Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Top weight may not be an issue but total Dead weight will be. Depending upon strength of helo deck, it could reduce load capacity by upwards of 30 tonnes and if you then add helo fuel and stores we lose one of three battle tanks. (DWT = 200 tonnes for this ship).
Basically it is a truck for carrying max khaki load and I'm not sure of the advantage of a helo which would be impossible to carry on independent ops (unless no other cargo was needed eg border duties) and redundant on combined ops.
A good choice though IMHO.
I saw a Batral in Darwin last year and it looked very dated.

Yep the Batral's are pretty long in the tooth and are being paid off.

It is the concept that may be useful. That is a vessel with reasonable speed, endurance and capacity that can support a 120 to 130 man detachment, and their gear including their deployment ashore, with it own resources. The enablers here are the embarked LCM's, aviation facilities and size.

Useful in the Pacific Islands concept and reasonably cost effective

 

[ASSAIL]

Yep the Batral's are pretty long in the tooth and are being paid off.

It is the concept that may be useful. That is a vessel with reasonable speed, endurance and capacity that can support a 120 to 130 man detachment, and their gear including their deployment ashore, with it own resources. The enablers here are the embarked LCM's, aviation facilities and size.

Useful in the Pacific Islands concept and reasonably cost effective

True, which was exactly how the French used them. The one I saw was on its way to French Polynesia. My reticence is more to scale than anything else, too big and expensive for JP 2048 Ph 5.
However, it probably is the right size and capability but I doubt if we will get anything similar, the priority's not there.

 

[MickB]

In regard to the stern landing ship, could higher speeds be obtained by mounting the propolsion on pods beneath the hull and retracting them into the tunnels only when operating in shallow water.
Or is this just adding another layer of cost and complexity for minimal return.

 

[John Newman]

True, which was exactly how the French used them. The one I saw was on its way to French Polynesia. My reticence is more to scale than anything else, too big and expensive for JP 2048 Ph 5.
However, it probably is the right size and capability but I doubt if we will get anything similar, the priority's not there.

Wouldn't a simple solution be by adding another phase to 2048?

And yes when I say 'simple', I don't mean it would be simple and easy, a requirement would have to be drawn up, accepted, go though the various approval processes, monies found and funds allocated, etc, etc.

Maybe the solution is for a two tier approach, for Ph 5 (as it now stands), the LCH to be replaced with a class of Caimen type landing ships and another phase created to add a couple of ships that would sit in between the LCH and Choules?

A couple of ships like an updated Batral or the much larger US Frank S Benson class (or their Philippines equivalents, the Bacolod City class, which does have basic helicopter facilities for example.

Bacolod City-class logistics support vessel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Speaking of Batral, I came across this a while ago, it's some info in the ships that France will be replacing them with:

France orders three new multimission vessels - IHS Jane's 360


Interesting when you look at the stats, the new class will have a slightly larger displacement, but will be 15m shorter, and as the article mentions, they look more like a North Sea support ship than the landing ship design that was the Batral class.

Anyway, maybe by adding another phase for a class of a couple of ships that sits between the much larger Choules and the LCH replacements is the way to go.

 

[ASSAIL]

A couple of ships like an updated Batral or the much larger US Frank S Benson class (or their Philippines equivalents, the Bacolod City class, which does have basic helicopter facilities for example.

Benson/Bacolod or derivative is what I imagine Ph 5 is all about

Speaking of Batral, I came across this a while ago, it's some info in the ships that France will be replacing them with:
Interesting when you look at the stats, the new class will have a slightly larger displacement, but will be 15m shorter, and as the article mentions, they look more like a North Sea support ship than the landing ship design that was the Batral class.

This looks like a complete mongrel, its neither OPV nor landing craft with no aviation capability and a backward step from the Batral but probably useful to be a simple station ship for their overseas territories. Useful for HADR but certainly not a Ph 5 contender.

 

[weegee]

Canberra trials

Hey guys it seems that Nuship Canberra has returned from trials. I saw this on Facebook BAE page, they have put some good shots of her underway if anyone is interested. What's next for her and when does the RAN take official delivery?

 

[alexsa]

In regard to the stern landing ship, could higher speeds be obtained by mounting the propolsion on pods beneath the hull and retracting them into the tunnels only when operating in shallow water.
Or is this just adding another layer of cost and complexity for minimal return.

I suspect you would still need propulsion to get you off so the tunnels would stay. As you note it is a lot of complexity when you can get better speeds with bow or bow and stern ramp designs

 

[StingrayOZ]

I suspect you would still need propulsion to get you off so the tunnels would stay. As you note it is a lot of complexity when you can get better speeds with bow or bow and stern ramp designs

Can the stern ships land on shallower beachers though?

IMO I would prefer some thing with some speed. The LHD and Choules are your big heavy set pieces. I would think complimenting that with some smaller lighter faster ships would be worth while. Ideally they could work as connectors/intralift in theater as well as smaller independent ships.

What's next for her and when does the RAN take official delivery?

Got to be soon. I would imagine they are just nailing down the final details. Fiji has an election coming up and will hopefully return to democracy, so I would imagine they would want her in service before that. Even if she isn't deployed, they would want her getting ready. Im sure the politicians would love to make an announcement ASAP (after the budget).

