Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Hey guys I came across a couple of articles today regarding the RAN.

First one talks about the feasibility of F35B of the Canberras and the likelyhood of it happening:
F-35 jump jets for navy landing ships not worth the cost, study finds - 9news.com.au

The second one talks about the german option for the subs seemingly gaining some traction too:
No Cookies | Herald Sun

Now I realise that that these are coming from mainstream media hopefully they were somewhat diligent in getting some sources this time.

its what all the defprofs and most of the senior members on here have been saying for months on end.

 

[weegee]

its what all the defprofs and most of the senior members on here have been saying for months on end.

Haha yeah it only takes "well informed" general media for people to believe what the Def Pros have been saying for so long. :hitwall

 

[John Newman]

An article on the Defence website about the decommissioning of the last three LCH:

Defence Ministers » Assistant Minister for Defence

Not really new news in itself, but there was mention of the six LCH replacements:

“Between them Brunei, Labuan and Tarakan have seen more than 120 years of service moving large amounts of cargo, personnel and equipment from larger ships to shore, often to areas that would otherwise be unreachable,” Mr Robert said.

“The Balikpapan Class vessels will be replaced by six new heavy landing craft that will have improved ocean going capabilities and be able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores and personnel.”

No other details, but that seems to indicate that a new class of larger LCH will still be included in the upcoming 2015 DWP.

 

[Milne Bay]

An article on the Defence website about the decommissioning of the last three LCH:

Defence Ministers » Assistant Minister for Defence

Not really new news in itself, but there was mention of the six LCH replacements:



No other details, but that seems to indicate that a new class of larger LCH will still be included in the upcoming 2015 DWP.

I have often wondered what would replace the Balikpapan class.
What again defies belief is that the gov't needs a white paper to tell it that replacements are necessary. Further - and again this beggars belief - why weren't these ships replaced as they were de-commissioned?
Once again we will have a class of ships gone with nothing replacing them for some time. How many times have we seen this in the RAN !!!

Rant off!
MB

 

[John Newman]

I have often wondered what would replace the Balikpapan class.
What again defies belief is that the gov't needs a white paper to tell it that replacements are necessary. Further - and again this beggars belief - why weren't these ships replaced as they were de-commissioned?
Once again we will have a class of ships gone with nothing replacing them for some time. How many times have we seen this in the RAN !!!

Rant off!
MB

To be fair to the current Government they have only been in power for a bit over a year (not trying to defend them, but that is a fact).

The real questions should be:

* Why during the six previous years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments did they order not one single ship for the Navy? Not one, nil, zero, zip!!
* Why during the period of the GFC didn't they invest a few $Billion in infrastructure expanding Techport so that the two AOR replacements could be built there?
* Why didn't they order the two AOR replacements?
* Why didn't they order a 4th AWD as a GFC job's creation measure at the very least, and give breathing space to the 'valley of death' at least?
* And as you say, why not order the replacement class of LCH?

There are way too many other 'why' questions too!! The answer is, they were way too busy stabbing each other in the back to bother running the bloody country!!


Again not defending this current mob (yes they are politicians too!), but at least we seem to be seeing some action over the last 12 months or so:

* Tenders for the replacement of Success and Sirius are in the process of being done.
* Money being allocated to investigate the suitability of modifying the F-105 hull for the Future Frigate, if successful, then block construction will start at the completion of the AWD's, saving jobs in shipbuilding.
* Selection process for the Collins replacements, yes we don't know what type, or where they will be built or how many, but at least they seem to be serious about starting the process.

Again, not defending the current mob, but at least things seem to be happening, not like the previous 'six' years where nothing happened!!

Happy to still keep ranting!!!!

 

[StingrayOZ]

Again, not defending the current mob, but at least things seem to be happening, not like the previous 'six' years where nothing happened!!

Happy to still keep ranting!!!!

Well to be fair it would be pretty hard to do less than nothing.

Although under the original Rudd, they released a pretty powerful white paper that still guides us today. Its not the same as building anything, but it is something. I think we will all be very interested what the next whitepaper will have. I hope the 12 subs, the future frigate and the OCV's remain.

To be honest though I don't think Milne Bay or anyone else was insinuating that the current government weren't doing anything.

I think we were just happy to see some announcement that the project wasn't completely dead. Its not like those ships didn't get much use. 120 years of service from 4 ships seems like good value.

 

[John Newman]

Well to be fair it would be pretty hard to do less than nothing.

Although under the original Rudd, they released a pretty powerful white paper that still guides us today. Its not the same as building anything, but it is something. I think we will all be very interested what the next whitepaper will have. I hope the 12 subs, the future frigate and the OCV's remain.

To be honest though I don't think Milne Bay or anyone else was insinuating that the current government weren't doing anything.

I think we were just happy to see some announcement that the project wasn't completely dead. Its not like those ships didn't get much use. 120 years of service from 4 ships seems like good value.

