Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

The problem now is that the work force which used to live in the dormitory suburbs of Balmain and surrounds is gone. Balmain used to be a thriving industrial hub with a close by power station, a number of commercial yards, and some other large industrial sights eg CSR, now it is an inner urban domain for latte sippers and smashed avacado wankers so any thought of rejuvenating Codock is just that.
Further the inefficiencies of getting personnel and stores to an island give it a positive disadvantage to other yards on the efficiency scale.

Too bad they never connected it to the mainland like they did with garden island. Could have started with a causeway and slowly developed it into a series of dry docks, hard stands and building halls.

All irelivant now as Codoc was doomed once the second AOR was canned in 82/3. Actually Success was a bit of a crystal ball moment as most of her issues related to incomplete design data, language and cultural differences and a LO ack of support from the designer. Sound familiar? It was the principle naval Arch on AWD who told me this, he said the parallels were quite obvious to those who had seen both projects.

 

[PeterM]

For those interested DTR magazine has a feature on the SEA Frigates. There is also a piece on the Triton UAV

Defence Technology Review : DTR JULY 2018, Page 1

 

[Redlands18]

One of the promises BAE made was to develop a national capability to eventually design and develop our own large complex naval warships. At least that is the way I read it. The same thing is planned for the submarine industry.

Whether or not this will happen remains to be seen as it seems to me that we are entering an era where the costs of developing your own defence equipment are becoming so prohibitively expensive that soon only the largest and most powerful nations will be able to afford to do it.

Maybe use the Type 26 Hull as a starting point(if plausable).

 

[John Newman]

Not so long as it's UNESCO World Heritage listed it won't. The Navy has already dismissed it as a site for the East coast subs on those grounds

oldsig

One area in the harbour that I've always thought would be a good 'additional' location for Navy is the old Glebe Island Container Terminal.

Google Maps

After the containers all went to Botany Bay, it was used for many years after as an unloading point for imported cars (they now go direct into Port Kembla, if I remember correctly).

glebe island container terminal - Google Search

I remember driving past, over the Anzac Bridge, many times over the years watching the former HMAS Adelaide being prepared for her sinking up the coast as a dive wreck, and later on, the two LPAs being prepared before for towing to the US for scrapping.

HMAS Manoora L52 & HMAS Kanimbla L51 - ShipSpotting.com - Ship Photos and Ship Tracker

I couldn't help thinking then (as I do now), with the large wharf space and hardstand area, that a lot of the infrastructure was already in place.

A new submarine base, maybe move HMAS Waterhen there too, sell off the land at Waterhen (right there on the leafy Northshore for a bomb!!).

Cheers,

PS, who needs to spend millions of dollars on consultants, all they had to do was ask me, ha ha!!

 

[Jack Wyatt]

Before nominatng potential sites for Defence, it is important to realise that the NSW Government recognises (and has done so for many years) the value of Sydney as a working harbour. The Port Authority of NSW has released material on Glebe Island - Gateway to Sydney’s Future and Glebe Island - Multi User Facility. It is very interesting reading.

Glebe Island - Multi-User Facility | Port Authority New South Wales


https://www.portauthoritynsw.com.au.../glebe-island-the-gateway-to-sydney-s-future/

 

[StingrayOZ]

There are opportunities around, but I do think Sydney is useful as a function harbor, and being easily accessible by enclosed waters to FBE I think is a huge advantage. Moving the submarines to Perth killed a lot of the history and processes that had been setup to facilitate submarine operation in Australia, they didn't all move to Perth. Bringing them back to Sydney harbor I think would be a strong move. But the future is coming and the navy might need another major base on the east coast, so I can see sense in looking at that and making clear reasons yes or no.

I had like the previous idea that Newcastle might be an appropriate location too for a major general naval base. Deep water, shipping, construction and maintenance, engineering facilities. Housing and accommodation would and could be made desirable, but cheaper than Sydney. RAAF Williamstown is also close by. Newcastle is also worried about its future as a coal port and as heavy industry leaves. Could be a future site for a large commercial/cruise port as well, HSR links etc. But I am just spitballing, and Submarine have there own special needs, which Sydney may be best for.

