Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Came across an interesting little paragraph buried on page 37 of Chapter 4, Maritime Domain:

* Expand and rationalise the support and logistics helicopter fleet consistent with the expectations for larger naval operations

The project has a budget allowance of $1b-$1.5b, and a time line from around 2024-2025 to about 2032.

If I'm reading that correctly sounds like and expansion of the medium utility fleet, currently using MRH90.

Could that mean more MRH90s or something different?

Interesting...

Yes i noticed that one and it is an interesting one, the next generation Rotorcraft, which i take will include the MRH-90 replacement then starts around 32-33, i would struggle to see any other alternatives in the 25-30 Time Frame and the funding points more at increasing MRH-90 numbers than introducing an all new Aircraft type.
I think what could be happening here, is the ADF is very interested in the US future Rotorcraft programs currently underway but is not expecting to be able to order anything till the mid 30s at best.

 

[alexsa]

Pag

Been digging into the potential locations to build the JSS and found this:

Naval ship infrastructure steps up in the west - Australian Manufacturing Forum

The Western Australian government has released a draft strategic infrastructure and land use plan to guide the development of its naval shipbuilding and marine engineering precinct at Henderson south of Perth. The Australian Marine Complex Draft Strategic Infrastructure and Land Use Plan...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

Another more detailed plan is in this document: https://www.jtsi.wa.gov.au/docs/def...d-use-plan-18-june-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=deef711c_2

Pages 49 and 50 are relevant and these do not point to very large vessels of the type beind discussed. The other issue is the water to shore tranfer arrangements cannot currently support the weight that would be required for such vessels.

This may change and I suspect the comment 'to complement' the Captain Cook dock is critical as it indicates build and maintenance. This means you wouel want to leverage off existing resourses (including trained engineers and workers) meaning this will possibly be colocated with existing facilities (or close to them).

Existing facilites could be relied upon as well but:

• Not sure Williamstown is big enough
• Cockatoo Dockyard would be had it not been shut (and left to degrade). The the building way there was big enough but I don't see that coming back into service.
• Cairnscross dock in Brisbane would be big enough but that has been acquired by lend lease and is likely to end up as flats.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would read that they might be interested in more MH-60R's. Navy can ditch its 6 MRH90's and acquire another 6-12 MH-60R's or S's.

 

[spoz]

The Sunderland Dock on Cockatoo was also big enough to take Carriers, but of course one of the many Defence reviews of the early 90s decided we didn't need to keep that......

The Alfred Dock at Dogtown is only about 140 metres long; it used to take a DE/ANZAC/Daring But that would be about the limit; and it can't really be extended.

The main shiplift in Osborne was designed to be able to be expanded; I can't remember by how much but I seem to recall it then needs dredging of the river and possibly of the bank opposite. The transfer system is capable of coping; but its design it is essentially infinitely extendable; and I don't think you would run in to point load problems.

The shiplift in Henderson is probably also extendable.

 

[spoz]

I would read that they might be interested in more MH-60R's. Navy can ditch its 6 MRH90's and acquire another 6-12 MH-60R's or S's.

Sierras would be my guess; let Navy effectively concentrate on one type which will fit in Anzac and DDG hangars and give the MH-90s to Army. Sierras of course are marinised and they also bring other capabilities, such as mine warfare, to the table.

 

[John Newman]

Yes i noticed that one and it is an interesting one, the next generation Rotorcraft, which i take will include the MRH-90 replacement then starts around 32-33, i would struggle to see any other alternatives in the 25-30 Time Frame and the funding points more at increasing MRH-90 numbers than introducing an all new Aircraft type.
I think what could be happening here, is the ADF is very interested in the US future Rotorcraft programs currently underway but is not expecting to be able to order anything till the mid 30s at best.

Agree that the ADF will be looking closely at the US Future Rotorcraft programs, no doubt about that. But the time frame for this project and the US project simply don't line up, even vaguely.

Realistically the only two candidates that come to mind are additional MRH90 or to change the whole utility fleet and procure MH-60S, looking at the quoted paragraph again:

* Expand and rationalise the support and logistics helicopter fleet consistent with the expectations for larger naval operations

I can potentially come up with two conclusions, more MRH90s, which keeps the overall ADF medium utility helicopter fleet consistent (Army and RAN out of the same pool of airframes).

Or ...

Procure a larger fleet of MH-60S which does have a certain degree of commonality with the MH-60R fleet operated by the RAN, that would allow for the handing back of the MRH90s to Army.

