Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

Can't say I agree with that. An Absalon-type ship would be useful for doing low level independent tasks to avoid having to send an expensive LHD/AWD. If you are sending a full Amphib task group, with LHDs and dedicated escorts, single role ships make far more sense - let the amphibs be amphibs and let the escorts be escorts.

yeah I agree and hear what you are saying. Absalon is multi role just like the LHD but in this case it becomes a single role for the task at hand weather carry troops for the advance elements within the ARG or extra ASW helicopters or what ever, I don't expect it to carry out all the requirements of an Amphibious Assault and do all the extra at the same time

 

[oldsig127]

The LHD's are only one part of a full ARG. While difficult I believe that is actually one of the more believable parts of the full ARG. We have had personnel embedded with forces overseas, we have simulators built for the LHD the personnel have been training on for years.

It will have to be infrequently because the chances that 2xLHD's +LSD + Army + air assets are all going to be available all at the same time without severely disrupting schedules (maintenance etc) is highly unlikely. IMO the ARG should be a capability that the ADF can pull together most of the time, not something that can only occur in very special occasions planned many years in advanced. IMO it should have the capability to sustain it.

As this is EXACTLY what I said in the unquoted part of my post, I have no argument whatever. My only concern in pointing out that Adelaide isn't even commissioned yet was that it meant that she'd almost be debuting with Army in 2017 because of the stretch full scale exercises place on already heavily committed forces. I feel that we'll mostly - and barring expansion of Army long term almost always - be exercising either/or Canberra and Adelaide.

oldsig127

 

[StingrayOZ]

With a RAN with:
2xLHD
1xLSD
6xLCH
3xAWD
8xFrigates (with AWD capabilities)
20xOCV/OPV's ~2000t Sitting somewhere between corvette and pure OPV.
12x subs

I fail to see where a very multi-role vessel if going to fit. We already have enough types of vessels that if we are deficient in an area, we would be better off purchasing more in that area.

A 3rd LHD would open the door to improving the army to be able to perform and sustain a ARG. It would also make operating the F-35B (or similar) a feasible proposition, and a significant force multiplier.

Anything a Absalon can offer can be done better with LCH and a Frigate and a OCV. IMO they are better suited to smaller navies like New Zealand (or singapore), who can then get a much larger frigate than what they would normally consider but pulling multiple roles into single ship.

Australia is moving into a different realm. As it should be. A country that can defy even the US wishes. A country that can lead a multinational mission by itself and be successful at it. Forging its own way in the world in a complicated region, with half dozen fledgling island nations 24 hrs from collapse. A country that has put itself right bang smack in the middle of issues in the SCS and between China and Japan, China and the US, and the region and China.

The time of dicking around with half measures, low cost sub 3000t frigates and limited capability conversions, is over.

 

[John Newman]

I disagree with a through deck cruiser concept.
I also disagree with heavily arming the OCV's.

If we are going to get any additional aviation focused ships it should be another LHD. Preferably enlarge with a 15-20m plug (pushing it out to 35,000t in amphibious mode). Aircraft have gotten larger and heavier and will continue to do so. Helicopters are going to give way to more V-22 type aircraft for all roles. These will have large issues operating off a ship any smaller than a LHD (which has only 1 spot for a V-22). A larger LHD will be able to land at least 2 V-22 (possibly 3). 3 LHD's will give the ADF the required amphibious capability the LHD were purchased for. A 3rd LHD would also free up capability for F-35B's. The extra length would provide additional space for fuel, aircraft, an internal lift big enough for F-35B's/helos between internal decks, greater amphibious capability etc. The length would also most likely make if faster with the existing power output.

This would allow Australia to have two LHD's available pretty much all the time. One east, one west. Or one pre-positioned north. Or one available for international missions when required. One that could operate as a full carrier (with ~24 F-35bs), and two that could offer significant carrier capability. Being a LHD we already have the infrastructure and training in place.

I disagree with turning the OCV into frigates. They would carry over the 20mm gun from existing patrol craft and the 76mm guns currently in storage from the FFG's. Perhaps a single spot for a modular Phalanx or searam type defense. Certainly ideally compatibility with LCS or container modules, able to launch dismounted systems, UAV's/UUV, RHIBs etc. While most of the time they would be used for patrol/policing duties, eez patrol, refugees, they could also be used for special forces insertion/extraction.

