Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Hello friends

Spanish Armada's BAC Cantabria and future RAN's AOR Supply performed a replenishment at sea (RAS) maneuver while docked at Ferrol, Galicia. Spanish BAC Patiño and future AOR Stalwart star as well in this remarkable shot.
View attachment 47592
(Photo and news source: Spanish newspaper "La Voz de Galicia")

Salud!
Always intrigues me the variation of markings on helicopter flight decks.
Case in point the Cantabria and Supply.
I'm sure there is a logic to it.
Can certainly see the colour difference of the two ships..

Great pic



Regards s
 

pussertas

Active Member
VC for Lt Cmdr. Robert Rankin.

Now that 'Teddy' Sheen has been awarded the VC after a 80 year wait it's time to look at a VC for Lt. Cmdr. Rankin.

Like Sheen the RAN thought his actions so noteworthy they named a Collins Class submarine after him.


:)
 

buffy9

Active Member
Just a quickie on the Hunter-class if it pleases anyone.

I've noticed in various media that the Hunter-class is only fitted for one RHIB on the port side when the mission bay amidship is excluded, though the starboard side lacks any such facilities. I understand the mission bay can be utilised to store a larger number of more capable RHIB, though the mission bay may not always be available due to different requirements (unmanned systems, second helicopter, etc). I figured a second RHIB would be strongly sought after - especially if there is a capsized RHIB or SOLAS situation, whereby a whole ship response would then be required (and which may be insufficient depending on the situation). Is a second RHIB just not that needed, or is it expected that the RHIBs of other supporting vessels may be able to fulfil such a rescue role?

A second question would be what facilities might be present in place of tender facilities? It seems strange to remove the additional capacity of a RHIB when the intended mission bay may not always house additional tenders.

Apologies if this is has been discussed before, have not been keeping up with the project (in all countries) as well as I would like.

EDIT: A quick video of a model highlighting what I mean.


EDIT2: Kept trying to find some further info, found the link below which has a useful top down view of the rear of the ship - including the mission bay. Cheers Spoz for the reply, I figured this may be the case but it still seemed strange to forego a second boat space even with the mission bay.

 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
APDR has reported on the completion of SeaTrials for NUSHIP Supply

 

t68

Well-Known Member
What a great shot of the Ferol Armada facility.
Those having to use FBE should be extremely jealous over the space available.
Still...if we kicked all the knobs out of Wooloomooloo Bay and flattened the wharf shed......:rolleyes:

A better idea would be expanding the new western airport so everything moves out there lock stock and barrel and redevelop KSA into a joint RAN/RAAF base turn over GI to cruise ship berthing


Just waiting for a beating from the old salts:cool:
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Just a quickie on the Hunter-class if it pleases anyone.

I've noticed in various media that the Hunter-class is only fitted for one RHIB on the port side when the mission bay amidship is excluded, though the starboard side lacks any such facilities. I understand the mission bay can be utilised to store a larger number of more capable RHIB, though the mission bay may not always be available due to different requirements (unmanned systems, second helicopter, etc). I figured a second RHIB would be strongly sought after - especially if there is a capsized RHIB or SOLAS situation, whereby a whole ship response would then be required (and which may be insufficient depending on the situation). Is a second RHIB just not that needed, or is it expected that the RHIBs of other supporting vessels may be able to fulfil such a rescue role?

A second question would be what facilities might be present in place of tender facilities? It seems strange to remove the additional capacity of a RHIB when the intended mission bay may not always house additional tenders.

Apologies if this is has been discussed before, have not been keeping up with the project (in all countries) as well as I would like.

EDIT: A quick video of a model highlighting what I mean.

There certainly seems to be room in the mission bay to simultaneously embark a second helo, a couple of boats and probably a container or two as well. The sea boat on the port side should probably be seen just as that; a first response capability with, I would think, at least one other boat always being carried in the mission bay.

