Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
DDG38 said:
What are the Armidales ? Chopped liver ? I'm assuming what you're referring to is Major Fleet Units such as DDGs and FFGs ? You're talking a significant port upgrade not to mention personnel accommodation expansions - if you can get people to want to live in Darwin for 2-3 years.
Click to expand...
I think we need to prepare our more remote bases for ever more possible emergencies.
The RAN has been relatively poor at this when compared with the other two services.
The Army has made progress in both Darwin and Townsville, likewise the RAAF in Exmouth, Curtin, Darwin and Sheargold but the RAN seems stuck with the view that only MWVs will be based in our North.
This is understandable but surely more advanced naval infrastructure is needed to both base and repair MFUs in Darwin and Dampier.
It’s good to see some progress at DNB but the proposed and current private docking facilities in these ports is insufficient.

One solution maybe to invest in large repair ships or even floating docks, use them in southern ports but deploy then north in an emergency but I fear that these may be far too mundane for our politicians to approve.
I can only assume that such contingencies are considered in our “War Plans” but it would be nice to know that these plans can be delivered at short notice.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
ASSAIL said:
I think we need to prepare our more remote bases for ever more possible emergencies.
The RAN has been relatively poor at this when compared with the other two services.
The Army has made progress in both Darwin and Townsville, likewise the RAAF in Exmouth, Curtin, Darwin and Sheargold but the RAN seems stuck with the view that only MWVs will be based in our North.
This is understandable but surely more advanced naval infrastructure is needed to both base and repair MFUs in Darwin and Dampier.
It’s good to see some progress at DNB but the proposed and current private docking facilities in these ports is insufficient.

One solution maybe to invest in large repair ships or even floating docks, use them in southern ports but deploy then north in an emergency but I fear that these may be far too mundane for our politicians to approve.
I can only assume that such contingencies are considered in our “War Plans” but it would be nice to know that these plans can be delivered at short notice.
Click to expand...
I think the term / classification that you are look for is depot ships and even pollies can understand that if you use words of one syllable or less and accompany them with plenty of pictures of only one depot ship and open sea in it. That way they won't get confused.

Something based on a tanker hull would probably work, a bit like the USN ESB (Expeditionary Sea Base) which are quite flexible. US$498m was the contract price for the ESB-4 USS Hershel ‘Woody’ Williams in December 2014. This covered the full design and construction. You probably would require something based on a supertanker hull, but maybe something on your new AOR hull might work.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ngatimozart said:
I think the term / classification that you are look for is depot ships and even pollies can understand that if you use words of one syllable or less and accompany them with plenty of pictures of only one depot ship and open sea in it. That way they won't get confused.

Something based on a tanker hull would probably work, a bit like the USN ESB (Expeditionary Sea Base) which are quite flexible. US$498m was the contract price for the ESB-4 USS Hershel ‘Woody’ Williams in December 2014. This covered the full design and construction. You probably would require something based on a supertanker hull, but maybe something on your new AOR hull might work.
Click to expand...
Such a ship would also be ideal for the Pacific Support Ship as well as supplementing the Amphibious fleet.

An interesting idea.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
ngatimozart said:
I think the term / classification that you are look for is depot ships and even pollies can understand that if you use words of one syllable or less and accompany them with plenty of pictures of only one depot ship and open sea in it. That way they won't get confused.

Something based on a tanker hull would probably work, a bit like the USN ESB (Expeditionary Sea Base) which are quite flexible. US$498m was the contract price for the ESB-4 USS Hershel ‘Woody’ Williams in December 2014. This covered the full design and construction. You probably would require something based on a supertanker hull, but maybe something on your new AOR hull might work.
Click to expand...
Honestly the first thought I had was for another RAN tender vessel like HMAS Stalwart (D215) and re-establishing the sort of pool of maintenance personnel that would be needed for a ship tender to operate. Also depending on vessel choices and fitout, there might be a certain degree of crossover with a JSS-type vessel.
 
Last edited:
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
Honestly the first though I had was for another RAN tender vessel like HMAS Stalwart (D215) and re-establishing the sort of pool of maintenance personnel that would be needed for a ship tender to operate. Also depending on vessel choices and fitout, there might be a certain degree of crossover with a JSS-type vessel.
Click to expand...
The issue (or an additional positive point) is that the navy would have to start hiring and training artificers again. While some individuals have persued additional training the RAN no longer trains people to the degree they used to.
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger said:
Honestly the first though I had was for another RAN tender vessel like HMAS Stalwart (D215) and re-establishing the sort of pool of maintenance personnel that would be needed for a ship tender to operate. Also depending on vessel choices and fitout, there might be a certain degree of crossover with a JSS-type vessel.
Click to expand...
Always thought we should have another ship similar in capability to HMAS Stalwart. Too bloody useful to cover a broad range of solutions both military and civil in nature. Hell you can point to local history what such a ship has done for australia its self with Cyclone Tracy to sell it to the politicians and public.
 
D

ddxx

Well-Known Member
It's certainly refreshing for a Defence Minister to allow program leads to use their common sense and provide some level of basic transparency in regards to projects.

