Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

I think Austral can still play a part with the current Bay class Patrol boats to be used as a base line in reduced numbers for inshore work mixed with the Daman 2400 OPV

In regards to the Valley of Death it's already happening, I don't have any inside information in regards to how many ships would be needed to get over the hump but, but a cost benefit analysis I would imagine 3 would be the magical number unless building overseas like the Aviation Support Ship being built in Vietnam

 

[StingrayOZ]

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.

It is interesting. Looks like Incat wants to expand its capability. Looks like a partnership with Haywards. Incat just invested a lot into its dock and capability. By partnering with a steel fabricator they can offer a fairly substantial range of expertise. Haywards have a slip (margate) but only of 600t and 80m capability.

IMO - and this seems silly, I don't think all the OCV/OPV all need to be exactly the same type.

Its quite likely they be either steel hull but aluminium superstructure or all aluminium.

I like JHSV type ships, I think they can definitely offer something in many areas. But others have pointed out, these ships are expensive to buy and operate. Any requirement could be leased relatively easily. Like HSV-2 "Swift" which is available for hire right now.

HMAS Jarvis Bay cost Australia $16m for the lease (two years). Given it pretty much saved Australia's arse and lifted a significant amount to and from ET it seems like it was money well spent. It still operates as a commercial ferry. So unlikely other types, these types can flip between Military and Civilian service relatively quickly. Jarvis was leased in May and commissioned on the 10th June and sailed into Dili as the first RAN ship in early September.

Imagine if all our ship procurement was purchased and then in the area of operations within 5 months of inking the deal.

Regarding the valley of death the only way it would work is if the hulls are unmodified. The project would need to treat the F-105 hull as an existing ship. If that was the case orders could be placed today and steel cut, soon, in a few weeks?

 

[MickB]

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 proposed this some time ago when the need for to begin construction was less time critical, I should have known the passage of time would now make it imposable.
I was intrigued by the fact that the Danes turned the Absalon design into a air warfare frigate.( Iver Huitfeldt )

If we could have done the reverse with the AWD it would have provided a continuation of build and compatability of systems.

I still think the RAN would be well served by such a versatile vessel in roles that don't call for a LHD, such as extended patrols of offshore territories, stability ops for pacific partners, special forces insertion, anti piracy etc:

Some of these roles could be performed by frigates but this would reduce their availability to act as escorts for the fhat ships.

In the case of a disaster like the Vanuatu cyclone a Absolan could be loaded and dispatched within hours, providing material and helo support for days before a LHD could arrive with the main effort. Saving how many additional lives.

 

[Stampede]

Been wondering with nothing at all being mentioned on a replacement for the Balikpapan class LCH's beyond them being replaced with a larger vessel's with what I assume to be on a one for one basis as to what around would fit?

Assuming we would want to retain the beaching capability we are limited heavily on what we can get and from whom. Few of our usual supplier's/allies have such vessel's and none as far as I can tell have built anything recently, At least not to the size we want.

Unless we want to go for an entirely new design I'd imagine an updated version of an older class, I'm personally thinking something like the Runnymede class large landing craft would be the best fit thinking about it realistically.
Regards, Matthew.

The question is, what do we do now that the Balikapan class are retired?
Is there merit as a stop gap measure of a buy / lease of 2 to 3 of the Runnymede class should they be made available.
This will keep up the skill level and provide some operational capacity in the short term. I would guess this would not be of a great cost for the benefit gained.
Not ideal but better than nothing.

 

[ngatimozart]

I proposed this some time ago when the need for to begin construction was less time critical, I should have known the passage of time would now make it imposable.
I was intrigued by the fact that the Danes turned the Absalon design into a air warfare frigate.( Iver Huitfeldt )

If we could have done the reverse with the AWD it would have provided a continuation of build and compatability of systems.

I still think the RAN would be well served by such a versatile vessel in roles that don't call for a LHD, such as extended patrols of offshore territories, stability ops for pacific partners, special forces insertion, anti piracy etc:

Some of these roles could be performed by frigates but this would reduce their availability to act as escorts for the fhat ships.

