Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StoresBasher]

I see Canberra's last position was off Lakes entrance at 7 something last night doing a respectable 14.4 knots.
I am doing a day trip on the tall ship James Craig from Sydney on Sat, i really hope Canberra will be in Sydney by then I would love to get some photos of her whilst sailing past. I'll have to wait and see.

You never know, you might just be in luck

 

[ancientcivy]

Patrol Boat and Supply Ship replacement

Is there any evidence that the Government is losing faith in Austal, over the ongoing Amidale Class problems? Is there sufficient evidence that the Cape Class is a superior product which could preform the tasks which are breaking the Armidales?

Do The Government's recent statements regarding Australia's current fiscal position suggest that any other any opv/Ocv replacement would be the cheapest least capable available? If so would upgrading the typhoons mount with a 30 mm cannon, with air burst shells , the low cost option, assist in piracy patrols?

The purchase of the two American supply vessels being retired as a solution to the Navy's present dilemma by t68 is interesting. However the NSI article suggests that it is the operating costs which lead to the early retirement, further according to Wiki the ships in US service have a complement of 700 approx. Even if in Australian
service crewing would be different, would these ships be a viable option for thr RAN?
Thanks for any advice.

 

[StevoJH]

AMBITIOUS plans to slash the time the Collins class submarines spend out of the water for full cycle maintenance from three years to two are getting underway at ASC in Osborne.

Work has started on two key focuses - using the first submarine built in Australia, HMAS Collins, as an "enabler" for its stable mates and to build a dramatically different work station for maintenance teams.

ASC general manager submarines Stuart Whiley is so confident the ASC plan will work he thinks it could shave the time for full cycle docking right down to 18 months.

"I'm absolutely convinced we can do this (meet the two year reduction)," he said.

ASC devised the plan after the Coles Review of submarine maintenance in 2012 pinpointed cutting maintenance times as the key to "benchmark availability" of the six subs.

It was signed off by the former Federal Defence Minister earlier this year and when HMAS Collins arrived at ASC in Osborne several months ago, work started on stripping parts.

These would be refurbished to be used in HMAS Farncomb, the second submarine built in Australia, when it arrives for its scheduled maintenance in May next year.

Mr Whiley said to reduce docking time so dramatically "we needed something fundamentally different and using Collins as an enabler was it".

Collins would also have the hull cut away from one end so the diesel engines and generators would be removed and refurbished for Farncomb.

Once Farncomb went back into the water after its two-year cycle, Collins would then be refurbished and sent back into action in 2018.

Mr Whiley said the plan was backed by all those overseeing the subs.

"In the last two to three years the alignment of navy, the Defence Materiel Organisation and ASC with the Collins has been the single most productive thing to drive Collins out of the spiral down in terms of performance," Mr Whiley said.

Currently, the subs are in the water for eight years before a three-year maintenance period, the new regime will see them in the water for 10 years before the two-year upgrade.

The plan was for Collins to also be used to test and validate new initiatives such as new blast and paint technologies.

There are 14 other business changes listed among ASC's new program, including building a new three-storey work area above ground level in ASC North, the maintenance hangar at Osborne.

Collins would soon be rolled out of its shed so ASC can build what it is calling the new maintenance support tower that will hang from the periphery of the building.

The new 13 meter-high tower, made up of offices, workshops and stores, will be built at the same height as the top of the submarines so workers can walk directly on and off the subs.

They can also store parts and have meetings close by in a bid to reduce down time.

ASC chief executive officer Steve Ludlam said the new work would be a "key enabler in achieving a shorter duration for major submarine maintenance, or full cycle dockings".

Wonder if they plan to replace the troublesome diesels with another manufacturers?

Collins has supposedly been in its maintenance period since about 2012 hasn't it? So they are now saying it will be unavailable for 6 years total (another 4) before returning to service.

I wonder whether it will be rebuilt or just stripped of parts and quietly decommed......

