Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

pointless sailing past South Africa and going north to BIOT when its to far out of the way. i gather the skipping Suez was to avoid GOA, and any issues through there, including being unable to get an escort(there may be legal issues to defending the ship from pirates when its not HMAS yet...

Knowing the Navigator he would want the most scenic route, but also the easiest for him.

Now that would be truely embarrassing having a ADF ship highjacked because of issues with the legality of defending it before it was formally commisioned. More likely senario would be the Captain ends up facing a court marshal for defending the ship.

Actually on that, is she under the command of an RAN officer or of a civilian master prior to commision?

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks for your reply, Abe (if I can call you that)

As an interested member of the public with no affiliations with the ADF or defence industries, my views on the Australian domestic capabilities to build submarines is largely influence by when I read in the newspapers and certain publications such as The Diplomat, Asia Pacific Defence Reporter, Australian Defence Magazines and Defence Today.

For some reasons I came to the conclusion that our domestic submarine building capabilities are somewhat inadequate for a project of this side by reading articles from some of these publications about internal fighting, budget overblown and technical difficulties associated with the Collin Class submarines.

Coincidentally, after putting up the previous post I came across an article from APDR website (which again I can't post the link) that pretty much support what you were saying. If you (or anyone is interested), it's on the APDR homepage and the article is called "A Total Submarines Capability Package". Although I can't help but be a little critical of it as if it was looking at the whole FSM situation through a rosy tinted glass.

I like the name it gives to the FSM though - "Sons of Collins"

I think you need to do some ore research past the politically motivated crap printed in some sections of the Australian media. Try looking into the histories of other submarine designs and the very serious issues they have had, the Collins Class is a success on a great many levels made even more impressive by the fact that Australia hadn't built subs before.

The Collins is superior to Canadas Victorias, formerly Upholders, the Collins out performs the vast majority of european subs as well, including some much newer boats.

 

[ThePuss]

Now that would be truely embarrassing having a ADF ship highjacked because of issues with the legality of defending it before it was formally commisioned. More likely senario would be the Captain ends up facing a court marshal for defending the ship.

Actually on that, is she under the command of an RAN officer or of a civilian master prior to commision?

I understand she is under the command of the future CO (If that makes any sense). I also understand she will maintain a significant RFA component in the engineering department and will do for some time due to the RAN never operating a Hybrid drive before.

The the great thing about getting this ship a few years before the LHD's.. is that it will give us experience in a hybrid drive ship and docking well operations before we move onto the REALLY big stuff. In saying that I can't see Choules (God i hate that name) leaving RAN service any time before she is ready to head off to India for scrapping)

 

[rossfrb_1]

RAN's MH-60R?

I was wondering whether anyone can clarify this article?
Has the RAN ordered an MH-60R 'lite' variant (non dunking sonar).
I was under the impression that this (dunking sonar) was a feature sought after by the RAN.
I'm not sure if this is bad sentence construction, poor punctuation or what, but each time I read it I'm not sure whether it is saying that the RAN has ordered the stock model or a lite model.
ADM: LM develops MH-60R variant

cheers
rb

 

[Sea Toby]

I was wondering whether anyone can clarify this article?
Has the RAN ordered an MH-60R 'lite' variant (non dunking sonar).
I was under the impression that this (dunking sonar) was a feature sought after by the RAN.
I'm not sure if this is bad sentence construction, poor punctuation or what, but each time I read it I'm not sure whether it is saying that the RAN has ordered the stock model or a lite model.
ADM: LM develops MH-60R variant

cheers
rb

I read it as the RAN bought the ASW sonar equipment but that LM is developing a less expensive lite naval helicopter version without the ASW for potential orders from other navies... I believe you are linking LM with the RAN... Some navies wish to use the helicopter for other missions besides ASW... Very similar to a car manufacturer building a car without an air conditioner...

 

[ADMk2]

I was wondering whether anyone can clarify this article?
Has the RAN ordered an MH-60R 'lite' variant (non dunking sonar).

No.

I was under the impression that this (dunking sonar) was a feature sought after by the RAN.

It is.