In the case of a disaster like the Vanuatu cyclone a Absolan could be loaded and dispatched within hours, providing material and helo support for days before a LHD could arrive with the main effort. Saving how many additional lives.

The Absalon carries two helos and has some capacity for relief supplies etc., but HADR is not the main mission of the ship and the point being made is that does it really fit within force structure of the RAN? Given that the ADF have other vessels with far better capabilities for HADR and warfighting, Absalons, or Absalon type vessels, may not necessarily be the best platform for Australian service. However they may offer good capabilities to the RNZN which, if it came to pass, may be of indirect benefit to the RAN.

 

[Bluey 006]

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.

Much in the same way the LHDs were done. Hull built elsewhere and then BAE build and fit the superstructure blocks,outfit the ship and systems integration. At 27,800 tons it is only 300 tons larger than the LHDs. But yes you're right its too late for than now. As others have said the VOD is happening, all we can really do is make sure it never ever happens again.

I posted my wish "list" on here some weeks/months ago (which included this idea and other work spread out to all the ship builders) - since lists are all the rage here now, i'll dig it out and repost ;-)

 

[vonnoobie]

The question is, what do we do now that the Balikapan class are retired?
Is there merit as a stop gap measure of a buy / lease of 2 to 3 of the Runnymede class should they be made available.
This will keep up the skill level and provide some operational capacity in the short term. I would guess this would not be of a great cost for the benefit gained.
Not ideal but better than nothing.

I'd imagine that leasing some Runnymede class vessel would be the logical thing to do. Retiring the Balikapan's with out even narrowing down what we are looking for in a replacement is just stupid on the government's part.

Might be easier to do as it could be viewed in the US Army's favor to have such asset's stationed in the region so both end up benefiting.

 

[swerve]

The Absalon carries two helos and has some capacity for relief supplies etc., but HADR is not the main mission of the ship and the point being made is that does it really fit within force structure of the RAN? Given that the ADF have other vessels with far better capabilities for HADR and warfighting, Absalons, or Absalon type vessels, may not necessarily be the best platform for Australian service. However they may offer good capabilities to the RNZN which, if it came to pass, may be of indirect benefit to the RAN.

More or less my thinking about the Absalons & their suitability for the RAN - & RNZN.

 

[John Newman]

It is interesting. Looks like Incat wants to expand its capability. Looks like a partnership with Haywards. Incat just invested a lot into its dock and capability. By partnering with a steel fabricator they can offer a fairly substantial range of expertise. Haywards have a slip (margate) but only of 600t and 80m capability.

IMO - and this seems silly, I don't think all the OCV/OPV all need to be exactly the same type.

Its quite likely they be either steel hull but aluminium superstructure or all aluminium.

I like JHSV type ships, I think they can definitely offer something in many areas. But others have pointed out, these ships are expensive to buy and operate. Any requirement could be leased relatively easily. Like HSV-2 "Swift" which is available for hire right now.

HMAS Jarvis Bay cost Australia $16m for the lease (two years). Given it pretty much saved Australia's arse and lifted a significant amount to and from ET it seems like it was money well spent. It still operates as a commercial ferry. So unlikely other types, these types can flip between Military and Civilian service relatively quickly. Jarvis was leased in May and commissioned on the 10th June and sailed into Dili as the first RAN ship in early September.

Imagine if all our ship procurement was purchased and then in the area of operations within 5 months of inking the deal.

Regarding the valley of death the only way it would work is if the hulls are unmodified. The project would need to treat the F-105 hull as an existing ship. If that was the case orders could be placed today and steel cut, soon, in a few weeks?

Hi Mate, yes it is interesting the tie up of TKMS and Incat for the PPB's, especially bidding for steel hulled boats when Incat's history has been aluminium.

I think we will see a lot of shipbuilders 'positioning' themselves for a slice of the action with the upcoming Naval shipbuilding bonanza that the Government is soon to announce.

We've had Austal come out and say it interesting in taking over ASC as an example of that too, it will be interesting to see where BAE ends up in the mix, especially since they said they wouldn't bid for the PPB's, no doubt they are after bigger fish! Lots of politics to play out in the coming months!!