We will never have the funds to do 20 x corvettes or 20 x frigates properly. We could have 12 very capable tier 1 surface combatants. Trying to uparm the corvettes is going to take away from Sm-6, or Tlam or SM-3, or naval based patriot BMD missiles.

If a OCV can't handle something with a 20mm and embarked air, then it should be supported by a 7000+T frigate, with powerful radars and 32-48 VLS. With naval tlam and SM-6 that could be beyond the horizon capability.

Mate, you've pretty well read my mind (for the most part) with your list!

I agree with the bulk of what you have suggested (I do have one thing out of 'left field', yes you might think I'm mad! But I'll get to that further on).

So while everyone here is throwing in their two bobs worth (20 cents for those post decimal currency members!), I thought I'd throw my 'wish list' up too, my 'new build' ships would be:

* A third LHD, agree completely (and I've been thinking of this for a while too), a lengthened and enlarged version of the two Canberra class LHD's, I'm sure Navantia has some design concepts for such a thing too, (I'll call her HMAS Australia too!), a third LHD would allow for at least one LHD available at all times, the 'enlarged' HMAS Australia should also, apart from her amphibious duties, be capable of operating F-35B's (if the Government so wishes) and also be capable of operating more than one V-22, UAV's etc, I agree 100%.

* Nine (9) Future Frigates based on an evolved AWD hull (would allow for block work to start sooner rather than later), all nine ships would have at least the same 48 Mk41 Strike Length VLS system as the AWD's, Harpoon, 5" gun, ASW tubes, CIWS, etc, the design should (hopefully can?) be modified to a two (2) hangar configuration. The ships may not necessarily operate 2 MH-60R's at the one time, but would allow for at least one MH-60R's and a UAV (possibly an MQ-8 Fire Scout), and of course and even more capable version of the radar and sensors used in the Anzac ASMD upgrade.

* Twenty (20) OPV's, as per SEA1180 (replace ACPB's, Mine Warfare and Hydrographic fleets), possibly based on the Damen OPV-2 design, 80m+, 1800-2000t, heli deck and hangar 'capable' of housing an MRH-90 sized helicopter (yes the OPV's may not regularly operate a helicopter, especially an MRH-90 sized helicopter, but be able to when necessary, though they would regularly operate an appropriate UAV or Fire Scout type). The OPV-2 design also has a very capable 'mission' bay below the heli deck, roles should include (but not restricted to), Mine Warfare, Hydrographic, etc, etc.

I strongly agree with StringrayOZ, we don't need to be turning these 'multi role' OPV's into mini Frigates, the cost of providing each of the 20 strong fleet with significant war fighting weapons abilities (and the associated cost of the necessary 'sensors' too, would be a major cost blow out and be completely unaffordable, in my opinion), armaments should consist of ACPB type Typhoon armament and also Mini Typhoon too.

* Six (6) replacement LCH, again another Damen design, probably based on either the 'Damen LST 80 or 100' design.

* Build three (3), rather than two, AOR's based on either the Spanish or South Korean ships that are currently under consideration (I have no preference) to replace Sirius and Success, I believe that 'three' ships would at least ensure that 'one' was always available, the rule of threes!


So what is my 'out of left field' suggestion?

* Six Austal type LCS ships, to me there is an obvious 'gap' in capability between the 12 proposed major fleet units at the top end and the OPV's at the bottom, six appropriately armed and configured Austal LCS ships would be a good fit in between, and (hopefully) still allow for the investment in the necessary 12 tier one combat ships and the 20 OPV's at the bottom too.


Can we 'recycle' the various sensor and weapons systems from the FFG's and Anzac's? Yes we potentially can.

If possible (and economically practical), I would recycle the 5" gun systems from the 8 Anzac's to become the main gun armament on the 9 Future Frigates (yes one more system would be needed and possibly some more in a spares pool too).

I would also want to see the recycled six (6) 76mm guns from the FFG's become the main gun armament on the 6 Austal LCS ships, also the various recycled Mk41 VLS systems from both the FFG's and Anzac's would end up in the Austal LCS ships too (If possible, get some value out of the dollars already invested).

And of course the various radar and combat systems from the Anzac ASMD upgrade would also be passed over to the 6 Austal LCS ships too.


If I was Def Min how would my 'future RAN' fleet look?

