Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

It is worth noting that Techport itself (and AMC in Henderson) are both Common User Faclities owned by the respective state governments. The the infrastructure is Australian owned.

Mate, you beat me to the punch!!

The two 'primary' shipbuilding facilities you mentioned are both in Australian hands. Who really cares about the 'tenants' that may occupy and use those facilities?

If a new player (eg, an overseas owned player) wants to spend their cold hard cash in the Oz economy, and if they are successful in winning local work, again, who cares I don't see the problem.

If an overseas player does in fact win a major contract, then of course they have to invest locally to deliver on that project.

It's a nice 'motherhood' statement that it should all be 'Australian' owned and operated, problem is for that Australian owned company to actually have access to the 'capital' to be able to deliver that project, and be prepared to risk that capital too.

 

[Volkodav]

Mate, you beat me to the punch!!

The two 'primary' shipbuilding facilities you mentioned are both in Australian hands. Who really cares about the 'tenants' that may occupy and use those facilities?

If a new player (eg, an overseas owned player) wants to spend their cold hard cash in the Oz economy, and if they are successful in winning local work, again, who cares I don't see the problem.

If an overseas player does in fact win a major contract, then of course they have to invest locally to deliver on that project.

It's a nice 'motherhood' statement that it should all be 'Australian' owned and operated, problem is for that Australian owned company to actually have access to the 'capital' to be able to deliver that project, and be prepared to risk that capital too.

There is also a common user facility at East Arm Darwin which I sincerely hope is upgraded the provide support for the RANs coming OPVs. A smart move would be to build a secure all weather maintenance hall large enough to maintain USN LCS types and ensure it is operated by a suitable contractor the USN is happy dealing with.

 

[Aussie Bhoy]

I've been reading up a bit lately on the Falklands War, particularly the performance of the RN's missile and gun air defence. They did make a lot of kills, but also had some issues. How does the forum feel a hypothetical deployment of a RAN DDG and FFG pairing would have performed? Especially compared to the RN's 42/22's.

Sea Dart, Sea Wolf, 4.5 inch and Oerkilon guns versus SM-1, 5 inch and 76mm guns, Phalanx and 50 cals.

I was in the RAN later myself, a Radar Plotter (now called a CSO) and the Falklands as a recent war was always of interest, especially when I went to the Gulf. The bravado of us was that we could have taken on and defeated all comers, but would our mostly US weapons and systems have performed better in 1982 than their Brit equivalents?


If this is the wrong location for this post could a mod please move it to where you think it's more suitable (and let me know where).

 

[alexsa]

I've been reading up a bit lately on the Falklands War, particularly the performance of the RN's missile and gun air defence. They did make a lot of kills, but also had some issues. How does the forum feel a hypothetical deployment of a RAN DDG and FFG pairing would have performed? Especially compared to the RN's 42/22's.

Sea Dart, Sea Wolf, 4.5 inch and Oerkilon guns versus SM-1, 5 inch and 76mm guns, Phalanx and 50 cals.

I was in the RAN later myself, a Radar Plotter (now called a CSO) and the Falklands as a recent war was always of interest, especially when I went to the Gulf. The bravado of us was that we could have taken on and defeated all comers, but would our mostly US weapons and systems have performed better in 1982 than their Brit equivalents?

If this is the wrong location for this post could a mod please move it to where you think it's more suitable (and let me know where).

Not a huge fan of hypotheticals but a few points for context:
1. On Adelaide and Canberra were in service (Canberra working up) in 1982
2. They were still short arsed FFG7's and only carried a Squirrel so half the ASW capability was missing
3. Our Satcom fit was in its infancy and I don't think any of the DDG were equipped at this time.
4. The DDGs were being progressively modernised and there may have only been one available at that time.
5. The DDG was not equiped with CISW at the time and I fear it would be subject to the same low level - overland - attack risk as the T.42 but without the support of the T.22 (when the sewolf could lock onto the target) as the FFG CIWS would only protect itself.
6. For all its discrimation faults (in other words it would get lost when targets were at close to the same range) Seawolf was an effective short range SAM at the time ..... the only close in option the FFG-DDG combination would have was CIWS

Basically both the RAN and RN suffered the same issue ..... fitted for but not with and no money for new systems. If we were talking about the DDG as sent to the 1st Gulf war in 91 then it is a different story ...... but then all the other players in the comparison had changed by that time too.

