Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Protecteur Class Joint Support Ships (JSS), Canada (naval-technology.com)
I think John was referring to the RCN JSS Protecteur class project.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I think John was referring to the RCN JSS Protecteur class project.
Came across some cool pics linked to Plan Galileo(Sustainment of RAN Fleet), I guess post Aukus announcement concept designs of Henderson drydock or sustainment hall undercover. Completely different design to the one layed out in 2020. Some poor quality screenshots taken from defence.gov.au. (Looks to be approx 400-450m long x 250m wide - Both Halls) which would be bigger than Civmec. Probably not quite big enough for a Ford class carrier, not too sure. Canberra 32m beam, 231m long, Gerald R Ford 41m beam waterline, 78m flight deck, 337m long.
Attachments
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Some how I don't think we're going to build a Ford Class Carrier.
Maintenance is a possibility though, Nimitz, Ford, Wasp, America, large tankers and support ships.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
It will relieve the stress on the US shipyards and allow them to get more new hulls in the water.
Interesting photos. There aren't many undercover drydocks around the place, so that is a novel idea. Possibly well suited to SSN maintenance work, rather than have to haul them off a synchrolift and into a shed.
It must be a seriously massive cover if it is to be capable of holding larger vessels, say an AOR or LHD (or god forbid a carrier).
They do seem to have moved on from this concept with the more recent renderings, but it gives some insight to general thinking. Cost is perhaps a killer here.
I actually like the idea. I've maintained ships in the rain and its no fun. I wonder if they could put an air conditioner in there as well. That would just be awesome. Maybe I'm just old and soft.
It looks like 1 shed for very large ships and 1 for frigates/destroyers/cruisers sustainment or for the construction of large vessels. The far shed could also be split into 2 or 3 docks for submarines, but I doubt it.
With 4 U.S Virginias, 1 U.K Astute on rotation and possibly 4 RAN SSNs in the west, more than 1 submarine Dock is a guarantee.
Last edited:
That is a lot of docks.
It raises the question of what might FBW and Henderson actually need to support in the future (2040 onwards). We have a good understanding of our own vessels and would probably see 3 Hunters, 6 GPFs, 3 LOCSVs, 6 SSNs and an AOR based permanently in the west. So that' something around 19 RAN vessels, and quite a big step up from today (4 ANZACs, 1 AOR, 6 subs for a total of 11).
I would have thought the landing ships are all going to be based out of Darwin, Cairns or Townsville with the patrol boats, hence the additional jetty and docking facilities in those regions. Sydney will keep the rest of the fleet.
The big question for me is how much of a USN presence remains in FBW. Do they keep the rotational force west (4 SSNs) indefinitely. Do they expand it to include a destroyer squadron, or perhaps even an expeditionary group.
Hard to know, however in my view the Americans consider FBW (and our other ports) as a strategic long term asset. Access to it is what they want out of the AUKUS deal (plus the Darwin area for the US army and marines). So I can see that they could well keep their SSNs based in FBW for the long term and perhaps add to them (even after we have ours). We will have a first rate facility for SSN training and maintenance by that time, at least equal or better to what they have elsewhere.
It's then not a big jump to include a number of Burkes or Constellations to the rotational force, say five or six. It provides them some heavy duty protection for their assets and people in Australia. Maybe they add a couple of AORs at the same time.
If the USMC is going to be serious about basing or surging forces out of Darwin (which they seem to be), then eventually they would move their expeditionary ships to support them. I'm talking about the big LHDs, San Antonios, the even bigger expeditionary sea bases, plus the smaller landing ships (like the ones we are building) and their fast transports (the Austal ones). This beast dwarfs anything, and if it starts rotating out of Australia, it will need an equally massive facility to support it. There could easily be another 20 ships to look after in this armada.
Darwin is the logical place for them during active manoeuvres, but it would be difficult to logistically support them from there all the time. I could see the smaller ships basing out of Darwin with our equivalent vessels, but all the large stuff would likely need to go to FBW. Say an America/Wasp class, a couple of San Antonios and a sea base.