 

[Volkodav]

Collins has supposedly been in its maintenance period since about 2012 hasn't it? So they are now saying it will be unavailable for 6 years total (another 2) before returning to service.

I wonder whether it will be rebuilt or just stripped of parts and quietly decommed......

All I have to say is "about time". The professionals have known since the start the only way to reduce to time taken for a FCD is to have all new and or refurbished parts and materials there ready from the start but penny pinching on the part of ASCs owner and the Customer (the government in both cases) has seen this sensible commercial option over looked again and again.

Ideally the project would have had a complete set of rotable parts over and above the six ship sets bought for the project to enable each submarine to be gutted and refitted when it came in for FCD with the items removed then being refurbished or replaced depending on risk and condition to be ready for the next submarine due an FCD. The lack of a rotable pool means the next best option is to use one of the existing ship sets as the pool, which unfortunately means using one of the submarines to get to this new start point.

This is how they should have been doing it from day one, new guts ready, cut the hull, old guts out, new guts in, weld up the hull while the old guts are replaced and refurbished ready for the next sub off the rank. Its only taken 20 years to listen to the experts on the project who have been telling them to do it since day one.

 

[Volkodav]

Wonder if it’s worth the Government to look into using the soon to be decommission Supply-class ships of the MSC USNS Bridge (T-AOE-10)& USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) as an interim measure till new build ships can be put into service.

Yes I know Defence is not keen on second hand shipping from the US but it’s not like the Kanimbla class where they were heavily modified these ships would only need the a more compatible communication fit out to RAN standards . Would it be more cost effective than using these to replace existing Auxiliary ships, but I think the Canadians have a more pressing need for these ships than we do at the moment.

Navy to Decommission Two Oilers in Cost Saving Scheme | USNI News

These are very nice ships but as they were specifically designed to keep up with and support USN carrier battle groups they are literally too much ship for the RANs needs. Far better for the Aus Govt to pull their finger out and order a suitable design to build now. There are designs out there, there is capacity in our yards, the RANs current ships are coping (just) but now is the time to do it.

 

[Volkodav]

Is there any evidence that the Government is losing faith in Austal, over the ongoing Amidale Class problems? Is there sufficient evidence that the Cape Class is a superior product which could preform the tasks which are breaking the Armidales?

Do The Government's recent statements regarding Australia's current fiscal position suggest that any other any opv/Ocv replacement would be the cheapest least capable available? If so would upgrading the typhoons mount with a 30 mm cannon, with air burst shells , the low cost option, assist in piracy patrols?

I suppose it comes down to whether the government wants to effectively patrol and protect our EEZ and territories or not (including all the important stuff in there such as fish, offshore rigs, pipelines etc.). To do this they need something designed to stay out in the rough stuff, an OPV, corvette or even a light frigate. Call it what you like but it needs to be bigger, more seaworthy and above all more durable.

The ACPBs and Capes are inshore patrol boats, yes they have long range but they are simply not designed with the required level of durability to spend a large amount of their operational lives out in open water, i.e. offshore as opposed to inshore. These little boats are meant to stay out of the rough staff and only transit when it is calm enough to do so. If there is a SIEV going down in sea state 7 the RAN isn't going to sit on their hands because its too rough and it might break their boat, they are going to get out there and save as many as they can, that's what they do. This is basically what is breaking them now, they were designed for inshore and they have been used, unrelentingly for several years as offshore SAR and interceptor craft.

To go for another class of inshore PBs while the basic role and usage remains the same is false economy, they will either not be able to the job or they will break while doing it.

On the cannon, the 25mm is a nice bit of kit so there would be little if any advantage in replacing it with a 30mm. If the desire is for high tech munitions then go for a 57 or 76mm and get the other advantages of the extra size and more capable mounts as well.

