Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

We only have one LHD currently operational L02 is in dry dock. And she has been going out and operating in remote areas, so every time she anchors she is going to shred that paint, there is no point in having her tied up against the shore. She is out and about in Fiji and the wider pacific, dropping anchor.

Hobart has been extremely busy, we don't even have time to commission ships in port, they are being commissioned at sea. Mostly because we are trying to do a whole bunch of integration, training, qualification as well as the international engagement and exercises. We only now have 3 operational, for a long while Hobart was carrying the entire aegis burden by itself. She's been off live firing missiles, Rimpac, indo-pacific endevour, 11 nations, shot back to India, then back into Singapore and back into Hobart.

Navy ships return home after “enormously successful” regional deployment

HMAS Hobart and her more than 230 crew members have returned home to Sydney, marking the end of the Royal Australian Navy's largest and most challenging deployment this year.

news.navy.gov.au

At late October they had spent 120 days at sea.

Then there was the additional stuff.

Navy’s most advanced ships exercise together for first time

HMA Ships Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney have exercised together for the first time, setting the standard for blue water combat capability in our region.

news.navy.gov.au

The RAN already bends over backwards to attend these boating events, and its further crams maintenance into smaller windows of time Sirius’ impressive gymnastics)

The Japanese have the ~3rd largest surface fleet on the planet. IMO they aren't as active as Australia and deploy for shorter periods and have ten times the fleet to share it across, they have only recently started to mimic Australia's deployments.

Australia's decision to join U.S.-led maritime mission off Iran likely to heighten pressure on Japan

Australia's prime minister announced his country will join the U.S.-led mission to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz amid ongoing tensions with Iran, albeit under Australia's operational control.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Japanese destroyer leaves for Middle East intel-gathering mission

The decision to deploy the MSDF assets has been met with criticism by opposition parties amid rising tensions between the United States and Iran.

www.japantimes.co.jp

But yes, the Japanese ships do always look immaculate, I swear they must have repainted the whole dam ship before every deployment.

She looked in reasonable condition in FBE a few weeks ago, admittedly from a distance. Maybe its not rust at all and its all that terrible Hobart coffee?



I would still say the biggest concern is we are overworking the ships.

Fleet support have had a busy year.

FSU has the Fleet’s back

By many measures, 2020 has been a uniquely challenging year, but the men and women of Navy’s Fleet Support Unit (FSU) have worked hard to keep Australia’s warships operationally ready.

news.navy.gov.au

 

[hauritz]

I don't think flogging the ships hard is a bad policy. This recent RAND report seems to suggest that we should ultimately be aiming for a build strategy of a new ship being laid down every 18 - 24 months. If Australia were to cap the size of its destroyer fleet to 12 that would mean the average ship would only have to last 20 years.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CTA1000/CTA1030-1/RAND_CTA1030-1.pdf

 

[Reptilia]

What are peoples thoughts on the new Osborne shipyard north precinct design?
has been out for sometime but was in the Adelaide paper this week.

No Cookies | The Advertiser

No Cookies

www.adelaidenow.com.au

@Reptilia

That is behind a pay wall which again makes it hard to get comment. Unless you can provide a link to the planning map it is hard to comment. This does not appear to be in the public domain.

If you have a line put it up.

Alexsa

 

[alexsa]

Not seen the design so I cannot comment. If you have a link you should post it with your message and that may prompt a response.

 

[John Newman]

I don't think flogging the ships hard is a bad policy. This recent RAND report seems to suggest that we should ultimately be aiming for a build strategy of a new ship being laid down every 18 - 24 months. If Australia were to cap the size of its destroyer fleet to 12 that would mean the average ship would only have to last 20 years.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CTA1000/CTA1030-1/RAND_CTA1030-1.pdf

Flogging ships hard is ok, seriously?

No offence, but that is a rather dumb policy or idea for the RAN to introduce or follow.

Regardless of if a Major Fleet Unit (MFU) is in service for 20ish years or 30ish years, why would we want to beat the $hit out if it?

I would hope that regardless of if a MFU was in its early days of operations or approaching retirement that the ship was kept and maintained in as best possible condition as possible.

Again, no offence, but that is a rather dumb policy to pursue.

As for RAND, I’ll do a separate post/response for that a bit later today, there are some holes in the 24mth drumbeat idea/plan that needs some further discussion.

Cheers,

 

[Flexson]

A bit of that going around at the moment.
HMAS Adelaide back from Fiji was also sporting lots of ruststain.
Perhaps the new grey doesn't hide it so well as the old darker colour.
MB

Except Adelaide is still the old (Storm) grey. Canberra will be coming out of dock in the new (Haze) grey. We might get a Bow to Stern comparison next week. To my eye Haze grey is darker than Storm grey.

Those advocating for painting mast's black to help hide the soot stains from diesel exhaust will be happy to see Canberra's forward mast structure has been painted black.

 

[Pusser Tas]

The RAN in WW2

View attachment 47990

 

[Pusser Tas]

Whoops. The intended link did not arrive.