Stingray,

I wasn't specifically having a go at MB (sorry if it came across as that), but more the fact that when I've heard, numerous times, lack of decisions by 'the' Government, well it comes down to 'which' Government has been in control!

If in 3 or 6 years time 'this' Government hasn't done anything for the Navy (or defence in general), then I'll be happy to stand my place in the line and give them a kicking too!

When it came to the Rudd DWP of 2009 I was impressed too, even for a non-Labor voter, but unfortunately the Rudd DWP today still remains to be 'words on a piece of paper' and nothing more because by the time we got to the Gillard 2013 DWP things had seemed to either have gone backwards or been pushed forward into the 'never, never', especially the OCV's for example.

We still have to wait at least the next 6 months before we see the new DWP and DCP, but at least the indications are that, as far as the Navy is concerned, that things seem to be moving in the right direction.

* The 8 Future Frigates seems to be a go (if we go back a couple of years, then Labor Def Min Smith was talking about 'half a dozen' Future Frigates, now it seem to be back up to eight).
* The two replacement for the AOR's seems to be happening.
* The above article seems to indicate that the 6 LCH are still on the table.
* The Collins replacement seems to be being taken seriously, etc.

 

[rand0m]

I have often wondered what would replace the Balikpapan class.
MB

Probably something along the lines of the BMT Caimen 200 (I'd like to see one with a helipad bult in).

Whilst I'm sure are far larger in both size & crew requirements, the Makassar class are apparently very cheap. The Philippines have purchased two for $92m USD.

Weren't the Koreans offering 3 AOR replacements for the price of 2 a while back?

 

[Bluey 006]

Stingray,

I wasn't specifically having a go at MB (sorry if it came across as that), but more the fact that when I've heard, numerous times, lack of decisions by 'the' Government, well it comes down to 'which' Government has been in control!

If in 3 or 6 years time 'this' Government hasn't done anything for the Navy (or defence in general), then I'll be happy to stand my place in the line and give them a kicking too!

When it came to the Rudd DWP of 2009 I was impressed too, even for a non-Labor voter, but unfortunately the Rudd DWP today still remains to be 'words on a piece of paper' and nothing more because by the time we got to the Gillard 2013 DWP things had seemed to either have gone backwards or been pushed forward into the 'never, never', especially the OCV's for example.

We still have to wait at least the next 6 months before we see the new DWP and DCP, but at least the indications are that, as far as the Navy is concerned, that things seem to be moving in the right direction.

* The 8 Future Frigates seems to be a go (if we go back a couple of years, then Labor Def Min Smith was talking about 'half a dozen' Future Frigates, now it seem to be back up to eight).
* The two replacement for the AOR's seems to be happening.
* The above article seems to indicate that the 6 LCH are still on the table.
* The Collins replacement seems to be being taken seriously, etc.

Other than Cost, any idea why they wouldn't go for 9 Future Frigates? To stick with the ‘rule of three/rule of thirds’ i.e: One will be in maintenance/refit, One will be training/preparing for a deployment and One will be available for deployment or deployed. Meaning the at all times at least three Future frigates would be available.

I'd suggest nine should be the minimum ...especially given that a lot of the time it is highly likely one will be involved in multinational global security operations i.e Persian gulf, anti-piracy etc

This leaves two and an AWD for all the other tasks including protecting the LHDs if they need to be deployed to anything other than humanitarian operations. Even two Future frigates and a single AWD (probably a sub also) seems a little light to defend a LHD with 1000+ troops...

Just saying...

 

[John Newman]

Weren't the Koreans offering 3 AOR replacements for the price of 2 a while back?

From memory, the offer of 3 AOR's was back a couple of years ago by ASC when they were partnering with the South Koreans and the UK ship designers.

Again from memory, ASC was offering a deal where the first two ships would be built in SK and the third in Adelaide, with block work offered to Williamstown and Newcastle.

It was sort of their way of saying 'hey, here's a solution to the Valley of Death', have two built O/S (fills the Navy's requirements) and we build a third here in Oz.

The main problem I see with that offer was that it would have also required the Federal Government (of the time) and the SA Stage Government to actually throw some dollars at expanding Techport for such a thing to happen.

 

[Volkodav]

As I understand it the reason for the delay in the replacement of the LCHs is the need to free up crews for the 12 new LCM1Es, otherwise the Hs could have easily continued on for another decade or until their replacement was ready.

Now that said, the inaction under Gillard and Smith was unforgivable, a pair of left wing lawyers who only cared about wheeling and dealing, making agreements and producing"clever" fixes rather than sensible solutions. Gut feeling, but for the fact Gillard, Swan and others were already undermining Rudd, there would have been a fourth AWD, two or three AORs, a submarine decision and an accelerated OCV project all underway by now, we would also likely still have an automotive industry going forward. I believe we would likely still have a Coalition government by now or at least by 2016, but they would have been handed an economy in much better shape, if only because we would have avoided wasting three years with a hung parliament that gave far too much oxygen to the Greens, independents , a corrupt Labor and a lazy ex-Liberal MP.