As to your point about the future OCV's not all 'needing' to be all exactly the same type, I disagree, I'll explain why.

If we are talking about SEA1180 and it's plan to replace the four different classes that are the current ACPB's, mine warfare and the two Hydrographic classes, then I definitely think that a single class of 20 OPV's of a same class (for example the Damen OPV-2 80+m and 1800 to 2000t version, being my pick).

To me the big advantage of picking a same/single class of 20 OPV's to cover the roles mentioned above, is that each ships will be the same and have the same 'core' crew that understands their ship well, plus obviously the specialist additional crew for mine warfare and hydrographic tasks, etc.

The big benefit to me would be the ability of Navy to 'rebalance' the roles at any given time, eg, the Navy needs extra hulls deployed for mine warfare, just add the 'core' crew and the mission specialist to a ship that may have been performing hydrographic or patrol duties day's before and you are operational almost immediately.

There are a whole range of examples, need a replacement in any of the areas that SEA1180 intended then it's just a matter of one or more hulls being reallocated to that particular role, same core crew, add or subtract the mission specific crew, the only different to any crew performing any role is the number painted on the side of the hull!

If on the other hand you are talking about OPV/OCV's in other 'expanded' roles, then yes, I agree that multiple types are probably more relevant to that specific task, but maybe that should be additional hulls above the stated need for the 20 SEA1180 hulls planned to replace the 26 hulls of the four classes that SEA1180 is proposed to do.

 

[Stampede]

I proposed this some time ago when the need for to begin construction was less time critical, I should have known the passage of time would now make it imposable.
I was intrigued by the fact that the Danes turned the Absalon design into a air warfare frigate.( Iver Huitfeldt )

If we could have done the reverse with the AWD it would have provided a continuation of build and compatability of systems.

I still think the RAN would be well served by such a versatile vessel in roles that don't call for a LHD, such as extended patrols of offshore territories, stability ops for pacific partners, special forces insertion, anti piracy etc:

Some of these roles could be performed by frigates but this would reduce their availability to act as escorts for the fhat ships.

In the case of a disaster like the Vanuatu cyclone a Absolan could be loaded and dispatched within hours, providing material and helo support for days before a LHD could arrive with the main effort. Saving how many additional lives.

Totally agree
I'd say he Absolan style of vessel is a good fit for the RAN for many of the reasons mentioned.
Brings alot of options to government including some warfighting ability.
The damen cross over range is another to look at especially some with a two spot helicopter deck.
We need to think abit outside the square as to how we do business.Replacing like for like ships may not be the best future.
A good fit for NZ agree. But some for OZ as well.
Could this be a future ANZAC class of ship?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I'd imagine that leasing some Runnymede class vessel would be the logical thing to do. Retiring the Balikapan's with out even narrowing down what we are looking for in a replacement is just stupid on the government's part.

Might be easier to do as it could be viewed in the US Army's favor to have such asset's stationed in the region so both end up benefiting.

If I recall correctly, the US Army has a number (~8-10) of Runnymede-class vessels prepositioned in Yokohama, Japan (Similar number pre-po in Kuwait).
The class are also about to experience an extensive SLEP. I believe this will include being re-engined, as the current systems are no longer in production.
So, I honestly find the notion of the RAN leasing a number of the vessels pretty much akin to the fantasy of the US Air Force leasing out C-17s so often seen within the forum.

 

[Volkodav]

There's no reason you couldn't build three frigates based on the F100 hull to fill the valley of death, and use the time to choose the hull type of your choose for the remaining six.

Agreed and, as the ACPB replacement is critical, a batch of the proposed OPVs could be built before additional frigates. There are a number of suitable OPV designs that could be assessed and a decision made in plenty of time to take over from the three new frigates in the three yards. 1500 to 3000ton OPVs would do as much for maintaining, in fact improving domestic shipbuilding capability as anything else which would set us up to build a really capable vessel affordably and competitively.

 

[Volkodav]

We have previously deployed Kanimbla to the middle east, I see no reason why wouldn't do so again. Or to South East Asia, or the SCS, or East Africa, or North Africa.

