Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I would imagine one AOR and one JSS at each coast.
FBE has the LHD, the Hobarts and what ever else is around.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Yes, there is a difference. The CoA has accepted the ship from the prime contractor; there follows a certification and training period before the mariner skills evaluation. Commissioning is usually just before that, some weeks after delivery. Although it does mark the point where “NUSHIP” becomes “HMAS”, it is largely ceremonial.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Yes, there is a difference. The CoA has accepted the ship from the prime contractor; there follows a certification and training period before the mariner skills evaluation. Commissioning is usually just before that, some weeks after delivery. Although it does mark the point where “NUSHIP” becomes “HMAS”, it is largely ceremonial.
Unfortunately its likely to be another low key commissioning, may even do it at sea again like the Sydney, though being in Perth may help with how many people can be there.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Yes, there is a difference. The CoA has accepted the ship from the prime contractor; there follows a certification and training period before the mariner skills evaluation. Commissioning is usually just before that, some weeks after delivery. Although it does mark the point where “NUSHIP” becomes “HMAS”, it is largely ceremonial.
Thanks for the clarity


Cheers S
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The alternative would be to have all the amphibious capability together at FBE?
That is an option, Choules is at FBE and if its replaced with two JSS then perhaps both of those are at FBE.
That may change if we start operating more with India and doing more adventurous things in the Indian ocean. Both with India and other nations.

There isn't a whole lot of call for the amphibious capability on the West coast. East coast we have Fiji, Samoa, PNG, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, the amphibious training grounds, townsville, Sabre and Rimpac.

Event the AOR capability is going to be fairly light on in comparison IMO.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That is an option, Choules is at FBE and if its replaced with two JSS then perhaps both of those are at FBE.
That may change if we start operating more with India and doing more adventurous things in the Indian ocean. Both with India and other nations.

There isn't a whole lot of call for the amphibious capability on the West coast. East coast we have Fiji, Samoa, PNG, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, the amphibious training grounds, townsville, Sabre and Rimpac.
And…..we also have the only large dry dock until the Henderson dry berth is built.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
And…..we also have the only large dry dock until the Henderson dry berth is built.
I think you would want the amphibious lift in proximity to the Army.
I'd guess the west would not be a priority in that respect.
When the future HMAS Stalwart goes into refit I could envisage a JSS allocated for the short term to cover fleet replenishment for the western coast fleet units.

First of all lets see what happens with the JSS concept.
Its one of those long term projects that could evolve many ways.


Regards S
 

Bob53

Active Member
An Interesting article here from the war zone on the USN USV firing of a SM6 from a container carried on deck. I see a lot of potential for a concept like this for the RAN, with low numbers of missile equipped frigates or destroyers available to put to sea at any one time, this could provide a boost in strike power.

You could theoretically base these further north to reduce transit times and have them join with other larger ships giving an increase in magazine dept. They could also be dispersed at a range from the targeting ship and even put forward in range. Its some way off clearly but the concept is moving to reality for the USN.

The cost of the vessel itself without System appears to be sub $10m.


 
Last edited:

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
An Interesting article here from the war zone on the USN USV firing of a SM6 from a container carried on deck. I see a lot of potential for a concept like this for the RAN, with low numbers of missile equipped frigates or destroyers available to put to sea at any one time, this could provide a boost in strike power.

You could theoretically base these further north to reduce transit times and have them join with other larger ships giving an increase in magazine dept. They could also be dispersed at a range from the targeting ship and even put forward in range. Its some way off clearly but the concept is moving to reality for the USN.

The cost of the vessel itself without System appears to be sub $10m.


Previously posted in post #30012 and #30351 about 8 days ago. Not much response then, but maybe this time

oldsig
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Previously posted in post #30012 and #30351 about 8 days ago. Not much response then, but maybe this time

oldsig
I can see some use for such systems ..... But!!!

Again it comes down to how they are used and their proximity to the controlling vessels or station. If the USV is designed to support other vessels it is going to have to be within range of the unit(s) to provide effective cover. This means the vessel will require the same range and speed as that unit or group and be able to undertake at sea replenishment if needed. The other issue here is redundancy .... what you save in crew facilities may be chewed up by ensuring the vessel has sufficient redundant systems to keep itself going. It would be a problem if one of these things blacked out and they could not get it going again (trust me this happens on some very sophisticated vessels).

