Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

What I think is more likely to happen is, if the loan/trial of Cantabria is seen as successful, the Government will probably order 'new' builds with whatever modifications are deemed necessary and also have any 'fixes' to the basic design included, which may be necessary as Cantabria is a 'first of class' ship.

John, Cantabria is hardly a "first of class" she is a slightly larger, double hull version of Patino and Patino 's design was a collaboration with the Dutch and very similar to their Amsterdam class support ships.
I would imagine there are not many "bugs" left to sort apart from the minors.

 

[StoresBasher]

Choules is a great ship. I enjoyed my time on her, with all the good and bad.
I would not hesitate to serve on her again in my new rank. She is my number one choice for a sea posting.
IMO we took over the ship without really having a clue about how to run her, we were ill prepared to say the least. Then when we did our work up and URE, STG had less of a clue and then things took a turn for the worst.

Once up and running again, she will be a great asset to the RAN.
Spares/parts are still a nightmare to get, as I am witnessing first hand these days

 

[t68]

I would not hesitate to serve on her again in my new rank. She is my number one choice for a sea posting.

Congratulations on the promotion.

IMO we took over the ship without really having a clue about how to run her, we were ill prepared to say the least. Then when we did our work up and URE, STG had less of a clue and then things took a turn for the worst.

A case of needing more time in the UK, maybe we should look at loaning/transfer of RFA pers for 12 months here in Aus like the are doing with SPS Cantabria .

Spares/parts are still a nightmare to get, as I am witnessing first hand these days

A case of putting the cart before the horse, well at the least you would have liked to see what the RFA had in its inventory and planned accordingly, but I guess no thought they transformer would age so soon and it was a case of the RFA letting loose the ugly duckling of the fleet.

Once up and running again, she will be a great asset to the RAN.

When do you see HMAS Choules riding the waves again?

 

[RobWilliams]

and it was a case of the RFA letting loose the ugly duckling of the fleet.

You make it seem as though the RFA was glad to see the back of her! :

She was quite the asset, victim of budget cuts to save £12mn a year

 

[the road runner]

You make it seem as though the RFA was glad to see the back of her! :

She was quite the asset, victim of budget cuts to save £12mn a year

Mate she is a great looking ship ,every time i cross Sydney Harbour bridge ,i see her and she is very impressive.I do think we were lucky to have purchased her.

Then i look over and see other parts of our navy like HMAS Manoora , HMAS Kanimbla just taking up dock space and probably costing the Australian tax payers million's a year to dock.Want to talk about ugly ducklings..I swear those 2 ships have not moved for 2 years!

EDIT: @ John Newman,meant Manoora and Kanimbla had not moved from Sydney Harbour for 2 years,Bad explanation on my behalf.
Cheers.

 

[Volkodav]

It sort of makes you wonder if we did things a bit back to front in ordering our ships.

For instance had we specified something equivalent to Choules to be constructed in Williamstown to follow straight on from the ANZACs we would have had a modern amphib in service complete with support systems and CONOPS, Williamstowns work force would not have dispersed and both the AWDs and LHDs would have benifited from the continuation of work de-risking their construction. Overall it likely would have cost us less than the current debarcle where we basically have a capability gap insufficiently plugged by inappropriate commercial ships.

 

[rjtjrt]

IMO we took over the ship without really having a clue about how to run her, we were ill prepared to say the least. Then when we did our work up and URE, STG had less of a clue and then things took a turn for the worst.

With the 9+ month unserviceable, will RAN be in same or worse position again once HMAS Choules sails in ?April?

RAN crew had only a few months hands on experience, with seconded RFA crew members help, and now virtually have to start again to relearn ship systems from a practical point of view, and probably with less or no arranged support from any seconded RFA Bay Class crew members. Or has RAN arranged for more RFA crew to be onboard when we restart? Maybe in interim some of HMAS Choules crew have been with RN on board a Bay class ship?

And how many of original RAN crew will still be there?

 

[StoresBasher]

With the 9+ month unserviceable, will RAN be in same or worse position again once HMAS Choules sails in ?April?

RAN crew had only a few months hands on experience, with seconded RFA crew members help, and now virtually have to start again to relearn ship systems from a practical point of view, and probably with less or no arranged support from any seconded RFA Bay Class crew members. Or has RAN arranged for more RFA crew to be onboard when we restart? Maybe in interim some of HMAS Choules crew have been with RN on board a Bay class ship?

And how many of original RAN crew will still be there?

Well not many of the original commissioning crew are left, if any. So it's pretty much start from scratch again. I just hope that lessons were learn from previous mistakes. As far as I know there is no RFA crew anboard anymore, they are long gone, by now we should know what we are doing.