 

[Hazdog]

Sorry for my previous post that was bit far fetched. I will not make any posts with that sort of fantasy level again.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry for my previous post that was bit far fetched. I will not make any posts with that sort of fantasy level again.

all, good, its more of an issue of the: "lets bring back the aircraft carrier and turn them into an arsenal ship" and a self contained surface action group that tends to get faster bad reactions

the theoreticals are better placed away from main threads like this though so that thread intent stays as pure as possible

 

[John Newman]

Sorry for my previous post that was bit far fetched. I will not make any posts with that sort of fantasy level again.

Hazdog, mate, don't be afraid to ask questions, ask and learn, ok? (Unfortunately there are some here from time to time who don't want to learn, don't be afraid to ask, just remember to learn, ok?).

But can I suggest something?

There is the old saying, "put brain in gear, before putting mouth in motion", basically think about what you want to say/ask, before you actually do.

If you stick it out on DT, you will find that there are a lot of very knowledgeable people here, senior members / defence professionals / moderators, and most of them have heard it all before, many times over too.

Anyway, all I can say is: ask, contribute and learn, ok?

Cheers,

 

[Hazdog]

Thanks for the reply's, again I am sorry (last apology).

In an effort to get a debate started, how sure can we be in hoping that the navy will take up the option for 3rd AOR, pursue the idea of a 2nd Choules type ship and a replacement for the LCH? (as John Newman said in a separate thread)

What would the navy look like with and without these parts of the fleet?

 

[swerve]

There might be issues with building a fifth Bay (though BAE might be willing to give it a go), but Damen & Navantia would probably both be happy to build something similar. The design is a variant of the Damen Enforcer family, similar to the Galicia/Rotterdam/Johan de Witt LPDs.

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards with the AOR and/or Logostics Support Ship (if the DWP is anything to go by that's just another name for an LPD) I'd say there is a real good chance of at least one of them though to which I can't say and I don't think any one really can. I read the DWP as that down the line they will have the funds and crew for an extra ship but don't know exactly yet what will be needed more, so are leaving there options open. If we and the RAN are lucky thing's may improve enought to get both.

As to the LCH's, while I would have loved them and they would fill a very important capability for our area of the world (The amount of smaller island's some times an LCH would be better suited to the task then an LPD or LHD, also free's them up for the big tasks) I just dont see them happening. There were early plans to replace them but no requirements had bene stated and with the 2016 DWP having zero mention of them I have the feeling they have been at best put on the back burner while everything else is put into place and at worst just scrapped the idea.

In any case only time will tell, probably wont know for any certainty on either one for a decade.

 

[pussertas]

Since we are spending all the money one would hope that the I P would be included.:nutkick

 

[gf0012-aust]

Since we are spending all the money one would hope that the I P would be included.:nutkick

default position on any technology is that the commonwealth owns it - if not its negotiated within contract (eg exceptions being FMS etc...)

any tech developed while in contract is also commonwealth - if not then its negotiated within contract

that's an oversimplification for obvious reasons, but IP is always a big red flag and in the last few years is something that no project manager wants to stuff up on.

 

[John Newman]

In regards with the AOR and/or Logostics Support Ship (if the DWP is anything to go by that's just another name for an LPD) I'd say there is a real good chance of at least one of them though to which I can't say and I don't think any one really can. I read the DWP as that down the line they will have the funds and crew for an extra ship but don't know exactly yet what will be needed more, so are leaving there options open. If we and the RAN are lucky thing's may improve enought to get both.

As to the LCH's, while I would have loved them and they would fill a very important capability for our area of the world (The amount of smaller island's some times an LCH would be better suited to the task then an LPD or LHD, also free's them up for the big tasks) I just dont see them happening. There were early plans to replace them but no requirements had bene stated and with the 2016 DWP having zero mention of them I have the feeling they have been at best put on the back burner while everything else is put into place and at worst just scrapped the idea.

In any case only time will tell, probably wont know for any certainty on either one for a decade.

