Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[icelord]

So why have you guys been busting Stephen Smith balls? I mean as a outsider it seems he's made a pretty good go of defense. Some really good aquisitions of late successfully executed Choules, MH 60R *24, foot up butt of some suppliers and others, all plans for our hardened army going well, others I can think of. The only sin I can see has been ADFA affair.

Choules, MH60R are perhaps his only decision, as there were at least 10 major projects awaiting approval that keep getting pushed back to save the budget, as has 2 Anzacs that are effectivly mothballed. Land 17 is still awaiting some news, its a major artillery acquisition that needs to be done, and nothing has come of it. The MH60R was decision was delayed nearly 2 years, and that was started by the previous govt. Choules was the type of ship that was set out in JP2048C to replace tobruk, but by pure luck the UK govt. got rid of it very very early, and then for political reasons it was named after a guy who served in WW2 and most of it in WA, where as we have a long history of heroic sailors and officer who could have had our current flag ship named after them.
The acquisition of HMAS Skandi Bergden(anyone else note the name will change for RAN and customs) is a joke and a time bomb waiting to happen.
Other defmins have done a good job, and had minimal issues with defence. the slash and burn attack from smith against his department, and his long noted issues with the brass, has really made him no friends and in his position, its not that he should be mates with the CDF and co, its that he should be working with them, not against.

 

[aussienscale]

Choules, MH60R are perhaps his only decision, as there were at least 10 major projects awaiting approval that keep getting pushed back to save the budget, as has 2 Anzacs that are effectivly mothballed. Land 17 is still awaiting some news, its a major artillery acquisition that needs to be done, and nothing has come of it. The MH60R was decision was delayed nearly 2 years, and that was started by the previous govt. Choules was the type of ship that was set out in JP2048C to replace tobruk, but by pure luck the UK govt. got rid of it very very early, and then for political reasons it was named after a guy who served in WW2 and most of it in WA, where as we have a long history of heroic sailors and officer who could have had our current flag ship named after them.
The acquisition of HMAS Skandi Bergden(anyone else note the name will change for RAN and customs) is a joke and a time bomb waiting to happen.
Other defmins have done a good job, and had minimal issues with defence. the slash and burn attack from smith against his department, and his long noted issues with the brass, has really made him no friends and in his position, its not that he should be mates with the CDF and co, its that he should be working with them, not against.

And add to that his distain at Julia and the Faceless Men for being overlooked as FM, a role I believe he thought he was a shoe in for ! We are talking about one Defmin with a huge chip on his shoulder and a very bitter taste in his mouth

 

[ASSAIL]

Defmin

Made me wince seeing him shake the hand of every US Marine as they disembarked in Darwin. Crawling up someones nether regions!
Its a pity he doesn't do the same for all ADF personnel returning from combat deployment

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Unfortunate times for the country either way we jump. It's funny how to make the government omelet work, the opposition have made the people believe that they can without cracking the egg. And now breaking eggs is a sin. Dr. Jensen is hilarious isn't he. But people believe that T abbots togs have Mylar linings and Julia is the original "Scarlet Lady".

The object of breaking eggs for an omelette is to get the yolk in the bowl and not shell, yolk and whatever all over the kitchen. The later is much closer to what this government is doing than the former. I and the greater majority of Australians don’t buy the rhetoric put out by the government as to why they are unpopular: stuff like making tough decisions, the PM being childless female, etc and Abbott getting a free and easy run. They are made up political spin reasons.

The mining tax is actually popular, without which god knows where this government would be. Abbott while popular in some sectors is hugely unpopular in others if the Libs had a more appealing leader they would have won the last election. He certainly isn’t getting a free ride and that Channel 7 ambush over his Afghan comments is more than example of this. Want to see a free ride from the media have a look at Bob Brown. Further it is a total lie that Gillard’s unpopularity is based on her sex and family life. This only inflames the far right who would never vote for Labor anyway. Her unpopularity with the wider community is based on her lack of charisma and questionable political choices. These arguments are just self-delusion and spin.

