Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[t68]

That's a very ambitious amphibious fleet for a country with Australia's population & economy. Are you suggesting a big increase in defence spending?

I'd always like an increase in defence spending

In realty the LST would be the LCH replacement which has a comparable crew size for greater increase in capbilty, the Endurance would be the increase in capacity something that could be mix and matched pending the circumstances and the crewing should not impact too heavily with planning, the Karel Doorman is a replacement for Choules as the requirment is for either another sealift or AOR Karel Doorman being a bit of a hybrid can function in either role but would not be as efficient it can cover if needed.

 

[Stampede]

That is true but it is arguable whether the Canberras are best supported by a ship the size of Choules or three smaller ships similar to the Endurance class.

Regards,

Massive

I'm thinking along the same line.
A class of smaller relatively basic LSD's with out the bells and whistles.

Capability will come from availability and that will come from numbers.A class of three fitted for but not with the space and weight for future growth, yet still able to perform the many low intensity logistical and HADR tasks around the coast and within our sphere of interest.
Small crew and affordable.
Our three amphibious assets are having teething problems and I'm confident there will be a fix, but it shows yet again our susceptibility when we have low numbers to call from when maintenance issue arise.

Can we imagine the RAAF being called upon to satisfy a logistical need and there response is %66 of the C-17's and KC-30a have maintenance issues and the C-130J, 737-700 and C-27J actually aren't in inventory.
Not really much option for government and that TODAY is where the navy is and really it is beyond justifying.
It is just not acceptable and what I find incongruous is that the amphibious stuff on so many levels should be such an easy sell.
Perplexed

Thoughts regards S

 

[Pusser01]

HMAS Sydney to be dismantled for scrap in Henderson | Community News Group

Found out today that ex- HMAS Sydney is to be scrapped in Henderson after she arrives in a week or so. Was just wondering when a ship of similar size was last scrapped in Australia?
Cheers

 

[vonnoobie]

HMAS Sydney to be dismantled for scrap in Henderson | Community News Group

Found out today that ex- HMAS Sydney is to be scrapped in Henderson after she arrives in a week or so. Was just wondering when a ship of similar size was last scrapped in Australia?
Cheers

Cant find any details on past ship scrapping in Australia which is not massively surprising as we have often always sent them over seas to be scrapped even in the early days.

In regards to this scrapping, well part of me thinks it's us looking to pull everything we can off of them to either use our selves or sell to another nation (Poland has eyed 2 of the Adelaide FFG's, Those with spare parts could be a good sale/buy) but part of me is thinking this is a subtle take the work and STFU to the WA mafia while the first 2 OPC's are built in SA along with 'only' getting $100m in site upgrades.

Give them 2 FFG's to scrap, possibly 2 more to be refurbished for sale to Poland if they go ahead with there enquiries.. Should keep WA happy and quite... maybe.

 

[Volkodav]

The thought crosses my mind that the ideal solution for the eventual third AOR/alternate logistics ship could be a new generation T-AKE. Abe suggested the Lewis and Clark class as an option for our AOR requirement some years back and the final three ships of the class have been assigned to support US ARGs, showing the types suitability for amphibious support as well as replenishment.

By the time the ADF gets anywhere near first pass selection for their new ship the Lewis and Clark will have been long out of production but it could be worthwhile having a discussion with the US and perhaps NASSCO (the designer and builder of the T-AKE, T-AKR, ESD and ESB) about what they could offer as a flexible, swing role support ship to complement the AORs and LHDs.

 

[Volkodav]

I am a fan of the Endurance class LSTs and could see perhaps three or four ships of similar concept perhaps being considered as a replacement for the already retired LCHs. They are larger, more capable and more expensive, but when you look at the LSMs the LCHs replaced and in particular the local design LSM MkII the army actually wanted, (or even the LCH replacement outlined in the 2009 DWP) an Endurance sized multirole amphib may not be too far off the mark.

Then again the US Army Besson Class support ships would be a good compromise too, especially with all the extra heavy metal that will have to be lifted and landed once LAND 400 starts to deliver.

 

[PeterM]

The hypothetical talk about the Endurance class is interesting.

Damen do have a similar sized design in their enforcer range, the Enforcer 7000 LPD which at 7,850tons and they seem very handy vessels.

I am curious though how their costs, crewing and capability of multiple smaller vessels compare to their larger equivalents.

