Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

ASSAIL said:

Small correction John, Quality was not converted to ASW and you left out poor old Burdekin from the rivers.

Some more to choose from could be the Ton class; Snipe, Ibis, Hawk, Gull, Teal, and Curlew or perhaps Rushcutter and Shoalwater, maybe the O class SSKs; Oxley, Ovens, Otama, Otway, Orion and Onslow.

Anyway many to choose from and as long as they stay away from the politically correct interference of the naming committee and end up with a persons name like Choules, I'll be content with any outcome.

Click to expand...

Yes I did leave poor old Burdekin off the list (was quickly referring to my trusty old 'Warships of Australia' book that I've had forever and was comparing against the current commissioned ships), sorry to Burdekin!!

And yes I should have said the Q Class Destroyers were converted to ASW with the exception of Quality.

And let's not forget with the subs, AE 1, AE 2, J1, J2, J3, J4, J5 and J7 (J6 being lost in WWI when still in RN service), the Dutch sub, K9. And of course the various RN 'A' and 'T' class subs that served here for many years prior to the 'O' boats arriving.

And I'm with you on the 'politically correct' naming too.

Lets hope the Collins replacements don't end up with former PM's names!!!!

ASSAIL said:

Not uncle Rupert, seminary mate Greg Sheridan thank goodness he was deposed because a rushed build of next generation subs would be most damaging to the RANs capability

Click to expand...

But having said that, new subs in 2030s? Really? Does it really take that long? I am starting to think that it would be far easier to just buy a few Virginia's from the US or Astutes from the UK.... sigh.

Singaporean Type 218s will be really old boats by the time we get our first new sub.

Joe Black said:

But having said that, new subs in 2030s? Really? Does it really take that long? I am starting to think that it would be far easier to just buy a few Virginia's from the US or Astutes from the UK.... sigh.

Singaporean Type 218s will be really old boats by the time we get our first new sub.

Click to expand...

It could be a bean counting thing. The DWP came up with quite a sizable shopping list and the size of the pie is limited, so decisions may have been made to defer the new submarines a little bit to make sure it is done right and bring forward other desirable capabilities.

If we go full tilt on the submarines now then we may not get the OPV's and Frigates in the time frame that is being discussed.

Not a perfect outcome as far as the submarine replacement project goes, but at least it is moving ahead (slowly), which is more than what was happening prior to the last election.

Volkodav said:

We are saving Australia and the state names for the Ford class CVNs (using money saved by reducing subs back to eight and buying baseline Soryus straight from Japan) we will order when King Tony returns to the throne. That's assuming he doesn't go to gaol for leaking national secrets to Uncle Rupert.

Click to expand...

V, very funny!!

But can you imagine if Queen Julia was still on the throne (and the court jester Conroy was now Def Min)?

There wouldn't be any money left to save in defence at all, it would have all been pulled out to reduce the deficit or used in the latest 'pink batts' type scheme.

No fleet of OPV's, more aluminium PB's to replace the ACPB's, etc, etc!!!

Volkodav said:

STANFLEX Mk-56 containers would do the job, 12 ESSM each. If the Danes can fit them on a FAC we could easily provide space, weight and appropriate connections on OPVs, frigates and destroyers. In fact considering the CS on the Canberras is basically the same as the ANZACs each could grow an ASMD mast and find space for a couple of modular pallets at MLU time should the circumstances warrant it.

Click to expand...

Or just the Mk.56 launchers themselves, situated where the Harpoon mounts are presently...

Joe Black said:

But having said that, new subs in 2030s? Really? Does it really take that long? I am starting to think that it would be far easier to just buy a few Virginia's from the US or Astutes from the UK.... sigh.

Singaporean Type 218s will be really old boats by the time we get our first new sub.

Click to expand...

There are people on here far better qualified to answer this question but i suspect even if we go with option J there is an enormous amount of design work to do let alone option F or G. We need to get this right, these subs are going to serve into the early 2080s better to take the time needed now. Too many things went wrong with the Collins class lets not repeat mistakes made in that program.
The govt has decided to make the OPVs and future Frigates first priority for building as it will be a more straight forward program as at least there are perfectly good baseline designs available unlike the Subs.

John Newman said:

V, very funny!!

But can you imagine if Queen Julia was still on the throne (and the court jester Conroy was now Def Min)?

There wouldn't be any money left to save in defence at all, it would have all been pulled out to reduce the deficit or used in the latest 'pink batts' type scheme.

No fleet of OPV's, more aluminium PB's to replace the ACPB's, etc, etc!!!

Click to expand...

Exactly under Premier Julia and Commissar Steven there wouldn't be any carriers (or destroyers, frigates or submarines either) to name after anything, converted off shore support ships, or anything else painted bright red, being more their sort of thing. Sorry just had to have a dig at Tony, as per usual he has over stepped the mark.

