ADF General discussion thread

[Sideline]

As always I start my thought with “I’m not ADF”, so I may not know what I’m talking about,
would it be possible to start with a 2nd hand ConRo (combined ro-ro & container) vessel
and make it a multi-purpose

• Pacific Support Vessel
• Sea lift ship
• USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) style offshore base

As an example, the MV BAHRI TABUK, as it exists right now, would only have a crew of 30-40.
The top deck could support helicopter operations, wack on a few ex mining dongas, 2 x LCM-1E,
2 helicopters and you could send a Health Support Battalion and Engineers to any Island in the pacific.

PHOTOS VIDEO

• Korean Built
• Length o.a. (approx.) 225.0 m
• Breadth moulded 32.3 m
• Draught 8.9 m
• Scantling draught 9.5 m
• DWT (approx.) 26,000 tonnes
• RoRo space capacity 24,800 m2
• Container capacity 364 TEU
• Service speed (85 % NCR and 15 % sea margin) (approx.) 17 kn
• Diesel, Main engine (MCR) 12.500 kW,
• Aux. engines 2 x 1.500 kWe + 1 x 2.200 kW all at 720 rpm
• Shaft generator 2.200 kW
• 2 x heavy lift cranes capable of lifting 240 tonnes.

 

[OldTex]

What the government could do is acquire 2 or 3 used large container ships or oil tankers off the used ship market. Convert them in Australian yards to RO/RO with container stacking on the top deck. If you install the RO/RO access ramps on the side you can load / unload the vehicles straight from / to the dock. It would be able to take every vehicle in the army inventory. This could include guns, missiles etc. Because they are built to civilian standards, they don't have large crews, maybe 30. They could also be used for HADR moving vehicles and containerised stores etc.

Perhaps this appoach is the way to meet the ADF requirement and also satisfy a WoG desire to increase Australian engagement in the Southern Pacific region to counter some PRC influence. There has been suggestions, particularly in recent DTR magazine issues, of the need for a Pacific Support Ship to provide HADR etc to the South Pacific nations. CJR's comment of using ConRo type ships does seem to offer a viable solution. It would be similar in role to RFA/MSC ships. It would not be a 3rd LHD/LPD.

 

[ngatimozart]

The problem that any government is always going to encounter with that is funding for a ship that basically sits around most of the year unused. I agree we need it but reality says it’ll be hard to get done.

Two options to suggest:

First suggestion:
What about government/private partnerships?

Is there a way the government can provide a ‘on call/standby’ contract to a RORO vessel to ensure one is available when we need it? This contract (or subsidy) would aim to ensure the ship is only used commercially 50-80% of the year.

This contract could potentially make up the difference between having it foreign flagged versus Australia. Or a government company owns the ship and leases it to a shipping company under the mentioned availability provisions. There are almost endless possibilities depending on what it takes to make it commercially attractive.

Australia sells 1 million new cars a year, all of them coming from overseas (mostly Asia). There would be multiple ships travelling between Aus and Asia alone.

Another option:
The RAN operates a RORO vessel but it’s placed under contract to the US Sealift Command. The US would pay Aust for the use of the vessel, we could agree to have it available 50-80% of the year and the rest is ‘free time’ set aside for the ADF as we require.


The point I’m trying to make is I think buying one outright or forcing the creation of an Australian merchant fleet has been looked at and won’t happen.

However if we had access or owned a vessel that was used and paid for half the year by someone else maybe then it would be easier to justify and less of a drain on the RAN budget. After all if we are moving a Bde in an unplanned scenario (not an exercise) commercial shipping is also going to be affected. We want the ship/s built and on our side of the planet when a conflict starts (or is imminent).

What I’m suggesting is perhaps we could be a bit creative in funding the running costs for the rest of their service lives.

No to leasing to the USNS, because the CoA has to retain sovereignty at all times. Secondly it's not much use if it's hauling freight elsewhere and you have a requirement for it.

