Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't be surprised if in the future some of the ships are forward deployed to Darwin or so (on a rotational basis).

Have heard chatter of the US wanting to station some ship's (Amphib's, replenishment ships etc) so not hard to imagine the RAN making greater use of Darwin.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
koala said:
Your correct Stingray, with the lockout laws in Kings Cross the Cross would go broke without all those American sailors and Porky's strip club would be empty.

But it was an impressive site to see HMAS Canberra close up as the ferry master navigated nearly alongside Canberra
Click to expand...
Remember seeing HMS Illustrious at Portsmouth many years ago and while impressive, did not appear as big as I was expecting. HMAS Canberra on the other hand really is an impressive site particularly next to sister ship Adelaide.
Big ships with nice lines they really command the Williamstown sky line in a nice way.
Lucky Sydney their your gain.
Maybe, we could just move FBE to Melbourne!!!
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
vonnoobie said:
Wouldn't be surprised if in the future some of the ships are forward deployed to Darwin or so (on a rotational basis).

Have heard chatter of the US wanting to station some ship's (Amphib's, replenishment ships etc) so not hard to imagine the RAN making greater use of Darwin.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there is not enough wharf infrastructure in Darwin to accommodate a permanent presence of larger vessels. The current wharves are busy with commercial work, cruise ships and the new customs Cape class which don't have any permanent berths.

The solution would be to construct a frigate berth at DNB (which has been discussed but discarded as too costly but, depending upon the DWP announcements, it may be built to support a larger ACPB replacement.

The LHD's will have to depend on commercial berth availability which can't be guaranteed year round. The Port Corporation makes an effort to provide some space during major exercises such as Talisman Sabre and previously , the Kangaroo series.

Overall, the permanent rotational presence would need a substantial capital injection by DoD and that could be better spent on other projects unless additional funds can be found in the North Australia White Paper as part of the Darwin Port expansion project.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ASSAIL said:
The problem is that there is not enough wharf infrastructure in Darwin to accommodate a permanent presence of larger vessels. The current wharves are busy with commercial work, cruise ships and the new customs Cape class which don't have any permanent berths.

The solution would be to construct a frigate berth at DNB (which has been discussed but discarded as too costly but, depending upon the DWP announcements, it may be built to support a larger ACPB replacement.

The LHD's will have to depend on commercial berth availability which can't be guaranteed year round. The Port Corporation makes an effort to provide some space during major exercises such as Talisman Sabre and previously , the Kangaroo series.

Overall, the permanent rotational presence would need a substantial capital injection by DoD and that could be better spent on other projects unless additional funds can be found in the North Australia White Paper as part of the Darwin Port expansion project.
Click to expand...
Interestingly there have been some questions in political circles relation to what sort of projects Darwin should be looking to secure now the construction phase of Inpex is winding up. I have heard things along the lines of what facilities would be needed to support OPVs instead of PBs, why are PBs being maintained in Brisbane, Perth and Singapore instead of Darwin, what sort of facilities would the USN be likely to make use of etc. Very early days but they are the right questions and who knows.

I should add that several years ago elements in ASC were interested in establishing a support capability for submarines in Darwin to provide more timely support to deployed vessels and possibly even provide for assisted maintenance periods in Darwin. This didn't progress as the required investment was not there, even though it would have improved availability and reduced costs in the long term, as well as possibly providing a foot in the door supporting the submarines of friendly nations as well.
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
True would have to be quite a sizeable investment, Though one that I imagine the USN would be willing to share a slice in since they are interested in it, Assuming of course they are allowed a permanent base in Australia.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
vonnoobie said:
True would have to be quite a sizeable investment, Though one that I imagine the USN would be willing to share a slice in since they are interested in it, Assuming of course they are allowed a permanent base in Australia.
Click to expand...
No US bases or permanently based forces but a continual rotation maintaining a pretty much permanent presence. Same overall effect but with less political baggage.