Hence why with two ships we ended up with two shagged platforms. Which is why I keep coming back to a 3rd LHD.

The advantage of the JMSDF type DDH is they can easily do what we used Bill and Ben for. The would have the requisite size and flexibility to be outfitted for command / flag duties as well as to embark additional forces as required, i.e. 2 Commando, SASR and their support elements, MCM, medical teams, basically anything the LPAs used to do. These ships would be better able to defend themselves and ideally there would be at least three and preferably five of them, making it much easier to deploy them as the LPAs were.

Also the LPA platforms were shagged when we got them, its a credit to the RAN and industry that they were kept going for as long as they were.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

A very valid point, there was much angst in the AWD project related to the minimal changes from the F-104 baseline, more of them in fact F-105 changes than the RAN specific ones, with design changes being notified after structural work had been completed in Australia. Basically the workers would build the section to print perfectly but then Navantia would advise that they had encountered a problem on F-105, or had changed something else that required this completed section to be reworked or scraped.

It was a catch 22, wait for the baseline to be set or build what you had and hope it didn't change. If the design is not baselined before the build starts we will just repeat the same painful expensive problems again, I wont say mistakes because most were not mistakes, it was a case of the goal posts moving.

 

[Volkodav]

The RAN is a medium sized navy that is developing a very large and capable amphibious capability based around two 27000t LHDs and a 15000t LPD with the likely acquisition of a class of up to six large ocean going, helicopter equipped landing craft as well. With a capability like this, I agree fully with Assail, there is no need for a vessel like Absalon which is more the sort of vessel a smaller navy that still has regional and global responsibilities, i.e. Denmark or even New Zealand.

What the RAN is lacking is war fighting capability as the upgraded FFGs are still in some ways inferior to the Perth Class DDGs and the ANZACs are only now being upgraded to general purpose frigates and our minor warfare vessels have virtually no combat capability what so ever and are defiantly not suitable for deployment in support of our international obligations. Absalons would detract from this as they are not true frigate, let alone destroyers but would replace such vessels in the order of battle.

Realistically new frigate and destroyer designs are incorporating multi-mission decks and the USN has proposed that future destroyers will be compatible with LCS type modules, i.e. a future DDG can embark a modular MCM system or an enhanced shallow water ASW, or perhaps specialised anti swarm boat system in addition to its base air and strike warfare outfit. We could and should do the same, not with the next batch but probably with the OPVs and then the next six frigates then the eventual replacements for the AWDs and first batch of frigates. Each type should incorporate, as a minimum, a multi-mission deck and possibly bays for USN compatible LCS type modules to supplement their primary armament and systems.

On Johnston's fast frigates, without a doubt he was thinking of Independence class LSC (now FF) for the simple reason he is from WA and was pushing the Austal barrow long before becoming defmin. Many of his attacks on ASC have to be seen through that particular filter, ASC bad, ASC shuts down more work for WA, subs built overseas, ASC shuts down more work for WA, even if the new frigates are built in Adelaide refit work will be done in WA, AORs built overseas, refit work done in WA. Call me a cynic but he was sacked for a reason and part of that reason appears to be he was more a lobbyist for WA than a federal minister.

With Alex on a more capable OPV being a better option than an LCS. Steel is cheap and air is free, assuming we have built a class of six or more 2000t OPVs then it wouldn't be that hard to build additional stretched vessels incorporating refurbished systems pulled through from the FFGs and / or ANZACs. Many of the designs available come in various sizes and capabilities from Coast Guard / Constabulary type vessels through to Patrol Frigates, we could adopt a design that offers such flexibility, build an initial batch as OPVs (diesel propulsion, 25mm Typhoon commercial radars etc.), another batch as OCVs (for LCS type modules), another as corvettes (maybe stretched with more powerful diesels, the 76mm guns, Phalanx and 8 cell VLS from the FFGs), or as frigates (same diesels but a GT added for boost and the weapons and sensors from the ANZACS). If we were building the hulls as OPVs or OCVs anyway, why not fit some of the systems we already own to make them more capable?