On moving GI - the cost would, to say the least, be astronomical. CCD alone has been estimated at $3 billion to replace. Plus Botany Bay is a very busy commercial port with some of the largest container facilities in Australia, and of course the oil discharge and storage facilities at Kurnell. And crab fast jets in the middle of Sydney? You think you have noise issues now....It’s also been done to death.
 
Last edited:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
A better idea would be expanding the new western airport so everything moves out there lock stock and barrel and redevelop KSA into a joint RAN/RAAF base turn over GI to cruise ship berthing


Just waiting for a beating from the old salts:cool:
Be careful Mate they might just decide to Keel Haul you for that comment:eek:
 

t68

Well-Known Member
On moving GI - the cost would, to say the least, be astronomical. CCD alone has been estimated at $3 billion to replace. Plus Botany Bay is a very busy commercial port with some of the largest container facilities in Australia, and of course the oil discharge and storage facilities at Kurnell. And crab fast jets in the middle of Sydney? You think you have noise issues now....It’s also been done to death.

Well the Commonwealth is already spending $8billion on a second Sydney airport.

While redevelopment is not cheap it does give options to the federal government when you consider they already have to put funds aside for submarine base on the east coast

There is room for expansion as they were talking about an overseas shipping terminal at Yarra bay, but that would be out of the question for goods or Navy I would imagine

While it would be nice to see fast jets operating from KSA I was more referring to RAAF Richmond & HMAS Albatross. I don’t think aircraft movements from both would be over taxing for local residents if anything it would be somewhat less than now.

I know it’s controversial and GI is the spiritual home of the RAN but it would seem with the new LHD GI is being squeezed out and needs room to expand
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Well the Commonwealth is already spending $8billion on a second Sydney airport.

While redevelopment is not cheap it does give options to the federal government when you consider they already have to put funds aside for submarine base on the east coast

There is room for expansion as they were talking about an overseas shipping terminal at Yarra bay, but that would be out of the question for goods or Navy I would imagine

While it would be nice to see fast jets operating from KSA I was more referring to RAAF Richmond & HMAS Albatross. I don’t think aircraft movements from both would be over taxing for local residents if anything it would be somewhat less than now.

I know it’s controversial and GI is the spiritual home of the RAN but it would seem with the new LHD GI is being squeezed out and needs room to expand
And the squeeze is only going to get worse as they go from the 121m long Anzacs to the 150m long Hunters, we are going from the current 3 Amphibs and 1-2 AORs, to 2 Amphibs, 2 JSS and 2 AORs, the Arafura’s will need more space when they visit compared to the Armidale’. While there is only a moderate increase in Ship numbers, the combined displacement of the fleet will double between 2010 and 2040.
 

DDG38

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I know it’s controversial and GI is the spiritual home of the RAN but it would seem with the new LHD GI is being squeezed out and needs room to expand
That's why the Cruiser Wharf & EW have been redeveloped.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Albatross is close to the EAXA making it easy and quick (and cheap) to get to areas of military airspace for exercises and interaction with ships. Helo training requires lots of space to enable training in autos and the like and to remote area training. OFT for 60R requires constant access to exercises areas and targets. All that is a lot easy to arrange in the Shoalhaven than in the Sydney area; not to mention that most of the FAA lives within about 30 minutes of the place, which has certainly proved useful on a number of occasions (1998, 2004, 2020, many others). Moving Albatross would not be a very good idea.

I’ve seen estimates for the total cost of moving GI as high as 100 billion, and that was some years ago.
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
And the squeeze is only going to get worse as they go from the 121m long Anzacs to the 150m long Hunters, we are going from the current 3 Amphibs and 1-2 AORs, to 2 Amphibs, 2 JSS and 2 AORs, the Arafura’s will need more space when they visit compared to the Armidale’. While there is only a moderate increase in Ship numbers, the combined displacement of the fleet will double between 2010 and 2040.
The Arafura will go to Waterhen when they visit, I should think. After all, we once berthed a frigate (Culgoa) there.

One of the AORs will be homeported in the west; if it comes east it will probably be trotted.

