Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[icelord]

There are only six left at the moment and as far as I am aware that number will be reducing as the remainder go through upgrades which will reduce the costs again.

Theres 6 fully manned and operational, with 2 mothballed until recently. They are now starting the ASMD upgrade from what ive heard, someone in WA confirm?

 

[Milne Bay]

Theres 6 fully manned and operational, with 2 mothballed until recently. They are now starting the ASMD upgrade from what ive heard, someone in WA confirm?

Not sure of that.
Last I heard was this:
Work on the second ship HMAS ARUNTA is due to start in January 2013 with the last ship expected to be completed by late 2017.

 

[Pusser01]

Theres 6 fully manned and operational, with 2 mothballed until recently. They are now starting the ASMD upgrade from what ive heard, someone in WA confirm?

Confirmed, both Arunta and Stuart out of the water at the CUF undergoing prelim work for the upgrade. This mainly involves closing in the quaterdeck to increase the reserve buoyancy.
Cheers

 

[StevoJH]

Confirmed, both Arunta and Stuart out of the water at the CUF undergoing prelim work for the upgrade. This mainly involves closing in the quaterdeck to increase the reserve buoyancy.
Cheers

Are they at least the pair that were mothballed? If not, have they reactivated the two mothballed ships or is the navy down to four operational Anzac's?

 

[Pusser01]

Are they at least the pair that were mothballed? If not, have they reactivated the two mothballed ships or is the navy down to four operational Anzac's?

They were the pair that were in "Extended Readiness" fancy name for mothballed.
Cheers

 

[icelord]

Are they at least the pair that were mothballed? If not, have they reactivated the two mothballed ships or is the navy down to four operational Anzac's?

SSSHHHH! if someone from treasury hears that, that may cause them to strike two Anzacs while the two mothballed(i will not call it ER) are being converted!

 

[weegee]

MH-60R coming early

Hi Guys I stumbled over this article this morning, it seems that we are getting some of our MH-60R's early thanks to our VERY GOOD friends in the USN.
Here is the article:
Heli-Pacific 2012: Australia to get early MH-60Rs - News - Shephard

It seems we do very well from the US not just from intelligence gathering, shared training etc but they are very helpful when it comes to purchasing equipment like these choppers, C-17, Shonets etc the list goes on, I am glad we are so close to them at least it means we get our shiny new things quicker. haha

 

[John Newman]

Hi Guys I stumbled over this article this morning, it seems that we are getting some of our MH-60R's early thanks to our VERY GOOD friends in the USN.
Here is the article:
Heli-Pacific 2012: Australia to get early MH-60Rs - News - Shephard

It seems we do very well from the US not just from intelligence gathering, shared training etc but they are very helpful when it comes to purchasing equipment like these choppers, C-17, Shonets etc the list goes on, I am glad we are so close to them at least it means we get our shiny new things quicker. haha

Looks like pretty good news.

From the article it appears that rather than having 1 airframe by June 2014, the RAN will have around 8 airframes by that time, 1/3 of the eventual fleet.

And the other point, leaving the first 8 Romeo's in the US for training the air and ground crews with the USN also sounds like a very good idea.

Sounds very similar to what happened with the FA-18F's with the first half dozen airframes, training the air and ground crews with the USN before delivery.

But it does bring up a question in my mind, with 1 Sqn RAAF, it was able to hand over the aircraft to 6 Sqn, freeing up the resourses to go to the US to take delivery and do training, while 6 Sqn got on with their job of maintaining a capability.

How is that going to work for 816 Seahawk Sqn? Will they have to reduce capability during the transition? Or are the new Romeo's going to be allocated to a new Sqn, for example, the recently decommisioned 817 (Sea King) Sqn?

Be interesting to see how the transition is handled.

The relationship between the ADF and the USN certainly seems to be pretty good, maybe we will see similar "US" based training when the P8A's are eventually ordered/delivered.

One more question, prior to Team Romeo winning the order, it was reported as part of their bid, that they would set up a facility to "remanufacture" the 50 retired Seahawk/Blackhawks for resale, does anyone know if that is actually going to happen?

