Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
alexsa said:
The Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector are both at the bottom edge of the Ice Class range and are not intended in or through heavy ice, however, they are entirely satisfactory for southern ocean patrols.

For the most part a 50 cal is more than enough for illegal fishermen and other policing activities.

It is not just the hull structure that is important it is how the vessel is operated. Adelaide operated deep into the southern ocean to rescue Tony Bullimore. The issue there was taking time to ‘normalise’ the hull to the temperature. Racing into very cold waters without doing this can result in brittle cracking.
Click to expand...

Building on what @alexsa said, often one vessel designed for one climate doesn't do well in the other - look at the issues with RN ships operating in the Pacific, especially in 1944/45. Again, taking lessons from the IJN/USN/RN CV's in the 1930/40s, you have to pick a likely environment to operate in, and for us it's to the north. We can cover our responsibilities to the south for the foreseeable future (which I grant you, if 2020 is any indication so far, is about 37 minutes....)
 
alexsa said:
The Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector are both at the bottom edge of the Ice Class range and are not intended in or through heavy ice, however, they are entirely satisfactory for southern ocean patrols.

For the most part a 50 cal is more than enough for illegal fishermen and other policing activities.

It is not just the hull structure that is important it is how the vessel is operated. Adelaide operated deep into the southern ocean to rescue Tony Bullimore. The issue there was taking time to ‘normalise’ the hull to the temperature. Racing into very cold waters without doing this can result in brittle cracking.
Click to expand...
The steel used in the Hobart's was changed to provide greater resistance to brittle cracking. This was done specifically with southern ocean conditions in mind.
 
Volkodav said:
The steel used in the Hobart's was changed to provide greater resistance to brittle cracking. This was done specifically with southern ocean conditions in mind.
Click to expand...

Yep, and a very sensible precaution. The hull still needs time to normalise though but they should be much less prone. Hopefully the Hunters will be similarly constructed (you would hope so).

The other issue not considered by many and ancillary services such as engine cooling and insulation and heating of the accomodation as well as LSA requirements vary depending on vessel categorisation. As an example a vessel operating in ice and very cold water will have ancillary services such as engine cooling protected (i.e. an Ice Class vessels will have engine cooling loops in side ballast tanks adjacent to the engine room rather than taking cooling water direction from the ocean via a sea chest. Thise system will be used when the vessel is in ice). You lower tier vessels such as PC7 will not necessarily have the same leve of protection as a PC1 to PC5 vessel.
 
alexsa said:
Yep, and a very sensible precaution. The hull still needs time to normalise though but they should be much less prone. Hopefully the Hunters will be similarly constructed (you would hope so).

The other issue not considered by many and ancillary services such as engine cooling and insulation and heating of the accomodation as well as LSA requirements vary depending on vessel categorisation. As an example a vessel operating in ice and very cold water will have ancillary services such as engine cooling protected (i.e. an Ice Class vessels will have engine cooling loops in side ballast tanks adjacent to the engine room rather than taking cooling water direction from the ocean via a sea chest. Thise system will be used when the vessel is in ice). You lower tier vessels such as PC7 will not necessarily have the same leve of protection as a PC1 to PC5 vessel.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of design factors that affect the RAN that many navies don't need to consider. Compare the completely different operational needs of the tropics verses the southern ocean, we face both some of the coldest roughest waters as well as the hottest. Seawater cooling systems really struggle in some of our waters, then there's marine growth and micro biological attack pretty much no one else needs to deal with, go down south and you've got embrittlement etc. and it's too cold for the heat exchangers that struggled with the heat up north.
 
Even more reason to have a ship able to handle the conditions so we don't have to risk an FFG and certainly not one of our DDG's, unless we absolutely have to.

So the new RNZN tanker Aotearoa won't be able to operate anywhere other than the Antarctic??? I'm sure we could find a design that would suit us. It's not like it will be deployed to force the Straights of Hormuz.


Edited for fat finger syndrome.
 
