I'm with you but maybe it could lift a couple of LCM8's on deck along with whatever cargo they might need.
The lily pad on the roof is useless apart from personnel movements.
Chris
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The lily pad on the roof is useless apart from personnel movements.
Chris
I believe gf was referring to Ocean Shields eventual role when she transfers to customs as a border protection mother ship, she will be used to accommodate the people the PBs pick up out of the water and off sinking / sabotaged boats, rather than the PBs having to work as a taxi service. When shes full she choofs off to Manus Island and off loads them all.
Understand but he quoted my "bright" idea post that she should be used in the Philippines in the role for which she was bought ie HADR.
I could see a useful contribution so the nation could get some utility from "it".
The aft deck is weight limited to 1000 tonnes while I think the heave compensated crane was down rated to 60 tonnes. May be able to carry LCM8'S but otherwise the uplift and accommodation is limited. Lets face it was designed and built as an OSV optimised for underwater maintenance and ROV operations.
Nah mate, you're both (you and Volk) are correct.. loss in translation due to my poor attempt at being facile
I thought it was a good idea but that it wouldn't get picked up on due to primary tasking priorities and that the Govt might not see her as available due to primary tasking
So you mean "limited" for HADR?
Don't you love it when someone(nameless) bypasses the procurement scrutiny
Moving away from the 20 common OPV-sized hull concept is incredibly disappointing.
It is such a sensible approach that would offer a much more appropriate vessel for the tasks now filled by the Amidales and much improved flexibility and efficiency.
As an example, with 20 Meteoro-type hulls you could have 10 Patrol, 8 stand-off mine hunters (4 fully fitted and 4 for-but-not-with) and 2 Hydrological survey vessels - the for-but-not-with would be available for patrol giving 14 patrol vessels.
Weapons fit would not need to be common - and in the first instance something like that of an Armidale would suffice.
It is such a sensible approach that would offer a much more appropriate vessel for the tasks now filled by the Amidales and much improved flexibility and efficiency.
As an example, with 20 Meteoro-type hulls you could have 10 Patrol, 8 stand-off mine hunters (4 fully fitted and 4 for-but-not-with) and 2 Hydrological survey vessels - the for-but-not-with would be available for patrol giving 14 patrol vessels.
Weapons fit would not need to be common - and in the first instance something like that of an Armidale would suffice.
Spot on! The government should invest with either of these two shipyards or both, Techport or Henderson into a larger more efficient modern shipyard. If Williamstown and Forgacs survive, they should concentrate on smaller ships nothing larger than 3k tons displacement. The government should be thinking in terms of having a marketplace of two shipyards competing with large and small ships. However, that is an ideal situation for a much larger nation such as South Korea or Japan, not little Australia. If the government ends up being the owners of such shipyards, they would be better off closing all of the shipyards. I have yet to see a public manufacturer ever be competitive with any private manufacturer. As the auto sector shows, eventually the public subsidy bubbles burst.
Forgacs also do commerical work which helps them survive to any plan to limit capacity to 3000 gt would kill them off. Not a great idea.
The dock at WT (if to be extended) would at least allow them to conduct refits on the current and anticpated fleet of ships.in the RAN and some commerical tonnage which is currently out of reach.
What needs to happen, without senseless speculation, if that the yards in question
need to complete a robust business case based on work they can expect to get or attract (including block work) in order to determine the viability of nay expansion. It is worth noting the the number of drydocks in this country is not increasing and the capacity of some is quite small.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I think the whole problem at the moment in speculating which shipyards are going to have a future (or not), or which shipyards should have investment in expanded facilities will remain up in the air till the new Abbott Government produces it new Defence White Paper due in early/mid 2015.
And that is the problem, there is no consistency from one DWP to the next, going back to the Rudd Governments 2009 DWP, the proposed future new ships/subs for the Navy included:
* 12 new Submarines
* 8 Future Frigates
* 20 larger OCV's (to replace the ACPB's, Mine Warfare and Hydrographic fleets)
* 2 Replenishment ships
* 1 Strategic Sea Lift Ship
* 6 Replacement LCH
That was a fleet of 49 new ships/subs, which the majority could have been built here in Australian yards, but by the time we get to the Gillard Government 2013 DWP, back in May this year, the landscape had changed:
* The Strategic Sea Lift ship seemed to have disappeared, or at least disappeared well into the future (the Government confirmed that the second hand Choules would remain as a permanent part of the amphibious capability).
* The actual number of Future Frigates, originally stated as '8', disappeared (will it still be 8 or is it now 6? Then Def Min Smith was quoted as saying '6' when discussing the Type 26 with the UK Def Min at a press conference earlier this year, so who knows, 6 or 8?).
* The 20 OCV's were put on the back burner and would become a 'longer term' capability and instead in the short term, the ACPB's would be replace with another class of PB's.
* The Government said it would bring forward the replacement of Success and Sirius, (there's one possible bone for the shipbuilding industry).
