Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. seaspear

    seaspear Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2018
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I can understand buying off the shelf from overseas can be cheaper than redeveloping a capability for a limited run ,the submarines come to mind as do the Hunter class ,but with naval surface vessels now becoming larger its not beyond the realms of possibility that future escort ships may be designed around the ten thousand ton range ,would be interested to know if the Osborne shipyards have this capabilty for building larger ships if required
     
  2. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    358
    Location:
    Australia
    Yep agree table 5 shows the budget allowances made in the 2016 DIIP are for:
    * Replenishment Ship/Logistics Support Ship (additional) - 2024-2030 - $1b-$2b
    * HMAS Choules Upgrade and Support - 2017-2023 - $200m-$300m

    Section 3.27 discusses the upgrade of Choules while section 2.28 goes on to look at the replacement of this logistics support ship (Choules) in 2030 noting the benefit Choules has demonstrated. I suggest this is the Replenishment Ship/Logistics Support Ship (additional).

    Either way, my main point is that we are postulating about multiple JSS noting the current plan is two LHD, two AOR, one logistics support ship and an ill defined Pacific Ship.

    Even with the Replenishment Ship/Logistics Support Ship (additional) .... what is the primary focus. Even section 3.28 is not clear on this stating .... a third replenishment ship or additional logistics support ship will be considered in the late 2020s. I am impressed by the funding considered hence my comment regarding the greater size and aviation capacity.
     
  3. John Newman

    John Newman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    238
    Location:
    Sydney
    Can Australia design and build 10,000t future escorts (I assume you mean future DDG and FFG)? The current answer is both yes and no.

    Firstly infrastructure, the shiplift, transfer systems, hardstands are all in place at Osborne SA to handle a 10,000t ship, the fabrication sheds from the Hobart class build are in place and the fabrication and assembly halls for the Hunter class are almost complete (and there is scope for future enlargement of the shiplift to even larger ships).

    Secondly design capability, well not quite yet, but it's worth looking at the announcement by the Turnbull Government 18mths ago regarding the Hunter build:

    Doorstop: Future Frigates Announcement: Osborne Shipyards, South Australia | Malcolm Turnbull

    The relevant paragraphs:

    "ASC Shipbuilding will do this as a subsidiary of BAE Systems during the period of the build, with the Commonwealth retaining a sovereign share. That sovereign share gives us certain rights during the build period in relation to any decisions or actions that have national security or other relevant strategic implications. But it also means that, at the end of the build period, the ASC Shipbuilding entity, with the intellectual property, a highly skilled workforce and all of the associated equipment, returns to Commonwealth ownership.

    "So at the end of this process what we will have is a significant strategic national asset. We will have a ASC Shipbuilding business which will be in a position to design, to develop and to lead the construction of highly complex naval warfare shipbuilding projects."


    As you can see, the plan is that by the end of the Hunter program, ASC will be handed back to the Commonwealth, with all the knowledge that has been gained and should be in a position to produce designs for 'complex naval warfare' projects.

    But that is a wait and see, assuming all goes well, by the mid 2030s when planning will probably start to look at replacements for the Hobart DDGs, ASC may well be in a position to either produce a design from scratch, or more likely, be able to take an existing design and make significant design modifications.

    And lets not forget Henderson WA, the current floating dock has an approx. 10,000t capacity too, but from what I've read the transfer system is well less than that (not to say transfer and hardstands can't be upgraded in the future), the new assembly hall being built by Civmec (firstly for use in the OPV program) is huge, maybe even larger than the assembly hall at Osborne, in the future large ships could be built at Henderson, with design input from ASC in Osborne.

    And lets not forget Austal, they have been designing ships for decades, not large complex warships (but you could include the USN Independence class LCS), but who know what the future holds.

    Cheers,
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
    seaspear likes this.
  4. seaspear

    seaspear Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2018
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Future Submarine Program- ANAO Reoprt Reviewed
    Yahoo/Inbox
    You would have to hope this is just unwarrated pessimism in these estimates
     
  5. Brucedog

    Brucedog New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2019
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Victoria
    So the government have outlined their plan for the amphib and AOR fleet. Let's leave that aside for a momemt (please keep posting about them, I'm learning so much).

    What are the forum members ideas of size, type and capabilities for the "Pacific ship" requirement? The government said it was to be built in Australia. Is this realistic? Is it a stand alone vesel? How could/should it be manned? Where would the medical staff come from? It would be a great learning experience for medicos from all over the region.

    I know a lot has been said already but I'd like to just narrow the focus.
     
  6. MickB

    MickB Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    44
    I know that the LSMs in army service often deployed for months at a time, (FNQ, PNG, Pacific Islands and of course Vietnam) but I do not know about the LCH in its short life with the army.
    Perhaps the army crew would need to have been increased if it had performed the same tasks as above.
     
