Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Severely]

I was just reading part of the ANAO report on ADM and stumbled across this ANAO Major projects report released - Australian Defence Magazine. It appears from the report the issues are related to fire safety and other safety issues.

Considering Brunei have had their OPVs for some time, is it that our standards are higher or the build quality is lower. I am still not quite clear on the delays despite this report.

 

[SammyC]

Interesting report from the ANAO, thanks Severely. This seems to be a startling problem. Luerrsen are a very large builder to all the lead civilian survey organisation standards (BV, Lloyds etc). Fire protection requirements are very clear in these standards.

I can't imagine that the base OPV design was not compliant to these standards. Did DOD change the requirement?? Did Civmec use the wrong material?? Surely we didn't try to impose milspec standards on these vessels??

 

[spoz]

No, they certainly are not, and will never be, anything like MILSPEC.

You need to have an understanding of the process, in Australia, while the ship is in the builders’ hands it is a form of merchant ship, not a warship. To undertake sea trials there has to be evidence that it has been classed by a recognised classification society, or some other proof of design and build quality; this has to be provided to AMSA who then assesses it and issues the necessary authorisation to the builder and their agent, generally TeeKay, to enable the ship concerned to undertake sea trials. Because of different manning philosophies, in some area merchant rules require things that that Navy, as a flag authority would not or would require differently.

Further, in all builds the Classification Society, if employed (and one is in this case), will also require minor modifications of the as built state before admitting to Class. That Is particularly so for the first of class, which Arafura is; the fact that the Bruneian ships were built in a different shipyard to a significantly different design ensures that.

To me, having been through the process - although I hasten to say I have neither inside knowledge of, nor involvement with, the OPV - this sounds like the kind of minor tweaks those two organisations frequently require late in the build. But if you aren’t across how these things work, the sky is falling. But it probably isn’t.

 

[icelord]

For those interested, Defence is fronting Senate Estimates today (14/2/24) starting at 0900 EDST with the following topics listed :
Program 2.1: Strategy, Policy and Industry.
Program 2.2: Defence Executive Support.
Program 2.3: Defence Finance.
Program 2.4: Joint Capabilities.
Program 2.5: Navy Capabilities.
Program 2.6: Army Capabilities.
Program 2.7: Air Force Capabilities.
Program 2.8: Australian Defence Force Headquarters.
Program 2.9: Capability Acquisition and Sustainment.
Program 2.10: Security and Estate.
Program 2.11: Chief Information Officer.
Program 2.12: Defence People.
Program 2.13: Defence Science and Technology.
Program 2.14: Defence Intelligence.
Program 2.15: Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment.
Program 2.16: Nuclear-Powered Submarines.
Program 2.19: Defence Trusts and Joint Accounts.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
You can watch the live stream here : APH Watch Read Listen

You owe me 20mins of my life back
A certain possibly drunk Tasmanian Senator (who couldn't deploy due to unknown and undiscovered medical reasons) talking about her white card details being leaked to University and "the data", a Senator asking the same question to RAAF boss about some random committee issue he has cried about for 2yrs or the Senator wondering why Defence Chief Scientist doesnt personally know a Australian scientist working with the chinese and Fauci to cause covid cover ups and how Defence was involved ... I remember why i hated certain pollies when posted to Parliament House.

 

[SammyC]

No, they certainly are not, and will never be, anything like MILSPEC.

You need to have an understanding of the process, in Australia, while the ship is in the builders’ hands it is a form of merchant ship, not a warship. To undertake sea trials there has to be evidence that it has been classed by a recognised classification society, or some other proof of design and build quality; this has to be provided to AMSA who then assesses it and issues the necessary authorisation to the builder and their agent, generally TeeKay, to enable the ship concerned to undertake sea trials. Because of different manning philosophies, in some area merchant rules require things that that Navy, as a flag authority would not or would require differently.

Further, in all builds the Classification Society, if employed (and one is in this case), will also require minor modifications of the as built state before admitting to Class. That Is particularly so for the first of class, which Arafura is; the fact that the Bruneian ships were built in a different shipyard to a significantly different design ensures that.

To me, having been through the process - although I hasten to say I have neither inside knowledge of, nor involvement with, the OPV - this sounds like the kind of minor tweaks those two organisations frequently require late in the build. But if you aren’t across how these things work, the sky is falling. But it probably isn’t.

Thanks Spoz, appreciated. Hopefully they can find a resolution with the Arafuras.