 

[t68]

When reading RAN spec’s of the proposed offshore combat vessel concept it stresses the vessel will be classed as a combatant and is able contribute in a medium to higher level of conflict at stand of ranges, I am not sure if the MRV 80 can actually support this it appears to be more of a vessel that can deploy a small team in and out of the littorals with limited self defence and does not appear to be able used in the higher levels so desired by the RAN. I am not knocking the MRV but it appears from reading the basic write up what the RAN wants it seems to me that they actually need a split fleet of MRV-80 to do the MCM and Hydro graphic with the flex deck to move a small amount of equipment or troops. But for the times that they would like a patrol vessel that could defend itself from air, surface and sub-surface threats to accompany the MRV needs to be a little more robust more like the proposed USCG Offshore Patrol vessel, its no ANZAC class frigate but it does have a little extra that the RAN is looking for besides patrol, MCM, Hydro work.

Would the RAN be better of with a split fleet with the MRV being modular and the proposed USCG variant between patrol and escort for the MRV?

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Semaphore_2010_4.pdf

http://www.austal.com/Resources/Del...-8693-bcf8493e31cf/mrv-80-data-sheets-sml.pdf

USCG: Offshore Patrol Cutter

The Coast Guard

File:Offshore patrol cutter.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[StevoJH]

I'd go with a single class of whatever is chosen. Personally I do *not* like the Austal MRV design. I also don't like that the Government chose a vessel with a design life of 10-15 years as the navies principle patrol asset, though in this case it *might* be beneficial if the government of the day decided to go ahead with the Navies preferred OPC option rather then a like for like replacement as was carried out with the Fremantles and Armidales.

 

[t68]

I'd go with a single class of whatever is chosen. Personally I do *not* like the Austal MRV design. I also don't like that the Government chose a vessel with a design life of 10-15 years as the navies principle patrol asset, though in this case it *might* be beneficial if the government of the day decided to go ahead with the Navies preferred OPC option rather then a like for like replacement as was carried out with the Fremantles and Armidales.

And what is RAN preferred option?
I understand that they want to try one hull fits all but can it done without sacrificing other areas in design and function?

 

[StevoJH]

I see no reason why a 2000t steel warship cannot carry out survey and patrol tasks. It should also be able to carry out mine warefare though I am unsure whether it could *currently* match the standards of specialised mine warefare craft.

The Huon class should have many years left in their hulls though, so they should be the last to be replaced by the common hull, which gives another 20 years of technolical development for off platform mine warefare systems.

 

[icelord]

Would the RAN be better of with a split fleet with the MRV being modular and the proposed USCG variant between patrol and escort for the MRV?

Im a noted fan of the MRV, but do not see the single hull frame as optimal for our Minor war vessel fleet. While the benefits of training, maintanence and alike make sense, the complete opposite of the use of mine warefare, hydrographic, Oceangraphic survey(note this is split in the hydro force between SML and Melville) and patrol.
This one vessel is said to replace 4 classes, and conduct 4 different roles within the fleet. It will need to be able to conduct mine warfare, which places emphasis and unique requirements on its hull, of note with current fibreglass in Huons, and the USN wooden Minesweepers.

It will be required to conduct long range surveys of shallow waters in support of the Hydrographic fleet, and load/offload survey boats as well as land small helos like Melville does now. The desire for a flight deck is noted in the 2009 white paper, and its use would be of extreme benefit whether for UAV or Small Helicopters for training, survellience or medivac.

The use in patrol off the North Western Borders will require long range, ability to conduct endurance patrols days across the year with multi-crewing becoming standard. It will need more space for illegal immigrants to be transported( a fool would dare say this will stop completely when the red head gets the boot). I belive the future OCV will be needed for continuing use of the northern shoals, so littoral limits will apply. With no budgeting for enlarged berths or expanded bases in Cairns or Darwin, i would expect its size to be smaller then the USCG OCV that you have linked. If we get something of that size, we better have somewhere to put it cause i dont think we would appreciate having to go to anchor cause theres two boats alongside...

The requirements for better self defence could see Nulka onboard, and i would early on rule out CIWS or some other variant, as we struggle to get one on our major surface units and have maintainers for it.
A medium sized gun like a 76mm would make sense if we were looking for around this size, we have personnel qualified in its use, and i would not be surprised if there was an abundance of ammunition available globally.
A missile outfit would seem excessive considering the FFG and FFH hardly carry them unless deploying overseas, and having one OCV in 20 loaded would not make sense if the purpose was defence of Australia(from what i have no idea). Im sure we dont need more "but for, not with" in the fleet.

Having a flick through the ASPI budget analysis, i did notice the lack of funding towards a OCV, even though the MHC life is running up, and the hydro fleet is...old... so it seems as though this was a part of the 2009 defence paper that may need to be confirmed in the "budget white paper". Dont be surprised if this program quietly slides back alot more then envisioned in 2009.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It will need to be able to conduct mine warfare, which places emphasis and unique requirements on its hull, of note with current fibreglass in Huons, and the USN wooden Minesweepers.