The ghost vessels depicted would struggle to deploy for long periods of time in order to provide anti air cover using SM-6. Where small units may excel is where ae low signature vessels is deployed into a combat area undetected with a specific task or target in mind. Mind you if the group has organic air then this could be achieved with air missiles as well.

It will be interesting to see what operational context is intended for such vessels. Certainly deployable 'drones' with towed array have been suggested.
 

Bob53

Active Member
I can see some use for such systems ..... But!!!

Again it comes down to how they are used and their proximity to the controlling vessels or station. If the USV is designed to support other vessels it is going to have to be within range of the unit(s) to provide effective cover. This means the vessel will require the same range and speed as that unit or group and be able to undertake at sea replenishment if needed. The other issue here is redundancy .... what you save in crew facilities may be chewed up by ensuring the vessel has sufficient redundant systems to keep itself going. It would be a problem if one of these things blacked out and they could not get it going again (trust me this happens on some very sophisticated vessels).

The ghost vessels depicted would struggle to deploy for long periods of time in order to provide anti air cover using SM-6. Where small units may excel is where ae low signature vessels is deployed into a combat area undetected with a specific task or target in mind. Mind you if the group has organic air then this could be achieved with air missiles as well.

It will be interesting to see what operational context is intended for such vessels. Certainly deployable 'drones' with towed array have been suggested.
I see your point. My question is how do you stop someone pulling along side and boarding it? I cant see this being plausible in an area where a Chinese fishing boat could pull alongside or a helicopter could drop men on board.

Assuming those issues are resolved I would see it more useful in an Australian context as remaining with its range of the AU mainland and carrying something like a Long Range ASM and keeping the cells in the main vessel topped up as much as possible for Anti Air.

If in a strike role and armed with long range missiles it would not really need to keep up...It could be deployed in advance and be located within a few hundred miles ahead, behind or beside, and use targeting info relayed from another ship, P8, Triton etc. I dont see something like this heading into the SCS along side a frigate for example however this articles suggest very large UMV are in planning and that would probably mean longer range, higher speed and more load is what the americans envisage.

Anyway will be watching this program with more interest going forward.
 

thatsamguy

New Member
Looks like suggestions of a major defence announcement tomorrow. If this article is even close to the truth, I may just have to get the popcorn out and sit back, 'cause it's likely to get us all a bit batty. Please stay sane folks and wait for the actual details.


Speculation PM will announce $90b French submarine deal is dead

But a senior government source told The Australian Financial Review Australia was going to buy nuclear-powered submarines.
It is understood Mr Morrison had tried to speak to French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday, another source said.
Mr Morrison is due to travel to Washington next week for talks with Mr Biden, but it was thought that announcing the new submarine tie up with America together with the President would be deemed provocative.
Senior cabinet ministers met in Canberra on Wednesday for a top secret briefing on the shipbuilding program.
MPs and defence personnel have also been told to expect a significant briefing on Thursday.
Naval Group staff have been told to expect an announcement.
Relations between Naval Group and the government have broken down over a series of issues, with the government this year beginning to explore other options for the submarine program.
More to come
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The announcement is 7 hours and 6 minutes away. Let's wait and see what it is rather than trying to figure out what it might be.
 

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
The announcement is 7 hours and 6 minutes away. Let's wait and see what it is rather than trying to figure out what it might be.
Not sure anyone is trying to figure out what it might be? The discussion here really is just to relay what the media - and credible media at that - are reporting.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not sure anyone is trying to figure out what it might be? The discussion here really is just to relay what the media - and credible media at that - are reporting.
The media aren't that credible. They used to be many long years ago but not now. Let's just wait and see oķ. It's not long.
 

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
The media aren't that credible. They used to be many long years ago but not now. Let's just wait and see oķ. It's not long.
I appreciate you have a rather negative view of the media, and particularly its coverage of defence related issues. We've discussed that all before.

The reality, however, is this development is coming from too many in the media to be discounted. Rather, it very much has a ring of truth to it when rival journalists are quickly on the heels of others with similar or subtly different takes.

These are credible journalists and there is too much detail here for there not to be substance to what has been reported.

I don't see why we can't talk about what has been reported.
 

jack412

Member
I know it may be old news to some. It is still fun to speculate, about what is under the xmas tree. They are also suggesting that the US will run their subs out of Perth. With Biden is set to make a major announcement.
EDIT The original story has just been updated, the meeting must have finished and the unofficial media briefings have started.
 
Last edited:
Top