By just about every metric the new OPVs will be more effective than the vessels they replace. I am not entirely sure how that would translate operationally but I imagine that the average OPV would be able to spend more days at sea and on station than the Armidale class.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Very interesting move, was not long ago we were talking about the possible future of Manus Island and what could or could not be done there. Bit light on the details, and no statement or media release I have been able to find as yet from Scomo, Payne, Pyne or Defence
America to partner with Australia to develop naval base on Manus Island
Watch this space, interesting time ahead I think
America to partner with Australia to develop naval base on Manus Island
Watch this space, interesting time ahead I think
John Newman
The Bunker Group
(Just to finish off my post from last night, I ran out of time!).
This plan still has to survive the next election, due within the next six months, and realistically, has to be carried forward by the next Government, or not (time will tell).
But lets assume it does, and lets assume that there is a new budgetary allowance for this project, new ship and continuing sustainment (and not robbed from the Defence budget, which of course means a loss of some other capability).
Again all we know at this stage is that it will be a 'large and new' ship capable of performing the role (which still hasn't been clearly defined as yet), so what is the best way to proceed?
Some here have suggest that Choules be assigned to the role and a 3rd LHD be ordered, personally I can't see that happening for many reasons, eg, cost, manpower, etc. Maybe there is a way to be more 'cost neutral' and to have our cake and eat it too?
The 2016 DWP and DIIP confirmed that Choules would receive some upgrades and continue in service, and it appears it will have a full service life until around 2030 and be replaced with a similar capability.
The DWP and DIIP also said that there would be consideration for a 3rd AOR or 'an additional logistic support ship similar to HMAS Choules in the late 2020s'.
I would certainly agree that a ship 'similar' to Choules would appear to suitable for this new ship, so what about ordering the new and large Pacific ship to an Enforcer design? Specifically based on the HNLMS Johan de Witt, both that ship and Choules share very similar overall dimensions and displacements, 176m and 16,000t+ (the obvious difference being the hangar facilities on the Dutch ship).
https://products.damen.com/-/media/...Landing_Platform_Dock_HNLMS_Johan_de_Witt.pdf
But wait! There's more!!
If what I'm suggesting above happens, then that ticks the box for the new and large Pacific ship, without tinkering with the DWP/DIIP and importantly the current Defence budget too, then when Choules is due for replacement, the Government orders a second ship to the same spec. And finally when decision times comes for that 3rd AOR or 2nd Choules type ship, the RAN gets the 3rd AOR.
The end result, around 2030, would be 2 x LHDs, 3 x AORs and 2 x LSDs (one is the Choules replacement and the other is the new Pacific ship), obviously the new Pacific ship will be off working around the Pacific doing it's thing, but in time of conflict it can operate side by side with the Choules replacement too.
As for basing, well we've heard the news that Australia and PNG are planning to upgrade Manus Island, and as of yesterday the US is going to be involved in the upgrade of Manus too.
Anyway, just my opinion, but the above would seem to me to be a very cost effective way of achieving the goals of the Government, end up with two LSDs and three AOR's (plus of course the two LHDs too).
Cheers,
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Thanks John, great post as usual.
Even if a new Government continues with this project then it will be 20-21 at the earliest we would see a RFT, 21-22 for decision on a design as well as where it would be built(ROK or Vietnam most likely), 2023 at the earliest for a build to begin, 25-26 in service. By then any project to replace the Choules would be underway(at least at the RFI stage) if the Pacific Ship was to be a LSD then it would make a lot of sense to make it a 2 Ship buy from the start.
I was not expecting the money to appear overnight. An order for a new LHD would need to fit in with Navantia's current build schedule so delivery will be some years away.
Hence the purchase of several LSTs to fill the gap and act as long term replacements for the LCHs.
Coming on the tail end of building LHDs for Turkey etc should help to keep the cost of a new purchase LHD down.
I envisage the source of funds to come from several areas,
1. The sale of HMAS Choules to DFAT.
2. The already budgeted cost of crewing and operating Choules.
3. The already budgeted cost of upgrading Choules.
4. The operational savings of Choules undertaking tasks at DFAT expense that that are currently carried out by the RAN at ADF expense.