So if you add all that up, FBW could (in a possible universe) need to house our 20 odd vessels, plus another 20 USN ones. Makes for a very crowded facility.
And if you are going that far you might as well throw in an Aircraft carrier.
That starts to look a lot like Japan and the seventh fleet.
My head hurts, I need a panadol.
It raises the question of what might FBW and Henderson actually need to support in the future (2040 onwards). We have a good understanding of our own vessels and would probably see 3 Hunters, 6 GPFs, 3 LOCSVs, 6 SSNs and an AOR based permanently in the west. So that' something around 19 RAN vessels, and quite a big step up from today (4 ANZACs, 1 AOR, 6 subs for a total of 11).
I would have thought the landing ships are all going to be based out of Darwin, Cairns or Townsville with the patrol boats, hence the additional jetty and docking facilities in those regions. Sydney will keep the rest of the fleet.
The big question for me is how much of a USN presence remains in FBW. Do they keep the rotational force west (4 SSNs) indefinitely. Do they expand it to include a destroyer squadron, or perhaps even an expeditionary group.
Hard to know, however in my view the Americans consider FBW (and our other ports) as a strategic long term asset. Access to it is what they want out of the AUKUS deal (plus the Darwin area for the US army and marines). So I can see that they could well keep their SSNs based in FBW for the long term and perhaps add to them (even after we have ours). We will have a first rate facility for SSN training and maintenance by that time, at least equal or better to what they have elsewhere.
It's then not a big jump to include a number of Burkes or Constellations to the rotational force, say five or six. It provides them some heavy duty protection for their assets and people in Australia. Maybe they add a couple of AORs at the same time.
If the USMC is going to be serious about basing or surging forces out of Darwin (which they seem to be), then eventually they would move their expeditionary ships to support them. I'm talking about the big LHDs, San Antonios, the even bigger expeditionary sea bases, plus the smaller landing ships (like the ones we are building) and their fast transports (the Austal ones). This beast dwarfs anything, and if it starts rotating out of Australia, it will need an equally massive facility to support it. There could easily be another 20 ships to look after in this armada.
Darwin is the logical place for them during active manoeuvres, but it would be difficult to logistically support them from there all the time. I could see the smaller ships basing out of Darwin with our equivalent vessels, but all the large stuff would likely need to go to FBW. Say an America/Wasp class, a couple of San Antonios and a sea base.
So if you add all that up, FBW could (in a possible universe) need to house our 20 odd vessels, plus another 20 USN ones. Makes for a very crowded facility.
And if you are going that far you might as well throw in an Aircraft carrier.
That starts to look a lot like Japan and the seventh fleet.
My head hurts, I need a panadol.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Babcock and HII launch H&B Defence Joint Venture - Australian Defence Magazine
Babcock and HII have come together to form H&B Defence to accelerate the Development of sovereign capability for Australia's SSN program. The new company will support.
Workforce
Nuclear infrastructure design and build
Submarine defueling and decommissioning
Nuclear waste and future sustainment
33 year RAN veteran Tim Brown is the First managing Director and the company HQ will be in Canberra.
Babcock and HII have come together to form H&B Defence to accelerate the Development of sovereign capability for Australia's SSN program. The new company will support.
Workforce
Nuclear infrastructure design and build
Submarine defueling and decommissioning
Nuclear waste and future sustainment
33 year RAN veteran Tim Brown is the First managing Director and the company HQ will be in Canberra.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Is this HII getting itself established in Australia ahead of Electric Boat and thus, potentially, have better access to SSN AUKUS construction and maintenance? Babcock would also enjoy getting work at the expense of BAES.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Probably become another yuppies' paradise but it should be reinstated as a shipyard, particularly now.
The same reason theres no Major base north of Brisbane is why no Amphibs will be based up there, Cyclones.
Apparently some chick named Tracey was not fun for the Navy in the 70s so they will never base a Major unit in the pathway due to the need to crash sail. I'll be interested to learn if OPV can crash sail during Cyclone season.