But we are also talking about future engagement with allies across the region, we will needs space for them as well. Our new ships aren't getting any smaller either.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Whether or not this will happen remains to be seen as it seems to me that we are entering an era where the costs of developing your own defence equipment are becoming so prohibitively expensive that soon only the largest and most powerful nations will be able to afford to do it.

I see the future of this is forced partnerships. Sharing the development. I know that historically that has been problematic, but it has to happen to be competitive.

With submarines we will partner with the french on some systems (hull and mech services propulsion some sensors?), the Americans (combat and weapons, some sensors), British (sensors?). I could see the French/Americans/British further collaborating among themselves on submarines things as well. The Brits and the yanks already do. I could certainly see Australia and Japan collaborating on battery technology too.

Surface ships again, collaborating with the Brits and the yanks. Hull, systems weapons, with specific other items with others.

But as partners, not just as customers, with access to IP, able to do our own thing in times of need.

Kind of like the JSF. But we need to get our industry up to speed to competitively bid and get our fair share of work for development and supply chain.

I assume that is kind of how sea1000 and Sea5000 will end up evolving into. I hope so, I hope we don't get "ratf**ked" by our partners. Historically, it been an issue. But we may have entered as customer relationships, not partners, I hope with both of these that won't happen.

 

[oldsig127]

The UNESCO World Heritage status would not really give me pause. In the scheme of things, the island's history apart from possible pre-First Fleet use, is all recent history, unlike Uluru of Kata Tjuta.

Good luck getting it changed then, Tod. Only need to force through a few acts of parliament against a backdrop of press and public bound to be screaming about destroying our heritage. Given the media can't tell the difference between a sub and a frigate (and a battleship) you'll have a mighty lot of reeducation to attend to as well.

A large part of the reason it's listed is the convict heritage *but* a major part is the Australian shipbuilding and naval heritage including the only remaining convict built dock .

oldsig

 

[Todjaeger]

Good luck getting it changed then, Tod. Only need to force through a few acts of parliament against a backdrop of press and public bound to be screaming about destroying our heritage. Given the media can't tell the difference between a sub and a frigate (and a battleship) you'll have a mighty lot of reeducation to attend to as well.

A large part of the reason it's listed is the convict heritage *but* a major part is the Australian shipbuilding and naval heritage including the only remaining convict built dock .

oldsig

Two things to keep in mind. The first is that I am not advocating that Cockatoo Island should be restored to active status as either a yard or naval base.

The second is that while changing the UNESCO World Heritage status would require some legal and political work, and against a backdrop of ignorance most likely, I still think that would be the easier task to accomplish than making the shipyard viable again. There would be all sorts of repair, reconstruction and remediation work required to make the site infrastructure workable, especially if they are to operate using modern construction and safety/environmental standards. Such infrastructure work costs a fair bit of coin. In addition to the infrastructure work, an entire shipyard workforce would need to be established and skilled up. While it might be possible for a new "Cockatoo Island Dockyards" to poach yard workers and management from other shipyards in Australia and around the world, there is a cost to do so, especially if those workers are going to need to find their own housing/accommodations within the Sydney metro area that is also close enough for them to commute to the island daily.

Again, this is all possible and steps could be taken to accomplish re-establishing Cockatoo as a viable facility, but barring a crisis requiring a major expansion of Australian naval shipbuilding capacity and infrastructure, it would not happen and that shipyard is finished. The ship (HMAS Success specifically) has sailed.

 

[hauritz]

I see the future of this is forced partnerships. Sharing the development. I know that historically that has been problematic, but it has to happen to be competitive.

With submarines we will partner with the french on some systems (hull and mech services propulsion some sensors?), the Americans (combat and weapons, some sensors), British (sensors?). I could see the French/Americans/British further collaborating among themselves on submarines things as well. The Brits and the yanks already do. I could certainly see Australia and Japan collaborating on battery technology too.