The only sin I can see has been ADFA affair.
And as the father of three daughters, I don't have a issue with his response to the incident. And it would be pricless comedy if Dr. Jensen was able to can the F35.

I don’t agree with the argument that Cdre. Kafer had no case to answer to for his management of the whole ‘Kate’ affair. Holding an unrelated disciplinary hearing the day after national media coverage was a very stupid thing to do. But the Minister’s handling of this revelation was more informed by what he was reading in the media rather than advice via his department. This is un-ministerial conduct. He jumped on the band wagon to smash his own department rather to find out what was actually happening. Further to blame defence for a sex crime that involved people who had been in the military for a few months and is hugely prevalent in the wider community is crazy. What a shame there wasn’t a minister making public statements pointing this out.

 

[Pusser01]

Both Arunta & Stuart have been taken over to the CUF over the last couple of weeks to start prep work for the ASMD upgrade. Not sure which one will be the first, though my guess is Arunta.

Just for some other news, the CUF's floating dock was used to pull an Anzac out of the water for the first time when Toowoomba was lifted for its IMAV in Jan, she is now back at FBW.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Both Arunta & Stuart have been taken over to the CUF over the last couple of weeks to start prep work for the ASMD upgrade. Not sure which one will be the first, though my guess is Arunta.

Just for some other news, the CUF's floating dock was used to pull an Anzac out of the water for the first time when Toowoomba was lifted for its IMAV in Jan, she is now back at FBW.

Cheers

Thanks for the update. At least they will not just be sitting there doing nothing. I don't mind a ship going out of full commission if it is going through an upgrade.

Tas

 

[Warpiglet]

Icelord

Choules, MH60R are perhaps his only decision, as there were at least 10 major projects awaiting approval that keep getting pushed back to save the budget, as has 2 Anzacs that are effectivly mothballed. Land 17 is still awaiting some news, its a major artillery acquisition that needs to be done, and nothing has come of it.

The acquisition of HMAS Skandi Bergden(anyone else note the name will change for RAN and customs) is a joke and a time bomb waiting to happen.
Other defmins have done a good job, and had minimal issues with defence. the slash and burn attack from smith against his department,

and his long noted issues with the brass, has really made him no friends and in his position, its not that he should be mates with the CDF and co, its that he should be working with them, not against.

But the fact remains that Choules, + MH 60R are paid for and on either on order or are here not stuck in red tape/Process. And I would be surprised if MH 60 would have been ordered in such large quantities by LNP. Our last chopper buys (before MRH 90) were for 16 Seahawks and 10+2 Seakings. The speed of progressing these programs has been quite a turnabout from previous governments (of both sides of the floor) efforts and should be commended a bit more don't you think?

So how do we get our frigates back to duty? this seems to vex Navy, Government and society, is it safe to send these ships out under manned? How do we get more people interested in serving aboard frigates? How would many of your shipmates feel about having less shore leave? As I have found out today on DT the ships may be headed for upgrade and if this is true this is good news no?

Land 17 irritates the hell out me as to why are we monkeying about for 18 tubes. Why not role it into the ASLAV replacement and speed up acquisition on that program? I mean I would love a dedicated armored force, But 57 M1, 18 SPA and Bushmaster, ASLAV, M113 just seems to be not worth the money would a mobile armored mortar be more practical instead and just use towed 52 cal?