No it won't. The new mine hunting gear replaces the low sig boat with unmanned systems that have low sigs. So the SEA 1180 vessel is just a mother ship for a bunch of minehunting boats that go into the minefield like a Huon would have. This gear is being brought for the LHDs and will eventually replace the Huon class.

 

[ASSAIL]

With the Cape class appearing to be quite similar in capability to the Armidale class it looks like BPC will be experiencing a step change in their capability as long as enough are procured to compensate for the probable removal of the Armidale class from their current taskings.

This needs to be in the RAN thread but I don't know how to do that (Mods Help Please)

The last capabliity review has just reaffirmed that BPC tasking will remain at 7 Armidales/OPV's available to deploy with a capacity to surge to 9. (we discussed that a few weeks ago I think, SEA 1180)? Sorry too tired to check:unknown
The Cape class replace the Bays on a one for one basis so total hull units remain unchanged.
Improvements in capability will obviously lead to increased effort

 

[Volkodav]

No it won't. The new mine hunting gear replaces the low sig boat with unmanned systems that have low sigs. So the SEA 1180 vessel is just a mother ship for a bunch of minehunting boats that go into the minefield like a Huon would have. This gear is being brought for the LHDs and will eventually replace the Huon class.

Agreed.

On the MCM side its interesting that many seem to think they need to be small ships of GRP or wooden construction. The first counter example that comes to mind is the 1300 ton USN Avenger Class followed closely by the German Frankenthal Class, 650t with a non magnetic steel hull. I believe that the USN has also deployed MCM craft on DDG51s in place of one of the RHIBs, this is also the plan for the MCM tasked LCS.

There is speculation that the RAN OCV could be up to 2000t, this is corvette / light frigate territory and I say why not. Of course the RAN ships will not be corvettes let alone light frigates but they could potentially be versatile enough in their design to permit some quite extreme upgrading in the future. I am sure there will be lots of wish lists for this weapon or that sensor but I can’t help but think the biggest concern should be the ability to expand power generation capacity, stacks of reserve stability and lots and lots space for helos, boats and all the unmanned vehicles the ships may need to deploy through their lives.

 

[StevoJH]

Volkodav,

Did you see the RN OCV/LCS concept linked in the RN thread the other day?

I found it interesting, needs to be faster then that proposal suggests though!

 

[Volkodav]

Volkodav,

Did you see the RN OCV/LCS concept linked in the RN thread the other day?

I found it interesting, needs to be faster then that proposal suggests though!

I did and thought it quite interesting, it reminded me of an article I read in Popular Mechanics ages ago about a possible future USN with a future CG serving as mother ship to a swam of optionally manned destroyers / frigates and unmanned corvettes.

 

[kato]

The first counter example that comes to mind is the 1300 ton USN Avenger Class followed closely by the German Frankenthal Class, 650t with a non magnetic steel hull.

Hmm? All 1980s-designed European MCMV designs are of similar medium size. 50-60m length, 600 to 700 tons displacement, typically with a GRP hull. The Huons are in fact based off of Italian Lericis. And they're not really much smaller than a Frankenthal.

Unless we're talking say Sweden and its highly specialized inshore needs we don't really get any smaller MCM vessels than that around here since the early 70s. Even the newest European MCM vessel, the French multipurpose MCM support ship A645 Alizé commissioned in 2006 fits in at the upper edge of that size category (60m LOA), albeit with a much larger displacement of 1700t full load.

Germany - since you mention them - has long since (for 30 years) been using a fleet of 100-ton minesweeping drones in support of the MCM fleet though. Future plans put those - or more likely their successors - on quite large motherships of possibly similar overall layout to those oil rig tenders Australia bought for the coastguard btw (with LSL-style dockships being a possible alternative).

 

[ASSAIL]

Germany - since you mention them - has long since (for 30 years) been using a fleet of 100-ton minesweeping drones in support of the MCM fleet though. Future plans put those - or more likely their successors - on quite large motherships of possibly similar overall layout to those oil rig tenders Australia bought for the coastguard btw (with LSL-style dockships being a possible alternative).

At last! We finally have ONE good reason why we purchased the Skandi Bergen.

Wait up, we don't have any minesweeping drones, damn! Oh hell, we removed the heave compensated crane.

That blew it: