Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Is AMT therefore an insder who is in breach of their obligations by having it on their website?

No idea and I wouldn't comment on it as I'm sure that there are others in relevant jobs who would make that call.

some "leaks" are ignored. but if someone is regularly spilling the beans inappropriately then they will cop it in the end.

you'd have to be a dick to spill material in the public domain if you valued your job.

some years ago I copped some grief because I was verballed as a source and people claimed that I was leaking privileged info from within - the problem was that I wasn't even working in Oz at the time and I worked for another entity, so it got dismissed pretty quickly as someone who was exercising malicious intent.

one of the Defpros in here can vouch for the fact that even though I was in a position to provide open source material I would not do so unless I was cleared to do so through formal advice. so, if the source is working from within and bleeding info, then he's a first class ferkwit.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Is AMT therefore an insder who is in breach of their obligations by having it on their website?

I'd suggest they aren't. They haven't provided the technical details of the product nor how much it reduces the RCS of the ANZAC Class frigates.

I daresay if you search hard enough, you could probably find the general materials composition of the F-35 JSF on the DoD website too. It's available on L-M's website...

The basic materials aren't classified. But exactly what is done with them, the treatments they are given, the shape, thickness, honeycomb construction techniques etc. All this is the proprietry and classified stuff and that information certainly isn't available on AMT's website...

 

[AMTP10H]

Unfort there are some who still thinks its possible - ditto the 3rd LHA.

Its not happening, everyone inside knows it. the desperate and dateless haven't worked it out yet though...

we've already had $20bn removed from future budgets.

As a lot of us feared, SRP is just DRP with new buzz words.

Take, for example, Smart Sustainment. Sounds pretty intelligent and very sensible.

In reality it's just an across the board 6% cut and it's now up to the services to try and figure out how to make it work.

Expect to see ships tied along side to save money.

 

[ThePuss]

As a lot of us feared, SRP is just DRP with new buzz words.

Take, for example, Smart Sustainment. Sounds pretty intelligent and very sensible.

In reality it's just an across the board 6% cut and it's now up to the services to try and figure out how to make it work.

Expect to see ships tied along side to save money.

Hi mate, good to see an old face, Welcome to DT, Plently of the old SP boys have migrated here.

 

[AMTP10H]

Hi mate, good to see an old face, Welcome to DT, Plently of the old SP boys have migrated here.

Been kept pretty busy in the last year. Our first kid, DCP, SRP, and a Navy APS recruitment freeze has had me working my ring off.

 

[Jaimito]

What it would the probability for working out Collins 2 as to correct the problems in Collins 1, it was problems with the broken hull and entrance of water at high depth, some problems with spares or so on the engines?.. to have advise from other subs yards if necessary? The equipment on today´s Collins could be used for the new ones, the appropiate one, lowing that unit cost, equipment it´s the most expensive, more than the steel. It should be clarified if there is a possibility on solving all Collins issues, then it would be the cheapest option for going for a big sub, rather than to have to design a new one.
Maybe to have 2 or 3 Collins 2 together with some other type of subs with aip able to attack fleets better, in movement and silently.
Conventionals are limited by the amount of time that can be moving on batteries, they can have short risky looks on enemy´s or unknown zones without the diesel engines, but not too far from safe zones that is where they can come closer to surface and get air without threats from air. Then it seems a great advantage to have some aip subs, it not all in the subs fleet at least a few to be able to stay longer at unknow or risky zones without our own diesel engines, and you do not need to have a nuke to sustain a silent and moving sub to inspect or wait the surroundings.
And you do not need to have the best aip, Scorpene´s aip say to have x days at 4 knots, the U-boat with aip it was like 20 days or more, the S80 it is said 28 days, probably you do not need that much, and x days as an example would give hundreds kms for patrolling in the surroundings before coming to the tanker and refuel the aip, actually i doubt they can refuel liquid oxigen from a conventional big ship tanker... or in the same sense, improved Stirling.
I mean once you know what aip or conventional batteries you have, then you can calculate your risky exposures.
In the case they can go for similar Collins 2, the question is:
- go with them with adapted aip or just improved Collins 1 or mixed batch.
- or go for a few improved Collins 1 without aip as Collins 2, and put the rest on the table for another few european aip batch. So that the RAN has the option for long range missions, and the option for the best capability for fleet clashes.