When I first heard about navy using vessel such as the Skandi Bergen and Windemere it was very much WTF moments. But are they really not useful to navy? on at least 1 British site called Think Defense they commended the buy, quite useful for ops in the Southern Ocean they commented, also disaster relief ops were mentioned. But what made me think that I'd misjudged these vessels was when I looked up REMORA. Do these ships not have the capability to act in a submarine rescue scenario?
Couldn't these ships carry REMORA's younger American brother? Possibly even DSRV and deploy them plus enough UUV's to a submarine accident site?:unknown

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

When I first heard about navy using vessel such as the Skandi Bergen and Windemere it was very much WTF moments. But are they really not useful to navy? on at least 1 British site called Think Defense they commended the buy, quite useful for ops in the Southern Ocean they commented, also disaster relief ops were mentioned. But what made me think that I'd misjudged these vessels was when I looked up REMORA. Do these ships not have the capability to act in a submarine rescue scenario?

Couldn't these ships carry REMORA's younger American brother? Possibly even DSRV and deploy them plus enough UUV's to a submarine accident site?:unknown

The Think Defence concept is to use the hull-form and machinery of commercial vessels that are already optimised for ocean operations, but with the accommodation and facilities designed to undertake military duties using role-specific modules.
Their concept isn't to buy second-hand offshore support vessels, remove the diving support equipment (which is what I understand is to happen with the Skandi Bergen) and put it into service doing a role it wasn't built for nor properly suited to.

If it was being purchased as a diving support/salvage support/submarine rescue vessel, then I suspect that there wouldn't be quite the level of skepticism and criticism directed at the Skandi Bergen.
However, it has been purchased as a amphibious/logistics support vessel, for which it has dubious value, and there are questions over Defence paying for a vessel that will be passed onto Customs in two years

 

[icelord]

But the fact remains that Choules, + MH 60R are paid for and on either on order or are here not stuck in red tape/Process. And I would be surprised if MH 60 would have been ordered in such large quantities by LNP. Our last chopper buys (before MRH 90) were for 16 Seahawks and 10+2 Seakings. The speed of progressing these programs has been quite a turnabout from previous governments (of both sides of the floor) efforts and should be commended a bit more don't you think?

Choules was pure luck, and anyone who missed the chance to purchase would have been a fool. It was paid and brought here as the seller wanted to get rid of it in a hurry, and the buyer was desperate. While im happy to look forward to its use, i still fear the internal issues within the engineering branch are long from sorted, and we will back in the cycle within the next few years.
The MH60 is another simple purchase, as its straight off the US production line, which reduces any hassles as its already in production and has sorted most of its gremlins. The NH90 while bringing the ADF into a single airframe for helicopters, would have been a greater risk, something ive mentioned previously.
The other issue i have with choules besides the naming, was the language described by all once we acquired, and that since. A ship of its class was to be purchased in any case, we just managed to bring it forward 5 years, but thats been kept quiet as its not politically viable to say you've brought something forward rather then an "amazing acquistion"

So how do we get our frigates back to duty? this seems to vex Navy, Government and society, is it safe to send these ships out under manned? How do we get more people interested in serving aboard frigates? How would many of your shipmates feel about having less shore leave? As I have found out today on DT the ships may be headed for upgrade and if this is true this is good news no?

As pusser01 stated, they are being moved to dock for upgrade, after a 3 year wait...which is quite piss poor at best. Ive just come off a ship with a very short turn around, and for much of the crew with family and alike, had minimal time ashore. It was not nearly as bad as the other ship in company with us, as she came home from 5mths in asia, did work ups and sailed for the MEAO for 6mths, all because the rotation was 2 ships short. The effects on the fleet are hitting us hard, we have so many obligations and excercise to take part in, and 2 ships short means we have to push the other units to compensate, and many of these ships are skipping weeks aside for maintanence to ensure they are ready.When ships are sailing, they are borderline from pulling back into base with issues. Theres nothing worse then have a 100% blackout 2000 yards from a cliff face, which ive managed twice of jervis bay in a month. Thankfully good seas and hard effort from the MTs(not that we would tell them) saved us from any disaster. When stuart sea swapped with Anzac, they found she was in a poor state. If your going to put a ship aside for 18mths, why wouldnt you conduct work on it in the interim by FSU and contractors. Its smart management, but there was no budget allowed for either ship to have any work done.