Last edited:
Takao said:
Building on what @alexsa said, often one vessel designed for one climate doesn't do well in the other - look at the issues with RN ships operating in the Pacific, especially in 1944/45. Again, taking lessons from the IJN/USN/RN CV's in the 1930/40s, you have to pick a likely environment to operate in, and for us it's to the north. We can cover our responsibilities to the south for the foreseeable future (which I grant you, if 2020 is any indication so far, is about 37 minutes....)
Click to expand...

I would be really interested in learning more about the RN problems in the Pacific, can you elaborate or give a reference I could follow up
Much appreciated
 
Brucedog said:
Even more reason to have a ship able to handle the conditions so we don't have to risk an FFG and certainly not one of our DDG's, unless we absolutely have to.

So with new RNZN tanker Aotearoa won't be able to operate anywhere other than the Antarctic??? I'm sure we could find a design that would suit us. It's not like it will be deployed to force the Straights of Hormuz.
Click to expand...
Aotearoa should be able to operate anywhere from the tropics to the ice. That's what's planned for it.
 
InterestedParty said:
I would be really interested in learning more about the RN problems in the Pacific, can you elaborate or give a reference I could follow up
Much appreciated
Click to expand...
The two problems which immediately spring to mind are range/endurance and habitability.
The Light Carrier/Troop Transport HMAS Sydney is a case in point. Built for service in the N Atlantic she was an absolute hot box in the tropics. No air conditioning in the messes, not enough fresh water for daily showers (although the condenser watchkeepers laboured manfully to keep up supply) and when restrictions were lifted you couldn’t take a shower because the cold water exited the tap at over 80degsC.
Many troops and ships company found sleeping on the sponsons or forecastle a much more comfortable option.
Air conditioning was not a feature of RN designsA d was not widespread in the RAN until the Type 12s in the 1960s IIRC
The Type12s were notoriously short legged and really needed a fuelling option if and when they ventured off station.
 
Of course she will ngati, as could any ship designed to do so. And a rather handy capability she will bring to the region, not just the RNZN.

Regular patrols down south would generate a corporate knowledge that would be very useful when the time comes we will need to act.
 
Takao said:
Building on what @alexsa said, often one vessel designed for one climate doesn't do well in the other - look at the issues with RN ships operating in the Pacific, especially in 1944/45. Again, taking lessons from the IJN/USN/RN CV's in the 1930/40s, you have to pick a likely environment to operate in, and for us it's to the north. We can cover our responsibilities to the south for the foreseeable future (which I grant you, if 2020 is any indication so far, is about 37 minutes....)
Click to expand...


Not really relevant in modern ship design. Type 45 notwithstanding.
 
A question regarding the Canberra Class and its crew composition.

My understanding from the Navy web site is that the ship has accommodation for around 1400 personnel. ( 358 crew and 1046 embarked forces )
If the ship was to embark a sizeable helicopter complement of say 12 to 15 aircraft, would the aircrew and maintainers to sustain such a fleet, be included from within the crew compliment, or the embarked forces?
My understanding is that you need around 16 Pax per aircraft, so therefore I would be looking at some 190 to 240 people to fly and maintain such a force.
If as I suspect the flight crew total comes form the embarked forces figure, this would realistically leave only some 800 spare bunks for the embarked ground forces.
Does this sound correct?????

Could I have some confirmation or clarity for the above.

Much appreciated

Regards S
 
The aircrew and maintainers required for the aircraft to move the embarked force form part of the embarked force, not the ships’s company. Even a normal ships flight is, for crew size calculations, normally counted as additional
 
Looking at the efforts of Choules in the current bushfire situation it strikes me that, although a rushed expedient she has performed extremely well and has been great value for money.

It also occured to me that her crew is much larger than it technically needs to be (158 v 60-70) and that she could be operated even cheaper. It dawns on me that a potentially cost effective way to increase our amphibious capability could be to acquire an additional similar LPD, or two, and any additional ships of the type could have smaller crews.

We could look at an Enforcer tailored to our needs for commonality with Choules. Maybe a larger well dock and a hangar etc.
 