The key is ensuring whatever facilities and infrastructure are large and flexible enough to not only cover our current planned requirements but realistic future needs and conceivable opportunities supporting friends and allies. The ideal would also have sufficient capacity to undertake commercial work once the required capabilities and efficiencies have been achieved. Contrary to what many believe, international competitiveness in shipbuilding has more to do with exchange rates and than anything else, with skilled labour costing pretty much the same no matter where you go. Generally speaking anywhere that is substantially cheaper either has substantially better infrastructure, large subsidies or cut corners on quality and safety.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
vonnoobie said:
True would have to be quite a sizeable investment, Though one that I imagine the USN would be willing to share a slice in since they are interested in it, Assuming of course they are allowed a permanent base in Australia.
Click to expand...
The USN will never be allowed a permanent naval base in the North, its politically toxic
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
ASSAIL said:
The USN will never be allowed a permanent naval base in the North, its politically toxic
Click to expand...
Does the USN need a permanent base in Australia? I don't see how that helps USN or RAN as it would add calls that we can further defund the RAN.

They have numerous permanent based around the world in more relevant strategic locations. Australia isn't threatened in the same way as other countries with a permanent base, or been a US colony or protectorate.

Sydney still makes sense, as far as away as it seems. Its less of a commercial port so it may actually be easier to get large warships access to the harbour than previously. There is actually a lot of room in the harbour and most of the time it isn't actually used. RAN and ADF have been quite happy to share resources to make the most of it.

Its not even that far to move things to Creswell or North to Brisbane. Its not like there is just one port on the east coast of Australia.
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Fair point's, No need for any permanent base at least for the foreseeable future though the current facilities in Darwin I imagine they will have to be expanded in any case to make them usable for the future OCV's?

Thinking about it if the USN did want a permanent base (And we agreed) more likely location would be Perth with an aim of better supporting there nuclear vessels (I believe a US think tank proposed this once before?).
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
NUSHIP Adelaide

Hi all

Has anyone seen anything on mainstream media or the net about NUSHIP Adelaide commencing Maker's Sea Trials?

marinetraffic.com has her about 60km ENE of Jervis Bay and heading NE at 11kts

If my memory is correct, HMAS Canberra trialed up to Jervis Bay, then returned to Williamstown for remedial work before further trials to FBE, docking and a paint job several months later. I'm curious to discover whether a similar pattern will apply (excepting hopefully not so much remediation work)

oldsig127
 
S

Stock

Member
oldsig127 said:
Hi all

Has anyone seen anything on mainstream media or the net about NUSHIP Adelaide commencing Maker's Sea Trials?

marinetraffic.com has her about 60km ENE of Jervis Bay and heading NE at 11kts

If my memory is correct, HMAS Canberra trialed up to Jervis Bay, then returned to Williamstown for remedial work before further trials to FBE, docking and a paint job several months later. I'm curious to discover whether a similar pattern will apply (excepting hopefully not so much remediation work)

oldsig127
Click to expand...
News release below from BAE Systems this morning:

News
23 June 2015

NUSHIP Adelaide commences sea trials

Williamstown, Victoria: NUSHIP Adelaide, one of two Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships being built for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), left BAE Systems Williamstown (17 June) to begin sea trials.

After some initial trials in Port Phillip Bay, NUSHIP Adelaide will spend ten days on the water travelling to Sydney.

The current testing precedes a second period of sea trials in August, ahead of delivery to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) later this year. The sea trials are conducted under a number of scenarios; some require the ship in certain conditions and/or water depths while others require the ship’s systems in specific configurations.

In Sydney, NUSHIP Adelaide will be dry docked so her hull and flight deck can be cleaned and painted.

She will then set sail and undertake more sea trials on the return voyage to Williamstown, arriving in mid-July. The August sea trials will focus on communication and combat systems.

BAE Systems Director of Maritime, Bill Saltzer said: “We will undertake approximately 240 hours of testing over 20 days to ensure all systems perform to their capability. Some of the trials will run concurrently and cover everything from basic systems operations such as alarms, to the ship’s manoeuvrability while at sea. We are on track to deliver NUSHIP Adelaide at the end of September this year. The ship is even more ready than HMAS Canberra was for her first sea trials, reinforcing that we have implemented lessons learned from the first of class and we have continued to improve our productivity.”