* And lastly at the same time, the then Def Min stated there would be 'no' 4th AWD, so the possibility of the option of another AWD was gone.
And for some reason we are yet to see the updated 2013 Defence Capability Plan either, it seems to have 'disappeared' completely, maybe it ended up in the shredder at the change of Governments!
In that four year period between the Rudd and Gillard Government DWP's the proposed composition of the fleet changed substantially.
So here we are today, waiting for another 12 months or so for the next DWP to be delivered in 2015, what will it look like? Will it look more like the 2009 DWP or will it look more like the 2013 DWP? Or will it be totally different again?
Would I like to be running a shipyard today and trying to plan what investments should be made for the future in that facility? Hell no!
So other than the possibility of a few bones (eg, some attempt at avoiding the Valley of Death) that may be thrown at the shipyards in the next little while, we will all have to sit back and wait till early/mid 2015.
If only a 10 or 20 year plan could be set in concrete, regardless of changes of Government, anyway that's a dream that I know will unfortunately never happen!
And that is the problem, there is no consistency from one DWP to the next, going back to the Rudd Governments 2009 DWP, the proposed future new ships/subs for the Navy included:
* 12 new Submarines
* 8 Future Frigates
* 20 larger OCV's (to replace the ACPB's, Mine Warfare and Hydrographic fleets)
* 2 Replenishment ships
* 1 Strategic Sea Lift Ship
* 6 Replacement LCH
That was a fleet of 49 new ships/subs, which the majority could have been built here in Australian yards, but by the time we get to the Gillard Government 2013 DWP, back in May this year, the landscape had changed:
* The Strategic Sea Lift ship seemed to have disappeared, or at least disappeared well into the future (the Government confirmed that the second hand Choules would remain as a permanent part of the amphibious capability).
* The actual number of Future Frigates, originally stated as '8', disappeared (will it still be 8 or is it now 6? Then Def Min Smith was quoted as saying '6' when discussing the Type 26 with the UK Def Min at a press conference earlier this year, so who knows, 6 or 8?).
* The 20 OCV's were put on the back burner and would become a 'longer term' capability and instead in the short term, the ACPB's would be replace with another class of PB's.
* The Government said it would bring forward the replacement of Success and Sirius, (there's one possible bone for the shipbuilding industry).
* And lastly at the same time, the then Def Min stated there would be 'no' 4th AWD, so the possibility of the option of another AWD was gone.
And for some reason we are yet to see the updated 2013 Defence Capability Plan either, it seems to have 'disappeared' completely, maybe it ended up in the shredder at the change of Governments!
In that four year period between the Rudd and Gillard Government DWP's the proposed composition of the fleet changed substantially.
So here we are today, waiting for another 12 months or so for the next DWP to be delivered in 2015, what will it look like? Will it look more like the 2009 DWP or will it look more like the 2013 DWP? Or will it be totally different again?
Would I like to be running a shipyard today and trying to plan what investments should be made for the future in that facility? Hell no!
So other than the possibility of a few bones (eg, some attempt at avoiding the Valley of Death) that may be thrown at the shipyards in the next little while, we will all have to sit back and wait till early/mid 2015.
If only a 10 or 20 year plan could be set in concrete, regardless of changes of Government, anyway that's a dream that I know will unfortunately never happen!
Last edited:
weegee
Active Member
They look great haha, does anyone know the schedule for the upgrade?
Trackmaster
Member
Different subject...the Philippines.
Do we have anything capable of sailing to provide assistance?
Capability based around crewing, with the Choules recently back from PNG ...and other things that may be afloat, but questionable.
Do we have anything capable of sailing to provide assistance?
Capability based around crewing, with the Choules recently back from PNG ...and other things that may be afloat, but questionable.
Last edited:
Yep, but good shots
Too late, the result was predictable given the forecast and warnings. They should have been loaded and sailing when the storm hit.
HMAS Tobruk is being sent. There was a news item yesterday, but I can't recall where I saw it.
I just found this:
ADDITIONAL $20 MILLION TO HELP THE PHILIPPINES RECOVER FROM TYPHOON HAIYAN | Prime Minister of Australia
John
I imagine this will be a regular routine when the LHD's are operational. You have a floating one stop disaster relief shop. You can deploy earth moving equipment, water pumps and purifying equipment, food, medical supplies, you have a hospital onboard, an airport on board that doesn't rely on local fuel supplies, coms for command and communication. They can bring so much to the table and are self sufficient.
The issue I see is that they may be over deployed with only two ships and a region with many nations that a prone to volcanos, typhoons, tsunamis, civil unrest and is generally pretty poor to begin with.
About the aid, China is getting some heat about the $100,000 they have given.
Haiyan: China's Paltry Aid to the Philippines | TIME.com
IIRC a chartered AN-225 arrived from Beijing loaded with relief supplies a couple of days after the storm. It probably cost more for the charter than the cargo.
- Status