Volkodav said:
Looking at the efforts of Choules in the current bushfire situation it strikes me that, although a rushed expedient she has performed extremely well and has been great value for money.

It also occured to me that her crew is much larger than it technically needs to be (158 v 60-70) and that she could be operated even cheaper. It dawns on me that a potentially cost effective way to increase our amphibious capability could be to acquire an additional similar LPD, or two, and any additional ships of the type could have smaller crews.

We could look at an Enforcer tailored to our needs for commonality with Choules. Maybe a larger well dock and a hangar etc.
Click to expand...

I am sure Navantia would do a reasonable price on a couple of the Galicia Class that all of these are based on ? Or is there becoming a possible need for something like the JSS that Navantia presented at Pacific 2019 ? Or variations of ? Do these potentially fill several roles, with a lot of utility ?

Cheers

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News
 
aussienscale said:
I am sure Navantia would do a reasonable price on a couple of the Galicia Class that all of these are based on ? Or is there becoming a possible need for something like the JSS that Navantia presented at Pacific 2019 ? Or variations of ? Do these potentially fill several roles, with a lot of utility ?

Cheers

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News
Click to expand...


Not sure if we need the additional RAS for liquids but it certainly would be good to be able to self off load diesel either internal or externally into waiting tankers

I think it was happening from memory in ET with HMNZS Endeavour making runs from Singapore/Townsville and Darwin of diesel fuel with tanker in landing craft filling up alongside to go ashore
 
spoz said:
The aircrew and maintainers required for the aircraft to move the embarked force form part of the embarked force, not the ships’s company. Even a normal ships flight is, for crew size calculations, normally counted as additional
Click to expand...

Thanks Spoz.

Aircraft are manpower intensive beasts, so guessed it would be form the embarked force.
Thanks for the confirmation.

Regards S
 
Volkodav said:
Looking at the efforts of Choules in the current bushfire situation it strikes me that, although a rushed expedient she has performed extremely well and has been great value for money.

It also occured to me that her crew is much larger than it technically needs to be (158 v 60-70) and that she could be operated even cheaper. It dawns on me that a potentially cost effective way to increase our amphibious capability could be to acquire an additional similar LPD, or two, and any additional ships of the type could have smaller crews.

We could look at an Enforcer tailored to our needs for commonality with Choules. Maybe a larger well dock and a hangar etc.
Click to expand...
Yes Choules has done well, and as @aussienscale has suggested in his post, maybe Navantia could offer a good deal on a couple of Galicia class. He also suggested a JSS such as the Navantia design which is not a silly idea in itself. I would suggest maybe even one of each because the JSS does offer quite a good capability set of its own, however there is the funding aspect and where is the funding for these 2 vessels going to come from. Given the current circumstances, what capabilities will the RAN / ADF have to deep six to acquire these two capabilities?
 
aussienscale said:
I am sure Navantia would do a reasonable price on a couple of the Galicia Class that all of these are based on ? Or is there becoming a possible need for something like the JSS that Navantia presented at Pacific 2019 ? Or variations of ? Do these potentially fill several roles, with a lot of utility ?

Cheers

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News
Click to expand...

I like this ship / concept on many levels.
Should we acquire that alluded to additional supply / logistic ship later in the decade and also find a replacement for Choules, then two of such a class would prove a good investment.
With our two LHD's and Two new Supply Class AOR's, we should be able to provide with two Joint Support Ships that rule of three's providing continuous capability of supply and amphibious options across the fleet most of the time
I cannot see a third LHD or AOR been acquired, but the JSS looks achievable and certainly looks both a good political and logical fit for the Navy.
I could also envisage this type of ship as a task force leader in a wide variety of roles being escorted by a couple of ANZAC's or OPV's.

Probably one for New Zealand to look at as well!
The JSS would prove ideal as the suggested extra Amphibious ship and or HMNZN Canterbury replacement.

A class of four built on the east coast of OZ, with work shared either side of the ditch, may interest some Australian and New Zealand politicians!

Any way just my two cents worth.



Regards S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top