Surface ships again, collaborating with the Brits and the yanks. Hull, systems weapons, with specific other items with others.

But as partners, not just as customers, with access to IP, able to do our own thing in times of need.

Kind of like the JSF. But we need to get our industry up to speed to competitively bid and get our fair share of work for development and supply chain.

I assume that is kind of how sea1000 and Sea5000 will end up evolving into. I hope so, I hope we don't get "ratf**ked" by our partners. Historically, it been an issue. But we may have entered as customer relationships, not partners, I hope with both of these that won't happen.

We are now effectively lock stepped with the British with the Type 26 program. It would seem logical that these two countries would now continue to work together not only on this program, but also on whatever follows it. It really wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense for Australia and the UK to go on and develop two separate designs based on theType 26 to eventually replace the Type 45s and Hobarts.

I don't think the relationship with the French will be quite as close unless Australia eventually goes down the nuclear path.

 

[John Newman]

Before nominatng potential sites for Defence, it is important to realise that the NSW Government recognises (and has done so for many years) the value of Sydney as a working harbour. The Port Authority of NSW has released material on Glebe Island - Gateway to Sydney’s Future and Glebe Island - Multi User Facility. It is very interesting reading.

Glebe Island - Multi-User Facility | Port Authority New South Wales


Glebe Island: the gateway to Sydney’s future | Port Authority New South Wales

Yes fully aware of the plans by the Port Authority of NSW (insert name of current NSW Government) for Glebe Island, it will be interesting to see what eventually happens, but I for one, am not going to hold my breath.

In these days of 'community consultation' and 'environmental impact studies' it will be a long process, if the current (LNP) NSW State Government can guarantee staying in power, then they will do what they like, the surround suburbs are held by the ALP (and a growing Green influence), if the ALP regains control of the state (God help us!), then they will be far more likely to sit on their hands and not make a decision, not that they will loose votes to the LNP, but more likely to the Greens.

The State Government is probably better off selling off the site to the Federal Government so it can wash its hands of any future decisions!

Anyway....

Early next year I'll be 60 (yes I am an old fart), but the changes that I've seen in my life time in Sydney Harbour and the Parramatta River have been huge, from memory I've been up and down the River many many times over 50 odd years, and it's hard to recognise what is was to what it is now.

I grew up in Dundas (parents moved there in 1959, and it was the 'wild west' then too!), and if you draw a line directly South, you end up at the Silverwater Bridge spanning the Parramatta River.

Just to the west of the bridge was the Shell Clyde Oil Refinery (now closed down), and you would regularly see the oil barges going back and forth delivering crude to the refinery, just east of the bridge on the South side was the Valvoline Refinery, in the late 60s or early 70s it 'blew up', the house shook and the sky was filled with black smoke (I thought WWIII had started!), it's now a big field covered with grass, opposite was the Navy's stores depot at the back of Ermington, it is now a housing/unit development.

A bit further up on the South side was the Navy's Newington Armaments Depot (now closed), go a bit further up the river towards the city was Homebush Bay with all the industrial sites, all gone, again all new housing and unit developments.

Pass under the Ryde Bridge and on the left was Halverson's boat yard (last I heard was that developers wanted to get their hands on that historic site), keep sailing up the river and on the right was the old Gas Works at Mortlake, again now all changed, big housing development known as Breakfast Point.

Go East under the Gladesville Bridge (and yes I remember when it was being built and going over the 'old' Gladesville Bridge), and you come to Cockatoo Island, I still remember standing on the end of Birkenhead Point and watching the 'new' HMAS Success being launched, I also remember seeing many of the Oberon subs sitting in a floating dock being upgraded and maintained, again, all gone.

And of course opposite Birkenhead Point was the Balmain Power Station, another housing development these days too. And North of Cockatoo Island was the Army's watercraft base at Woolwich, (I have photos that I'll have to convert to digital one day and post them), it's closed too, it's a marina these days.

Keep heading East and to the North is HMAS Waterhen (shock! Horror! it's still there!). And opposite is the fuel terminal at Greenwich, which surprisingly still there too.

