Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Make naval base a garden of tourism

does anyone else not understand why its the navys problem that sydney doesnt have enough berthing space?
I haven't kept up to date with Port Jackson wharves but surely all those cruise ships that can get under the bridge (most) would be able to berth at the King St/Barangaroo wharves?
Or, as I suspect, has the State Gov handed it all to developers without caveats?

IIRC this problem was topical way back in the mid 70's during the BLF Green Bans saga
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Gee a lot of acronyms

BCP = border protection command
APBC = australian patrol boat xxx (command?)
OPC = offshore patrol craft
ACPB= australian customs patrol boat
SIEV = suspected illegal entry vessel
FFH = ,,, i dont know = a frigate or something
AMIS = i dont know
HDML = i dont know - a ww2 patrol boat?
OCV = offshore combatant vessel
ASMD = anti ship missile defence
FFH - Fast Frigate Helicopter - NATO designation for ANZAC Class type frigates.

FFG - Fast Frigate Guided - NATO designation for FFG-7 - Adelaide Class type frigates.

Most of these designations are used because they are NATO standard identifiers...
 

the road runner

Active Member
Make naval base a garden of tourism

does anyone else not understand why its the navys problem that sydney doesnt have enough berthing space?
Sydney harbour has a number of areas that could be re developed into berthing space.Think its an issue of money more than anything else.
When i was a young bloke i often saw navy ships moored off taronga zoo,athol bay,chowder bay ect.

I often wonder if Chowder bay could be an area that NAVY would develop?
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sydney harbour has a number of areas that could be re developed into berthing space.Think its an issue of money more than anything else.
When i was a young bloke i often saw navy ships moored off taronga zoo,athol bay,chowder bay ect.

I often wonder if Chowder bay could be an area that NAVY would develop?
I'm hearing wailing and teeth knashing from the good burghers of Mosman already!
 

the road runner

Active Member
I'm hearing wailing and teeth knashing from the good burghers of Mosman already!
Haha half the suburb is for sale at the moment,Economic collapse anyone.
Dont think the locals will mind that much,after all HMAS Penguin is in Mosman.
So is Obolisk beach :( locals dont seem to comment on that much.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Gee a lot of acronyms

BPC = border protection command
APBC = australian patrol boat xxx (command?)
OPC = offshore patrol craft
ACPB= australian customs patrol boat
SIEV = suspected illegal entry vessel
FFH = ,,, i dont know = a frigate or something
AMIS = i dont know
HDML = i dont know - a ww2 patrol boat?
OCV = offshore combatant vessel
ASMD = anti ship missile defence

My job is making the paint for colorbond steel (r&d). Yes we have acronyms there, but defence is way way worse. I know I can be chewed out for not knowing all these acronyms. Out of courtesy I will refrain from mentioning the acronyms we use for analysis of the paint chemisty for the paint for colorbond steel (my humble job) . Is it just me that does not know what all the above acronyms are?
I've had the defence acronyms on CD - there are that many. we were going to try and integrate it onto the regular network but the entity responsible for maintaining it (out at ADFA) can't keep up with the changes

most of the acros are international and come from bodies such as NATO and ACIG (aust, uk, canada and the us, who define the names for red team aircraft, eg flanker, fulcrum, blackjack, hook, hockum etc...)
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Make naval base a garden of tourism

does anyone else not understand why its the navys problem that sydney doesnt have enough berthing space?
I screamed abuse when i read this today...F%^K OFF CLOVER MOORE AND EVERYONE ELSE WANTING GARDEN ISLAND!

This is getting frigging pathetic, everytime someone talks about cruise liners, they look over at GI and go, "lets park there"
The funniest part is that they require the berth between october and march...these periods are normally the end of the year, when ships are home and heading to maintanence and RAP. So by the plans they want, we have to move our ships to make room(with choules now, and LPAs still berthed, as well as LHD incoming, 4 FFG, success,tobruk, 3 FFH) where the Frak do you park a 300m frigging cruise liner!?!
heres the breakdown of FBE. 4 260m berths starting at harrys, then a broken up 1Nth, 1Sth which holds choules, or 2 frigates. West wall can hold any ship(except choules i believe) and then theres GI with two berths, and east wall occasionally.

Now if you look at the ship numbers(12) and number of berthing spaces(9) you would gather outboard berthing is available, but when we do this, we have an issue of maintanence, where craning off equipment that needs to be repaired or have annuals conducted. cold moving vessels to conduct this is expensive(tugs) and annoying as hell for crew and work in progress.