Interesting one to watch.

Cheers,

 

[spoz]

Effectively, from what I remember from a previous existence, the Romeo and Sierras share a common cockpit and avionics, common engines and drive train and mostly common fuselage so if they did decide to go that way it would certainly reduce the training burden substantially. However, I'm not sure if the Sierra production line will still be open in that time frame.

 

[John Newman]

The Sunderland Dock on Cockatoo was also big enough to take Carriers, but of course one of the many Defence reviews of the early 90s decided we didn't need to keep that......

The Alfred Dock at Dogtown is only about 140 metres long; it used to take a DE/ANZAC/Daring But that would be about the limit; and it can't really be extended.

The main shiplift in Osborne was designed to be able to be expanded; I can't remember by how much but I seem to recall it then needs dredging of the river and possibly of the bank opposite. The transfer system is capable of coping; but its design it is essentially infinitely extendable; and I don't think you would run in to point load problems.

The shiplift in Henderson is probably also extendable.

The other thing to remember with Cockatoo Island is that is now part of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, there is no way it would ever be handed back for industrial use, ain't ever going to happen.

I certainly can't see Williamstown ever being expanded to cater for the build of the two proposed JSS ships, which if you look at Choules length of 176m, two one-off ship builds then nothing? Again, ain't going to happen.

Osborne and Henderson are realistically the only two candidates, either expansion of ship lifts and/or larger floating docks.

A larger floating dock is a pretty simple solution, but the one big disadvantage that Henderson currently has is the capacity of the transfer system, from what I remember it is limited to around 4500t, regardless of a possible future build of two JSS, the transfer system will need upgrading if ever the DDGs and future FFGs are to be moved to a hardstand for maintenance work.

I think both sites will receive infrastructure upgrades, Osborne would probably require less expenditure for the JSS built.

Cheers,

 

[Milne Bay]

That last one is an interesting one, Support & Salvage ship ? So are we talking a Stalwart style ship here ? this will be one to watch and see how it develops and what the actual identified requirements will be ? Happy to be corrected, but to my knowledge there is no current class like this at the moment ? So a little perplexed with what this requirement is and how it has come about, time will tell I guess.

Cheers

Would a floating dry dock be a possibility here?
And would it not also serve a double purpose?
MB

 

[StingrayOZ]

Sierras would be my guess; let Navy effectively concentrate on one type which will fit in Anzac and DDG hangars and give the MH-90s to Army. Sierras of course are marinised and they also bring other capabilities, such as mine warfare, to the table.

Why not both, 12 sierras, 6 more Romeos. IMO that would make a lot of sense. The MRH-90 is okay, but when operating at sea, we can't get get parts from an American ship like the arrangement we have on the MH-60's, and its a proper marine helicopter. India seemed very interested in our ASW capability. I would imagine as would Japan. 6 more R's would be cheap investment in activities with our quad partners.

Procure a larger fleet of MH-60S which does have a certain degree of commonality with the MH-60R fleet operated by the RAN, that would allow for the handing back of the MRH90s to Army.

This, makes total sense. 6 orphaned air-frames at sea, that no one in our region uses at sea, makes no sense. Army will gladly take them, Sierras are more appropriate for sea base activities. We can still embark the 90's, when needed, mainly when doing amphibious things with the army.

Expand our MH-60 fleet, and rationalise to a single basic naval airframe (instead of the 6 Nh90's and 24 MH-60's). Thats a win-win for everyone. No one is going to be unhappy.

While the S and the R are on seperate production lines, I don't imagine it would be impossible for one line to make the alternate version.

Larger dock at WA or SA makes sense. Tomago is too small, I think they struggled with Tobruk when it was launched there (although I would love to see that yard opened up again, our new sydney ferries are built in China). Cockatoo is an amusement park/museum. Cairnscross hasn't been used in decades and has been sold.

Both SA/WA would just be expansion of existing lifts. SA makes sense as the large ship building happens there is better setup for larger ship builds, and is where a lot of integration etc would be based around. WA would love to add build to its schedules.

 

[John Newman]

Effectively, from what I remember from a previous existence, the Romeo and Sierras share a common cockpit and avionics, common engines and drive train and mostly common fuselage so if they did decide to go that way it would certainly reduce the training burden substantially. However, I'm not sure if the Sierra production line will still be open in that time frame.

Agree with what you've said about the commonality between Romeo and Sierra, training for the most part should be pretty common between both versions.