I'm not sure if this is bad sentence construction, poor punctuation or what, but each time I read it I'm not sure whether it is saying that the RAN has ordered the stock model or a lite model.
ADM: LM develops MH-60R variant

cheers
rb

Stock model. L-M have announced they are going to develop an MH-60R "lite" version. It's nothing to do with what RAN has ordered...

 

[Prosper]

I think you need to do some more research past the politically motivated crap printed in some sections of the Australian media. Try looking into the histories of other submarine designs and the very serious issues they have had, the Collins Class is a success on a great many levels made even more impressive by the fact that Australia hadn't built subs before.

Thanks Volkodav

I'll avoid using newspapers as a source of defence updates in the future. I remember one paper in the early days describing the stealth performance of the Collins akin to "a rock concert undersea". Some of these journalists needs one of these computers -:lam - to keep them in line when writing about such things.

Apart from the websites and publications listed in my previous post, do any of the posters have any recommendations of online (preferably free) sources, where we can find objective information about this kind of discussions?

Thanks

 

[swerve]

The IOC for the Success replacement is 2020-23. How Success is going to last that long is beyond me. So there is 4-7 years to make a decision. It could be anything even an Australian build of a unique ship type. But this is unlikely. Interestingly this time frame is also when Sirius and Choules will need replacing. Which could make a class of three JSS type ships attractive.

Thanks - but when Choules will need replacing? She'll be about 15 years old, & AFAIK was built to last much longer than that. The RFA expects to keep her sister ships well past that.

Two multi-purpose replenishment ships to replace both Success & Sirius seems logical, if Sirius really does need replacement then. I know she's a commercial conversion, but I'd expect her to spend much less time at sea than a commercial tanker.

It seems very odd that ships built 20 years apart should need replacing at the same time, even allowing for perhaps too much optimism about how long Success can last

 

[swerve]

The Choules has only been bought for five years service. At the moment, it is scheduled for disposal before 2017, when it due for a five year re-certification or something. That'll probably change though.

Should be easily sellable in 2017.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks - but when Choules will need replacing? She'll be about 15 years old, & AFAIK was built to last much longer than that. The RFA expects to keep her sister ships well past that.

Two multi-purpose replenishment ships to replace both Success & Sirius seems logical, if Sirius really does need replacement then. I know she's a commercial conversion, but I'd expect her to spend much less time at sea than a commercial tanker.

It seems very odd that ships built 20 years apart should need replacing at the same time, even allowing for perhaps too much optimism about how long Success can last

If memory serves Sirius could be kept in service, but that was a projected date for replacement and then commercial sale. If Sirus is kept in service past that date, she might still be saleable depending on condition.

Now such a plan starts to make sense if the RAN plans on replacing Success and Sirius with a pair of replenishment vessels of the same class.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Thanks Volkodav

I'll avoid using newspapers as a source of defence updates in the future. I remember one paper in the early days describing the stealth performance of the Collins akin to "a rock concert undersea". Some of these journalists needs one of these computers -:lam - to keep them in line when writing about such things.

Apart from the websites and publications listed in my previous post, do any of the posters have any recommendations of online (preferably free) sources, where we can find objective information about this kind of discussions?

Thanks

Not really.... When one reads one must keep in mind the author's agenda, which is usually up front and center usually with the headline... Either the journalist is doing a hatchet job or kissing a defense manufacturer's butt...

Unfortunately, Janes isn't free... They are the most objective, but even with Janes one has to beware of an author's agenda... Sensationalism sells, objectivity doesn't...

Frankly, I prefer communicating with a tech sergeant or chief petty officer over any journalist... If the support and maintenance snipes like a weapon system, it passes muster as far as I am concerned. On the other hand if the support and maintenance snipes don't like a weapon system, it is a POS...

 

[StingrayOZ]

* Buy and build third LHD. Should be doable in 5 years.
* Sell Choules off to NZ (for a profit? Get them back for the Rugby).
* Replace Success and Sirus with Lewis and Clark class (or a supply class or a combination). While Supply is not currently being built, it has been build and inservice, and there is a yard building a simular ship that could build it again for low risk.