* 1 x enlarged LHD (HMAS Australia) as per StringrayOZ suggestion
* 2 x Canberra class LHD's
* 1 x Choules, possibly eventually replaced by two ships when Spain or the Netherlands look at replacing the ships that are 'cousins' of Choules and the UK Bay class
* 3 x AWD's, currently building
* 9 x Future Frigates, based on an evolved AWD hull
* 20 x OPV based on the Damen OPV2 design of around 1800-2000t
* 6 x Austal LCS, including weapons and sensors from the FFG's and Anzac's
* 6 x LCH, probably based on either the Damen 'LST 80 or 100' design
* 3 x AOR, based on either Spanish or South Korean offerings


So where would all of these ships be built?

The enlarged LHD would probably be better off being built by Navantia in Spain, the investment in the necessary infrastructure to build a ship of that size would probably blow the budget out of the water.

The Nine Future Frigates would follow the same path at the AWD’s, block work at the various existing sites around the country and consolidation at Techport, hopefully all that has been learned in the construction of the AWD’s is passed onto the construction of the nine (9) future frigates and that any ‘premium’ that is paid for ‘local’ construction is at a more than acceptable level for the taxpayer and the Defence budget to absorb.

The 20 OPV’s could possibly be a ‘split’ build between both the Techport and Williamstown locations (assuming Williamstown was still operating and viable), let’s not forget that Techport has significant scope for enlargement and can also house more than just ‘one’ shipbuilder utilising the ‘common user facility’.

The 6 replacement LCH could also be built at either Williamstown or Techport.

The six (6) Austal LCS would be constructed at Austal’s WA facility.

And I could go on, Choules replacement(s) and additional AOR too!

If all of the above was possible (it would if I was Def Min!) then, in my opinion, it would be a win, win for all involved. A win for the RAN, and a win for all shipbuilders in Oz, both steel and Aluminium construction too.

Anyway, just my opinion of course!!

Cheers,

(PS, I’ve just stuck to the surface fleet, the Collins replacement, well that’s a whole other in depth discussion too......)

 

[Bluey 006]

To assist with the valley of death i'd like too see a "Strategic Support Ship" in the mix, based on dutch Karel Doorman class Joint Logistic Support Ship with a larger flight deck ( can already carry 6 helicopters). It could supplement the Amphibious ships (2 x Canberra class,HMAS Choules) and the 2 replenishment ships (Aegir Class or Cantabria Class)

Providing a ship capable of aviation support ,sea basing and replenishment as needed that could complement a task force or operate independently in low risk environments like HADR and long term stabilization operations like the Solomon's, which could free up the LHDs and their support ships for more combat oriented tasks.

As an existing design, I wonder how quickly Damen could get a build up and going in Australia? or if some of the tooling from the Karel Doorman could be acquired to speed up the process.

Unlikely the extra money is there though, as i wouldn't want to see this ship in place of other planned assets.

 

[t68]

Anything a Absalon can offer can be done better with LCH and a Frigate and a OCV. IMO they are better suited to smaller navies like New Zealand (or singapore), who can then get a much larger frigate than what they would normally consider but pulling multiple roles into single ship.
.

I have to disagree with you there unless your frigate is also going to have room for the ODF, you don't want to be putting your troops exposed on a plong voyage with the LCH without sacrificing room for any additional stores or vehicles, Choules can move the ARE but is pretty much defenceless unlike Absalon which will also have NGS via her guns or via VLS. I like a majority of your enhancements to the RAN, like the 3rd LHD is a must in my book.

I am not saying rush out and get the Abaslon but I think we need to look at the cut off point to what level should the LHD be moved into local independent operations ie Operation Morris Dance or above

Possible scaleable Amphibious teams,
A Ready combat team( Operational Deployment Force) could deploy on the Multi-Role Support Ship(Absalon)with access to two helicopters and Fast Attack Craft x2 (CB-90) or an ARE with 2x MRSS & LSV(Bacolod City-class)
ARE+ MRSS & LHD
ARG 2x LHD & 2x MRSS

 

[aussienscale]

* A third LHD, agree completely (and I've been thinking of this for a while too), a lengthened and enlarged version of the two Canberra class LHD's, I'm sure Navantia has some design concepts for such a thing too, (I'll call her HMAS Australia too!), a third LHD would allow for at least one LHD available at all times, the 'enlarged' HMAS Australia should also, apart from her amphibious duties, be capable of operating F-35B's (if the Government so wishes) and also be capable of operating more than one V-22, UAV's etc, I agree 100%.

