Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I stumbled upon this video which tracks the development of an Australian amphibious capability over the last 20 years.
It neatly lays out the deployment options from a single ship ARE (Amphibious Ready Element) through to the current Max ARG (AR Group)
Despite some minor chest thumping it provided this layman observer with a much clearer picture of what is possible in this time of greater strategic uncertainty.
I can’t comment on whether or not the Army organisation is still current as it appears the vid is a couple of years old.

 

[alexsa]

For all the deficiencies of HMAS Sirius, it has provided some level of respectable service to the RAN.
Should we have done things differently in acquiring replacement supply ships earlier, I'd say yes, but that is now history.
The question is what do we do with HMAS Sirius now.
It has a small crew and probably owns us nothing.
It would not bring much as a sale item so what is it's current value?
Some would suggest that with two new supply ships just around the corner and an equally capable vessel across the ditch in NZ our supply needs are well catered for in this part of the world.
On the other hand we intend to add in the near future two new Logistic / amphib ships to the fleet to replace HMAS Choules thus bringing our current supply / Amhib fleet up from five to a total of six vessels.
It would be prudent to have a force of Six ships NOW.
The retention of HMAS Sirius will bring the RAN to such a total today
While it has been pointed out it has it's deficiencies, there is still a lot that it can do.
Sirius is a big ship
It can carry a massive amount of fuel in addition it has the capability to carry a modest number of containers.
Some basic modifications could increase this capacity.
We currently have a very small merchant so a ship like Sirius as a semi active reserve vessel would be a valuable sovereign asset for many contingency's.

What it can do, not what it cannot.

For not much out lay in dollars and crew we get a lot, lot more in return.
The ship should have enough life in it until the first of the new Amphib / logistics ships enter service.
It would be great to get a second hand Juan Carlos or Bay Class vessels today but they are just not available at the "second hand ship shop".
HMAS Sirius is and certainly worth investing in to provide service in the 2020's



Regards S

No argument and the crew is around 60 which is modest given the AO role (commercial crew on this size of ship would be about 7 officers and 10 to 13 crew - not including cadets). Its upkeep would not be cheap but it could be put into warm layup as you note. Cold layup is a poor option as the cost and time to regenerate the ship would not be small.

The fuel and speed issues are a bugbear. Some have suggested she is not the easiest ship to RAS with because she is so fat (large block coefficient) and the resultant water she displaces and how it is displaced (I suspect one of the reasons the RCN were provided with an AOR converted from a container ship is the fact these hulls are faster having a low block coefficient). To be fair this has not hindered her use and if there was the money in the budget I agree she could be a useful contingency asset.

However, I suspect this is not the case and there is no money to spare. My take in the discussions on this in my previous job is that DOD wants her gone ASAP once Stalwart is on line. She will be difficult to dispose of because she has not been kept in commercial survey and I cannot see who may be interested.

Scrapping her may be an option noting we have been doing this in Australia with the FFG's and the Success.

 

[Stampede]

I stumbled upon this video which tracks the development of an Australian amphibious capability over the last 20 years.
It neatly lays out the deployment options from a single ship ARE (Amphibious Ready Element) through to the current Max ARG (AR Group)
Despite some minor chest thumping it provided this layman observer with a much clearer picture of what is possible in this time of greater strategic uncertainty.
I can’t comment on whether or not the Army organisation is still current as it appears the vid is a couple of years old.

Thanks for sharing the vid
Good overview in plain language.
I did note it mentioned the taboo subject at the very end.
A world class capability acquired within twenty years but for one thing!

Cheers


Regards S

PS - sorry mods

 

[spoz]

I stumbled upon this video which tracks the development of an Australian amphibious capability over the last 20 years.
It neatly lays out the deployment options from a single ship ARE (Amphibious Ready Element) through to the current Max ARG (AR Group)
Despite some minor chest thumping it provided this layman observer with a much clearer picture of what is possible in this time of greater strategic uncertainty.
I can’t comment on whether or not the Army organisation is still current as it appears the vid is a couple of years old.

