Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

[RANT ON] Ok this is getting ridiculous!....Has the conversation really degenerated this far?....I think this forum needs a break from Submarines for AT LEAST 24 HOURS.[RANT OFF]

but but but.....

you could always change the subject.

the longest run belongs to Largs/Choules - that went on for months on end...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

[RANT ON] Ok this is getting ridiculous!....Has the conversation really degenerated this far?....I think this forum needs a break from Submarines for AT LEAST 24 HOURS.[RANT OFF]

Well what about this: the JP 2048 Phase 4C Sealift Ship that will replace HMAS Choules?

One of the DCP updates last year caused quite a stir when JP 2048 Phase 4C was reclassified from a <$500 million project to a $1,000-1,500 million project. I, like many others, at first thought that wow the Government had actually learnt a lesson from the amphibious ships maintenance disaster (soon to be amphibious and resupply ships maintenance disaster) and were going to order a third LHD. That way with three ships on hand they could have a proper maintenance rotation and always guarantee the availability of the two LHDs needed to provide the required amphibious lift. But no there was to be no lessons learnt as the public DCP was updated to provide more information about the JP 2048 Phase 4C re-scoping.

JP 2048 Phase 4C is still for a sealift ship that will presumably replace HMAS Choules when it has scheduled entry into service in 2022-24. HMAS Choules ex RFA Largs Bay will then be up to 18 years old and without a major mid life refit near the end of its life. The key issue in determining JP 2048 Phase 4C’s new estimated $1.5 billion price tag is the “desirability” of having it built in Australia. Also since construction won’t be likely until 10 years from now 33% of this cost is actually inflation. A cool billion to build a 10,000-15,000 tonne military ship one-off in Australia is not so unreasonable especially if it has a self defence and C2 capability (like the LHDs). The other key issue is that this ship will be of a proven design and have helo and landing craft capability.

To reduce risk the ship will be of a proven design and in its size and capability requirement means a handful of possible ships. One possible attractive solution could be something like the Dokdo design, a diminutive LHD. Having a flight deck with offset island would improve flexibility, free up more parking space via the flight deck (a la HMAS Sydney) and allow for improved aviation operations and training (compared to an LSD type design like the Bay class RFAs). Build location could be possible in one of the common user facilities. Most likely the Henderson CUF in WA that could easily handle a 10,000-15,000 ship with an upgrade to its water-hardstand interface. The new Sealift Ship construction will likely fit in between the AWDs and the new SEA 5000 frigate so will actually be quite important for maintaining the domestic ship industry.

 

[Kirkzzy]

but but but.....

you could always change the subject.

the longest run belongs to Largs/Choules - that went on for months on end...

What about the Hypothetical Aircraft Carrier thread? Btw the Choules debate has got to be the most boring thing I have ever read.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Btw the Choules debate has got to be the most boring thing I have ever read.

And you wonder why people treat you with "disrespect".

 

[Sea Toby]

Well what about this: the JP 2048 Phase 4C Sealift Ship that will replace HMAS Choules?

One of the DCP updates last year caused quite a stir when JP 2048 Phase 4C was reclassified from a <$500 million project to a $1,000-1,500 million project. I, like many others, at first thought that wow the Government had actually learnt a lesson from the amphibious ships maintenance disaster (soon to be amphibious and resupply ships maintenance disaster) and were going to order a third LHD. That way with three ships on hand they could have a proper maintenance rotation and always guarantee the availability of the two LHDs needed to provide the required amphibious lift. But no there was to be no lessons learnt as the public DCP was updated to provide more information about the JP 2048 Phase 4C re-scoping.

JP 2048 Phase 4C is still for a sealift ship that will presumably replace HMAS Choules when it has scheduled entry into service in 2022-24. HMAS Choules ex RFA Largs Bay will then be up to 18 years old and without a major mid life refit near the end of its life. The key issue in determining JP 2048 Phase 4C’s new estimated $1.5 billion price tag is the “desirability” of having it built in Australia. Also since construction won’t be likely until 10 years from now 33% of this cost is actually inflation. A cool billion to build a 10,000-15,000 tonne military ship one-off in Australia is not so unreasonable especially if it has a self defence and C2 capability (like the LHDs). The other key issue is that this ship will be of a proven design and have helo and landing craft capability.