 

[John Fedup]

Totally agree
I'd say he Absolan style of vessel is a good fit for the RAN for many of the reasons mentioned.
Brings alot of options to government including some warfighting ability.
The damen cross over range is another to look at especially some with a two spot helicopter deck.
We need to think abit outside the square as to how we do business.Replacing like for like ships may not be the best future.
A good fit for NZ agree. But some for OZ as well.
Could this be a future ANZAC class of ship?

The future Canadian surface combatant ship has the Odense design team as a design partner for our future ships, the same team that did the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt classes. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. Whether the first of the class is in the water by 2040 is questionable.

 

[t68]

The RAN is a medium sized navy that is developing a very large and capable amphibious capability based around two 27000t LHDs and a 15000t LPD with the likely acquisition of a class of up to six large ocean going, helicopter equipped landing craft as well. With a capability like this, I agree fully with Assail, there is no need for a vessel like Absalon which is more the sort of vessel a smaller navy that still has regional and global responsibilities, i.e. Denmark or even New Zealand.

The preamble for the LCH replace for tender is as follows,
https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=p...dvertUUID=0B12D0B1-C463-6D4A-0A9FFABC635B726A

“JP2048 Phase 5 will acquire six new heavy landing craft with improved ocean going capabilities able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores and people. It will provide a capability to conduct independent small scale regional amphibious operations or to support the Canberra Class Amphibious Assault Ships”

Whilst the new LCH will have a faster transit speed and improved ocean going capability, its main operating environment is in support of regional benign amphibious operations or intra-theatre lift tasks in support of the ARG under it tactical umbrella.

Admittedly I have seen a file on some time ago that relates to the project that shows the capability to be used from everywhere from a heavy landing craft to something akin to the Singaporean Endurance LPD (I can’t find it now it’s in the thread somewhere) I am not saying we don’t need this capability (LCH) it’s a very important piece of the puzzle and should not be given up.

Absalon is not a replacement for LCH it’s an extension to the overall amphibious capability for times when a LHD is simple overkill or the LCH is not enough capability, yes we could use HMAS Choules as an afloat forward staging bases for raiding and riverine warfare craft and SOF infil/exfil capability but it’s not self-escorting. Absalon can be moved into other roles as the name suggests it’s a multi-role support ship which can cover a number of different roles, it’s not tied to the one job.At the end of the day it’s not going to happen just like your good idea of the DDH based on Japanese Hyuga.

I suppose we could combine them for an improved Kalaat Beni-Abbes for the Algerian Navy, lose the LCM davits for improved rotary ops(4 spots?) but no F35B, and make vehicle deck large enough for our rotary aircraft, also improving the well deck suitable for raiding craft such as the CB-90 and LCM-1E, change out the guns from 3” to 5” and to 8 cell MK41 in place of MBDA and CEFAR.

 

[hairyman]

I have just checked out the Absalon specifications. It certainly is impressive, with its roll on - roll off, its weapons fit, 127mm gun capable of firing the new extended range munitions, 16 Harpoon missiles, 36 ESSM. 2 CIWS, 2 - triple torpedo launchers, and it can carry 300 mines. With the capacity to carry two large helicopters, it would be a formidable ship., and I would think a couple of them would add greatly to the flexibility of the RAN.

 

[40 deg south]

Saw a few links relevant to Australia around the web, apologies if they are duplicates.

Australian government to launch strategic review of ASC - IHS Jane's 360
Gov't not planning to privatise ASC

June 2015 navy naval forces maritime defense industry technology maritime security global news
HMAS Melbourne fires ESSM

Camcopter S100 Successfuly Demonstrates Multi-Sensor Capability to the Royal Australian Navy

Schiebel Camcopter demonstrated in Australia. Sincerely hope NZ sent observers, although there is no mention of that happening.

 

[t68]

it appears that the new MRH Taipans are having difficulty with high winds on the LHD, "Some issues were encountered starting and stopping rotors under certain environmental conditions," what the conditions were I don't know if it the super structure while the ships is moving above a certain speed and creating a vortex of some sort, hopefully we will know the detail's soon enough

Navy, army helicopters proving difficult to operate in strong winds during sea trials on HMAS Canberra - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)