Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Either that or the bloke has a *stellar* future in photo-interpretation

apart from what Ngati has said re 1m resolution, having seen side by sides of deliberately limited google sat maps and "real ones" the definition difference is significant

If I worked at a yard where QC was going to be assessed by 1m imagery I'd be a happy camper - no chance of dodgey external welds and fitouts being picked up - and zero chance of internal fitouts getting picked up at all

the 3 biggest builders of commercial shipping (asian tiger territory) are all not even remotely on the same playing field. The chinese were determined to knock of japan and sth korea for tonnage per annum, but their build quality has been woeful - and comparing sth korean built ships to japanese built or managed built ships is another golden mile of difference

QC isn't about the size of the yard I'm sure one of the maritime inspectors on here is grateful that it's more complex than assessing by 1m happy snaps

 

[alexsa]

There are no legal implications in any civilian law enforcement agency operating heavier armament,should the requirement exist to do so, there are most certainly policy and regulatory differences however.

As ACS already operates 7.62mm GPMG's and 12.7mm HMG's I don't think a 25mm gun would be an issue if there were a legitimate requirement for them, but there would be a cost factor in maintaining and training for the use of a 25mm stabilised and EO/IR guided Typhoon gun system that I think ACS would be hard-pressed to justify in 'domestic' operations.

If they were to deploy to a higher threat area as the US Coast Guard often does that might change but I can't honestly see why such would be necessary for our Customs Operations. If small arms and 12.7mm HMG's aren't sufficient, is the task really suited to Customs or Navy?

The vessels are currently commercially certified and are supposed to be operated in compliance with IMO conventions. This includes safety management systems.


A 25mm armed warship cannot operated within a safety management systems that seeks to avoid dangerous situations. Believe me the regulator would have some significant issues if this was proposed and would very likely be suggesting the Naval Flag administration would be the best place for the vessels. It is already a bit of a stretch to have them operating as anything but warships.

 

[icelord]

My crew recently had CN stop by for a Q&A and was a little surprised and impressed how honest and direct he was with our questions. One thing of note was the Armidale replacements we asked him about, he told us to look closely to the Capes, at which point we mentioned the issues they are having on Cape St George, which he was unaware of and stunned by our internal knowledge, and told us it would be best to find out more about the platforms and filter through our CO as we may well head down that way.

The issues im aware of with St George are minor and should be sorted once final trials are completed and she is docked for resolving them, so that im not too concerned about. Its the lack of space to expand, while customs are keen to mention how many PII they can hold in the austere accomadations, it does not allow for the numbers i have seen when things get out of control. Crew record is 186 on a ACPB, and they do not come internal of the boat, so think about the size of an Armidale and 186 people outside sailing 12-24 hours for handover. This was before major fleet units realised a gong was being awarded for Op Resoloute.

The biggest priority for the replacement must be a larger size to look towards any future missions or capabilites required. When the ACPB was designed, fisheries was her intended mission so thats what they were built for. Since then Sievs numbers blew out of any ones predictions and we found ourselves doing a job we were somewhat unprepared for with little support from the rest of the fleet. In 10-15 years time we dont know what the requirement will be, so a larger vessel with more mission capability room will improve our preparedness for what comes ahead, rather then an adapt and overcome attitude.

 

[Volkodav]

My crew recently had CN stop by for a Q&A and was a little surprised and impressed how honest and direct he was with our questions. One thing of note was the Armidale replacements we asked him about, he told us to look closely to the Capes, at which point we mentioned the issues they are having on Cape St George, which he was unaware of and stunned by our internal knowledge, and told us it would be best to find out more about the platforms and filter through our CO as we may well head down that way.

The issues im aware of with St George are minor and should be sorted once final trials are completed and she is docked for resolving them, so that im not too concerned about. Its the lack of space to expand, while customs are keen to mention how many PII they can hold in the austere accomadations, it does not allow for the numbers i have seen when things get out of control. Crew record is 186 on a ACPB, and they do not come internal of the boat, so think about the size of an Armidale and 186 people outside sailing 12-24 hours for handover. This was before major fleet units realised a gong was being awarded for Op Resoloute.

The biggest priority for the replacement must be a larger size to look towards any future missions or capabilites required. When the ACPB was designed, fisheries was her intended mission so thats what they were built for. Since then Sievs numbers blew out of any ones predictions and we found ourselves doing a job we were somewhat unprepared for with little support from the rest of the fleet. In 10-15 years time we dont know what the requirement will be, so a larger vessel with more mission capability room will improve our preparedness for what comes ahead, rather then an adapt and overcome attitude.