And in that area, just west of Goat Island, was a number of mooring points for cargo ships, the cargo ships are gone, but I don't know if the mooring points are still there??

Continue heading towards the bridge and on your right is Millers Point and the entrance to Darling Harbour, again all the commercial dock space is gone, keep going and the Balmain Container Terminal is gone (now cruise ships), and of course the 'vacant' Glebe Island Container Terminal.


I could go on, but you get the picture, the 'working' and 'industrial' harbour that Sydney once was is now a distant memory.

If the Navy wants a base in Sydney Harbour for the Future Submarines, there just isn't too many options, probably comes down to enlarging FBE or Waterhen.

If we go back to 1788, when Captain Arthur Phillip (reportedly on 15th May 1788 in a report back to the Admiralty), where he said:


"... we had the satisfaction of finding the finest harbour in the world, in which a thousand sail of the line may ride in the most perfect security ..."


Well yes, the harbour may still be the same size, but trying to find a place to dock next to land is getting bloody hard!!

Cheers,

 

[John Fedup]

John, as one who put off getting around to digitizing old photos, do it now before you lose them to fire, theft, or as in my case, a flooded basement.

 

[Oberon]

This is the problem we have had for decades, had we just concentrated on sustaining one major yard we would have had a sustainable industry for a hundred years now.

Brisbane I and Adelaide I were built at Codoc. Adelaide was delayed due to supply issues with machinery and armaments from the UK during the war, but none the less there was an experienced and capable yard that could have continued building Cruisers for the RAN between the wars and destroyers leading up to WWII.

The common-sense ordering of Australia and Canberra from Codoc would have cost less than building Albatross in compensation and buying the Cruisers from John Browns. Codoc would then have been in a position to build replacements for the retiring Town class light Cruisers in the late 30s instead of having to buy them from the UK.

This production could have continued during the war, while the trained and competent work force would have been better able to support the build of destroyers, frigates and corvettes in other yards. Williamstown for instance could have built more Tribals in less time.

Properly supported the Australian industry could have easily built a couple of Cruisers, several destroyers, and possibly even an Escort or light fleet carrier or two, in addition to the ships actually built during WWII. Maybe the pre-war panic desire to build a battle ship could have been achieved.

Post war all that would have been required would have been to keep ordering ships at regular intervals from Codoc and using other dock yards for commercial works and modernisation. If all two Battle, four Daring (build Waterhen too), three (or four) Perth, six River, six Adelaide, eight ANZAC and three Hobart had been built at Codoc we would already have our sustainable, continuous build.

In the mid-eighties Codock was just finishing the AOR build and doing maintenance and dockings on the Oberon subs. It was heavily unionised and inefficient when measured against RN standards for dockings of their Oberon submarines. It was a sheltered workshop. The mooted second AOR was never ordered and a decision was made to find a " green fields" site for future Navy ship and submarine building. The leasee was told to get off the island and compensated. The island was then turned into a heritage site. I doubt it will ever be re-activated as a navy dockyard.

 

[t68]

Agree they won’t reopen as a dockyard, but is it viable as a sub-base, I always liked the idea of Abraham Gubler of making Kingsford Smith a multi user super base with RAN/RAAF taking over closing Garden Island and RAAF Richmond

 

[Oberon]

Agree they won’t reopen as a dockyard, but is it viable as a sub-base, I always liked the idea of Abraham Gubler of making Kingsford Smith a multi user super base with RAN/RAAF taking over closing Garden Island and RAAF Richmond

Are you referring to Kingsford Smith Airport?

 

[t68]

Are you referring to Kingsford Smith Airport?

Yep, a number of years ago AG did a few post on the subject within the either the RAN thread or the ADF thread what he came up with made sence but did concede that it would cost an arm and leg, but there where off sets with sell GI to the state and making Richmond a cargo only terminal

 

[John Newman]

Personally I don't think it gets much better for the RAN at the moment, good decision!

It’s now a week since we found out the winner of SEA5000, a week ago I said, “Personally I don't think it gets much better for the RAN at the moment, good decision!"

