Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I won't go into specific details on something that is not already in the public domain. But yes. There are navy basing concept drawings for this. And I stress, these are possible concepts only with no current plan to enact. I personally, highly doubt it would happen due to the NIMBY's in Elizabeth Bay, Rushcutters Bay and Darling Point.

The water depth from the Heritage Centre on the East side out to the point is quite shallow and the reason why Building 215 (Stalwart) Med moored closer in to Elizabeth Bay. A Finger jetty in this position would facilitate at least 6x extra FFG berths.
As to peeving the Knobs, we’ve already done it on the Western berths so why not go the whole hog, they didn’t complain too loudly (some) when Stalwart was berthed there so they should be used to it. It would be less disruptive to recreational boating than a series of trots further out around Shark and Clark Islands.
By the way, are the old ammo moorings still in this area? I understand they wouldn’t be used for that purpose but they were excellent temporary berths for short stays.

 

[MARKMILES77]

And your point is? Realistically, unless a navy (not just the RAN BTW) established a naval base in/at a usable anchorage which is out of sight from any civilian population centre, and also banned all civilian settlement within sight of the base/anchorage, and also had the base configured so that it was not visible from open water (behind a headland or point, perhaps?) then there is nothing particularly new about the possible scenario where a PRC (or Russian, Soviet, N.Korean etc.) agent with a telescope or binoculars, or even a digital SLR with high zoom lens keeps an eye on an adversary's naval bases.

Also, by the very nature of a base being a fixed installation, it automatically becomes potentially vulnerable to attack since it becomes rather difficult to high the presence of much of the infrastructure involved in supporting complex pieces of kit like warships.

Incidentally, by dispersing naval assets across several bases, plus training and deployment cycles, then a Navy should not have such a concentration of force which could be vulnerable all at once. In short, preventing a repeat of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

That is exactly the attitude that most people from Govt down take beautifully captured by "And your point is?"
Yes we know it is vulnerable but It is just too difficult so why even talk about it, let alone do something about it.
My point is it is another possible justification for moving it away from the centre of a City where you can get close enough to the warships, that you could hit them by throwing rocks at them.

 

[DDG38]

That is exactly the attitude that most people from Govt down take beautifully captured by "And your point is?"
Yes we know it is vulnerable but It is just too difficult so why even talk about it, let alone do something about it.
My point is it is another possible justification for moving it away from the centre of a City where you can get close enough to the warships, that you could hit them by throwing rocks at them.

You don't happen to work for the cruise industry by any chance do you ?

 

[vonnoobie]

Pretty much all naval bases world wide except for a handfull are in the same boat. They are either near civilian infrastructure or just as easily under satellite watch. The very few locations world wide with underground hardened naval bases tend to do a lot more with geography and taking advantage of it. Not a simple case of building a 10m thick slab of concrete and steel, weapons around to penetrate such since WWII but rather needing what amounts to a mountain to hide under. Australia lacks such near the cost line so it's either we have to quite literally build a mountain with the right rocks and soil composition or we need to build a channel going in towards the great dividing range. Either one would be a bigger project then the snowy mountain project and that alone is regarded as an engineering marvel.

We don't have the location for a hardened base and cost to make it happen could cover the cost to replace the fleet two times over if not more. The very best we can do for FBE is to build a shed over the grave dock to keep works hidden but anything more just not feasible.

 

[MARKMILES77]

As opposed to what ? Building hardened sub pens than can fit a DDG in it ?

Locate away from a built up area where the general public can't get within a few kilometres of the actual base would be my solution.

And these days any modern military doesn't need a dude in a trench coat holding a walkie talkie looking out a window reporting on fleet movements. There's these things called satellites capable of collecting all sorts of things that indicate platform movements.

Fleet movements would be the least valuable thing observed!

 

[MARKMILES77]

Pretty much all naval bases world wide except for a handfull are in the same boat. They are either near civilian infrastructure or just as easily under satellite watch. The very few locations world wide with underground hardened naval bases tend to do a lot more with geography and taking advantage of it. Not a simple case of building a 10m thick slab of concrete and steel, weapons around to penetrate such since WWII but rather needing what amounts to a mountain to hide under. Australia lacks such near the cost line so it's either we have to quite literally build a mountain with the right rocks and soil composition or we need to build a channel going in towards the great dividing range. Either one would be a bigger project then the snowy mountain project and that alone is regarded as an engineering marvel.

We don't have the location for a hardened base and cost to make it happen could cover the cost to replace the fleet two times over if not more. The very best we can do for FBE is to build a shed over the grave dock to keep works hidden but anything more just not feasible.

Not sure where I suggested the two options are leave it in the middle of Sydney or build an underground bunker?
FBE is not even defensible from a determined Peace Protester in an electric car.

 

[MARKMILES77]

You don't happen to work for the cruise industry by any chance do you ?

No but I do work in the Covid19 industry.