Damen list their Enforcer 13000 design which is an interesting comparison. Just going by accommodation alone (admittedly a very limited factor), the larger 13000 design has 150 crew and can carry 550 troops. The smaller 7000 design has 90 crew and can carry 375 troops. It looks like three of the smaller design would have a similar capacity to the larger design (300 crew +1100 troops for the two larger designs versus 270 crew + 1125 troops for three of the smaller designs).


Of course that doesn't take into account a vast range of other capabilities and factors (most of all CONOPS).

 

[Volkodav]

The hypothetical talk about the Endurance class is interesting.

Damen do have a similar sized design in their enforcer range, the Enforcer 7000 LPD which at 7,850tons and they seem very handy vessels.

I am curious though how their costs, crewing and capability of multiple smaller vessels compare to their larger equivalents.

Damen list their Enforcer 13000 design which is an interesting comparison. Just going by accommodation alone (admittedly a very limited factor), the larger 13000 design has 150 crew and can carry 550 troops. The smaller 7000 design has 90 crew and can carry 375 troops. It looks like three of the smaller design would have a similar capacity to the larger design (300 crew +1100 troops for the two larger designs versus 270 crew + 1125 troops for three of the smaller designs).


Of course that doesn't take into account a vast range of other capabilities and factors (most of all CONOPS).

One of the things I have always liked about the Endurance class is their small crew of 65, vs 58 for the LSMs that preceded the LCHs . They would also be useful as training ships due to their extensive accommodation, flexibility and wide variety of systems. Also imagine them in operations such as Sovereign Borders, or counter piracy, possibly operating in concert with fast interceptor craft, RHIBs, even CB90 or USN MK VI PBs / Super Dvora type in the dock well, as well as their aviation facilities.

I'm not saying that Australia should get something like that, but rather I can see how they could fit and complement or even replace other capabilities. Consider the possibility of them being a mother ship to unmanned or small inshore mine warfare or survey craft.

 

[koala]

Some very experienced and competent people, including seconded BIW staff and Raytheon people, were very wary of contracting the losing yard (both for the AWD and then for block work) to take over the block work from NQEA when they hit contractual problems. The comments included, "would you trust a company that has everything to gain from your failure to provide critical fabrications in a timely fashion and of sufficient quality". They didn't predict what would happen precisely but they fully expected ASC to be screwed in some way and basically said we told you so when the problems with the keel blocks arose.

It wasn't just the dimensional errors in the early blocks at issue, it was the further, brain numbingly (apparently) incompetent, attempts at rework, after the contractor concerned had lobbied very hard to start them from scratch (at a premium). Instead of fixing the dimensional issues by gouging the welds to remove the shell plating to weld new plating correctly, they cut them with cutting tips damaging the framing beneath and then demanded to be allowed to start from scratch at ASCs expense. They basically more than doubled the cost of the rework and the amount of schedule slip.

Then there was the condition of the blocks when delivered. Directional valves installed back to front, manual actuators for the valves installed in inaccessible orientations, weld spatter inside valves, spatter, slag, blasting aggregate, rags, gloves, welding rods, foods rappers and scraps inside pipe segments in the blocks that had supposedly (and ASC had paid to be) tested and preserved.

Some suggested deliberate sabotage, personally I opted for the "never assume malice when stupidity is a perfectly adequate explanation" that gf used to have as his signature. Then again as more and more happened, including the backgrounding of the then Defmin and his subsequent comments about canoes, moves to install the contractor concerned to run the entire AWD project (ignoring the fact that the contractor caused most of the problems), now the issues with the LHDs that appear to show Navantia in a bad light, I am starting to wonder.

I am wondering how much blame could be put on Australian shipbuilding and maintenance procedures for the LHD's propulsion issues, if my memory serves me correct I thought these ships were built in Spain and we only installed the super structure and our comms, radar ect?

 

[MARKMILES77]

Naval Today.

A Royal Australian Navy patrol boat caught fire while at sea, the Australian defense department said on May 26.

The ship’s crew reported the fire in the engine room of HMAS Maryborough broke out as the ship was operating north east of Darwin.

According to the department of defense, the crew extinguished the fire in accordance with procedures and no crew members were injured in the incident.

The ship is now on its way to Darwin where inspection and an assessment of damage will be carried out. The department said an investigation into the incident was now underway.

HMAS Maryborough is an Armidale-class patrol boat in service with Royal Australian Navy. The ship entered service in December 2008.

Have not seen any reporting of this in the general media.

 

[Volkodav]

Have not seen any reporting of this in the general media.

Its been on the news and I am very interested to hear what happened and why, interesting that this happens now, after remediation and Thales taking over the maintenance contract.