Interesting; but it doesn’t go back far enough. If you want to look at the initiating impulse you have to go back to Fiji, Somalia and Bougainville, although the RAN was actually trying to acquire additional amphibious capability before the last two, hence the acquisition of Kanimbla and Manoora. Those two ships were never seen as the desirable outcome; rather they were seen as capability demonstrators to show what they could do and, more importantly, what they could NOT do, thus paving the way for the argument for the LHDs. Timor was a help, undoubtedly, but the ADF if not yet the Government, had already agreed the need to upgrade.

As a minor issue, JB was 1200, not 12,000, tons

 

[Systems Adict]

I thought I'd share this article, to see if anyone thinks it would be a viable addition to HMAS Choulles...?

Bay class to be converted to deliver ‘lethal littoral strike capability’

Is this something that should be considered, or does it even align with fleet workload / direction for the RAN over the next 15 years ?

 

[spoz]

As the details of what is intended are, to say the least, a bit scanty it’s hard to know. I should imagine the capability planners in ADHQ are probably watching closely however; one of the benefits of a close defence relationship.

However, this does make me wonder if the UK has missed the boat somewhat. Littoral strike was the preoccupation of the 25 years or so up to about 2016; in the Asia Pacific the emphasis has been moving to peer competition and high end war fighting in the distant maritime environment; although admittedly in the case of the US Marines and the US LAV that does involve manoeuvre in the littoral (as does some of Australia’s vision). But this is as the consequence of particular operational approaches and geography which are quite different to what one would have thought would be the UK’s position. In a trade off of limited resources, I’d like to understand more of the thinking behind this.

 

[Redlands18]

SEA 129 Phase 5 ITR contenders announced | ADBR

Updated March 24 with additional information on Northrop Grumman’s proposal. The Commonwealth has announced a list of contenders for the RAN’s Project SEA 129 Phase 5 Block 1 Maritime Unmanned…

adbr.com.au

Sea 129 phase 5 contenders for the RANs future UAV was announced yesterday 23/3/21. There are 5 contenders including.
BAE Australia : Skeldar VB-200 VTUAS#
Insitu Pacific : Scan Eagle/Integrator*
Raytheon Australia : S-100 Camcopter*
Northrop Grumman Australia: Leonardo AWHero VTUAS
Textron Systems Australia : Aerosonde Mk4.7/HQ*
*Not officially announced as the platform at this stage.
# A possible platform
NG has announced today that it will offer the AWHero.

 

[Stampede]

Interesting; but it doesn’t go back far enough. If you want to look at the initiating impulse you have to go back to Fiji, Somalia and Bougainville, although the RAN was actually trying to acquire additional amphibious capability before the last two, hence the acquisition of Kanimbla and Manoora. Those two ships were never seen as the desirable outcome; rather they were seen as capability demonstrators to show what they could do and, more importantly, what they could NOT do, thus paving the way for the argument for the LHDs. Timor was a help, undoubtedly, but the ADF if not yet the Government, had already agreed the need to upgrade.

As a minor issue, JB was 1200, not 12,000, tons

Good to highlight the need and thinking for our future amphibious capability prior to East Timor.
If I recall our three aging amphibs would be replace with two or three much more modern and capable vessels with a priority being of a well dock deemed essential to future operations.
My understanding was a large LHD design was maybe still just wishful thinking.
Two to three Landing ship dock style of vessels in the 15000t range were probably more of a realistic proposition back in the day.
Remember this is the late 1990's.

What Timor did was ram home big is better and a flat top for aviation with a dock is a great bit of kit.
This need was reinforced by a rapidly changing world with large commitment to Afghanistan in 2001 and Gulf War 2 in 2003. The government was understandably convinced we need the right gear and military structure for the challenges of the new century particularly if we wish to operate in immediate maritime littoral environment.
A lot had happened in the previous five years when government put out for tender in 2004 a requirement for not just one, but two large LHD's.
I think this would of still been a fantasy conversation just a decade earlier.
The selection of the Juan Carlos 1 design was a stella choice with credit to Army, Navy, Airforce and government plus opposition supporting this acquisition.
Sometimes we get defence right.
Credit also to Navantia and BAE in building a quality product that went pretty well to budget and timetable.