It does however seem to be taking a surprisingly long period of time to find a solution, and the parties are being very private regarding progress (Hunter issues have been positively megaphoned in comparison). Maybe it will be part of next week's government announcements.

 

[merldave]

You owe me 20mins of my life back
A certain possibly drunk Tasmanian Senator (who couldn't deploy due to unknown and undiscovered medical reasons) talking about her white card details being leaked to University and "the data", a Senator asking the same question to RAAF boss about some random committee issue he has cried about for 2yrs or the Senator wondering why Defence Chief Scientist doesnt personally know a Australian scientist working with the chinese and Fauci to cause covid cover ups and how Defence was involved ... I remember why i hated certain pollies when posted to Parliament House.

I like reading about the RAN from people who know what they’re talking about. Posting a graceless whinge about a pollie that you don’t like is pointless and boring and way too common on a forum that is supposed to be about the RAN.

 

[Reptilia]

Defence yesterday at senate estimates said
OPV 1-Mid 2024 in service
OPV 2-Late 2024 in service
Not Helicopter capable.
Replacement of the Armidales.
Workforce and Covid issues.

 

[Stampede]

Defence yesterday at senate estimates said
OPV 1-Mid 2024 in service
OPV 2-Late 2024 in service
Not Helicopter capable.
Replacement of the Armidales.
Workforce and Covid issues.

OK........ Interesting
Better late than never.

Not knowing what's in the review i'd guess at least six. Of the Arafura will see service.
Most likely more.

Will be interesting as to its helicopter capability or lack of!

A perplexing situation if true.


Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

S

You owe me 20mins of my life back
A certain possibly drunk Tasmanian Senator (who couldn't deploy due to unknown and undiscovered medical reasons) talking about her white card details being leaked to University and "the data", a Senator asking the same question to RAAF boss about some random committee issue he has cried about for 2yrs or the Senator wondering why Defence Chief Scientist doesnt personally know a Australian scientist working with the chinese and Fauci to cause covid cover ups and how Defence was involved ... I remember why i hated certain pollies when posted to Parliament House.

Sorry but I don’t have time to go through the whole things…what’s was the question to the DSC about cover up and who was the Australian scientist referred to?

 

[alexsa]

No, they certainly are not, and will never be, anything like MILSPEC.

You need to have an understanding of the process, in Australia, while the ship is in the builders’ hands it is a form of merchant ship, not a warship. To undertake sea trials there has to be evidence that it has been classed by a recognised classification society, or some other proof of design and build quality; this has to be provided to AMSA who then assesses it and issues the necessary authorisation to the builder and their agent, generally TeeKay, to enable the ship concerned to undertake sea trials. Because of different manning philosophies, in some area merchant rules require things that that Navy, as a flag authority would not or would require differently.

Further, in all builds the Classification Society, if employed (and one is in this case), will also require minor modifications of the as built state before admitting to Class. That Is particularly so for the first of class, which Arafura is; the fact that the Bruneian ships were built in a different shipyard to a significantly different design ensures that.

To me, having been through the process - although I hasten to say I have neither inside knowledge of, nor involvement with, the OPV - this sounds like the kind of minor tweaks those two organisations frequently require late in the build. But if you aren’t across how these things work, the sky is falling. But it probably isn’t.

And here in sits the issue. Class will only be involved if that is in the contract. AMSA will rely on class involvement to ascertain if the vessels arrangements can be deemed equivalent to that required by a commercial vessel subject ot the relevant legislation. If that is not provided AMSA are not going to acce

I know you know this Spoz, but for the benefit of others, Class involvement is also useful for ensuring the construction of the vessel is built to a specified standard (this includes all issues related to constrution) and can be maintained as such. This is quite important.

If the contract does not specify that class are to be involved in establishing a certification base things get messy in respect of accepting the vessel. If class are bought in after the event to address this retrospectively then it gets very messy and difficult. The vessel may substancially comply .... but that needs to be proven.

 

[Stampede]

And here in sits the issue. Class will only be involved if that is in the contract. AMSA will rely on class involvement to ascertain if the vessels arrangements can be deemed equivalent to that required by a commercial vessel subject ot the relevant legislation. If that is not provided AMSA are not going to acce

I know you know this Spoz, but for the benefit of others, Class involvement is also useful for ensuring the construction of the vessel is built to a specified standard (this includes all issues related to constrution) and can be maintained as such. This is quite important.