 

[DDG38]

Locate away from a built up area where the general public can't get within a few kilometres of the actual base would be my solution.
Fleet movements would be the least valuable thing observed!

Great, there goes your crew retention and recruitment. Noone wants to live and work in the middle of nowhere. Nor do their families.
So are you alluding to people collecting weapons/sensor fitout information ? What are they collecting that they can't get from a copy of Janes ? Or from monitoring ships during foreign port visits ? You seem to be overblowing the intelligence collection game that everyone has been playing since day one. What is this vast threat you are alluding to ?

 

[Todjaeger]

Locate away from a built up area where the general public can't get within a few kilometres of the actual base would be my solution.

I would suggest looking at both topo maps, and nautical charts to see what the real options available actually are. A viable location for a naval base has certain requirements. Those same requirements are also typically required for major civilian ports and why it is fairly unusual to see a major naval base not either co-located with a major port city, or in close proximity. I would need to break out both maps of Australia, as well as the charts (what charts there are) of Australian home waters, in order to find sites which both meet the requirements for a naval base, and do not have a civilian population living nearby with say 5km. I would suspect that there are not all that many sites and of those which could be used as a RAN base, they might be too distant from a population centre, which means that supporting the base would become problematic.

That is also one of the other things, in order for a base to really be viable, it needs supply and logistics chains accessible and either it's own support capabilities, or civilian industry which can support the RAN. Those capabilities, whether RAN owned or private industry, will require non-RAN personnel as workers to function, like dockyard workers for either a shipyard or dry/graving dock. Those workers in turn will need places to live, places to shop, places to raise their families and have their children receive an education, and the spouses of those workers in turn will also need something to do. Before too long, a population centre springs up, inhabited by people that either work at the base or off base for a company that either works for the RAN/base, or in support of one of the companies which supports the RAN/base.

 

[vonnoobie]

Not sure where I suggested the two options are leave it in the middle of Sydney or build an underground bunker?
FBE is not even defensible from a determined Peace Protester in an electric car.

No but you did mention it not being defensible. Any standard naval base is in same boat as FBE and only way for it to be such is a hardened underground naval base.

Anything other then that and their will always be risks. If we need to improve defences at FBE then their are cheaper ways. More barricades at land entry points and a dedicated boat security force 24/7 keeping the waters secured and this would cost a fraction of shifting the base to have the same problems later on as the new location grows in civilian numbers.

 

[alexsa]

Do we have any idea why the smoke stacks are so much higher on the Supply class compared to Cantabria? I'd noticed them in the launch video, but it seems more noticeable here.

I am guessing but I suspect it has been done to deflect the exhaust gases away from the flight deck as the exhausts for each engine have been moved from the centre line on Canabria to the side of the Engine Room Casing/funnel arrangement on the Supply and set much higher. It also appears the vents at the back of the casing are much larger on Supply compared to Canabria. This could be indicative of a greater volumetric air exchange in the design .... but again I am guessing.

http://www.galiciaartabradigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/aor-australiano-22-11-a.jpg

In addition the fore and aft mast are of a different design but I suspect this is just to support the Australian specified systems

 

[alexsa]

I won't go into specific details on something that is not already in the public domain. But yes. There are navy basing concept drawings for this. And I stress, these are possible concepts only with no current plan to enact. I personally, highly doubt it would happen due to the NIMBY's in Elizabeth Bay, Rushcutters Bay and Darling Point.

True ... but by way of history we used to have building 215 (Stalwart) med moored over there and the DE's (up to 4) were often secured alongside. So it has been done before and was no too bad. It would be hard for the NIMBY's to object (noting they are still likely to) as this was an existing arrangements.

Mind you you did need to be careful there ... I saw the short lived HMAS Cook depart from there one day and sheer off some of the guard rail staunchons aft as the stern swung under the shell door of the Stalwart. Very humorous to those on Parramatta but not seen as quite so amusing by the captain of Cook.

Side issue .... I say HMAS Cook was short lived as she was only in service for 10 years and spent a good part of that time fixing defects from build. Pity.

Edit - apologies to Assail as I see he already made this point.

 

[ngatimozart]

That is exactly the attitude that most people from Govt down take beautifully captured by "And your point is?"
Yes we know it is vulnerable but It is just too difficult so why even talk about it, let alone do something about it.
My point is it is another possible justification for moving it away from the centre of a City where you can get close enough to the warships, that you could hit them by throwing rocks at them.

And your problem is? I believe that @Todjaeger actually makes very valid points. And @vonnoobie adds to them. No matter where the RAN vessels are based the PLAN can loft explosive bricks at them from at least 100 nm, so your argument is rather pointless in this day and age, unless you plan on basing the fleet alongside at Alice Springs.

 

[ngatimozart]

I know that there is a Teddy Sheean thread but I have posted this here because it is applicable to the whole of the RAN.