IMO we will be in a better position when the ship sails, things should be a lot smoother and after WUP and URE hopefully trouble free for a good while.

 

[t68]

You make it seem as though the RFA was glad to see the back of her! :

She was quite the asset, victim of budget cuts to save £12mn a year

No not at all if you going to be selling of equipment you’re hardly going to be selling your gems are you. The RFA knows which vessels are the pick of the litter.

It sort of makes you wonder if we did things a bit back to front in ordering our ships.

For instance had we specified something equivalent to Choules to be constructed in Williamstown to follow straight on from the ANZACs we would have had a modern amphib in service complete with support systems and CONOPS, Williamstowns work force would not have dispersed and both the AWDs and LHDs would have benifited from the continuation of work de-risking their construction. Overall it likely would have cost us less than the current debarcle where we basically have a capability gap insufficiently plugged by inappropriate commercial ships.

This goes back to the days when the RAN was looking for a new build replacement for HMAS Jervis Bay.

If the then Minister for Defence Robert Ray (ALP) had not told RAN look for a cheaper alternative we could have saved ourselves a lot of grief with 2x Whidbey Island class dock landing ship for the same money paid out for buying and rebuilding 2X Kanimbla class LPA and would not have to worry about a replacement till 2018/20 saving ourselves from RFA Largs Bay and ADV Ocean Shield then Imagine ordering 2 or 3 new build enlarged Endurance class LPD to support the LHD.

 

[John Newman]

Mate she is a great looking ship ,every time i cross Sydney Harbour bridge ,i see her and she is very impressive.I do think we were lucky to have purchased her.

Then i look over and see other parts of our navy like HMAS Manoora , HMAS Kanimbla just taking up dock space and probably costing the Australian tax payers million's a year to dock.Want to talk about ugly ducklings..I swear those 2 ships have not moved for 2 years!

Actually both the LPA's were moved a few months ago, (just prior to Christmas I think) to the vacant containter terminal near the Anzac Bridge, I put a post up at the time with some photos too.

They are tied up side by side in the same spot that Adelaide was when she was being prepared for her eventual scutting off Avoca beach.

 

[Anixtu]

No not at all if you going to be selling of equipment you’re hardly going to be selling your gems are you. The RFA knows which vessels are the pick of the litter.

Are you implying that she was materially defective when offered for sale, or acknowledging that she was the least upgraded of her sisters?

 

[alexsa]

Are you implying that she was materially defective when offered for sale, or acknowledging that she was the least upgraded of her sisters?

Tend to agree with your assessment and the Largs was selected as it had not been upgraded at that time. Why sell something you just spent money on. Looking at the RFA website she seems to have been quire effective up until the point she was sold.

 

[RobWilliams]

That's probably the most confusing element with Choules, i've seen Aussie news reports about her which have clearly stated that the premature transformer wear is a problem across the whole class.

That doesn't sound unreasonable, but I've not heard any story in the UK about a Bay class being laid up from that sort of problem. In fact they seem to be doing rather well, one just recently finished an exercise with the USN acting as a mothership for RN MCM vessels in the Gulf.

So that'd lead one - following on from what you say - to the conclusion that the transformer issue must've been corrected or at least reduced on the rest of the class from refits and the like except Choules. In which case that sounds like the Aussies got stiffed if we knew they were going to be a problem & didn't inform you of that.

That is of course if the reports are correct.

 

[t68]

Are you implying that she was materially defective when offered for sale, or acknowledging that she was the least upgraded of her sisters?

Nope all I am saying the RFA have been using the 4 Bay class vessel for 5 years prior to selling one off for economic reasons, it would stand to reason over that period of time which vessel is more reliable and costing you the least to have in the fleet, RFA Largs Bay being the first of class and not having the best of time in the construction stage being handed over from Swan Hunter then moved over to BAE.

Well put it this way I work for a large transport company here and when the company places orders for new equipment it place it by the lots of 50 for various parts of the company. My section received 10 new western stars prime movers, we have been running them for 3 years now whilst all have had problems in time some have cost the company a lot of money with major components failing whist others have only minor issues all vehicles were built at the same factory and where delivered to the company over 6 months’ time frame.

 

[Anixtu]

Nope all I am saying the RFA have been using the 4 Bay class vessel for 5 years prior to selling one off for economic reasons, it would stand to reason over that period of time which vessel is more reliable and costing you the least to have in the fleet, RFA Largs Bay being the first of class and not having the best of time in the construction stage being handed over from Swan Hunter then moved over to BAE.

Ref. your last sentence, Largs Bay was completed by Swan Hunter. You are thinking of Lyme Bay which was started by Swan Hunter and completed by BAE.

