The modifications were completely unSuccessful
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
IIRC Sirius is 8 this year Success has been in comission for 26 years and the Balikpapans are ~40 (same age as LPAs).
Sirius has faired fairly well as a tanker (Helicopter deck issues aside).
Success was #$%^%$ up in her double hulling and might never sail again.
i have not heard any news on the Balikpapans but Tobruk who is 10 years their younger is fairly screwed so i cant imagine they are in overly great condition.
IMO with the Canberras and choules coming online i would imagine the focus has shifted away from the amphibious fleet.
my money is on Success going first then Sirius then the Balikpapans.
Sirius has faired fairly well as a tanker (Helicopter deck issues aside).
Success was #$%^%$ up in her double hulling and might never sail again.
i have not heard any news on the Balikpapans but Tobruk who is 10 years their younger is fairly screwed so i cant imagine they are in overly great condition.
IMO with the Canberras and choules coming online i would imagine the focus has shifted away from the amphibious fleet.
my money is on Success going first then Sirius then the Balikpapans.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,303
and is in denial about its condition...
HMAS Sirius was commissioned in 2006 as a gap filler after most countries went to rules requiring oilers to be double hulled(of note many USN are not double hulled, namely henry J Kaiser)
Its only just managed to overcome alot of its problems in regards to duel RAS(Replenishment At Sea)
I do like the BMT design, as its a suitable replacement. But then again, we will go with the cheapest option that will require replacement in 10 years...yeah, we all know it
Looking at the Caimen, there appears to be no increase in capability over the Balikpapans, apart from speed. Perhaps with the Canberras it is felt there is no need for more.
While looking at the BMT site I come across the Venator re-configurable minor warship.
Only a concept right now I hope to find more detailed imformation in the future.
Since several members of this site took the time to explain properly the shortcomings of aluminium designs like MRC80, I have wondered which vessel would best suite the RANS needs. Maybe this is the way to go.
I would prefer a hanger for permanant helo operation. Perhaps two classes of vessel with common hull, propulsion and basic sensor fit, but one class with a hull plug extending its length to allow a hanger, aircrew accomadation and longer range for more extended opperations.
If no permanant helo could we see a modular Ikara system for a asw version. With advances in technology the missile (and its launcher) should be smaller, lighter, faster, longer ranged and more accurate than the original. With increaseing numbers of subs in the region the Ikaras advantages over ship mounted tubes (longer reach, speed to target and undetected until right overhead target) could be the vital differance.
Last edited by a moderator:
No increase? An extra 300 tons of displacement fully loaded, 20 metres longer (& that's reflected in the length of the vehicle deck, so you can fit more vehicles in), probably better seakeeping, much more fresh water (i.e. more people carried for longer), etc. The quoted cargo capacity isn't much more, but it would be very interesting to see the payload/range characteristics, & payload/speed.
If what's wanted is a modern equivalent, better but in the same size class, then Caimen 200 could be a good fit. If it's decided that the RAN really, really needs landing ships several times the size of the Balikpapans, then Caimen 200 is out of the picture, but I wonder where such ships would fit in. It isn't a given that every time something wears out it has to be replaced with something three or four times the size. If the role is the same, it may be that something of similar size can do it.
The Balikpapans have been very busy during their lives in the RAN and I suspect there will still be a demand for landing ships/craft of around their size even after the LHDs join - IIRC only 3 are to be kept in commission so maybe fewer than 6 replacements will be required.
Tas
What are peoples thoughts on the BMT Mars Tanker for Success & Sirius replacement ? Although the ones being built in South Korea will be 37,000 Tonnes, I am sure BMT have plans available for smaller sized units ?
To me that style seems to fit what we would require ? Just seems to be a good fit and with a potential build time within the time required ? There is also the Canadian JSS ? But have not had a chance to read up on the latest developments yet
BMT Group Ltd - News - DSME Announced As Winning Bid for the MARS Tanker competition
Cheers
To me that style seems to fit what we would require ? Just seems to be a good fit and with a potential build time within the time required ? There is also the Canadian JSS ? But have not had a chance to read up on the latest developments yet
BMT Group Ltd - News - DSME Announced As Winning Bid for the MARS Tanker competition
Cheers
IIRC the canadian JSS program was a lemon, last i heard they had dropped the sealift requirement and now they are just looking at Berlin and Cantabria class AORs..
The BMt Aegir family is fairly flexible.
the 18R is probably the best bet as a replacement for both Success and Sirius. they sell the Aegir family as "Modular" so if you wanted something bigger you could probably get an Aegir-26 with food+Ammo stores .
The BMt Aegir family is fairly flexible.
the 18R is probably the best bet as a replacement for both Success and Sirius. they sell the Aegir family as "Modular" so if you wanted something bigger you could probably get an Aegir-26 with food+Ammo stores .
Totally agree with you here.
But what I had in mind was a story told by my father (ex army water transport) that the Navy after limiting the size of the LSM replacement found them to be too small upon taking them over. IIRC the original plan was then to replace them with something larger. Fast forward to today, with the Canberras and Choules and perhaps there is no requirement for anything larger.
