Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

Just a thought on the addition of a third ship of the Cantabria class for the RAN.
While two new ships of the class will be a step up in capability over our current ships Supply and Sirius, a third will certainly add to availability and sustainment. Certainly very flexible asserts that also have not insignificant logistical dry storage capacity, complimented with flight deck and two spot hangar for delivery of stores. Good for some limited HADR work, not to mention complimenting our dedicated amphibious assets.Three ships should be good in numbers to both support the fleet and or act as a sole contributor to UN duties.
I would hope such ships will not be such political footballs as acquiring extra high end destroyers and / or additional LHD'S / helicopter carriers, however desirable such ships maybe.
If there is a challenge, it's probably where the third ship is to be built; ie Spain or locally in Australia.
As to the future, a fleet of a dozen OPV,s and a dozen destroyers I would suggest requires commensurate fleet support. Two ships may not be enough and with the suggestion of acquiring an amphibious / supply ship in the late 2020's maybe there is some merit in looking at a third Cantabria instead.

Which begs the question. Do we replace HMAS Choules with another dedicated amphibious ship, or do we give her a big refit to keep her going.
For myself, I'm not a fan of single ship classes which suggests a replacement amphibious ship of a class ship that we already have in service.

Not unrealistic for a nation of our size ,wealth and most importantly our needs.
Anyway, back to the naughty corner!!!!!!!!!

Regards S

 

[hauritz]

The Defence Integrated Investment Program spells out that there is a plan for an additional replenishment, or logistics ship, to be built in the mid 20s and that it could be similar to the Choules.

So at the moment it is a toss up whether or not they build an additional Cantabria or look at a logistics ship. I still find it odd that they are talking about one or the other. Perhaps they might settle on a something like a Joint Support Ship and build a second ship to replace the Choules.

The Choules itself will have its life extended and serve into the 2030s

 

[swerve]

Why 'life extended'? She was commissioned into the RFA 10 years ago. She should last until 2030 without life extensions. Just normal refits.

 

[ADMk2]

I notice that both Japan and South Korea who both have more Aegis than us, are ordering more.It is clear that 3 are not enough, and our three would probably be the poorest of all Aegis destroyers with only 48 VLS. I would like us to have four more destroyers, 2 Aegis AWD, 2 general purpose, with tomahawks and other weapons. Maybe built on the German hull, and armed with at least 64 VLS.

And each to have room for two helicopters.

Shoot me down.

Not enough for what? With 3 AWD's, 9 Future Frigates and new subs, along with the LHD's and Choules, the new support ships, OPV's and MH-60R as major assets we will have the best equipped navy we've ever had and one that stacks up against any other power of our size.

You get what you pay for, but you can also only operate what you can crew... Being in a position to significantly enhance the size and power of RAN beyond what is already planned, doesn't seem achievable to me, in the near future.

 

[ASSAIL]

Why 'life extended'? She was commissioned into the RFA 10 years ago. She should last until 2030 without life extensions. Just normal refits.

Speaking of which..has anyone heard any info on whether or not the RAN/A&P are going to re-route the exhaust systems on Choules and bring her up to the Bay class standard?

 

[swerve]

...
Actually Chakri Naruebet would do just fine, so long as there were a couple of them. With a normal air group of twelve helicopters and harriers, able to be doubled with deck park, a 3D radar, she would have added a significant capability to the RAN at minimal cost. LM2500 GTs and MTU 16V diesels, SPS-52, as well as fitted for but not with four Phalanx and an eight cell Mk-41 VLS and currently being upgraded with SAAB 9LV CS and Sea Giraffe, she would have significant commonality with current RAN systems. She would also be an excellent candidate for a version of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade.

Fine as a small Harrier carrier & OK as a helicopter carrier, but not instead of an amphibious ship, unless paired with hangarless ships which could carry & land all the vehicles & other heavy stuff.

Why 'at minimal cost'? The basic ship was more expensive than an LPD, & buying & operating Harriers wouldn't have been at all cheap.

 

[Volkodav]

Fine as a small Harrier carrier & OK as a helicopter carrier, but not instead of an amphibious ship, unless paired with hangarless ships which could carry & land all the vehicles & other heavy stuff.

Why 'at minimal cost'? The basic ship was more expensive than an LPD, & buying & operating Harriers wouldn't have been at all cheap.

The main thing would have been a "for but not with" version to get the existing Seakings back to sea, with secondary roles as a training ship, an aviation training ship and an LPH at a stretch using the still in service Wessex fleet. The radars and weapon systems could have been fitted as required (and as money became available) and could possibly be justified in part as an expansion of the training role.