We don’t yet know where JSS, if they eventuate as that, will berth.

And as noted we are realigning the cruiser/oil wharves.

But even without that, there was a period when we berthed two light carriers, an AO, 12 destroyers and frigates and an EMS there, plus normally 1 or two visitors there - and we didn’t have FBE then. Although, if you don’t want any body outboard, then admittedly it is getting rather tight.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
That's why the Cruiser Wharf & EW have been redeveloped.

The redevelopment is showing a 70m extension to East Dock Wharf and the new cruiser/oil wharf will be 370m we currently have berthing overall at 1,678m while the 9 ships homeported use 1,636m of that that will eventually increase to 10 ships fora total wharf needs of 1,818m the increase from the redevelopment of cruiser/oil & Eastdock is an extra 170 for a total of 1,848m. Still bloody tight if you ask me


 

DDG38

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The redevelopment is showing a 70m extension to East Dock Wharf and the new cruiser/oil wharf will be 370m we currently have berthing overall at 1,678m while the 9 ships homeported use 1,636m of that that will eventually increase to 10 ships fora total wharf needs of 1,818m the increase from the redevelopment of cruiser/oil & Eastdock is an extra 170 for a total of 1,848m. Still bloody tight if you ask me
Maybe, but given how busy the fleet is, how many days of the year do you think absolutely every ship will be alongside ? So while space may look tight, I have faith that Fleet Ops will manage it. Not like we'll be getting many CBG visits anytime soon. ;)
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Maybe, but given how busy the fleet is, how many days of the year do you think absolutely every ship will be alongside ? So while space may look tight, I have faith that Fleet Ops will manage it. Not like we'll be getting many CBG visits anytime soon. ;)

Yeah no doubt they can manage as at the present with the limitations with they were down to just a tad over 1400m of usable berthing space. But with pressure from the state government and cruis ship berthing the problems are not going away even with the upgrade
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yeah no doubt they can manage as at the present with the limitations with they were down to just a tad over 1400m of usable berthing space. But with pressure from the state government and cruis ship berthing the problems are not going away even with the upgrade
I don’t think there will be much pressure from the cruise ship industry for some time to come. It will be a very weak government that gives in to demands from that sector for the next couple of decades at least. The presence of the Navy is a guaranteed money maker. As current events show, the tourist industry, particularly the cruise industry, not so much.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I don’t think there will be much pressure from the cruise ship industry for some time to come. It will be a very weak government that gives in to demands from that sector for the next couple of decades at least. The presence of the Navy is a guaranteed money maker. As current events show, the tourist industry, particularly the cruise industry, not so much.
I was going to make a similar argument, it will be a long recovery for the cruise industry, especially considering much of their business comes from those most vulnerable to COVID. Unlike jets, I imagine berthing issues for idle ships might be more difficult but I haven’t seen anything about this.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I don’t think there will be much pressure from the cruise ship industry for some time to come. It will be a very weak government that gives in to demands from that sector for the next couple of decades at least. The presence of the Navy is a guaranteed money maker. As current events show, the tourist industry, particularly the cruise industry, not so much.
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
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Question. Looking at GI all wharf space seems to be located on the western side of the base while eastern side is left all but untouched. Is this for a particular reason or could we conceivably build a wharf on the eastern side that would not only help the navy but cruise industry too to an extent?

Other then that is their any nearby locations the Commonwealth could invest into to create a surge capacity of needed for naval/cruise ships? Not so much shift everything but rather give some other nearby location the basics to park a ship and basic services if needed?

Would also be cautious on writing off the cruise industry so soon. That would require people to actually learn and think about risk factors, people are generally stupid. Couple years tops and cruise industry could be back into full swing.
 

Flexson

Member
Question. Looking at GI all wharf space seems to be located on the western side of the base while eastern side is left all but untouched. Is this for a particular reason or could we conceivably build a wharf on the eastern side that would not only help the navy but cruise industry too to an extent?
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.
 
Top