You pretty much answered any other questions I had.

A LCH has been long overdue imo. They would alleviate pressure on the more major vessels and, if focused to operate in the SW Pacific, would give Australia a distributed and continuous presence. They can support the ATG for increased lift - or forward position in cyclone country with emergency relief. A vessel prepositioned in New Caledonia or on Manus Island with supplies would be quick to act, faster than an LHD operating from Townsville (or anywhere in the Indo-Pacific).

It would not be a mobile hospital or heliport, but if you can assemble a joint team (ADF or WoG) to rapidly respond with field equipment, it could be effective.

Perhaps this is a point of discussion for continued work beyond the six recently announced CCPB, considering they will likely be built quickly and the time in between could allow for planning.



Would it even be possible to modify such large vessels in Australia? It would give full sovereignty over its use, but with the RAN under manpower shortages perhaps contracting would be best as Takao has noted. The alternative may be in coming to some agreement to utilise a RFA or MSC vessel - though the strategic sea-lift ships of the MSC are particularly large (~60,000t).

Contracting a strategic sea-lift ship (RORO or not) would be an effective means of lifting equipment and could move with an ARG (carrying the BG or most of the BG) to enter port once secured. If the total amphibious force is carrying about half of the total personnel and the majority of the vehicles/equipment, then airlift can augment and fill in the gaps.

If you want to add to a force this size, use of smaller LCH replacements (i.e. LST, SLV, Caimen-200) could augment by bringing additional equipment and personnel or acting as more specialised platforms (SOF support, mothership, HADR, etc). Supply and Stalwart are also not devoid of some container carrying capacity also, and could boost the sea-lift capability.

All of this would come at considerable cost at the end of the day however. Six LCH replacements, even if built in local shipyards, would still be a sizable investment - perhaps following the USMC program and reducing risk/design work via their program would be of use. Getting a hold of a sea-lift ship contractually would be relatively cost effective, though it is still a sizable investment. Perhaps it may be considered in opposition to the third AOR/LSS, depending on the current circumstances of that situation and which is more important.

I think the sea-lift topic is starting to shift into more of an RAN thread topic, at least without a wider look at into how they would support the BDE and how well such vessels may be protected.

The idea is to avoid specialized amphib ships with stern ramps and / or well docks, because per M3 they are far more expensive. This is simply a port to port heavy lift vessel, and that's all. There's no reason to over complicate things. It's not going to storm the beaches of Iwo Jima. You buy the hulls cheap convert them and you don't necessarily have to use RAN crews on them. However if you did, you would need no more than 20 -30 crew per ship. Surely the RAN can find 60 personnel even for a TDY.

 

[buffy9]

No to leasing to the USNS, because the CoA has to retain sovereignty at all times. Secondly it's not much use if it's hauling freight elsewhere and you have a requirement for it.

The idea is to avoid specialized amphib ships with stern ramps and / or well docks, because per M3 they are far more expensive. This is simply a port to port heavy lift vessel, and that's all. There's no reason to over complicate things. It's not going to storm the beaches of Iwo Jima. You buy the hulls cheap convert them and you don't necessarily have to use RAN crews on them. However if you did, you would need no more than 20 -30 crew per ship. Surely the RAN can find 60 personnel even for a TDY.

Yeah might have been getting carried away unfortunately. My main point was a strategic sealift ship was to transport the rest of the brigades heavy equipment, potentially once facilities are secured that can offload the equipment (if not already done).

It's easy to start ticking off stuff when tired.

 

[Hone C]

As always I start my thought with “I’m not ADF”, so I may not know what I’m talking about,
would it be possible to start with a 2nd hand ConRo (combined ro-ro & container) vessel
and make it a multi-purpose

• Pacific Support Vessel
• Sea lift ship
• USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3) style offshore base

I think it's an idea that may have some merit in both the Australian and New Zealand contexts with regards the South Pacific.