 

[spoz]

Amphibious Sustainment

So, the RN (or rather the RFA) is to lose a Bay as a result of their SDR. I feel for them but 2048 Phase 4C anybody? The oldest is what, about 8 years old now and would seem to be the perfect fit, probably at a discount, available as a sail away deal and almost certainly has been well maitnained in the usual RFA way. Electric powered with Wartsila generators (where have I heard that before), small ship's company needed to opeate the ship with a good passenger capacity and we could probably either put up with the current combat system "suite" (it is an RFA after all) or maybe recycle something from the FFGs in a couple of years?

I wonder if we can be flexible enough, if I was the PD I'd be on to the UK Defence Sales mob today for a P&A..... Come to think of it, they're usually so pushy that they'll probably be calling him!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I wonder if we can be flexible enough, if I was the PD I'd be on to the UK Defence Sales mob today for a P&A..... Come to think of it, they're usually so pushy that they'll probably be calling him!

The Bay class would make for an ideal JP2048/4C, in fact the sealift requirement is basically written around a Bay class. The real problem for the RAN is more immediate. Both the LPAs are broken down and we urgently need an amphibious capability to gap fill them until they can be repaired (if possible) or more efficiently until the LHDs are available (2014+).

If the UK will make a Bay class available within the next few months then it would be an ideal gap fill for the LPAs until the LHDs are available and then in the sealift role after 2016 allowing Tobruk to pay off. If a Bay won’t be available for some time (>6 months or more) then we still need an urgent gap fill. Ark Royal would provide a more than capable LPH capability to replace the LPAs until the LHDs are ready.

Of course all of the above is predicated on need to acquire not ability to acquire. The Australian DoD isn’t exactly a time responsive organisation. It has had its moments in terms of rapid acquisition in the past few years but none of them have been in the naval domain.

 

[rossfrb_1]

possible sale of mk54 LWT to RAN

ADM: Possible sea/air split for lightweight torpedo choice

"Possible sea/air split for lightweight torpedo choice

20 Oct 2010

News that Australia is considering the purchase of more than 200 Mk 54 torpedoes and other associated equipment from the US – in a deal worth an estimated US$169 million – apparently for use on the Lockheed/Sikorsky MH-60R helicopter, suggests that the DMO is hedging its bets on the outcome of the AIR 9000 New Naval Combat Helicopter competition.
The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on October 7 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia of up to 200 MK 54 All-Up-Round Torpedoes, 179 MK 54 Flight in Air Material Kits, 10 MK 54 Exercise Sections, 10 MK 54 Exercise Fuel Tanks, 10 MK 54 Dummy Torpedoes and 6 MK 54 Ground Handling Torpedoes.
The possible sale also includes support and test equipment to upgrade Intermediate Maintenance Activity to MK 54 capability, spare and repair parts, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, US government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.
The original MU90 torpedo acquisition plan had proposed fitting the weapon to the RAN’s Sikorsky S-70 Sea Hawk helicopters, as part of a midlife upgrade project for those aircraft, and to the AP-3C fleet.
Due to the high-risk challenge of the airborne phase of the MU90, this was dumped in favour of retaining the MU90 for use on the Navy’s Anzac and FFG class frigates, and later, the Hobart class AWD.
Doubtless we will now see Mk 54s equipping our AP-3C Orions, and later P-8 Poseidons, as well as the MH-60Rs (if we acquire them).
The other contender for the AIR 9000 requirement, the Eurocopter NH90, normally carries two MU90 torpedoes in its ASW role.
If the NH90 is selected then we may see a mix of torpedo types for airborne roles."