None of this is meant to imply that the Balikpapans have not given valuable service for many years.
In the latest Defence Newspapers Navy News a comment re HMAS Success:
Success' ship's company is getting ready for a busy and challenging 2012.
.... whatever that may mean ........
This issue has been covered in this thread extensively before. The JP 2048 Phase 5 ship to replace the LCH is far more like the LSM Mk 2 that the Army wanted in the first place before the Navy insisted they buy a smaller ship. Which they then took over and used to provide at sea commands until they had adequate patrol boat numbers and then laid up the LCHs or used them for dive support leaving the Army without water transport. Fortunately those days are passed with the Navy fully committed to amphibious operations.
I very much doubt the Caimen 200 will be a contender for JP 2048 Phase 5 because while similar it is not tailored to the actual role. If BMT offer a design it will probably be similar but a bit bigger and probably an enclosed deck for a helo landing pad, enclosed load and better sea keeping. The draft requirement is for a ship of around 1,300 tonnes.
the road runner
Active Member
What is the forums opinion on the future submarine for Australia?
The reason i ask,is i have read a number of articles ,that state we may have left our run a bit late to build a "new design" from scratch.
With the Australian government building a site to test sub engines im starting to think we may be headed down an "evolved collins" design,a point Mr Davis from ASPI has made.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ4acvjM_Uo"]The future evolution of Australia's submarines - Andrew Davies, ASPI - YouTube[/nomedia]
The reason i ask,is i have read a number of articles ,that state we may have left our run a bit late to build a "new design" from scratch.
With the Australian government building a site to test sub engines im starting to think we may be headed down an "evolved collins" design,a point Mr Davis from ASPI has made.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ4acvjM_Uo"]The future evolution of Australia's submarines - Andrew Davies, ASPI - YouTube[/nomedia]
Is he blue screened onto that canberra background?
Seems to pretty logical. A Collins II, continuous building, shared family development. Time is slipping away, unless we build something in partnership with someone who is very far along in development (US, Japan etc).
Battery development is moving along, UUV tech is moving along, weapons and sensors are moving along, Im not sure the hull needs to be revolutionarly different as long as it as long as it supports those technologies.
Seems to pretty logical. A Collins II, continuous building, shared family development. Time is slipping away, unless we build something in partnership with someone who is very far along in development (US, Japan etc).
Battery development is moving along, UUV tech is moving along, weapons and sensors are moving along, Im not sure the hull needs to be revolutionarly different as long as it as long as it supports those technologies.
No, he isn't
Mmmmm "Australian Strategic Policy Institute" & "Operations & Capability Program Director" sounds very impressive when you make up your own title
He has some merit in what he is saying, but I still don't hold them highly. These guy's would not have a clue where we are in the process, and we have definately not left our run too late.
As for choice ? Mate your guess would be as good as anyone else's until we get confirmation, but for what it's worth, I would bet on either a Collins II anyway, or backing onto Japan, the timings for the Japanese option looks about right for the Soryu replacements, or if I head slightly into my Fanboi side
maybe a modified, non nuke, Virginia ? But of course by the time we are looking at first of class into service (~2025) would be too late for the current class, but maybe Virginia replacement ?As for any other suggestions ? I have seen people carrying on about MOTS Euro subs from Spain, France (including Barracuda nuke's), German, blah blah blah, even seen other forums suggesting we get the UK Astute in either Nuke or Non nuke ? But that is a typical lack of understanding of our requirements
peterAustralia
Member
In regards to these fleet oilers, underway replenishment ships, whichever is the appropiate term thesedays. My question is this, When built do they have an optimum design life?
Say you have a car, you could buy a new car every 5 years, but it would be expensive, more capital costs. You could buy a new car every 30 years, trouble is that your old car costs a lot to keep on the road. So you choose the optimum solution are replace a car every 10 or 12 years or so.
What is the age for replenishment ships, is it 20 years, 25 years, 30 years? Say for arguements sake it is 25 years. Next how long from making the decision to get a replacement to having it in service does that take. Lets make a guess and say six years. That means after 19 years of service you start looking for a replacement, you get it, have it up to speed, then retire the old ship just when the upkeep of your existing ship is starting to get quite expensive. Sounds simple to me. For some reason this does not seem to happen in practice, I can only assume other factors come into play?
Another thing, there was something on the news a couple of days ago that work on the AWD was being transferred from Williamstown to Spain. I have not heard much about that here, is that because it is old news, and the TV takes too long to get onto the story. Am I missing the boat on this one. Please excuse my ignorance I just overheard half a story on the 6pm TV news.
A third thing. We are meant to be getting thirty 2000t ships. Same hull will be OPV, MCM, Hydrographic survey vessel and possibly corvette. Idea is to save money by economies of scale.
However replacing a 270t patrol boat with a 2000t corvette to me still sounds as though it is going to cost more (call me naive I know,,, gee what was I thinking there)
Why not only have 25 of these 2000t hulls, and apply the economy of scale principal to the armidale class replacement. Armidale class at 270t, approx 56m length, crew 29, cost around $26m each. Possibly something a fraction bigger is ideal.