If the contract does not specify that class are to be involved in establishing a certification base things get messy in respect of accepting the vessel. If class are bought in after the event to address this retrospectively then it gets very messy and difficult. The vessel may substancially comply .... but that needs to be proved.

I'm not up with stuff other than I'd just make the assumption any new build " thing ' that floats, fly's or drives would have to tick some box's to meet some regulatory approval.
In the case of the Arafura Class, one would think such a major project of twelve large vessels would need to tick some boxes and this would of been nutted out at the start of the project.
So what's going on?
Gross incompetence or games!

I'm guessing the later as government wants to adjust their expectation for this project.

Will gets some clarity next week.

Cheers S

 

[spoz]

Neither, it's not like going down to the car show room and buying a new car; or a boat show room and buying a boat. ANY ship is a complicated beast with thousands of parts; a warship, even a simple one like an OPV, is even more so. What happens is that, for example, a fire main outlet gets installed in a place which looks good on the drawings but after it is actually installed, inspecting it suggests that for one reason or another it would say, be better shifted 6 feet to port. Or the navigation lights are slightly more wooded than is should be in a particular direction because an aerial which is an updated version of the one in the drawing is now in its way. That sort of thing. It goes on with every ship build; but to people who are not in the business it comes as a surprise.

 

[25 years on]

Like this quite good overview of discussions re Australian navy from Bulgarian military.com (I kid you not LOL), Not a drilled down analysis but not bad light Friday night read.

Nautical breakthrough: Missile cruisers transforming Aussie Navy

“Nautical breakthrough: Missile cruisers transforming Aussie Navy”

The article discusses the pro’s and cons of larger or smaller tier one and two ships

It references and prefaces some history of the original HMAS Australia battlecruiser from WW1 quoting

“Vice-Admiral Von Spee of Germany, recognizing that his squadron lacked a battleship on par with the HMAS Australia and that a confrontation would lead to swift and unnecessary losses, chose to retreat. His squadron ultimately met a crushing defeat at the Battle of the Falkland Islands at the hands of the British battlecruisers Invincible and Inflexible—a testament to Spee’s prudent fear of the HMAS Australia.”

I hope the above quote cut and pasted isn’t contrary to forum rules but I hadn’t seen the quote before and if nothing else an interesting historical perspective regarding larger ships. I know this was then and now is different however the article goes on to discuss the merits of missile cruisers and some of the other types in service other countries given higher load out expectations and the economies afforded the RAN and the usability of Block V Tomahawk missiles, in conjunction with some ship types

Take from the article what you may.

 

[devo99]

Like this quite good overview of discussions re Australian navy from Bulgarian military.com (I kid you not LOL), Not a drilled down analysis but not bad light Friday night read.

Nautical breakthrough: Missile cruisers transforming Aussie Navy

“Nautical breakthrough: Missile cruisers transforming Aussie Navy”

The article discusses the pro’s and cons of larger or smaller tier one and two ships

It references and prefaces some history of the original HMAS Australia battlecruiser from WW1 quoting

“Vice-Admiral Von Spee of Germany, recognizing that his squadron lacked a battleship on par with the HMAS Australia and that a confrontation would lead to swift and unnecessary losses, chose to retreat. His squadron ultimately met a crushing defeat at the Battle of the Falkland Islands at the hands of the British battlecruisers Invincible and Inflexible—a testament to Spee’s prudent fear of the HMAS Australia.”

I hope the above quote cut and pasted isn’t contrary to forum rules but I hadn’t seen the quote before and if nothing else an interesting historical perspective regarding larger ships. I know this was then and now is different however the article goes on to discuss the merits of missile cruisers and some of the other types in service other countries given higher load out expectations and the economies afforded the RAN and the usability of Block V Tomahawk missiles, in conjunction with some ship types

Take from the article what you may.

The theory behind the article is good, I wouldn't say it's complete though since it misses some important points of nuance to the big ship vs little ship debate.

 

[H_K]

goes on with every ship build; but to people who are not in the business it comes as a surprise.

I have never heard of a completed ship unable to start builders trials and forced to remain alongside for 2 years.

Delays in post-trials delivery and customer acceptance? Yes that can happen… but the builder being unable to take their ship to sea and test basic systems like propulsion, safety equipment etc? That’s unheard of.

The NUSHIP Arafura situation is anything but normal.