What happens if RAN goes with the MH-60R given that it already is rolling out a 'new' LWT currently not cleared for that system, has been touched on a couple of times in this thread. As has been pointed out RAN is essentially fielding two types of LWT now, with it's stock of legacy mk46s along with the MU-90.
Is RAN so committed to MU-90 that there is no going back, especially in regards the Hobart AWDs?

rb

 

[PeterM]

The Bay class would make for an ideal JP2048/4C, in fact the sealift requirement is basically written around a Bay class. The real problem for the RAN is more immediate. Both the LPAs are broken down and we urgently need an amphibious capability to gap fill them until they can be repaired (if possible) or more efficiently until the LHDs are available (2014+).

Buying one of the four Bay class does seem like an ideal solution both from both cost and capability points of view for JP2048/4C and also fills a much needed interim capability gap.

Considering that JP2048/4C wasn't planned for some time, what is the likelihood of the government making funds available in a reasonable short/medium time frame to take advantage if the RN does make one of the Bay class available for sale as expected.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Considering that JP2048/4C wasn't planned for some time, what is the likelihood of the government making funds available in a reasonable short/medium time frame to take advantage if the RN does make one of the Bay class available for sale as expected.

Chances are very low for just the sealift role but as I mentioned above there is a urgent need to provide the LPA capability with both of them broken down and in a sorry state. A rapid acquisition of a Bay class LSD could provide for a partial LPA role back fill (enough to get out of trouble) and then when the LHDs step up to fill this role sideways movement to sealift.

 

[PeterM]

Buying one of the four Bay class does seem like an ideal solution both from both cost and capability points of view for JP2048/4C and also fills a much needed interim capability gap.

Considering that JP2048/4C wasn't planned for some time, what is the likelihood of the government making funds available in a reasonable short/medium time frame to take advantage if the RN does make one of the Bay class available for sale as expected.

I didn't realise the LPAs were in such a sad state.

What conversions (if any) would a Bay class need for service with the RAN

 

[StingrayOZ]

Seems to be a good fit, the idea was floating around before the cuts.

As long as the money has been set aside, then I think it would have to be one of the front runners. Also buying ex RFA we can tap into RN experience working with them etc. Avalible to day with plenty of life left. They certainly seem pretty capable (before we had committed to LHD's there were rumors that we would get 3 Bay class type ships). The RAN will be doing ok with 2 LHD and 1 Bay class, still making it a leading amphibious navy worldwide.

Chinook, Phalax capable, plenty of room for heavy or troop lift, dock, low kms, motivated seller. Might be the right time to lock in the deal.

But then again, maybe we can haggle a bit more and get that carrier!

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

But then again, maybe we can haggle a bit more and get that carrier!

Now your talking!

 

[PeterM]

If the RAN was to purchase a Bay class, what would be the best option for landing craft?

The Bays are listed with 2 x LCVP Mk.5, 1 x LCU Mk10, 2 x Mexeflotes, presumably we could buy these with the Bay. Or would we be better off getting an additional LCM-1E instead of the LCU Mk10 and standardising landing craft with the LHDs?

 

[icelord]

I didn't realise the LPAs were in such a sad state.

What conversions (if any) would a Bay class need for service with the RAN

You and a lotta people have no idea other then the Daily Teles article on monday. Its worse then that, few of the boys are laughing at next years program for them as they see getting out of sydney harbour as an achievement let alone to another port

It seems like brilliant timing, with the RAN requiring a Amphib thats reliable, and the RN needing to offload one thats done well over only a short time. This is a much better deal then the bloody LPA debacle of getting 2 "CHEAP" amphibs off the US. At least we know how much time the Bay class have done, and the condition they are in will be much better then a 30 year old(at time of purchase) LPA.

