Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Raven22]

It's worth pointing out that the role of Choules and the role of the Point class are two very different things. The role of Choules (or the sustainment ship) is to do just that - sustain the amphibious force. It might be used to carry amphib forces for use in the assault, but as soon as the landing force is ashore it will turn around and come back to Australia (or an intermediate staging base somewhere), fill up with supplies, and head back to sustain the amphibious force.

The purpose of the Point class ROROs has nothing to do with the amphibious force - they are designed to carry the follow on forces. Once the amphibious forces have captured a port, the Point class land the follow on forces to continue the land fight. The amphibs can't be used to land the follow on forces as they are needed to sustain the initial landing force.

This is a weakness in our own amphibious concept and the Beersheeba brigade - we have (or soon will have) the ability to land on a hostile shore and open an SPOD, but no ability to land follow on forces as we have no way of carrying them (since the amphibs are needed to sustain the initial landing force). If we are serious as a nation about having an amphibious capability as an initial entry force, we need something like the point class ROROs in addition to any sustainment ship so we can actually exploit the initial entry and land the remainder of the combat brigade.

 

[alexsa]

It's worth pointing out that the role of Choules and the role of the Point class are two very different things. The role of Choules (or the sustainment ship) is to do just that - sustain the amphibious force. It might be used to carry amphib forces for use in the assault, but as soon as the landing force is ashore it will turn around and come back to Australia (or an intermediate staging base somewhere), fill up with supplies, and head back to sustain the amphibious force.

The purpose of the Point class ROROs has nothing to do with the amphibious force - they are designed to carry the follow on forces. Once the amphibious forces have captured a port, the Point class land the follow on forces to continue the land fight. The amphibs can't be used to land the follow on forces as they are needed to sustain the initial landing force.

This is a weakness in our own amphibious concept and the Beersheeba brigade - we have (or soon will have) the ability to land on a hostile shore and open an SPOD, but no ability to land follow on forces as we have no way of carrying them (since the amphibs are needed to sustain the initial landing force). If we are serious as a nation about having an amphibious capability as an initial entry force, we need something like the point class ROROs in addition to any sustainment ship so we can actually exploit the initial entry and land the remainder of the combat brigade.

Actually there is a significant flaw in the idea of civilian manned RO-ROs and that is crewing them. If they are to be Australian crewed this is really going to cost and you would need to operate them commerically (when not in use) to offset this.

The problem is the operating cost of these vessels means they will only be employed on the Australian coast and there is a continued complaint that the cost of operation drives up cost for industry who have to ship by sea.

To make this effective (or even feasible) the cost of operation issue needs to be resolved.

 

[swerve]

The Point class is manned by sponsored reservists. If we look at how they've been used, we see that when not used by the armed forces, they've been on commercial charters, but some have been on government business. Supply runs to the Falklands . . .

If you own the ship & it's paid for, charters when not needed for the military don't need to make a profit in strict commercial terms. As long as they make more than the marginal cost of operating them on charter, they're reducing the cost to the defence budget.

BTW, two were decided to be surplus to MoD requirements a few years ago, & were sold in 2013. Longstone was chartered to a Tasmanian line in 2014, & I think she's now Finnmerchant, & shuttling around the Baltic, & Beachy Head is now Massimo Mura, & pottering round the Med.

 

[oldsig127]

If we are serious as a nation about having an amphibious capability as an initial entry force, we need something like the point class ROROs in addition to any sustainment ship so we can actually exploit the initial entry and land the remainder of the combat brigade.

This is the point of my comment. The retirement of Choules will provide an opportunity to refine what we need, but unless the Navy, and the scope of CONOPS is to expand it will not be likely to be replaced by several specialised ships. While the temptation for naval enthusiasts is to see every new ship as a opportunity to get something new and shiny, with flashing lights and tinsel, a little bit of reality about what is likely to be needed and wanted by Navy wouldn't go astray

oldsig

 

[swerve]

HMAS Choules is ten years old, & has many years of life remaining. Why is there so much discussion of her retirement?

 

[oldsig127]

HMAS Choules is ten years old, & has many years of life remaining. Why is there so much discussion of her retirement?

Easy. It allows discussion of options from the catalogue of possible replacements, however unlikely, and there is at least some leeway in the DWP for enthusiasts to imagine her replacement. If an LCH replacement had been foreshadowed we'd probably be discussing everything that ever carried a tank with special consideration to whether it could also carry six helicopters and command an ASW group.

oldsig

 

[t68]

HMAS Choules is ten years old, & has many years of life remaining. Why is there so much discussion of her retirement?

Pure speculation on many members part on what may or may not happen, the wheels turn slowly for new capability in the ADF. we are in a period of new growth and capability for the RAN and greater ADF. Its only natural that people are intrigued by what has been announced, not only by the recent submarine news but are also buoyed by the 2016 DWP. we are in caretaker mode and depending on the outcome things may change very dramatically depending who gates up.