When the fleet returns this year the base will be at capacity(you can see this in Nov) and it will mean very limited movement for space. When the cruise company wants to use the base(oct-Mar) includes Reduced Activity Period, where the ships go to min manning and movement will be limited, and i truely could not mention the pain in recalling crew during RAP to move ships, as well as the expense for flights booked across the country, or crew overseas on holiday.

This yet again is another dumb move by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and see the prime real estate value of Garden island, and not the fact its Fleet Base East. Its becoming a more common push with people who have access to the media to complain about the navy and have them removed.
Besides the sheer cost of moving the fleet north to a "supposed new base" in brisbane, the cost of building such a facility, then having the support companies for defence move, as well as people, families and alike is not worth it. We would look at nearly $2billion dollars to defence itself, and alot of companies shifting workers or cancelling their positions in sydney, and re opening in brisbane, so either move your family or get a new job for these people.
Familes would be destroyed, as over the navy is married, or partnered. and would require uplifting them.

This is becoming more and more pathetic an argument, and would require the one person who can talk in the public and defend the navy, but hes currently at war with the department. If either himself, or the PM could step up and shut it down, and announce more funding to replace half the buildings(they need to be replaced now or 10 years ago, its pretty poor of a standard) so that we could show faith in FBE. This is what we need, what we get is silence, which is golden to the detractors.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This is becoming more and more pathetic an argument, and would require the one person who can talk in the public and defend the navy, but hes currently at war with the department. If either himself, or the PM could step up and shut it down, and announce more funding to replace half the buildings(they need to be replaced now or 10 years ago, its pretty poor of a standard) so that we could show faith in FBE. This is what we need, what we get is silence, which is golden to the detractors.
somebody should take smith, DoFA and PM&C for a walk through those buildings at the back - and let him see what the specials and clearance divers have had to work out of just so that the Govt has some good news stories

praise the uniforms but don't give them what they need to do the job properly....

nice one. NOT
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
me thinks someone didnt take the time to google the RV Triton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that was mentioned earlier...

Triton has been around longer than the ACPBs and there is a reason they arnt trimarans.

P.S

HDML = Harbour defence motor launch
AMIS= Australian Maritime Identification System
Actualy I am fully aware of what Triton is and what it attempts to be, trust me on this. By the way this wiki quote

It is reported that ACV Triton has been modified to provide additional accommodation at the expense of ballast, which has apparently reduced the vessel's inherent stability.[citation needed] Note that especially high stability is intrinsically less important in the calmer waters of the South Pacific and Indian Oceans.[citation needed]
Is rubbish in so far as the comment relates to ballast. Additional accompdation has been squeezed onboard as part of its role as an ACV. Stability is affected by top wieght not ballast as vessle of this type are not exactly flush wit ballast tanks. The vessel is commercially certified and will still comply with intact stablity requirements.

Some actually call teh hll design a stablised slender monohull wihteh side hulls simply being outriggers. The Austal seaframe is the same concepte but not in steel. The outriggers provide limited bouyance on an even keel but increased transverse stability in a roll. teh slender center hull provides less resistance than a conventional hull of similar displacement.................. at least that is the theory.

Its task with BPC is not really patrolling and I will leave it at that.
 

AMTP10E

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I never did a port visit to Bris-vagas but the guys I know who did hated the passage up the river (10 hours closed up at specials apparently).

I'm really struggling to think of a suitable harbour on the east coast that doesn't have some potential show stopper issue.
 

AMTP10E

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
As for the PB/Hydro/MCM franken-ship, I think that the idea of combining a PB and Hydro into a single hull is do-able.

I do suspect that the MCM role still needs a specialist platform since we will still need the ability to put the ship 'in the minefield' (so to speak) despite the work on UUVs to keep the danger at arms length. The qualties to make a ship stealthy to mines makes for a poor patrol boat.

A PB/Hydro replacement should be able to embark a Seahawk/MRH90 sized helo (including a hanger) which means something up to Leeuwin class sized.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I never did a port visit to Bris-vagas but the guys I know who did hated the passage up the river (10 hours closed up at specials apparently).

I'm really struggling to think of a suitable harbour on the east coast that doesn't have some potential show stopper issue.
To the P&O terminal is 5 hours from the start of moreton bay.