* Build three (3), rather than two, AOR's based on either the Spanish or South Korean ships that are currently under consideration (I have no preference) to replace Sirius and Success, I believe that 'three' ships would at least ensure that 'one' was always available, the rule of threes!

* Six Austal type LCS ships, to me there is an obvious 'gap' in capability between the 12 proposed major fleet units at the top end and the OPV's at the bottom, six appropriately armed and configured Austal LCS ships would be a good fit in between, and (hopefully) still allow for the investment in the necessary 12 tier one combat ships and the 20 OPV's at the bottom too.

John, I would rekon you are pretty spot on there with your "List"

From what I understand, the intention prior to the decision to decommission the Principe De Asturias was that she was to have a minor re-fit around 2012 ish, and I think to replace her by 2017 ? I would be guessing Navantia have some pretty advanced plans for the replacement

Totally agree, 3 AOR's is an absolute must, no exceptions, no if's, no but's !! I have no preference for the two options either, but I do believe we need to either compromise the fuel bunkerage for more JP-5 capacity or upsize. Especially if we are to have these ships supporting an ARG.

The LCS question ? Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of these ships, can see their utility, I just really can't get my head around the need for them in the RAN ?

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

How would that plan possibly avoid the valley of death? How much time would it take to redesign the F100 hull into an Absalon-type ship (assuming such a thing was desirable or even possible) and how much risk would that entail? You are essentially proposing a clean sheet design to be built straight away to give time for other clean sheet designs to mature. That doesn't make sense.

I also think that assuming any large warship with an armament larger than a small cannon won't be counted as a surface combatant is extremely optimistic. Your proposed fleet has 8 extra 'surface combatants' than current plans allow. Where is the navy going to magically get the resources to enable this?

Thank you for getting in before I did. Agree 100%. You cannot simply amend a design in the manner being mooted. You are looking at a fundamental deisgn change (read new design) which means you cannot follow on the the F105 type blocks.

It is an issue that irritates the hell out of me where suggestions are made the change the weight (including weight distibution), construction (including structural carry trough) and stability of a vessel as if it is no big deal. There is less work in the M400 than trying to turn an F105 into an Absalon type ship ....... and the 400 is not really an option given the time frames.

 

[alexsa]

Mate, you've pretty well read my mind (for the most part) with your list!

I agree with the bulk of what you have suggested (I do have one thing out of 'left field', yes you might think I'm mad! But I'll get to that further on).

So while everyone here is throwing in their two bobs worth (20 cents for those post decimal currency members!), I thought I'd throw my 'wish list' up too, my 'new build' ships would be:

* A third LHD, agree completely (and I've been thinking of this for a while too), a lengthened and enlarged version of the two Canberra class LHD's, I'm sure Navantia has some design concepts for such a thing too, (I'll call her HMAS Australia too!), a third LHD would allow for at least one LHD available at all times, the 'enlarged' HMAS Australia should also, apart from her amphibious duties, be capable of operating F-35B's (if the Government so wishes) and also be capable of operating more than one V-22, UAV's etc, I agree 100%.

* Nine (9) Future Frigates based on an evolved AWD hull (would allow for block work to start sooner rather than later), all nine ships would have at least the same 48 Mk41 Strike Length VLS system as the AWD's, Harpoon, 5" gun, ASW tubes, CIWS, etc, the design should (hopefully can?) be modified to a two (2) hangar configuration. The ships may not necessarily operate 2 MH-60R's at the one time, but would allow for at least one MH-60R's and a UAV (possibly an MQ-8 Fire Scout), and of course and even more capable version of the radar and sensors used in the Anzac ASMD upgrade.

* Twenty (20) OPV's, as per SEA1180 (replace ACPB's, Mine Warfare and Hydrographic fleets), possibly based on the Damen OPV-2 design, 80m+, 1800-2000t, heli deck and hangar 'capable' of housing an MRH-90 sized helicopter (yes the OPV's may not regularly operate a helicopter, especially an MRH-90 sized helicopter, but be able to when necessary, though they would regularly operate an appropriate UAV or Fire Scout type). The OPV-2 design also has a very capable 'mission' bay below the heli deck, roles should include (but not restricted to), Mine Warfare, Hydrographic, etc, etc.