The only real conversions would be Communications for RAN. Navigation wise they use a similar program to ours, so minor software change or just leave it be would work better. Engines would be fine, just alot of training to bring our stokers up to speed. Weapons are placement, such as 12.7mm and mini-typhoon. I dont believe Bay class have any at present unless on operation with embarked marines providing mini-guns.

Funding shouldnt be that hard, just tell the Govt what they dont spend on a LPA repair they can put toward a Bay, hell they could buy two and have change with the amount they have ended up costing these past 2 years, let alone getting back to operational readiness

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes, now we know why the ADF had to cut budgets, to fund the purchases of a CVF. I'll wait for AG to float that idea in the RN thread.

However getting rid of a (or both) LHA's and Tobruk early would save significant $'s, and with a big capable new ship the argument could be made that a bay now would be more capable than all three today.

If we are going to start laying up ships we might as well layup the right ones. Saving money.

Given that its currently inservice and a very new ship you would imagine it could be a very quick hand over to the RAN.

 

[PeterM]

You and a lotta people have no idea other then the Daily Teles article on monday. Its worse then that, few of the boys are laughing at next years program for them as they see getting out of sydney harbour as an achievement let alone to another port

That is ridiculous that the LPAs have gotten that bad, but it shouldn't be that surprising considering their age when we bought them. It is quite obvious they will not last until the Canberras enter service.

The DCP2009 lists the Strategic Sealift vessel as likely to be an ACAT II project (and for Government consideration beyond 2019). Considering ACAT II is listed at being $500m–$1,500m, a second hand Bay would be a very substantial cost saving let alone the costs of operating a pair of 40 year old LPAs.

Also factor in that Tobruk has been in service for 30 years and the LCHs are pushing 40 years in service (and the replacements for both are some ways off), it is obvious there is a substantial risk with operating our amphibious capability..

It does seem the RN's need to offload Bays fits in nicely with the RAN's need. Hopefully those in a position to make this happen are at least seriously discussing the possibility of buying one of the Bay class. Seems like a win-win situation.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That is ridiculous that the LPAs have gotten that bad, but it shouldn't be that surprising considering their age when we bought them. It is quite obvious they will not last until the Canberras enter service..

The problem with bill and ben was not their age, it was the absolute incompetency of the RAN assessment team who did not have the capability to assess and make a call on the vessels in the first place.

a qualified maritime engineer would have picked up the problems and we would have got them at a much more realistic price.

those ships were regarded as probably the best command assets to ever used to command various task forces in the gulf - they are highly regarded. the conversions done were very smart thinking and would have been much more beneficial if we'd had been a bit more dligent from day 1.

There are capabilities within bill and ben that are currently superior to the LHA's - and in some areas they will actually be more capable than the LHA's.

forget the internet rubbish that you hear about how superior the LHA's are compared to bill and ben, in some of the critical operational areas that is abject nonsense - nobody however is probably prepared to say it for obvious reasons.

some of the defence mags are printing rot and just reinforces how bad defence reporting is in Oz.

 

[battlensign]

The problem with bill and ben was not their age, it was the absolute incompetency of the RAN assessment team who did not have the capability to assess and make a call on the vessels in the first place.

a qualified maritime engineer would have picked up the problems and we would have got them at a much more realistic price.

those ships were regarded as probably the best command assets to ever used to command various task forces in the gulf - they are highly regarded. the conversions done were very smart thinking and would have been much more beneficial if we'd had been a bit more dligent from day 1.

There are capabilities within bill and ben that are currently superior to the LHA's - and in some areas they will actually be more capable than the LHA's.

forget the internet rubbish that you hear about how superior the LHA's are compared to bill and ben, in some of the critical operational areas that is abject nonsense - nobody however is probably prepared to say it for obvious reasons.

some of the defence mags are printing rot and just reinforces how bad defence reporting is in Oz.

I would disagree with that. As C2 platforms they may be alright but there are significant shortfalls in the comms suite. Not tri-service comms capable, as currently equipped, and all sorts other limitations are present as well.

Brett.