Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tasman]

Being a former Coast Guard sailor, I wonder about the 2000 ton OPV/LCS vessel too. While a larger patrol ship may suit the Navy better as a warship, minehunter, hydrographic and/or oceanographic ship, in my opinion they make very poor inshore patrol boats. Is this a recognition of the fact the Armidales are too large for proper inshore patrols and too small to be proper warships?

The US Coast Guard have these OPV sized ships for ocean going patrols, but also have smaller patrol boats as well, which is missing in this White Paper....

While it is true that inshore patrol vessels are not mentioned in the White Paper, Australian Customs operate a fleet of Bay class patrol boats which fill the inshore niche.
They are only lightly armed, shipping a pair of 7.62mm MG.

IMO it makes good sense for the navy to operate ocean going combat capable vessels with Customs covering the inshore roles (fisheries protection, people smuggling, drug running, etc). The new multi role vessels proposed in the White Paper will be capable of filling peacetime offshore patrol and hydrographic duties whilst being readily adaptable for a variety of wartime roles, including minehunting.

Tas

 

[FutureTank]

There's more than one way to skin a cat. While an LSD such as the Bay-class (same basic design as Rotterdam, etc) can land stores & vehicles without port infrastructure, so can a suitably equipped ro-ro. Carry Mexeflotes or similar, its own cranes for offloading any deck cargo. A container ship with its own cranes & deck stowed lighters could do it. I must say, though, that it sounds more like an LSD than anything else.

Cue bids from at least Navantia, Damen Schelde, & some Koreans.

It seems to me that with the extra subs there is not the money for a newly built support vessel. However, with the decline in vehicle trade in the world in general the RAN can pick up a very good Ro-Ro vessel on the cheap about now, and it can be modified to suit the ADF requirements by the time the LHDs are delivered. However, for a ConRo, which is what it seems the Army will want, the 10-15K tonnage seems a little light by commercial standards. Such a decision would have to be guided by the HMNZS Canterbury experience though.

 

[swerve]

... However, for a ConRo, which is what it seems the Army will want, the 10-15K tonnage seems a little light by commercial standards.....

Agreed, especially if it's full load, which is what I read it as. If it's deadweight, then I think that's about the size of the UKs Point class.

 

[StevoJH]

Agreed, especially if it's full load, which is what I read it as. If it's deadweight, then I think that's about the size of the UKs Point class.

However, it also mentions the presence of multiple helicopter landing spots though, which suggests something more along the lines of an LSD or LPD rather then a militarised RO-RO.

Honestly, other then possibly the 12 submarines and the 20 OPV's i don't see anything that isnt simply maintaining a current capability, or a capability already under order or planned.

I'm assuming the OPV's will be something along the lines of BAM or C3, or a modified variant of the Tenex Corvette design that was originally to replace Fremantle's rather then the Armidales that ended up being built. Of course those 20 ships will be replacing 26 ships currently in service.

 

[Sea Toby]

It seems to me that with the extra subs there is not the money for a newly built support vessel. However, with the decline in vehicle trade in the world in general the RAN can pick up a very good Ro-Ro vessel on the cheap about now, and it can be modified to suit the ADF requirements by the time the LHDs are delivered. However, for a ConRo, which is what it seems the Army will want, the 10-15K tonnage seems a little light by commercial standards. Such a decision would have to be guided by the HMNZS Canterbury experience though.

Merwede has plans of a ship longer than the Canterbury, with twice the troop berthing spaces, a helicopter deck for three helicopters, and more lane meters of vehicle space. Considering the Australians have added the flippers to their landing craft already, this could be a ship which fulfills Australia's requirements. Of course this would be a cheap option, a Rotterdam and/or Bay class are more expensive options.

 

[alexsa]

Would be nice if they were catamarans built in Hobart

Lets hope not, there are significant operation restrictions on such vessels.

 

[swerve]

However, it also mentions the presence of multiple helicopter landing spots though, which suggests something more along the lines of an LSD or LPD rather then a militarised RO-RO.