 

[Armchair]

Like this quite good overview of discussions re Australian navy from Bulgarian military.com (I kid you not LOL), Not a drilled down analysis but not bad light Friday night read.

Nautical breakthrough: Missile cruisers transforming Aussie Navy

“Nautical breakthrough: Missile cruisers transforming Aussie Navy”

The article discusses the pro’s and cons of larger or smaller tier one and two ships

It references and prefaces some history of the original HMAS Australia battlecruiser from WW1 quoting

“Vice-Admiral Von Spee of Germany, recognizing that his squadron lacked a battleship on par with the HMAS Australia and that a confrontation would lead to swift and unnecessary losses, chose to retreat. His squadron ultimately met a crushing defeat at the Battle of the Falkland Islands at the hands of the British battlecruisers Invincible and Inflexible—a testament to Spee’s prudent fear of the HMAS Australia.”

I hope the above quote cut and pasted isn’t contrary to forum rules but I hadn’t seen the quote before and if nothing else an interesting historical perspective regarding larger ships. I know this was then and now is different however the article goes on to discuss the merits of missile cruisers and some of the other types in service other countries given higher load out expectations and the economies afforded the RAN and the usability of Block V Tomahawk missiles, in conjunction with some ship types

Take from the article what you may.

The article appears to be a reuse of an article on the ASPI site by James Garlick.
original is here

Are missile cruisers a better option than corvettes? | The Strategist

The navy is under-gunned for the strategic circumstances Australia faces. For years, commentators have criticised its existing and planned platforms for possessing too few missile cells. Many of them have suggested that the best remedy ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[Stampede]

Neither, it's not like going down to the car show room and buying a new car; or a boat show room and buying a boat. ANY ship is a complicated beast with thousands of parts; a warship, even a simple one like an OPV, is even more so. What happens is that, for example, a fire main outlet gets installed in a place which looks good on the drawings but after it is actually installed, inspecting it suggests that for one reason or another it would say, be better shifted 6 feet to port. Or the navigation lights are slightly more wooded than is should be in a particular direction because an aerial which is an updated version of the one in the drawing is now in its way. That sort of thing. It goes on with every ship build; but to people who are not in the business it comes as a surprise.

Thanks Spoz

No doubt they are complicated beasts with alot of things to tick off or adjust.
The skeptic in me leads me to believe there's a bit more in this project than the usual design, construct, test and commission.

We'll know soon enough.

Cheers S

 

[Morgo]

Moving away slightly from the usual platform centric discussion - a video from the Hoover Institution’s YouTube channel which might be of interest to this group.

Essentially the authors of the paper being presented are using historical precedents (mostly the Royal Navy in the 19th and 20th centuries) to argue that a blockade of the Malacca Straits (and Sunda I suppose too, although it never rates a mention) in an attempt to coerce China will fail as neutral parties also impacted will actively resist it. The discussion was particularly in relation to the USN but obviously this is also relevant for the RAN.

It’s an interesting argument. I don’t think the authors are right, as:

- the ability to deny the area of water in question is much greater now than the task the RN had in its various blockades

- the neutral powers who might resist (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Gulf States, African States, Singapore) are far weaker in relative terms than those the RN squared off against (Sweden, Netherlands, Russia, Prussia)

- in my view China’s dependence on sea borne oil and the vulnerability of land based options is substantially greater than the authors assess.

But it’s an interesting discussion nonetheless.

What would happen if, for instance, India believed that it was in their interests for trade to continue unmolested?

DFAT would certainly have their work cut out.

 

[Bob53]

The article appears to be a reuse of an article on the ASPI site by James Garlick.
original is here

Are missile cruisers a better option than corvettes? | The Strategist

The navy is under-gunned for the strategic circumstances Australia faces. For years, commentators have criticised its existing and planned platforms for possessing too few missile cells. Many of them have suggested that the best remedy ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

I read an article on reddit ….Interesting the gov had commissioned a review of strategic policy funding ( which includes ASPI) by Peter Varghese who is reported as a Chinese apologist. Apparently Penny Wong not a fan of ASPI output.

 

[Armchair]

I read an article on reddit ….Interesting the gov had commissioned a review of strategic policy funding ( which includes ASPI) by Peter Varghese who is reported as a Chinese apologist. Apparently Penny Wong not a fan of ASPI output.

the articles (earlier in the thread) calling for cancelling Hunters in 2023 and starting new build Burkes represented a low point for ASPI in my view.