The LHDs are the largest warships ever to be built for the RAN. As the prime contractor, BAE Systems has worked closely with the Defence Materiel Organisation to deliver the project with subcontractors Navantia, which constructed the hulls in Spain, SAAB and L3 which supplied the combat and communications systems respectively.
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Stock said:
News release below from BAE Systems this morning:

News
23 June 2015

NUSHIP Adelaide commences sea trials

Williamstown, Victoria: NUSHIP Adelaide, one of two Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships being built for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), left BAE Systems Williamstown (17 June) to begin sea trials.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I checked BAE yesterday, and nothing there though the tracker showed her in Jervis Bay.

I am pleased that the experience with HMAS Canberra has accelerated matters, as it certainly should, because it may reduce the amount of uninformed nonsense in the press. I shudder when I see reports of "thousands of defects" when I know from experience that they can range from major to something as simple as a misaligned label or tiny unpainted area. Naturally the naysayers always assume that every defect is liable to sink the ship

oldsif127
 
S

Stock

Member
oldsig127 said:
Thanks. I checked BAE yesterday, and nothing there though the tracker showed her in Jervis Bay.

I am pleased that the experience with HMAS Canberra has accelerated matters, as it certainly should, because it may reduce the amount of uninformed nonsense in the press. I shudder when I see reports of "thousands of defects" when I know from experience that they can range from major to something as simple as a misaligned label or tiny unpainted area. Naturally the naysayers always assume that every defect is liable to sink the ship

oldsif127
Click to expand...
No dramas.

And agree all.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
oldsig127 said:
Thanks. I checked BAE yesterday, and nothing there though the tracker showed her in Jervis Bay.

I am pleased that the experience with HMAS Canberra has accelerated matters, as it certainly should, because it may reduce the amount of uninformed nonsense in the press. I shudder when I see reports of "thousands of defects" when I know from experience that they can range from major to something as simple as a misaligned label or tiny unpainted area. Naturally the naysayers always assume that every defect is liable to sink the ship

oldsif127
Click to expand...
What ,no LHD"s in Port Phillip Bay.
Disappointed.
Is there much work on at Williamstown at the moment?
The workforce down there must be feeling some pain regardless of what Australias intended ship building direction is going to be..
Winners / losers, it's always difficult.
 
Joe Black

Joe Black

Active Member
Stock said:
News release below from BAE Systems this morning:

News
23 June 2015

NUSHIP Adelaide commences sea trials

Williamstown, Victoria: NUSHIP Adelaide, one of two Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships being built for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), left BAE Systems Williamstown (17 June) to begin sea trials.

After some initial trials in Port Phillip Bay, NUSHIP Adelaide will spend ten days on the water travelling to Sydney.

The current testing precedes a second period of sea trials in August, ahead of delivery to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) later this year. The sea trials are conducted under a number of scenarios; some require the ship in certain conditions and/or water depths while others require the ship’s systems in specific configurations.

In Sydney, NUSHIP Adelaide will be dry docked so her hull and flight deck can be cleaned and painted.

She will then set sail and undertake more sea trials on the return voyage to Williamstown, arriving in mid-July. The August sea trials will focus on communication and combat systems.

BAE Systems Director of Maritime, Bill Saltzer said: “We will undertake approximately 240 hours of testing over 20 days to ensure all systems perform to their capability. Some of the trials will run concurrently and cover everything from basic systems operations such as alarms, to the ship’s manoeuvrability while at sea. We are on track to deliver NUSHIP Adelaide at the end of September this year. The ship is even more ready than HMAS Canberra was for her first sea trials, reinforcing that we have implemented lessons learned from the first of class and we have continued to improve our productivity.”

The LHDs are the largest warships ever to be built for the RAN. As the prime contractor, BAE Systems has worked closely with the Defence Materiel Organisation to deliver the project with subcontractors Navantia, which constructed the hulls in Spain, SAAB and L3 which supplied the combat and communications systems respectively.
Click to expand...

A nice photo of her in the link below:
LHD Adelaide Begins Sea Trials | Naval Today
 
R

rockitten

Member
Punta74 said:
Government to bridge shipbuilding valley of death with rolling build of future frigates and offshore patrol vessels | News.com.au


Newscorp seem to think the rolling build will be 9 frigates + OPV. Announcement on potential continuous plan may be clarified prior to release of DWP.
Click to expand...
So we are going to build the OPV (for a few years) first, then build 9 ANZAC replacment (2X9 = 18 years), and after that, just in time for the oiler, LPD and AWD replacments?

Sounds great it that really comes true
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top