5. A new LHD in place of the Choules will push back the currently planned replacement date of the 3rd amphib by decades.
6. As stated above the savings in training and sustainment in operating 3 ships of the same class.
I am sure others will see others additional ways to finance such a useful asset.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Thanks mate.
Actually I wasn't thinking of either ROK or Vietnam as potential build locations (on a side note, as much as I would like to see 'large' ships built here in Oz, as has been discussed recently, I think it's pretty clear that we don't have both the infrastructure and also the workforce, these ships would probably put a lot of strain on other major projects, OPVs, FFGs and Submarines).
I was thinking of two other possible build locations (assuming an Enforcer design was chosen), firstly, a contract with Damen for the two LSDs (the Pacific ship and secondly the Choules replacement), the hulls would probably be built more cheaply in their Romanian shipyard, as is the case with Antarctic Supply Research Vessel (ASRV) RSV Nuyina currently under construction, and finished off in Holland prior to delivery.
But lets not forget also that there have been eight ships built as variants of the Enforcer design, four in the UK, two in the Netherlands and of course two in Spain (the two Galicia class LSDs).
We have a well established relationship with Spain and Navantia, would it be possible to negotiate a 'job lot' price extended over a period of time? Two LSDs and one AOR (the potential 3rd AOR mentioned in the DWP?).
The contract price for the two AORs currently under construction is $646.8m, or in more simple terms, $323.4m each per ship. The question is, how much for two 16,000t LSDs? Maybe $400m-500m each? Max? Who knows.
Anyway, what I'm suggesting is completely in line with the DWP and DIIP (planned and budgeted for, and not off in la la land), the only addition is the proposed Pacific ship.
Cheers,
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Yes some very good points about Spain, probably some differences in Fit out between the 2 Ships but the basic design would be the same.
Yes but Ocean Protector has nothing to do with DFAT. She was always operated as part of Border Force/Customs.
The fact that she was paid for by DoD has everything to do with ex Defmin Smith attempting to hoax it by looking as if he actually did something for Defence.
It was not part of any plan, it was totally political and his wife was involved in the acquisition!
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree it was political as all our amphibious vessels were munted and left the government with red faces when they were needed but not available, don’t know the role of Stephen Smith wife I don’t recall anything untoward about it expect that defence funds were paying for a Customs ship in the end.
Hi John
It could all go many ways, or in fact nothing may even eventuate and we could continue on with just 3 Amphibs, and 2 Supply ships and that's it.
A lot will depend on our domestic political situation, and that will be clarified at the next election.
If as suspected Labor is successful, I would not expect much if any change to the existing major ship building programs.
However its the major decisions on the forth coming ship replacements that are the great unknown.
Pacific ship,Extra supply /amphibious ship, plus Mine / Hydro replacements etc; these are a concern, particularly given the previous track record of Labour in government. ( Confess I voted for them )
Hopefully, which ever party wins, decisions will need to be made in a timely manner to preserve the rage of capability's that Navy needs both for now, and into the future.
Some hope and optimism.
Sometimes there are surprises.
Navantia could very well give a to good to refuse price to build either a third LHD or Cantabria Supply ship.
Also, UK defence are not flush with dosh, so some second hand Albion class, or Bay class may be on the shop keepers table. ( temporary solution given their age ) Maybe an opportunity!
The above may well happen and could well be to good to refuse.
But first we would have to ask the question.
So 2020's - Five Amphib / Supply ships .................................or more?
It's up to you politicians.
Hope you get it right
Regards S
His parter was a lawyer and was involved in the probaty assessment for the purchase .... no conflict of interest there ..... much! The project including operating cost was supposed to be a fraction of what they paid for that ship.
Finally assets are not ‘sold’ to other departments and DFAT has no capability to operate a ship. These ships ‘belong’ to the government. So all you could try and offset is the operating cost against another departments budget.
It is interesting to look at what has been said on the 'large ship'
Defence Connect
Central to the mobility and functionality of this mobile training team is the introduction of a dedicated new vessel to deliver support to Australia's regional partners, including for humanitarian assistance and crisis response.