Mea Cupla

 

[alexsa]

I have always complained that there is a lack of regular information coming out in regards the developments at Osborne in vessel construction and the infrastructure build. My whinge about the former remains unresolved but it have stumbled over "The Morse" which is the ANI newsletter on infrastructure side.

It is by no means comprehensive, or regular, but you get an idea of what is going on ....

The Morse - December 2020 (ani.com.au)
The-Morse_October-2020_web.pdf (ani.com.au)
ANI-Newsletter_April_May2020_Web.pdf

These were hiding in plain sight at the bottom of the ANI web page

PROJECT: OSBORNE NAVAL SHIPYARD – Australian Naval Infrastructure (ani.com.au)

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think the hobarts will have long service lives, I think 20 odd years in RAN service is probably about right. And their replacement is already in the build plan.

But I don't think flogging them is an awesome idea. However, with only 3 aegis ships, and trying to do everything we do, flogged is indeed what they will become. Plans change, for example, no one is quite sure when the last collins will leave service.

The time they are out of duty, they will probably be having pretty brutal make overs. There won't be a lot of focus or priority or money on wear and tear. There is no doubt the Hobarts are doing an excellent job, and being well used. We needed these ships for a long time, and now we have them, they are all over the indo-pacific. Countries are interested in their capabilities, are interested in Australia's capabilities, how they operate, how we operate them. Its providing one of the key international connections during covid.

Those advocating for painting mast's black to help hide the soot stains from diesel exhaust will be happy to see Canberra's forward mast structure has been painted black.

Neat, however, given how black it used to get I'm not sure I will notice.

 

[Reptilia]

I have always complained that there is a lack of regular information coming out in regards the developments at Osborne in vessel construction and the infrastructure build. My whinge about the former remains unresolved but it have stumbled over "The Morse" which is the ANI newsletter on infrastructure side.

It is by no means comprehensive, or regular, but you get an idea of what is going on ....

The Morse - December 2020 (ani.com.au)
The-Morse_October-2020_web.pdf (ani.com.au)
ANI-Newsletter_April_May2020_Web.pdf

These were hiding in plain sight at the bottom of the ANI web page

PROJECT: OSBORNE NAVAL SHIPYARD – Australian Naval Infrastructure (ani.com.au)

these were the first plans but they have changed once again.

https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/501372/Online_Kit_-_City_of_Port_Adelaide_Enfield_-_DA_040_L050_18_-_App_3483_-_Australian_Naval_Infrastructure_C_-_Aurecon.pdf

page 14

https://www.transparency.gov.au/sites/default/files/reports/sci_ani_statement_of_corp_intent_2020_final.pdf

 

[alexsa]

these were the first plans but they have changed once again.

https://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/501372/Online_Kit_-_City_of_Port_Adelaide_Enfield_-_DA_040_L050_18_-_App_3483_-_Australian_Naval_Infrastructure_C_-_Aurecon.pdf

page 14

https://www.transparency.gov.au/sites/default/files/reports/sci_ani_statement_of_corp_intent_2020_final.pdf

Fair enough, but these have been around for a while. They do have the external building elevations in them but there is no detail on how the build will progress through that arrangement or the internal fit out of the buildings. The document does respond to the expectations of the SA government from a land use perspective and title.

All good .... but how does it related to the report in the Australian that you linked?

Not sure what you mean in regards the refence to page 14 in the second link. This shows some nicely painted tanks.

 

[hairyman]

Any indication as to where the submarines will be built? Are they mentioned in these plans?

 

[alexsa]

Any indication as to where the submarines will be built? Are they mentioned in these plans?

Osborne North Shipyard in SA has always been the location for the Attack Class build. There is contention over where the full cycle docking of the Collins will move to as the project moves to the build phase. Both SA and WA are fighting over this and both claiming an advantage.

This is still to be decided and the carry on will continue until it is resolved

Plenty to go around: Minister Price reminds that defence jobs are more than subs - Defence Connect

 

[alexsa]

I like the idea of ships and subs being maintained in wa and maybe with the henderson expansion, vessels over 200m being built there in the future.

the sa yard should be the place for constructing frigates, destroyers, patrol boats, submarines etc and eventually uuv’s and usv’s

The Collins discussion is just that and care should be taken not to confuse this with the Naval Ship Building Plan.

In the longer term WA will only ever provide maintenance for part of the fleet noting the naval presence will be split East-West and this include submarines. The majority of the large ships (LHD, one AOR and LSD(A) will be based in the East and the only dock that can handle them is there.

While noting an expansion of maintenance facilities is being considered for the West this will take time and I am not sure these will be such that vessel of over 200m can be built there (noting ground up construction requires more infrastructure than repair and maintenance). Even if it could handle large ships the number to be build is very small (noting we have just 2 in the fleet) and it may not be financially viable to maintain a build yard for such occasional trade.

So I am not sure why you would want to remove the mainstay of WA naval shipbuilding in the shipbuilding plan noting you propose to send any vessel under 200m to SA. This means SEA 1180 and all the derivatives of this vessel would go to ASC for build (ASC would be thrilled I suspect). Currently WA is only programmed to build such vessels (and their replacement) at this time.

