Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Very interesting, in particular the reference to the battle cruiser Australia likely being the best strategic investment we ever made. I could not understand Australian attempts to build or acquire a battleship in the years immediately prior to WWII until I found out about the concept, structure and role of the Fleet Unit that formed the core or the RAN in WWI and realised the impact it would have had on any aggressor. In a nut shell the capital ship(s) would have to be taken out before any attack could be launched against Australia's ports and sea lines of communications. Such a ship would have turned the tide at battles such as Java Sea, Sunda Strait and Guadalcanal to name a few.

Interestingly the Dutch planned a class of two battle cruisers pre-war to defence their territories from the Japanese and Jellicoe reported that Australia should form a second Fleet Unit around a second battle cruiser but also including aircraft carriers to do the same.

I wonder who Hugh Whites equivalent was in 1920 because they did a pretty good job ensuring that the lessons learned from WWI about the critical role of naval power had been ignored.

 

[t68]

I see the UK MOD are planning to build three new OPV a new modified HMS Clyde, wonder if they would be worth a look at for a replacement for the ACPB?

 

[swerve]

A modified Clyde? I didn't think there'd been anything so specific announced. What it says on the RN website is that they'll be OPVs with a flight deck big enough for a Merlin helicopter. It's reasonable to assume they'll be some kind of stretched River class (& that's what Clyde is), but they might be more like the three Port of Spain/Amazonas class, or HTMS Krabi, all of which are stretched Rivers.

 

[Volkodav]

I see the UK MOD are planning to build three new OPV a new modified HMS Clyde, wonder if they would be worth a look at for a replacement for the ACPB?

Nope, too big, too capable and too durable, not fabricated from aluminium, not able to be built by Austal, and that helicopter thing? RAN patrol forces are a helicopter free zone as they will add too much capability and remove the need to thrash the provided platform to death.

 

[t68]

A modified Clyde? I didn't think there'd been anything so specific announced. What it says on the RN website is that they'll be OPVs with a flight deck big enough for a Merlin helicopter. It's reasonable to assume they'll be some kind of stretched River class (& that's what Clyde is), but they might be more like the three Port of Spain/Amazonas class, or HTMS Krabi, all of which are stretched Rivers.

Yes you are correct it is all conjecture at the moment, but the noise coming from the MOD is that they will be larger with helicopter capabilty(hanger?) and had assumed that HMS Clyde( can take Merlins sized helicopters) is a variant of the River class and they are supposedly to replace some of the Rivers with better facility all round.

But that's what I get for assuming.

Nope, too big, too capable and too durable, not fabricated from aluminium, not able to be built by Austal, and that helicopter thing? RAN patrol forces are a helicopter free zone as they will add too much capability and remove the need to thrash the provided platform to death.

To true if only the politicians can see past three years and their own electorate

 

[ASSAIL]

A modified Clyde? I didn't think there'd been anything so specific announced. What it says on the RN website is that they'll be OPVs with a flight deck big enough for a Merlin helicopter. It's reasonable to assume they'll be some kind of stretched River class (& that's what Clyde is), but they might be more like the three Port of Spain/Amazonas class, or HTMS Krabi, all of which are stretched Rivers.

We should have had a good look at HTMS Krabi during the IFR.
The main problem as I see it is that they have no hangar and no real room to have one unless they are further stretched (already 90.5 mtrs). It would certainly be a good pace to use the Oto 76mm ex FFG's though and would be cheap if built in Mahidol Royal Dockyard

 

[Volkodav]

We should have had a good look at HTMS Krabi during the IFR.
The main problem as I see it is that they have no hangar and no real room to have one unless they are further stretched (already 90.5 mtrs). It would certainly be a good pace to use the Oto 76mm ex FFG's though and would be cheap if built in Mahidol Royal Dockyard

Do we licence produce the Oto Melara in Australia or just the ammo? Always been a fan of the 76mm but the Bofors 57mm / BAE Mk110 seems all the rage at the moment with FMS export approval existing for Australia.

Put a Super Rapido on an OPV or Corvette and you have the potential to update it with DAVIDE / DART to provide an enhanced ASMD capability.

 

[Volkodav]

Big "if" here, assuming the government goes for the ASC BMT tanker bid with two built in South Korea and one in Adelaide, it will be interesting to see which of the three is better built and lasts longer as well as calculating the net cost of each through life.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We should have had a good look at HTMS Krabi during the IFR.
The main problem as I see it is that they have no hangar and no real room to have one unless they are further stretched (already 90.5 mtrs). It would certainly be a good pace to use the Oto 76mm ex FFG's though and would be cheap if built in Mahidol Royal Dockyard

I remember this from the IFR. They looked nice (from afar) but the RAN would certainly want a Hanger. Even with no helicopter the hangers are immensely useful. UAV's, stores, transport etc. Don't know about stretching a stretch though.