Have they coated the deck yet? Can't seem to find any new pics on the facebook page.

 

[weegee]

These are the ones I saw on their Facebook page. I am not 100% sure if they are from the trials or not but seeing that they were attached to the post i am assuming so. The last photo looks like the deck has been done though?

 

[Punta74]

Large Japanese delegation checking out ASC.

No Cookies | The Advertiser

 

[Trackmaster]

Large Japanese delegation checking out ASC.

No Cookies | The Advertiser

"Raises fears"
Get a grip, boys and girls. There is a whole big world beyond Adelaide. If anyone is surprised by this, they are living in a parallel universe.

 

[Trackmaster]

These are the ones I saw on their Facebook page. I am not 100% sure if they are from the trials or not but seeing that they were attached to the post i am assuming so. The last photo looks like the deck has been done though?

A nice big black line down the centre of the skijump. I suppose it would make it easy for someone to follow if they were belting down there at considerable speed.

 

[John Newman]

Large Japanese delegation checking out ASC.

No Cookies | The Advertiser

Typical conspiracy theory reported to being put forward by the SA Government, and to be expected too, when you have a right wing Federal Government on one side and a left wing State Government (and Unions too) on the other side, typical political argy bargy!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling, well we will just all have to wait and see.


Ok, so here's my 'alternative' version of that conspiracy theory (for what it's worth):

The visit by the Japanese delegation was the prelude to an announcement to be made at the launch of the 2015 DWP that the Governments of Australia and Japan had reached agreement on the 'co-production' of the Soryu class submarines (or should I say by then it will be the 'Son' of Soryu) in both countries.

The Son of Soryu will also have input from Australia in it's design, ensuring that the boats will fully meet the needs and requirements of the RAN (and Japan too of course).

Japan has committed to maintaining a class of 20 boats and Australia has committed to maintaining a class of 10 boats, Japan will manufacture 2/3rds of each boat and Australia will manufacture 1/3rd of each boat built. Japan's two yards will alternate the assembly of a new boat every year and the ASC yard will assemble a new boat every two years.

Oh and by the way, ASC is also 'privatised' too, with Japan, US, UK and Australia all taking a share (which means each country provides financial and technical input into the ongoing development of the boats too).

Due to economies of scale, all 30 boats are delivered on time, and continue to come in under budget, a perfect model for co-production. In fact it eventually lead onto the co-production of new classes of DDG's, LHD's and other mutually beneficial classes of ships too!

The joint production becomes the envy of other navies of the world and export orders follow, most notably Canada who order some boats to be assembled in Australia and some in Canada, all will include Australian and Japanese made components too.

At the commissioning of the 10th Australian boat, and the simultaneous commissioning of Japan's 20th boat, it is announced by both Governments that cooperation and co-production will continue indefinitely, and that work continues on the 'Grandson' of Soryu (or will it be the Great Grandson of Soryu by then?).

At the end of the day, both the Governments of Japan and Australia, their respective navies and all the workers employed at the production and assembly yards, live happily every after!

The End!


Too fanciful? Ok, maybe a bit too fanciful and far fetched, but hey, if such a thing were to happen, wouldn't be a bad outcome after all would it??

Cheers,

 

[ASSAIL]

Too fanciful? Ok, maybe a bit too fanciful and far fetched, but hey, if such a thing were to happen, wouldn't be a bad outcome after all would it??

Its got my vote but nah, the whole scenario is far too logical, there would be too many self interested parties who would consider that they were being had.
I also don't think the Japanese would risk their project by depending on Australia's contribution. I've had some experience with civilian Japanese shipyards and they don't stop for anything, their productivity is astonishing (more like 5 Japanese modules to one of ours).

 

[John Newman]

Its got my vote but nah, the whole scenario is far too logical, there would be too many self interested parties who would consider that they were being had.
I also don't think the Japanese would risk their project by depending on Australia's contribution. I've had some experience with civilian Japanese shipyards and they don't stop for anything, their productivity is astonishing (more like 5 Japanese modules to one of ours).

It is a bit too logical isn't it?

Yeah well, my alternate 'conspiracy theory / fractured fairy tail' was done a bit tongue in cheek, but there is some basis to reality in what I was suggesting.

Japan, from what I understand, is moving to eventually maintain a fleet of 20 subs, they also currently have two yards that alternate the delivery of a new boat about every 12mths, we would probably see the delivery of a Collins replacement around every 2 years (24mths), so the 2/3rd, 1/3rd split would seem reasonably accurate.

Do we go ahead and build 'all' the components for an orphan class of 10 (or 12) boats, or do you build 1/3 of the components for a much larger class of 30? Turn them over every 20 years as the Japanese have been doing and continue on. The volume of work seems to work out the same in the end to me from an employment of shipyard workers point of view and ongoing build process.

But yes, I do take your point, that their (Japan's) ratio of ability to deliver modules would probably outstrip our ability to deliver too.