To reduce risk the ship will be of a proven design and in its size and capability requirement means a handful of possible ships. One possible attractive solution could be something like the Dokdo design, a diminutive LHD. Having a flight deck with offset island would improve flexibility, free up more parking space via the flight deck (a la HMAS Sydney) and allow for improved aviation operations and training (compared to an LSD type design like the Bay class RFAs). Build location could be possible in one of the common user facilities. Most likely the Henderson CUF in WA that could easily handle a 10,000-15,000 ship with an upgrade to its water-hardstand interface. The new Sealift Ship construction will likely fit in between the AWDs and the new SEA 5000 frigate so will actually be quite important for maintaining the domestic ship industry.

It seems any new program for submarines and frigates are so far away alike a Choules replacement, I am more interested in what will replace the Success and/or Sirius. But not many want to discuss replenishment ships. Will Australia choose an off the shelf design or design their own? It seems many prefer to discuss an aircraft carrier rather than new replenishment ships.

 

[phreeky]

What are the odds of scoring a good deal on an existing ship, whether it be ex RN for example or a commercial one and modifying as required? Are there many out there or have we just gotten lucky with other ships?

 

[ADA]

What’s ironic about it? You are pushing for a nuclear submarine and the ADA has had no noticeable impact on Australian defence policy. You may think otherwise but have presented no such evidence to support such a claim. I wouldn’t call having former defence ministers join your organisation an endorsement of a successful policy lobby. If you had a significant number of current ADF personnel join then that would be a good start. Nor have you presented any evidence to back up your attacks on me. All of which displays pretty poor form on your behalf.

Informed participants in a debate expect a professed defence industry journalist to check his sources before making statements or ascribing supposed views to anyone. And indeed to know that what any journalist might say you have said is often not what you actually said, particularly if it is not in quotation marks (such as the article Abraham oddly relied on).

Now I will set this out even more clearly for Abraham. You unprofessionally relied on what a journalist summarised (somewhat inaccurately) rather than check the primary source which was readily available on our website and on the relevant newspaper's website.

Moreover, the ADA's general views on the submarine replacement project are widely known among those who bother to keep up with informed debate on Australian defence issues. Perhaps this tells us much about you.

You then criticised the ADA for something it was not doing and did so in your usual pompous manner. When your lack of professionalism and care was duly challenged you merely responded with allegations that such a challenge was "juvenile spite". Yet more irony.

"The article indicates, as does your statement above, that the ADA is pushing for a nuclear submarine. Especially considered that’s what the entire article was about. If you have a problem with that take it up with Brendon Nicholson. He’s a nice guy and I’m sure will give you a hearing."

Stop raising the redherring of the article to try and hide the fact you made critical comments without bothering to check the actual source.

The Government has ruled out nuclear submarines, to bring them up and advocate they should be considered under such a situation is a form of endorsement. To say otherwise is a strange way of interpreting one’s actions. Like saying to a legal review that capital punishment should be considered but you don’t think anyone should be killed by the state.[/QUOTE]

Governments do change, Abraham, and the core job of a public-interest watchdog anyway is to challenge any government's view where it is ideological, complacent or could be just plain wrong. Furthermore, as we said in our letter, if most credible debate partipants believe that the class of submarines that replaces the Collins replacements are likely to be nuclear-powered, why not at least examine the feasibility of jumping a generation now.

Especially if the alternatives are the various ones causing so much argument in this forum.

Finally, the ADA has a long and respected record of considered and useful contributions to Australia being defended properly. If Abraham is so unaware of them this says much more about him than us.

PS. It is even odder that Abraham seems unaware of how many serving and former ADF officers of all ranks are ADA members. Same goes for all the diplomats, scientists, historians, etc, in our membership. Indeed the professional depth of our membership is the main reason we are able to do what we do.

Neil James
Executive Director
Australia Defence Association

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What are the odds of scoring a good deal on an existing ship, whether it be ex RN for example or a commercial one and modifying as required? Are there many out there or have we just gotten lucky with other ships?

If you are referring to AORs the problem is the need for a double hull ship to meet international obligations. The RFA Fort Victoria class are single hulled and one of them, only 15 years old, has just been laid up. Otherwise it would be ideal. It could be an option with a second wrap around hull like fitted to HMAS Success.

The RAN will need to replace Success well before the current scheduled replacement. The only rapid replacement opportunity other than second hand I can see is a second Sirius type converted from a merchant tanker. Which of course is a totally sub standard capability but it is a ship and the Aus DoD loves throwing good money after bad.

 

[Kirkzzy]

And you wonder why people treat you with "disrespect".