Nothing better then a 2am phone call "Cyclone inbound, we sailing now get your arse on the boat!" Heres hoping you have a partner thats reliable or your house is ratchet strapped to something big
The same reason theres no Major base north of Brisbane is why no Amphibs will be based up there, Cyclones.
Apparently some chick named Tracey was not fun for the Navy in the 70s so they will never base a Major unit in the pathway due to the need to crash sail. I'll be interested to learn if OPV can crash sail during Cyclone season.
Nothing better then a 2am phone call "Cyclone inbound, we sailing now get your arse on the boat!" Heres hoping you have a partner thats reliable or your house is ratchet strapped to something big
Yes an OPV can certainly crash sail. I’ve done it 3 hours in a steam powered destroyer which was, theoretically at least, at 24 hours notice. Not everybody was on board in time of course, but we had enough to run the (seamen) in 3 watches. Mind you, people actually lived in ships in those days - not in flats in Homebush
Last edited:
Having lived in Homebush flats, it was better then living for 2yrs on the ship as i could get drunk and return home. After 6mth deployment, staying on the ship was not inviting, i just wanted to sit on my couch and not listen to pipes or worry about DC
There are new rules where you cannot return to the ship intoxicated when overseas in port. There is also no overnight leave approved...
A complaint for another time.
My crash sail more relates to maintenance availability. Destroyers/Majors cannot be north of Brisbane at anything more then 8hrs notice for sea.
Armidales on hardstand during wet season were limited and always ready to move into the water at short notice if ordered to crash sail with plans in place. I would hope OPV can sail at same short notice during maintenance periods otherwise any major works would need to be done in Perth and Brisbane respectfully.
Sold Industrial & Warehouse Property at 60-72 Cook Street, Portsmith, QLD 4870 - realcommercial
[Warehouse, Factory & Industrial] 60-72 Cook Street, Portsmith, QLD 4870. Cairns marine precinct investment - major industrial and future development opportunity. View this property on realcommercial.com.au
Austal Cairns lot also up for sale, you would think the government would step in and buy this + move Hyne next door and give the Cairns Marine precinct alot of growth options as it connects to the new Common User Facility
OldTex
Well-Known Member
So which government do you mean, state or federal? What economic justification would there be?Sold Industrial & Warehouse Property at 60-72 Cook Street, Portsmith, QLD 4870 - realcommercial
[Warehouse, Factory & Industrial] 60-72 Cook Street, Portsmith, QLD 4870. Cairns marine precinct investment - major industrial and future development opportunity. View this property on realcommercial.com.auwww.realcommercial.com.au
Austal Cairns lot also up for sale, you would think the government would step in and buy this + move Hyne next door and give the Cairns Marine precinct alot of growth options as it connects to the new Common User Facility
Without knowing the cost, hard to say. WA recently spent $51 million for a site in Henderson.
Owning a much larger precinct alongside hmas cairns can only be good thing going forward. In someone else’s hands, it’s going to cost alot more later on to acquire land even if the sugar terminal is moved. This decade is aimed at Capes and OPVs and Drones but you can be sure that we will see GPFs based in Cairns at some point in the future, especially after the Arafura numbers were cut in half and the Leeuwin class vessels are to be decommissioned. Also, more frequent visits from the U.S, U.K and other countries are expected as stated at Future Cairns 2024 which means more work.
Last edited:
Whether you can do it during an AMP depends on what is being done and how it is being scheduled, naturally enough; if you’re out of the water with the hull open to the fresh air then probably not. Otherwise it should be possible; they have a number of redundant systems.
RoB drunk has always been an offence; although in general of course unless you played up in some way the OOD, if around, or the QM would just direct your mates to get you below and keep an eye on you.
Oh, agree about living on board fatigue - but it did mean more people than just the duty watch were available if it hit the fan.
RoB drunk has always been an offence; although in general of course unless you played up in some way the OOD, if around, or the QM would just direct your mates to get you below and keep an eye on you.
Oh, agree about living on board fatigue - but it did mean more people than just the duty watch were available if it hit the fan.