Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
When I see our Canberra's being deployed for disaster missions, I do wonder if we should get several cheaper dedicated hospital ships instead.
They'll really look the part delivering actual soldiers, fighting vehicles and all the supplies for an amphibious ready element when not cutting toenails and more serious medical conditions. The least of the HADR tasks being undertaken is medical support, and that's pretty normal. I fail to understand why we get obsessed with hospital ships when the greatest value of the LHDs is actually their flexibility.

oldsig
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
When I see our Canberra's being deployed for disaster missions, I do wonder if we should get several cheaper dedicated hospital ships instead. Recent news from Indonesia comes to mind, where they have commissioned the second (I think) hospital ship 1 week ago. It's based on the LPD's they are building. In fact, I wonder if we can foster a bit of good will with Indonesia by asking them to build 1 or 2 for us.


I'll just copy and paste a bit from the article.

"KRI Dr. Wahidin Sudirohusodo (991) is an Indonesian Navy hospital ship named after Indonesian national hero Wahidin Soedirohoesodo (1852-1917). He was a doctor and education reformer in the Dutch East Indies who co-founded the Javanese self-improvement society Budi Utomo.


The design of the ship is based on the existing Makassar-class of Landing Platform Dock (LPD).


She is 124 meters long, 21.8 meters wide with a displacement of 7,290 tons. It has a maximum speed of 18 knots, cruising speed of 14 knots, and economic speed of 12 knots. KRI Dr. Wahidin Sudirohusodo has an endurance of up to 30 days at sea with a range of 10,000 nautical miles. With 120 crew and 66 medical personnel, this ship is capable of carrying out operational missions equivalent to a type C hospital.


This capability is supported by outpatient polyclinic facilities (general, eye, dental, etc.), emergency room, operating room, inpatient room, and radiology unit. Mobility for carrying out medical evacuation missions is also supported by the ability to transport medical helicopters, ambulance boats, and LCVPs."
I like the Makassar Class and have watched with interest its evolution into other classes over the over the years.
It's a small basic LPD. A flexible asset that can do many things.
Would it have a place within the ADF.

All we can go with is the current plan to replace Choules with maybe two large Multi role support ships and a Pacific support ship.
Still a bit vague at this stage but probably a total of three units.

Maybe there is merit in a greater number of smaller sized vessels................4 to 5 Small LPD's with RAS capacity.
They are still decent sized vessels.

Numbers matter as well as size.

Regards S


PS - The Sudirohusodo has no docking well.
 

ddxx

Active Member
Honestly, I’m a little perplexed why my question in a recent previous post went unanswered? When it comes to capability investment are we here to discuss and compare spend in relation to policy objectives or simply accept any public answer as correct?

These standards of ‘acceptance’ are not applied on any other thread to the extent they are on this one.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Possibly because nobody on the forum knows the answer? So far as I am aware there is nothing in the public arena about the undersea surveillance system - and I for one don’t find that surprising.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Honestly, I’m a little perplexed why my question in a recent previous post went unanswered? When it comes to capability investment are we here to discuss and compare spend in relation to policy objectives or simply accept any public answer as correct?

These standards of ‘acceptance’ are not applied on any other thread to the extent they are on this one.
Not every post or comment here automatically gets a reply, happens to all of us, no big deal.

As Spoz said there is very little detail, if any, in the public domain, and those that do know more won’t comment if it’s not in the public domain.

Anyway, no point throwing your toys out of the pram because you’ve been ignored, suck it up princess.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Honestly, I’m a little perplexed why my question in a recent previous post went unanswered? When it comes to capability investment are we here to discuss and compare spend in relation to policy objectives or simply accept any public answer as correct?

These standards of ‘acceptance’ are not applied on any other thread to the extent they are on this one.
There are some things that are OPSEC and other Security Classifications that are classified themselves, therefore are not discussed. Almost everything to do with ASW comes under that and those who know anything will not even admit to knowing anything ASW. That isn't just an Australian thing, it's right across just about all navies. It's one of the most closely guarded things of any navy. Anything to do with submarines is much the same, in fact even more. They aren't called the silent service for a joke.

Aimed at no one in particular.
On some capabilities and other things we will not get an answer ever, for the reasons above. These things are on a need to know basis and none of us need to know. End of story.


Why are we strong on OPSEC? Because at the end of the day lives are literally on the line. Lives of friends, colleagues and shipmates to some.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Honestly, I’m a little perplexed why my question in a recent previous post went unanswered? When it comes to capability investment are we here to discuss and compare spend in relation to policy objectives or simply accept any public answer as correct?

These standards of ‘acceptance’ are not applied on any other thread to the extent they are on this one.
@ngatimozart is absolutely right. There are some topics that are verboten, no matter what. You won't find me commenting on any undersea stuff, ever. Likewise quantity of kit, detailed weapons effects or anything EW.

Then there is stuff that is sensitive because of contract, government or the like. Again, you won't find me commenting on Lynx or K21, AUKUS or explicit behind the scenes details. Gosh, if you trawl my history alone you'll see me avoiding questions and topics, or carefully constructing replies to be vague but useful.

Some of the board are in, or have been in , pretty sensitive postings. That's not a brag, but those types of jobs condition you to be careful when and where you speak. Especially here, on a public facing forum. I promise you, no one say @ddxx and went "oh that idiot, not talking to him". What they did was went "oh, undersea warfare, not touching that".
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The thing that amazes me is the amount of media content on exotic programs. Although nothing useful is shown, just reporting on some potential useful technology is a clue for the Xi gang.
 

Morgo

Active Member
The thing that amazes me is the amount of media content on exotic programs. Although nothing useful is shown, just reporting on some potential useful technology is a clue for the Xi gang.
To be honest I’ve been quite surprised at the grumbling on this and other threads about the reduced media releases out of Defence since Dutton took over.

