Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ddxx]

Yes, those are good points.
One ship may not be enough to meet demand in the Pacific, and a small fleet of support ships may also become necessary if Australia is to take Pacific support seriously.
Particularly if this shows our Pacific neighbours that we - not China - are to be the preferred supporting nation.
MB

I think the purpose of ADV Reliant is to be a dedicated first response platform, always stocked and ready to sail with very minimal prep at short notice. It'll rock up first and get things started before major support in the form of a LHD arrives. I'm pretty sure this is essentially how it is described in the Defence Budget papers.

In regards to general forward presence and patrol: Could the ABF absorb all the inshore / inner EEZ patrol activities, leaving the RAN's Arafura's to focus on the outer EEZ, External Territories, and the inner region? Just lacking that middle tier platform (i.e. ANZAC's original purpose) for high endurance, long range regional presence and patrol.

 

[CJR]

ADV Reliant? Limited accommodation aboard (60 people total, maybe half devoted to 'core' crew); any cargo goes on the open deck aft (read exposed to the elements and/or high seas); lack of space for a hospital/medical clinic; limited ability to send stuff over the beach and no ability to store a helicopter aboard... None of that looks all that brilliant as either an immediate disaster relief platform or a 'presence ship'/floating clinic/floating DFAT office

Now, a lot of these issues can be worked around (for instance, containerized accommodation or hospital/medical clinic modules loaded on aft or carry a small landing craft or a mexafloat so you can crane things over the side and ferry 'em ashore) but as things stand right now, from the HADR perspective, she's probably only useful for logistics once you've got disaster relief teams on the ground.... Might let you release a LPH or LPD from relief work sooner but doesn't look to offer a viable alternative for first response.

 

[StingrayOZ]

By early next decade Australia won't only have the Pacific Support Vessel and the LHDs but also a couple of Logistic Support Ships. The Arafuras might also be able to make useful contributions to disaster relief.

If Australia acquires logistics support ships, some sort of smaller landing ships, etc, the need of what we need this pacific ship to do may change.

The Pacific ship isn't replacing the LHD's, or Choules, or anything else really. It is in addition to all of those. Plus we have this new Antarctic ship of 25,000t. The new OPV's will have much more capabilities as well.

The Pacific ship isn't going to solve the Solomons Island issue. Although it gives a non-grey ship, that the government can offer and help do non-policing, non-military things. Pacific policy needs a lot of work (both side of politics and with the US and other nations).

ADV Reliant? Limited accommodation aboard (60 people total, maybe half devoted to 'core' crew); any cargo goes on the open deck aft (read exposed to the elements and/or high seas); lack of space for a hospital/medical clinic; limited ability to send stuff over the beach and no ability to store a helicopter aboard... None of that looks all that brilliant as either an immediate disaster relief platform or a 'presence ship'/floating clinic/floating DFAT office

The pacific ship might be used with containers of resources pre delivered into the pacific. We shouldn't have to air lift everything into the pacific every time there is a storm. We should have containers all ready there, ready to dispatch. So its limited lift and open deck isn't a huge issue IMO. On land hospitals are usually better than ship hospitals.

I do agree it lacks imagination and could be more clearly defined and more embedded capabilities. It certainly isn't inspirational or sexy or innovative. But its a start. But it also is low commitment. If they wanted to sell this on or use this for another purpose, no problem. The government could have wasted $100m and tied up resources on doing a study about the type of ship they should build for the pacific ship concept.

IMO there are bigger fish to fry. The PLA-N is now doing patrols in our own EEZ. NATO and the US are preoccupied in Europe. We are moving beyond China offering some soft diplomacy in our region. We are now talking about a military squeeze directly on nations.

 

[John Newman]

The Pacific Support Vessel, the myth, the legend, the facts, the fiction.

So what do we really know about the PSV?

In late 2018 in the lead up to the 2019 election, Christopher Pyne announced the procurement of the PSV, said it would be built here (it’s not, but more on that later).

PSV and HADR?

Here’s the problem, there has been no official announcement as to the ‘actual’ full role of the PSV in the public domain, speculation yes, but no details from the Government.

One can assume it’s a broader role than just HADR, and let’s be clear, the Australian Government is not short of HADR capable ships that can operate in the Pacific region.