Land 17 irritates the hell out me as to why are we monkeying about for 18 tubes. Why not role it into the ASLAV replacement and speed up acquisition on that program? I mean I would love a dedicated armored force, But 57 M1, 18 SPA and Bushmaster, ASLAV, M113 just seems to be not worth the money would a mobile armored mortar be more practical instead and just use towed 52 cal?

Ive never been a fan of the M114 upgrade, and would prefer a new build IFV rather then IMV, but nothing is being sped up, all major acquistions are being drained of funds, and reduced to ensure a good surplus in the defence budget
We have to provide $1.3 billion a year min. now for who knows how long, as the $10 billion over 10 years was starting to be too successful. It is true that any projects delayed and savings made, have been moved to other departments. Its kind of like saying, i made $70,000 this year in salary, and then after tax and alike someone comes up and says "you didnt spend $10,000 of that as you saved on purchases, so we will give that to someone else".

When I first heard about navy using vessel such as the Skandi Bergen and Windemere it was very much WTF moments. But are they really not useful to navy? on at least 1 British site called Think Defense they commended the buy, quite useful for ops in the Southern Ocean they commented, also disaster relief ops were mentioned. But what made me think that I'd misjudged these vessels was when I looked up REMORA. Do these ships not have the capability to act in a submarine rescue scenario?
Couldn't these ships carry REMORA's younger American brother? Possibly even DSRV and deploy them plus enough UUV's to a submarine accident site?:unknown

We have a DMS vessel based in the west that is fitted out, and the crews trained to utilise the Remora and conduct training with our subs(when they sail)
What ops in the Southern ocean does the navy conduct? im aware that customs supply remote stations and sail toward the antarctic, but the navy do not. our job lies north and towards the pacific region, what business do we have south? Customs conduct fisheries protection down there, not the navy. We dont send frigates, and will not send HMAS skandi bergden to do anything like that. Customs on the other hand will, when they get this ship, provided by the navy, for free, out of our budget.
The disaster relief is a smoke screen, a vessel built for that specific use by a navy would work better then it will provided in the 18mths it serves. Anything else is political BS!

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

What ops in the Southern ocean does the navy conduct? im aware that customs supply remote stations and sail toward the antarctic, but the navy do not. our job lies north and towards the pacific region, what business do we have south? Customs conduct fisheries protection down there, not the navy. We dont send frigates, and will not send HMAS skandi bergden to do anything like that. Customs on the other hand will, when they get this ship, provided by the navy, for free, out of our budget.

There is some merit to increasing ADF activity in Antarctic waters.
A couple of interesting papers about Australia's claim to the AAT from ASPI and Lowy Institute in the face of increasing interest in Antarctic resources from Russia and China. Basically, if Australia is going to claim 42% of Antarctica then it had better be prepared to assert that it has an ongoing interest and activity in the area.
One uncomfortable fact is that there are more Russians in the AAT than Australians. Surely Russia would assert that they have a greater claim than Australia if the Antarctic Treaty is abandoned?

 

[Pusser01]

What shits me is that CN seems to have backflipped. When he toured FBW after just taking over last year, he stated to us that he was determined to re-focus the Navy on its primary job, warfighting. He stated that he felt that all the boarding training and aid to community stuff had had a detrimental effect on the Navy fulfilling its main role, which most of us agreed to.

Now in his response backing Smith about the purchase of the Skanki, he has agreed that we need a vessel dedicated to HADR.
I don't see how this vessel is of any real use in this role, let alone stating that it is has an amphibious capability. Yes it has a big crane and can carry a few hundred tonnes of stores, big whoop. It doesn't actually have any way of getting that stuff ashore apart from berthing alongside. The only use I see it has is in the use for providing sea-time for baby sailors and snotnosed middies.

Does anyone see Defence getting the $130mill from Customs in a couple of years when the Skanki is passed over to them? Not me for one!