Re the 24 month period between delivery and commissioning:

Is this a nominal figure or is it intended that all ships will require the full 24 month period? It seems to be at the upper end of commissioning time frames when compared to other nations? After ship one, could following units compress the nominal time between delivery and commission?

FormerDirtDart said:
That mention of extra VLS is in relation to differences from the Type 26 base/reference design, not additional/new changes to the Hunter-class design configuration.
Click to expand...
It'll be interesting to finally see an updated spec sheet for Hunter - Defence hasn't updated this for years now, it still references things like Harpoon and quotes figures that we know have changed as per senate estimates. Surely they have enough locked in to provide a proper update.

I envy other nations who seem to receive regular, and rather detailed updates on their respective shipbuilding programs ...
 
Last edited:
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ddxx said:
It's certainly refreshing for a Defence Minister to allow program leads to use their common sense and have some level of basic transparency regards projects.

In regards to the 24 month period between delivery and commissioning:

Is this a nominal figure or is it intended that all ships will require the full 24 month period? It seems to be at the upper end of commissioning time frames when compared to other nations? After ship one, could following units compress the nominal time between delivery and commission?



It'll be interesting to finally see an updated spec sheet for Hunter - Defence hasn't updated this for years now, it still references things like Harpoon and quotes figures that we know have changed as per senate estimates.
Click to expand...
It was always expected to be longer because of the inevitable first of class teething issues. Two years may actually already be an acceleration given the growing need and pressure to get new ships in service

oldsig
 
D

ddxx

Well-Known Member
oldsig127 said:
It was always expected to be longer because of the inevitable first of class teething issues. Two years may actually already be an acceleration given the growing need and pressure to get new ships in service

oldsig
Click to expand...
Yes, that absolutely makes sense for first of class - I'm more thinking in regards to subsequent deliveries?
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Making provision for the MH-60R instead of Merlin/Wildcat; the discussion is about variation to the Reference Ship Design, T26

It’s not the Program lead speaking; it is the Contactor’s lead. Neither Tony D nor Sheryl were directly quoted, I notice.
 
Last edited:
buffy9

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Stampede said:
"Changes to the aviation system"
I wonder what this is about?

Cheers S
Click to expand...
Most likely modifications for the MH-60R specifically rather than the Merlin or Wildcat. May also be for S-100 or any future MTUAS beyond that.

The MH-60R fleet is likely to be kept in service until the late 2030s at least, so having the first block of ships fitted for operating them would be prudent - rather than fitting them for a legacy helicopter like the Hobarts did.

Nvm, spoz beat me to it.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
ddxx said:
It's certainly refreshing for a Defence Minister to allow program leads to use their common sense and provide some level of basic transparency in regards to projects.

Re the 24 month period between delivery and commissioning:

Is this a nominal figure or is it intended that all ships will require the full 24 month period? It seems to be at the upper end of commissioning time frames when compared to other nations? After ship one, could following units compress the nominal time between delivery and commission?



It'll be interesting to finally see an updated spec sheet for Hunter - Defence hasn't updated this for years now, it still references things like Harpoon and quotes figures that we know have changed as per senate estimates. Surely they have enough locked in to provide a proper update.

I envy other nations who seem to receive regular, and rather detailed updates on their respective shipbuilding programs ...
Click to expand...
It’s been widely reported that by the time of delivery of ship 04, the ‘lost’ time will be made up, eg, deliveries will be back to the original schedule

In simple terms, the nominal 24mth drumbeat will be reduced.

The 24mth drumbeat is not a specific requirement for the T26/Hunter class, there is no technical reason.


You do understand why there is a 24mth drumbeat don’t you?

It’s there to ensure that a ‘continuous’ build program can be maintained, 12 MFUs with a 24mth gap allows that to happen.

If it’s sped up too much, it creates another Valley of Death.

If a future Government decided to increase the number of MFUs to 13 or 14 or more, then the drumbeat can be adjusted accordingly.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Stampede said:
"Changes to the aviation system"
I wonder what this is about?

Cheers S
Click to expand...
The changes required from the T26 ‘reference’ design to Hunter is not just the change from a UK helicopter to a US helicopter. It’s also the difference in weapons storage too.

The Hunter class will have shipborne MU90 torpedoes (T26 doesn’t), the MH-60R will have Mk54 torpedoes, the T26 doesn’t.

The Hobart class DDGs required modification too, was done after delivery because of the need to store and manage two types of lightweight torpedoes.

Again, a change of helicopter types is not just the helicopter, it’s changes of weapons storage too.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
John Newman said:
The changes required from the T26 ‘reference’ design to Hunter is not just the change from a UK helicopter to a US helicopter. It’s also the difference in weapons storage too.

The Hunter class will have shipborne MU90 torpedoes (T26 doesn’t), the MH-60R will have Mk54 torpedoes, the T26 doesn’t.

The Hobart class DDGs required modification too, was done after delivery because of the need to store and manage two types of lightweight torpedoes.

Again, a change of helicopter types is not just the helicopter, it’s changes of weapons storage too.
Click to expand...
Sydney was actually commissioned able to operate the MH-60R, the other 2 needed modifications to do so. The first 2 would have been for the S-70B Seahawk which Spain uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top