As to the content of his over stepping the mark I believe the difference in in-service dates, for the new submarines, between the leaked draft and the just released DWP would the difference between ordering a minimum change Japan built MOTS Soryu twelve or more months ago and ordering a composite, or Australian built, evolved design at the conclusion of the competitive evaluation process. I fear that Tony, like many senior managers (in politics, business and government) of his generation, heard what he wanted to hear, remembered what he wanted to remember, took the best case scenario of a MOTS build in Japan, without any evaluation, as gospel. This 2026/7 date becomes 2020, the early 2030s becomes anything up to 2040, hence decades later than when he was running the show, while completely ignoring the fact that the"Competitive Evaluation" he pulled out of his backside to save his own skin, alone, added more than a year to the program as well as the changing economic situation with the dropping dollar making an overseas build much much more expensive.

Richo99 said:

Unfortunately I dont think the Vs will get a run in this overly PC world we live in. Both Vendetta and Vengeance will be seen as unacceptable ie suggestive of law breaking, and Voyagers' unfortunate and controversial fate I think rules this name out as well. Very unfortunate as these are great names with great history.

Rivers, bays, towns in some form I think are the most likely names for the OPVs.

Click to expand...

We could use words such as
Valour
Vigilance
Valiant
Vigour
Victorious
- Taking a page out of the Singaporean Victory class corvettes' names.

Joe Black said:

We could use words such as
Valour
Vigilance
Valiant
Vigour
Victorious
- Taking a page out of the Singaporean Victory class corvettes' names.

Click to expand...

Doubt we would use the same names as the RN use, and Victorous and Vigilant is used for the SSBNs. I really think the modern RAN will stay away from the alphabet naming. Also(please correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't the GG sign off on names and with General Cosgrove currently in that position he might have more say than would normally be the case though probably only for the OPVs during his term.

The Subs are the ones that will be most intriging, will they continue the new tradition of naming them after leading figures of RANs history. Great idea but do we have 6-8 more figures deserving of that honour.

Joe Black said:

But having said that, new subs in 2030s? Really? Does it really take that long? I am starting to think that it would be far easier to just buy a few Virginia's from the US or Astutes from the UK.... sigh.

Singaporean Type 218s will be really old boats by the time we get our first new sub.

Click to expand...

Subs will be fine Joe, I was referencing the LCH replacements omitted from the IPP

Redlands18 said:

The Anzac will be 30yo when she is replaced by the "Melbourne*" in the mid 20s and with the promise of a continuous build, the later Anzacs could be a bit long in the tooth by the time they are replaced but there are a few poorer Navies that would take them ie : the Phillipines. The Kiwis would probably strip a couple for spare parts.

* my fearless prediction for 1st of class.

Click to expand...

There soon will be no commonality between your RAN ANZAC and RNZN our upgrade programme is already into phase 2:

Phase One. Completed 2011

Replacement of the ship’s Propulsion Diesel Engines. The new engines are more efficient and more powerful than the diesels they replace.
Relocation of compartments within the ship. Creating more space within the ship by relocating compartments and enclosing part of the quarterdeck.
Improvements to ship’s stability.

Phase Two. 2013 - 2014

Improvements to Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning systems to enable the ships to operate better in hot climates.
Installation of an Integrated Platform Management System to provide computerised control of the ships propulsion and engineering systems.
Upgrade of Damage Control Systems.

with phase 3 about to kick off for the Combat systems it won't be worth it buying your hand me downs for spares at all imo.

CD

Redlands18 said:

Doubt we would use the same names as the RN use, and Victorous and Vigilant is used for the SSBNs. I really think the modern RAN will stay away from the alphabet naming. Also(please correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't the GG sign off on names and with General Cosgrove currently in that position he might have more say than would normally be the case though probably only for the OPVs during his term.

The Subs are the ones that will be most intriging, will they continue the new tradition of naming them after leading figures of RANs history. Great idea but do we have 6-8 more figures deserving of that honour.

Click to expand...

Follow our British friends.

They have HMS Artful.

Surely we could find room for The Dodger?

Joe Black said:

We could use words such as
Valour
Vigilance
Valiant
Vigour
Victorious
- Taking a page out of the Singaporean Victory class corvettes' names.

Click to expand...