Mr Pyne in his comment indicated it would be a Naval Ship, however, this does not rule out an auxillary. There is way too little information for us to be guessing at this stage.
Defence Connect
Central to the mobility and functionality of this mobile training team is the introduction of a dedicated new vessel to deliver support to Australia's regional partners, including for humanitarian assistance and crisis response.
Mr Pyne in his comment indicated it would be a Naval Ship, however, this does not rule out an auxillary. There is way too little information for us to be guessing at this stage.
Jack Wyatt
Member
I found this article from the SMH on the purchase of the ship. Regardless of which pool of government funding paid for the ship, the comment about buying national capability is true.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/defence-buys-boat-bound-for-customs-20120319-1vg4u.html
While the timing of the buy has been determined by the short-term needs of the navy, the actual capability is all about the long-term needs of Customs and Border Protection.
Mr Davies said it is an approach that makes a lot of sense. ''I have felt for a long time government should be taking a whole-of-nation approach to these questions,'' he said. ''Defence has way more horsepower in acquisitions [than Customs and Border Protection]. This is a good thing.''
He does not believe using Defence money to buy a ship that will go to Customs when the navy's two landing helicopter docks come on line is robbing Peter to pay Paul. ''It doesn't really matter. One arm of government paying another arm of government is not an issue - it is a question of buying national capability.''
Defence takes the same view. ''The vessel is owned by the Commonwealth and will be transferred from Defence to Customs for use in 2016,'' a spokeswoman said.
Another interesting article from the SMH which is clear that the Government enquired about purchasing a second Bay Class ship for the RAN. Unfortunately, another was not available but it is important in view of Christopher Pyne's recent announcement.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/amphibious-fleet-a-multimillion-dollar-shambles-20120408-1wjtq.html
HMAS Choules: ‘‘Defence inquired at the time as to whether a second (Bay Class) vessel was for sale and was consistently advised by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence that this was not the case. HMAS Choules has a full crew complement and sufficient training has been carried out to ensure she can carry out any likely operational requirement.’’
In fact, AFAIK, the government (ie Pyne) actually has never used the word 'large' with respect to this ship. I can find 'new', and 'naval operated', but I cant find the description 'large' anywhere. Whilst large might be a reasonable assumption, like everything else at this stage, it too is just an assumption, based on a mission set that the governement has not yet clearly articulated.
t68
Well-Known Member
I agree fundamentaly with what you are saying about being Commonwealth assets and the whole of government approach, the only sticking point with me is it’s still taking funds away from defence for which it most likely was never budgeted for. I have worked for government in the past and saw the rivalry between department for budget allocation and also the extent it is internally for the department for which I worked. Things like basic running cost of vehicle when in another state for breakdowns they would try and get the funds out of the state in which the vehicle suffered a failure it was dog eat dog everyone was very protective of the individual budgets
Unless it was supplement to funding for defence, defence budget had taken a hit. It may have very well been a rob Peter to pay Paul, we saw it when the Newports/Kanimbla’s were undergoing conversion they under estimated the costs and robbed other ships of basic funding which got the RAn in that position in the first place because government failed to properly fund a capability that was wanted.
Also case in point was the original funding for C17 it was supplemental to the budget for the RAAF.
I think it is a pretty safe assumption that this would need to be a large ship but I agree that we are too short on detail to make any predictions about it.
I actually wonder about the wisdom of trying to do too much with this ship though.
Australia has three large Amphibs and I suspect that at a pinch the new OPV could also be useful HADR assets. Rather than throwing all the eggs into one basket maybe we would be better off with a number of smaller ships. Perhaps a couple of LST120s and a converted RORO ship might be a better mix than a single large ship.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I don't think they are talking about Ships that are deployed for Natural Disasters as req. But a Ship that will spend 6 months a year every year touring the Pacific Islands providing Medical Services, Building infrastructure projects as well as HADR Missions as req. This is in response to China.
I think you correct, I suspect the ship will play a civilian role, have a civilian crew and be at tasked on behalf of DFAT or in response to disasters. Maybe it will be chartered by DFAT and run by contractors?
This does not mean it won’t have Naval utility in times of trouble but to think of it as a fleet unit doesn’t seem sensible to me.
- Status