I strongly agree with StringrayOZ, we don't need to be turning these 'multi role' OPV's into mini Frigates, the cost of providing each of the 20 strong fleet with significant war fighting weapons abilities (and the associated cost of the necessary 'sensors' too, would be a major cost blow out and be completely unaffordable, in my opinion), armaments should consist of ACPB type Typhoon armament and also Mini Typhoon too.

* Six (6) replacement LCH, again another Damen design, probably based on either the 'Damen LST 80 or 100' design.

* Build three (3), rather than two, AOR's based on either the Spanish or South Korean ships that are currently under consideration (I have no preference) to replace Sirius and Success, I believe that 'three' ships would at least ensure that 'one' was always available, the rule of threes!


So what is my 'out of left field' suggestion?

* Six Austal type LCS ships, to me there is an obvious 'gap' in capability between the 12 proposed major fleet units at the top end and the OPV's at the bottom, six appropriately armed and configured Austal LCS ships would be a good fit in between, and (hopefully) still allow for the investment in the necessary 12 tier one combat ships and the 20 OPV's at the bottom too.


Can we 'recycle' the various sensor and weapons systems from the FFG's and Anzac's? Yes we potentially can.

If possible (and economically practical), I would recycle the 5" gun systems from the 8 Anzac's to become the main gun armament on the 9 Future Frigates (yes one more system would be needed and possibly some more in a spares pool too).

I would also want to see the recycled six (6) 76mm guns from the FFG's become the main gun armament on the 6 Austal LCS ships, also the various recycled Mk41 VLS systems from both the FFG's and Anzac's would end up in the Austal LCS ships too (If possible, get some value out of the dollars already invested).

And of course the various radar and combat systems from the Anzac ASMD upgrade would also be passed over to the 6 Austal LCS ships too.


If I was Def Min how would my 'future RAN' fleet look?

* 1 x enlarged LHD (HMAS Australia) as per StringrayOZ suggestion
* 2 x Canberra class LHD's
* 1 x Choules, possibly eventually replaced by two ships when Spain or the Netherlands look at replacing the ships that are 'cousins' of Choules and the UK Bay class
* 3 x AWD's, currently building
* 9 x Future Frigates, based on an evolved AWD hull
* 20 x OPV based on the Damen OPV2 design of around 1800-2000t
* 6 x Austal LCS, including weapons and sensors from the FFG's and Anzac's
* 6 x LCH, probably based on either the Damen 'LST 80 or 100' design
* 3 x AOR, based on either Spanish or South Korean offerings


So where would all of these ships be built?

The enlarged LHD would probably be better off being built by Navantia in Spain, the investment in the necessary infrastructure to build a ship of that size would probably blow the budget out of the water.

The Nine Future Frigates would follow the same path at the AWD’s, block work at the various existing sites around the country and consolidation at Techport, hopefully all that has been learned in the construction of the AWD’s is passed onto the construction of the nine (9) future frigates and that any ‘premium’ that is paid for ‘local’ construction is at a more than acceptable level for the taxpayer and the Defence budget to absorb.

The 20 OPV’s could possibly be a ‘split’ build between both the Techport and Williamstown locations (assuming Williamstown was still operating and viable), let’s not forget that Techport has significant scope for enlargement and can also house more than just ‘one’ shipbuilder utilising the ‘common user facility’.

The 6 replacement LCH could also be built at either Williamstown or Techport.

The six (6) Austal LCS would be constructed at Austal’s WA facility.

And I could go on, Choules replacement(s) and additional AOR too!

If all of the above was possible (it would if I was Def Min!) then, in my opinion, it would be a win, win for all involved. A win for the RAN, and a win for all shipbuilders in Oz, both steel and Aluminium construction too.

Anyway, just my opinion of course!!

Cheers,

(PS, I’ve just stuck to the surface fleet, the Collins replacement, well that’s a whole other in depth discussion too......)

You had me until the LCS option.... if you are looking at the LCS1 or LCS2 options. They are expensive units with operating limitations, The the US OTBAT they work well as part of a group.

For the RAN, if we are going down this track then a more capable 'escort' version of you OPV would appear to be a better option.