I have never wondered that Abraham, I just made an observation in the Army thread that new members aren't given enough leeway on this forum and are driven out by members who have been here far longer due to factual errors. The way older members go about explaining how newer members are wrong could be done a lot more pleasantly.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have never wondered that Abraham, I just made an observation in the Army thread that new members aren't given enough leeway on this forum and are driven out by members who have been here far longer due to factual errors. The way older members go about explaining how newer members are wrong could be done a lot more pleasantly.

It has nothing to do with older or younger members and while you may not have ‘wondered’ I sincerely doubt you have the faintest idea what is at issue here.

Take your last post of ‘content’ for example. You seem to think you have the right to dismiss the conversations of others within this community. That you can place a value judgement upon a conversation that you weren’t a part of, just an observer. Because it didn’t entertain you enough…

But who are you to think that this place is for your gratification? Do you pay the rest of us to provide you with entertainment? Either directly or indirectly via consuming advertising. In case you don’t know the answer it is of course no. Have you made any contribution of note to this community that would entitle you to an assumption or reciprocation? Are people interested in your opinions, have you contributed wit, humour, insightful observations? Do you have any knowledge about Defence that would enlighten the rest of us?

This is a community and while those of us who actively participate in it are more than aware it is public and open to anyone to read or comment that does not give you an automatic right to critique with impunity. If you wish to make commentary on the rest of is then it has to stand and be judged. And I quite clearly have judged you to be someone not deserving of any respect based on your petulant and undeserved commentary of others.

You may have been raised by a post-modern education system to not value the importance of accuracy and to think you and your precious self is the warm and fuzzy centre of the universe but neither viewpoint is remotely true. This is a black and white world, it only looks grey to people who make observations from too far away to see any detail, and truth both factual and in self-importance is not negotiable.

 

[ADA]

That's exactly what I was referring to. Whilst it's awesome that Australia's "(ADA) has long been Australia’s only truly independent, non-partisan, community-based, public-interest watchdog and ‘think-tank’ on defence and wider national security issues" one might assume (or at least hope) that such a self-titled "think tank" might actually put some thought into their comments.

Unfortunately that does not seem to have been the case for some time with this mob...

I think it's fantastic that wider national security issues seems to have devolved into nothing more than, "I reckon we should have platform X, then we'll be safe from the evil hordes..."

Oh dear ... the problem of being wrongly accused of something that the ADA constantly objects to - advocating platform-based solutions instead of capabilities. Moreover, the ADA constantly refutes "evil horde" type arguments when developing strategic policy and the defence capabilities needed to execute it.

Adaptability-based force development models always work better than scenario-based ones (not least because the scenarios are never agreed and more often than not events turn out to be quite different anyway). Our website has a good discussion of this in the Australian historical, current and future contexts.

For many years the ADA discounted calls for nuclear-powered submarines for the RAN. Chiefly because Australia lacked a wider nuclear engineering industry and because of the cost differentials involved. We also believed the political hassles and undoubted delays of the argument might not be worth it, especially in the case of having replacements for the Collins class in the water in time. There were also some obvious problems with technology transfer and some international law difficulties.

However, most of these factors are changing. The latest submarine nuclear reactors have longer periods between key maintenance requirements. The cost differentials are no longer 6:1 or even 4:1. Some estimates are much lower (but they are estimates). The US is interested in the option (so no major or insurmountable political or international law obstacles there). Even less with leased boats that the US would still own, particularly if they retain responsibility for the reactor, etc, and its maintenance and disposal. The US is also reputedly interested in some shared forward basing facilities.

This is worth looking at as an option. It might not be viable but it would be good to actually know one way or the other.

Neil James
Executive Director
Australia Defence Association

 

[John Newman]

Well what about this: the JP 2048 Phase 4C Sealift Ship that will replace HMAS Choules?

One of the DCP updates last year caused quite a stir when JP 2048 Phase 4C was reclassified from a <$500 million project to a $1,000-1,500 million project. I, like many others, at first thought that wow the Government had actually learnt a lesson from the amphibious ships maintenance disaster (soon to be amphibious and resupply ships maintenance disaster) and were going to order a third LHD. That way with three ships on hand they could have a proper maintenance rotation and always guarantee the availability of the two LHDs needed to provide the required amphibious lift. But no there was to be no lessons learnt as the public DCP was updated to provide more information about the JP 2048 Phase 4C re-scoping.

JP 2048 Phase 4C is still for a sealift ship that will presumably replace HMAS Choules when it has scheduled entry into service in 2022-24. HMAS Choules ex RFA Largs Bay will then be up to 18 years old and without a major mid life refit near the end of its life. The key issue in determining JP 2048 Phase 4C’s new estimated $1.5 billion price tag is the “desirability” of having it built in Australia. Also since construction won’t be likely until 10 years from now 33% of this cost is actually inflation. A cool billion to build a 10,000-15,000 tonne military ship one-off in Australia is not so unreasonable especially if it has a self defence and C2 capability (like the LHDs). The other key issue is that this ship will be of a proven design and have helo and landing craft capability.

To reduce risk the ship will be of a proven design and in its size and capability requirement means a handful of possible ships. One possible attractive solution could be something like the Dokdo design, a diminutive LHD. Having a flight deck with offset island would improve flexibility, free up more parking space via the flight deck (a la HMAS Sydney) and allow for improved aviation operations and training (compared to an LSD type design like the Bay class RFAs). Build location could be possible in one of the common user facilities. Most likely the Henderson CUF in WA that could easily handle a 10,000-15,000 ship with an upgrade to its water-hardstand interface. The new Sealift Ship construction will likely fit in between the AWDs and the new SEA 5000 frigate so will actually be quite important for maintaining the domestic ship industry.

From what I remember when the DCP was updated mid 2011, JP2048Ph4C only had the budget allocation changed.

It went from a range of $300m-$500m to a new range of $1B-$2B, neither the in service date or the public description of the ship changed.

You made the point that a lot of the increase could possibly due to future inflation, does that mean the budget allocation was below what it should have been?, or has the capability of the proposed ship significantly increased?

The next point you made was about building a one off ship here in Australia to fit in between the AWD's and the SEA5000 frigates.

Would a better/cheaper option be to have the ship built overseas?

The Dutch, Spanish and UK sister/part sister ships of the Rotterdam, Galicia and Bay Classes will, I assume, be coming up for replacement at that time. We could possibly add a single ship onto that production run and save a considerable amount of money.

And then spend the extra $'s saved, on a possible 4th AWD to keep the ship industry going between the 3rd AWD and the first of the Future Frigates.

I'd be interested in your opinion.

 

[Kirkzzy]

It has nothing to do with older or younger members and while you may not have ‘wondered’ I sincerely doubt you have the faintest idea what is at issue here.

It has everything to do with newer and older members. There is a ridiculously high rate of newer members leaving this forum due to being pushed around because of rude responses they get to what is admittedly ignorant questions and/or statements.

Take your last post of ‘content’ for example. You seem to think you have the right to dismiss the conversations of others within this community. That you can place a value judgement upon a conversation that you weren’t a part of, just an observer. Because it didn’t entertain you enough…

But who are you to think that this place is for your gratification? Do you pay the rest of us to provide you with entertainment? Either directly or indirectly via consuming advertising. In case you don’t know the answer it is of course no. Have you made any contribution of note to this community that would entitle you to an assumption or reciprocation? Are people interested in your opinions, have you contributed wit, humour, insightful observations?

You have taken this way out of context by that last paragraph, all I was saying was it didn't interest me. It's not like I am yelling at anyone to take it down or to talk about something more interesting just to entertain myself. People can talk about whatever they want to talk about I don't care. It was probably however wrong of me to post that due to the ridiculous fallout of one line.

Do you have any knowledge about Defence that would enlighten the rest of us?

No that's why I am here.

And I quite clearly have judged you to be someone not deserving of any respect based on your petulant and undeserved commentary of others.

Funny, as I don't recall ever having attacked anyone on this forum personally, only pointing out cultural problems in the way people deal with others. As is occurring right now.

 

[ThePuss]

Well what about this: the JP 2048 Phase 4C Sealift Ship that will replace HMAS Choules?

We will keep Choules for the next 30 years and the money that was earmarked for 4C will go instead to the urgent replacement of Success and waste of money that Sirius was

 

[Todjaeger]

The next point you made was about building a one off ship here in Australia to fit in between the AWD's and the SEA5000 frigates.

Would a better/cheaper option be to have the ship built overseas?

The Dutch, Spanish and UK sister/part sister ships of the Rotterdam, Galicia and Bay Classes will, I assume, be coming up for replacement at that time. We could possibly add a single ship onto that production run and save a considerable amount of money.

And then spend the extra $'s saved, on a possible 4th AWD to keep the ship industry going between the 3rd AWD and the first of the Future Frigates.

I'd be interested in your opinion.