Yes. That's why I said it sounds more like an LSD than anything else. I thought LSD rather than LPD because it only mentions landing spots, rather than a hangar or helicopter support facilities.

But - and it's quite a big but - there are designs, such as the planned Dutch support & sealift ship (2.85 meg PDF - see pages numbered 26 to 31 of the magazine, i.e.pages 14-16 of the file), which have a nice big stern deck with landing spots, but no dock. This particular one is 24500 tons full load, with a hangar for 6 NH90s or 4 CH-47s, but one can easily imagine a Rotterdam sized version (it's yet another Enforcer variant, so that's easy), perhaps with the hangar deleted, & made more of a pure sealift ship. It can unload without a port - i It has cranes, & can carry landing craft, etc. Look at the pictures.

Also on the Ares blog. and there are several artists impressions here.

 

[FutureTank]

Merwede has plans of a ship longer than the Canterbury, with twice the troop berthing spaces, a helicopter deck for three helicopters, and more lane meters of vehicle space. Considering the Australians have added the flippers to their landing craft already, this could be a ship which fulfills Australia's requirements. Of course this would be a cheap option, a Rotterdam and/or Bay class are more expensive options.

I'm in two minds given the so-varied experiences with adopting/adapting as opposed to buying new designs for logistic support vessels, including the Canterbury experience.
Most would probably agree that a newly built vessel that will do what the Navy wants it to do from commissioning is the ideal, and there are such ships, such as the JSS here Flensburger Schiffbau Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (under Combat Support Vessels), but again, I just don't see the money for it since the vessel would be needed (I hope) within 3-4 years (?).

 

[uuname]

Actually, I think the Joint Support Ship looks more like an option to replace Success. (A nice option, IMHO)

Since the white paper specifies a "proven design" for the sea lift ship, I'd suggest that it's probably more likely to be something already built.

Further details on funding have been promised in the budget, next week.
Budget to detail Defence spending spree - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

If we can get any costing or timeframe details from there, it may well give a better idea of what is planned.

 

[winnyfield]

Been thinking about the 2000t modular boats (Offshore Combatant Vessels, littoral combat boat etc).

I'm reasoning that the navy wants to patrol further afield eg. deeper into asia. Anticipated 'policing' duties in the Persian Gulf, SW Asia (around the Philippines) etc. They're looking for a more survivable (armament and defence?) patrol vessel in that environment. Where once they sent a frigate, the 2000t boat will get the job.

 

[splat]

The strain on seagoing submariners will be eased by increasing collins crew size from 46 to 58.

 

[LancasterBomber]

The strain on seagoing submariners will be eased by increasing collins crew size from 46 to 58.

I agree.

Ps - I read these threads on this board a lot and enjoy the informed banter on technical acquisitions and their tactical relevance. It is great stuff.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The strain on seagoing submariners will be eased by increasing collins crew size from 46 to 58.

How? a few questions as I'm trying to work out where this is coming from:

• - the fundamental problem is a lack of qualified (or any submariners) sailors in the first place.
• - there's not enough spare capacity for hot bunking now - where and what roles need supporting via extra crew?
• - the cost to train up specialists (if you're talking about offloading some of the technicals) would be where?
• - the fundamental issues are job satisfaction - not work load
• - the basic issues are impact upon home lifestyle with respect to WAGs/HABs etc.... by rote we'd make the problem worse as more people are onboard and less are rotating back
• - we don't have enough capacity to blue/gold crew like the greenwater blokes.

these subs already have degrees of automation, and high degrees of multi-tasking over other subs. getting more crew in a piece of real estate thats already congested will just make people grumpier.

its not the number of people - its job satisfaction - and that includes impact on loved ones.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Can't they base 1/2 the subs back at FBE?

I would imagine with a 12 sub force, basing back at FBE would be a real possibility (or at least somewhere on the east coast).

