Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StevoJH]

Why would the USN want to spend the money to build up the infrastructure in Darwin from Scratch?

Singapore already has absolutely massive facilities built by the RN prior to WW2 and maintained by the RAN, RN, USN etc ever since.

Actually, who owns the fleet base in Singapore? Is it owned by the Singapore Navy or one of the other users?

 

[Volkodav]

I don't know the SWL of the crane but I doubt it is in the league of Bill and Ben's monsters.

I do not see the crane being a massive issue due to the the Vehicle Door/Ramp on the STBD side of the LHD's (of course this could not be used in a LHD/LCH "Rafting up" Scenario.

I would be very interested to fined out if the LCH's can Ramp to Ramp with the LHD's. Not that it will really mater as the LHDs will always have the "Quadruplets" in tow.

Well an option would be to select a design for JP2048 Phase 5 that incorporates a docking well. A scaled down Endurance Class LPD or a new design...then again, steel is cheap and air is free so why not go large with the full sized Endurance.

 

[StevoJH]

Well an option would be to select a design for JP2048 Phase 5 that incorporates a docking well. A scaled down Endurance Class LPD or a new design...then again, steel is cheap and air is free so why not go large with the full sized Endurance.

JP2048 P5 calls for 6 ships on an estimated acquisition budget of 100-300 million. That leaves a maximum of $50 million per vessel.

Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well an option would be to select a design for JP2048 Phase 5 that incorporates a docking well. A scaled down Endurance Class LPD or a new design...then again, steel is cheap and air is free so why not go large with the full sized Endurance.

The JP2048/5 LSMs are meant to be able to operate as pairs to deploy a combat team. So you could argue just get three LPDs each of which can deploy a combat team. The only problem is the RAN would lose three CO billets (which they take seriously) and 3 LPDs would not be as flexible as 6 LSMs for coastal logistics.

 

[riksavage]

Why would the USN want to spend the money to build up the infrastructure in Darwin from Scratch?

Singapore already has absolutely massive facilities built by the RN prior to WW2 and maintained by the RAN, RN, USN etc ever since.

Actually, who owns the fleet base in Singapore? Is it owned by the Singapore Navy or one of the other users?

The USN ramped up its presence in Singapore following the closure of Subic Bay. It's an extremely popular posting for US service personnel and is supported by one of largest regional US Embassy's plus supporting infrastructure (schools, clubs etc.). Not sure many US military families would like to switch Singapore for Darwin? Plus like many people of already said the port infrastructure in Singapore is comprehensive and geared towards supporting and hosting large vessels.

 

[Volkodav]

The JP2048/5 LSMs are meant to be able to operate as pairs to deploy a combat team. So you could argue just get three LPDs each of which can deploy a combat team. The only problem is the RAN would lose three CO billets (which they take seriously) and 3 LPDs would not be as flexible as 6 LSMs for coastal logistics.

Considering that the proposed OCVs are intended to have a logistics and small craft support capability 3 full sized LPDs could be workable. The other option would be to build 6 LPDs the first 3 to replace the LCHs and another 3 to replace Choules down the track.

Going the whole hog we could look at 2-3 JSS to replace Success, then Sirius and eventually Choules suppported by the 3 LPDs that replaced the LCHs.

An APD mission option for the OCV would be interesting.

 

[icelord]

Why would the USN want to spend the money to build up the infrastructure in Darwin from Scratch?

Singapore already has absolutely massive facilities built by the RN prior to WW2 and maintained by the RAN, RN, USN etc ever since.

Actually, who owns the fleet base in Singapore? Is it owned by the Singapore Navy or one of the other users?

As part of their shift from European basing to focus on Asia, as has been part of Foreign affairs talks for a while now. The level of basing and how much support they get is unknown. They have talked about having some sort of facilities in Australia for a while, this could incorporate having a small base inside a larger ADF base, or turning a area of Darwin into a large dock for their warships to berth without having to use the commercial wharf which is subject to use. Forward basing gear is one of the objectives, as is an area which can provide training facilities for their forces. Singapore doesnt have the land they need for forward basing, in Aus we have more then enough. Singapore is perfect for the USN still, its inbetween Middle East and the US, is a good 'liberty' port for USN ships, has great facilities and best of all is secure to US standards(the singaporeans dont Frak around). The airport also provides flights to Diego Garcia for resupply and new personnel weekly, so its a main focus for much of their activity.

We witnessed it in TS11 where they flew a C17 from the US with a load of paratroopers, dropped them, then 5 days later got back on the plane and went home. Getting troops here would not be hard for them if a situation occured in South East Asia, its the equipment that takes time.

Having been to Diego Garcia and seeing whats sitting in the harbour at anchor, is a sight to behold when you realise the ships there contain more equipment to launch an invasion then most of the ADF can muster. i wont say how many ships were there, but suffice to say....WOW!

 

[rand0m]

JP2048 P5 calls for 6 ships on an estimated acquisition budget of 100-300 million. That leaves a maximum of $50 million per vessel.

Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update

The Makassar class cost Indonesia $150m for all four back in 2004, not sure how capable they would be though & they have a large crew.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

There is a long term development plan for east arm and Darwin port as a whole. Navy, even a LHD, add little in income compared to berthing fees and the activity generated by a commercial port.

Although I don't think the RAN should base major units in Darwin (or the NW for that matter), and I don't think they should be given anything, I would suspect that the NT would welcome the permanent birthing of an LHD or other major units for the added benefits that would come from it, that is the extra money Defence and associated support infrastructure (including crews and their dependents) would spend annually in the NT.

Given the displayed ambitions of the NT Gov for East Arm, I would think there would be more than enough room for Navy to acquire dedicated birthing, if not in the current development then in future ones. The East Arm 2030 plan shows facilities far exceeding what I would expect the NT would need in the next 20 years. Is it a case of "build it and they will come"?

Personally, I agree with you and see no reason that the Navy can't just utilise commercial wharves if more space is needed for loading/unloading larger Ro-Ro type vessels, it isn't a frequent practice and it is already what they do now. For more specialised requirements, they have a dedicated area in East Arm. I understand the Defence hardstand area includes what is described as a "barge ramp", which I suppose is to aid ramped amphibious craft such as LCHs to load/unload.

So what do you think is going to happen with Coonawarra with the Armidale replacements roughly 50% bigger in all dimensions?

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

I can't see what value a USN base in the NT or the NW would have.
As a liberty port, it is no Singapore. As a maintenance and support port, ditto. It isn't on the way to or from from a ME deployment from the West Coast or Pacific bases.
In a time of future regional tensions, if the USN is squeamish about sending a carrier group through Singapore and Malacca, then they aren't going to want to risk any of the Indonesian passages and the Torres Strait is too shallow, even if they could get into Darwin. Which means going around Australia anyway.
As a location for pre-positioning equipment, it is no better than Diego Garcia or Guam but is significantly less secure from a USN perspective. And given the kinds of tidal movements and seasonal weather you get at Darwin, you may not wish to use it as a long term anchorage when other options are available.
For pre-positioning ground equipment for exercises, I don't think the NT training areas are capable of the kinds of sustained military activity to justify it. If you read environmental reports they are quite fragile environments that require careful management and rehabilitation after intense training activities. It is also true for Queensland training areas, especially SWB.
Crew swapping would be best done in Singapore or (as has been mooted) at HMAS Stirling (especially SSNs).

On the other hand, as a logistics area for pre-positioning of bulk provisions or relief supplies and other aid then it is excellent. NT has lots of space, which is quite expensive in Singapore, and is more secure than elsewhere in SE Asia (physical and political).
The NT would be a good place for the support of air assets and positioning of certain supplies and equipment, such as ordnance for use during exercises or on Delamere, but Tindal would probably be a far better and more secure location, as well as being less public and probably less controversial.

I think all this talk is more political than actual need. There is a desire to engage the interest of the US in the South-West Pacific region, and this might be part of it. Personally, I think the US value their relationship with Australia for things other than real estate on which to base weapons systems (such as real estate for sensors and aerials or even those long rumoured UFO hangers under Pine Gap nfloorl: ).

 

[alexsa]

Although I don't think the RAN should base major units in Darwin (or the NW for that matter), and I don't think they should be given anything, I would suspect that the NT would welcome the permanent birthing of an LHD or other major units for the added benefits that would come from it, that is the extra money Defence and associated support infrastructure (including crews and their dependents) would spend annually in the NT.

Given the displayed ambitions of the NT Gov for East Arm, I would think there would be more than enough room for Navy to acquire dedicated birthing, if not in the current development then in future ones. The East Arm 2030 plan shows facilities far exceeding what I would expect the NT would need in the next 20 years. Is it a case of "build it and they will come"?

Personally, I agree with you and see no reason that the Navy can't just utilise commercial wharves if more space is needed for loading/unloading larger Ro-Ro type vessels, it isn't a frequent practice and it is already what they do now. For more specialised requirements, they have a dedicated area in East Arm. I understand the Defence hardstand area includes what is described as a "barge ramp", which I suppose is to aid ramped amphibious craft such as LCHs to load/unload.

So what do you think is going to happen with Coonawarra with the Armidale replacements roughly 50% bigger in all dimensions?

The next phase of the port expansion will cost $335 million. The money is being invested as the port cannot service the commercial needs expected in the next 10 years and the rail loop is no longer optimal. DPA is making money on east arem but ran at a loss on naviagation and pilotage costs (incuding expansion) and the city berths.

Trade growth is projected to be 15% this FY with current berth occupancy running at 60%. Improved bulk loading facilitiies will increase occupancy.

If the Navy were to piggy back off this they would be epxected to pay for the loss of revenue for the berth, pilotage and on costs as well as contirbute to the cost to date of reclaiming the port area. this would not be a small sum to put a vesel some distance from other assets, away from the tropps it wouel carry and well out of the training areas.

I honestly cannot see the point in putting an LHD in Darwin on its own. It achieves nothing when you cna simply book berth time when you need it and develop a barge area as is currently the case.

 

[StoresBasher]

Okay we are back from our 2 weeks of FOST.
Everything all okay, ready to head back home, shortly.

