Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Joe Black
Active Member
Australia already has a coast guard of sort, it is called the Border Force.
https://www.border.gov.au/australian-border-force-abf/protecting/maritime
They have Cape class patrol boats and a couple of Cutters.
What do you mean that there is no magic pudding? Pudding is the most important meal of the day. I'll have to go into months of therapy now :rotfl
Because it changes the design and vessel stability in very significant ways. It is not just thicker steel but the steel type, additional framing, tanks and heat exchangers (engines hate cooling water a near to freezing..... So does warm pipe work) and so forth. Changes in insulation, heating, Windows, external services, fire mains etc etc etc also come into the mix.
Proper ice lass 1A vessels (and remember these are not icebreakers just ice class cargo vessels) have heat exchanger generally in side tanks.
So if you want to build 4 it will be a different class and you are better off buying a designed ship off the shelf than buggering around with a design that was never intended for this purpose.
Add to this we have one proper ice breaker and we are about to build a more capable replacement. So we already have a resupply capability of the Antaratic
True but the white paper did specifically mention a Tiger replacement. Also the ADF is looking at effects rather than specific platforms so it is possible (maybe not likely though) that the Tiger replacement could be a mix of types covering the required capability. For example instead of one regiment with two squadrons of nine RAH it could be three squadrons (one for each brigade) with six attack and nine scout or utility types, maybe even a Firescout UCAV in the mix.
Agreed, instead of compromising the long needed OPVs, for little return on investment. Maybe instead assess what the actual need is and maybe supplement the planned ice breaker with an ice strengthened replacement for the larger BPF vessels. No need for such a specialised role to be RAN, it could just as easily (not to mention more appropriately) be operated by the old Customs Marine Unit.
I don't have any argument with any of that, merely that the landing of any type aboard Canberra in an exercise where they were testing the viability of as many types as possible is no pointer to anything, except that the USMC uses them and Canberra will probably be cooperating with them for decades.
This discussion veers off into fantasy land easily enough. Speculation on the basis of unrelated coincidences adds nothing but fog.
NOT that there's much doubt that the Tiger replacements will be a US helicopter, but we could speculate that on entirely different *facts*
oldsig
Agreed
The mix of helicopters was I believe discussed back before the tigers selection, i.e. a smaller number of gunships supported by a scout or utility type, I could be mistaking discussions with reports though as I can't find anything on it now. The US air cavalry squadrons, as well as the USMC Light Attack Helicopter Squadrons do precisely this, mix attack / scout with utility and attack with scout / light utility.
Not saying we will go this way but it is a possible solution to the Tiger replacement, as well as addressing potential gaps when the remaining Blackhawks and Kiowas are retired and potentially tie into the light attack / scout and CSAR missions also mentioned in the DWP.
And we get a chance to name her too !! Pity though, I believe Boaty McBoatface has already been taken
Any suggestions ?
Cheers
Competition to name icebreaker will 'avoid Boaty McBoatface situation', minister says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The Tiger replacement is not a done deal according to Major Gen Mathewson, head of Helicopter Systems Division. In the Jul/August edition of APDR Kym Bergmann writes that the operative words in the DWP regarding Tigers was that the "capability" will be replaced, not necessarily the airframe. He goes on to argue that replacing the airframe would be unwise.
It will be interesting to watch this space.
That and the ABFC Ocean Shield which goes between the north and southern oceans and a ctually had a 42 day patrol down there starting in April this year. She is rated to DNV ICE-1B. If another is needed we are better off ordering an exact copy of her.
Why would we do that? I would caution against assuming a vessel we have is suitable just because we bought one. A bit more care and research needs to be taken when suggesting 'we would be better of ....etc"
This vessel is a really expensive ROV and offshore support vessel with a lot of features we do not need. When purchased it cost over $100M (I heard $140M) which is a great deal for a vessel that is not designed or optimized for patrol work. Add to that it is not particularly fast, or cheap to operate.
Better idea is to buy one of the multitude of quite new stand by vessels now lying idle and convert one....... or better still build something purpose built.
However, 'ICE class' is only needed if you intend operating in or around ice. Class B is tine first year ice 30 to 70cm think. This does not mean the break ice, rather then can operate in it. My Ice Class ships have the breaker go through to cut and opening and follow behind.
