I would be surprised in the slightest if the aircraft chosen to operate from the OCV is what ever is the latest USN / USCG UCAV, say the MQ-8C for example. That said the flight deck would likely be large enough to recover and launch a Romeo or MRH-90.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
That's a reasonable modification, though I'd not risk trying to do it as a quick fix unless I was very sure indeed that the structure would take them without any problems. I'd wait until a full refit, when I could get in there & have a long hard look at the structure, & maybe do some reinforcement.
I wouldn't even think about enlarging the dock, though.
BTW, it isn't true to say that Choules will only unload in the presence of an LHD. I expect that would be true in any major amphibious operation, but I'm sure the RAN will find her handy on many other occasions, either when no LHD is available, or she's thought enough without an LHD. The UK has sent unaccompanied (by other amphibs) Bays for disaster relief, support of anti-pirate patrols, logistic support of forces deployed abroad, etc., & they've performed well.
Maybe we could out source the work to the Singapore Yard that double hulled HMAS Success, I believe that was carried out on time and within budget.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,164
which is why its only sailed from singapore to sydney, and been alongside ever since with no real idea of when she will sail again...
:goodbad
I know thats why I said it.....yes it costs more to do work in Australia and yes some times reputable Australian companies do object or even refuse to do some work because they say it shouldn't or can't be done but at the end of the day who should have been listened to and what would have been better value for money?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
With all the recent posts that have mentioned the problems with Success and also reading the last few days about the RN having ordered 4 new MARS fleet tankers, to be build in Korea, I wondered how suitable would they be as a Success replacement?
Link below abour the MARS tankers:
Clydeside loses out to South Korea to build £½bn Royal Navy tankers - UK - Scotsman.com
And link from the DCP for Success replacement:
SEA 1654 | Defence Capability Plan 2011
My knowledge of these types of ships is very limited, please excuse my ignorance.
But I do know there is certainly a wide gap between the capabilites of, in Australian service, Sirius is a "converted" commercial tanker at one end, and at the other end is Success, a "purpose" build ship that is more than just a petrol station at sea.
I'd like to know where do these new UK tankers fit as a possible Success replacement? Closer to Sirius in capability or closer to Success?
Looking at the costings, the UK is having the 4 ships built for 452m UK pounds, which converts to $A670m, or $A167m each.
The DCP has a budget of between $A500m-$1Billion, suggesting it will be closer to the lower figure.
If they are a suitable replacement, I wonder if we could add to the end of the order?
Interested to know what you all think, thanks.
It was discussed IIRC on here 6-8 months ago ? I think the MARS would be a very suitable replacement, particulary with the LHD's etc coming, but I think the biggest thing with the pricing you have mentioned is the preference for an Australian build ? That is why it is so high, Do a search for it, was a good series of posts, Abe had some very good suggestions on potential replacements
Here is a link to BMT, they are the designer of the MARS ship, they also have smaller version, and other goodies on the site to look at
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/?/184
Cheers
Last edited:
We aren't even allowed to put a screw into a bulkhead, never mind change a crane out, without a configuration change request.
There are a multitude of very valid reasons for this the first being safety (think Westralia) but add it TLS costs, maintainability, durability and design stability.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Can any of the currently active Australian Yards even build something that big without significant investment to infrastructure? If significant investment is required, tagging onto the end of the RFA build might be beneficial unless further RAN or Commercial orders can be attracted to maintain the capability to build ships of that size.
Reading the information on SEA 1654, it sounds like Sirius will remain in service for the forseeable future with the requirement now for just a single ship to replace HMAS Success?
Anixtu
New Member
MARS FT as configured for RFA service would not replace the solid stores capability of Success, they are closer to a smaller, more militarised Sirius in capability. In RFA service they will replace the ex-commercial tankers of the Leaf class, as Sirius replaced one of the same.
BMT's Aegir designs, on which their MARS FT bid is based, do include the option to configure as an AOR: BMT Defence Services - Aegir-18R - Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment vessel
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,172
Im at FHQ and we cannot even change a lightbulb, have to log a job and get a contractor in to do the job...yeah, its that pathetic...
Well thats another issue, whether we have the people and capacity for the job. Ask any defence contractor and they will swear black and blue they could do it, but have it 2 years late because of lack of skilled workers, which leads to hiring foreigners at higher wage, which leads to political scandal of foreign workers taking young aussies job, who dont want to do it anyway, and thats just building it here.
Have it sent to Sth Korea, who have a proven shipbuilding industry( i remember seeing years ago at their height they'd launch a ship a month) and we are selling out local workers and sending money away from our own industry(which does not exist).