And yes, as for production of Sierra, I don't know if they are currently still in production? I think the Romeo line has continued to limp along with export orders only in recent times.

 

[t68]

Pag

Pages 49 and 50 are relevant and these do not point to very large vessels of the type beind discussed. The other issue is the water to shore tranfer arrangements cannot currently support the weight that would be required for such vessels.

This may change and I suspect the comment 'to complement' the Captain Cook dock is critical as it indicates build and maintenance. This means you wouel want to leverage off existing resourses (including trained engineers and workers) meaning this will possibly be colocated with existing facilities (or close to them).

Existing facilites could be relied upon as well but:

• Not sure Williamstown is big enough
• Cockatoo Dockyard woule be had it not been shut (and left to degrade). The the building way there was big enough but I don't see that coming back into service.
• Cairnscross dock in Brisbane would be big enough but that has been acquired by lend lease and is likely to end up as flats.

While Cockatoo Dockyard is heritage listed, who owns it State or Federal?

Can the federal government make a compulsory acquisition from state government owned land?

 

[spoz]

The other thing to remember with Cockatoo Island is that is now part of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, there is no way it would ever be handed back for industrial use, ain't ever going to happen.
Cheers,

Oh, I know it will never happen. I was just bemoaning the shortsightedness in the decision making process which allowed CODOCK to be closed; something that was blindingly obvious at the time and which has been reinforced since. Had it been available, I imagine Supply and Stalwart, at least, would have been built there.

 

[John Newman]

While Cockatoo Dockyard is heritage listed, who owns it State or Federal?

Can the federal government make a compulsory acquisition from state government owned land?

The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust is controlled by the Commonwealth Government, not the NSW State Government.

Sydney Harbour Federation Trust - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But regardless of Federal or State ownership, why would the Federal Government even bother to turn it back into an industrial facility? That just doesn't make any sense.

Apart from the negative public opinion that would surely follow such a move, the cost of turning that derelict site into a working shipyard that would be used to build the two large JSS type ships, then most likely be shut down again due to lack of work.

Why create a third naval shipbuilding yard?

 

[John Newman]

Oh, I know it will never happen. I was just bemoaning the shortsightedness in the decision making process which allowed CODOCK to be closed; something that was blindingly obvious at the time and which has been reinforced since. Had it been available, I imagine Supply and Stalwart, at least, would have been built there.

I agree it was short sighted, very short sighted indeed.

I can still remember standing on the headland at Birkenhead Point in early 1984 (my three months old daughter was asleep in my arms!) watching the future HMAS Success being launched, I also had some mates at the time who worked on the Island during the build.

Memories!!!

 

[Stampede]

What a week for defence news.

Mod's I'll try not to get into fantasy fleets.

Looks like two JSS type ships are separate to the proposed Pacific Support Ship.......................good news.
I suggest Navantia Australia JSS looks to fit this role very nicely. I wouldn't bet the house on it , but suggest there on to something. As to where it will be built, I cannot say. But suggest Williamstown has had it's day.

Another interesting one was up to 8 mine / Hydographic vessels ( Potentially based on the Arafura Class ) 3.3 to 5 b .....Certainly Big dollars!!!
The above is additional to the Arafura Class.........................................Remember 20 OPV's mentioned a decade ago!!!!!!
I could envisage this being a separate class of ship, even if based on a common hull.
Interestingly the time frame is listed as now to the mid 2030's.
So does this mean keep building an additional 8 ships beyond the 12 Arafura Class or will the build tempo for these 20 vessels be increased.
An interesting one as the vibe from the Strategic update is that time is not on our side.
Could Adelaide build more than two Arafura's

Much to discuss


Regards S

 

[ASSAIL]

You have all said much of what needs to be discussed about the capability announcements.
My only addition is about the dry dock arrangements.
The additional large ships makes an imperative to have a large dock in the West.
It makes no sense to duplicate large dry docks in the East.
The cost and time factors in moving both emergency and routine dockings from West to East is self evident.
Having such a capability is also an attractive alternative to our allies in the region.
Workforce considerations are paramount. We need to concentrate the large ship repair workforce close to Henderson or FBE, any dilution will cause capacity issues.

One final thought on the Salvage/repair ship proposal, surely it must be built with a substantial towing capacity.

 

[alexsa]

The other thing to remember with Cockatoo Island is that is now part of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, there is no way it would ever be handed back for industrial use, ain't ever going to happen.