For the rest, I understand your point, but I don't think that came into it at all, though no reason why it shouldn't have. It was a matter of the state of upgrade (investment, if you like). Cardigan and Lyme had been modified for use in the Persian Gulf and Mounts had just received a major refit. Largs had received the least investment, but for no more reason than refit cycles as she had fallen behind Mounts during construction. Mounts became the de-facto first of class. Largs would have received the same major refit as Mounts, had she not been sold.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It sort of makes you wonder if we did things a bit back to front in ordering our ships.

For instance had we specified something equivalent to Choules to be constructed in Williamstown to follow straight on from the ANZACs we would have had a modern amphib in service complete with support systems and CONOPS, Williamstowns work force would not have dispersed and both the AWDs and LHDs would have benifited from the continuation of work de-risking their construction. Overall it likely would have cost us less than the current debarcle where we basically have a capability gap insufficiently plugged by inappropriate commercial ships.

Ahh that was the actual plan. Digging up the old trusty DCP of 2001:

SEA 1654 Phase 2 Maritime Operations Support Capability
will replace HMAS Westralia, which is a converted commercial tanker, with a purpose-built support ship, when Westralia reaches the end of its design life in 2009 or earlier.
The Government’s strong preference is to build these ships in Australia.
In-service delivery 2009

JP 2048 Phase 4 Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment Capability
Will replace the LSH HMAS Tobruk when it reaches the end of its
service life in 2010.
Ability to construct large non-combatant ships in Australia.
In-service delivery 2010

SEA 1654 Phase 3 Maritime Operations Support Capability
will replace the purpose-built support ship HMAS Success, with another ship of the same class as acquired in Phase 2, when Success reaches the end of its design life in 2015
The Government’s strong preference is to build these ships in Australia.
In-service delivery 2015

JP 2027 Phase 4 LPA Replacement
seeks to replace the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Landing Platform Amphibious (LPA) ships - HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora.
Construction of large non-combatant ships in Australia
In-service delivery 2015

So in short 12 years ago the Government planned to build in Australia two AORs and three amphibious ships to be delivered between 2009 and 2015. So what happened? Anyone want to ask John Howard that? He’s the one responsible for this mess.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ahh that was the actual plan. Digging up the old trusty DCP of 2001:

So in short 12 years ago the Government planned to build in Australia two AORs and three amphibious ships to be delivered between 2009 and 2015. So what happened? Anyone want to ask John Howard that? He’s the one responsible for this mess.

If you could find the ex Prime Minature John W Howard and then managed to pin him down long enough to get answer, it'd have more twists and curves in than a bag full of snakes.

 

[King Wally]

So what do you guys think of the Future Submarine plans? Every time I hear about them I get this shiver about whats going to go wrong with the project. I guess its a combination of the gov trying to use it as a nation building tool, the fact that we are aiming to double our numbers of subs (which seams like overkill and a strain on putting together that many crews) and the overall the bottom line budget hit that will come with it and no doubt grow/blowout as the project matures.

From a strategic asset point of view do you folks agree with the white paper assessment that we should divert this much defence budget into the Subs? I can only asume we are diverting the cash away from a number of alternative assests so would be interested to know what a plan B could look like if we shrunk it back down to say 8 subs and invested the cash elsewhere?

 

[SamuraiBlue]

So what do you guys think of the Future Submarine plans? Every time I hear about them I get this shiver about whats going to go wrong with the project. I guess its a combination of the gov trying to use it as a nation building tool, the fact that we are aiming to double our numbers of subs (which seams like overkill and a strain on putting together that many crews) and the overall the bottom line budget hit that will come with it and no doubt grow/blowout as the project matures.

From a strategic asset point of view do you folks agree with the white paper assessment that we should divert this much defence budget into the Subs? I can only asume we are diverting the cash away from a number of alternative assests so would be interested to know what a plan B could look like if we shrunk it back down to say 8 subs and invested the cash elsewhere?

You'll have to remember that the lowest number for subs to be grouped would be three. One on patrol, one returning from patrol in port and the last in maintenance.
Let's say you have 9 boats the group will be divided into the west coast, East coast and the last in the north. At any given time there will only be three boats that are actually doing patrol.

Japan has plans to enlarged the sub fleet to 22 boats from 18 in which two are designated as trainer boats.

 

[the road runner]

You'll have to remember that the lowest number for subs to be grouped would be three. One on patrol, one returning from patrol in port and the last in maintenance.

4 is the ideal number for sub groups in Europe..Subs being more maintenance intensive.If i recall right ,1 for work up 1 on patrol and 2 in different levels of maintenance.I do recall a couple of defence pros stating even 5 would be better suited as a group for Australia subs.

1 on transit to the operational area ,1 transiting back to base from the OA,1 in work up and 2 in different levels of maintenance.Distance has its advantages and dis advantage.