Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

All good stuff Abe but the Sydney second airport issue seems to be intracable.

Which is why linking moving FBE to it makes such good sense. Two intractable problems deserve each other.

Both sides of politics fail/have failed to show any vision either at state or fed level over this issue and blame each other for inaction depending upon who is in power at any stage. They have all shied away from the voter "not in my backyard" syndrome caused by the anti noise horsesh..t from the early jet years. The collective failure to forsee the benefit is mind boggling. Anyway...no politics:gun

There is, or there was, no noise problem with Badgery’s Creek. The govt. brought up everyone’s land and was going to move everyone out. It’s just the cost of it was too much. Of course it would save you a lot of money in the long run. But why spend money on infrastructure when you could give it to the middle class in welfare. That was John Howard’s ideology anyway.

Who owns the real estate at Mascot? Feds, State or Macquarie? Has your proposition been canvassed in mafunction junction, or is defence further down the track to moving FBE away from Sydney?

Pretty sure the airport was sold lock stock and barrel when they were privatised in the 90s. It’s just an idea I had the night before last so I doubt it’s on anyone’s radar who hasn’t read this blog.

 

[hairyman]

Sydney and Queensland! What does Victoria have to offer re a Navy Base? Melbourne has a population second only to Sydney, yet never ever gets mentioned on here as a possible Navy Base.:splat

 

[ASSAIL]

Sydney and Queensland! What does Victoria have to offer re a Navy Base? Melbourne has a population second only to Sydney, yet never ever gets mentioned on here as a possible Navy Base.:splat

My offerings lack total knowledge of the hydrography of Port Phillip/Corio Bay but in answer to your question;

Melbourne port is the busiest container terminal in the country and as such available facilities in the Yarra could not be used for a majot Fleet Base, even if it was desirable which it is not.
The city is far too remote from the open sea and far too hard to keep open should an agressor wish to contain the fleet.
Corio Bay would be more desirable but I have never been there and am unaware of the capacity for expanded deep water berthing arrangements.
Both ports are a long way from the operational schools and exercise areas and a long way from theatres of operation.

I also think that, given Melbourne's history of aggressive waterside industrial unrest,naval planners have probably been gun shy (Williamstown Dockyard has not covered itself in glory - ever).

I don't buy into the Melb/Syd rivalry as I live as far away from both cities as I can get so please take the comments as serious contributions.
Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sydney and Queensland! What does Victoria have to offer re a Navy Base? Melbourne has a population second only to Sydney, yet never ever gets mentioned on here as a possible Navy Base.:splat

And for good reasons. There is no room in Melbourne for a naval base. And the rest of Port Phillip is shallow. You need piers to offload cargo and you can’t base ships at the end of long piers. Western Port at Crib Point (HMAS Cerebus) is a possibility but like Jervis Bay you have no nearby industrial infrastructure to support the fleet. Lots of bulk flat/pipe steel and aluminium but not the processed stuff which a navy needs. But like all Victorian ports they open onto Bass Strait which is very rough waters and would hamper fleet training. One can sail right out of Sydney Harbour (or Botany Bay, Jervis Bay and Newcastle) and be in deep open water to train your naval heart out.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I also think that, given Melbourne's history of aggressive waterside industrial unrest,naval planners have probably been gun shy (Williamstown Dockyard has not covered itself in glory - ever).

While Melbourne is more of a left wing town than Sydney they have the advantage of being more tolerant. Wowsers like Clover Moore are intent on telling other people what not to do, like don’t be a navy. Melbourne unionists are more militant but always about their own bailiwick. But in Sydney they want to tell other people what not to do (like Green Bans, etc). So as long as you don’t prod, pay up and keep the Painters & Dockers the hell away from your shipyard things are fine.

 

[the road runner]

Pretty sure the airport was sold lock stock and barrel when they were privatised in the 90s.

I was working as a Builder at the airport when it was sold to Macquarie bank.
I recall they(Macquarie Bank) had purchased a "lease" on the airport for a number of years.The Commonwealth is still the rightful owner,its just "Managed/leased" by Macquarie Bank and "FAC" (Federal Airport Commission)

But that could have changed ?

 

[StevoJH]

99 year lease possibly?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

99 year lease possibly?

A quick check of the internet indicates that yes. Sydney Airport Corporation Limited owns the Mascot airport until 2101 via a 99 year lease from the CoA. Sydney Airport Corporation Limited itself is owned in the main by Macquarie Bank with some shares held by a German company and the Ontario Teachers Union (!). 2101 is probably the date by which the second airport, FBE issue will be solved. Of course by then cruise liners will displace three million tonnes and all of Bondi will have been converted into their terminal (as some dillbert has proposed for Kirra Beach on the GC).