Regards S

 

[DDG38]

808 SQN Taipan preparing to take off from HMAS Albatross for Operation NSW Flood Assist (Image source : ADF Image library link)

 

[OldNavy63]

Defective Chinese aluminium delays new RAN enhanced Cape Class Patrol Boats

'Deficient' shipment of Chinese aluminium forces delay to Navy's Cape Class patrol boats

Poor quality aluminium imported from China is being blamed for the delayed delivery of the Royal Australian Navy's new $350 million evolved Cape Class patrol boats.

www.abc.net.au

What the heck? A sad testament for Australian shipbuilding and aluminium smelting - Chinese aluminium used in Australian (lower case “w”) warships! Then it turns out to be dodgy Chinese manufacturing, gee, who’d have thunk? Maybe we sent them iffy bauxite?

We are still making most of our ammunition, right?

 

[alexsa]

Defective Chinese aluminium delays new RAN enhanced Cape Class Patrol Boats

'Deficient' shipment of Chinese aluminium forces delay to Navy's Cape Class patrol boats

Poor quality aluminium imported from China is being blamed for the delayed delivery of the Royal Australian Navy's new $350 million evolved Cape Class patrol boats.

www.abc.net.au

What the heck? A sad testament for Australian shipbuilding and aluminium smelting - Chinese aluminium used in Australian (lower case “w”) warships! Then it turns out to be dodgy Chinese manufacturing, gee, who’d have thunk? Maybe we sent them iffy bauxite?

We are still making most of our ammunition, right?

Austal are primarily a commercial vessel yard and have arrangements in place to manufacture these vessels in China under a joint agreement with a Chinese yard. As a result they do source material from China. To be fair ... this is not the first instance with supply issues noting the AWD had similar problems

Navy warships project heading for cost blowout (news.com.au)

On the positive side at least the inspection process identified the issue (It would have been preferable to have found this before the material was used I agree) and the delay is weeks not months. I am not defending Austal I just think the issue should be taken in context as the press will happily turn a fixable problem into a crisis.

Part of the push for Australian content in other projects is to avoid such issues and lets hope it works.

 

[Pusser01]

Austal are primarily a commercial vessel yard and have arrangements in place to manufacture these vessels in China under a joint agreement with a Chinese yard. As a result they do source material from China. To be fair ... this is not the first instance with supply issues noting the AWD had similar problems

Part of the push for Australian content in other projects is to avoid such issues and lets hope it works.

Alexsa, out of interest, do we have plants here that manufacture sheets of aluminum of the correct size, type etc that could be used in the building of the Cape class? Cheers.

 

[alexsa]

Alexsa, out of interest, do we have plants here that manufacture sheets of aluminum of the correct size, type etc that could be used in the building of the Cape class? Cheers.

We certainly produce quite a bit of aluminium. The Portland smelter just produces ingots.

smelting-portland-aluminum-smelter-fact-sheet.pdf (alcoa.com)

The Aluminium products are produced and distributed by blue scope distribution in Portland (their may be others) and this covers materials suitable for marine use. So it should be possible to use Australian materials (there may be issues with very specialised alloys).

Portland - BlueScope Distribution

I suspect Austal bring in the Chinese plate due to cost noting they have supply arrangements in place in China.

 

[Joe Black]

An interesting post appears in LinkedIn this morning, announcing that the govt is intending to restart missiles production in Australia. It hints at indicating that "long-range" missiles, which many speculated to be the Tomahawks, could in fact be something else. I hazard to guess that it could be a new hypersonic missiles we are currently researching with the US.

Here's the post:

@AuManufacturing news and media on LinkedIn: #manufacturing #australianmanufacturing #defence #defenceindustry

The big announcement from Prime Minister Scott Morrison in Adelaide today – already leaked in advance to every major metropolitan newspaper – is not that…

www.linkedin.com

 

[ADMk2]

An interesting post appears in LinkedIn this morning, announcing that the govt is intending to restart missiles production in Australia. It hints at indicating that "long-range" missiles, which many speculated to be the Tomahawks, could in fact be something else. I hazard to guess that it could be a new hypersonic missiles we are currently researching with the US.

Here's the post:

@AuManufacturing news and media on LinkedIn: #manufacturing #australianmanufacturing #defence #defenceindustry

The big announcement from Prime Minister Scott Morrison in Adelaide today – already leaked in advance to every major metropolitan newspaper – is not that…

www.linkedin.com

Mr Dutton is off to a fast start...