There are 2 x LHD, 1 x LSD(A), their respective water and landing craft, 2 x AOR, ADV Ocean Protector, ABFC Ocean Shield, and shortly the PSV, ADV Reliant (which currently appears to be similar size/configuration to both Ocean Protector and Ocean Shield).

And let’s not forget other HADR assets from NZ, France and the USA too.

Getting hung up on just HADR is way too over blown.


The PSV and local build

Well that didn’t happen, yes it can be called a broken promise, and a lot of noise is being made about that from the usual suspects.

But let’s look at the evolution of the shipbuilding plan from the 2016 DWP, through to the 2020 DSU, and the recent AUKUS update when the switch from SSG to SSN was announced.

Despite the ‘loss’ of the PSV from local construction, the number of ships to be built in Oz has grown reasonably significantly since 2016.

* Choules replacement - originally the plan was for either a replacement LSD or an extra AOR, but not both, now Choules will be replaced by 2 x JSS

* Six additional CCPBs, may grow to eight.

* Mine warfare and Hydro ships - at the last election, 2019, there was a plan to build 2 x mine warfare and 1 x Hydro ship - but that changed in the 2020 DSU to 8 x ships based on the Arafura OPVs

* Lost builds - 1 x PSV and 1 x Young Endeavour replacement.


So?

Do we now have a PSV? Yes, is it the ship we were expecting? Due to lack of information from the Government, who knows?

Is Australian shipbuilding missing out on the PSV build? Yes true, but, as listed above there are numerous extra ships planned to be built since the 2016 DWP announcement.

Reference links below.

2016 DWP:

2016 Defence White Paper | Defence

2016 Defence White Paper

www.defence.gov.au

2020 Force Structure Plan:

2020 Force Structure Plan | About | Defence

2020 Force Structure Plan

www.defence.gov.au

2021 AUKUS Shipbuilding Update

Fact sheets | About | Defence

List of fact sheets for Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce

www.defence.gov.au

 

[Rock the kasbah]

The Pacific Support Vessel, the myth, the legend, the facts, the fiction.

So what do we really know about the PSV?

In late 2018 in the lead up to the 2019 election, Christopher Pyne announced the procurement of the PSV, said it would be built here (it’s not, but more on that later).

PSV and HADR?

Here’s the problem, there has been no official announcement as to the ‘actual’ full role of the PSV in the public domain, speculation yes, but no details from the Government.

One can assume it’s a broader role than just HADR, and let’s be clear, the Australian Government is not short of HADR capable ships that can operate in the Pacific region.

There are 2 x LHD, 1 x LSD(A), their respective water and landing craft, 2 x AOR, ADV Ocean Protector, ABFC Ocean Shield, and shortly the PSV, ADV Reliant (which currently appears to be similar size/configuration to both Ocean Protector and Ocean Shield).

And let’s not forget other HADR assets from NZ, France and the USA too.

Getting hung up on just HADR is way too over blown.


The PSV and local build

Well that didn’t happen, yes it can be called a broken promise, and a lot of noise is being made about that from the usual suspects.

But let’s look at the evolution of the shipbuilding plan from the 2016 DWP, through to the 2020 DSU, and the recent AUKUS update when the switch from SSG to SSN was announced.

Despite the ‘loss’ of the PSV from local construction, the number of ships to be built in Oz has grown reasonably significantly since 2016.

* Choules replacement - originally the plan was for either a replacement LSD or an extra AOR, but not both, now Choules will be replaced by 2 x JSS

* Six additional CCPBs, may grow to eight.

* Mine warfare and Hydro ships - at the last election, 2019, there was a plan to build 2 x mine warfare and 1 x Hydro ship - but that changed in the 2020 DSU to 8 x ships based on the Arafura OPVs

* Lost builds - 1 x PSV and 1 x Young Endeavour replacement.


So?

Do we now have a PSV? Yes, is it the ship we were expecting? Due to lack of information from the Government, who knows?

Is Australian shipbuilding missing out on the PSV build? Yes true, but, as listed above there are numerous extra ships planned to be built since the 2016 DWP announcement.

Reference links below.