Agree it's probably going to be decade before we know if that 'extra' ship mentioned in the DWP is either a third AOR or a second LPD to operate alongside Choules.

Be good if it was both (but not going to hold my breath). I do wonder sometimes with the dollars that Defence spent on firstly purchasing Ocean Shield and then Ocean Protector what that could have paid for?


Yes mention of the LCH replacements certainly did 'disappear' from the DWP, so who knows if that has been deferred indefinitely or just gone altogether.

I was thinking though, if the project was just deferred till a much later date, they might be a good follow on for when the OPV's come to the end of their production process in WA.

With Techport being the site for continuing 'major' warship construction and Henderson being the site for 'minor' warships, I do wonder what the Government will do to sustain that capability.

A new fleet of LCH might just be part of that answer too.

Again, time will tell.

 

[John Newman]

There might be issues with building a fifth Bay (though BAE might be willing to give it a go), but Damen & Navantia would probably both be happy to build something similar. The design is a variant of the Damen Enforcer family, similar to the Galicia/Rotterdam/Johan de Witt LPDs.

I wasn't thinking specifically of a 'repeat' of another Bay class, but yes certainly an Enforcer family design, probably more along the lines of the larger of the two Dutch ships, the Johan de Witt.

But it does bring up an interesting question regarding the various Enforcer sub-classes.

I would imagine that somewhere by around the mid 2020's the Dutch, Spain, UK and Australia will be starting to look at designs for replacement for their various versions of that class. (And for the RAN that would be the eventual replacement for Choules and that possible 2nd LPD too).

Might be an opportunity for those four nations to get their heads together and see if future needs could come from another 'evolution' of that basic design.

Interesting thought!

 

[Alf662]

Agree it's probably going to be decade before we know if that 'extra' ship mentioned in the DWP is either a third AOR or a second LPD to operate alongside Choules.

Be good if it was both (but not going to hold my breath). I do wonder sometimes with the dollars that Defence spent on firstly purchasing Ocean Shield and then Ocean Protector what that could have paid for?


Yes mention of the LCH replacements certainly did 'disappear' from the DWP, so who knows if that has been deferred indefinitely or just gone altogether.

I was thinking though, if the project was just deferred till a much later date, they might be a good follow on for when the OPV's come to the end of their production process in WA.

With Techport being the site for continuing 'major' warship construction and Henderson being the site for 'minor' warships, I do wonder what the Government will do to sustain that capability.

A new fleet of LCH might just be part of that answer too.

Again, time will tell.

The DWP also alludes to reactivation of the riverine capability and the replacement of the LCM1e. The DWP also includes modifications to the LHD's and to the Choules.

Until the LCM1e replacements and the riverine capability has been defined it would be very hard to define what sort of support vessel or vessels would be required to sustain them in operational roles. So these two capabilities would need to be sorted out before any replacement vessels were ordered.

It is my view that any LCH replacement would have to be fully integrated with both of the new capabilities. However, Choules is up for replacement around 2030 which would allow both new capabilities to be fully integrated into that new design, this in turn would push out the acquisition time line of any LCH replacements past the life of the current DWP.

It could also be that the LCM1e replacements are also the LCH replacements but it just wasn't stated or made clear in the DWP.

It is a big conundrum though regarding an acquisition of an additional AOR or an additional LPD, when you can only have one but both are required.

 

[John Newman]

The DWP also alludes to reactivation of the riverine capability and the replacement of the LCM1e. The DWP also includes modifications to the LHD's and to the Choules.

Until the LCM1e replacements and the riverine capability has been defined it would be very hard to define what sort of support vessel or vessels would be required to sustain them in operational roles. So these two capabilities would need to be sorted out before any replacement vessels were ordered.

It is my view that any LCH replacement would have to be fully integrated with both of the new capabilities. However, Choules is up for replacement around 2030 which would allow both new capabilities to be fully integrated into that new design, this in turn would push out the acquisition time line of any LCH replacements past the life of the current DWP.

It could also be that the LCM1e replacements are also the LCH replacements but it just wasn't stated or made clear in the DWP.

It is a big conundrum though regarding an acquisition of an additional AOR or an additional LPD, when you can only have one but both are required.

Yep, all good points.

