Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Gryphinator]

Navantia had a JSS model for some future RAN project. It was also hunting for malaysian multirole project.

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News

At PACIFIC 2019, the naval defense exposition held last week in Sydney, Australia, Navantia Australia, the local branch of Spanish shipbuilding group Navantia, unveiled a new Joint Support Ship (JSS) design for both the domestic and export market.

www.navalnews.com

The crew of that is ~160, so about half of the Doorman. The Malaysian multirole ship Damen put forward the enforcer 10000 design, which is a LPD, and doesn't seem to have any AOR capability.

Please no, no more Navantia ships.

Damen has what is reported to be a very capable ship in HNLMS Karel Doorman. We should do a deep dive (as much as commercial in-confidence contracts will allow) into of the problems dealt with by Serco in the acquisition and delivery of RSV Nuyina and MV Sycamore and compare that to the problems we have faced dealing with Navantia before we decide to just go with the Devil we know.

As I'm sure it will be bought up; HNLMS Karel Doorman is a BIG ship, on par with the LHD's. If it was decided it's more ship that we want then I am sure Damen would be able to modify their Rotterdam class to suit our requirements. Much the same as Navantia Australia has done to the Galicia class for their JSS concept. Considering the Galicia and Rotterdam classes are both part of the Dutch/Spanish Enforcer family of ships.

Why don't you want anymore Navantia ships? Too much market share here or just badly made?

 

[ADMk2]

I would imagine SM-2 and SM-6 will be a share pool across both Hunters and Hobarts. But its quite possible that the Hunters may be fitted with them first. AFAIK this FMS doesn't actually include any missiles, but support to integrate and operate.

There is a sustainment program integrating SM-6, ESSM Block II and ‘possibly’ Tactical Tomahawk into a design solution for the Hobart Class, in line with their AEGIS baseline 9.1 upgrade. This upgrade is to begin from 2024 from memory, so I expect SM-6 will be available from AWD many years before a Hobart will ever be able to use one, given current timelines…

 

[ngatimozart]

Please no, no more Navantia ships.

Damen has what is reported to be a very capable ship in HNLMS Karel Doorman. We should do a deep dive (as much as commercial in-confidence contracts will allow) into of the problems dealt with by Serco in the acquisition and delivery of RSV Nuyina and MV Sycamore and compare that to the problems we have faced dealing with Navantia before we decide to just go with the Devil we know.

As I'm sure it will be bought up; HNLMS Karel Doorman is a BIG ship, on par with the LHD's. If it was decided it's more ship that we want then I am sure Damen would be able to modify their Rotterdam class to suit our requirements. Much the same as Navantia Australia has done to the Galicia class for their JSS concept. Considering the Galicia and Rotterdam classes are both part of the Dutch/Spanish Enforcer family of ships.

What's your problem with Navantia?

The Karel Doorman is a darn sight more expensive for the start. It's an old design now and I think is being superceded.

 

[alexsa]

Please no, no more Navantia ships.

Damen has what is reported to be a very capable ship in HNLMS Karel Doorman. We should do a deep dive (as much as commercial in-confidence contracts will allow) into of the problems dealt with by Serco in the acquisition and delivery of RSV Nuyina and MV Sycamore and compare that to the problems we have faced dealing with Navantia before we decide to just go with the Devil we know.

As I'm sure it will be bought up; HNLMS Karel Doorman is a BIG ship, on par with the LHD's. If it was decided it's more ship that we want then I am sure Damen would be able to modify their Rotterdam class to suit our requirements. Much the same as Navantia Australia has done to the Galicia class for their JSS concept. Considering the Galicia and Rotterdam classes are both part of the Dutch/Spanish Enforcer family of ships.

Just to be clear, the Sycamore and Nuyina are both commercially certified non-naval ships. Neither belong to the department of defence (trust me on this ... but if in doubt search the Australian General Shipping Register). While the latter is a complex vessel the Sycamore is pretty basic. The navy did not have to deal with getting these in service so be careful of your assumptions.

Neither was simple.

 

[DDG38]

Navy’s First Lady of the Fleet, HMAS Paluma and sister ship HMAS Mermaid have sailed into Cairns for the final time. Personnel from HMAS Cairns lined the wharf to mark the occasion, which signifies one step closer to the Survey Motor Launches' joint decommissioning. The vessels are part of Navy’s Hydrographic Fleet and have been in service for over 30 years. They are due to decommission on the 18th of September 2021. Image Source - ADF Image Library

 

[swerve]

What's your problem with Navantia?

The Karel Doorman is a darn sight more expensive for the start. It's an old design now and I think is being superceded.