The channel is 2.5 hours of Mod specials for ships, then 30 mins for breakfast(this is arrival time of 1000hrs, followed by back in for specials from the start of the wharfs all the way along the river for around 2hours, depending on other ship movements and tug availabilty.

Lets look at the possibility of brisbane for a second here, someone with better knowledge of the river may have better insight, but looking at maps and charts with depths etc, i dont see many good options.

Anything beyond P&O terminal is too shallow for ships, so first option would be the land around bulimba barracks, as its close to the dry dock thats utlisied by the RAN from time to time and fits ships as large as sirius.

A big problem with somewhere along brisbane river is force protection. putting a good fence around the base with half decent guards(a stretch i know, but anything beats the current FBE MSS at main gates) then a boat will have to sit in the water all the time.

Another will be the impact of traffic on the area, considering moving a base and people requires vehicles, and the public transport to move them to work, otherwise defence has to use a bus daily, not to mention housing for ADF personnel, families and alike. as much as brass seem to think, Living in accomadation is not ideal and a majority prefer their own place, mostly because its hard to bring a chick back to your place if she needs an ID and to be checked by a security guard, flattering im sure.
 
A couple of decades ago Jervis Bay was going to be the fleet base. I remember talking about it with my father who was very well informed with the proposal, being very, very senoir in the town planning department of Shoalhaven City Council. You can probably work out my name based on that!

It got knocked back on environmental grounds. Part of that was not so much the fleet base on teh southern peninsula, it was the ammunition wharf on the North side. It would have completely stuffed up the water flow into the tidal Hay Creek. (name from memory), I have canoed over there and it was completely covered with sea grass and was (and remains) a huge breeding ground for all sorts of fish. The wharf would have killed all the sea grass.

I had assumed the ammunition wharf would have been the type made of lots of posts, so that water would flow through. However the proposal was for a solid type wharf. Perhaps ammunition wharfs have to be solid? The wharf was meant to be on green point.

The Navy was saying at the time that the public would still be able to visit those places if the wharf was in place. My father who was in a position to know, knew that was utter rubbish.

Having grown up in Nowra and knowing Jervis bay very well, I had assumed all the coast was as nice. (its not) It is to me the jewel of the NSW coast. If the Navy had proposed a different type of wharf on the North side, it might have got the go ahead. On the south side the fleet base would have spanned from Murrays beach to around near Bristol beach. Murrays beach has a huge car park, they were going to put a Nuclear reactor there, now it is a boat ramp with the best car park you can imagine. They got as far as making a huge hole in the ground, then stopped.

Jervis Bay made sense being close to Sydney, close to Creswell, close to where they practice shore bombardment on Beecroft peninsula, and close to the Naval air station HMAS albatross. Additionally it has an entrance where they can put their secret squirrel stuff and work out what is coming in and out. I know they have sensors on the seabed there to test for engine vibrations. The Navy has a second air strip near creswell (they used to fly Jindavicks from there) plus it is not part of NSW. I remember walking around beecroft pensinsula and seeing the shells there (not all of them explode), it is most prudent to leave them where they are. Jervis Bay has high cliffs on the seaward side, good to see what is coming and going.

The council had left a large state forest area with a few kms of buffer zone NW of jervis bay for the ammunition storage facility.

The local council was keen on having the Navy re-locate there. However they stuffed up the ammunition wharf proposal. The local council and federal governemtn was keeping a lot of the land vacant should the Navy choose to go there

The fear was that if the Navy did not get the go-ahead then land developers would move in and build houses everywhere. After the Navy got kicked back they made it a national park (they did not trust the local government to keep it safe). They would rather have had the Navy than have had the area stuffed by land developers, as the number of hectares the Navy would build on would be miniscule to what the land devleopers could have done.

If the Navy had put its proposal through in the 1970s as opposed to the 1980s it might have gone through. With a post type ammunition wharf the enironmental impact would have been a lot less.

The thing about Jervis Bay it has large areas that are not developed. The rest of the coast has a little town every few km (I am not opposed to delopment, however in my opinion it would be nice if they left a few areas untouched). Because Jervis Bay was the last area left untouched, its envormental significance grew as they stuffed up the rest of the coast.


aside, yes I did know about Triton, was meant to showcase british technology with electric propulsion and laser cutting for the steel plates, and a new hull layout. The outriggers are in the middle, the new Chinese SAR craft has longer outriggers which are placed aft. They Chinese have copied the austal layout for the outriggers as opposed to the british example. IMHO the outriggers on Triton dont look long enough. I was not aware that it had ride issues. I guess the Chinese will build one craft, see how it goes and if it works for them they may choose to build more of them.