 

[swerve]

There's something bothering me about this discussion. That is, the assumption that an F100-based frigate can be built straight off, without delay.

While it'd need much less design work than a whole new ship, I don't see it as just a minor tweak. I think the initial work would have to sort out exactly what can be done before building has to start to maintain continuity, with a tight schedule to get detailed design of other sections done before they're built. It looks to me like a process that has to be got right first time, or risk lots of re-work.

 

[alexsa]

There's something bothering me about this discussion. That is, the assumption that an F100-based frigate can be built straight off, without delay.

While it'd need much less design work than a whole new ship, I don't see it as just a minor tweak. I think the initial work would have to sort out exactly what can be done before building has to start to maintain continuity, with a tight schedule to get detailed design of other sections done before they're built. It looks to me like a process that has to be got right first time, or risk lots of re-work.

The hull, machinery and much of the upper works can be used as is, certainly the operations rooms mast and systems will required rework. The advantage is the logistics are in place for building of the hull blocks, provision of machinery and equipment and consolidation of the hull. The other advantage is that many of the problems are known.

Not going to be simple but it is going to be more practical than the other options noting the process of moving from AWD to future frigate is already under investigation with funding provided for this purpose.

 

[John Newman]

You had me until the LCS option.... if you are looking at the LCS1 or LCS2 options. They are expensive units with operating limitations, The the US OTBAT they work well as part of a group.

For the RAN, if we are going down this track then a more capable 'escort' version of you OPV would appear to be a better option.

Hi mate, yes I did say it was out of left field and you all probably think I've gone mad too!!!

I was trying to think of a capability that could potentially fit between the tier one combat ships and the OPV's at the bottom end and I was also thinking that if the Government is going to produce a Naval shipbuilding plan/package that would give 'all' the players in the Australian naval shipbuilding sector a slice of the pie, then how could an Austal product be included in the mix?

Hence the suggestion of an Austal LCS ship with recycled systems from the FFG's and Anzac's that could sit in between, like I said, it was out of left field, way out of left field!!

Obviously I don't want to see any reduction in the size, capabilities and the number of Future Frigate and I don't think turning the potential up to 20 OPV's (if SEA1180 is revived), into mini warships is the go either.

But it does raise the question, is there a need for such a capability to sit in between? Is there a place for either an Austal LCS type ship or a larger OPV type ship using the recycled systems from FFG's and Anzacs?

Cheers,

 

[ASSAIL]

Hi mate, yes I did say it was out of left field and you all probably think I've gone mad too!!!

I was trying to think of a capability that could potentially fit between the tier one combat ships and the OPV's at the bottom end and I was also thinking that if the Government is going to produce a Naval shipbuilding plan/package that would give 'all' the players in the Australian naval shipbuilding sector a slice of the pie, then how could an Austal product be included in the mix?

Hence the suggestion of an Austal LCS ship with recycled systems from the FFG's and Anzac's that could sit in between, like I said, it was out of left field, way out of left field!!

Obviously I don't want to see any reduction in the size, capabilities and the number of Future Frigate and I don't think turning the potential up to 20 OPV's (if SEA1180 is revived), into mini warships is the go either.

But it does raise the question, is there a need for such a capability to sit in between? Is there a place for either an Austal LCS type ship or a larger OPV type ship using the recycled systems from FFG's and Anzacs?

Cheers,

I agree with alexsa on LCS. Whilst I believe it is a pragmatic option for the USN (where all the smaller DE/FF type ships have decommissioned and there is nothing smaller than the AB's ) we don't have the ORBAT numbers to justify its inclusion. An OPV/OCV is a better, cheaper and less sophisticated option but with an aviation capability and maybe some recycled weapons from previous hulls, on this point we agree.

Swerve - agreed that there are more modern options for the future FF other than the F 100 but it comes down to a matter of economies of scale, timing, and shipyard productivity/skill level.
The AB's have proved that a hull continuum is possible over decades and still remain effective despite not being the most current design.

Finally, I get sick of hearing the Absalon being touted as an option for the RAN. We have the amphibious capability well covered so it would be totally superfluous and in any case, re-tooling, re-training, re-building designer/builder relationships all come at a cost to both time and productivity. Let's stick to the pathway we appear to be on and lets get Australian shipbuilding back the the place it was for the last half dozed Anzacs.