Also heard informally that the Capes are the current front runner. They are a massive improvement over the Armidale's but the issue is they are still not suitable for the role the RAN requires them for. Unless they completely change the way the RAN operates their PBs they are still going to have maintenance and availability issues that customs don't have.

 

[Jezza]

i was hoping the navy would be insisting on something bigger, and made of steel.
Like a larger version of the Protector-class offshore patrol vessel

Protector-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ASSAIL]

Also heard informally that the Capes are the current front runner. They are a massive improvement over the Armidale's but the issue is they are still not suitable for the role the RAN requires them for. Unless they completely change the way the RAN operates their PBs they are still going to have maintenance and availability issues that customs don't have.

I've just wasted a week of my life contributing to this topic. Shoot me now (or David Johnston) because it appears that we will perpetuate every incorrect choice of platforms for the last 45 years.

Can't someone convince CN to advise the govt. to give any new Capes to Customs? Even if navy has to wait 10 years, build the LCH replacements instead.

I'm headed for three score and ten years for gawdsake, I want to see a decent OPV in my time left.

 

[old faithful]

Got an E-mail from my old boss Polly, initials S R, couple of days ago, and he is strongly hinting that Navy will end up with capes......

 

[Volkodav]

Good marketing, its the fault of the maintainers etc etc boats are great etc etc need to support local business (so long as its an SME rather than a world standard prime) etc etc, need to buy votes without actually spending too much money etc etc, need to avoid difficult questions over the original procurement etc etc, need to avoid questions on why a suitable indigenous design that actually met requirements was cancelled etc etc.

 

[alexsa]

Good marketing, its the fault of the maintainers etc etc boats are great etc etc need to support local business (so long as its an SME rather than a world standard prime) etc etc, need to buy votes without actually spending too much money etc etc, need to avoid difficult questions over the original procurement etc etc, need to avoid questions on why a suitable indigenous design that actually met requirements was cancelled etc etc.

The project for the Capes was 350m for 8 vessels. Return on investment should be looked at if these hulls only have a life of 15 years. The Cape class is the same hull for but with changes to internal structure. The are still lightly built vessels.

 

[weegee]

Success back in buisness

Hey Guys I came across this today on the RAN website
Fuelling The Fleet | Navy Daily
Looks like good news but when they said she had a comprehensive refit has she only been bandaged together for the next couple of years or could she go longer???

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Have you googled maps of the Hyundai and Daewoo Korean shipyards? They are huge, revealing the large trained work force building ships. Then when you google maps the Adelaide shipyard, the truth is revealed how small the shipyard and its trained work force is.

That’s nice. So even though the Koreans have 50% of the world’s commercial shipping market sewed up would you mind telling us how much of the warship market they have? Is it more than 1%?

The only reason ASC are offering this AOR build in Korea is because it is leveraging the British program for a similar BMT designed ship.

While politicians wiggle for any pork barrel they can get screened as a jobs program, shipyard jobs are only temporary jobs unless the government has a long term plan to maintain the jobs. The government needs to put the horse in front of the cart, not the cart before the horse. Unfortunately most governments plan only to the next election.

It isn’t just pork. It’s about the overall cost to government of a domestic vs overseas ship build. Even though high volume yards like the Koreans can offer 25-50% outlay savings this doesn’t take into account further savings that domestic building brings. Things like tax revenue being returned to the Government. Sales tax and income tax which the Government is able to charge within your country but not outside it. Then there are direct infrastructure benefits in maintaining the capability over the life time of the ship. Facilities and skills established to build the ship that otherwise would have to be replicated if they are imported. Then there are the indirect benefits like the improvement to the national current accounts and the benefits of job creation including defrayment of social security and so on.

All of these make domestic government shipbuilding very attractive beyond just pork barrelling. Which is why so many nations still retain shipbuilding industry servicing their government clients. However every now and then a Government is keen to spend as little as possible and is happy to buy warships from overseas just to keep the budget bottom line down even if it means they have to spend more at a later date and get less back.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Look at it this way, lets say we went to the US when we were shopping for the AWD and said we want an upgraded Ticonderoga in a new hull, can you help us? The answer would be yes and they would help us design and build this ship to meet our requirements. It wouldn't be cheap but it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive either. Basically it is what the Spanish, Koreans and Japanese did (AEGIS that is, not the Ticonderoga bit), they designed platforms around proven and integrated US systems, that met their requirements.

The USN had a napkin design for such a ship since the 1990s. The Baseline Cruiser (CGBL) was established using DDG 51 technology to match CG 47 capability. It was drawn up as part of the extensive evaluation of alternatives in the lead up to the DD21, CG21 programs (which resulted in DDG 1000 and LCS).