The hanger seems to be permanent, it took nearly a full working week to put up from memory.

The AWE we are currently flying is 10 breadth and ANF is 8.

See you in Freo!

 

[rand0m]

Okay we are back from our 2 weeks of FOST.
Everything all okay, ready to head back home, shortly.

The hanger seems to be permanent, it took nearly a full working week to put up from memory.

The AWE we are currently flying is 10 breadth and ANF is 8.

See you in Freo!

Thanks storesbasher, any pics?

 

[aussienscale]

Personally I think all this talk of basing Phatships in the NT/NWC has zero chance of getting up. They can sail from Sydney up to Townsville and start loading in a good enough time frame. One in Fremantle could be a possibility ? Depends on what is happening with the US. There was a tease of information from the last lot of AUSMIN talks regarding forward basing USMC equipment, stores etc etc there. But have not seen any further releases of information on what is happening, Here is a link to the original media release
AUSMIN 2010 Joint Communiqué, 8 November 2010, Australian Government Minister for Foreign Affairs

Can't find the original reference to the forward basing though, someone else may still have ?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I agree there is no reason to base the amphibs in Darwin, especially if the Army’s amphib capability is going to be based in Townsville! Darwin has always made great sense as a logistics base, for both Australia and the US, but apart from border protection issues or when a major war is brewing does not make sense as a significant military base.

Co-locating the amphibs with the Army amphib force will make significant differences in training. Not for the infantry, they need the least amount of amphibious training, but for the helicopters, logistics, armoured vehicles, trucks, joint fires and C2 sides of the amphibious force. All of these guys are going to need to master a lot of skills in relation to living in and operating from amphib ships. Having the ships located down the road will enable portside day training, day trip or overnight cruises to Magnetic Island for ship to shore training and so on. If the amphibs are based in Sydney or even Cairns much of this type of training will only happen a few times a year.

 

[aussienscale]

I agree there is no reason to base the amphibs in Darwin, especially if the Army’s amphib capability is going to be based in Townsville! Darwin has always made great sense as a logistics base, for both Australia and the US, but apart from border protection issues or when a major war is brewing does not make sense as a significant military base.

Co-locating the amphibs with the Army amphib force will make significant differences in training. Not for the infantry, they need the least amount of amphibious training, but for the helicopters, logistics, armoured vehicles, trucks, joint fires and C2 sides of the amphibious force. All of these guys are going to need to master a lot of skills in relation to living in and operating from amphib ships. Having the ships located down the road will enable portside day training, day trip or overnight cruises to Magnetic Island for ship to shore training and so on. If the amphibs are based in Sydney or even Cairns much of this type of training will only happen a few times a year.

Totally agree, co-location is a must if we are to take this new capability seriously and have the required training and state of rediness. But unfortunately the political smarts/willingness to do this is lacking

 

[Sea Toby]

Its not just navy/army expertise deciding upon a home port, one also has to have local civilian contractors expertise too. There are no positives locating a naval home port far away from career jobs for their naval spouses either. Usually that involves a large metropolitan area, not a small one. There is much more involved than naval infrastructure and party politics.

Fortunately, ships can and do relocate, but civilian jobs don't as easily... Not knowing the infrastructure or local civilian expertise, my ignorance suggests Sydney or Brisbane would make good home ports for the amphibious fleet while Darwin and Townsville aren't. I prefer a large metropolitan area...

In the past when Australia operated light aircraft carriers Sydney was large enough to fit the billing. I presume Sydney continues to fit the billing...

 

[StoresBasher]

Thanks storesbasher, any pics?

I have a couple of myself in front of the ship, and on the flight deck, nothing really that interesting to anyone.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Noticed in the paper today a story about preparing for the upcomming PNG elections in June.

Apparently the army and navy will be on standby at Townsville(i think) in preparation as the highlands are awash with automatic weapons and will be the biggest shakeup since 1975 independance. Amphibious ships (Choules?) will be located north in expectations of troubles.

I would imagine the government is keen to get the message out that Australia is willing to act should things go bad as a preventative measure. Basing the LHD out of Sydney would actually assist that. Media coverage would then follow as the two LHD's leave Sydney harbour cue shot of the two LHD's + AWD + other near bridge and opera house (which would be such a fantastic shot would make most TV broadcasts regionally). The next one would be arriving somewhere north. Then loading up, training exercises (1 at a time) etc.

With PNG, Fiji, Samoa, etc being countries at risk. East Timor has been pretty quite, with that much poverty and impoverishment policing and aid basing out of Darwin. I don't think we need the LHD's there, its too far west, weather, infrastructure, far away from major logistics locations, desirable home location etc.

 

[riksavage]

Okay we are back from our 2 weeks of FOST.
Everything all okay, ready to head back home, shortly.

The hanger seems to be permanent, it took nearly a full working week to put up from memory.

The AWE we are currently flying is 10 breadth and ANF is 8.

See you in Freo!

I'm surpised the hanger took so long, for the time spent you would have thought a more rigid structure could be errected and removed. It will be interesting to see if it survives the journey without incurring any damage to the fabric shell.