2016 DWP:

2016 Defence White Paper | Defence

2016 Defence White Paper

www.defence.gov.au

2020 Force Structure Plan:

2020 Force Structure Plan | About | Defence

2020 Force Structure Plan

www.defence.gov.au

2021 AUKUS Shipbuilding Update

Fact sheets | About | Defence

List of fact sheets for Nuclear-Powered Submarine Taskforce

www.defence.gov.au

I have nothing to say about any of your comments. I agree.
However
I will ask what can it do ?
It's easy to say HADR.
We do seem to have alot of that.
How is this ship improving the RAN when we have a similar hull parked off the great barrier reef ( good job if you can get it ) donated to the ABF ?
I'm only asking because wtf?
Do we need 2, I get the spy vs spy shit wrt deep sea cranes and lagoon pools.
But we have one already

 

[ddxx]

I’m curious as to why there has been no public announcement on the proposed Joint Support Ships (I.e. putting out a request for tender) given construction is meant to commence well within this decade?

I’m still not completely sold on a jack of all trades ship as the “perfect fit” doesn’t seem to exist as of yet.

I’d lean towards a common reference design which comes in multiple lengths and configurations. Luckily, most potential designs do come from flexible ‘families’ of various lengths and capability.

 

[John Newman]

I have nothing to say about any of your comments. I agree.
However
I will ask what can it do ?
It's easy to say HADR.
We do seem to have alot of that.
How is this ship improving the RAN when we have a similar hull parked off the great barrier reef ( good job if you can get it ) donated to the ABF ?
I'm only asking because wtf?
Do we need 2, I get the spy vs spy shit wrt deep sea cranes and lagoon pools.
But we have one already

What can it do?

That’s a ‘how long is a piece of string’ question, it all comes down to the variety of roles it is required to perform. We don’t know what modifications are required yet either.

I think it’s waste of time speculating until there is some clear direction given by Government, it may turn out perfect for the role, we just don’t know the details.

How is this ship improving the RAN? Clearly it won’t be a commissioned RAN ship.

It may well be operated by Teekay alongside ships such MV Sycamore, etc.

 

[John Newman]

I’m curious as to why there has been no public announcement on the proposed Joint Support Ships (I.e. putting out a request for tender) given construction is meant to commence well within this decade?

I’m still not completely sold on a jack of all trades ship as the “perfect fit” doesn’t seem to exist as of yet.

I’d lean towards a common reference design which comes in multiple lengths and configurations. Luckily, most potential designs do come from flexible ‘families’ of various lengths and capability.

Why does there have to be a public announcement now?

The JSS project doesn't start until approx 2026, and runs thru to approx 2034.

Still plenty of time.

 

[ddxx]

Why does there have to be a public announcement now?

The JSS project doesn't start until approx 2026, and runs thru to approx 2034.

Still plenty of time.

You’re far better off to get things rolling and proposed designs in early to allow for both normal and unexpected delays. Then at least, you can delay construction start by choice, rather than by delay.

We’re near mid-2022, 2026 ain’t all that far ahead.

 

[John Newman]

You’re far better off to get things rolling and proposed designs in early to allow for both normal and unexpected delays. Then at least, you can delay construction start by choice, rather than by delay.

We’re near mid-2022, 2026 ain’t all that far ahead.

If you’re that concerned, why don’t you email the Def Min and ask the question, hey?

 

[ddxx]

If you’re that concerned, why don’t you email the Def Min and ask the question, hey?

That’s a bit of a strange tone to strike? We’re not arguing, and I’m trying to be both civil and productive in my contributions. This is, after all, a forum to discuss such things in detail.

There’s less than four years between now and the year where construction is meant to begin.

 

[John Newman]

That’s a bit of a strange tone to strike? We’re not arguing, and I’m trying to be both civil and productive in my contributions. This is, after all, a forum to discuss such things in detail.

There’s less than four years between now and the year where construction is meant to begin.

Strange tone? What are you on about?

You appear to be overly concerned about the JSS project and I don’t think you’ll be satisfied with any answer that doesn’t support your view that the project should be starting ‘now’.

And again, the project starts in approx 2026 to approx 2034, that doesn’t necessarily mean that steel will start to be cut in 2026 either.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/ShipbuildingWAFactsheet.pdf

And lastly again, if you are so concerned, then why not email the Def Min, what have you got to loose?