Choules is going to be around for sometime and Raven has bought home a couple of home truths which most on here can see. Choules has up to 300m AUD for upgraded and support out till 2025 as announced by the DWP what that amounts to I have no idea.

I seem to recall that there was speculation about a third LHD as one of the project on paper I think it was LCH program on paper was given a massive increase of money allocated to the project, and at the time speculation ran rife about a third Canberra which in my mind would suit the ARG concept better anyway, which in turn brings us up weather what makes a suitable replacement or additional vessel which has funding up to 2B AUD project from 2025

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks for the advice. Is it feasible that the RAN will fit a more powerful/efficient LM2500 as well as the upgraded diesels?

I really couldn't say, you would hope so and the fact the older models are no longer manufactured suggests we should buy the latest version but who knows what the procurement, contracts and supply chain types will do. I have sat in on design reviews where the RAN, all the engineers, naval architects and technical experts are left scratching their heads and saying "but why?" but it happens anyway because supply chain, contracts, risk management and legal are happy. I should add this often has nothing to do with any level of confidence in the technical outcome but more that the bureaucracy are satisfied their backsides are covered and the contracted entities can be sued when it goes pear shaped.

 

[Volkodav]

On the future support ship the US Lewis and Clark T-AKEs would seem to fit the bill as they are literally floating warehouses that are also capable of supporting ships at sea and large enough to be reconfigured with increased fuel bunkerage. The first two ships of the class are actually assigned to support the USMC in exactly the role we acquired Choules to fill.

 

[Volkodav]

HMAS Choules is ten years old, & has many years of life remaining. Why is there so much discussion of her retirement?

Because we have tended to run useful ships into the ground with very little thought as to how we are going to pick up the slack when they wear out and starting taking more time and money to keep going, let alone whether it may actually be better value for money to supplement them (therefore reduce the wear and tear) or replace them with a new asset all together. Choules is good but not ideal, as well as being a bit of an orphan, which would increase her support and sustainment costs over some other options.

 

[StingrayOZ]

On the future support ship the US Lewis and Clark T-AKEs would seem to fit the bill as they are literally floating warehouses that are also capable of supporting ships at sea and large enough to be reconfigured with increased fuel bunkerage. The first two ships of the class are actually assigned to support the USMC in exactly the role we acquired Choules to fill.

I see Choules being more in the Amphibious deployment/Landing than just resupply/sustainment. I could see two different roles developing if you had both in the same navy. There is some crossover. If Choules wasn't tasked with Amphibious it could fit in a different manner.

There is an interesting paper:
https://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/27938/uploads?1440374309

Regarding shared use of a T-AKE and the RAN amphibious assets. It seems that its more likely the ADF might deploy the LHD with USMC detachments in conjunction with a T-AKE vessel, as there is reasonable availability for all of these elements. In the upper realms of capability, would we be able to support an ARG including a USMC detachment of approximate 280, with the amphibious ships we have if supported logistically by the US? (or could be the UK, or combined US/AU).

This is a little dated. Numbers could be flexed. But I think it illustrates that Australia is not operating in a vacuum. I imagine after 2017 we will have a really good idea what an Australian ARG would look like. What it would take to support one at a distance.

While it will be rare to form an all Aussie ARG, it will much more likely to be formed given even small assistance from allies like NZ, UK or the USMC (or Singapore). What originally seemed like and unlikely event, could then become a regular mixed training event. Rotating elements and detachments into it from tight allies.

 

[rjtjrt]

To me HMAS Choules is the worthy successor to Tobruk in the current fleet.
She is literally the Tobruk of the current fleet - an orphan as well as Tobruk, but Tobruk turned out to be one of the most useful and valuable ships RAN has ever had.
Nothing is ideal, but Choules seems a great asset. No early retirement seems likely to me.

 

[ASSAIL]

I really couldn't say, you would hope so and the fact the older models are no longer manufactured suggests we should buy the latest version but who knows what the procurement, contracts and supply chain types will do. I have sat in on design reviews where the RAN, all the engineers, naval architects and technical experts are left scratching their heads and saying "but why?" but it happens anyway because supply chain, contracts, risk management and legal are happy. I should add this often has nothing to do with any level of confidence in the technical outcome but more that the bureaucracy are satisfied their backsides are covered and the contracted entities can be sued when it goes pear shaped.

They probably have 8 left over from the FFGs which may or may not be able to be updated/remanufactured?

 

[ASSAIL]

On the future support ship the US Lewis and Clark T-AKEs would seem to fit the bill as they are literally floating warehouses that are also capable of supporting ships at sea and large enough to be reconfigured with increased fuel bunkerage. The first two ships of the class are actually assigned to support the USMC in exactly the role we acquired Choules to fill.