VC citation for Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

TO BE AWARDED THE VICTORIA CROSS FOR AUSTRALIA

ORDINARY SEAMAN EDWARD SHEEAN H1617 (DECEASED)

For the most conspicuous gallantry and a pre-eminent act of valour in the presence of the enemy during a Japanese aerial attack on HMAS Armidale in the Timor Sea on 1 December 1942.

On 1 December 1942, during operations in the Timor Sea, HMAS Armidale came under aerial bombardment and torpedo attack from Japanese aircraft. Shortly after the commencement of the attack, Armidale was hit by a torpedo and began listing to port. One minute later the ship was hit by a second torpedo which broke the vessel’s back, causing the Captain to order abandon ship.

Ordinary Seaman Sheean, one of the youngest and most junior ranked members of Armidale’s Ship’s Company, made his way to the stowage position of the motor-boat and assisted in its launch. As the enemy continued to fire upon the ship and his shipmates who were already in the water, Ordinary Seaman Sheean decided to forgo his opportunity for survival by not abandoning ship and returning to his Action Station to man the aft Oerlikon gun, where he was the loader, not the gunner. Despite being wounded, he strapped himself into the gun and commenced firing at the enemy, damaging at least two enemy aircraft.

Ordinary Seaman Sheean’s actions disrupted and distracted the enemy from strafing and killing his defenceless shipmates in the water. He sacrificed his life trying to save his shipmates and, despite his wounds, he continued firing the gun until the ship sank and took him to his death. His pre-eminent act of valour and most conspicuous gallantry saved Australian lives. His heroism became the standard to which the men and women of the Australian Defence Force aspire.

VC citation for Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean | The Australian Naval Institute

navalinstitute.com.au

 

[Morgo]

I saw that cruising out of Norway had started up again, but at the beginning of the month at least one ship has returned to port with COVID-19 infectious passengers onboard. I would probably classify it as an onboard outbreak and what we in NZ would call a cluster.

At least 40 infected with COVID-19 on Norway cruises amid scramble to trace passengers

Frankly I am sick of the cruise industry bleating about needing extra space in Sydney Harbour. The economic benefits of cruising to the host city are vastly overrated. Most of the passengers are locals who have just come from their homes straight to the ship who then spend their tax free dollars onboard. They should head to Botany Bay, or Port Kembla if they need more capacity.

In terms of more room for the RAN, there is a tremendous amount of under-utilised space at White Bay / Glebe Island that the State Government continues to fail to find a good use for....

 

[Morgo]

And your problem is? I believe that @Todjaeger actually makes very valid points. And @vonnoobie adds to them. No matter where the RAN vessels are based the PLAN can loft explosive bricks at them from at least 100 nm, so your argument is rather pointless in this day and age, unless you plan on basing the fleet alongside at Alice Springs.

... and any downsides are, in my view, more than offset by being able to draw on the workforce and supporting technical capabilities of our largest and richest city.

 

[vonnoobie]

Just a quick addition to naval basing discussions while I firmly believe that we can't do any better then present day FBE (and FBW in respect) excluding future announced and yet unannounced expansion in berthing capacity at or near those bases I do believe it would be in our interest to consider investing in expanding, upgrading or building what could best be described as a bare naval base? Sort of under civilian use but suitable for the military to use if and when required for an FOB be it military or HADR in nature. Can't and won't hazard a guess as to where but I do believe it could be of a benefit (so long as it doesn't cause the dumb dumbs to try and then argue shifting FBE from a full fledged naval base to a wharf with limited services).

 

[Morgo]

Just a quick addition to naval basing discussions while I firmly believe that we can't do any better then present day FBE (and FBW in respect) excluding future announced and yet unannounced expansion in berthing capacity at or near those bases I do believe it would be in our interest to consider investing in expanding, upgrading or building what could best be described as a bare naval base? Sort of under civilian use but suitable for the military to use if and when required for an FOB be it military or HADR in nature. Can't and won't hazard a guess as to where but I do believe it could be of a benefit (so long as it doesn't cause the dumb dumbs to try and then argue shifting FBE from a full fledged naval base to a wharf with limited services).

Would the overseas passenger terminal at circular quay work for this purpose?

 

[vonnoobie]

Would the overseas passenger terminal at circular quay work for this purpose?

Potentially but I'm thinking a FOB more then 1.5km from the main base might be a bit better. New rule for you jokers with this question. Said FOB needs to be north of FBE and at least 5km. I know asking a lot from you guys

 

[Morgo]

Potentially but I'm thinking a FOB more then 1.5km from the main base might be a bit better. New rule for you jokers with this question. Said FOB needs to be north of FBE and at least 5km. I know asking a lot from you guys

HMAS Palm Beach?

Sorry I missed the FOB part and thought you were focussed on providing surge capacity for FBE, which Circular Quay and White Bay would do nicely I would’ve thought.

So a further upgrade perhaps to the Port of Townsville or HMAS Cairns?