Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Further roll out (pardon pun) of community usage of alternately powered vehicles, will also reduce competition the ADF would experience of any constrained fuel supply.
Strategic resilience imperative, methinks.

The ADF is likely to adopt alternative fueled vehicles much slower than civilian market. Not just electric cars, but natural gas powered ships, etc. You really do want to keep at least 1 local refinery. Refineries also produce other products other than fuel, such as oils, various petroleum based products, including much of the industrial chemistry. Things you might need for rocket motors, or explosives, etc.

As more and more electric vehicles enter the market, there will be smaller and smaller commercial storage of fuels. I actually see electric vehicles as a big strategic win. Currently we are very dependent on very rare oil, that mostly comes from a fairly unstable region, which we have to ship to Australia. Australia has plenty of renewable energy, good luck blocking out the sun and stopping the wind.

It may be worth looking into a small coal to diesel capacity on the east coast. As well as biofuel options.

Chile has been buying smart. The mix of Dutch/UK/Aussie stuff is a good mix. Hulls aren't completely ancient, and were widely thought of the more capable of their type. Its entirely in Australia's interest to help Chile have a long ranged Navy capability. Their our most capable and nearest east coast power.

Having a nation that regularly and happily buys 2nd hand hulls from Australia also speaks volumes about Australia and any assets they may look at disposing.

Increasing capacity at tindal is not impossible and a large land based fuel storage is better, cheaper than trying to keep it on a ship. But as Alexsa pointed out it runs into issues of shelf life, moisture, etc. Again, better is a dry area than a coastal one.

 

[Takao]

The ADF is likely to adopt alternative fueled vehicles much slower than civilian market. Not just electric cars, but natural gas powered ships, etc.

The RAN is a completely different beast, but we are already trying to get electrification into our ground fleets.

As long as you can recharge, an electric vehicle is superior in every way for us. The annoying thing will be our first lot will be converted, meaning we can't take the ability to shape batteries and the like into account.

We want to ditch the tankers.

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile at sea : "Sailors keep watch on the bridge of HMAS Canberra during Exercise Indo-Pacific Endeavour 21." Image source - ADF Image Library

 

[ASSAIL]

The RAN is a completely different beast, but we are already trying to get electrification into our ground fleets.

As long as you can recharge, an electric vehicle is superior in every way for us. The annoying thing will be our first lot will be converted, meaning we can't take the ability to shape batteries and the like into account.

We want to ditch the tankers.

Nooo! They’ll still be needed to fuel the generators to recharge the electric vehicles

 

[Wombat000]

“Nooo! They’ll still be needed to fuel the generators to recharge the electric vehicles”

My only reply on this, cos it can be contrived as expanding topic of this RAN thread (but is relevant to it), is that IMO military vehicles generally will evolve into Hydrogen powered, because refuelling them will be similar to current fuelling practices (manipulating tech for that tho is proving slower, but still advancing).

I think the notion of fixating on ‘recharging batteries’ for military mobile units is flawed and not appreciating, in particular, evolving military vehicular evolutionary potential.
But because of this, I think military application will likely be one of the last adopters of evolved powered tech, cos they’re probably necessarily conservative.

Interestingly as community uptake (i believe) inevitably increases, competitive resupply load of legacy conventional fuels will progressively free up ADF supply.
Ironically the military requirements to ‘fill & go’ convenience and practicality will then ultimately eventually drive wider community Hydrogen tech adoption.

we don’t drive Model-T Fords anymore.

 

[hauritz]

Electric vehicles are also inherently inefficient. They tend to be short ranged, the performance deteriorates rapidly as the battery discharges, plus you are looking at laying out a lot of extra money for something that won't perform as well as a conventionally powered vehicle.

Fuel cells are they way to go.

As it happens Australia is currently one of the world leaders in the development of Green Hydrogen technology and it is our best chance of fuel security. Also there are other options such green ammonia which would be a lot easier to transport.

Australia’s potential as a “green” hydrogen superpower

As the hydrocarbon era wanes a new energy source could be a potent geopolitical asset.

www.lowyinstitute.org

 

[Takao]

Electric vehicles are also inherently inefficient. They tend to be short ranged, the performance deteriorates rapidly as the battery discharges, plus you are looking at laying out a lot of extra money for something that won't perform as well as a conventionally powered vehicle.

Fuel cells are they way to go.

As it happens Australia is currently one of the world leaders in the development of Green Hydrogen technology and it is our best chance of fuel security.

Australia’s potential as a “green” hydrogen superpower

As the hydrocarbon era wanes a new energy source could be a potent geopolitical asset.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Range, sure.

Performance doesn't deteriorate as the battery drains - it uses the batter quicker. But then again, with a heavy right foot my V8 fuel tank gets emptier quicker

Doesn't perform as well? Off the top of my head, other than range I can't think of an equal comparison where the electric vehicle doesn't outperform a conventional fuelled vehicle. Acceleration, traction, handling - everything.