Regarding the LCM1e, yes hopefully their replacements are more capable (especially when carrying 'heavy metal' such as the M1's in heavy seas), but I can't see how they could ever be considered as LCH 'replacements'.

The replacement LCM's will probably/possibly 'grow' in size (or better design?), but still this is one big limitation, and that is the space available in the well docks of the LHD's (and possibly Choules or her eventual replacement and that possible 2nd LPD too).

They still have to fit in the well dock of those ships, or what would be the point?

I can't ever imagine that those improved LCM's could ever operate completely independently of their respective 'mother' ships in the way the much larger LCH ships could.


Yes certainly the RAN's amphibious fleet is light years ahead of a few years ago, the 2 x LPA's, 1 x Tobruk, the LCM8's and the 6 x LCH fleet, today its the 2 x LHD's, 1 x Choules (plus 2 x Mexeflote), and the 12 x LCM1e.

But I still see this 'gap' in the middle where the LCM1e fleet is not able to operate without that mother ship as the LCH could.

Not trying to compare the RAN's situation to the RAAF's, but it interesting when you look at the RAAF's Air Mobility Group, AMG basically has a solution to fit whatever the requirement is, C-17A, KC-30A, C-130J, C-27J right down to the King Air fleet.

Anyway, and just my opinion too, but I just see a 'hole' in the middle of the RAN's capabilities.

 

[Alf662]

Yep, all good points.

Regarding the LCM1e, yes hopefully their replacements are more capable (especially when carrying 'heavy metal' such as the M1's in heavy seas), but I can't see how they could ever be considered as LCH 'replacements'.

The replacement LCM's will probably/possibly 'grow' in size (or better design?), but still this is one big limitation, and that is the space available in the well docks of the LHD's (and possibly Choules or her eventual replacement and that possible 2nd LPD too).

They still have to fit in the well dock of those ships, or what would be the point?

I can't ever imagine that those improved LCM's could ever operate completely independently of their respective 'mother' ships in the way the much larger LCH ships could.


Yes certainly the RAN's amphibious fleet is light years ahead of a few years ago, the 2 x LPA's, 1 x Tobruk, the LCM8's and the 6 x LCH fleet, today its the 2 x LHD's, 1 x Choules (plus 2 x Mexeflote), and the 12 x LCM1e.

But I still see this 'gap' in the middle where the LCM1e fleet is not able to operate without that mother ship as the LCH could.

Not trying to compare the RAN's situation to the RAAF's, but it interesting when you look at the RAAF's Air Mobility Group, AMG basically has a solution to fit whatever the requirement is, C-17A, KC-30A, C-130J, C-27J right down to the King Air fleet.

Anyway, and just my opinion too, but I just see a 'hole' in the middle of the RAN's capabilities.

Totally agree with you John, but I do not think that hole is going to be plugged until post 2030. It just isn't a high enough priority.

The LCM1e's are good at what they were designed to do but fall short of what the army actually need. I think it was recognised that to provide the capability that was required a rather bitter pill was going to have to be swallowed before things could move forward. Hence the rather grey statements regarding future requirements.

 

[John Newman]

Totally agree with you John, but I do not think that hole is going to be plugged until post 2030. It just isn't a high enough priority.

The LCM1e's are good at what they were designed to do but fall short of what the army actually need. I think it was recognised that to provide the capability that was required a rather bitter pill was going to have to be swallowed before things could move forward. Hence the rather grey statements regarding future requirements.

Alf, yes not until the 2030's is probably pretty accurate, (if the project is ever to be revived).

Just a matter of watching the various future updates of the DIIP to include new projects that fall outside of the 'usual' 10 year projections period.

Putting the specific question of the LCH aside for a minute, I'm still interested to see how the Government (and future Governments too), handle the situation as regards to naval shipbuilding in WA.


As I said in an earlier post, the Government is planning to have naval shipbuilding 'hubs' in two locations, Techport SA for continuous 'major' warship and submarine construction and Henderson WA for 'minor' warship construction.

The roadmap for Techport appears to be pretty clear (apart from the 12 submarines), the first 2 OPV's, followed by the 9 Future Frigates starting in 2020, and you could reasonably assume that the eventual replacements for the 3 AWD's will probably follow on from the completion of that project, and so on.