Class C ships are deign to operate in open water or condition less severe than B (less than 30cm new ice)
If you want to operate independently in ice then buy an ice breaker.
Just an idea, if ice patrol ships are deemed necessary perhaps they could be built by ASC as a filler between the ANZAC replacements and the AWD replacements.
Note: I did say "if deemed necessary"
Anyway, this would make sense as such ships would need to be larger, and use different steels in their construction, than the currently planned OPVs that would have transferred to Austal by then.
Note: I did say "if deemed necessary"
Anyway, this would make sense as such ships would need to be larger, and use different steels in their construction, than the currently planned OPVs that would have transferred to Austal by then.
It was unwise to buy it in the first place, most would argue...
Many might think it is throwing good money after bad...
Mmm...... again I wonder if there is a Francophile element in Canberra. There were a whole series of French acquisitions in the late 90s, early 2000s and now it seems it may be kicking off again.
I wonder if Kym Bergmann it is pushing the European line. I have had some doubts about his impartiality, if you can call the media impartial, for a while. IMHO, it would be wiser to go FMS with the AH1 Zulu.
I'm still smarting over the fact that, if I remember correctly, Australia was offered around 40 Whiskey Cobras in the nineties and turned it down. If we'd gone with that and upgraded the airframes accordingly we'd have a far more capable attack helo fleet than what we got with 22 Tigers... at least if I'm recalling the offer properly. Anyone else know anything about a potential AH-1W buy in the late nineties?
Said no to the Cobras, said no to the Kidds at 30 million apiece, what were we thinking?
Yep. 40 refurbished USMC spec AH-1W plus weapons, spares and support for $150m and we knocked it back in favour of keeping UH-1H Bushrangers a tad longer...
We had Hawke, then Keating and the Howard. None of whom were interested in defence in the 90's...
And which of them worked out? Well some kind of did, but only at vastly greater cost, less capability and dragged out over many years...
Didn't say they worked out, in fact that is why I was speculating at a Francophile 5th column, if they aren't winning on quality, performance and price, how are they winning?
I cringe when I think of all the gear we could have bought had we not wasted so much time and treasure on dodgy procurements from the mid 90s. The sad thing is the lessons learnt in the 70s and 80s were completely thrown out the window in the late 90s when a series of incompetent (at best disinterested) amateurs held the defence portfolio and screwed up the things that were actually working and showing results, i.e. shipbuilding and systems integration.
Apart from the still developmental French gear we ordered as MOTS then wondered why it went pear shaped, we also spent more on a stake of other poorly conceived or poorly executed projects.
The Super Sea Sprites cost more than it would have cost to buy additional Seahawks and upgrade the entire fleet with Penguin, even though the requirement for a lighter helicopter disappeared once the corvettes were cancelled. Factor in that this larger fleet of 24 plus aircraft would not have required urgent replacement with Romeo and could have lasted until the early 2020s and its even worse.
Then there were the corvettes / OPCs, yes they may have been over the top with the planned ESSM and Harpoon but make those "for but not with" and we have capable, durable replacement for the Fremantles that would have averted the need for a life extension for the Freos. It would have provide a durable, ocean going, patrol capability that would have averted the entire ACPB fiasco, the extra wear and tear on the majors having to support PBs that were not up to scratch, as well as keeping shipbuilding kicking along nicely, averting the shipbuilding black hole that caused so much grief on Hobart and Canberra.
Then there is the decision to continue the upgrade of the FFGs even though the US offered us their Kidd Class DDGs, already upgraded with NTU and more capable than the FFGs could ever be. The excuse given was the procurement would require the early retirement of two Adelaide class FFGs and could result in the delay of the AWD project, FMD! The FFGUP was so poorly managed we only got four ships instead of two, and they were years late, meaning we spent significantly more money for less capability as the AWD ended up being delayed anyway, in part because of the shipbuilding black hole caused by not building the corvettes.
MU90, years late and only deployed on major surface combatants while Mk-54 has been ordered for Romeo and Poseidon. Doh! who could have seen that happening........(lots of people actually). I won't bother going into the helicopters.
I could lay out what we should have done but that's in the realm of "what if" so doesn't really belong. The trouble is, the what if isn't imaginary, it's real, it's what the experts and professionals recommended and they were ignored because government was more interested in appeasing internal elements and listening to their own (personally selected) advisers, than to the public service and ADF.
- Status