And a week later, after reflecting on the decision, I still think the same.

Firstly, all three contenders should be congratulated, all appear (as best we can tell) to have put their best foot forward in both the offerings of the ship design itself and the industrial packages, and good luck to all of them in the respective Canadian and USN Frigate competitions they have entered.

I was one of those that didn’t think the Type 26 (have to start saying, Hunter class) would get up and take the prize. As Assail said, the Government did appear to go with the ‘Gold plated option’.

One of the things that has impressed me, is the size of the Hunter class, almost 150m x 20.8m and 8,800t full load displacement, more than twice the displacement of the Anzac FFHs.

Hopefully that all translates into the appropriate growth margins over the decades ahead, less chance of compromising one new capability over the other, and of course they appear from the beginning to be ‘fitted with’ and not ‘fitted for’ as has happened in the past.

And I’m also impressed with the construction plan, ASC Shipbuilding becomes a subsidiary of BAE (with the Government still having an interest), it puts the spotlight on BAE to perform and deliver, less chance of buck passing. And at the end of the program, ASC Shipbuilding returns to full Government ownership, including all of the IP, assets and equipment from the program.

Hopefully, and I’m sure it’s the plan, ASC Shipbuilding will then be in a position to have, not only the shipbuilding skills, but design skills that can be used again and again into the future.

Long way to go yet, the first of the Hunters is not due to be commissioned for about a decade, but the potential is there for when it comes time to replace the 3 DDGs (and then the 9 Hunters), we could well see another ‘evolution’ of the Hunter class used for both roles, we may well see a class of ship that is equally capable in ASW and AAW too.

I also think the current LNP Government should be congratulated to, in the last few years we’ve seen:

• The 2016 DWP and DIIP (probably one of the ‘better’ DWPs that I’ve seen for a long time)
  
• The (Continuous) Naval Shipbuilding Program
  
• Approval of 21 x Pacific Patrol Boats
  
• Approval of 12 x Future Submarines
  
• Approval of 12 x OPVs
  
• Approval of 9 x Hunter class FFGs, and
  
• Approval of 2 x Supply class AORs
  
• And of course funding for all of the various infrastructure upgrades for Industry and Navy

That’s 56 ships approved for Industry and Navy (yes of course the 2 x AORs are being built in Spain and the 21 x Pacific Patrol Boats are to be donated to our neighbours, but Australian industry will maintain them).

All of that stands in ‘stark’ contrast to the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government, not one single ship ordered, not one, and of course not taking up the option of the 4th AWD too.

And on the infrastructure side, when all of the billions of dollars were being thrown around during the GFC (Pink Batts and unwanted School Halls come to mind), It would have been great if some of those dollars went into infrastructure upgrades at Techport, specifically increasing the size of the shiplift to potentially allow for the building of AOR or above size ships in the future.


Anyway, all water under the bridge (or shiplift) now.

I just hope in the years and decades ahead, regardless of which ‘flavour’ of Government we have, that they can still maintain a bi-partisan approach to Defence Policy and Defence Spending, as best as can be (and of course they will never agree on Education, Health, Taxation, etc, but that’s politics).

Cheers,

(PS, apologies in advance to the Mods, having been here a long time, I know that talking ‘politics’ is frowned upon, and I agree too. But I have tried to ensure my political comments/rant is very specific to Navy and Defence).

 

[Redlands18]

It’s now a week since we found out the winner of SEA5000, a week ago I said, “Personally I don't think it gets much better for the RAN at the moment, good decision!"

And a week later, after reflecting on the decision, I still think the same.

Firstly, all three contenders should be congratulated, all appear (as best we can tell) to have put their best foot forward in both the offerings of the ship design itself and the industrial packages, and good luck to all of them in the respective Canadian and USN Frigate competitions they have entered.

I was one of those that didn’t think the Type 26 (have to start saying, Hunter class) would get up and take the prize. As Assail said, the Government did appear to go with the ‘Gold plated option’.

