Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

As I understand it, the Damen 2400 is being bought by a civilian contractor to provide a service to RAN (helicopter training) but it will not be owned by RAN. Maybe it can be tasked with other duties, such as Triton has been doing, but it's primary role at least is the helicopter training one.

Thats my take on it as well, would be interesting if they did go with a mixed displacement as suggested by someone, maybe something like the Damen 2600 modified with Ceafar and single 8 cell MK41 VLS from the Anzacs for patrol our own backyard leaving the future ASW frigate and AWD for more long reaching operations.No idea if that's even feasable to do with the OPV 2600 but would be interesting

 

[Volkodav]

Thats my take on it as well, would be interesting if they did go with a mixed displacement as suggested by someone, maybe something like the Damen 2600 modified with Ceafar and single 8 cell MK41 VLS from the Anzacs for patrol our own backyard leaving the future ASW frigate and AWD for more long reaching operations.No idea if that's even feasable to do with the OPV 2600 but would be interesting

I've made the suggestion previously that it may be possible to adopt a common hull to fill a variety of roles from corvette / light frigate, using systems pulled through from the AMSD ANZACs, through OPV, with systems from the ACPBs, but also able to cover MCM and survey roles through the use of modular packs, perhaps even those the USN developed for their LCS fleet.

All doable at minimal risk, not even all that ground breaking if you look at previous examples of common platforms, Spruance, MEKO200 (different configurations for different navies, including CODAD, CODOG, CODAG options in one hull), and just look what the Danes have done with FACs, OPVs, patrol frigates, multirole command ships and now AWDs. We could surely manage a light frigate, OPV and multirole vessel on a common hull.

 

[Punta74]

Illawarra aims for navy base

I know elements of this have been discussed before, but is Port Kembla relocation actually considered a possibility for RAN ?

Does it have deep water access, and plenty space for infrastructure ?

What is actually there now, i assume the Illawarra proposal is for the old Bluescope Steel site ?

 

[t68]

Illawarra aims for navy base

I know elements of this have been discussed before, but is Port Kembla relocation actually considered a possibility for RAN ?

Does it have deep water access, and plenty space for infrastructure ?

What is actually there now, i assume the Illawarra proposal is for the old Bluescope Steel site ?

No idea about the location but I would suspect it could be remodelled to RAN requirments. I question the article assumption that FBE will no longer be suitable to the RAN in the future or is it another case of the cruise ship people putting words into people's forethought's

 

[StevoJH]

No idea about the location but I would suspect it could be remodelled to RAN requirments. I question the article assumption that FBE will no longer be suitable to the RAN in the future or is it another case of the cruise ship people putting words into people's forethought's

Maybe if the City of Sydney is willing to pay 100% of the relocation costs? Which would add up into the Billions (with a big 'B').

 

[t68]

Maybe if the City of Sydney is willing to pay 100% of the relocation costs? Which would add up into the Billions (with a big 'B').

Well clover likes to splash the money around on her pet projects, maybe this might be right up her alley.

 

[Bluey 006]

Well clover likes to splash the money around on her pet projects, maybe this might be right up her alley.

If they are going to move FBE , really, it sould go North - I think Rudd had the right idea with wanting to move it to Brisbane

 

[alexsa]

If they are going to move FBE , really, it sould go North - I think Rudd had the right idea with wanting to move it to Brisbane

This has been discussed in this thread in the past and there are some very good reasons why Brisbane would not be ideal. The time advantage in making a transit from Sydney compared to Brisbane is not significant while Brisbane as a port is a difficult entry and the facilities could not be constructed easily.

The Captain Cook dock is the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere and would be a hellishly expensive job in itself.

Finally FBE has been there much longer than the small group of bleating residents. I do not see why Navy and its Sailors should be turfed out because Sydney council sold the figure pier and the Darling harbour pier for expensive housing for profit

 

[t68]

This has been discussed in this thread in the past and there are some very good reasons why Brisbane would not be ideal. The time advantage in making a transit from Sydney compared to Brisbane is not significant while Brisbane as a port is a difficult entry and the facilities could not be constructed easily.

The Captain Cook dock is the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere and would be a hellishly expensive job in itself.

Finally FBE has been there much longer than the small group of bleating residents. I do not see why Navy and its Sailors should be turfed out because Sydney council sold the figure pier and the Darling harbour pier for expensive housing for profit

Oh I agree whole heartily if FBE still meets the needs of the RAN they should not move unless they out grow it. If I remember correctly AG said something about greenfield site and it's costs and also the point was to split the submarine basing between East and West and where the continential shelf drops away to deep water, that's why Sydney made a good point for the silent service as they drop into deep water just past the heads.

In regards to the LHD question basing from Sydney it is where majority of the supplier 's are to support them. If the need for a quick deployment was need overseas with the troops in the far north it was said the travel time will help with the logistics so the the ground force element will have time to gather their equipment and stores in a timely manner for embarkation.