It's a concept that has been kicked around in various quarters before. Thinkdefence did quite a lengthy piece a few years back that is interesting.

A Ship that Still Isn't a Frigate - Think Defence

Can the Royal Navy make use of a civilian vessel design, or even a conversion, to cover a number of less than warlike tasks, taking advantage of current market conditions to drive down costs?

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

The key would be to get it jointly funded from international aid, foreign affairs, etc. and not just result in more cuts in core capabilities for defence. Easier said than done as the French Navy discovered with their B2M class.

 

[aviation_enthus]

. Secondly it's not much use if it's hauling freight elsewhere and you have a requirement for it.

Ok fair point but I’ll counter with, it’s better to have one somewhere than nothing at all (which is what we have now). Plus show me a Defence force anywhere on the planet that has heavy RORO/sealift capability just waiting in a dock for war to break out.

If we had a merchant fleet that was put into action you’d also be waiting for the ships to arrive back in Australia before they could be loaded. The reasoning behind it only being used 50% of the time would ensure it’s in Australian waters 50% of its life plus allows plenty of leeway for short notice use by the ADF. Then any commercial contracts could be completed after the ADF movement.

If the civil ‘standby’ contract worked you could potentially have multiple ships on the same contract (flagged in Australia). That way one would hopefully be no more than a week away.

But if that’s not possible I think the second hand conversion is also a good idea. Cheap to acquire and operate.

 

[vonnoobie]

Why not take the simplistic route? Tasmanian businesses have for years asked for TT lines to get a third ship to increase their exports to the mainland because apparently there hasn't been enought capacity for them but TT line instead just upgraded the ships they had. Why not simply buy a large passenger RORO lease it to TT lines on the cheap with clause that ADF gets to use it when and where needed. Helps with trade and we don't have an asset that sits around most of the time and we avoid most of the maintenance costs. To me seems the cheapest and most useful solution

 

[ngatimozart]

Why not take the simplistic route? Tasmanian businesses have for years asked for TT lines to get a third ship to increase their exports to the mainland because apparently there hasn't been enought capacity for them but TT line instead just upgraded the ships they had. Why not simply buy a large passenger RORO lease it to TT lines on the cheap with clause that ADF gets to use it when and where needed. Helps with trade and we don't have an asset that sits around most of the time and we avoid most of the maintenance costs. To me seems the cheapest and most useful solution

That's one option and it would be workable. There's also a regular shipping service from Perth Fremantle up to Karratha, Port Hedland and Broome, so a similar arrangement could be possible there. Lots of stuff trucked in, but lot more goes in by sea.

 

[t68]

Are we talking about pure logistics ship or something that can act independently cheaper than the CBR’s

Don’t forget the poms might still be looking for a Littoral Strike Ships

First proposal for the Royal Navy's new Littoral Strike Ships unveiled - Naval Today

British risk advisory company Prevail Partners has unveiled its proposal for the Royal Navy’s two new littoral strike ships which were announced by the UK defense secretary earlier this month. Prevail say their multi role vessel (MRV) was designed as a mobile logistic and helicopter base...

mobile.navaltoday.com

 

[ngatimozart]

Are we talking about pure logistics ship or something that can act independently cheaper than the CBR’s

Don’t forget the poms might still be looking for a Littoral Strike Ships

First proposal for the Royal Navy's new Littoral Strike Ships unveiled - Naval Today

British risk advisory company Prevail Partners has unveiled its proposal for the Royal Navy’s two new littoral strike ships which were announced by the UK defense secretary earlier this month. Prevail say their multi role vessel (MRV) was designed as a mobile logistic and helicopter base...

mobile.navaltoday.com

Yep, but being poms they'll find a way to make something simple difficult and expensive. You really want something that is simple and relatively cheap. No need for it to hump helos, just be a pure freighter.