One of the things that has impressed me, is the size of the Hunter class, almost 150m x 20.8m and 8,800t full load displacement, more than twice the displacement of the Anzac FFHs.

Hopefully that all translates into the appropriate growth margins over the decades ahead, less chance of compromising one new capability over the other, and of course they appear from the beginning to be ‘fitted with’ and not ‘fitted for’ as has happened in the past.

And I’m also impressed with the construction plan, ASC Shipbuilding becomes a subsidiary of BAE (with the Government still having an interest), it puts the spotlight on BAE to perform and deliver, less chance of buck passing. And at the end of the program, ASC Shipbuilding returns to full Government ownership, including all of the IP, assets and equipment from the program.

Hopefully, and I’m sure it’s the plan, ASC Shipbuilding will then be in a position to have, not only the shipbuilding skills, but design skills that can be used again and again into the future.

Long way to go yet, the first of the Hunters is not due to be commissioned for about a decade, but the potential is there for when it comes time to replace the 3 DDGs (and then the 9 Hunters), we could well see another ‘evolution’ of the Hunter class used for both roles, we may well see a class of ship that is equally capable in ASW and AAW too.

I also think the current LNP Government should be congratulated to, in the last few years we’ve seen:

• The 2016 DWP and DIIP (probably one of the ‘better’ DWPs that I’ve seen for a long time)
  
• The (Continuous) Naval Shipbuilding Program
  
• Approval of 21 x Pacific Patrol Boats
  
• Approval of 12 x Future Submarines
  
• Approval of 12 x OPVs
  
• Approval of 9 x Hunter class FFGs, and
  
• Approval of 2 x Supply class AORs
  
• And of course funding for all of the various infrastructure upgrades for Industry and Navy

That’s 56 ships approved for Industry and Navy (yes of course the 2 x AORs are being built in Spain and the 21 x Pacific Patrol Boats are to be donated to our neighbours, but Australian industry will maintain them).

All of that stands in ‘stark’ contrast to the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government, not one single ship ordered, not one, and of course not taking up the option of the 4th AWD too.

And on the infrastructure side, when all of the billions of dollars were being thrown around during the GFC (Pink Batts and unwanted School Halls come to mind), It would have been great if some of those dollars went into infrastructure upgrades at Techport, specifically increasing the size of the shiplift to potentially allow for the building of AOR or above size ships in the future.


Anyway, all water under the bridge (or shiplift) now.

I just hope in the years and decades ahead, regardless of which ‘flavour’ of Government we have, that they can still maintain a bi-partisan approach to Defence Policy and Defence Spending, as best as can be (and of course they will never agree on Education, Health, Taxation, etc, but that’s politics).

Cheers,

(PS, apologies in advance to the Mods, having been here a long time, I know that talking ‘politics’ is frowned upon, and I agree too. But I have tried to ensure my political comments/rant is very specific to Navy and Defence).

I agree with you John the Type 26/hunter is a big Ship 3m longer than the Hobarts, only 4m shorter than a Flight 1 Burke!, can't wait to see one next to a Burke. No matter how good a DWP is the Government of the day has to act on it, so far so good. The test will be the next change of Government.

 

[Richo99]

The position of the two Phalanx weapon systems on the Type 26 has me intrigued. Are they placed laterally on the ship purely because there is no available real estate left on the centre line or is it due to some operational reason I'm unaware of?

It appears to be i conflict with one of the changes in design philosophy that came about when the dreadnoughts first arrived ie all the main guns were concentrated on the centerline as they allowed a broadside to be fired with ALL main guns simultaneously. Not quite the same thing I know , but the same general philosophy.

With the Phalanx arrangement on the type 26s both weapons cannot fire simultaneously on an incoming missile. Now I'm not sure if they would do this anyway, as I suppose there might be some possibility of the two streams of 20mm interfering with one another, but it does make me think that they may not be optimally positioned...anyone in the know on Phalanx operations ?

 

[Richo99]

Anyone have any recent news on the fitting of Phalanx to the LHDs...it was meant to happen pretty soon.