 

[Stampede]

One of the things I have always liked about the Endurance class is their small crew of 65, vs 58 for the LSMs that preceded the LCHs . They would also be useful as training ships due to their extensive accommodation, flexibility and wide variety of systems. Also imagine them in operations such as Sovereign Borders, or counter piracy, possibly operating in concert with fast interceptor craft, RHIBs, even CB90 or USN MK VI PBs / Super Dvora type in the dock well, as well as their aviation facilities.

I'm not saying that Australia should get something like that, but rather I can see how they could fit and complement or even replace other capabilities. Consider the possibility of them being a mother ship to unmanned or small inshore mine warfare or survey craft.

Hi Volk

A link some may find of interest re the Endurance class.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noLgjADodfM
Certainly a ship that offers flexibility in design that can cover a range of contingencies.
One aspect I particularly liked was the internal lift within the ships hanger.The ability to lower aircraft to the lower deck with built in height to accommodate Singapore's medium sized Puma helicopter, is certainly a well thought out attribute of design.
Low crew numbers with high automation and the ability to transport a company sized group with vehicles has appeal.
Substitute HMAS Choules with three of this style of ship and I believe we may of got the Amphibious balance of numbers and design right.


Regards S

 

[John Newman]

Certainly a lot of 'what ifs' being put forward for the RAN's amphibious and replenishment fleets.

As it stands at the moment two new AOR's will enter service by the early 2020's to replace Success and Sirius, and around the mid 2020's the Government will decide on either an additional AOR or an additional 'logistic support ship' (similar to Choules), and around 2030 Choules replaced too.

My 'modest' (in my opinion) variation on that plan would be to proceed with the additional logistic support ship in the mid 2020's, for example, the Damen Enforcer 13000 LPD, and order a second of the same to replace Choules around 2030.

As for the replenishment fleet, yes we have the two Cantabria AORs replacing Success and Sirius (around 2020), but instead of both of them being withdrawn, keep Sirius in service as a 'back up' for the two new AOR's.

Yes she is an AO not an AOR and has limitations certainly, but she is also still a relatively young ship and a relatively small crew too.

The amphibious and replenishment fleets would look like this:
2 x LHD (both in service)
2 x LPD (Choules replacement and second logistic support ship)
? x LCM (whatever is the appropriate number for the four ships above)
2 x AOR (planned replacements for Success and Sirius)
1 x AO (retain Sirius in service in the short to medium term, possibly one day there might be funds available for 'both' the 3rd AOR and additional LPD, but not holding my breath on that one!)

Not a significant change to the Government's plan, basically having to find the additional operating/manpower budget to keep Sirius in service.

The one area that I still think there is a bit of a 'hole' is in the lack of replacements for the LCH fleet (a capability between the LHD/LPD at the top end and the LCM at the bottom end, can't see the LCMs being able to operate at long distance without their 'mother' ships in attendance).

Something like the Damen LST 100 design (100m x 1300t, range of 4000 nm, core crew of 18). A fleet of say four ships, and could probably also be easily built in WA at Henderson alongside the OPV's and other minor ships planned to be constructed there.


Anyway, that's my 'what if' amphibious and replenishment fleets, not too much of a stretch from the current plans (keeping Sirius in service is probably doable, yes have to find the operating budget) the harder bit would be finding the funds for the four LST 100's.

Just my opinion of course too!!

 

[Stampede]

Certainly a lot of 'what ifs' being put forward for the RAN's amphibious and replenishment fleets.


1 x AO (retain Sirius in service in the short to medium term, possibly one day there might be funds available for 'both' the 3rd AOR and additional LPD, but not holding my breath on that one!)

Not a significant change to the Government's plan, basically having to find the additional operating/manpower budget to keep Sirius in service.

The one area that I still think there is a bit of a 'hole' is in the lack of replacements for the LCH fleet (a capability between the LHD/LPD at the top end and the LCM at the bottom end, can't see the LCMs being able to operate at long distance without their 'mother' ships in attendance).

Something like the Damen LST 100 design (100m x 1300t, range of 4000 nm, core crew of 18). A fleet of say four ships, and could probably also be easily built in WA at Henderson alongside the OPV's and other minor ships planned to be constructed there.


Anyway, that's my 'what if' amphibious and replenishment fleets, not too much of a stretch from the current plans (keeping Sirius in service is probably doable, yes have to find the operating budget) the harder bit would be finding the funds for the four LST 100's.

Just my opinion of course too!!

Hi John

A good overview for the years ahead.