 

[WaveWalker]

If you’re that concerned, why don’t you email the Def Min and ask the question, hey?

Have to agree on the strange tone.

 

[SwingShift]

In Austal’s own promotion of the Cape Class vessel there’s a 30mm stabilised naval gun towards the bow. To those that have worked with patrol vessels, does an addition like this add or detract to the effective delivery of these patrol vessels primary constabulary functions, either from a perception or effect POV?

Noticeably most USCG ships pack a naval gun.

 

[Stampede]

An interesting proposal in the 2020 Force structure plan.

The acquisition of a support and salvage vessel to enable the recovery and at-sea repair of large warships.

The Pacific Support vessel actually looks like the above.

Realistically I'm agnostic re the purchase and can see merit for and against.
For the limited coin spent it does not elicit great passion one way or the other.
The vessel is however a quick addition to the fleet which is positive.
Maybe treat it as a stop gap until defence figure out what they want.
With the world somewhat on edge at the moment, I'd say the 2020 Force Plan is already looking dated and this will reflect on our maritime composition going forward.
Arafura's / Hunter's and subs I'm sure will go as planned, but for many of the other projects, big and small I can envisage some adjustment.

I certainly cannot see the purchased PSV doing HADR long term.


Regards S

 

[buffy9]

In Austal’s own promotion of the Cape Class vessel there’s a 30mm stabilised naval gun towards the bow. To those that have worked with patrol vessels, does an addition like this add or detract to the effective delivery of these patrol vessels primary constabulary functions, either from a perception or effect POV?

Noticeably most USCG ships pack a naval gun.

It helps. No vessel (without a similar system) is going to be ramming or harassing it, whereas it also has a very authoritive presence for anyone who happens to be in the area when one rocks up. Arguably it is more of a deterrence - though it could certainly be used for self-defence or as a warning device (i.e. a shot across the bow). 50cals could also achieve this, though they are less visible and impactful overall - especially towards larger vessels which may begin to appear more often in our EEZ.

If it is anything like the Typhoons, then they can be difficult to maintain, much like any system worth having.

I'm not an SME, I just happened to work on the ACPBs for a while in the past. After living in austere, I'm glad we are moving to the Arafura-class over the course of the decade.

 

[DDG38]

HMAS Toowoomba back in the water after her AMCAP upgrade :

 

[John Newman]

An interesting proposal in the 2020 Force structure plan.

The acquisition of a support and salvage vessel to enable the recovery and at-sea repair of large warships.

The Pacific Support vessel actually looks like the above.

Realistically I'm agnostic re the purchase and can see merit for and against.
For the limited coin spent it does not elicit great passion one way or the other.
The vessel is however a quick addition to the fleet which is positive.
Maybe treat it as a stop gap until defence figure out what they want.
With the world somewhat on edge at the moment, I'd say the 2020 Force Plan is already looking dated and this will reflect on our maritime composition going forward.
Arafura's / Hunter's and subs I'm sure will go as planned, but for many of the other projects, big and small I can envisage some adjustment.

I certainly cannot see the purchased PSV doing HADR long term.


Regards S

The shipbuilding plan announced in the 2020 DSU has been updated.

It was updated approx six months ago (Sept 2021) when AUKUS came into being.

Osborne projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/ShipbuildingSAFactsheet.pdf

Henderson projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/ShipbuildingWAFactsheet.pdf

It constantly amazes me when news articles appears, such as with the reporting of the purchase of a ship to become the PSV, that it is suddenly ‘new news’, it isn’t.

All of this info is out there in the public domain.

 

[Milne Bay]

HMAS Toowoomba back in the water after her AMCAP upgrade :

Looks good.
Won't be long before that Radar array will be black.
I thought that there was discussion about painting it so
MB

 

[Takao]

You’re far better off to get things rolling and proposed designs in early to allow for both normal and unexpected delays. Then at least, you can delay construction start by choice, rather than by delay.

We’re near mid-2022, 2026 ain’t all that far ahead.

That's when the project, and hence needs development, and hence design, starts.

There is no point in doing anything now, there are no resources (money or people) that can be drawn upon by SEA JSS1. When that opens up the needs and requirements can be finalised, tenders received and construction started. It doesn't take eight years to build two ships, it takes that long to ID, design, and build them