Morrison Government accelerates Sovereign Guided Weapons manufacturing | Defence Ministers

Joint media release:

www.minister.defence.gov.au

This announcement isn’t for any particular weapon system, but mostly about integrating a supply partner and then kicking off domestic production of a suite of guided missiles and weapons for ADF and others’ use...

Given it was announced at the Raytheon facility for assembling and integrating NASAMS II, I’d suggest it’s almost a certainty Raytheon Australia will be winning this, with perhaps Konsberg and others as supporting industry...

FYI, Raytheon already supply or are contracted to supply Phalanx, ESSM, SM-2, SM-6 to RAN, AIM-9X, AMRAAM, JSOW, SDB II and Paveway series bombs to RAAF and Javelin and Excalibur to Army.

Likely future weapons that could potentially also be provided by Raytheon include SM-3, NSM / JSM (with Konsberg involved as well) and Tomahawk, AMRAAM-ER (for NASAMS II) and PAC-3 MSE for RAAF’s medium air defence capability requirement.

Hard to see anyone else being chosen as supplier, when Raytheon already provides all of that...

 

[Boagrius]

Pretty sure PAC3-MSE is an LM product but agree that Raytheon would have to be the front runner here.

That said, LM also have JASSM/LRASM, JATM, PrSM and GMLRS up their sleeve, all of which could be quite desirable in the not too distant future...

 

[Redlands18]

Pretty sure PAC3-MSE is an LM product but agree that Raytheon would have to be the front runner here.

That said, LM also have JASSM/LRASM, JATM, PrSM and GMLRS up their sleeve, all of which could be quite desirable in the not too distant future...

Patriot Missile Long-Range Air-Defence System, US Army

Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.

www.army-technology.com

Its actually both a Raytheon and LM product, so yes it should be able to be built here.

 

[Volkodav]

Mr Dutton is off to a fast start...

Morrison Government accelerates Sovereign Guided Weapons manufacturing | Defence Ministers

Joint media release:

www.minister.defence.gov.au

This announcement isn’t for any particular weapon system, but mostly about integrating a supply partner and then kicking off domestic production of a suite of guided missiles and weapons for ADF and others’ use...

Given it was announced at the Raytheon facility for assembling and integrating NASAMS II, I’d suggest it’s almost a certainty Raytheon Australia will be winning this, with perhaps Konsberg and others as supporting industry...

FYI, Raytheon already supply or are contracted to supply Phalanx, ESSM, SM-2, SM-6 to RAN, AIM-9X, AMRAAM, JSOW, SDB II and Paveway series bombs to RAAF and Javelin and Excalibur to Army.

Likely future weapons that could potentially also be provided by Raytheon include SM-3, NSM / JSM (with Konsberg involved as well) and Tomahawk, AMRAAM-ER (for NASAMS II) and PAC-3 MSE for RAAF’s medium air defence capability requirement.

Hard to see anyone else being chosen as supplier, when Raytheon already provides all of that...

Good news but had a chuckle at "Mr Dutton is off to a fast start..." The white out over "Ms Reynolds" isn't even dry yet.

Otherwise I am also amused at how things change. Back in 2013 it was all about what else we could shut down locally and buy from overseas, preferably China. Now it's like 1936 and trying to work out how we can possibly build the industrial capability we are going to need before we need it.

 

[cdxbow]

Good news but had a chuckle at "Mr Dutton is off to a fast start..." The white out over "Ms Reynolds" isn't even dry yet.

Otherwise I am also amused at how things change. Back in 2013 it was all about what else we could shut down locally and buy from overseas, preferably China. Now it's like 1936 and trying to work out how we can possibly build the industrial capability we are going to need before we need it.

Less than ten years. I hope we have got pointed in the right direction, just in time rather than just too late.

 

[Boagrius]

Patriot Missile Long-Range Air-Defence System, US Army

Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.

www.army-technology.com

Its actually both a Raytheon and LM product, so yes it should be able to be built here.

Interesting, thanks for the heads up and apologies to @ADMk2 for the pedantry