 

[vonnoobie]

Yep, but being poms they'll find a way to make something simple difficult and expensive. You really want something that is simple and relatively cheap. No need for it to hump helos, just be a pure freighter.

Wait 5 years we will buy it off them on the cheap

 

[vonnoobie]

As it is might be a good time to get the assets even with the lower dollar. Wasnt that long ago some in government had talked about Australia needing a strategic fleet and with the global trade being what it is might be able to pick up a few large ferries (RORO) and some smaller container ships (yes their are routes in Australia and between NZwhere they can be used and be profitable) at a cheaper rate then usual. Get our strategic fleet, increase trade or decrease cost of said trade and we are in a sweet position then. Rather then letting a bad situation knock us down let's make it work to our advantage when and where we can.

That said seen a couple of articles regarding china mentioning that iron ore may be next on the boycott list. To me this is either all talk or pure stupidity on their part as any boycott will hurt them too. No country on earth would be able to meet China's demand from cutting them selves off of Australia which will cause price of iron ore to skyrocket. They will hurt them selves as much as Australia. Credit where credit is due the AWU (Australian workers union) has come out backing the government in this putting national interest ahead of jobs .

 

[swerve]

No to leasing to the USNS, because the CoA has to retain sovereignty at all times. Secondly it's not much use if it's hauling freight elsewhere and you have a requirement for it.

The idea is to avoid specialized amphib ships with stern ramps and / or well docks, because per M3 they are far more expensive. This is simply a port to port heavy lift vessel, and that's all. There's no reason to over complicate things. It's not going to storm the beaches of Iwo Jima. You buy the hulls cheap convert them and you don't necessarily have to use RAN crews on them. However if you did, you would need no more than 20 -30 crew per ship. Surely the RAN can find 60 personnel even for a TDY.

Ah, an equivalent of the UK's Point class! That's a standard Ro-Ro freighter with a few military mods such as secure comms & the vehicle deck strengthened to take MBTs nose to tail, operated by sponsored reservists (civilians who've signed up as reservists so they can be called up - into their peacetime jobs - in wartime). Six built, of which two (MVs Longstone & Beachy Head) were later sold off to civilian operators. 2700 lane metres, 23000 tons full load, crew about 20. Have been very useful, I think. Loading & offloading from & to Mexeflotes via the rear ramp works OK, apparently, but needs a sheltered anchorage AFAIK.

Not strictly relevant,but the US Military Sealift Command has a special warfare support vessel converted from the same ro-ro design. Was MV Cragside, but name's changed.

There's also a NATO strategic sealift project operating some ro-ro freighters. The core are Danish-operated, I think -
Skibe indchartrede til ARK-projektet

So, precedents to look at & learn from. Last I heard, Longstone & Beachy Head were operating as Finnmerchant & Massimo Mura.

 

[OldTex]

Ah, an equivalent of the UK's Point class! That's a standard Ro-Ro freighter with a few military mods such as secure comms & the vehicle deck strengthened to take MBTs nose to tail, operated by sponsored reservists (civilians who've signed up as reservists so they can be called up - into their peacetime jobs - in wartime). Six built, of which two (MVs Longstone & Beachy Head) were later sold off to civilian operators. 2700 lane metres, 23000 tons full load, crew about 20. Have been very useful, I think. Loading & offloading from & to Mexeflotes via the rear ramp works OK, apparently, but needs a sheltered anchorage AFAIK.

Not strictly relevant,but the US Military Sealift Command has a special warfare support vessel converted from the same ro-ro design. Was MV Cragside, but name's changed.

For a future strategic sealift capability for the ADF the UK Point class (or the US MV Ocean Trader/Cragside) would present a potentially viable solution with minimal conversion work (mostly communications, radar and some additional accomodation). The UK solution of crewing the vessels with sponsored reservists makes good sense from both a crewing and training perspective. These vessels could be utilised for trans-Tasman or regional shipping for the majority of the time, but could be called up for major exercises (eg. Talisman Sabre) or in military emergencies.