 

[Bluey 006]

Oh I agree whole heartily if FBE still meets the needs of the RAN they should not move unless they out grow it. If I remember correctly AG said something about greenfield site and it's costs and also the point was to split the submarine basing between East and West and where the continential shelf drops away to deep water, that's why Sydney made a good point for the silent service as they drop into deep water just past the heads.

In regards to the LHD question basing from Sydney it is where majority of the supplier 's are to support them. If the need for a quick deployment was need overseas with the troops in the far north it was said the travel time will help with the logistics so the the ground force element will have time to gather their equipment and stores in a timely manner for embarkation.

I am not suggesting they should or would move FBE!!! , perhaps I wasn't clear enough. But if for some reason they did decide to move it, given the huge cost, it should be North rather than South to Illawarra.

 

[t68]

I am not suggesting they should or would move FBE!!! , perhaps I wasn't clear enough. But if for some reason they did decide to move it, given the huge cost, it should be North rather than South to Illawarra.

I guess that comes down to availability of land and what type of operations they want to conduct from there and how self sustaining they want to be. Once upon a time the RAN had the sub pens the main fleet base and smaller mine and patrol base as well as fuel replenishment wharf.

With the impending build of the new international airport if they had the foresight to build it large enough AG proposed that the new fleet base could be at the current Kingstord Smith airport with enough room for all the East fleet assets and FAA collocating the ASW helicopters within the confines of its host shipping and also has the potential to accommodate No 84 wing RAAF, but we're talking big $$$ to do all this.

 

[Bluey 006]

I guess that comes down to availability of land and what type of operations they want to conduct from there and how self sustaining they want to be. Once upon a time the RAN had the sub pens the main fleet base and smaller mine and patrol base as well as fuel replenishment wharf.

With the impending build of the new international airport if they had the foresight to build it large enough AG proposed that the new fleet base could be at the current Kingstord Smith airport with enough room for all the East fleet assets and FAA collocating the ASW helicopters within the confines of its host shipping and also has the potential to accommodate No 84 wing RAAF, but we're talking big $$$ to do all this.

Agreed, the cost of such a relocation would be prohibitive. That said if we get OPVs or something similar, moving FBE North may make more sense - perhaps Port of Bundaberg or Port of Gladstone (deep water ports with plenty of land). If that were to happen, and major surface units went North perhaps some subs could be collocated with CDTs and Mine Warfare at HMAS Waterhen (or a reduced Garden Island facility)

Do I think it will happen - NO , should it happen (in the near term) -NO

What i do think is a higher priority is enhancing RAN facilities and presence in Northern WA - perhaps Broome, Dampier (Karratha) or Port Headland

 

[ASSAIL]

What i do think is a higher priority is enhancing RAN facilities and presence in Northern WA - perhaps Broome, Dampier (Karratha) or Port Headland

Broome is totally unsuitable for any further development. The total lack of infrastructure, the isolation, 10 metre tides and zero industrial base rules it out. Further, the weather during the wet (cyclone season) precludes any basing as shelter is non existent. For the last 35 years I have been sending our ships North from Broome anchorages to hide in inlets in Yampi sound to shelter from cyclones, a common event, a distance of 140 odd miles away.

Dampier and Port Hedland are within what is known locally as "Cyclone Alley" but both are busy ports with little suitable shelter and long, shallow channels.

In all cases, the cost of building anything suitable for use by the RAN is prohibitive and gains little c.f. further development of FBW and Darwin.

There is a government project about to commence in Darwin port that will provide a fit for purpose ramp/barge landing that will enable the embarkation to LHD's of equipment when the wharves may be unsuitable or unavailable.

 

[Bluey 006]

Broome is totally unsuitable for any further development. The total lack of infrastructure, the isolation, 10 metre tides and zero industrial base rules it out. Further, the weather during the wet (cyclone season) precludes any basing as shelter is non existent. For the last 35 years I have been sending our ships North from Broome anchorages to hide in inlets in Yampi sound to shelter from cyclones, a common event, a distance of 140 odd miles away.

Dampier and Port Hedland are within what is known locally as "Cyclone Alley" but both are busy ports with little suitable shelter and long, shallow channels.

In all cases, the cost of building anything suitable for use by the RAN is prohibitive and gains little c.f. further development of FBW and Darwin.

There is a government project about to commence in Darwin port that will provide a fit for purpose ramp/barge landing that will enable the embarkation to LHD's of equipment when the wharves may be unsuitable or unavailable.

Points taken, I knew someone would raise the "cyclone alley" argument (one could say the same about HMAS Cairns though).

That said, ACPB are forward deployed in Dampier are they not?

My suggestion is for moderate enhancements facilities to support this forward deployment and or periodic deployment of other minor warfare assets - Not build a major base there

 

[Punta74]

US approves $275m sustainment support for Australia’s Hobart-class destroyer - Naval Technology

Interesting too in addition to this sustainment support, Seven News Adelaide sent a tweet this afternoon with a picture showing all the scaffolding removed around Hobart, she must be very close to launch.