  7. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    539
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    Unfortunately at this point, there has not really been much more in the way of news or announcements by gov't in nearly a year about what the gov't plans or requirements are for the "Pacific ship". Pretty much right now what is known is that it is to be large-hulled, new, not be particularly complex but have the basic provisions for any RAN vessel, it would a humanitarian and disaster relief vessel operating on a semi-permanent basis in the southwest Pacific, and that funding would be drawn from the existing department budget causing some training programmes to be deferred.

    Sources I found are here, here, and here.

    There is an enormous range available for the potential scope of such a vaguely worded requirement. Absent more information I suspect much discussion on the topic would be more along the lines of capability and/or kit wish lists.

    I can say that a number of systems found on vessels like the amphibs are very useful in HADR operations, since there is always a need for logistics, stores, and transportation in disasters. The same goes for communications and a stable CP/HQ/EOC. Depending on the nature and scope of the disaster, the ability transport and augment/support DMAT, DVAT or even worse, DMORT.

    However, since there has been no mention of the size of the budget for such an acquisition (apart from funding coming at the expense of other programmes in the existing budget) we have very little to use as a frame of reference.
     
  8. Brucedog

    Brucedog New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2019
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Victoria
    That's why i thought we (well, you guy's) could put forward your ideas for such a ship.

    What are the minimum requirements? I have no knowledge of these types of ships.

    How long should it be able to stay in a affected area?
    How many helicopters?
    How much of what types of fuel?
    Chinook capable deck?
    Hospital facilities for how many?
    A dock seems a given.
    How many LCM's, RHIBS, LCVP's?
    Command & Control facilities?
    Is it pre-loaded with what?

    It most likely won't be the only ship sent but it might be the biggest.
    Is it able to offload he different fuel types to other ships, boats, ashore?

    How much room and crew for all or any of these capabilities?

    The JSS seems agood starting point to an outsider like me but i note the size difference between the various Galicia class based ships, especially the beam.

    If I'm in forbidden territory i apologise.
     
  9. John Newman

    John Newman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    238
    Location:
    Sydney
    Mate, can I make a suggestion to you?

    A few pages back Ngati made a suggestion for you to go back through the threads and have a good read, I know it's a hard slog, but it is worth it.

    A lot of questions newbies ask have been done to death previously, I'm not saying don't ask questions, but don't just ask simple 'is the sky blue?' or 'is water wet?' type questions, have a good think and pose a question and also your opinion too, you'll find you get much more response.

    If you haven't already done so, go to the Defence website, you can use that as a springboard to the Minister, Army, Air Force and Navy websites.

    Home : Department of Defence, Australian Government, Jobs, News, Operations

    You should also download (and these are available on the Defence website) PDF documents such as the 2016 DWP and DIIP (and previous DWPs too), the Continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan, and anything else that catches your eye.

    Other good places are the ASPI Strategist website:

    The Strategist | ASPI's analysis and commentary site

    And main ASPI website:

    | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI

    On the main ASPI site, there are a lot of very detailed PDFs reports/publications that can be downloaded (for free):

    Search | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI

    Other Australian defence related websites such as:

    ADM, ADBR, Australian Aviation, Defence Connect, DTR, APDR, etc.


    There is an old saying that was used here regularly in previous years: "Google, it's your friend, use it!". Think of a question, Google it and do your research.


    Again, I'm not trying to put you off asking questions, but think of DT as a discussion forum, not just a Q & A site.

    Cheers,
     
  10. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,887
    Likes Received:
    539
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    It is not so much that it is forbidden territory, but that there had been some discussion back when the idea was originally brought up in Nov 2018, but absent further details from gov't, there is nothing more to discuss except making a kit/capabilities wish list. Fundamentally, until gov't further defines the role and/or sets the minimum requirements for the Pacific support ship, asking what the ship should have is like asking the question, "how long is a piece of string?"

    The capabilities which are typically found in various types of amphibious warfare vessels do tend to lend themselves to HADR operations as well, but that does not mean that is what gov't wants, intends, or is willing to pay for.

    One thing I would tend to caution, since there does not appear to a project designation yet for the Pacific support ship on the CASG site, and that according to published reports the vessel is to be both new, not particularly sophisticated, and acquired using funding under the existing budget causing some training to be deferred, is that the vessel IMO is unlikely to be anywhere are comprehensive as a dedicated LPD or LSD, never mind something like one of the Canberra-class LHD's. In point of fact, I would not be surprised if the vessel (if it ever actually happens) acquired was to be a commercially built vessel that gov't then has modified to provide some HADR capabilities. There is precedent for Australia doing this in purchasing the then under construction MV Skandi Bergen which had been brought into RAN service as the ADV Ocean Shield as a short-term filler for the decommissioned LPA's.
     
  11. Redlands18

    Redlands18 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    165
    Location:
    qld
    Totally agree with what @John Newman says above, about the best education you could get on the RAN can be found on this thread.
    There are 2 RAN subjects however that are totally Verboten on this thread, Aircraft Carriers and Nuclear powered Subs, they have been totally done to death.
     