For a Pacific Support vessel the amount of modification required would be more involved IMHO. The modifications would still include the communications and radar work, but the other modifications would need to include substantial additional accomodation and amenities plus hospital facilities and some aviation support (up to MRH size). These modifications would preclude the vessel being used for trans-Tasman or regional shipping (as suggested by ngatimozart) although the whole reason for its existence would be providing WoG support and presence in the South Pacific.

 

[Massive]

Plus show me a Defence force anywhere on the planet that has heavy RORO/sealift capability just waiting in a dock for war to break out.

The question is why not?

4 Point Class equivalent would be cheap, have small crews, and would enable the sustainment of the deployed force.

I see them being painted grey and manned by RAN sailors.

Regards,

Massive

 

[buffy9]

Future conflict could be over 'before a shot is fired'. And Defence says we're not ready

A report by the Department of Defence shows Australia is unprepared for a major security or economic crisis despite being at the greatest risk of one for 60 years.

abc.net.au

I am aware news articles can often miss a point or ignore a major portion of a subject, though raising the point of a National Security Strategy seems like a pertinent point.

Seeing as how a NSS would focus on all departments and not just the DoD, this may not exactly be the place for it - however how the ADF relates to this would be important, particularly if there is a major shift away from both China and the US as economic and security partners respectively.

An ADF less reliant on partners will need to be more capable, whereas more diverse supply lines (in an age of globalized effects) may require a larger or more distributed ADF. Increasing domestic capacity to produce defence equipment, particularly cost effective wise, will help to not cut off the ADF from essential needs by either partner or threat. Reducing dependence on imported energy, increasing domestic production/industry and improving the ability of DFAT and DHA to detect and isolate crisis/conflict threats would probably be key. An ADF role to respond to human/social division may be controversial in terms of DACC (probably left to law enforcement and intelligence), though the ability to potentially do so in an operational environment may be necessary:

C3 and the Hong Kong protests – An example of the future in the Asia Pacific region | The Cove

In this well researched article, David Allison looks at how the protesters during Hong Kong’s 2019 large scale pro-democracy protests were able to be flexible and constantly adapt to their surroundings and circumstances.

cove.army.gov.au

Having a portion of the ADF directed towards HADR/DACC may also be worth consideration, as noted in in the below article:

The Australian Defence Force must find a new balance | The Strategist

It’s time to upend the idea of a ‘balanced force’ in Australian defence policy. Defence leaders have talked for decades about the 60,000-person ADF as a balanced force, with a little bit of something to ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

National strategy is perhaps too in depth for the thread (seeing how it would almost certainly involve politics and non-defence matters), though how military strategy could fit into such a NSS will be interesting. If the NSS gains traction and develops; how the ADF/DoD can contribute will be important: no cards left off the table.

Edit: I've edited this twice now to try and make a better point in regards to the ADF but I've come to the conclusion that defining a strategic direction for the ADF in such a big set piece is actually a bit beyond my understanding.

From the details of the article, and just focusing on ADF directly under current budget restrictions - increasing cybersecurity engagement with community/units and perhaps increasing CBRN/OCE readiness/flexibility are the most pertinent improvements that can be made.

 

[John Newman]

Couple of ships that are already on the Australian Register, MV Tasmanian Achiever II and it's sister MV Victorian Reliance II:

Tasmanian Achiever II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And:

mv tasmanian achiever ii - Google Search

www.google.com.au

Cheers,

 

[aviation_enthus]

Future conflict could be over 'before a shot is fired'. And Defence says we're not ready

A report by the Department of Defence shows Australia is unprepared for a major security or economic crisis despite being at the greatest risk of one for 60 years.

abc.net.au

I am aware news articles can often miss a point or ignore a major portion of a subject, though raising the point of a National Security Strategy seems like a pertinent point.