 

[Volkodav]

If the RAN switches to OPVs their greater range and better sea keeping would likely remove the need for forward basing. OPVs could quite easily be based at Darwin, Perth and Sydney and provide greater coverage than the current PBs.

 

[Joe Black]

US approves $275m sustainment support for Australia’s Hobart-class destroyer - Naval Technology

Interesting too in addition to this sustainment support, Seven News Adelaide sent a tweet this afternoon with a picture showing all the scaffolding removed around Hobart, she must be very close to launch.

Saw this photo:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UWlJAPVTw.../qH4yooiLnVo/s1600/f0205060_51125ff3ad643.jpg

 

[peterAustralia]

pretty sure that photo is a rendering, not a photo

As far as Port Kembla for the Navy, the outer harbour is quite large. If the Navy wants in, they better do their stuff soon, as there is a new development proposed.

There are two vacant areas, one to the west of the Grain terminal (inner harbour) , and a potentially much much larger one on the south side of the outer harbour


Its been a long time since I have been to the Port Kembla harbour. I remember the wharves on the South side, not really used much these days. That is where the new container port is proposed. Its been a long time (25 years) since I was at Garden Island, looking at google maps, GI is about 1km x 500m approx.

There is this space available in Port Kembla harbour, if the Navy acts soon. The steel works is still there (the south west corner) and not going anywhere. To the north in the inner harbour there is the grain handling terminal, there is a vacant 'future development area to the west of the grain terminal, but I think it is a fraction too small, not in terms of area, but in meters of wharf space.

There might be spare land south of Old Port Road and foreshore road There is some industry there, but that could be moved if even more space was wanted. This would allow for heaps of future expansion space if needed

a few images that give an idea of the space in the harbour. Plenty of space for many large ships, (all the fleet if need be) if the Navy goes faster than the container port. I dont think the container port work has started,,, just plans as yet, but once that is go, the only space left will be the smaller area to the west of the grain terminal



Trouble is that all this costs money,,, and that seems is short supply
There is an old miilitary reserve (now nature reserve) to the SE of the port. The secret squirrell mob could put there sensors and high tech stuff there.

Wollongong is a bit over an hour commute from Sydney, would allow people to work in Wollongong and keep their family in Sydney. One day they might smooth out those darn bends on the rail line between Helensberg and Coledale, and save a good 20 minutes on the train ride (need a long straight tunnel), very much worth doing IMHO (not cheap, but would be awesome for Wollongong)

a few images of the harbour to get an idea of what it looks like. So yes Port Kembla harbour is feasable, trouble is that I think the Navy has left it too late, even if they wanted to move (and thats a big if). I am not sure if the Navy wants to move, and they may not enjoy being relocated next to a yucky steel works.


some images of what the harbour looks like

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/images/maritime/property-planning/leasing/kembla-aerial-lg.gif

Outer Harbour development gets the go ahead : Port Kembla Port Corporation

https://cdn.fairfaxregional.com.au/storypad-fCYJja9iKCnEpjnTRSxRRL/port_kembla_harbour_expansion.jpg

http://transform.fairfaxregional.co...75bb61.jpg/r0_0_3862_2171_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg


the vacant area in the north inner harbour (proposed development), further away from the steel works, might be more pleasant, but wharf space would be limited to about four large ships (that aint enough?). I guess they could put in another wharf, allow 8 ships at any one time if need be

http://www.portstrategy.com/__data/assets/image/0010/189253/ps20060901_09.jpg

 

[peterAustralia]

Correction, the north area might already be developed, though the development is just car unloading wharves and a lot of flat area. I think this area is a fraction too small

AAT Ports

Berth 103: LOA = 180m, Bd = 50m, Draft = 12.2 + tide – 0.3m
Berth 105: LOA = 190m, Bd = 50m, Draft = 15.70 + tide – 0.3m
Berth 106: LOA = 190m, Bd = 50m, Draft = 13.90 + tide – 0.3m
Berth 107: LOA = 260m, Bd = 32.5m, Draft = 12.3 + tide - 0.3m

Qube | Port Kembla Facility
(superb map in NW corner of this link)

So for the north area, AAT would need to be kicked out, plus a drydock built, but it is feasible, compensation would have to be paid though. The other area is to the south in the outer harbour, in theory a very large navy base, but very expensive, could easily be twice the size of garden island.

 

[Volkodav]

Hobarts launch is imminent, i.e. before the end of May. News on another rebaselining of AWD is hardly surprising as decisions made to cut upfront costs by not hiring and training sufficient workers to undertake work on multiple ships (they struggle to work on multiple similar blocks) means it is impossible to conduct concurrent work. Millions have been spent on "experts" and consultants but stuff all on actual trades, technicians and staff who actually do the work. There are teams that are literally one third the size they are meant to be and many examples of one or two people trying to do the work planned for several.