 

[John Newman]

To assist with the valley of death i'd like too see a "Strategic Support Ship" in the mix, based on dutch Karel Doorman class Joint Logistic Support Ship with a larger flight deck ( can already carry 6 helicopters). It could supplement the Amphibious ships (2 x Canberra class,HMAS Choules) and the 2 replenishment ships (Aegir Class or Cantabria Class)

Providing a ship capable of aviation support ,sea basing and replenishment as needed that could complement a task force or operate independently in low risk environments like HADR and long term stabilization operations like the Solomon's, which could free up the LHDs and their support ships for more combat oriented tasks.

As an existing design, I wonder how quickly Damen could get a build up and going in Australia? or if some of the tooling from the Karel Doorman could be acquired to speed up the process.

Unlikely the extra money is there though, as i wouldn't want to see this ship in place of other planned assets.

Whilst I think the Karel Doorman is an impressive ship with it's multiple capabilities, I can't understand why you would suggest such a ship as a solution to the 'Valley of Death'.

Firstly the size of the ship, there is no yard in Australia that is currently large enough to build such a ship, yes of course Techport has the capability to be expanded and that would have to include the ship lift being significantly increased in size, new fabrication facilities, hardstands, runways, etc, the question would be, how long would it take for that to happen? It could be many years for such an expansion to take place and then we would be well and truly in to the middle of the Valley of Death! The timing just wouldn't work for that ship to be a solution to the VOD.

The solution to the VOD would appear to be what the Government is likely to announce, a fleet of OPV's and bringing block work forward for the Future Frigate, especially if based on an evolved AWD hull.

 

[hauritz]

It is probably too late to avoid the valley of death ... Even if more AWDs were ordered tomorrow. If I were looking for a reasonable quick fix I would look at replacing the LHC first.

 

[t68]

Finally, I get sick of hearing the Absalon being touted as an option for the RAN. We have the amphibious capability well covered so it would be totally superfluous and in any case, re-tooling, re-training, re-building designer/builder relationships all come at a cost to both time and productivity. Let's stick to the pathway we appear to be on and lets get Australian shipbuilding back the the place it was for the last half dozed Anzacs.

I have it disagree here, whilst the RAN Amphibious capabilty is going forward in leaps and bounds I don't believe it's well covered.

At the moment all we have is HMA-Ships Choules, Canberra plus ADV Ocean Shield(eventully to Customs)and with Nuship Adelaide to follow, with Tobruk paying of in the next couple of weeks. We have a requirement for LCH replacement which at the moment we have nil capabilty.

At best when all is done and dusted we will have,
Canberra x2
Choules x1
LCH x6

Whilst we should in theory have a trouble free capabilty over the next 5 years, but as we saw with Choules you just don't know when our old mate Murphy will show up. No one is expecting Absalon to bridge the VOD and no one questions that it would cost money to build tooling up etc etc but you have to do that with every diffrent class of ship

I belive there is a gap in our Amphiboius capabilty, a 3rd LHD would be most welcome to rotate vessels in a timely manner not just for maintenance but operationally as well, 3x Absalon bring's a capabilty which can move between a number of roles within the RAN. The whole premises of Choules was strategic sealift she can only perform one of those roles at any one time(Amphibious Task Force or Stratigic Sealift) with 3x MRSS you can maximise your efforts accordingly

 

[ASSAIL]

It is probably too late to avoid the valley of death ... Even if more AWDs were ordered tomorrow. If I were looking for a reasonable quick fix I would look at replacing the LHC first.

I assume you mean the LCH replacements but an analogy to that is like saying to a CBD tower builder - lets keep all your people and skills employed by building affordable homes in the outer burbs.

Combat units use all the shipbuilding and systems integration skills, specialist steel and welding, specialist electrical technicians, weapons and systems integrators etc etc.

The LCH's can be built by the majors but also yards like Adelaide Ship Construction, AIMTEK, Fine Entry, Harwood slipway, Taylor Brothers as well as Incat and RDM.

 

[John Newman]

I agree with alexsa on LCS. Whilst I believe it is a pragmatic option for the USN (where all the smaller DE/FF type ships have decommissioned and there is nothing smaller than the AB's ) we don't have the ORBAT numbers to justify its inclusion. An OPV/OCV is a better, cheaper and less sophisticated option but with an aviation capability and maybe some recycled weapons from previous hulls, on this point we agree.

