Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Raven22]

I noticed that one of the ASLAVs was named 'Abandon Ship.' Good to see A Sqn is getting into the amphibious spirit.

 

[rand0m]

Was that this clip?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5WnjZwZos

No better time to see if they're still amphibious!

 

[Joe Black]

BYG Combat System for Sea 1000

A good article to question the validity or the wisdom of pre-selecting BYG for the Sea1000 future submarine rather than running a competition:

Market test the Future Submarine combat system (part 1)

 

[Todjaeger]

A good article to question the validity or the wisdom of pre-selecting BYG for the Sea1000 future submarine rather than running a competition:

Market test the Future Submarine combat system (part 1)

Having read it, I disagree. The article did not cover a number of points which IMO would be the determining factors in submarine combat system selection. Instead, the article seemed to focus on the degree (or lack thereof) of Australian content/involvement in the current Collins-class combat system.

No mention of what the RAN needs in the next sub class's combat system. No mention either, of what combat systems are (a) available, and (b) capable of meeting RAN needs.

If memory serves, one of the early troubles the Collins-class had was that the combat system was underpowered or less capable than desired/needed. The upgrade which installed portions of the Virginia-class SSN combat system AFAIK resolved the issues the RAN subs had been having with an insufficient combat system.

I have no doubt that other nations would be delighted at the chance to offer an alternate product to the RAN for future sub combat systems. Realistically though, there are only a small number of countries which could offer such a system. IMO Russia and mainland China should be obviously out of contention. This leaves the US, Japan, and various Euro designs. Given the recent recurring history of a number of Australian defence purchases from Europe (Tiger, MU90, NH-90, etc.) it does seem that there is a track record of over-promising, and under-delivering. Given how 'blackbox' much of the sub tech and capabilities are, as well as how strategically important the future subs could potentially be, I can certainly understand Australia wanting to get a largely known quality capability. Especially when there is a strong record of support available for the RAN from the US. That same level of support has not been available for various Euro-sourced bits of kit.

Not saying that dictating a specific system was the 'correct' move, but given the tone of the article (it seemed to suggest a procurement competition should be done) as though what was being purchased was a 'normal' piece of kit.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Not saying that dictating a specific system was the 'correct' move, but given the tone of the article (it seemed to suggest a procurement competition should be done) as though what was being purchased was a 'normal' piece of kit.

IMO the only consideration is what the Japanese are offering, as previously this was never an option, and even if it was would have required additional integration into Collins. But even then I don't see it getting far, we already us the US systems, we have and use US weapons and I would imagine would like to incorporate additional US weapons very quickly with minimal cost/time. We can already do that with the biggest user of subs, the most technically capable partner we could dream of, it would have to be pretty specific why we would want to swap out of that.

I noticed that one of the ASLAVs was named 'Abandon Ship.' Good to see A Sqn is getting into the amphibious spirit.

I did notice that, great sign its being embraced. I have to say it looked very impressive. The full ARG will have to be something truly to behold.


I see Chinook operations were conducted on the LHD. Photos now avalible
Navy Imagery - FotoWeb 7.0

It makes the chook look pretty small!

 

[40 deg south]

Despite the enormous waste and politicking surrounding the SH-2's, the outcome with us acquiring Romeo's and the Kiwi's taking the Seasprites is a pretty good result for both countries.

ASSAIL
Good point - both countries have ended up in a very good position re naval helicopters.

It's the 'enormous waste and politicking' bit that worries me. NZDF has learned the hard way that if the budget for Project A blows out, Project B gets delayed and Project C cancelled to make up the difference.

This might be a incorrect impression, but from the downhill side of the Tasman it looks as if large swathes of the Australian government and people still believe there is an unlimited amount to money just waiting to be spent on watever takes their fancy. This strikes me as a dangerous mentality when you are kicking off a round of high-value projects (submarines, frigates etc).

On a more cheery note, here's a small tale of trans-Tasman cooperation, via the RNZN Facebook page.
Special delivery from NZ Navy | Bay Post-Moruya Examiner

 

[Volkodav]

The Romeos are great, just too bad the route to get there was so convoluted and painful. Seriously why we didn't just go for Lynx or Sea Sprite in the 70s or early 80s while ensuring we had something that could operate our existing Seakings, either a small, cheaper than a frigate helicopter carrier, or just ensure our future escorts could operate them.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Romeos are great, just too bad the route to get there was so convoluted and painful. Seriously why we didn't just go for Lynx or Sea Sprite in the 70s or early 80s while ensuring we had something that could operate our existing Seakings, either a small, cheaper than a frigate helicopter carrier, or just ensure our future escorts could operate them.