Cheers

 

[ASSAIL]

The only use I see it has is in the use for providing sea-time for baby sailors and snotnosed middies.

What snot-nosed middies need is "in company" time in fleet manoeuvre and warfighting, not flogging around the oggin by themselves on a commercial bridge that bares no resemblance to a warship and on a platform that handles differently. If we want to train our future officers in this manner it would be a bloody side cheaper to send them down to the AMC at Beauty Point.

 

[Tasman]

If we want to train our future officers in this manner it would be a bloody side cheaper to send them down to the AMC at Beauty Point.

Don't let the Minister hear about that thought. He might get the idea that navy could help fund the college and maybe their next training ship.... Perhaps that would win votes in Northern Tasmania.

Tas

 

[StevoJH]

But the fact remains that Choules, + MH 60R are paid for and on either on order or are here not stuck in red tape/Process. And I would be surprised if MH 60 would have been ordered in such large quantities by LNP. Our last chopper buys (before MRH 90) were for 16 Seahawks and 10+2 Seakings. The speed of progressing these programs has been quite a turnabout from previous governments (of both sides of the floor) efforts and should be commended a bit more don't you think?

The number of Helicopters ordered at various times has to take into consideration the number of platforms available to operate them at the time, and the circumstances under which they were ordered.

For example, when the Sea King was ordered, the RAN had a grand total of one (1) warships capable of helicopter operations, the carrier HMAS Melbourne. As such, the number ordered was the number required for her airgroup plus any additional airframes required for maintenance and training.

The Sea Hawks were ordered in the 1980's to operate from the RAN's helicopter capable frigates, it should be noted that in the 1980's the RAN had only four helicopter capable frigates, those of the Adelaide class. Those ships have two hangers each for a total maximum embarked helicopter force of 8 helicopters, plus the additional aircraft to take into account training, maintenance and crew rotation.

The River class Destroyer Escorts (no idea why they called them that since they were modified Type 12 [Rothsay & Leander] class frigates, did not have the capability to operate helicopters as far as I am aware, with these facilities removed and replaced with other equipment.

When the eight (8) ANZAC class frigates were ordered in the late 1980's, the RAN ordered twelve (12) Kaman Sea Sprite helicopters to operate from these ships. However for various reasons these helicopters never entered operational service. Whether this was due to the Navy over-specifying or increasing the requirements of the program, the predecessor to DMO not standing up and saying 'this is not possible', or political interference in the decision to make the purchase. It should be noted that while the contract was signed early in the Howard government, the decision was made during the Keating government (after a competition with the Lynx?)

So how do we get our frigates back to duty? this seems to vex Navy, Government and society, is it safe to send these ships out under manned? How do we get more people interested in serving aboard frigates? How would many of your shipmates feel about having less shore leave? As I have found out today on DT the ships may be headed for upgrade and if this is true this is good news no?

The crew exists for these ships, the issue is that its cheaper in fuel and wear and tear (maintenance) to leave them tied up to the pier then it is to actually use them. The catch with this though, is that you have to work the other ships (and more importantly their crews) harder to compensate for the two units missing from the operational roster. This means the other six (6) crews of the other ANZACs and four (4) crews of the remaining Adelaide class frigates get less time at home with their families on leave and available for training courses than would ideally be the case.

Land 17 irritates the hell out me as to why are we monkeying about for 18 tubes. Why not role it into the ASLAV replacement and speed up acquisition on that program? I mean I would love a dedicated armored force, But 57 M1, 18 SPA and Bushmaster, ASLAV, M113 just seems to be not worth the money would a mobile armored mortar be more practical instead and just use towed 52 cal?

I disagree on every point you state here except one, the M113 should have been sold to the scrap metal man years ago. Now remembing that i'm hardly an expert on this stuff, these are my (possibly incorrect) thoughts.