So maybe if ASC is privatised prior to the construction of the Collins replacements (if the Soryu, or Son of Soryu is selected), then Japan takes control of a 'largish' chunk of ASC and implements it's production, management and work practices (greater productivity and efficiency?) then maybe it is possible.

Maybe in the early years the ratio of Japanese made modules is a greater percentage and that over time we do get to that 1/3rd, 2/3rd split.

At the end of they day its always going to be competing priorities, on the one hand make sure the Navy get what it needs on time and on budget, and on the other hand, support industry at the same time too.

 

[StevoJH]

A nice big black line down the centre of the skijump. I suppose it would make it easy for someone to follow if they were belting down there at considerable speed.

That would be because they have copied the deck markings used aboard the UK's Invincible class carriers and HMS Ocean.

It would be interesting to know how many RAN sailors have been serving aboard illustrious and ocean over the last few years.

 

[Volkodav]

Well as far as conspiracy theories go my favorite is WA government members, of which there are many, are actively lobbying to have ASC shut down, new submarines bought from overseas and all submarine maintenance to be moved to WA.

Wait a sec, is it still a conspiracy when proven to be factual?

Its not government policy but there is a lot of pressure from the WA lobby and SAs only cabinet minister, unlike his Hawke, Keating and Howard government predecessors, or in fact the great majority of parliamentarians in general, doesn't actually give a stuff about the state he comes from or the electorate he represents.

What people forget with ASC is it is not a private company anymore, having been nationalised during the Howard years, the government is the owner and the customer and can do what they like when they like irrespective of anyone elses concepts of fairness or common sense. Subs have been a political football for decades and the ownership of ASC just makes it that much easier for this to occur as the company simply is not permitted to respond to criticism, let alone set the record straight when it is their owner, their bosses slagging them off. Just look at the AWD, it was BAE that caused the majority of the schedule slip and cost over runs but now it is somehow ASCs fault and BAE are the heros who are expected to save the day. Why? Because when BAE was criticised they were able to respond and blame everyone else but ASC were not permitted to rebut leaving BAE with the last word and no one questioning their version. When problems occur that could be blamed on government, contacting, contractors, or defence, ASC are not permitted to do so because everyone else is protected. Schedule slip due to Gillard and Smith wanting to save upfront expenditure at greater cost later, ASCs fault, RAN only has one submarine available due to a number of boats being laid up prior to FCD by both Howard and Rudd governments due to crewing and expenditure reasons, ASCs fault for not maintaining the fleet properly. I could go on.

IMHO, had ASC remained a private company, i.e. CBI and Kockums, as well as the CoA had been bought out by GD for instance, the government would never have had the balls to treat the company, or the projects it runs, as badly as they have over almost two decades.

 

[t68]

Well as far as conspiracy theories go my favorite is WA government members, of which there are many, are actively lobbying to have ASC shut down, new submarines bought from overseas and all submarine maintenance to be moved to WA.

Wait a sec, is it still a conspiracy when proven to be factual?

Its not government policy but there is a lot of pressure from the WA lobby and SAs only cabinet minister, unlike his Hawke, Keating and Howard government predecessors, or in fact the great majority of parliamentarians in general, doesn't actually give a stuff about the state he comes from or the electorate he represents.

What people forget with ASC is it is not a private company anymore, having been nationalised during the Howard years, the government is the owner and the customer and can do what they like when they like irrespective of anyone elses concepts of fairness or common sense. Subs have been a political football for decades and the ownership of ASC just makes it that much easier for this to occur as the company simply is not permitted to respond to criticism, let alone set the record straight when it is their owner, their bosses slagging them off. Just look at the AWD, it was BAE that caused the majority of the schedule slip and cost over runs but now it is somehow ASCs fault and BAE are the heros who are expected to save the day. Why? Because when BAE was criticised they were able to respond and blame everyone else but ASC were not permitted to rebut leaving BAE with the last word and no one questioning their version. When problems occur that could be blamed on government, contacting, contractors, or defence, ASC are not permitted to do so because everyone else is protected. Schedule slip due to Gillard and Smith wanting to save upfront expenditure at greater cost later, ASCs fault, RAN only has one submarine available due to a number of boats being laid up prior to FCD by both Howard and Rudd governments due to crewing and expenditure reasons, ASCs fault for not maintaining the fleet properly. I could go on.

IMHO, had ASC remained a private company, i.e. CBI and Kockums, as well as the CoA had been bought out by GD for instance, the government would never have had the balls to treat the company, or the projects it runs, as badly as they have over almost two decades.

In total agreement with everything you said above

 

[Blas de Lezo]

That would be because they have copied the deck markings used aboard the UK's Invincible class carriers and HMS Ocean.

It would be interesting to know how many RAN sailors have been serving aboard illustrious and ocean over the last few years.

The paint job looks identical to JCI , wich in turn is very similar to that of PDA.

 

[hauritz]

A senate committee wants to reopen tenders for replacing the navy's supply ships.

Committee says reopen ship tender

There may be some benefits in building in Australia, but I think the argument that these ships are probably too big to be built locally has a lot of merit. These ships will be getting up around the size of Australia's LHDs ... which of course were built overseas because of their sheer size.

Australia needs yet another budget blowout for a shipbuilding program like a hole in the head.