Just a note to those who don't believe a submarine can be designed in Australia, there are a great number of former UK and Swedish submarine experts in Australia as well as extremely robust ties to EB in the US. Australia is probably better positioned to design and build a large ocean going conventional submarine than many of the more traditional designers.

As to Mr Dud Subs an Ohio may well have a lower annual operating cost than a Collins, so long as that year didn't include a nuclear refueling, roll the costs of the powerplant in as an average annual figure and I believe you would see a rather diferent outcome. His number crunching completely defies logic.

 

[SASWanabe]

600m for the entire collins class isnt unbelieveable.

2 at sea
1-2along side
2-3 in maintainance cycle

Ian Mcphedran does have a way of twisting the truth. if he had of given an Ohio in its maintainance cycle or even better, the refuel cycle it would sound alot different. i.e 7-800m for a single ship

 

[gf0012-aust]

As to Mr Dud Subs an Ohio may well have a lower annual operating cost than a Collins, so long as that year didn't include a nuclear refueling, roll the costs of the powerplant in as an average annual figure and I believe you would see a rather diferent outcome. His number crunching completely defies logic.

the man is an idiot. he's done the same kind of idiotic commentary re the specials.

 

[Kirkzzy]

This info on Mcphedran talking about Sub costs has really come as a massive revelation. I got a phone call earlier in the week from my father asking about Australian subs. So after explaining how they are a political football, very capable, with some unfortunate yet exaggerated breakdowns and that News Limited has a "hold crusade" against them he replied that he read about how US subs cost less to operate and were much larger. So I started wondering why he called me in the first place about it, he said he just read some "article" in a newspaper... just realised who wrote it, Ian ****inf Mcphedran.

I looked it up (Courier Mail) and the article was pretty much going on about how operating US subs would cost half as much and how they are way more capable. The article in good News Limited fashion also went on about how only 1/3 of the fleet is "could go to war and with a maximum of three available at any one time". It's funny how after all this time they still don't understand the deployment cycle.