The M1 is important for two aspects, it gives the army a heavy hitting capability if it is ever required, and more importantly it allows the army to do two thing, allows training with heavy armour for the remainder of the army, and gives the army the ability to generate an expanded armoured capability on shorter notice if it was ever required while maintaining and expanding on institutional knowledge.

ASLAV gives the army a vital formation recon element and light armour support for when the heavy armour is unavailable or unsuitable. For out region i'd say the ASLAV is quite ideal since it has a lower weight allowing it to be more mobile around our region where a heavier vehicle might not be able to use many of the roads while still being able to provide armour support if troops require it.

Bushmaster while not ideal, allows the Army to provide protected transport to the vast majority of the Army's infantry battalions at minimal cost, unless you'd rather them being carried around battlefields in unarmoured 'B' vehicles?

AD, Abraham and Raven22 are the people to ask about Army stuff though.

 

[Pusser01]

What snot-nosed middies need is "in company" time in fleet manoeuvre and warfighting, not flogging around the oggin by themselves on a commercial bridge that bares no resemblance to a warship and on a platform that handles differently. If we want to train our future officers in this manner it would be a bloody side cheaper to send them down to the AMC at Beauty Point.

Totally agree that middies need sea-time though I would argue that sending them to sea in a warrie to complete their PQ training after NEOC is not the best use of a training bunk. I do agree that Middies especially JWACs do need warrie time but only once they've completed their time at ADFA or Creswell.

The old JB was purchased with the training of officers in mind, I seem to remember that the LPA original designation was going to be THSS (Training Helicopter Support Ship). The beauty of the two of them and Tobruk was the availability of a large number of bunks at sea. Spare bunks on warries I believe are better spent being used for junior techos or other watchkeeping branches, rather than a MIDN that has just 6 months of NEOC and thinks they know all
Choules when not in amphib mode should be able to carry large numbers of NEOC's.

Mind you it used to be quite fun as a LHOM and have couple of middies billeted down there for a trip, especially when they thought they could dictate as to what rack they thought they should have
Cheers

 

[alexsa]

must not comment, must not comment, must not comment......

With you there brother. I would suggest people look at the specs on this thing. The cargo capacity is very limited but is has a great heave compensated crane and a moon pool....... what this has to do with humanitarian aid ................. well ............ hmmm

 

[aussienscale]

The River class Destroyer Escorts (no idea why they called them that since they were modified Type 12 [Rothsay & Leander] class frigates.

Stevo, I know you bettter than this !! So I will put it down to a mental blank at the time of composing your otherwise good post

Mmmm now let me think ?

Parramatta, Yarra, Stuart, Derwent, Swan and Torrens

 

[old faithful]

the were actually six FFG7,s not four in the 80,s.
they could operate 12 Seahawks.

The Sea Hawks were ordered in the 1980's to operate from the RAN's helicopter capable frigates, it should be noted that in the 1980's the RAN had only four helicopter capable frigates, those of the Adelaide class. Those ships have two hangers each for a total maximum embarked helicopter force of 8 helicopters, plus the additional aircraft to take into account training, maintenance and crew rotation.

 

[Pusser01]

the were actually six FFG7,s not four in the 80,s.
they could operate 12 Seahawks.

Actually Melbourne and Newcastle weren't commissioned until the early 90's.
Likewise the Seahawks didn't start going to sea until around 1990 for trials. The first 4 FFG's couldn't carry them until they under-went the enlargement to the F/D & were fitted with RAST.
During the 80's the FFG's carried the Squirrel or the Kiowa.
Cheers

 

[Pusser01]

For example, when the Sea King was ordered, the RAN had a grand total of one (1) warships capable of helicopter operations, the carrier HMAS Melbourne. As such, the number ordered was the number required for her airgroup plus any additional airframes required for maintenance and training.

Don't forget the Stalwart, she used to operate a Wessex before the Seakings were bought around 1976, Stawart commissioned in 1968.
Cheers