Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ancientcivy]

RAN's mcm capabilty

How will the cancellation of the 0CV programme with its intended mcm package in a relatively fast ship, impinge upon Navy's future ability to rapidly deploy in potentially hostile situations, particularly with the fat ships?
Also if it became necessary to rapidly increase fleet size, would patrol boats and mcm vessels be the easiest to build?
Regards bob

 

[John Newman]

How will the cancellation of the 0CV programme with its intended mcm package in a relatively fast ship, impinge upon Navy's future ability to rapidly deploy in potentially hostile situations, particularly with the fat ships?
Also if it became necessary to rapidly increase fleet size, would patrol boats and mcm vessels be the easiest to build?
Regards bob

Regardless of the OCV's being deferred or cancelled for the time being, the Navy still has the 6 Huon Class minehunters available.

In regard to rapidly increasing the fleet size, sure small ships like PB's would be relatively quick to build (compared to a much larger and complex ships like a Frigate or Destroyer), but what would be the point if a larger PB fleet wasn't what was required for that particular situation?

Unlike WWII for example that went for 6 years, where a ship building program was instituted to supply the fleet with what it needed over that period of time, I can't ever see a potential future conflict lasting for 'years', more than likely a conflict would be over before anything was built, including relatively simple PB's.

Better to have a balanced fleet with what you are going to need before the shooting starts!

 

[Todjaeger]

My immediate reaction would be "not feasible".
Firstly, I believe all sustainment (maintenance) is contracted to either Thales, BAE or ASC or some other companies that I am unaware of.
Secondly, the level of current engineering competence has declined in the uniforms to a point where much of the work would be beyond the skill set.

I have a good mate who's last job before retirement was the WO Artificer i/c of the FMU (Fleet Maintenance Unit) borne in Stalwart. Ships would come alongside to complete their Assisted Maintenance Periods )AMP's and the whole spectrum of tasks were completed from total machinery rebuilds to manufacture of specialist parts to simple lagging fitting etc.
I'm sure much of Stalwart's existence was to take work away from the unionised dockyard and increase efficiency.

Aren't we glad that the HMAS Nirimba closed

OTOH, your point about extra berthing could be more cheaply accomplished with a finger jetty on the eastern side at building 215. Let the goog burghers of Potts Point howl:

When I posed the question, I sort of expected that the RAN would be unable to provide the appropriate trades that a tender would require.

As a sort of follow-on to the question of a RAN sea/sub tender capability. What would be required to establish/re-establish such a capability? Would that capability be worthwhile?

IMO it would be very much in the RAN, ADF and overall gov't best interests to get the RAN back into naval maintenance business instead of commercial contracts which outsource the maintenance. This would of course require an enlarged body of RAN trades, technical and engineering personnel. However, aside from providing more career options for RAN personnel, it would also allow RAN to have more control over how things are done. Not to mention if there was some sort of actual shooting war, then RAN personnel could maintain and repair damaged vessels, instead of either losing vessels because contractors refuse to go into danger areas, or being forced to bring damaged vessels to 'safe' areas where contractors will work. Or as a possible alternative, having contractors work in hazardous areas and being forced to pay a mint for them.

Do others feel it would be better for the RAN (and actually the rest of the ADF) to have more technical personnel providing the needed maintenance and repair of kit?

For the RAN specifically, if the capability could be regained, should it be kept 'dockside' or would having a tender also be worthwhile?

-Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

When I posed the question, I sort of expected that the RAN would be unable to provide the appropriate trades that a tender would require.

As a sort of follow-on to the question of a RAN sea/sub tender capability. What would be required to establish/re-establish such a capability? Would that capability be worthwhile?

IMO it would be very much in the RAN, ADF and overall gov't best interests to get the RAN back into naval maintenance business instead of commercial contracts which outsource the maintenance. This would of course require an enlarged body of RAN trades, technical and engineering personnel. However, aside from providing more career options for RAN personnel, it would also allow RAN to have more control over how things are done. Not to mention if there was some sort of actual shooting war, then RAN personnel could maintain and repair damaged vessels, instead of either losing vessels because contractors refuse to go into danger areas, or being forced to bring damaged vessels to 'safe' areas where contractors will work. Or as a possible alternative, having contractors work in hazardous areas and being forced to pay a mint for them.