Good point and I think the Lynx would have been the better replacement both sides of the ditch rather than the Sprites. Mind you 20 / 20 hindsight is a wonderous thing

 

[John Newman]

Good point and I think the Lynx would have been the better replacement both sides of the ditch rather than the Sprites. Mind you 20 / 20 hindsight is a wonderous thing

Yes 20 / 20 hindsight is a wonderous thing!

Would have seen me picking last weeks winning Lotto numbers and I'd be well on my way to buying a Greek Island or two, buy myself a little fishing fleet and maybe a cheap Seasprite to go fish spotting too!!!!

 

[Volkodav]

Good point and I think the Lynx would have been the better replacement both sides of the ditch rather than the Sprites. Mind you 20 / 20 hindsight is a wonderous thing

Super Lynx actually came out on top of NZs evaluation for a replacement for the Wasp but they put off ordering them pending Australia's decision between Super Sea Sprite and Super Lynx, the intention being to order the same type.

Anyway NZ switched to the S-2G and ordered standard new build aircraft while Australia opted ambitiously modified zero timed used aircraft. This may have stuffed up any plans for a joint procurement but ironically provided our neighbours with a bargain next generation fleet two decades later.

 

[t68]

Super Lynx actually came out on top of NZs evaluation for a replacement for the Wasp but they put off ordering them pending Australia's decision between Super Sea Sprite and Super Lynx, the intention being to order the same type.

Anyway NZ switched to the S-2G and ordered standard new build aircraft while Australia opted ambitiously modified zero timed used aircraft. This may have stuffed up any plans for a joint procurement but ironically provided our neighbours with a bargain next generation fleet two decades later.

Also numbers tell the story for RNZAF, the original order was so small the airframes worked so hard that they were disposed of when you consider the Iroquois were in service for 49 years goes to show that numbers matter. Can't see those NH90's last the distance nor the ex ADF Sprite birds technology is advancing at a rapid rate of knots that it might not be practicle to upgrade them further.

 

[Alf662]

I should have been more specific here. Spain has enviable amphibious capability, but AFAIK (which isn't much) they don't train to operate a full ARG the size that Australia has mentioned. Which is two LHD's (~2,500+ troops but a much greater aviation capability) and Choules (~700? troops) all together (most likely with additional troops on additional ships), chocked to the gills with men and equipment (every thing we have), and use it operationally in a war like situation by itself or in conjunction with tight regional allies (definitely NZ but most likely Singapore) without US involvement (ie troops) or support (ie US AOR/LHD/ operating in support).

It would then seem inappropriate to use a single Cantabria or Aegir to resupply/replenish this entire taskforce. Which as of last year is exactly what Australia intends to do when the then defense minister announced it would be only two ships, with no local builds. While there have been many political changes since then, 3 defence ministers, 2 PM's, there is no statement contradicting that. So Australia intends to only get 2 AOR. I really hope we weren't depending on NZ specing something suitable for us.



From what I can tell the PdA had a JP-5 capacity of ~1,500t so Cantabria would have been unable to fully replenish the Jp-5 in this ship. This may not have been a significant issue as they would most likely not fill up from bone empty, and the Jp-5 that Cantabria has would still be significant for a large number of aviation sorties. PdA was a bit weird in that the propulsion gas turbines were designed originally to use the JP-5 fuel stores, it was modified in ~late 1980's to be able to use the regular marine diesel. So the size of its storage may not be relevant in terms of what was required operationally.

Australia's targeted amphibious capability should be driving (or at least a part of) all procurement. Does this meet the requirements of supporting an ARG? In many areas an ARG type operation would require the maximum capability from all services and require every asset they own or hope to own. I think we should look at what the UK, Spanish and the Americans have and use and how they are implemented.

I would be looking very hard at the Spanish and asking the question why are we getting only two (regardless of type)?

Sorry to drag this subject up again guys. I was looking on the BMT website (BMT Aegir Logistic Support Vessels | BMT Defence Services) and they had this little gem:

Useful Information

Scalable family of designs for double-hull, twin-skeg Auxiliary Oiler (AO) and Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) vessels
Close-in weapon system
Military communications system
Diesel electric propulsion
Dual-use cargo tanks (AVCAT or Dieso)
Compatible with any RAS rig manufacturer

If the cargo tanks on the Aegir are dual use it would help to alleviate the aviation fuel supply issue that has recently been discussed. Having said that, would we then have sufficient fuel to resupply fleet units? Does Navantia's Cantabria have a similar capability?

If we had another East Timor scenario, would two AOR's be sufficient to support the fleet?

 

[vonnoobie]

Sorry to drag this subject up again guys. I was looking on the BMT website (BMT Aegir Logistic Support Vessels | BMT Defence Services) and they had this little gem:

Useful Information

Scalable family of designs for double-hull, twin-skeg Auxiliary Oiler (AO) and Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment (AOR) vessels
Close-in weapon system
Military communications system
Diesel electric propulsion
Dual-use cargo tanks (AVCAT or Dieso)
Compatible with any RAS rig manufacturer

If the cargo tanks on the Aegir are dual use it would help to alleviate the aviation fuel supply issue that has recently been discussed. Having said that, would we then have sufficient fuel to resupply fleet units? Does Navantia's Cantabria have a similar capability?