Karel Doorman is an Enforcer design, using the same template as Galicia, Rotterdam, Choules, etc. - exactly the same as the Navantia Australia JSS proposal. If the RAN wants a smaller version, I'm sure Damen could do the same to the Rotterdam (or Johann de Witt, for something a bit bigger, but still much smaller than Karel Doorman) design. Karel Doorman has over twice the displacement of Galicia, & can carry over twice as much fuel, three times as many helicopters, etc. Of course she's more expensive!

Old design? The Navantia Australia JSS appears to have the same hull as Galicia (built 1996-98), but with a hull plug. Karel Doorman was built 2011-15, & the hull, at least, is more different from the 1990s LPDs than the Navantia JSS is. Superceded? The RNLN isn't buying another one, but a smaller, cheaper, replenishment oiler, without a steel beach or dock - like a Supply-class ship, but to a newer design.

I'm not suggesting the RAN should buy a Karel Doorman copy, but your dismissal of her & her builders seems too casual.

 

[Flexson]

Just to be clear, the Sycamore and Nuyina are both commercially certified non-naval ships. Neither belong to the department of defence (trust me on this ... but if in doubt search the Australian General Shipping Register). While the latter is a complex vessel the Sycamore is pretty basic. The navy did not have to deal with getting these in service so be careful of your assumptions.

Neither was simple.

I am certainly no expert, nor will I ever profess to be but I am aware of the classification, certification, regulatory, etc differences between our naval vessels and those such as Sycamore, Besant, Stoker, Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector; It was discussed in one of my Charge practice boards by a Commander that did have a good understanding.

Whilst I have first hand experience dealing with Navantia as Commissioning Crew of Supply and having served on Adelaide I am curious to know if any of my complaints are mirrored by Serco and Teekay dealing with Damen.

 

[alexsa]

I am certainly no expert, nor will I ever profess to be but I am aware of the classification, certification, regulatory, etc differences between our naval vessels and those such as Sycamore, Besant, Stoker, Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector; It was discussed in one of my Charge practice boards by a Commander that did have a good understanding.

Whilst I have first hand experience dealing with Navantia as Commissioning Crew of Supply and having served on Adelaide I am curious to know if any of my complaints are mirrored by Serco and Teekay dealing with Damen.

I had a lot to do with this as the regulator. Navy had a small role in this process and the issues were thrashed out between the regulator and the owner (and owners reps). These are commercial vessels 'chartered' support Navy and I will say the moving goal posts due to Navy changes being requested (and the desire to move them in and out of the white ensign) did complicate things and demonstrated a lack of a clear understanding of what ownership meant. The Sycamore, Besant and Stoker are pretty simple vessels and are maintained in full commercial crew and certification being owned by NAB. So this was simple for Navy as they really had no responsibility in respect of getting them to comply.

Ocean Shield is commercial vessels as well despite being owned by GoA. Navy had no involvement in the certification of that vessel and it was delivered to BF as a compliant vessel. Ocean Protector was in full commercial survey when purchased by CoA and is now a Naval auxiliary 'apparently' kept in equivalent certification. So again these were purchased as a going concern ... again Navy (DoD) did not have to deal with getting them compliant.

DoD make a rod for their own back when they do not establish a coherent survey and inspection schedule for their ships. The DDG and LHD survey and inspection arrangement were a collection of different requirements that the project liked. They were not being built to a set of warship rules such as those developed by LR or DNV. Even the Arafura was not being built to a particular set of warship rules but to requirements set in the contract. That resulted in some interesting discussions on what was deemed to be a pass in assessment of compliance when looking at the granular level with fittings and arrangements (as an example .... certification of high risk elements such as air receivers, normally done by Class). Hopefully the Hunters will be different as I know DNV are working on the risk matrix for the certification and acceptance process.

Interesting fact - The AOR's were under commercial survey as cargo ships for the delivery voyage to Australia (so you can find them on the shipping register). I have retired from that job but I was dreading dealing with the Sirius when she was to be sold out of service as getting that ship compliant was going to be 'interesting'.

 

[spoz]

Having now dealt with ships built to Australia, British, Swedish, French, US, German and Spanish designs it is true that Navy always complains about the last lot and compares them unfavourably to the previous bunch.

Building warships to Classification Society rules is a good move. Attempting to keep them in class has the potential to adversely impact operational outcomes.

 

[hauritz]

The budget for Sea Lift and Replenishment Vessels of $4 - $6 billion is pretty substantial. Getting a couple of ships around the same size and capability of the Vulcano or Karel Doorman class isn't out of the question.

The Navantia offering just looks like a tarted up Galicia-class and frankly just doesn't seem big enough for what Australia might require. It only has about 70% of the load capacity of HMAS Choules and 70% of the fuel capacity of HMAS Supply. Not enough when you look at the expanded mechanised element of the army and the additional support the navy will need for its fleet of Hunter class frigates going into the 2030s.