Do others feel it would be better for the RAN (and actually the rest of the ADF) to have more technical personnel providing the needed maintenance and repair of kit?

For the RAN specifically, if the capability could be regained, should it be kept 'dockside' or would having a tender also be worthwhile?

-Cheers

The very sad follow on from this is many industry maintainers recruit almost exclusively from ex service members and unfortunately many of these lack the qualifications, experience and capabilities of previous generations. Making the situation worse is the fact that many of the best of these are being snapped up by the mines and big projects, leaving only those less capable or perhaps restricted by family needs to choose from. Now factor in the ex-defence mindset that you need to have served to have the required experience to do the job, which pretty much excludes many with civilian / commercial backgrounds and you have a perfect storm dumbing down and de-skilling defence and defence industry technical expertise.

 

[ASSAIL]

IMO it would be very much in the RAN, ADF and overall gov't best interests to get the RAN back into naval maintenance business instead of commercial contracts which outsource the maintenance. This would of course require an enlarged body of RAN trades, technical and engineering personnel. However, aside from providing more career options for RAN personnel, it would also allow RAN to have more control over how things are done. Not to mention if there was some sort of actual shooting war, then RAN personnel could maintain and repair damaged vessels,
For the RAN specifically, if the capability could be regained, should it be kept 'dockside' or would having a tender also be worthwhile?

It allows significant and worthwhile employment for technical people when they are on shore rotation.

I still don't think a tender is worthwhile unless there is lack of productivity in the dockyards by civilian workers such as existed in the 60's and 70's.
We now have FBW and minor repair capabilities in Cairns and Darwin (which could be improved). With capable technical people these could be utilised to sustain all units on most repairs not including dockings, in fact they could function just as Stalwart did (she rarely went to sea).
If a need was identified in periods of heightened tension, ships such as Ocean Shields could be suitably modified but I can't see that happening
Chris

 

[gf0012-aust]

For the RAN specifically, if the capability could be regained, should it be kept 'dockside' or would having a tender also be worthwhile?

-Cheers

we will be getting both,

 

[ASSAIL]

we will be getting both,

So much for my font of knowledge.:rosie
Has a tender been through the normal procurement process or is this another Skandi Bergen?

 

[John Newman]

With the news today that General Motors Holden is shutting down their Adelaide car assembly plant in 2017, maybe there is a way to give a boost to the shipbuilding industry and employment in South Australia too.

Redirect those hundred of millions of dollars in subsidies from the car industry over to the South Australian shipbuilding industry.

For ASC, get the 1600 car assembly workers retrained and working on a 4th AWD and a couple of replenishment ships.

In Victoria where the other 1300 jobs are disappearing, get them retrained too and start work at Williamstown on the OCV's and LCH replacements.

Problem solved! Simple!!!

 

[Volkodav]

With the news today that General Motors Holden is shutting down their Adelaide car assembly plant in 2017, maybe there is a way to give a boost to the shipbuilding industry and employment in South Australia too.

Redirect those hundred of millions of dollars in subsidies from the car industry over to the South Australian shipbuilding industry.

For ASC, get the 1600 car assembly workers retrained and working on a 4th AWD and a couple of replenishment ships.

In Victoria where the other 1300 jobs are disappearing, get them retrained too and start work at Williamstown on the OCV's and LCH replacements.

Problem solved! Simple!!!

God no! I wouldn't trust those layabout stoners to work in McDonalds let alone build and maintain ships and subs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So much for my font of knowledge.:rosie
Has a tender been through the normal procurement process or is this another Skandi Bergen?

creative bookwork

 

[John Newman]

God no! I wouldn't trust those layabout stoners to work in McDonalds let alone build and maintain ships and subs.

True, I did say it was a simple solution, not a perfect one!

What's the old saying? 'Never buy cars that have been built on a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon', so yes working on ships and subs might not be a good idea.


All jokes aside, I'm sure that the two State Premiers will be putting extra pressure on the Fed Government over manufacturing jobs disappearing in their respective states, and on top of the pressure that they (and industry) are also no doubt applying re the impending 'Valley of Death' in shipbuilding.

So maybe the Holden closure might be an incentive to look more closely at providing Naval shipbuilding solutions for both those states, stranger things can happen!

 

[Trackmaster]

True, I did say it was a simple solution, not a perfect one!

What's the old saying? 'Never buy cars that have been built on a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon', so yes working on ships and subs might not be a good idea.