With SEA4000 being brought forward we don't need a fourth AWD anymore as, if we are smart, the new frigates could actually end up with an above par air defence capability. An expanded CEAFAR, or even an AUSPAR system could deliver near AEGIS performance, especially if tied in with CEC and SM-6 in a large enough VLS.

 

[Joe Black]

Australia wants new Japan propulsion system for its submarines: sources

Interesting to see that Japanese drive-train is almost certainly going to feature in the new subs.

While the French is trying to market their new Fuel Cell technology to Australia

DCNS opens a subsidiary in Australia to better market its SMX OCEAN SSK for the RAN

 

[Bluey 006]

Australia wants new Japan propulsion system for its submarines: sources

Interesting to see that Japanese drive-train is almost certainly going to feature in the new subs.

While the French is trying to market their new Fuel Cell technology to Australia

DCNS opens a subsidiary in Australia to better market its SMX OCEAN SSK for the RAN

http://defensetech.org/2014/10/24/navy-makes-submarines-quieter-more-stealthy/

Wonder if we will get access to said noise reduction technologies and coatings?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wonder if we will get access to said noise reduction technologies and coatings?

no

thats why we developed our own
thats why we have exports on our tech for 3 other foreign submarine types and a couple of surface vessels

there is however some tech sharing re subs on a very tight circle of friends

 

[Volkodav]

From memory, the offer of 3 AOR's was back a couple of years ago by ASC when they were partnering with the South Koreans and the UK ship designers.

Again from memory, ASC was offering a deal where the first two ships would be built in SK and the third in Adelaide, with block work offered to Williamstown and Newcastle.

It was sort of their way of saying 'hey, here's a solution to the Valley of Death', have two built O/S (fills the Navy's requirements) and we build a third here in Oz.

The main problem I see with that offer was that it would have also required the Federal Government (of the time) and the SA Stage Government to actually throw some dollars at expanding Techport for such a thing to happen.

The ASC proposal is more than a couple of years old, not sure when it was put forward initially, but when it reappeared it was literally a case of dusting off the original. ASC seem to have a better idea of what the RAN needs and when than the government does and has proposals ready to go. My favourite is still a Type 45 with SPY 3.

 

[Joe Black]

no

thats why we developed our own
thats why we have exports on our tech for 3 other foreign submarine types and a couple of surface vessels

there is however some tech sharing re subs on a very tight circle of friends

Really? 3 foreign countries? I thought only Singapore has our technology. Why do we sell it to others? Isn't this some top secret stuff?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Really? 3 foreign countries? I thought only Singapore has our technology. Why do we sell it to others? Isn't this some top secret stuff?

A recent and interesting story about sub IP.

Asia tensions:Japan, US move toward joint submarine development with Australia- Nikkei Asian Review

"The hurdle for cooperating with another country in anything related to submarines is high," Japanese officials noted. "It is on a different level to cooperation on fighter jets and warships."

Submarines are the most closely guarded military secrets among countries that own them. Their ability to move undetected can sway military balance. Even between Japan and the U.S., only a fraction of the information collected by submarines is shared. The two countries do not share any information on their submarines' current locations or capabilities.

Inside the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, "a submarine's location and route are not revealed to even the crew's families and their colleagues," according to a high-ranking officer.

Considering the high-level of secrecy surrounding submarines, providing technologies implies Japan and the U.S. place full trust in Australia, and are ready to become its closest allies. This extraordinary development has come about because of China's efforts to bolster its submarine fleet.

This is really the first story where it reads like how I would expect the relationship to work. Not about the Japanese building turn key subs.

However I love this little statement.

"Australia will be in charge of the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea," he added. "Japan will mainly handle the East China Sea. With the U.S. participating in and leading trilateral cooperation, it will be possible to effectively respond to movements of Chinese submarines."

Ok, what sort of Navy do we need to "handle" the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.

 

[Volkodav]

Ok, what sort of Navy do we need to "handle" the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Probably the sort of navy we have been planning on and off but never achieving since the end of WWII. Up to three carriers, twenty plus destroyers and frigates, eight or more submarines as well as patrol, amphibious and support vessels.

 

[t68]

Ok, what sort of Navy do we need to "handle" the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.

And escort the high value target LHD fuel tankers from SEA refinerys to oz, I believe those are our key requirments we saw how the tanker war played out and the blockade in the 60's, won't take much to make Australia sweat if the fuel didn't get thru

 

[RobWilliams]

Ok, what sort of Navy do we need to "handle" the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.

Poor wording or lost in translation IMO but trilateral cooperation to effectively keep tabs on Chinese boats doesn't seem like a bad idea, especially if they want to try create some kind of CASD posture.