Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alf662

New Member
I would disagree somewhat, even with HADR operations the majority of equipment will still need to be landed via sea if we are to conduct more than a token effort. This is the key reason why I'm disappointed the LCH replacement isn't a higher priority. The ADF will be less effective if it doesn't have a vessel to conduct small port, intra-theatre lift and remote island operations. This is relevant for everything from HADR to war fighting. This isn't to say aviation isn't also a vital component.
I agree with you Goknub. Large quantities of supplies are cheaper to move by sea lift than by air lift.

Aircraft need appropriate air strips, large ships require appropriate port facilities. Appropriately sized amphibious vessels can by pass established port facilities, they just add so much more flexibility and give so many more options.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
..... not a lot of appetite to buy 2nd hand
As we all know Choules was an opportunity buy, no other options at the time unless they went with more second hand US hand me downs. But we would not have been in that position if it wasn't penny pinching from goverment, could have bought new Whidbey Island class LPD for the eventual price of Bill and Ben
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
As we all know Choules was an opportunity buy, no other options at the time unless they went with more second hand US hand me downs. But we would not have been in that position if it wasn't penny pinching from goverment, could have bought new Whidbey Island class LPD for the eventual price of Bill and Ben
Post fitout they were regarded by many as some of the most capable task force flags available

for their roles far more useful than WI LPDs due to overall capability balance
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Post fitout they were regarded by many as some of the most capable task force flags available

for their roles far more useful than WI LPDs due to overall capability balance
The issue wasn't the concept or even the execution, it was the fact that we were unable to secure the initially selected hulls and had to make do with what was left. As I understand it the initial selection was made by a large and capable team specifically assembled for the job where the subsequent team were apparently not as well resourced.

Anyone have more info on this?
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
John,
Do you think the Victoria/Upholder's have left a sour taste in people mouths and the submarine will not be replaced, or could you see that they might take a wait and see approach in regards to Sea 1000 now that the French have got their foot in the door.
While the Victoria/Upholder buy can hardly be deemed a success, it has at least kept the RCN in the sub business. I have always believed the RCN likely knew the subs were not in great shape but if they passed on them Chretien would have ended the RCN's sub capability. I would like to think that RCN senior officers and DND bureaucrats are constantly reminding the pollies how important submarine capability is for Canada, especially in the Arctic. Hopefully when the time comes for renewal, the pollies will be in the loop.

You can be sure people here will be closely watching how the French meet Australian requirements and their own nuke program. A successful Australian/French sub collaboration IMHO would be a primer contender for a future RCN sub replacement. Both conventional and nuclear options might be considered in the future. Unless there is significant improvement in battery technology, I still feel nuclear is the best solution for under ice operation.:)
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
While the Victoria/Upholder buy can hardly be deemed a success, it has at least kept the RCN in the sub business. I have always believed the RCN likely knew the subs were not in great shape but if they passed on them Chretien would have ended the RCN's sub capability. I would like to think that RCN senior officers and DND bureaucrats are constantly reminding the pollies how important submarine capability is for Canada, especially in the Arctic. Hopefully when the time comes for renewal, the pollies will be in the loop.

You can be sure people here will be closely watching how the French meet Australian requirements and their own nuke program. A successful Australian/French sub collaboration IMHO would be a primer contender for a future RCN sub replacement. Both conventional and nuclear options might be considered in the future. Unless there is significant improvement in battery technology, I still feel nuclear is the best solution for under ice operation.:)
It was initially hoped to sell Collins class boats to Canada and NZ, in addition to the eight the RAN needed. As it was Australia only ordered six at a time strategic assessments were actually indicating that eight may no have been sufficient and ten was the minimum with twelve prefered, i.e. a second squadron.

Taiwan were very interested but Australia's trade with China, along with ITAR issues ensured that would never happen. Assuming three to six boats each for NZ and Canada, with an initial pair for Taiwan (seriously though they probably would have wanted at least six) Collins production could have stretched from fourteen to thirty boats. That sounds fanciful now but a real possibly back in the early 90s.
 

Joe Black

Active Member
It was initially hoped to sell Collins class boats to Canada and NZ, in addition to the eight the RAN needed. As it was Australia only ordered six at a time strategic assessments were actually indicating that eight may no have been sufficient and ten was the minimum with twelve prefered, i.e. a second squadron.
.
Perhaps now it is an opportunity for Canada to join the Sea 1000 program? ASC could build some of modules and Canada can do the final assembly. Wishful thinking I know. :)

Any chance NZ would buy a couple of pre-loved Collins once the new Bluefin Barracudas are in the water?