At 14,000 tonnes it wasn’t a small ship but would have provided plenty of capability for the RAN now and into the future. Would have decisively ended any debate around the world as to who has the best destroyer.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6415.msg127546.html#msg127546

 

[John Newman]

Hey Guys I came across this today on the RAN website
Fuelling The Fleet | Navy Daily
Looks like good news but when they said she had a comprehensive refit has she only been bandaged together for the next couple of years or could she go longer???

And Cantabria also left to go back to Spain the other day too.

How long can she go on for? Good question, hopefully long enough without a breakdown or before potentially buckets of money are spent on her again too.

Labor said before the election they were going to look at bringing the replacement of Success and Sirius forward (the 2012 DCP originally had an IOC of anywhere between 2018 and 2023), but of course they don't have the keys to the Kingdom anymore, we may have to wait and find out when the Coalition produces their new DWP, but that's not due till early/mid 2015.

Be interesting to know who is pushing harder for the replacements, Navy or industry?

 

[Volkodav]

The irony is once you have decided to build three to four AWDs locally and accepted the upfront costs associated with the choice, the cost of extra capability pales into insignificance. I seriously doubt that once the overheads were taken into account that building the larger, more capable design would have been that much more expensive for a small build. Large builds such as the USN undertakes , conversely can achieve considerable savings through shaving off capability.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The irony is once you have decided to build three to four AWDs locally and accepted the upfront costs associated with the choice, the cost of extra capability pales into insignificance. I seriously doubt that once the overheads were taken into account that building the larger, more capable design would have been that much more expensive for a small build. Large builds such as the USN undertakes , conversely can achieve considerable savings through shaving off capability.

When the decision was made for the AF100 one of the arguments was this would save a year or two in the build (and a billion or so in bucks). Of course since then the schedule for the AWD has been pushed back that year or two the AF100 was meant to save.

 

[ngatimozart]

NuShip Canberra was taken for a wander from BAE Williamstown across the bay to Webb Dock in order to undertake its first vehicle load trial. The move was conducted by tugs. The load trials were apparently successful. The article is on Navy Daily: NUSHIP Canberra passes first harbour acceptance trial in Australia | Navy Daily Apparently the ship is to be taken to sea later this year.

 

[John Newman]

NuShip Canberra was taken for a wander from BAE Williamstown across the bay to Webb Dock in order to undertake its first vehicle load trial. The move was conducted by tugs. The load trials were apparently successful. The article is on Navy Daily: NUSHIP Canberra passes first harbour acceptance trial in Australia | Navy Daily Apparently the ship is to be taken to sea later this year.

Yes I saw that the other day, hope the big heavy Hercules ARV didn't scratch up the nice shiny new deck too much!

Probably won't be too long before we see Adelaide arrive in Melbourne, early next year I think?

Certainly looking forward to seeing Canberra, and eventually Adelaide too, tied up at FBE, hope they put on an open day so we can all get a chance to have a good look over her.

 

[ASSAIL]

HMAS Sirius

Sirius has been given a short notice deployment to the FPDA Ex.Bersama Lima after her short stay at FBW.

Is this because Success has problems or other circumstances with nothing to do with Success

Curious Chris

Experienced hand brought in for Sirius deployment | Navy Daily

Stuffed up Mods, can you shift to the RAN thread please VMT

Mod note: All done mate, cheers Bonza

 

[ASSAIL]

4th AWD

I have just read James Goldrick's article criticising Hugh White's objections to building a fourth AWD as a solution to the "valley of death" in naval shipbuilding.
It was linked to an ASPI paper reporting that defmin Johnston was considering the matter.

An interesting and topical read. Interestingly, if Hugh White had his way we would have 24 new submarines!

As long as we use ships to move cargo, the navy will need to control the sea

The original paper herehttp://www.aspistrategist.org.au/debating-australias-air-warfare-destroyers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=debating-australias-air-warfare-destroyers

 

[ngatimozart]

I have just read James Goldrick's article criticising Hugh White's objections to building a fourth AWD as a solution to the "valley of death" in naval shipbuilding.
It was linked to an ASPI paper reporting that defmin Johnston was considering the matter.

An interesting and topical read. Interestingly, if Hugh White had his way we would have 24 new submarines!

As long as we use ships to move cargo, the navy will need to control the sea

The original paper hereDebating Australia

This is the original paper Debating Australia Assails link didn't appear to come through. This is Whites original article in The Age Navy on the wrong course building large warships I think he has a very myopic view about the RAN in particular and modern naval warfare in general. Methinks he believes submarines are the be all to end all, but he has forgotten to many important things the most important being you have to find your enemy first.