What you are proposing is a complete change to the Naval Ship Building plan. You need to justify some benefit for such a dramatic change because I can see none.

 

[alexsa]

contruction in wa won’t be an issue. quite a few fabrication buildings are on the drawing board. The layout at civmec could also change. Mining fab will reduce and defense will increase.
We have 2 lhds now but Im quite certain we will see alot more vessels of this size in the future. large vessels 19,000+ ton every 3 years will sustain a work force no problem. 3-4 different ship classes including replenishment.
maintenance will be split like you said on both sides of the country But the east base cannot grow, a new east fabrication base will not be built and sa cannot construct vessels over 10,000 ton or 170m plus.
after the opvs are finished in wa between 2028-2032, they will construct?

Hmm ... where in the ship building plan is there any mention of building 19,000 tonne vessels every three years.

The building works that have been announced do not include a large building yard. The current works being completed certainly include maintenance facilities that can house a DDG and Hunter Class under cover. The new works announced recently will provide a new transfer system to get DDG's, ANZAC Class Frigates and the Future Hunter Class to that maintenance facility.

WA awards contract for $87m defence infrastructure project - Defence Connect

There is an agreement that another large hull maintenance facility required (to supplement the Captain Cook Dock) as stated by Minister Reynolds here ...

Henderson Shipyard lauded as sovereign capability ‘powerhouse’ - Defence Connect

With plans highlighted in the 2020 Force Structure Plan to build two multi-role sealift and replenishment ships, a Pacific Support Vessel, and an ice-rated replacement for Ocean Protector in Australia, additional major docking facilities will be required in the near future to supplement the capability of the Captain Cook Graving Dock in Sydney

This does not mean these vessel will be build in WA and one 19000 tonne vessel every 3 years it is not envisaged in the current ship building plan. In fact the current building facilities only cover SEA 1180, MCM vessel and Hydrographic vessels (likely to be derivations of of the OPV Hull), the Cape Class and the Guardian class (for the Pacific and Timor). The last two types being built by Austal. In the longer term the WA facilities will build the replacement vessels of these classes as part of the continuous build programme.

A few more things:

The East base does not need to grow physically... it is a very impressive facility and its wharf capacity is being upgraded as we speak. The place has been subject to continuous upgrades to support different ship types over its life. Again I will point you to the ministers comment that this is a docking facility and a supplement to the Captain Cook Dock. You assertions here are not back by evidence.

How is Osborne constrained to 170m. Certainly inside the covered build shed there is a length limitation but that does not mean mega block cannot be moved to the outside hard stand and consolidated. As you note the ship lift is 'currently' limited to 9300 metric tonnes but is is over 33m wide.

The fact is, at the moment, WA do not have any facilities (including all the fabrication sheds) that match Osbourne South to build large and complex vessels of the type envisaged in the 2020 force structure. On this basis suggesting that Osborne cannot build these vessels job but Henderson can is simply nonsense.

Where ever these ships are to be built upgrades will be required. To suggest what will happen on the basis of personal like for idea adds nothing to the conversion.

So .... Please base you arguments on facts you can support.

 

[Reptilia]

not alot in the plan for wa Beyond 2030 after the infrastructure upgrades.
Sa has the frigates(sth), subs(nth) and awd replacement (sth) and is set for 30+ years.

@Reptilia

You have been given 4 to 5 warnings since 28 January for failing to comply with posting expectations. Even this post does nor reflect actual situation despite being asked to support the arguments you make. The Mod's have discussed your situation and it has been agreed that you be banned for three month in order to consider how you may effectively participate.

Offending posts will be deleted.

 

[Pusser Tas]

RAN in WW2

 

[ASSAIL]

I was rummaging through an old chest looking for artefacts long forgotten when I came across a “Sydney Morning Herald” magazine, “Cyclone, Christmas in Darwin 1974”
I copied two pics of interest, HMAS Attack aground at Larrakeyah (where the Naval Base now sits) and another to please the Light Blue, a RAAF Dakota, blown into the RAAF Base CO’s garden (Ive flown in this aircraft).

 

[Rob c]

I copied two pics of interest, HMAS Attack aground at Larrakeyah (where the Naval Base now sits) and another to please the Light Blue, a RAAF Dakota, blown into the RAAF Base CO’s garden (Ive flown in this aircraft).

Passed through and stayed over night at RAAF Darwin a few months after this and was told that another Dakota complete with the taxiway blocks it was chained to wound up on the Officers mess dining and bar areas and as the Sgt's mess accommodation was destroyed but the dining and bar areas had survived we were accommodated under the WAAF barracks and shared the bar and dining facilities with the officers at the Sgt's mess.
What struck me was as we when around town was these streets that all that was left of the houses was a platform up in the air completely devoid of anything except a bath and a toilet on them. For those not familiar with the Darwin houses of the time they were built up in the air about 8 ft in the air.