The only question I would have is whether Australia has any shipyards capable of building ships in the 30,000 ton class.

 

[alexsa]

Having now dealt with ships built to Australia, British, Swedish, French, US, German and Spanish designs it is true that Navy always complains about the last lot and compares them unfavourably to the previous bunch.

Building warships to Classification Society rules is a good move. Attempting to keep them in class has the potential to adversely impact operational outcomes.

Yep I agree, operational imperatives are critical .... mind you a sensible inspection cycle is still a good idea so decisions to extend the period between maintenance are made on the basis of an understanding of the ships condition.

 

[ASSAIL]

What is the post refit inspection and acceptance routine currently?
I assume the contractors, Thales, BAE et al set to work but is there a modern iteration of the old GOSIEA (oversight and inspection branch, can’t remember exact title)?
And is there annual inspections akin to “Admirals”?
These were a pain but they sure kept you focused, not only engineering but all departments.
There were some comments a few years ago here that since inspections, functional and seaworthy, were dropped the fleet readiness deteriorated.

 

[OldTex]

The Navantia offering just looks like a tarted up Galicia-class and frankly just doesn't seem big enough for what Australia might require. It only has about 70% of the load capacity of HMAS Choules and 70% of the fuel capacity of HMAS Supply. Not enough when you look at the expanded mechanised element of the army and the additional support the navy will need for its fleet of Hunter class frigates going into the 2030s.

I seem to recall that the Navantia offering was publicised just after the Defence Minister of the time laid out some very broad and vague ideas of what would be required for a Pacific Support Ship. The comment was also made by the Defence Minister that the PSS would not be the replacement for HMAS Choules, but an additional vessel intended to provide a HADR capability as well as providing engagement with the Pacific island nations receiving the patrol boats from Australia. There were several comments at the time that the PSS having a RAS capability would be unlikely to assist the nations with the patrol boats as those vessels were not equipped for RAS.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The budget for Sea Lift and Replenishment Vessels of $4 - $6 billion is pretty substantial. Getting a couple of ships around the same size and capability of the Vulcano or Karel Doorman class isn't out of the question.

The Navantia offering just looks like a tarted up Galicia-class and frankly just doesn't seem big enough for what Australia might require. It only has about 70% of the load capacity of HMAS Choules and 70% of the fuel capacity of HMAS Supply. Not enough when you look at the expanded mechanised element of the army and the additional support the navy will need for its fleet of Hunter class frigates going into the 2030s.

The only question I would have is whether Australia has any shipyards capable of building ships in the 30,000 ton class.

It is a lot of money.
It is also a lot of crew.

Navantia had in mind a two ship class, each of <160 per ship. Building bigger ships means fewer ships.

Australia currently doesn't really have any shipyards setup to build very large ships, but WA seems to be working towards maintenance and possibly build capability in that space.

I wonder if there were two new JSS ships if that would then free up the LHD for other roles, as there would be a decent level of amphibious capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

The budget for Sea Lift and Replenishment Vessels of $4 - $6 billion is pretty substantial. Getting a couple of ships around the same size and capability of the Vulcano or Karel Doorman class isn't out of the question.

The Navantia offering just looks like a tarted up Galicia-class and frankly just doesn't seem big enough for what Australia might require. It only has about 70% of the load capacity of HMAS Choules and 70% of the fuel capacity of HMAS Supply. Not enough when you look at the expanded mechanised element of the army and the additional support the navy will need for its fleet of Hunter class frigates going into the 2030s.

The only question I would have is whether Australia has any shipyards capable of building ships in the 30,000 ton class.

Do you want JSS that large? IMHO it kind of defeats the purpose. They're not going to be landing fighting forces. They're basically logistical support ships that free up the AOR for TF taskings so that the TF can move on if it has to.

A couple of JSS no bigger than 20,000 tonnes could do the job. They should be capable of providing both wet and dry stores. A welldock is probably advantageous as well as a reasonably sized hangar. If the budget is large enough and you use your brains you should be able to get more than two. You don't need to gold plate them. It's expensive building ships in Australia so you have to make sure that you get Value for Money.

 

[John Fedup]

Do you want JSS that large? IMHO it kind of defeats the purpose. They're not going to be landing fighting forces. They're basically logistical support ships that free up the AOR for TF taskings so that the TF can move on if it has to.

A couple of JSS no bigger than 20,000 tonnes could do the job. They should be capable of providing both wet and dry stores. A welldock is probably advantageous as well as a reasonably sized hangar. If the budget is large enough and you use your brains you should be able to get more than two. You don't need to gold plate them. It's expensive building ships in Australia so you have to make sure that you get Value for Money.