Australia will be able to sustain deployment of 2 LHD's as per the white paper. We will also have significant dry and wet resupply capability for any thing regionally and globally (we could resupply a USMC group for eg). If NZ does purchase Choules, then it keeps that capacity in the region. NZ could use her to make mini amphibious landings in support of an Australian lead operation or to distribute aid regionally, relieve a LHD or as a hub of policing operations etc.

That would seem to offer the most amount of capability. A heck of a lot of capability. It would push the RAN total tonnage through the roof (above Spain atleast). But manning requirements are still reasonable. 3 LHD's to replace 2 Kanimblas and Tobroken, two supply ships replacing two simular crewed ships. Cost would be highish, the 3rd LHD we should be able to get for steal, I don't know about US building costs. But the fleet would be all new and pretty much made up of the best ship of its type.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Unfortunately, Janes isn't free... They are the most objective, but even with Janes one has to beware of an author's agenda... Sensationalism sells, objectivity doesn't...

Unfort Janes has diminished in quality to such an extent that I know a number of countries who no longer purchase it - and the Janes NF pubs used to be standard purchases for a number of navies

Janes and Llloyds (under IHS) have arguably lost their way.

Bakers does a much better job IMO.

Unfort some of the people I've met from the Janes shop at PACNAV and in US UDT conferences and events in the last few years have been as maritime literate as APA are at being knowledgeable about contemp airwarfare constructs

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks - but when Choules will need replacing? She'll be about 15 years old, & AFAIK was built to last much longer than that. The RFA expects to keep her sister ships well past that.

Sure but that is when it is programmed for replacement in the defence capability plan. The time period also being around when it would need a mid life upgrade.

Two multi-purpose replenishment ships to replace both Success & Sirius seems logical, if Sirius really does need replacement then. I know she's a commercial conversion, but I'd expect her to spend much less time at sea than a commercial tanker.

I mentioned yesterday in this thread the reasons why Sirius was planned for a 15 year lifespan. Despite being due for replacement around this time no program is visible in the public DCP but this is more to do with it being beyond the 10 year outlook.

It seems very odd that ships built 20 years apart should need replacing at the same time, even allowing for perhaps too much optimism about how long Success can last.

Well this is just the public DCP which is itself a compromise driven document lorded over by the non Defence departments in Government. It is extremely unlikely Success will last until 2013 not to mention 2023. While Sirius could probably last until 2043 it is just a fuel barge with lots of problems in service (low speed diesel, fuel oil, not helo capability, etc). The sooner it is replaced the sooner the RAN can sustain itself on operations.

If any lesson has been learnt from the amphib ship maintenance debacle and the impending supply ship repeat is that we need multiple ships in service to sustain capability. The RAN needs three LHDs and three AORs of the T-AKE type. Which would allow two to be on hand at all times with a reserve for maintenance, training and rotation.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The RAN needs three LHDs and three AORs of the T-AKE type. Which would allow two to be on hand at all times with a reserve for maintenance, training and rotation.

Well they better not stuff around. At the rate they are building L & C's, they will have finished the lot in about 12 months. They can now spit them out in less than 6 months. It would be a shame not to capitalise on the experienced workforce and tailending the order on the current build to reduces costs etc.

I would imagine the US would be very keen for the RAN to operate 3 of the type. As these ships could be used to resupply any US fleets from Australia. (also allowing USMC amphibs to more easily operate as part of a group long term). I've actually come around the more I've read about them, they seem pretty much what we need. Big capable ships able to supply a big capable force. But the crewing requirements seem huge for a ship of that type, Im assuming that down to USN style damage control, watches etc and in Australian service the number would be much lower?

Is this why the RAS equipment was removed from the LHD's so people didn't think they could be used as oilers? (But how can they resupply themselves?!).

This is all going to have to happen pretty soon. 3rd LHD and the 3 AOR. Too soon.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well they better not stuff around.