Unfortunately a class of three LHD's and AOR's seems regrettably unrealistic as things stand but you do raise an interesting option with HMAS Sirius.
As a converted civilian oil tanker she may not have all the features of our new Cantabria class supply ships. However if she is kept in service, Navy will have a fleet of three supply ships which should provide a higher availability of fleet support on both coasts rather than the alternative of just two ships.
Certainly has merit and a good pathway to crew numbers for a future Logistic/AOR in the late 2020's.
As to cost and budget well that is always the challenge.

Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

My understanding is Sirius has been a disappointment to say the least and has actually proven inferior in many ways to Westralia. It is yet another example of how trying to do it on the cheap has actually cost more than doing it properly would have.

We are some time off the decision on the third AOR/ second LPD, let alone a replacement for Choules but I agree it would make sense to investigate building / acquiring two similar if not identical ships at the time. If a local build is viable they could lead to eventual replacements for the LHDs and AORs being locally built too. I know the LCH replacement has dropped off the radar but if a larger, more flexible design, with a well dock, was selected for that need it could permit the selection of an innovative design to supplement the AORs and replace Choules, for example an LPD with replenishment facilities, or a logistics ship with amphibious support capabilities.(T-AKE, ESD, ESB).

As the continuous build programs progress efficiencies and professionalism will increase in shipbuilding and design, procurement, sustainment and operation, its not too big a stretch to envisage future generations of ships being designed locally and types currently built overseas being built here as well. With the continuous builds these will only add to the economies of scale.

 

[Massive]

My understanding is Sirius has been a disappointment to say the least and has actually proven inferior in many ways to Westralia. It is yet another example of how trying to do it on the cheap has actually cost more than doing it properly would have.

If we need another AOR let's do it properly.

Buy 3 Cantabria rather than 2.

I feel this kind of penny wise, pound foolish behaviour is kind of done for the RAN now.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

Amphibious Warfare Vessels
6x Damen LST 80/120
3x Endurance class
2x Canberra class

Stratgic sealift
1x Choules
2x Cantibria AOR
Come 2030 replace Choules with Karel Doorman type vessel

I am not sure we need that much lift.

2 Canberra
3 Endurance
3 Cantabria

That's it IMHO. With the Endurances in place of Choules you have enough and probably don't need to replace the LCH.

Spend the rest of the money on properly standing up Beersheba, including the supporting brigades + new capabilities.

Regards,

Massive

 

[John Newman]

If we need another AOR let's do it properly.

Buy 3 Cantabria rather than 2.

I feel this kind of penny wise, pound foolish behaviour is kind of done for the RAN now.

Regards,

Massive

I wouldn't disagree that 3 x Cantabria AOR's would be a good move (and also eventually two Choules type LPD's in service too), but the DWP and DIIP clearly state that there will be an addition of one 'or' the other type of ships and not both.

(On a side note it will be interesting to see what sort of case Navy and Defence will put to Government to make that decision on the one or the other type when the time comes too).

In the interim, or at least until a decision is eventually made next decade on procuring the 3rd AOR or 2nd LPD, why not keep Sirius in commission? (Or at least at a reduced state of readiness to be available, when and if needed, as a back up replenishment ship).

If budgets and manpower were available for both an additional AOR and LPD, then no problem, the sky is the limit! (But they are not).

Anyway, makes sense to me to keep Sirius in service as an extra replenishment capability (and insurance too), but there are no doubt greater minds than mine when it comes to making those decisions!!

 

[MrConservative]

If budgets and manpower were available for both an additional AOR and LPD, then no problem, the sky is the limit! (But they are not).

Anyway, makes sense to me to keep Sirius in service as an extra replenishment capability (and insurance too), but there are no doubt greater minds than mine when it comes to making those decisions!!

There is also no doubt the consideration that the RNZN will soon be bringing into the mix the HMNZS Aotearoa which is considerably more capable than the Endeavour and in the longer term context CY will replaced by probably a vessel that is another leap ahead in size and capability. Aotearoa's design remit included the rationale as being a contributing regional asset and not just a national centric one and Canberra is well aware of that and encouraged it.

 

[Massive]

I wouldn't disagree that 3 x Cantabria AOR's would be a good move (and also eventually two Choules type LPD's in service too), but the DWP and DIIP clearly state that there will be an addition of one 'or' the other type of ships and not both.

I would not advocate two Choules LPDs. I am advocating for none.

Amphibious fleet:

2xCanberra
3x Endurance class

That's it.

Replenishment:

3 Cantabria

Regards,

Massive