 

[south]

From what I understand of the Sydney airport saga if a second airport is ever built it will be just that - a second airport. Kingsford Smith will remain. The second airport will supplement not replace.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From what I understand of the Sydney airport saga if a second airport is ever built it will be just that - a second airport. Kingsford Smith will remain. The second airport will supplement not replace.

That is the likely result if it happens some time now as all the current plans are low cost and don’t involve a proper new international standard airport. But the original plan for Badgerys Creek was three full length parallel runways with huge new passenger and cargo terminals and maintenance space. The architects who designed the corresponding airport city have put their drawings online so one can see what was planned.

Badgerys Creek Airport - CM+

Such an airport would put Mascot out of the commercial airline business especially as the approvals for movements would be slashed by the Government to cut down on suburban aircraft noise. This might not put Mascot out of the airport business but the value of the land for redevelopment would be much higher than the returns from operation as a secondary airport.

 

[Boatteacher]

A quick check of the internet indicates that yes. Sydney Airport Corporation Limited owns the Mascot airport until 2101 via a 99 year lease from the CoA. Sydney Airport Corporation Limited itself is owned in the main by Macquarie Bank with some shares held by a German company and the Ontario Teachers Union (!). 2101 is probably the date by which the second airport, FBE issue will be solved. Of course by then cruise liners will displace three million tonnes and all of Bondi will have been converted into their terminal (as some dillbert has proposed for Kirra Beach on the GC).

Actually Macquarie are not the owners of the lease. The 84% owner of SACL is a listed stapled group called Sydney Airports. Macquarie have a 22% interest in it, giving them only a diluted 18% interest in the airport.

 

[icelord]

The Opposition would fast-track plans to buy new Offshore Combatant Vessels (OCV) - a multi-purpose warship displacing up to 2000 tonnes and capable of long-endurance border protection tasks.

Defence White Paper plans specify an order for 20 OCV multi-purpose small warships to replace the Armidale patrol boats, mine hunters and survey ships.

Senator Johnston says the Armidale patrol boats are over-worked and unsuited to their current task of asylum seeker search and rescue and escort.

"We need to look at the versatile type of off-shore combant vessel - that is where we need to start, by looking at what they can do in terms of assisting and probably filling that gap."

Senator Johnston said he was particularly impressed with the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a cutting edge trimaran designed by WA-shipbuilder Austal.

The Opposition's plans received a cautious endorsement from the Navy League of Australia, a lobby group made up of mostly retired naval officers.

A scaled down version of the LCS incorporating modular mission features offered a good solution to replace the Navy's patrol boat, survey and mine hunter fleet, said League spokesman Graham Harris.

"Certainly the OCVs under study are significantly larger (than the Armidale patrol boats) and we would definitely support their acquisition in due course.

"The OCVs are designed to be patrol vessel, hydrographic vessel or mine hunter," he said.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

I know this will stir up a few opinions as we come back to the OCV Debate. Considering how the contract for the ACPB was done through DMS i hope to god we dont think it works and do it again.
Ive been a supporter of the Austal MRV for a long time now, and have not budged too much, but from what i can gather he is putting it as a front runner over a full LCS. While a full Austal designed LCS like the USN is running around in would be sweet, the fuel demands and its over bearing for the scenarios we face up here would be a waste, plus fishing behind it would be alot more difficult...

I can see that no matter what we go with, we may need to start looking at a new base in Darwin, as the muscial chairs we run with at the moment will not be able to fit a 2000t ship alongside Coonawarra, let alone 10. assail might have an idea of a better area to shift our forces and have room for LHDs, LPDs to berth with a large US Marine contingent here training, the USN Amphibs will be increasing there stops here to work with the RAR.keeping in mind we dont want to move the base out of darwin itself, we may just have to move from Larakeyia.

 

[the road runner]

@ Icelord think you posted the wrong link.

The link you posted was of the cancelled self propelled gun for the Army to be reviewed.

 

[icelord]

@ Icelord think you posted the wrong link.

The link you posted was of the cancelled self propelled gun for the Army to be reviewed.

scroll down...O wait, yeah may need TheAustralian subscription, which is why i cut out part of the story that relates to the RAN for the RAN discussion, the top half of it covers SPG, while the 2nd rolls the OCV argument as an add on, quiet lazy journalism really.

 

[Volkodav]

scroll down...O wait, yeah may need TheAustralian subscription, which is why i cut out part of the story that relates to the RAN for the RAN discussion, the top half of it covers SPG, while the 2nd rolls the OCV argument as an add on, quiet lazy journalism really.

I'm right behind the OCV project but am very wary of an aluminium hulled option. The OCV will be a larger more expensive vessel than the ACPBs, will take longer and more resourses to build, so will need to last for more than the 15 years planned for the ACPBs.