Cheaper in OZ than Canada! Our two JSS ships will likely be north of 4 billion.

 

[Julian 82]

It is a lot of money.
It is also a lot of crew.

Navantia had in mind a two ship class, each of <160 per ship. Building bigger ships means fewer ships.

Australia currently doesn't really have any shipyards setup to build very large ships, but WA seems to be working towards maintenance and possibly build capability in that space.

I wonder if there were two new JSS ships if that would then free up the LHD for other roles, as there would be a decent level of amphibious capability.

The Karel Doorman has a crew of 150 plus accommodation for 150 other personnel (e.g medical or aviation). Yes it is a big ship but the army’s gear is getting bigger. The IFVs will be 40 + tonnes each. 2000 lane metres plus 9000 tonnes of fuel would seem to fit the bill for our sealift needs (which is really enabling and sustaining the follow up forces after our initial amphibious landing).

 

[Systems Adict]

I find this project most interesting, but really there is very little to go with.

The 2020 Force structure Plan has the following.

4.15 To further expand the ADF’s ability to support an increased presence in the region, Government’s plans include: • Design, development and acquisition of two Australian-built multi-role sealift and replenishment vessels to replace HMAS Choules. This will greatly extend Navy’s ability to project and sustain the joint force.

The graph according to my middle aged eyes list the dates for the project as about 2023 to 2034.

This is all we know and as has been suggested, we should not get ahead of our selves!

What we do know is that HMAS Choules was launched in 2005 and if she gets a thirty year life then she will need replacing with a " Something " in the mid 2030's
Planning for that inevitability and ramping up to build HMAS Choules replacement will take time.
So when does this project commence?
If just a one for one replacement, then we are probably not in a hurry at this stage.
If we want to expand the numbers and the second ship of this new class is to replace HMAS Choules, then I'd suggest we would want to get thing moving fairly soon.
I hope this is the case

I think such a vessel is a good fit for a balanced RAN, as are the increase in numbers of such a vessel.

Hopefully a Defence White paper is forth coming to give some clarity, which I suspect will come with whoever forms government after the next federal election.


Regards S

I've had a bit of a read thru from post #30281 (seeing as I've been missing in action due to grand-parenting duties) & CHOULES & KAREL DOORMAN keep on getting mentioned. It has to be remembered that ONE design led to the other, as CHOULES or LSD(A), as they're called over here in the UK, are derived from the Dutch design for KAREL DOORMAN.

Long term acquisitions & the design ethos behind what 'X' ship will be required in 2030 is a bitter pill to swallow. Plan too early & CONOPS will have flipped 180 & you end up with a design / hull type that you're committed to build & almost instantly it's obsolete / needs heavily modified to even be useable. The other side of the design is that you wait 5 years, the pollies drag their heels, the programme gets delayed / cropped / rehashed & the fleet gets a ship 3 - 5 years after they really need it, that's not capable enough as the CONOPS have changed, costs too much & needs instant modifications to meet the needs of the fleet. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't !

Australia needs to start looking at what she can design / produce / manufacture internally & if that means getting ideas from the likes of Damen / BAE / Navantia (NOT building under Licence, but actually designing from scratch, with external advice / consultation), then in the long term THAT would be better.

Know what you want the ship to do / think about leveraging with other nations in the Indo-Pacific rim (sourcing common components for the hull / hotel services / internal equipment/furnishings, to help leverage the bulk-buy options / reduce overall costs to each nation involved), THEN you'd be onto a winner !

SA

 

[spoz]

Up until the 80s, the RAN had its own ship design capabilities. They were got rid of following one or other of the reviews because they were “non core”. Now, if you want a warship design in Australia that is not a patrol boat or a fast cat you go to a design house for it - BAE, Damen, BMT, Gibbs and Cox, Navantia, Lurssen, Naval Group. They are all international companies and what you get will be a modification of one of their existing designs. You might get that modified, in fact quite heavily modified, in Australia but there is unfortunately no argument from their commercial perspective to set up an ab initio design capability in Australia at present. And certainly not if you pick each new ship you build from a different designer as that doesn’t generate a continuous workflow that can justify it. During the build process the design “migrates” to Australia for TLS purposes, but the design authority remains the original company from whom the Australian arm will need to seek deep level advice.

 

[cdxbow]

Project Cuttlefish, the RAN has developed a 'cloaking device' according to the DT. https://amp.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...r/news-story/13f93e5618ad170c45d893b65dbb6380 No real details about the capability of the system, but is easily portable.

'In physical terms, it is essentially a very expensive box that can be quickly mounted into standard 48cm computer server style racks on any vessel.'