 

[John Newman]

Big "if" here, assuming the government goes for the ASC BMT tanker bid with two built in South Korea and one in Adelaide, it will be interesting to see which of the three is better built and lasts longer as well as calculating the net cost of each through life.

Talking of South Korean built ships, what has been the Navy's experience with Sirius to date?

I know she is still relatively young and only been in commission for 7 years, has there been any build quality issues, etc, with her that would be considered significant?

 

[ASSAIL]

Big "if" here, assuming the government goes for the ASC BMT tanker bid with two built in South Korea and one in Adelaide, it will be interesting to see which of the three is better built and lasts longer as well as calculating the net cost of each through life.

I'd be willing to bet that the Spanish would be favourites for the support ships, common systems etc.

A logical domestic build schedule would be; hulls in Spain, modules at BAE Henderson/Williamstown, Forgacs, 4th AWD at ASC and LCH replacements at BAE/Forgacs. Capes at Austal.

That should fill the gap until the majors come online and spreads the largesse to appease the pollies.

 

[Volkodav]

I'd be willing to bet that the Spanish would be favourites for the support ships, common systems etc.

A logical domestic build schedule would be; hulls in Spain, modules at BAE Henderson/Williamstown, Forgacs, 4th AWD at ASC and LCH replacements at BAE/Forgacs. Capes at Austal.

That should fill the gap until the majors come online and spreads the largesse to appease the pollies.

The BMT design is flexible enough, especially since the fit out will be in Australia, to specify any systems desired. Auxiliary systems, ship control systems, propulsion and electrical, can all be customer specified. Considering the issues with suppliers on the AWDs this could be useful.

 

[John Newman]

I'd be willing to bet that the Spanish would be favourites for the support ships, common systems etc.

A logical domestic build schedule would be; hulls in Spain, modules at BAE Henderson/Williamstown, Forgacs, 4th AWD at ASC and LCH replacements at BAE/Forgacs. Capes at Austal.

That should fill the gap until the majors come online and spreads the largesse to appease the pollies.

I wouldn't bet against you, I suspect you are correct about the Spanish being favourites, it's a proven design, which should equal less risk, the navy has been able to have a very thorough look over Cantabria while she was here for all that time and we've already seen the establishment of the relationship between BAE and the Spanish yard with the LHD's too.

The common systems bit is interesting, in the ASC brochure about their proposal they also state that their offering would have standardised systems common to the AWD's they are building too, so that's one point of potential difference that has probably been negated.

I suppose it comes down to competing priorities, what is the best ship for Navy and what is the best solution for industry? Can both sides be winners?

For industry, if the Spanish design was selected and the construction followed the same path as the LHD's, build the hull in Spain and share the superstructure block work and do the integration at Williamstown, but how much actual block work would there be to 'share' around? Would it be enough to support Williamstown, Newcastle and ASC?

On the other side of the coin, if the ASC's proposal was accepted and a complete ship was assembled at Techport and also a fair share of the block work was also done at Williamstown and Newcastle, would that provide a better solution for industry?

I might be wrong, but I suspect there may be more actual work for industry with the ASC proposal.

The other benefit for industry, if one ship was built at Techport, is the need to expand the facilities there to do the job (a week or so ago I put up a link to an animation showing how Techport can be expanded), the most obvious expansions would be to the ship lift and hard stand assembly areas.

Yes there would be an infrastructure cost, but that expansion of facilities could be an investment for the future to handle other large ships, such as when Choules or even the LHD's come up for eventual replacement.

As far as other possible work for the yards, yes Austal for the PB's, the other projects to be spread around to the other yards could include the LCH work and if I remember correctly when the OCV's were put on the back burner, the Government also said that the hydrographic ships would need replacing, so there is that too.

And finally of course is the 4th AWD, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Do we licence produce the Oto Melara in Australia or just the ammo? Always been a fan of the 76mm but the Bofors 57mm / BAE Mk110 seems all the rage at the moment with FMS export approval existing for Australia.

76mm is much better. 57mm is a big 40mm, 76mm is a small five incher. 76mm can also fire continuous until you run out of shells. 57mm fires in batches and has to stop firing while the ready fire magazines are reloaded because the barrel needs to be elevated to zenith to allow these two magazines to be refilled (done automatically).