 

[swerve]

Yeah, but why a ship built to operate fast jets - & with money spent, & design decisions made, to make a rather small ship capable of that, thus compromising its abilities to do other things - unless you intend to use it for that? This isn't like the LHDs, where the STOVL capability is a secondary ability, fairly easily fitted into ships of their size: this is a ship designed to squeeze in a capability which it's near the limit for.

And to use that capability puts the cost up a lot.

Aviation training could be done on a cheaper ship which also provides much more amphibious capability.

 

[PatH]

Interview on Subs decision

Noticed this on sky news last night, Gary Johnson and his mob are saying that the decision to buy the subs was made by people who don't know what they are doing and that Generals and Admirals should not have a role in choosing it. Seems like complete rubbish to me and he is claiming that the german sub exists and isn't just on paper, however I was under the impression it was a paper sub still?? Anyway here's the link:

https://www.facebook.com/PaulMurrayLIVE/videos/1471149016247396/

Thoughts? It seems to me that he thinks there is no more info beyond the public domain which is very naive.

And here's a link to the website they mention at the beginning:

Submarines For Australia – To those concerned about Australias future maritime defence

 

[oldsig127]

https://www.facebook.com/PaulMurrayLIVE/videos/1471149016247396/

Thoughts? It seems to me that he thinks there is no more info beyond the public domain which is very naive.

And here's a link to the website they mention at the beginning:

Submarines For Australia – To those concerned about Australias future maritime defence

Jaycar Electronics and Dick Smith.

World renowned experts in defence electronics. Yeah, I reckon they're more authoritative than any old Naval officer, especially submariners of flag rank...

oldsig

 

[spoz]

No, there was serious discussion about standing up a second squadron of Upholders while Collins was remediated. VADM Chris Barrie and various others were dead against it. The investigations of the boats by RAN were also sufficient to treat the concept as something coming from the "good idea faeries" and were dismissed. It was part of the risk mitigation considerations around late delivery of Collins.
.

I guess it depends what you mean by the term "serious discussion". Given Chris B was VCDF at the time and his attitude was well known in both his staff and that of the Forces of Darkness and their successors, as was Blinky Bill's, there was zero chance of it going anywhere. Chris didn't change his opinion when promoted, either.

Spot on about Moore. One on my lasting, and not good, memories of that period was of the first time I had to brief him. If I was rating "Defence Ministers of My Time" with Robert Ray clear and away the best, Mr Moore would be close to the bottom, if not actually there. The competition, and they were actually titled Defence Science and Personnel Ministers I think, certainly not the senior minister, would come from Gordon Bilney and Ros Kelly. Robert Ray, despite his reputation for managing the factions in the labour party and his constant pipe smoking, was a delight to work for.

 

[ngatimozart]

Noticed this on sky news last night, Gary Johnson and his mob are saying that the decision to buy the subs was made by people who don't know what they are doing and that Generals and Admirals should not have a role in choosing it. Seems like complete rubbish to me and he is claiming that the german sub exists and isn't just on paper, however I was under the impression it was a paper sub still?? Anyway here's the link:

https://www.facebook.com/PaulMurrayLIVE/videos/1471149016247396/

Thoughts? It seems to me that he thinks there is no more info beyond the public domain which is very naive.

And here's a link to the website they mention at the beginning:

Submarines For Australia – To those concerned about Australias future maritime defence

The maritime version of Air Power Australia. I wonder if they think that the Earth is flat also.

 

[John Fedup]

$hit, I sure hope these fools go the away of Air Power Australia and fade off to frigging oblivion long before we begin our sub replacement program (hopefully). The last thing we need is our left-wing dip$hit media referencing these fools as experts as which happened with F-35 and Air Power Australia. BTW, lefturds in Canada still reference their site even though it has been dormant for several years now.

 

[hauritz]

Actually, I do think that Australia does need to develop a plan B for the Collins replacement.

The timing of the submarine project is very tight.

The French are aiming to have a sub built by 2030 - 31 and in service by 2032. If there are no slippages then the Australia should have adequate submarine assets going into the 2030s. In my opinion, a project of this complexity going ahead without some delays is extremely unlikely.

We may yet have to come up with some sort of "Super Hornet" solution to cover any capability gap that occurs around that period.

 

[spoz]

Actually, I do think that Australia does need to develop a plan B for the Collins replacement.