All jokes aside, I'm sure that the two State Premiers will be putting extra pressure on the Fed Government over manufacturing jobs disappearing in their respective states, and on top of the pressure that they (and industry) are also no doubt applying re the impending 'Valley of Death' in shipbuilding.

So maybe the Holden closure might be an incentive to look more closely at providing Naval shipbuilding solutions for both those states, stranger things can happen!

Provided the company paid union officials can transfer straight across, I'm sure suitable arrangements can be put in place.

 

[ancientcivy]

Regardless of the OCV's being deferred or cancelled for the time being, the Navy still has the 6 Huon Class minehunters available.

In regard to rapidly increasing the fleet size, sure small ships like PB's would be relatively quick to build (compared to a much larger and complex ships like a Frigate or Destroyer), but what would be the point if a larger PB fleet wasn't what was required for that particular situation?

Unlike WWII for example that went for 6 years, where a ship building program was instituted to supply the fleet with what it needed over that period of time, I can't ever see a potential future conflict lasting for 'years', more than likely a conflict would be over before anything was built, including relatively simple PB's.

Better to have a balanced fleet with what you are going to need before the shooting starts!

I agree that a balanced fleet is the ideal solution, though exactly the make up of such a fleet is problematic given previous discussions on this thread. However, given the fiscal policies of this and previous Governments such a fleet seems a long way off. The crux of my question was which naval assets could be bought or built quickly to deal with emergencies?
As to mcm vessels the Seakeeping and speed limitations of the Huons have been detailed previously , on this thread, which seem to preclude them from providing mcm except in Australian waters. If there is little possibility of a ospv/corvette purchase what are the alternatives, possibly the acquisition of a small number of USN helo mine hunter kits for or new Seahawks for operations from the fat ships or some thing else?

 

[John Newman]

I agree that a balanced fleet is the ideal solution, though exactly the make up of such a fleet is problematic given previous discussions on this thread. However, given the fiscal policies of this and previous Governments such a fleet seems a long way off. The crux of my question was which naval assets could be bought or built quickly to deal with emergencies?
As to mcm vessels the Seakeeping and speed limitations of the Huons have been detailed previously , on this thread, which seem to preclude them from providing mcm except in Australian waters. If there is little possibility of a ospv/corvette purchase what are the alternatives, possibly the acquisition of a small number of USN helo mine hunter kits for or new Seahawks for operations from the fat ships or some thing else?

What are the emergencies? Where are they? What sort of warning times? How do they need to be addressed? How long is a piece of string?

I don't think there is a single answer to your question, yes obviously the Navy is never going to have enough of every type of vessel for every possible scenario, I think that's a fact that our Navy and most other Navies have to deal with too.

Regarding MCM vessels, if I understand you correctly, you are possibly talking about some 'distant' operation where MCM assets are going to be in big demand and we don't have the capacity to meet that demand?

More than likely in such an operation I'd imagine that the RAN wouldn't operate alone, it would be part of a larger coalition, most likely with the US, and if that was the case, then obviously we would be supplying what we reasonably could and US and other coalition partners would be supplying what they could too.

Here are some links I found that might be of interest:

Mine Counter Measure Systems

Airborne Laser Mine Detection System

RAN Mine Countermeasures Capability – Where to Now ? | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

 

[Volkodav]

True, I did say it was a simple solution, not a perfect one!

What's the old saying? 'Never buy cars that have been built on a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon', so yes working on ships and subs might not be a good idea.


All jokes aside, I'm sure that the two State Premiers will be putting extra pressure on the Fed Government over manufacturing jobs disappearing in their respective states, and on top of the pressure that they (and industry) are also no doubt applying re the impending 'Valley of Death' in shipbuilding.

So maybe the Holden closure might be an incentive to look more closely at providing Naval shipbuilding solutions for both those states, stranger things can happen!

Don't get me wrong, I (like many others) cut my teeth in automotive before moving into defence. I enjoyed my time there, the things I learnt, the people I worked with but I am honest enough to realise that the limited assistance that was provided to the industry came with strings to protect jobs and wages rather than being part of a plan to grow the industry and improve productivity, ultimately making them more competitive and profitable.