The problem with fuel cells is they aren't close to rolling out in commercial quantities and I still have to move flammable liquids around the battlefield. They might be an answer for my private vehicle, but they are, honestly, probably at least a decade+ out from being feasible for that.

I have fully electric protected and armoured vehicles now. One of's as demonstrators, sure. But they are at least real.

 

[cdxbow]

USN launching missiles from a deck launcher from the USV This "Ghost Fleet" Ship Firing An SM-6 Missile From A Modular Launcher Is A Glimpse Of The Future (thedrive.com) Just the thing I suggested a month or so ago (the Anzac 'loyal seaman') which I copped significant scorn about.

 

[76mmGuns]

USN launching missiles from a deck launcher from the USV This "Ghost Fleet" Ship Firing An SM-6 Missile From A Modular Launcher Is A Glimpse Of The Future (thedrive.com) Just the thing I suggested a month or so ago (the Anzac 'loyal seaman') which I copped significant scorn about.

Yeah, it happens. The mod's try to keep this forum as grounded as possible, so predictions sometimes get scorn, but occasionally you end up being right. (yes, speaking from experience. I was correct once, going against the grain. )

But overall, I'm glad the mod's are active and consistant. Just take the win mate

 

[spoz]

I don’t know about others, but this little black duck would not be at all happy going to sea in a warrie which carried liquid or gaseous hydrogen as a fuel. We don’t even carry mogas internally, and our aviation fuel is specially formulated to have a high flash point. Hydrogen with all the complex plumbing and leak and explosion potential that implies? Can you imagine RASing it? Ugh.

 

[hauritz]

I don’t know about others, but this little black duck would not be at all happy going to sea in a warrie which carried liquid or gaseous hydrogen as a fuel. We don’t even carry mogas internally, and our aviation fuel is specially formulated to have a high flash point. Hydrogen with all the complex plumbing and leak and explosion potential that implies? Can you imagine RASing it? Ugh.

More likely they will be ammonia fuelled. In fact the shipping industry seems to be very strong on it.

Why the Shipping Industry Is Betting Big on Ammonia

Ammonia engines and fuel cells could slash carbon emissions

spectrum.ieee.org

It can be stored as a liquid, does not burn readily and could power about a third of ships by the 2050s. It can be used in both combustion and fuel cell engines and it will also give Australia energy security.

 

[alexsa]

More likely they will be ammonia fuelled. In fact the shipping industry seems to be very strong on it.

Why the Shipping Industry Is Betting Big on Ammonia

Ammonia engines and fuel cells could slash carbon emissions

spectrum.ieee.org

It can be stored as a liquid, does not burn readily and could power about a third of ships by the 2050s. It can be used in both combustion and fuel cell engines and it will also give Australia energy security.

Commercial engine builders are very keen on it. It does have a number of undesirable characteristics include being environmentally hazardous and very toxic to humans as well as being corrosive to skin. In liquid form it will need to be kept cool and you cannot really vent to do that (boil off). Damage to fuel systems are likely to render spaces uninhabitable. LNG is less toxic but has the joy of being highly flammable.

 

[spoz]

Plus, of course, one of the products of its combustion is nitrous oxide, which does wonderful things when combined with water.

 

[alexsa]

Plus, of course, one of the products of its combustion is nitrous oxide, which does wonderful things when combined with water.

And that is a real issue from a MARPOL perspective as Annex VI restricts NOX emissions. The challenge for the engine builders will be to limit 'slippage' in the use of the fuel.

Engine builders are keen but there are challenges. It is likely that an internal combustion engine will still require some diesel or biofuel (about 5%) mixed with the ammonia to assist in combustion. This means it is likely there will still be some CO2 as well.

Submission 46 attachment 4 - Dr Barrie Pittock - Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaption - Public inquiry (pc.gov.au)

This issue is that the risks and rewards are still being worked out.

 

[Geddy]

Electric vehicles are hardly “short ranged”. My car does over 650km on a charge. As technology improves it will get better.
The problem with hydrogen includes its tendency to burn with an invisible flame.
Australia has enormous scope to build battery storage and huge solar arrays, so there is a good case for the military using EV’s in certain applications. Mind you Australia is also well known for being very slow to get on the latest technology and ideas.

 

[Mikeymike]

In regards to the Pacific Support Vessel would a version of the Austal Spearhead class suit this role?

It seems to me that it would fit a lot of what is required, is Australian designed and seems to be a flexible design in regards to potential configurations. This can be seen by the multiple variants being proposed for the USN. Cost wise seems it would also fit the proposed budget of $180-280m AUD.

Not sure if Austal could build it at Henderson, though they did build a variant for Oman there.

 

[hauritz]

I am not sure what the requirements are for the Pacific Support Ship but I would have thought something bigger would be required. Perhaps a vessel of opportunity could be an option, particularly now that a number of passenger ships might be available.