The timing of the submarine project is very tight.

The French are aiming to have a sub built by 2030 - 31 and in service by 2032. If there are no slippages then the Australia should have adequate submarine assets going into the 2030s. In my opinion, a project of this complexity going ahead without some delays is extremely unlikely.

We may yet have to come up with some sort of "Super Hornet" solution to cover any capability gap that occurs around that period.

We'll probably do, or at least attempt to do, what we did with the O boats; give the Collins an extra full cycle docking to tide us over. Possibly not the whole fleet as all you need to do is enable the phase in of the new boats. However, I don't know if that is feasible with COL.

 

[vonnoobie]

We'll probably do, or at least attempt to do, what we did with the O boats; give the Collins an extra full cycle docking to tide us over. Possibly not the whole fleet as all you need to do is enable the phase in of the new boats. However, I don't know if that is feasible with COL.

There was talk about this a few months ago on the thread and from memory we can give them an extra FCD extending there life span from 28 years to 35 or there about.

That all being said if the aim is to deliver one boat ever 2 - 2.5 years then I'm not so certain a single FCD would suffice. If given an FCD to the HMAS Rankin by the time she retires around 35 years of age we would only have around 3, maybe 4 of the new submarines delivered leaving a decent size gap in our fleet in a time frame we would likely be able to least afford it. If they want to retain a minimum of a 6 strong fleet then they would have to either speed up production requiring shorter life spans if they want to retain a continuous production system or lengthen the age of some of the Collins class submarines beyond 40 years.

Either way there are no easy answers, just been left too little time due to inability of politicians to start the replacement project soon enough and when they did have it changed around so much between the various PM's.

 

[hauritz]

The problem is that the subs will have to last longer than 35 years if fleet numbers are maintained.

Farcomb has just completed a full docking cycle which will see it through to 2026. Collins is next which will get it through to 2028.

At that rate the last of the collins class will make it through to 2036 ... provided that there will be no further FCD.

With no further FCD the sub fleet will drop to 3 or 4 boats by the mid 2030s ... and that is if there are no delays.

To maintain fleet numbers a few of the Colins class will have to serve well into their 4th decade.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I guess it depends what you mean by the term "serious discussion". Given Chris B was VCDF at the time and his attitude was well known in both his staff and that of the Forces of Darkness and their successors, as was Blinky Bill's, there was zero chance of it going anywhere. Chris didn't change his opinion when promoted, either.

He was pretty scathing in his assessment of the Upholders so it was pretty obvious that they had 2 chances.....

Spot on about Moore. One on my lasting, and not good, memories of that period was of the first time I had to brief him. If I was rating "Defence Ministers of My Time" with Robert Ray clear and away the best, Mr Moore would be close to the bottom, if not actually there. The competition, and they were actually titled Defence Science and Personnel Ministers I think, certainly not the senior minister, would come from Gordon Bilney and Ros Kelly. Robert Ray, despite his reputation for managing the factions in the labour party and his constant pipe smoking, was a delight to work for.

and then there was Bronnie who was junior DefSciPersMin but seemed to think that made her grand "p00 bah"

I used to feel so sorry for the poor WRAN that was lumped with being her ADC and bag carrier..

Moore was basically molly the monk most of the time - and even when he was at conventions his sail was flapping far in the wind

Moore and Smith are just not worth ranking

 

[vonnoobie]

Just surfing the net and found several (Not sure if accurate) references to the Shortfin Barracuda's being commissioned and active betweeen 2030 and 2070. If I am reading this correctly then the last Shortfin would be retired in 2070. Leaves me to the belief they are going for a 20 year build time frame along with a 20 year life span per a boat which would fit into that 40 year period.

If im correct then assuming no production delays by 2040 we would have half of the new boats give or take.

 

[ASSAIL]

The problem is that the subs will have to last longer than 35 years if fleet numbers are maintained.

Farcomb has just completed a full docking cycle which will see it through to 2026. Collins is next which will get it through to 2028.

At that rate the last of the collins class will make it through to 2036 ... provided that there will be no further FCD.

With no further FCD the sub fleet will drop to 3 or 4 boats by the mid 2030s ... and that is if there are no delays.

To maintain fleet numbers a few of the Colins class will have to serve well into their 4th decade.

Age of a sub is surely the product of two things, age and dive cycles/work rate. I would have thought that the boats have not been flogged early in there lives so should be structurally sound.
Naturally other questions of obsolescence have to be dealt with.
Given the above, do those of you who know have a comment on that?