How about applying the economies of scale to a 330t patrol boat, at say 62m lenght. Build say thirty of them. Possibly a very similar patrol boat shared between customs and the Navy. Maybe 16 for the Navy, 14 for Customs. Or 13 for the Navy and 17 for Customs.
Australia has a big coastline, for some jobs a 2000t ship is too large.
I do realise there is a need for a 2000t OPV for the southern ocean, deployments out to Christmas Island, showing the flag in pacific nations etc, however the Armidale class have been doing a huge amount of useful work, it seems to me a shame to lose such a cost effective asset.
Say you have a car, you could buy a new car every 5 years, but it would be expensive, more capital costs. You could buy a new car every 30 years, trouble is that your old car costs a lot to keep on the road. So you choose the optimum solution are replace a car every 10 or 12 years or so.
What is the age for replenishment ships, is it 20 years, 25 years, 30 years? Say for arguements sake it is 25 years. Next how long from making the decision to get a replacement to having it in service does that take. Lets make a guess and say six years. That means after 19 years of service you start looking for a replacement, you get it, have it up to speed, then retire the old ship just when the upkeep of your existing ship is starting to get quite expensive. Sounds simple to me. For some reason this does not seem to happen in practice, I can only assume other factors come into play?
Another thing, there was something on the news a couple of days ago that work on the AWD was being transferred from Williamstown to Spain. I have not heard much about that here, is that because it is old news, and the TV takes too long to get onto the story. Am I missing the boat on this one. Please excuse my ignorance I just overheard half a story on the 6pm TV news.
A third thing. We are meant to be getting thirty 2000t ships. Same hull will be OPV, MCM, Hydrographic survey vessel and possibly corvette. Idea is to save money by economies of scale.
However replacing a 270t patrol boat with a 2000t corvette to me still sounds as though it is going to cost more (call me naive I know,,, gee what was I thinking there)
Why not only have 25 of these 2000t hulls, and apply the economy of scale principal to the armidale class replacement. Armidale class at 270t, approx 56m length, crew 29, cost around $26m each. Possibly something a fraction bigger is ideal.
How about applying the economies of scale to a 330t patrol boat, at say 62m lenght. Build say thirty of them. Possibly a very similar patrol boat shared between customs and the Navy. Maybe 16 for the Navy, 14 for Customs. Or 13 for the Navy and 17 for Customs.
Australia has a big coastline, for some jobs a 2000t ship is too large.
I do realise there is a need for a 2000t OPV for the southern ocean, deployments out to Christmas Island, showing the flag in pacific nations etc, however the Armidale class have been doing a huge amount of useful work, it seems to me a shame to lose such a cost effective asset.
All of the world faces the same problem, whether to build larger more expensive patrol ships with more endurance or smaller less expensive patrol ships with shorter endurance. I believe a balanced fleet need both.
peter, I get the feeling you're mistaking purchase price for some kind of measurement of cost effectiveness on deployments? Just because a small ship is cheaper to purchase doesn't make it more cost effective than larger ships.
A little research would also show you that Customs already have some boats and a replacement program already in progress for them, http://www.austal.com/Resources/Deliveries/7ebab93a-7d00-486e-92af-abe350840971/austal-ccpb.pdf
A little more would show you that SEA 1180 plans 20 vessels, up to 2000t, with a somewhat expanded role over chasing refugees around for the 6pm news.
The other points of AWD construction and procurement problems are old news and in the laters case often discussed, theres not much else to say about either.
A little research would also show you that Customs already have some boats and a replacement program already in progress for them, http://www.austal.com/Resources/Deliveries/7ebab93a-7d00-486e-92af-abe350840971/austal-ccpb.pdf
A little more would show you that SEA 1180 plans 20 vessels, up to 2000t, with a somewhat expanded role over chasing refugees around for the 6pm news.
The other points of AWD construction and procurement problems are old news and in the laters case often discussed, theres not much else to say about either.
Yeah. I know someone working for a small firm set up to develop a new battery technology which from what he says could be well suited to submarines. High energy density, very high drain possible, scales up very well. It's no good for normal domestic uses because it doesn't scale down well. The minimum efficient size is pretty big, too big for a hybrid car, for example.
The backers are pushing it for power supply smoothing for wind generators, emergency backups for businesses, hospitals etc, all in the UK & Ireland, but they're short of development finance. I asked him if they'd spoken to submarine builders, & he looked puzzled & said "But they're nuclear". I told him that there are French, Spanish, German, Swedish, etc. builders of conventional subs. I also pointed him to a couple of potential users with big budgets which have gone public saying they're looking for better batteries for high-power applications, e.g. in Japan. He didn't seem able to grasp the idea that they might be able to go abroad for backing. :hitwall
British industry, eh? Brilliant ideas, lousy follow-through. This bloke's a very clever, very skilled engineer, but his mind runs on rails, & the whole firm consists of similar people.
- Status