  12. Volkodav

    Volkodav Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    325
    I believe in army service the LCH was commanded by a WO2 so no officers per se. As for crew size I don't have anything.
     
  13. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,942
    Likes Received:
    1,037
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Yes I remember that.
    Navy used them as a great command training experience for young Lieutenants, XO was a SBLT so early responsibility whereas for Army it was a pinnacle job for Noncoms.
     
  14. Takao

    Takao Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    323
    Location:
    Canberra
    So - I asked my white suiter brethren today about the difference in crew sizes for the RAN despite automation, and I got a mass grinding of teeth. You see, RAN SOPs says x number of people are required for this job, y number for that one. So a ship, regardless of automation, the engine room gets x and the galley y. So....we didn't take advantage of the automation Choules offers.

    The grinding of teeth comes from the long-term campaign to get some more flexibility injected into those SOPs, because apparently with automation you can save crew numbers (! who knew!!). But there is an entrenched part of the RAN that is fighting off such attempts. Now, there could be a reason (battle damage demands some element of overcrewing, and the LCSs have demonstrated that automation isn't the silver bullet), but all the peeps I spoke to got angry that paperwork was holding back the force.

    Hopefully that gets rectified. I know that some of the MCM community are going to start getting aggressive about changing this - they need to for the automation they want / need.
     
    PeterM, John Fedup and ngatimozart like this.
  15. Takao

    Takao Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    323
    Location:
    Canberra
    Quoting because there is lots of good factual data here.

    The current IIP review/build keeps DWP 16 as its basis - it doesn't change the strategic settings. Noting that, the need for National Shipbuilding 2.0, the recent additions of Supply and Stalwart, and the large amount of possible commonality between an AOR and an "LSD"* I would suggest there is a reasonable argument for 2x JSV to provide a Choules replacement and a third AOR - but this being combined into a single program.

    Not sure I'm a fan though - there are significant differences in the mission between an AOR and a "LSD". And in a toss up between the AOR role and the land support role, the former will almost always win (there is some validity in that - a land force has more options without some supplies than a fleet has without fuel). To that end, I'm concerned that we end up with 4x AORs and 2x amphibs (instead of 3x each or 2x / 3x that we have now). I realise that the poster child for the JSV (HNLMS Karel Doorman) is bigger than Choules and can carry more - but I'm not convinced that (despite JOC) the JSVs would often practise that role.

    While on paper, and in peacetime, JSVs make sense, I'm not convinced they do in practise, especially at war.

    * I'm putting "LSD" in quotes as while Choules is an LSD, its replacement may not be - it may be another amphib type.
     
  16. Stampede

    Stampede Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2015
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    165
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Some clarity for all of the recent discussions should I believe come form a new Defence paper, which as yet I have not heard announced.
    Suggest a new DWP would be appropriate within the current governments term of office.


    Previous DWP's have been
    2016
    2013
    2009
    2000
    1994
    1987
    1976

    Navy have some good solid projects under way and in the developmental stage,but some clarity,adjustment of timelines, and budgeting for much of what has recently been discussed would be prudent.

    If only government read our advice on DT !

    Regards S ;)
     
  17. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,960
    Likes Received:
    1,498
    Location:
    In the rum store
    I am unsure, but do they issue anything similar to the Kiwi DCP - Defence Capability Plan?

    Nah they wouldn't accept our advice because it's to logical and makes common sense, which pollies are allergic too. If they did we'd have to charge them consultants rates in US$ of course.
     
  18. Nighthawk.NZ

    Nighthawk.NZ New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Dunedin, NZ
    I don't think the New Zealand DCP 2019 will be a regular thing, (I could be wrong) I think that it is only out because of the 20 Billion NZD over 15 years that National started and they needed a plan on what they were going to spend it on... We regularly have the DWP and due for another in 2022ish (I think)
     
    OPSSG likes this.
  19. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,960
    Likes Received:
    1,498
    Location:
    In the rum store
    G'day @Nighthawk.NZ , welcome to the forum. Your material has featured on here before and you are more than welcome. Because you are ex RNZN, you must be upstanding - well before tot time anyway :D

    The NZ DCPs have been around for the last 9 years and the 2019 iteration was the third. I have copies of the 2011, 2014 and 2019 DCPs. The DCPs are the Defence acquisitions laid out with a little detail and flesh out the DWPs a bit. The DWPs are pure policy documents, and going by the pattern set in 2010, probably 2021 - 23 for the next DWP, depending upon who wins the 2020 election. Anyway this is off topic and more suited for the NZDF thread.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
    OPSSG and Nighthawk.NZ like this.
  20. Takao

    Takao Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    323
    Location:
    Canberra
    You'd be surprised at what gets fed in....

    There is a review of the IIP occurring now, a combination of "is what is in there now still suitable?" and adding 2036-2040 projects in. Another DWP was suggested, but that hasn't been taken up.