Henderson, Austal has the 21 or so replacements for the Pacific Patrol boats starting soon, I could imagine that future projects for Austal could include the eventual replacements for the Cape class, and so on (plus whatever other foreign naval work they continue to pick up too).

The 'yet' to be announced winner of the OPV project will be busy with the OPV's until around 2030, so what follow that?

Obviously I don't expect the Government to be announcing projects that are not yet on the drawing board, but it is interesting to speculate as to what could follow.

Possibly further OPV work to bring SEA 1180 back to the approx. 20 hulls first mentioned, eg, future replacements for the Mine Warfare and Hydrographic fleets.

And of course I would throw the LCH fleet into the mix too (and why not the replacements for the LCM-1E's?).

And also, depending on the 'growth' capabilities of those facilities, you could eventually look at 'larger' support ships too, Choules and the possible 2nd LSD for example.

 

[Alf662]

Alf, yes not until the 2030's is probably pretty accurate, (if the project is ever to be revived).

Just a matter of watching the various future updates of the DIIP to include new projects that fall outside of the 'usual' 10 year projections period.

Putting the specific question of the LCH aside for a minute, I'm still interested to see how the Government (and future Governments too), handle the situation as regards to naval shipbuilding in WA.


As I said in an earlier post, the Government is planning to have naval shipbuilding 'hubs' in two locations, Techport SA for continuous 'major' warship and submarine construction and Henderson WA for 'minor' warship construction.

The roadmap for Techport appears to be pretty clear (apart from the 12 submarines), the first 2 OPV's, followed by the 9 Future Frigates starting in 2020, and you could reasonably assume that the eventual replacements for the 3 AWD's will probably follow on from the completion of that project, and so on.

Henderson, Austal has the 21 or so replacements for the Pacific Patrol boats starting soon, I could imagine that future projects for Austal could include the eventual replacements for the Cape class, and so on (plus whatever other foreign naval work they continue to pick up too).

The 'yet' to be announced winner of the OPV project will be busy with the OPV's until around 2030, so what follow that?

Obviously I don't expect the Government to be announcing projects that are not yet on the drawing board, but it is interesting to speculate as to what could follow.

Possibly further OPV work to bring SEA 1180 back to the approx. 20 hulls first mentioned, eg, future replacements for the Mine Warfare and Hydrographic fleets.

And of course I would throw the LCH fleet into the mix too (and why not the replacements for the LCM-1E's?).

And also, depending on the 'growth' capabilities of those facilities, you could eventually look at 'larger' support ships too, Choules and the possible 2nd LSD for example.

I think their will be more than enough work for the two yards.

IIRC the MCM's and survey vessels were excluded from the OPV batch build, so an increase in OPV numbers is quite likely.

Ocean Protector will also be up for replacement. It could also be possible that this vessel is replaced by an LPD around the 2030 mark?? Ocean Protector would be 25 years old by then and a lot of the amphibious requirements would have been well and truly defined.

 

[alexsa]

I think their will be more than enough work for the two yards.

IIRC the MCM's and survey vessels were excluded from the OPV batch build, so an increase in OPV numbers is quite likely.

Ocean Protector will also be up for replacement. It could also be possible that this vessel is replaced by an LPD around the 2030 mark?? Ocean Protector would be 25 years old by then and a lot of the amphibious requirements would have been well and truly defined.

Ocean Protector has only just been purchased having been chartered previously (operated on a commercial bare boat charter with a civilian company operating it) and then returned to owners after much of the gear was removed. The vessel has only recently been acquired (quite cheaply I expect given the current market) for border protection duties in the the main. Operated as a Naval Auxillary (with Civilian master and crew) with Border Force on board

.... pity we paid 140M for Ocean Shield which was to replace Ocean Protector no less. It was initially 'purchased' as a HADR asset pending the OP going off charter....... the problem was that the Government of the day bought new at the top of the market. That money did to include the cost of retrofitting accomodation in the ROV hanger. There are some really cheap deals for similar tonnage now since the offshore market went into free fall.

The Ocean Shield was operated by a commercial operator but is now in the hands of Border Force.

Essentially I don't think these two really feature in the DWP.