I do see parallels between the two industries. You never hear of the infrastructure and strategic capability a project or new product will bring but rather this will create X number of jobs. i.e. they are not just labelling things that are good for many reasons as job creation pork but are effectively skewing them in that direction by attaching strings to the funding. The polies come in and blow smoke up the backsides of uneducated and unskilled process workers and labourers, telling them that they are the back bone of the project and the nation blah blah blah while ignoring the eager young apprentice, their experienced mentor, the exceptional young (technical) professionals their managers and mentors and all the other truly skilled and truly talented individuals that are meant to be the whole idea of having high tech industries and projects.

Sadly it is all about the DF bogan vote as skilled / educated people make their own decisions for their own deeper reasons and are much harder to buy. Truly high tech industries with no place for DF bogans will never get the level of support / attention that boarder line sheltered workshops do.

 

[ancientcivy]

What are the emergencies? Where are they? What sort of warning times? How do they need to be addressed? How long is a piece of string?

I don't think there is a single answer to your question, yes obviously the Navy is never going to have enough of every type of vessel for every possible scenario, I think that's a fact that our Navy and most other Navies have to deal with too.

Regarding MCM vessels, if I understand you correctly, you are possibly talking about some 'distant' operation where MCM assets are going to be in big demand and we don't have the capacity to meet that demand?

More than likely in such an operation I'd imagine that the RAN wouldn't operate alone, it would be part of a larger coalition, most likely with the US, and if that was the case, then obviously we would be supplying what we reasonably could and US and other coalition partners would be supplying what they could

Given the enormous investment in the fat ships and training of personnel, both army and navy, to enable amphibious operations, then planning for a range of scenarios seems prudent.

I am sure that at least we share that these hope that assets will never need deploy in a combat situation and that it they were it would be with allies in particular the USA. However, if there is a weakness with the USN it also appears to be in mcm, in particular with LCVs as their future mcm, as indicated in the last article you refer to.
Therefore I still believe that planning for mcm to protect Australian lives, in areas beyond our shores is vital.

 

[ngatimozart]

More than likely in such an operation I'd imagine that the RAN wouldn't operate alone, it would be part of a larger coalition, most likely with the US, and if that was the case, then obviously we would be supplying what we reasonably could and US and other coalition partners would be supplying what they could too.

Here are some links I found that might be of interest:

Mine Counter Measure Systems

Airborne Laser Mine Detection System

RAN Mine Countermeasures Capability – Where to Now ? | Australian Defence News & Articles | Asia Pacific Defence Reporter

John I found this doco on the USN Littoral Warfare Ships. It has quite interesting video of the MCM functions on board including the LIDAR used on the Romeo and the semi-submersible UUV they operate from the ship. It also shows quite a bit of the two types of LWS. I quite like the space they have aft for the deployong and recovery of, in this case, MCM gear. The doco shows some of the teething problems they had with the ships.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOAMg1TP7bc"]National Geographic Inside 21st Century Warship CONVERT 720p HDTV x264 MoTv - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[John Newman]

John I found this doco on the USN Littoral Warfare Ships. It has quite interesting video of the MCM functions on board including the LIDAR used on the Romeo and the semi-submersible UUV they operate from the ship. It also shows quite a bit of the two types of LWS. I quite like the space they have aft for the deployong and recovery of, in this case, MCM gear. The doco shows some of the teething problems they had with the ships.
National Geographic Inside 21st Century Warship CONVERT 720p HDTV x264 MoTv - YouTube

Ng, will try and have a good look at it over the weekend.

MCM functions certainly seem to be evolving at a fast pace, seems to be less reliance on purpose built ships and more about the variety of remote systems.

Thanks mate!

 

[ngatimozart]

Ng, will try and have a good look at it over the weekend.

MCM functions certainly seem to be evolving at a fast pace, seems to be less reliance on purpose built ships and more about the variety of remote systems.

Thanks mate!

No probs mate.the philosophy behind the system on the LWS is to keep the ships and people out of the minefields.

 

[John Newman]

No probs mate.the philosophy behind the system on the LWS is to keep the ships and people out of the minefields.

Yes because if you end up in the minefield you go BOOM!!


Reminds me of the old joke about the Irish mine detection team (it's a visual joke, hope this works):

Picture them with their fingers in their ears, face scrunched up, with the right leg stretched out, foot extended, tapping the ground in front of them!!

PS, Apologise to the Irish! Actually some of my very first ancestors in Australia were Irish convicts in Tasmania in the 1850's!