If we had another East Timor scenario, would two AOR's be sufficient to support the fleet?

Through some rough calculation's (JP-5 and F-76 fuel weighted at 832 g/Litre, 1,000 Litre's to a cubic meter) the Cantabria holds a total of 8,740 tonnes of fuel of which about 15% is the JP-5 (1,311 tonnes).

The Aegir 18A holds 8,070 tonnes of fuel of which in current form only 420 tonnes is JP-5 though according to your link if actually truthful and accurate that could be changed relatively easily, though by how much is the question.

The HMAS Success holds 9,682 tonnes of fuel, 975 tonnes of which is aviation (JP-5) fuel.

The HMAS Sirius holds 28,958 tonnes of fuel, 4,564 tonnes of which is aviation fuel.

In the terms of simple number's we are actually going backwards in capability by reducing our aviation fuel capacity by over 40% (based on using Spanish JP-5 capacity).

Either one is a decent replacement for the HMAS Success though still having less range and fuel capacity but neither come close to the range or fuel capacity of the Sirius.

Simply, No. Two ships especially of the size sought will not be enough at a time when we are expanding our naval fleet into larger ships and more naval aviation. Either larger vessel's or twice the number of AOR's (Aegir 18A or Cantabria) would be needed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

part of the ET problem was around efficiency of logistics - not pure bunkerage issues

The AOR issue in an ET scenario is not about fleet replenishment - its about aviation and land bunkerage

there's a reason why the lessons learnt analysis for ET resulted in fast tracking RAN with the 2 phat ships

 

[ngatimozart]

Also numbers tell the story for RNZAF, the original order was so small the airframes worked so hard that they were disposed of when you consider the Iroquois were in service for 49 years goes to show that numbers matter. Can't see those NH90's last the distance nor the ex ADF Sprite birds technology is advancing at a rapid rate of knots that it might not be practicle to upgrade them further.

Not wishing to derail the thread, but I believe that you are wrong about the NH90 in NZ service. They don't have the issues that others have had apart from the late delivery which was out of our control. The aircraft is quite well liked in the RNZAF. The ex Aussie sprites will be replaced in 15 years because they will not last beyond that. It was always a known. If we'd stuck to our guns and bought the Lynx we could've increased the fleet easily with later model birds and then done partial fleet recap in tranches as needed. Would have been quite cost effective in the long term.

 

[StingrayOZ]

part of the ET problem was around efficiency of logistics - not pure bunkerage issues

The AOR issue in an ET scenario is not about fleet replenishment - its about aviation and land bunkerage

there's a reason why the lessons learnt analysis for ET resulted in fast tracking RAN with the 2 phat ships

I would have thought that would have put even more pressure on AOR? In operating in our region, many pacific nations airfields don't operate large jet aircraft, but may be operationally useful in war or emergencies etc. If you were doing long and heavy flights, and had to frequently refuel say a C-17, I don't imagine 440m2 would last very long.

The great thing about the LHD's is they bring everything you immediately need with them, safe, protected, moveable. But for how long at what tempo?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would have thought that would have put even more pressure on AOR? In operating in our region, many pacific nations airfields don't operate large jet aircraft, but may be operationally useful in war or emergencies etc. If you were doing long and heavy flights, and had to frequently refuel say a C-17, I don't imagine 440m2 would last very long.

The great thing about the LHD's is they bring everything you immediately need with them, safe, protected, moveable. But for how long at what tempo?

initial bunkerage reqs in an ET scenario would be by the LHD's

2 x LHD's + 2 x AOR's is a hefty set of maritime 711's

 

[vonnoobie]

initial bunkerage reqs in an ET sceanrio would be by the LHD's

2 x LHD's + 2 x AOR's is a hefty set of maritime 711's

Just for those not fully up to date with the acronyms (ie: Me ) what do you mean by ET and 711's?

 

[t68]

Just for those not fully up to date with the acronyms (ie: Me ) what do you mean by ET and 711's?

ET is East Timor or the International Force East Timor (INTERFET) got me stumped on 711's though, normally he has something in the post to put it into context a I can deduce its meaning

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just for those not fully up to date with the acronyms (ie: Me ) what do you mean by ET and 711's?

ET = east timor
711 = the local general store 7 Eleven

sorry, there's a tendency for me to type in acronyms as I tend to speed type in the hope it creates less mistakes

forum is littered with me having to go back and fix typos and grammar due to phat fingers and flying them over small keypads ...