Seeing as how a NSS would focus on all departments and not just the DoD, this may not exactly be the place for it - however how the ADF relates to this would be important, particularly if there is a major shift away from both China and the US as economic and security partners respectively.

An ADF less reliant on partners will need to be more capable, whereas more diverse supply lines (in an age of globalized effects) may require a larger or more distributed ADF. Increasing domestic capacity to produce defence equipment, particularly cost effective wise, will help to not cut off the ADF from essential needs by either partner or threat. Reducing dependence on imported energy, increasing domestic production/industry and improving the ability of DFAT and DHA to detect and isolate crisis/conflict threats would probably be key. An ADF role to respond to human/social division may be controversial in terms of DACC (probably left to law enforcement and intelligence), though the ability to potentially do so in an operational environment may be necessary:

C3 and the Hong Kong protests – An example of the future in the Asia Pacific region | The Cove

In this well researched article, David Allison looks at how the protesters during Hong Kong’s 2019 large scale pro-democracy protests were able to be flexible and constantly adapt to their surroundings and circumstances.

cove.army.gov.au

Having a portion of the ADF directed towards HADR/DACC may also be worth consideration, as noted in in the below article:

The Australian Defence Force must find a new balance | The Strategist

It’s time to upend the idea of a ‘balanced force’ in Australian defence policy. Defence leaders have talked for decades about the 60,000-person ADF as a balanced force, with a little bit of something to ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

National strategy is perhaps too in depth for the thread (seeing how it would almost certainly involve politics and non-defence matters), though how military strategy could fit into such a NSS will be interesting. If the NSS gains traction and develops; how the ADF/DoD can contribute will be important: no cards left off the table.

Edit: I've edited this twice now to try and make a better point in regards to the ADF but I've come to the conclusion that defining a strategic direction for the ADF in such a big set piece is actually a bit beyond my understanding.

From the details of the article, and just focusing on ADF directly under current budget restrictions - increasing cybersecurity engagement with community/units and perhaps increasing CBRN/OCE readiness/flexibility are the most pertinent improvements that can be made.

I saw similar discussions/suggestions after the Summer bushfire season plus COVID-19. There was a couple of articles I read in various newspapers discussing additional capabilities for the ADF.

The main issue I have with adding non-war fighting requirements to the ADF (as it’s currently configured) is it inevitably removes capability from the primary ‘find and destroy an enemy’ mission.

COVID-19 and the last summer bushfire season has shown a clear requirement for a NSS. Especially since the Federal Government called up the reserves to assist VIC/NSW.

 

[OldTex]

Couple of ships that are already on the Australian Register, MV Tasmanian Achiever II and it's sister MV Victorian Reliance II:

Tasmanian Achiever II - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And:

mv tasmanian achiever ii - Google Search

www.google.com.au

Cheers,

According to the petronav.net site both of the ships that they replaced (Tasmanian Achiever and Victorian Reliance) are still available for sale (@ US$17.3M each). So there is a slight possibility that either a strategic sealift ship or a Pacific Support vessel could be achievable. The potentially easier one to achieve would be the Pacific Support vessel as it can justifiably be presented as a WoG asset (not just an ADF asset) as well as providing opportunities for Australian businesses to be involved in the modifications.

 

[ngatimozart]

According to the petronav.net site both of the ships that they replaced (Tasmanian Achiever and Victorian Reliance) are still available for sale (@ US$17.3M each). So there is a slight possibility that either a strategic sealift ship or a Pacific Support vessel could be achievable. The potentially easier one to achieve would be the Pacific Support vessel as it can justifiably be presented as a WoG asset (not just an ADF asset) as well as providing opportunities for Australian businesses to be involved in the modifications.

They look all right, but they require special facilities to load / unload vehicles, because of the stern ramp. 3,000 lane metres and 700 20ft teu is nothing to laugh at though, so it's not insurmountable and the price isn't too be sneezed at. If they can cross the Bass Strait they can handle most seas.