Their job is continuous rotation from supply base to hot zone, would be ideal. Two were here last year and they're a mighty impressive unit close up.

 

[ASSAIL]

. Choules is good but not ideal, as well as being a bit of an orphan, which would increase her support and sustainment costs over some other options.

Although she is a one off here the sustainment contract awarded to A&P in the middle of last year should enable her to benefit from their supply chain ( they have a like contract for the RFA Bay class )

 

[ASSAIL]

There is an interesting paper:
https://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/27938/uploads?1440374309

Regarding shared use of a T-AKE and the RAN amphibious assets. It seems that its more likely the ADF might deploy the LHD with USMC detachments in conjunction with a T-AKE vessel, as there is reasonable availability for all of these elements. In the upper realms of capability, would we be able to support an ARG including a USMC detachment of approximate 280, with the amphibious ships we have if supported logistically by the US? (or could be the UK, or combined .

Thank you for that link, interesting indeed. It's almost akin to a staff paper framing the requirements, capabilities for that third support ship envisioned in the DWP, a T-AKE Lewis and Clarke. Wouldn't that be a win for the entire ADF.

Buried in the depths of the paper was a suggestion that the ARG needs riverine patrol craft and I wonder if this is the genesis of the DWP mention?

The link is certainly brain food. Thanks

 

[Todjaeger]

HMAS Choules is ten years old, & has many years of life remaining. Why is there so much discussion of her retirement?

Part of this I suspect stems from the mention in the DWP of ordering or receiving an additional support vessel in the late 2020's, either a third AOR, or a logistics support vessel. Depending on just how much/how hard Choules has been used by then, she might be due for replacement as well, or nearly so. By 2029, Choules would be 23 years old, and had at least 17 years of service in the RAN.

Another factor would be the length of the Australian defence procurement cycle. It seems to be getting better on some things, but for a rather long period of time there was a ~14 year gap between the initial start of a major project and IOC.

With that sort of time frame in mind, a project should be either starting now, or already underway.

 

[vonnoobie]

Buried in the depths of the paper was a suggestion that the ARG needs riverine patrol craft and I wonder if this is the genesis of the DWP mention?

Mentioned in the DWP intergrated investment program section 6.22 in passing is Special forces having a specialist watercraft

Specialist transportation systems will also be acquired, upgraded or factored into other planned capability acquisitions, including land vehicles,
role-specific upgrades to existing helicopters and the new light
deployable helicopter from the mid-2020s, watercraft and parachuting
capability.

and more direct in 6.48 that a rivirine patrol craft would be acquired from around 2022 to increase tactical mobility in the littoral zone.

Riverine patrol
6.48 A Riverine Patrol capability will be re-established to increase tactical
mobility in the littoral zone. The Riverine Patrol capability will deliver
a fleet of lightly armed boats from around 2022 to allow operations
in a wide range of estuarine environments. The capability will provide
sufficient capacity to embark a force element that is capable of effective
combat and could be used to transport small mobility assets such as
all-terrain vehicles.

Not just a need but assuming no future government rip's up the DWP then it will be an actual acquisition and capability.

 

[t68]

To me HMAS Choules is the worthy successor to Tobruk in the current fleet.
She is literally the Tobruk of the current fleet - an orphan as well as Tobruk, but Tobruk turned out to be one of the most useful and valuable ships RAN has ever had.
Nothing is ideal, but Choules seems a great asset. No early retirement seems likely to me.

Choules was not the meant to replace Tobruk, but one of the LPA's right about now under the original timeline for JP2048/PH4. Her primary role was to be strategic sealift and with secondary role of a amphibious deployment capability to support a land force (ARG).And I agree Choules wont be going anywhere for the foreseeable future, government has earmarked up to 300m in upgrades via the DWP

 

[alexsa]

The Point class is manned by sponsored reservists. If we look at how they've been used, we see that when not used by the armed forces, they've been on commercial charters, but some have been on government business. Supply runs to the Falklands . . .

If you own the ship & it's paid for, charters when not needed for the military don't need to make a profit in strict commercial terms. As long as they make more than the marginal cost of operating them on charter, they're reducing the cost to the defence budget.

BTW, two were decided to be surplus to MoD requirements a few years ago, & were sold in 2013. Longstone was chartered to a Tasmanian line in 2014, & I think she's now Finnmerchant, & shuttling around the Baltic, & Beachy Head is now Massimo Mura, & pottering round the Med.

The reality is that slot chartering in todays market (combined with the through carriage of interstate cargo) makes a time charter on a specific Australian domestic trade difficult to sell. Even if manned by reservists (which we do not have with the required commercial tickets in the necessary numbers) the crew will still be on Australian conditions ........ and that is not cheap.

The domestic trades they could operate are not ones where you can simply withdraw the asset at a whim.