I certainly can't see Williamstown ever being expanded to cater for the build of the two proposed JSS ships, which if you look at Choules length of 176m, two one-off ship builds then nothing? Again, ain't going to happen.

Osborne and Henderson are realistically the only two candidates, either expansion of ship lifts and/or larger floating docks.

A larger floating dock is a pretty simple solution, but the one big disadvantage that Henderson currently has is the capacity of the transfer system, from what I remember it is limited to around 4500t, regardless of a possible future build of two JSS, the transfer system will need upgrading if ever the DDGs and future FFGs are to be moved to a hardstand for maintenance work.

I think both sites will receive infrastructure upgrades, Osborne would probably require less expenditure for the JSS built.

Cheers,

The other factor is you will need space and pretty significant cranes to builds ships that size. I am not sure the new CIVMEC shed is up to 180m and the required air draft. So a new shed or build in the open. The transfer system would need a serious upgrade.

Certainly Osborne plate cut and module process could do some of the work (noting that was stated in the presentation on the expansion) but I cannot see them being consolidated in the shed as this would interfere with the Hunter Class build. So again it would be build in the open if there is enough space for both the Hunters and on large hull consolidation at the same time. Probably doable but I am guessing.

Osbourne as a location appears logical given its facilities but I have been proved wrong before. Hopefully over time we will get a bit more details noting the large hulls will cover the JSS, The Pacific Ship, the OP replacement and .... perhaps .... the tug/maintenance vessel.

As always we are a tad short on some detail to be certain.

 

[John Newman]

You have all said much of what needs to be discussed about the capability announcements.
My only addition is about the dry dock arrangements.
The additional large ships makes an imperative to have a large dock in the West.
It makes no sense to duplicate large dry docks in the East.
The cost and time factors in moving both emergency and routine dockings from West to East is self evident.
Having such a capability is also an attractive alternative to our allies in the region.
Workforce considerations are paramount. We need to concentrate the large ship repair workforce close to Henderson or FBE, any dilution will cause capacity issues.

One final thought on the Salvage/repair ship proposal, surely it must be built with a substantial towing capacity.

Hi Mate,

Don't know if you've had a read of this yet, main web page:

Draft Australian Marine Complex Strategic Infrastructure and Land Use Plan

www.jtsi.wa.gov.au

PDF:

https://www.jtsi.wa.gov.au/docs/default-source/silup-2020/draft-strategic-infrastructure-and-land-use-plan-18-june-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e01711c_4

It's a draft proposal for the various options that could potentially be applied to the CUF at Henderson. Starting on pages 58 and 59 it talks in general terms about ship lifts, floating dock, dry dock, etc., further on there is mention of dry dock.

Anyway, have a read through, if you haven't read it already (I've only browsed through it so far).

If we are going to have another large dry dock, then having one in the West would make sense.

Cheers,

 

[John Newman]

The other factor is you will need space and pretty significant cranes to builds ships that size. I am not sure the new CIVMEC shed is up to 180m and the required air draft. So a new shed or build in the open. The transfer system would need a serious upgrade.

Certainly Osborne plate cut and module process could do some of the work (noting that was stated in the presentation on the expansion) but I cannot see them being consolidated in the shed as this would interfere with the Hunter Class build. So again it would be build in the open if there is enough space for both the Hunters and on large hull consolidation at the same time. Probably doable but I am guessing.

Osbourne as a location appears logical given its facilities but I have been proved wrong before. Hopefully over time we will get a bit more details noting the large hulls will cover the JSS, The Pacific Ship, the OP replacement and .... perhaps .... the tug/maintenance vessel.

As always we are a tad short on some detail to be certain.

Just spit balling here, and yes we are short on detail, but if Osborne was the chosen site for the two proposed JSS ships I would imagine that the hardstand site where the DDG blocks were consolidated, would appear to be the most obvious location for consolidation.

If the two ships were based on the Navantia design, that is a ship with a length of 176m and a beam of 25m, pretty much the same overall dimension as Choules, as for displacement, don't know, but Choules is approx. 16,000t, I would imagine that the proposed ships would be of similar displacement, maybe a few thousand tons more possibly?

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News

At PACIFIC 2019, the naval defense exposition held last week in Sydney, Australia, Navantia Australia, the local branch of Spanish shipbuilding group Navantia, unveiled a new Joint Support Ship (JSS) design for both the domestic and export market.

www.navalnews.com

It may be that block work is spread around the country and the shed adjacent to the hardstand site too?

Cheers,