 

[StingrayOZ]

These are very nice ships but as they were specifically designed to keep up with and support USN carrier battle groups they are literally too much ship for the RANs needs. Far better for the Aus Govt to pull their finger out and order a suitable design to build now. There are designs out there, there is capacity in our yards, the RANs current ships are coping (just) but now is the time to do it.

I don't think they are bad ships, or not a good fit for the RAN. Now we have 2 x LHD, possibly deploying at once, with additional vessels, thats one huge logistics need, similar in requirement to a USMC amphibious group.

However, it doesn't solve the problem of sustainable building, these ships are being retired because they cost more to run than other types (as well as being excess), and we would still need extensive and expensive modification for RAN service. While not that old, they aren't that new either.

 

[t68]

Thanks to volkodov & stingray oz, that puts that question to bed only reason I brought it up is that there was a question mark if we are going to lease Cantabria again that's all. Instead of leasing her again put that money towards one of the Supply class ships. Instead of beating around the bush I need to phrase my posts better.

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't think they are bad ships, or not a good fit for the RAN. Now we have 2 x LHD, possibly deploying at once, with additional vessels, thats one huge logistics need, similar in requirement to a USMC amphibious group.

However, it doesn't solve the problem of sustainable building, these ships are being retired because they cost more to run than other types (as well as being excess), and we would still need extensive and expensive modification for RAN service. While not that old, they aren't that new either.

You don't just buy a ship and put her into service overnight. A crew requires training to become effective with a ship, for the crew to be qualified with every station. With the Canberra you should notice it is taking a year or more to put her into service. Admiral Sandy Woodward said during the Falklands War that if the British had bought one of the Americans Iwo Jima LPHs, the British required a American crew as well. It is why the Aussie's leased both the ship and the crew from Spain. This is one of the reasons why I am so upset with Canada waiting so long to build or buy new replenishment ships which are desperately needed NOW.

 

[Volkodav]

You don't just buy a ship and put her into service overnight. A crew requires training to become effective with a ship, for the crew to be qualified with every station. With the Canberra you should notice it is taking a year or more to put her into service. Admiral Sandy Woodward said during the Falklands War that if the British had bought one of the Americans Iwo Jima LPHs, the British required a American crew as well. It is why the Aussie's leased both the ship and the crew from Spain. This is one of the reasons why I am so upset with Canada waiting so long to build or buy new replenishment ships which are desperately needed NOW.

Toby, Canberra is a new build ship doing tests and trials, as all new ships do. She has a large percentage of civilian crew and contractors technicians onboard for this and as such is hardly representative of what you are trying to illustrate. A far better example would be that of Choules, which was a much faster simpler hand over so doesn't actually back what you are saying anyway.

 

[Sea Toby]

Toby, Canberra is a new build ship doing tests and trials, as all new ships do. She has a large percentage of civilian crew and contractors technicians onboard for this and as such is hardly representative of what you are trying to illustrate. A far better example would be that of Choules, which was a much faster simpler hand over so doesn't actually back what you are saying anyway.

As I recall the Aussie crew where in the UK six months before the British handed her over to the RAN. And on the delivery voyage many of the crew were still training before they were qualified at their stations. Six months is NOT overnight. We may dither over what constitutes overnight, but without any doubt the Spanish replenishment ship of last year's lease would not have been well operated by just only an Aussie crew. The Spanish crew was needed last year. Otherwise her deployment would not have been as useful.

 

[ngatimozart]

As I recall the Aussie crew where in the UK six months before the British handed her over to the RAN. And on the delivery voyage many of the crew were still training before they were qualified at their stations. Six months is NOT overnight. We may dither over what constitutes overnight, but without any doubt the Spanish replenishment ship of last year's lease would not have been well operated by just only an Aussie crew. The Spanish crew was needed last year. Otherwise her deployment would not have been as useful.

Toby go and do some basic reading about the Cantabria deployment to Australia. You are spouting bovine excrement again and all you are doing is highlighting the limits of your intellectual ability. As usual, you know very little about the subject and are just displaying your ignorance. If you can't read the appropriate texts get someone to read them aloud and slowly for you.