Actually when I think about it the USN ships Mercy and Comfort are converted tankers and as it happens the RAN is just about to decommission HMAS Sirius. I wonder.

 

[OldTex]

I am not sure what the requirements are for the Pacific Support Ship but I would have thought something bigger would be required. Perhaps a vessel of opportunity could be an option, particularly now that a number of passenger ships might be available.

Actually when I think about it the USN ships Mercy and Comfort are converted tankers and as it happens the RAN is just about to decommission HMAS Sirius. I wonder.

The fact that there seems to be only the most basic (i.e. political thought bubble) requirements on open sources makes it very difficult to even start to consider a specific platform. As the PSS is expected to provide HADR and national engagement type tasks it would seem something with facilities between a LSD and a T-AH (such as USNS Mercy and Comfort) might be intended. The suggestion of using an EPF (Austral HSV) for the role would suffer from both the lack of range and the lack of medical facilities (other than sickbay/ROLE 1). The T-AH would provide far more medical facilities than might be used in many cases. It also does not provide facilities to put ashore the engineer support (repair, construction, water supply and electrical power) needed in HADR.

 

[Mikeymike]

The suggestion of using an EPF (Austral HSV) for the role would suffer from both the lack of range and the lack of medical facilities (other than sickbay/ROLE 1).

I was wondering about the EPF mainly because it seems to be quite a flexible design from an Australian shipbuilder that might hit some of the political points. It might also be seen as a relatively mature design with two other countries (US and Oman) operating 15+ hulls.

If they were able to do something like a "Flight II" with Role 2 medical facilities combined with a reasonable level of cargo space able to use the back ramp to offload in less developed areas of the pacific that would seem to suit what has been announced in regards to its role. Range might still be an issue though that may be alleviated if they reduced the top speed (40+ knots) and go for a different more economical engine setup.

Its less useful than a LSD in regards to no port infrastructure but with the budget allocated in the Force structure plan not sure if that would cover a LSD.

 

[alexsa]

In regards to the Pacific Support Vessel would a version of the Austal Spearhead class suit this role?

It seems to me that it would fit a lot of what is required, is Australian designed and seems to be a flexible design in regards to potential configurations. This can be seen by the multiple variants being proposed for the USN. Cost wise seems it would also fit the proposed budget of $180-280m AUD.

Not sure if Austal could build it at Henderson, though they did build a variant for Oman there.

Good day folks

The use of high speed craft has been discussed before. It works for the USN requirement (noting they can manage a diversity of vessel types) but for the RAN these vessels have limitations. This relates to useable deadweight (how much they can carry) and weather limitations.

The vessels are built to (or based on) the High Speed Craft code. This allows relaxations from SOLAS on the basis the vessel operate on fixed routes (for commercial operations the vessel need to run on an approved route with the PAX versions need to be 4 hours from a port of refuge and cargo version being 8 hours from a port refuge).

This reflects the fact these vessel have operating restrictions in sea states due to the nature of their light weight construction. In bad weather things such as tunnel slam and risk of wave damage slow them down pretty quickly and increase the risk of serious damage. These things are excellent for getting a lot of troops and a small amount of equipment to a destination about 8 hours away at operational speeds (over 30knots). Operations such as movement from Japan to Korea or within the Caribbean are perfect.

They are not great at getting places that are a very long way away or where the weather is poor (such as HADR operations after a Cyclone .... the transit may be a bit choppy).

To achieve the 35 knot speed they burn prodigious amounts of fuel (which is why their usable capacity in weight is so small. This impacts range which is just 1200 nautical miles. If you travel at economic speed you will increase the range but then even a medium RO RO will provide much more uplift capacity (thousands of tonnes as opposed to 635 tonnes) at better speed with significantly greater range and do it at about 18 to 22 knots. In really poor conditions the RO-RO will get there first.

You should note that payload is based on the troops sitting in seats not full accommodation. If you wanted to added more facilities (the proposed flight II option) that is going to remove that payload very quickly. Having crew onboard long term requires full accommodation and greater stores capacity for consumables. Adding medical facilities and ship shore connector arrangements and full flight facilities will need a bigger ship such as the flight II but this will still be short ranged and sea state restricted. You get a lot more bang for buck with a medium size RO-RO vessel designed with its own ship shore connector arrangements.... particularly when you look at the range required for operations in the Pacific.

The RAN used an INCAT ferry (Commissioned as HMAS Jervis Bay) for the Timor operations to move troops. The vessel was chartered and returned as soon as the operations were completed. It needed refuelling at each end of the transit

HMAS Jervis Bay (II) | Royal Australian Navy

The fact is that while the vessel was perfect in supporting operations in Timor it was still somewhat restricted noting it was designed as a day ferry as are the Spearhead.

While these things look futuristic they are designed for a specific task ....... that cannot simply be modified to be the equivalent of a proper displacement hull with the same operating capability.