It is a relief that the opposition are supporting it as well, it means the RAN may actually be able to get the sort of asset they have been trying to get for decades. It will also provide the opportunity to preserve the nations hard won ship building skills in between major project instead of letting them die of and then try and rebuild them from scratch yet again a decade down the track. That said who ever is in power will likely take the traditional Australian approach and will probably watch Williamtown, ASC ships and Forgacs go down the gurgler and give the contract to Austal to build Aluminium OCVs and then let Austal go bust while they build a new yard in QLD to build the ANZAC replacements.

Wouldn't touch either of the LCS options, if we want to spend that sort of money go for a combat capable corvette or light frigate instead. Trade off the speed for range as well as a superior sensor / CS outfit.

 

[aussienscale]

I'm right behind the OCV project but am very wary of an aluminium hulled option. The OCV will be a larger more expensive vessel than the ACPBs, will take longer and more resourses to build, so will need to last for more than the 15 years planned for the ACPBs.

It is a relief that the opposition are supporting it as well, it means the RAN may actually be able to get the sort of asset they have been trying to get for decades. It will also provide the opportunity to preserve the nations hard won ship building skills in between major project instead of letting them die of and then try and rebuild them from scratch yet again a decade down the track. That said who ever is in power will likely take the traditional Australian approach and will probably watch Williamtown, ASC ships and Forgacs go down the gurgler and give the contract to Austal to build Aluminium OCVs and then let Austal go bust while they build a new yard in QLD to build the ANZAC replacements.

Wouldn't touch either of the LCS options, if we want to spend that sort of money go for a combat capable corvette or light frigate instead. Trade off the speed for range as well as a superior sensor / CS outfit.

Agree with all of that, particulary the need for a steel hulled ship, and if they are looking at LCS options, god help us

Biggest problem is that if things keep going the way they are the whole project is a very expensive ferry service, so lets get it right and build a couple of HSV's for the ferry service and make sure we get the OCV right

Oh the eternal optimism

 

[hauritz]

I agree ... nothing too flash. Just a basic steel hull. Leave the LCS design for another day.

My major concern with the LCS design is its ability to handle heavy seas.

 

[ASSAIL]

QUOTE] assail might have an idea of a better area to shift our forces and have room for LHDs, LPDs to berth with a large US Marine contingent here training, the USN Amphibs will be increasing there stops here to work with the RAR.keeping in mind we dont want to move the base out of darwin itself, we may just have to move from Larakeyia.

[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately the options available in Darwin Harbour are limited. All the possibilities within the harbour are either already being used (East Arm, Larrakeyah, Stokes Hill) or are being developed as part of the Blaydin Point Inpex gas plant and the Marine Supply Base at East Arm.

IIRC the RAN was offered the chance of real estate a East Arm about 10 years ago but they declined as they lacked funding and the foresight to see the current naval expansion.

The only possible solution for the OCV;s is for an expansion of the berthing facilities at Larrakeyah.
It would be possible to expand the berthing by constructing a further sea wall outside the current Wesrern wall and extending it SE however, the naval 500 ton synchrolift would be useless as the ship storage bays could not be easily extended. This leaves the Pearl Marine Engineering 2,500 ton synchro in Frances Bay as the only option and these would be unavailable for cyclone use.

It is not impossible to construct a base at East Arm but all the easy and cheap options are taken

 

[ASSAIL]

Agree with all of that, particulary the need for a steel hulled ship, and if they are looking at LCS options, god help us

Biggest problem is that if things keep going the way they are the whole project is a very expensive ferry service, so lets get it right and build a couple of HSV's for the ferry service and make sure we get the OCV right

Oh the eternal optimism

I'm keeping my powder dry on comment about the USN LCS concept as I think it has merit (for them). I just don't appreciate the CONOPS well enough because we are yet to see the modules fully developed. I think the traditionalists find it hard to adjust to the new world and the whole debate may be remembered a bit like the Carrier/battleship debates of the 1930's. Anyway, this concept is not for the RAN as our frontline escort ships take all the available resources.

SEA 1180 is different and, if the Federal Opposition stay with it, trimarans are not the answer, remember these ships must operate down to 48degs South.
There are a plethora of small capable OCV type ships on the market ranging from the Gowinds to the BAE Rivers so it should not be hard to find a MOTS suitable design to fill the req.

Lets just get some consistency into our naval shipbuilding and cement our current yards into the future.

 

[John Newman]

Yesterday I saw this on the Defence website regarding HMAS Farncomb successfully sinking an old USN ship during RIMPAC:

Defence News and Media » HMAS Farncomb celebrates successful sinking at RIMPAC

And just a few minutes ago I saw this:

Defence News and Media » HMAS Farncomb incident


Within 24hrs it is reported that Farncomb successfully sinks a target, then almost sinks itself!! (ok, yes that is an exageration I know, just thinking what the media will say).

The media, or sections of it, will probably have a field day with this one, be interesting if it is a similar incident to what happened with Dechaineux back in 2003.

I'd say that her part in RIMPAC is probably over for now.