If we did what the RN are planning, and sent the contract to Sth korea, and tagged onto the UK order to save on knowledge and a bit of start up money, the politics would get involved, and we would have to do some part of the work here in Aus. And like Sirius it would get screwed up(ie flight deck) and then the shit would hit the fan, and we'd be left with long term issues...anyone else have a more optimistic view here, or have i become to use to ADF and Government acquisitions...
the wonders of outsourcing .....
Back when I first worked down in the dungon in MHQ, we'd just ring building services (which consisted of a couple of junior sailors medcat/awaiting discharge/next course).
To be honest, I don't think they should change the lightbulbs in R1 and R2. Being able to see isn't helping the decision making process as it is.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
If the capability can be maintained after it is built up i'm all for it.
For example if the government decided to build up a strategic reserve of shipping for whatever reason and build up a government owned shipping line like the one they sold off in the 90's.
However if the capability was just going to be allowed to fade away immediately after building the pair of ships its pointless to even try.
The AWD build should have started in late 2004/early 2005 at williamtown after the last ANZAC was launched, even if the actual build was stretched out. Four to Six T45 (with Aegis) or DDG-85's (with more Automation) would have done nicely.
With an OPC program or the ANZAC II's to continue on from DDG build.
And you'd save who knows how much money through not modernising FFG's and not having to relearn skills lost due to the break in building.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A few thoughts, questions and concerns come to mind regard Australia maintaining a naval construction capability.
One of the questions is, what is the largest size and type of naval vessel Australia wishes to retain the capability to construct?
IIRC HMAS Success was the largest RAN vessel ever built in Australia, but Cockatoo Island Dockyard is no longer in operation and AFAIK Williamstown and Henderson are both not up to building a vessel that large without significant expansion. Not sure, but I somehow doubt ASC would be up to the task of building such a large vessel either, unless there was expansion.
Something else which seems like could cause issues is the timing and scope of some of the potential building programmes.
The AWD programme should have all vessels in service by ~2017 or 2018 IIRC. The Anzac replacement programme is set to start in the early 2020's and IMO likely to run ~15 years assuming only 8 frigates are built for the RAN.
Around the time the Anzac replacement programme is supposed to start, the OCV programme is also set to start. Given that the proposal there is for ~20 vessels to replace the ACPB, the Huon-class MHC and the survey vessels, I could easily see the OCV programme running for 15 - 20 years, depending on the rate of construction. Also, the Son of Collins programme is likely to start construction of the future SSG in the mid to late 2020's.
What this means is that starting in the mid to late 2020's and likely lasting for a decade or so, Australian shipyards are expected to be building three separate classes of vessel at the same time. The issue I foresee in this is that there appears to be too much work scheduled for a single yard to perform without significant expansion, but also once the various programmes are finished, the large number of workers the programmes required are no longer going to have sufficient work to keep them occupied and/or retaining their skills.
What I wonder is whether there would be a way to 'stagger' the programmes more so that there is less concurrency between the programmes, potentially allowing a single facility have the different programmes and retaining the workforce across the different programmes.
-Cheers
Quick Question;
Is their a visiting frigate/destroyer down in Sydney at the moment. I was sailing past of the ferry and caught the Endeavour, which I new was in for a bit, down by the old LHAs but looking up the row of escorts their looked to be another greyer ship, I think it was in between one of the Adelaides and a ANZAC, I could not get a good sight on the pennant, is it another Kiwi ship or from elsewhere.
Is their a visiting frigate/destroyer down in Sydney at the moment. I was sailing past of the ferry and caught the Endeavour, which I new was in for a bit, down by the old LHAs but looking up the row of escorts their looked to be another greyer ship, I think it was in between one of the Adelaides and a ANZAC, I could not get a good sight on the pennant, is it another Kiwi ship or from elsewhere.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,179
HMNZS Te Kaha is in ,along with HMNZS Endervour for excercises with RAN
Where’s the like button when you need it?
Failure to do just what you are suggesting will see the skills base start to degenerate from 2015 if not earlier as more phases of the project wind up. Even if the ANZAC replacement is brought forward you can expect most of the work force required at the early phases of the new project would have already dissipated. IMHO the only way to avoid having to fork out all the start up costs yet again is to order additional AWD’s now and to bring forward either the ANZAC replacement or the OPC, with ASC as the lead, while delaying the other to avoid the need to increase capacity to unsustainable levels while guaranteeing ongoing work.
Todjaeger: ASC has the space to build additional capacity and much of the brand new ship yard was based on BIWs new facilities, i.e. those being used to build DDG 51s and DDG 1000’s, they are capable of building much larger ships with limited expenditure to expand the current facilities. There are very large plots of vacant land adjacent to the new shipyard and CUF, it just needs the contracts to justify the development.
Australia's premier naval industry hub
- Status