How about:
Kimberley (Boers War, also an Australian small town too)
Tianjin (Boxer rebel)
Gallipoli
Rabaul (for WWI New Guinea)
Cocos Island (for sinking of Emden)
Rufiji (East Africa campaign)
Coral Sea
Guadalcanal
Borneo (for both WWII and the confrontation)
Inchon
Vung tau
Al Faw (the 5 inch friday)

By the way, there is a new video inside one of the newest Japanese Soryu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWkiiCcKKvQ&feature=youtu.be

Volkodav said:

As to the content of his over stepping the mark I believe the difference in in-service dates, for the new submarines, between the leaked draft and the just released DWP would the difference between ordering a minimum change Japan built MOTS Soryu twelve or more months ago and ordering a composite, or Australian built, evolved design at the conclusion of the competitive evaluation process. I fear that Tony, like many senior managers (in politics, business and government) of his generation, heard what he wanted to hear, remembered what he wanted to remember, took the best case scenario of a MOTS build in Japan, without any evaluation, as gospel. This 2026/7 date becomes 2020, the early 2030s becomes anything up to 2040, hence decades later than when he was running the show, while completely ignoring the fact that the"Competitive Evaluation" he pulled out of his backside to save his own skin, alone, added more than a year to the program as well as the changing economic situation with the dropping dollar making an overseas build much much more expensive.

Click to expand...

I'd bet london to a brick that no public servant or uniform has leaked the draft
note that ministerial staff are not public servants
note that ministers are not subjected to the same security checks

its more likely to have come from the above as they don't appear to understand that drafts are meaningless - and the former know full well the implications of releasing NSC docs without authority

in my decades of public service experience I always found that it was ministers and their staff who thought they didn't need to answer to anyone or abide by the rules

interesting to see that Sheridan was almost hyperventilating defending what happened.

politicians, journos and lawyers, you gotta love them

gf0012-aust said:

politicians, journos and lawyers, you gotta love them

Click to expand...

No, No and Hell No......

gf0012-aust said:

I'd bet london to a brick that no public servant or uniform has leaked the draft
note that ministerial staff are not public servants
note that ministers are not subjected to the same security checks

its more likely to have come from the above as they don't appear to understand that drafts are meaningless - and the former know full well the implications of releasing NSC docs without authority

in my decades of public service experience I always found that it was ministers and their staff who thought they didn't need to answer to anyone or abide by the rules

interesting to see that Sheridan was almost hyperventilating defending what happened.

politicians, journos and lawyers, you gotta love them

Click to expand...

Yep, spot on, I would only add that there are a very small number of quite partisan public servants who have been beamed into very specific public service jobs, usually EL1s to do a very specific job with their aspirations being anything but being a career public servant.

That said I believe this case bares great similarity to how Tones became leader in the first place, backstabbing, destabilising, strategic leaking, setting up the incumbent to look bad . He is definitely more at home knifing his way to the top than leading, he's just not so good when he's expected to do something productive.

Volkodav said:

That said I believe this case bares great similarity to how Tones became leader in the first place, backstabbing, destabilising, strategic leaking, setting up the incumbent to look bad . He is definitely as home knifing his way to the top, he's just not so good when he's expected to lead and do something productive.

Click to expand...

I note Dennis Richardson has shutdown the offerings - and he is highly regarded across all parties due to the breadth of his actual relevant experience.

Thats why Ministers have chiefs of staff to help ensure that they don't say too many stupid things - maybe when they become backbenchers they should let them keep at least one snr staff member to continue that role - although in Abbotts case he inherits the ability to retain staff until he carks it.

meanwhile, more unwanted attention gets applied to subs when this is the time to reset the clock and have sensible debate.

Sub hyperventilation.
PM Agenda had ex Defmin Johnston, new Defence Material bloke Dan Tehan? And ASPIs Andrew Davies commenting this pm.
Firstly, Johnston was reasonable until he got to the adequacy of the Collins when he displayed all the reasons that got him sacked eg yes they are very fragile and still, no more than 2 are ever serviceable. Disregard him
Dan Tehan, been in the job 2 weeks and not much to say but parrot CDF.
Andrew Davies had his finger on the pulse and corrected the misinformation re Collins and the timeline for acquisition. Stated emphatically the the Coles reforms had remedied much of the sustainment mismanagement of Collins and yes they could easily be life extended as their hulls have not done a lot and as of last week there were 5 subs at sea.
Really over unintelligent hyperventilating from ignorant polices and journos who make no effort to check facts and comment on what they have clearly no idea.

We should call the first sub HMAS Bob Brown, it can poke around the ocean and save the whales.

ASSAIL said:

Really over unintelligent hyperventilating from ignorant polices and journos who make no effort to check facts and comment on what they have clearly no idea.

Click to expand...

damn shame that journos and pollies haven't absorbed that

still, could be worse, Conroy could have commented and fumbled over his bottom lip in the rush to look like he knew what subs were and why we have them

/sarcasm off

Sheridan was so intent on protecting the integrity of his work that you could almost form the view that he was protecting his source too much

"the lady doth protest too much" and all that......