LOL. Its not up to the Navy its up to the Gow’mant. Even the Howard Govt. seemingly cherished by defence enthusiasts across the country approved long schedules for amphibious and resupply ship replacement. And when it came to replace the Westralia they dropped the ball and purchased MT Delos when we could have acquired a proper AOR. If they had purchased a Lewis and Clark class T-AKE in place of Delos it would have been in service by end of 2008 and we wouldn’t be having any shortfall in amphibious cargo capability nor need to stick a double hull band aide on Success.

At the rate they are building L & C's, they will have finished the lot in about 12 months. They can now spit them out in less than 6 months. It would be a shame not to capitalise on the experienced workforce and tailending the order on the current build to reduces costs etc.

While the best of a bunch the T-AKE is not an exclusive solution to the RAN’s needs. Even if selected to meet the DCP schedule for SEA 1654 one could still be built by GD for delivery in 2021-23. They aren’t closing the yard and while the steady production stream will be over they can still restart. And are very much wanting to to provide the USN with its next class of auxiliary based on the T-AKE.

I would imagine the US would be very keen for the RAN to operate 3 of the type. As these ships could be used to resupply any US fleets from Australia. (also allowing USMC amphibs to more easily operate as part of a group long term). I've actually come around the more I've read about them, they seem pretty much what we need. Big capable ships able to supply a big capable force. But the crewing requirements seem huge for a ship of that type, Im assuming that down to USN style damage control, watches etc and in Australian service the number would be much lower?

Sure and with Australian located US logistics bases an Australian T-AKE could always load up with American gear and hand it over. Especially since our requirements for cargo lift is only a small proportion of their overall carrying capability. That’s one of the advantages of these types along with amphibious ready group resupply and disaster relief. Giant climate control hangars for cargo can also accommodate lots of refugees and the like.

As to the numbers you need to three to guarantee two. It also enables maintenance rotation to sustain the presence. One would hope this is a lesson learnt from the amphib ship debacle but since it involves the Gow’mant spending an addition 1-2 billion on Naval acquisitions its probably unlikely to sink in.

Is this why the RAS equipment was removed from the LHD's so people didn't think they could be used as oilers? (But how can they resupply themselves?!).

I doubt it. Cost and weight savings. Not in the specification. You can’t easily cut off the bow ramp but not attaching a RAS boom is a simple thing.

 

[StingrayOZ]

But if the yard is busy with the next USN or fleet command order will they be able to slip in a couple of RAN builds? It won’t be as easy as F-18 SH buys because we would be building a different type (although like you said, might be heavily based on the t-ake). The whole yard might need to be reconfigured.
They do seem like highly capable ship, which could perform roles not usually expected of a supply ship. Evacuating personnel, picking up refugees, aid distribution, etc. Something a regular oiler wouldn’t be set up to do. Being able to handle US levels of replenishment would be a massive advantage to Australian/US relations. I could see us having significantly greater training and operations; we can provide capability as much as several forward deployed US ships allowing greater operational presence in the region.
But a little small on the fuels side. Having two ships available would relieve that issue. But I don’t see the government in current times paying for that level of availability for aux ships. And there would be additional crewing requirements above and beyond simply replacing an existing vessel

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But if the yard is busy with the next USN or fleet command order will they be able to slip in a couple of RAN builds? It won’t be as easy as F-18 SH buys because we would be building a different type (although like you said, might be heavily based on the t-ake). The whole yard might need to be reconfigured.

That's not how shipbuilding works.

But a little small on the fuels side. Having two ships available would relieve that issue. But I don’t see the government in current times paying for that level of availability for aux ships. And there would be additional crewing requirements above and beyond simply replacing an existing vessel

The T-AKE has no problems with fuel offload. I thought I addressed this before hand. Also the crew requirements are actually about the same for two T-AKEs and Success + Sirius.

 

[swerve]

If Fort George wasn't being stripped, she'd probably do as a short-term interim Success replacement, if one is needed to provide a capability until a long-term replacement can be built. Commissioned 1993.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If Fort George wasn't being stripped, she'd probably do as a short-term interim Success replacement, if one is needed to provide a capability until a long-term replacement can be built. Commissioned 1993.

But she is single hulled and would require a double hull refit which despite being 10 years younger and one would assume in much better condition is too much of a brain workout to get through for the national leadership.