It would almost certainly be cheaper to have an Australian vessel build overseas if the build is part of a foreign sealift ship build programme due to economies of scale. Whether it would be better or not would really depend on the capabilities of the ship design in question, how easily (or not) Australia could ramp up to produce such a design, what it would cost built in Australia vs. an overseas build, and also what the Australian yard would do to maintain a work force and skilling in between the AWD and SEA 5000 programmes.

On a net cost to Gov't basis, an Australian build can cost 30+% more than an overseas build but still have a net cost to Gov't lower than a foreign build. Then there is also the gap between the AWD construction and the SEA 5000 construction, by having the replacement Sealift ship build in Australia, the yard could maintain the work force and the skills build up by the AWD programme until the SEA 5000 programme starts. If the future build were not to be done in Australia, then the SEA 5000 programme cost could be higher, because the yard might need to upskill a work force again, depending on how Gov't manages the naval shipbuilding industry in Australia.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You have taken this way out of context by that last paragraph, all I was saying was it didn't interest me. It's not like I am yelling at anyone to take it down or to talk about something more interesting just to entertain myself. People can talk about whatever they want to talk about I don't care. It was probably however wrong of me to post that due to the ridiculous fallout of one line.

Now it just didn’t interest you? Really? This is what you said:

has got to be the most boring thing I have ever read

That is a little bit different to ‘it didn’t interest me’. You said that people talking about their new ship, their new home, how proud they were of their child serving on it, interest in the latest capital investment of our nation, new defence capability, etc was:

to be the most boring thing I have ever read

And I guess for me personally my contributions to that discussion were the most boring things you’ve ever read to? I’d like to think I’m a bit more entertaining than that.

Funny, as I don't recall ever having attacked anyone on this forum personally, only pointing out cultural problems in the way people deal with others. As is occurring right now.

If you have a cultural problem with taking responsibility for the impact of your words then you have bigger problems than just pissing me off. Basically you think you can say anything, apportion onto others the title of:

the most boring thing I have ever read

And if taken up for this it isn’t your fault but a cultural problem with someone else. It would appear that the last paragraph in my last post was not out of context at all. But spot on. You’re the one with a cultural problem with the concept of responsibility that is central to the fundamental nature of our universe (cause and effect) not I.

It has everything to do with newer and older members. There is a ridiculously high rate of newer members leaving this forum due to being pushed around because of rude responses they get to what is admittedly ignorant questions and/or statements.

Yet you are still here… But seriously how can you make this call. Where is the evidence of this “ridiculously high rate” of membership drop off. I still see lots of people in the ‘currently active users’ part of this forum. Maybe some are thinking before writing but is that a bad thing?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From what I remember when the DCP was updated mid 2011, JP2048Ph4C only had the budget allocation changed.

It went from a range of $300m-$500m to a new range of $1B-$2B, neither the in service date or the public description of the ship changed.

It took some time but more information has been added to the online public DCP with quite a few changes to the JP2048Ph4C including the all important “desirability” to have the build in Australia.

You made the point that a lot of the increase could possibly due to future inflation, does that mean the budget allocation was below what it should have been?, or has the capability of the proposed ship significantly increased?

Inflation is just about a third of the $1.5 billion estimate. The key difference is having an Australian build rather than an import.

The next point you made was about building a one off ship here in Australia to fit in between the AWD's and the SEA5000 frigates.

Would a better/cheaper option be to have the ship built overseas?

Yeah it would be a lot cheaper to build the JP2048Ph4C overseas but it wouldn’t be cheaper to do that and then build a 4th AWD. Building the JP2048Ph4C in Australia between AWD #3 and S5K #1 will keep everyone in work and allow for systems design for the S5K and so on.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

We will keep Choules for the next 30 years and the money that was earmarked for 4C will go instead to the urgent replacement of Success and waste of money that Sirius was

Yeah but the money for 4C isn't in the budget until 2020. Thats 8-9 years of Success rusting and Sirius plonking. If an urgent replacement for Success is needed it wouldn't surprise me if the Navy had to swallow a Sirius #2.

 

[ThePuss]

Yeah but the money for 4C isn't in the budget until 2020. Thats 8-9 years of Success rusting and Sirius plonking. If an urgent replacement for Success is needed it wouldn't surprise me if the Navy had to swallow a Sirius #2.

The navy does not have that time, double hulling Success broke her. Her shafts are misaligned and she will never sail again.

 

[alexsa]

Perhaps, but the parts that were taken, were taken from what was lying at Holbrook.

The stern section, including A brackets, is on display away from the casing. If is from here parts were taken.