The Australian Govt. brought a full licence for the Oto Gun, ammo and weapons. Original plan was to build one each for 15 Fremantles and 10 or so FFGs that were going to be built here. ADI’s Bendgio plant has a 76mm assembly room (used for maintenance of the existing guns), barrel forges, etc. I guess the license was handed over to Thales when they brought ADI.

 

[StobieWan]

If you get the 76mm you're into Vulcano and other munitions as well - bigger payload, longer reach than the 57mm.

Not sure if that's relevant to the requirement but it's a factor to think about.

 

[Volkodav]

If you get the 76mm you're into Vulcano and other munitions as well - bigger payload, longer reach than the 57mm.

Not sure if that's relevant to the requirement but it's a factor to think about.

I like the DAVIDE guided and missile round as well, install the SR or Strales in an OPV or corvette and you have some real defensive and offensive combat power.

 

[Volkodav]

76mm is much better. 57mm is a big 40mm, 76mm is a small five incher. 76mm can also fire continuous until you run out of shells. 57mm fires in batches and has to stop firing while the ready fire magazines are reloaded because the barrel needs to be elevated to zenith to allow these two magazines to be refilled (done automatically).

The Australian Govt. brought a full licence for the Oto Gun, ammo and weapons. Original plan was to build one each for 15 Fremantles and 10 or so FFGs that were going to be built here. ADI’s Bendgio plant has a 76mm assembly room (used for maintenance of the existing guns), barrel forges, etc. I guess the license was handed over to Thales when they brought ADI.

I have heard and read the 10 FFGs before but never any details, when was this planned, obviously pre ANZAC? It would be interesting to know the planned force structure that fore sore 10 FFGs and 15 Fremantle Class MGBs, was this the era of the planned 5 additional Fremantles built as FACs? Were the carrier replacement and DDGs still in the mix?

I do remember reading that pre Whitlam a two ocean navy with three carriers and 23 destroyers and frigates was planned.

 

[ASSAIL]

, the Government also said that the hydrographic ships would need replacing, so there is that too.

The survey cats and the 2 ships are pretty much standard commercial vessels and if maintained well they will last 30+ years without major problems. In fact if you want to see the extra cat EGLO built in the hope of navy buying it look here Luxury cruises: Vanuatu Holidays, Milford Sound, Fiordland, Bay of Islands Its in fantastic condition, we did a Bay of Islands cruise last year.
Have a look around any commercial small ship marina and the average age of say, NT steel trawlers is 40 years and going strong (all built mid 1970's to mid 1980's)
Point is that the survey ships are a very low priority and only got bundled in to the OCV package. That's not to say the OCV geospatial concept isn't needed in the long term.

Same can be said for the plastic mine warfare ships, my ex plastic fleet at Paspaley Pearling is the same age 40+ and the hulls are as new

It seems to me that the immediate build priority is to provide the capability we don't have, LCH's and the capability that's suffering dementia, the supply ships.

I've given up hope that sanity will prevail with the PB's and expect the worst (Capes)which doesn't effect the other building yards.

 

[ASSAIL]

We should have had a good look at HTMS Krabi during the IFR.
The main problem as I see it is that they have no hangar and no real room to have one unless they are further stretched (already 90.5 mtrs). It would certainly be a good pace to use the Oto 76mm ex FFG's though and would be cheap if built in Mahidol Royal Dockyard

Just to remind us what HTMS Krabi looked like at the IFR with those spare 76ers we will have free.
I've lifted this from World Naval ships forumWorld Naval Ships Forums

 

[Samoa]

For industry, if the Spanish design was selected and the construction followed the same path as the LHD's, build the hull in Spain and share the superstructure block work and do the integration at Williamstown, but how much actual block work would there be to 'share' around? Would it be enough to support Williamstown, Newcastle and ASC?

On the other side of the coin, if the ASC's proposal was accepted and a complete ship was assembled at Techport and also a fair share of the block work was also done at Williamstown and Newcastle, would that provide a better solution for industry?

I might be wrong, but I suspect there may be more actual work for industry with the ASC proposal.

An alternate proposal for the Cantabria class, is two ships in parallel builds. One hull in Spain, with superstructure blocks built in Australia, and a second complete ship including hull assembled at Williamstown. The block work can be divided out for the second ship, and the consolidation done at Williamstown. That will provide work for all. The yard can handle two Cantabria sized ships alongside for fit-out and systems integration.

The problem with following the same path as LHD, is there is just not enough fabrication work in the superstructure, nothing like an LHD. And the parallel build will ensure the ships are delivered within 12 months of each other. The ASC proposal of two complete ships built overseas + one locally, is possibly because the yard is at capacity to deliver the three AWDs and could only handle the third ship when the timing better matches the reduced workload once the first and second AWDs are done and the third well underway.