Increasing crew size does not seem to fix the problem unless it means that only 46 personel will be on the boat from a pool of 58 allowing more time for sailors to be on surface vessels or on base.

 

[splat]

How? a few questions as I'm trying to work out where this is coming from:

• - the fundamental problem is a lack of qualified (or any submariners) sailors in the first place.
• - there's not enough spare capacity for hot bunking now - where and what roles need supporting via extra crew?
• - the cost to train up specialists (if you're talking about offloading some of the technicals) would be where?
• - the fundamental issues are job satisfaction - not work load
• - the basic issues are impact upon home lifestyle with respect to WAGs/HABs etc.... by rote we'd make the problem worse as more people are onboard and less are rotating back
• - we don't have enough capacity to blue/gold crew like the greenwater blokes.

these subs already have degrees of automation, and high degrees of multi-tasking over other subs. getting more crew in a piece of real estate thats already congested will just make people grumpier.

its not the number of people - its job satisfaction - and that includes impact on loved ones.

I wouldnt have the foggiest.It was in chapter 14 of the white paper.14.7 to be precise.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The biggest issue with submarine crewing is that we operate our submarines like diesel electrics with two shifts but sail them like SSNs and stay at sea for months. Two shifting may be fine for little day boats operating in coastal waters but places a lot of stress on a sustained at sea boat.

As GF points out you can't just wave a magic wand at a Collins class and alleviate crew workloads through extra bodies either at sea or on shore (though the shore based crew, including the dockside support group are better than nothing). The SEA 1000 submarines need to be designed from scratch as three shift boats and be provided with the internal volume and hotel loading to do so.

 

[cpt007]

There is no Domino Theory ion the offing though. China just wants others to ask how high when it says jump, that's all.

.

This boost is aimed at powers like Indonesia and vietnam and not at giants like China and India.

 

[splat]

This boost is aimed at powers like Indonesia and vietnam and not at giants like China and India.

Indonesia is the very place the australian government says is absolutely fundamental to australian security.Indonesia needs to be stable economically,politically and ethnically.We dont want the consequences of a fragmented indonesia with the political ramifications that would entail,escpecially competing powers having a greater influence there.
And vietnam????????????????
In regards to india.Well there is a push to have her more onside with the west as a counter to china.

 

[Ananda]

This boost is aimed at powers like Indonesia and vietnam and not at giants like China and India.

Well, if only countering us and vietnam, and what australian does with the new defence spending boosts will be overkill.
Currently Indonesia and Vietnam defence spending only aimed to replacing the obsolesence equipment. Even for us, if the target achived it's only reaching minimum deterence level.

We're more incline on using our funds for poverty reductions, and more equal development throughout our disperse islands since that's the best defences we have for stable government and nations.

Although we aimed to have 6 to 8 submarines for the next decade but our surfaces fleet will be resticted to Frigates-Light Frigates and aimed for significant numbers of OPV and Patrol Boats for fishery protections.
That's a defensive posture, and much bellow of What a USD 500 bio economy (or more than USD 1 trillion by world bank predictions by end of next decades) can really do if we want to be really armed ourselves.
Not really in my oppinions an offensive capabilities force that the Australian White Paper preparing for the worst.

 

[the road runner]

Although we aimed to have 6 to 8 submarines for the next decade but our surfaces fleet will be resticted to Frigates-Light Frigates and aimed for significant numbers of OPV and Patroil Boats.

That's a defensive posture, and not really in my oppinions an offensive capabilities force that the Australian White Paper preparing for the worst.

The replacement frigate hull will be in the 7000 tonne class.That a destroyer.I actually see these replacements as offensive weapons platforms.
It seems to be a massive naval upgrade.

Anzac frigates(3600 tonnes) replaced by 8x7000 tonne class frigates??

Armidale Patrol boats(270 tonnes) replaced by 2000 tonne Corvettes

6 Collins replaced with 12 future Sub

Guess time will tell us all.