Austal has built a fast ferry B*** express (hard to spell that name) and the new LCS for the american navy, I dont know how they handle in a seastate.

What I mean, is that I dont know if the Triton has bad handling because it is a trimaran and all trimarans have bad handling, or whether it has bad handling because of the size and position of its outriggers.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
[Mod edit]
C'mon, mate. No need to quote the very long post immediately before yours in full. It wastes bandwidth & makes your post harder to read.
[/Mod edit]



Ive spoken with officers who reviewed it again in the 90s, that seaweed is endangered(or became that way after they went around the country culling it all) and you would find that the wharf type was designed that way on purpose...as there was very few within the navy keen on leaving Sydney for Jervis bay, as its an army thing to build up small towns, the navy goes close to large cities for better night life:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As for the PB/Hydro/MCM franken-ship, I think that the idea of combining a PB and Hydro into a single hull is do-able.

I do suspect that the MCM role still needs a specialist platform since we will still need the ability to put the ship 'in the minefield' (so to speak) despite the work on UUVs to keep the danger at arms length. The qualties to make a ship stealthy to mines makes for a poor patrol boat.

A PB/Hydro replacement should be able to embark a Seahawk/MRH90 sized helo (including a hanger) which means something up to Leeuwin class sized.
I certainly agree that thre MCM role is the most difficult to achieve in a common platform.
The ICD (Initial Capability Description) for SEA 1180 defines a "Broad Concept" for seaframe commonality and nominates the 4 x Fundamental Roles
A Maritime Constabulary
B Littoral Warfare
C MCM
D Maritime Geospatial (Hydrography, Oceanography etc

In addition, it lists "Concepts of Employment" for each role and they are;

Role A - Little, if any, change from the current paradigm eg BPC

Role B - The current constabulary role plus the ability to respond to increased threats during operations/combat with offensive weapons against comparable platforms including employment of helos/UAV's and to contribute to ASW

Role C - A standoff role with remote vehicles while operating ahead of a TG whilst enabling "Amphibian agility and littoral manoeuvre"

Role D - Same as Role C

The ICD also defines Tasks for the ships;
Task 1 - Deterring and defeating attacks on Aus
1A - Domestic constabulary/security
1B - Emergency response
2 - Contribute to stability and security in the S.Pacific and E. Timor
3. - Contributing to military contingencies in the APAC region, and,
4 - Contributing in support of global security

It also discusses the various threat environments that the ships may operate in and the consequences of fitting/not, weapons, passive features such as built in counter measures ranging from the almost commercial build of the ACPB's through to the full monty warship.

Para 29 though is the real get out of jail card. Having discussed the above, it then digresses into, my words, if we can't afford the full bottle then the number of platforms may have to be reduced or there may be a requirement to have two separate sea frames with a smaller BPC vessel!

It is interesting to read that the requirement for effort in BPC (Role A ) will remain unchanged ie 7 hulls always available with a surge capacity to 9.

As you have mentioned, the most difficult role to envisage is that of the MCM variety as I don't think "standoff/remote" capacity has yet been fully developed. How far off that is I am unaware.
Cheers
 
I thought that perhaps this discussion might be interested in the parliamentary report (PDF) into the relocation of FBE to Jervis Bay in 1986.

Also, a few months ago I came across the report into the basing options for the (then new) RAN. I seem to remember that the JB option back then was for the naval base to be to the north, sheltered behind the Beecroft Peninsula. A casual search hasn't found it, but I'll have a deeper look for it online if anyone is interested.

As to Garden Island, someone should threaten to construct a wharf (or two) on the eastern side of GI at the EMS mooring to make up for any loss to cruise ships on the western side.

Or even worse, threaten to "take back" Cockatoo Island and Platypus. Threaten to redevelop Cockatoo Island into back into a naval facility for the AWD and FFH/Future Frigates (leaving all the large units at GI to ruin expensive views and generally be a blight to sensitive eyes).
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can anyone recall if the Ammunition wharf/facilities at Twofold Bay, Eden was a response to this report, and, is that facility still in regular use?
unsure, but it is fairly good nick and more modern then most, and yes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top