Hi Mate, gee I've really been wacked over the fence multiple times for six on this one!! I knew talking about LCS would get a reaction, but fair and reasonable comments by both you and alexsa too, I agree with you points, I still wonder if there is the potential for a class of more 'capable' ships above the capabilities of the OPV's.

One other reason that prompted me to throw LCS into the conversation was comments made by the previous Def Min Johnston.

I don't know if anyone remembers, but back in late 2013 the then Def Min was interviewed by The Australian and a couple of his comments stuck in my mind, (from memory the interview was about the planned DWP, defence spending and about the Navy), as we probably all know he was/is a fan of the Austal LCS, he was talking about a 'mix' of higher end capabilities, (which you could read as reducing the number of Future Frigates and supplementing them with Austal LCS) and he also hinted at an 'increase' in the size of the RAN's fleet too, which potentially could have meant he was hinting at LCS type ships as being that increase in fleet size.

Obviously Johnston is gone now, and we have Andrews as Def Min, and possibly any leaning and influence towards Austal and LCS by the previous Def Min is gone and finished (potentially the shape of the RAN's fleet could have looked different under a DWP handed down by Johnston, but we will probably never know).

Anyway, in a few weeks we should have the Government announcing its Naval shipbuilding plan (as reported last week) and a bit later on both the DWP and DCP, hopefully that will give a clearer indication as to the Governments thinking on the shape and size of the RAN, hopefully it does include 8-9 'large' Future Frigates and fleet of 20 OPV's along the lines of SEA1180, but will the plan also include an Austal product?

Cheers,

PS, I'll try and not mention the 'LCS' word too often, ok?? (ha ha!)

 

[vonnoobie]

If we want to avoid the valley of death the only ship that can be implemented in the shortest amount of time possible would be a 4th AWD.

Not much but it would give time to allow for future vessel replacements to be selected and for companies involved to prepare for them.

As to the LCS and Austal, While it is a good vessel it is not something suited to Australia. If we wanted something of use, that can enable Austal to gain work and not cost us a massive amount then I'd suggest a variant of the Spearhead class JHSV though perhaps aim bigger and go with a trimaran hull rather then the catamaran. Much better ride in the rougher ocean's and could allow possibly for a hanger capability to be incorporated.

I'd say a larger OCV/OPV for the vessel between the OCV/OPV - Frigate/Destroyer gap. Something around 3,000 - 4,000 t. But for the smaller ship's i'd still say go for the Stanflex modules. Gives you more adaptability to the changing circumstances.

 

[John Newman]

I assume you mean the LCH replacements but an analogy to that is like saying to a CBD tower builder - lets keep all your people and skills employed by building affordable homes in the outer burbs.

Combat units use all the shipbuilding and systems integration skills, specialist steel and welding, specialist electrical technicians, weapons and systems integrators etc etc.

The LCH's can be built by the majors but also yards like Adelaide Ship Construction, AIMTEK, Fine Entry, Harwood slipway, Taylor Brothers as well as Incat and RDM.

Agree with you comments.

Another example of what you are saying is reflected in why BAE said they are not bidding for the 21 replacement Pacific Patrol Boats, this comment from BAE is a good example:

“BAE Systems’ skills and capabilities lie in the design, build, through-life support and upgrading of complex warships and the integration of the systems they carry,” the spokesperson said. “The Pacific Patrol Boats, being small, non-complex vessels, do not assist us in retaining many of our core capabilities. As we have been saying, and as numerous experts engaged by the government have advised, the Australian naval shipbuilding industry needs the government to act on its statements about accelerating future naval shipbuilding projects like SEA 5000 [Future Frigates] with a plan that supports continuous production.”

Yes PPB's and LCH will provide 'work' for some of the shipbuilding workforce, they just don't provide that level of complexity to provide work, and maintain skills, for the 'broader' Naval shipbuilding workforce.

And talking of the Pacific Patrol Boats, I saw an article on the 'Australian Defence' website today:

TKMS teams with Tasmanian shipbuilders for Pacific Patrol Boats

TKMS is teaming with Incat to tender for the PPB's, which I thought was interesting, as I understand it the Government has stated that the PPB's will be of 'steel' construction and Incat (not unlike Austal), has a history of aluminium construction.