I’m all for transparency where possible but the reality is that we’re in a rapidly deteriorating security situation. Tightening up information flows seems like an extremely sensible path to follow.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
To be honest I’ve been quite surprised at the grumbling on this and other threads about the reduced media releases out of Defence since Dutton took over.

I’m all for transparency where possible but the reality is that we’re in a rapidly deteriorating security situation. Tightening up information flows seems like an extremely sensible path to follow.
Two entirely different situations. Given that the press love a good smear story about how slow/expensive/unnecessary/ inappropriate almost any defence asset is, there's good reason to publicise the progress being made on, for example, the Arafura and subsequent OPVs. It's hardly secret when you can watch from outside the fence, and seeing MY taxes being usefully and tangibly expended is definitely a good thing. It means my member may hold his seat if I can see It's not bring pissed up against the wall.

oldsig
 

Gooey

Active Member
Agree with everything except the distributed lethality. The way I read it the plan is for a shoot and scoot system, with covert resupply. The Tokyo Express is a good analogy to a point. The USN & RAN had radar but the IJN didn't. However they had the Long Lance torpedo and were good night fighters at sea. The Black Cats were a nasty surprise for the IJN as well.

But like you say it has to be thoroughly red teamed by non USN / USMC devious sods.
Sorry for the one-liner, but would Air be a solution for covert resupply?

PS. love the historical perspectives from the many layers of lessons identified from the Solomons campaign!
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The thing that amazes me is the amount of media content on exotic programs. Although nothing useful is shown, just reporting on some potential useful technology is a clue for the Xi gang.
To be honest I’ve been quite surprised at the grumbling on this and other threads about the reduced media releases out of Defence since Dutton took over.

I’m all for transparency where possible but the reality is that we’re in a rapidly deteriorating security situation. Tightening up information flows seems like an extremely sensible path to follow.
Transparency and secrecy both have a place in defence.

I think many like myself believe defence have not done themselves any favors with a culture of silence which has gained nothing in public perception for no actual benefit in security.

Were not talking trade secrets here.
There is a lot in the public domain of on going projects.
As old sig 127 mentions you can just look over the fence!!!!!!

For this maritime thread there is a lot of good news re construction and deployment.

This should be embraced and broadcast afar.

The bad guys will already know a lot more than what limited stuff defence offer to the public.


Cheers S

PS - Use to enjoy going down to Williamson to see the progress build of the Canberra class.
Very hard to hide a 24000 t ship.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry for the one-liner, but would Air be a solution for covert resupply?

PS. love the historical perspectives from the many layers of lessons identified from the Solomons campaign!
In some aspects possibly but remember some things cannot be, or in the circumstances are impractical to be airlifted. The last thing you want to be doing is building an airstrip or having air activity which would make an enemy curious. A curious enemy is a bad enemy to have.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Transparency and secrecy both have a place in defence.

I think many like myself believe defence have not done themselves any favors with a culture of silence which has gained nothing in public perception for no actual benefit in security.

Were not talking trade secrets here.
There is a lot in the public domain of on going projects.
As old sig 127 mentions you can just look over the fence!!!!!!

For this maritime thread there is a lot of good news re construction and deployment.

This should be embraced and broadcast afar.

The bad guys will already know a lot more than what limited stuff defence offer to the public.


Cheers S

PS - Use to enjoy going down to Williamson to see the progress build of the Canberra class.
Very hard to hide a 24000 t ship.
Here’s something to consider on the issue of transparency, or not, regarding defence.

If you pulled a 100 random people from the street and asked them their opinion of a series of questions on subjects such as: health, education, job security, social welfare, immigration, transport infrastructure, so called climate change, etc, the vast majority would have knowledge and an opinion.

If you also asked them for their opinion of the 2016 DWP, 2020 DSU, on the number of DDG and planned FFG, or their opinion on the replacement of M1A1 with M1A2, or the planned fleets of IFV, CRV or SPG, the vast majority wouldn’t have a clue what you are talking about.

What about if you asked them of their opinion of LRASM or JASSM-ER, or SM-2 vs SM-6, etc, etc, etc.

Or what about a question that defence accounts for approx 2% of GDP, while everything else shares the other 98% of Government expenditure, does 2% sound fair?

The reality, good or bad, is that the average punter on the street has no idea or even cares as long as they’ve got a job, can go to the Dr or hospital for free or receive their regular deposit of ‘middle class welfare’ payments, Defence just doesn’t register with the vast majority.

On the other hand, we here on forums such as DT are the very very small percentage of the population that does care, and have knowledge to varying degrees.

So what does that all mean?

Governments can get away with saying very little about Defence and no one will notice, except a very small group of people.

Cheers,

(PS, give it a go, ask you friends some very specific Defence related questions and I guarantee you’ll receive a blank expression in return.)
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro

This can't be fun for the crew. Buckets for toilets apparently (read on twitter) as well as sleeping on deck...
Quality ABC reporting right there, worth every cent of the billions they get every year :rolleyes: Navy has put out an on the record statement to clear up the rubbish reporting around this matter

<iframe src="Facebook" width="500" height="453" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe>
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Quality ABC reporting right there, worth every cent of the billions they get every year :rolleyes: Navy has put out an on the record statement to clear up the rubbish reporting around this matter

<iframe src="Facebook" width="500" height="453" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe>
With out having any experience but looking at it from a logical point of view if restored quickly then it could have been something as simple as a fuse/breaker or a crew member mucking something up. If it was something serious I doubt they could have got it restored quickly. In essence no different then a fuse blowing in your car, It happens, change it, all good.
 
Top