It was initially hoped to sell Collins class boats to
Taiwan were very interested but Australia's trade with China, along with ITAR issues ensured that would never happen. Assuming three to six boats each for NZ and Canada, with an initial pair for Taiwan (seriously though they probably would have wanted at least six) Collins production could have stretched from fourteen to thirty boats. That sounds fanciful now but a real possibly back in the early 90s.
Just wondering if RAN can just build the boat shell for Taiwan and they can do their own combat system fit-out - Taiwan can employ US companies like LM or Raytheon to install a combat system and integrate all the sensors they choose. In this case, we won't have to worry about the ITAR issues.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Just wondering if RAN can just build the boat shell for Taiwan and they can do their own combat system fit-out - Taiwan can employ US companies like LM or Raytheon to install a combat system and integrate all the sensors they choose. In this case, we won't have to worry about the ITAR issues.
nope. I worked for a sig mgt company in early 2000, we had the taiwanese approach us for access to an export version of Collins and/or capability

DNS and was never going to
 

rockitten

Member
nope. I worked for a sig mgt company in early 2000, we had the taiwanese approach us for access to an export version of Collins and/or capability

DNS and was never going to
There are rumors that Taiwan is hiring ex engineers and staffs from RDM, may be some retired/sacked ASC personals can do the same.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
As we all know Choules was an opportunity buy, no other options at the time unless they went with more second hand US hand me downs.
There were other options.

The French were offering Foudre at exactly the same time, & sold her to Chile a few months later. Daesun could have built a Makassar-like LPD remarkably quickly, with whatever fitout the RAN wanted.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
There were other options.

The French were offering Foudre at exactly the same time, & sold her to Chile a few months later. Daesun could have built a Makassar-like LPD remarkably quickly, with whatever fitout the RAN wanted.
True other option's where actually available, however nothing in the price/capbility/age range is probably a better statement.

Foudre just too old, Makassar is less capable but the Choules was the right amount of capability at the right price with out excessive age in it's hull.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
True other option's where actually available, however nothing in the price/capbility/age range is probably a better statement.

Foudre just too old, Makassar is less capable but the Choules was the right amount of capability at the right price with out excessive age in it's hull.
choules was a "goldilocks" purchase
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
choules was a "goldilocks" purchase
Yep, we got her, based initial certification on her RFA operating parameters and manuals, agreeing to operate her as the RFA had until we completed the RAN acceptance process. At this point she headed out of Sydney for workup with the green people onboard (training cadre) who had her run well outside specified parameters while simulating breakdowns by repeatedly throwing the main breakers until one of the main switch boards blew up, putting her out of service for months. :hitwall
 

swerve

Super Moderator
True other option's where actually available, however nothing in the price/capbility/age range is probably a better statement.

Foudre just too old, Makassar is less capable but the Choules was the right amount of capability at the right price with out excessive age in it's hull.
Yeah, she was the best option at the time. Foudre has a great big dock but that wasn't needed, & as you say, she's old, & a Makassar would have needed tarting up a lot & would still have been inferior in many respects. Only real drawback of Largs Bay was the lack of a proper hangar..
 

Oberon

Member
The Type 26 might be in for a rough go in the UK as well considering the fallout from Brexit and the renewed Scottish independence issue.
Australia's frigate requirement is for 9 hulls and the UK's for 8. I don't think the RAN would want to be lead customer for the Type 26 (and the associated risks that involves) so that reduces the field of contenders to the Italian FREMM or a modified Navantia F 104/5.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Australia's frigate requirement is for 9 hulls and the UK's for 8. I don't think the RAN would want to be lead customer for the Type 26 (and the associated risks that involves) so that reduces the field of contenders to the Italian FREMM or a modified Navantia F 104/5.
The last few posts on the RN thread have a link to a UK parliamentary committee meeting regarding the Type 26 status and also on the Type 45's IEP system problems.

A question was posed to the BAE CEO (Naval programs) as to whether steel could be cut now if money was made available. He declined to answer saying it was a MOD matter. Thus, at the time, the current delay could be due to engineering issues or budget. It now appears the issue is money. As far as risk is concerned, the Type 26 will have a MT-30 gas turbine and 4 three megawatt MTU diesel gensets in a CODLOG configuration so at least it shouldn't have any propulsion issues. The Italian FREMM has a lot going for it and has the least risk. I wish it was on the RCN consideration list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top