 

[aussienscale]

As I recall the Aussie crew where in the UK six months before the British handed her over to the RAN. And on the delivery voyage many of the crew were still training before they were qualified at their stations. Six months is NOT overnight. We may dither over what constitutes overnight, but without any doubt the Spanish replenishment ship of last year's lease would not have been well operated by just only an Aussie crew. The Spanish crew was needed last year. Otherwise her deployment would not have been as useful.

Toby, I think you are misunderstanding what the lease (and I use that term loosely, as it was a signed agreement for an extended deployment) of the Cantabria was actually all about ? While yes it was a gap fill while Success had some work done it was really a 6 month long sales pitch from Spain and had nothing to do with the willingness or otherwise to place an Australian crew on the ship, it is after all a commissioned ship of the Spanish Navy

It was an evaluation process for the class and it was also used as a training platform for systems that are on the Canberra and Hobart class for the RAN.

You don't have to preach to most of the guy's who post on the thread, you very well know blue profiles are vetted

Cheers

Oh almost forgot, you do realise that one of the posters on here actually went and picked up Choules, so maybe you can discuss your theory with him on what they did

 

[t68]

Have to agree that the way they made use of Cantabria did serve a duel purpose, would really like to see the reports on her and any changes that need to be made if we go that way.

 

[koala]

Nuship Canberra

I see Canberra's last position was off Lakes entrance at 7 something last night doing a respectable 14.4 knots.
I am doing a day trip on the tall ship James Craig from Sydney on Sat, i really hope Canberra will be in Sydney by then I would love to get some photos of her whilst sailing past. I'll have to wait and see.

It looks like Canberra had a manoeuvring workout in Jervis Bay today, I have been following her on marinetraffic and was feeling dizzy with all the turns she was doing.
I hope she is in good shape without any problems and has good speed ahead to Sydney

 

[aussienscale]

Have to agree that the way they made use of Cantabria did serve a duel purpose, would really like to see the reports on her and any changes that need to be made if we go that way.

I don't think the design would need any major changes, just the usual requirements for RAN service.

The Cantabria was actually ordered after the JC1, so it is pretty much designed to look after JC1/Canberra class, along with Hobart Class etc, so capability/capacity wise it would fit the bill, we just need more than Spain.

I am still a firm believer that we need 3 for the fleet to maintain coverage East/West with one in maint/re-fit

Cheers

 

[aussienscale]

Just a quick question for our tech minded folk, looking at the tracking on Marine Traffic for Canberra, she has a top logged speed of 18.3 Knots.

With the combination of GT, Diesels, and the Pods, what type (if any) run in period would the systems need leading into full power trials ?

I am assuming modern manufacturing does not really need a break in period for the GT or Diesels, but what about the pods ?

Any feed back appreciated

Cheers

 

[MickB]

I may be drifting off into fantasyland, but I found myself wondering if an aircraft like the Nomad could operate as a COD from the LHD's. Providing priority transport beyond the range of the Helos.
It can easily operate from a normal landing field the size of the flight deck. But then we come to my big question mark, the ski jump.
The small extra capability it would provide would likely not be worth the expense, but I wonder could it be done.

 

[old faithful]

Aircraft like a nomad.....
rule out the nomad for a start, they were death traps.
there are probably only 1 or 2 aircraft that fit the bill, but for us, the chinook will do.

 

[ngatimozart]

I may be drifting off into fantasyland, but I found myself wondering if an aircraft like the Nomad could operate as a COD from the LHD's. Providing priority transport beyond the range of the Helos.
It can easily operate from a normal landing field the size of the flight deck. But then we come to my big question mark, the ski jump.
The small extra capability it would provide would likely not be worth the expense, but I wonder could it be done.

What about the C27J? It is reputed to have good STOL capabilities. JATO bottles if needed for take off.