Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

hauritz said:

The Canadians never seem to be all that forthcoming with this sort of info but the Cantabria and Berlin classes were the final shortlisted designs.

While I haven't been able to find any details on the Navantia proposal the Protecteur class seems to offer more capability than the standard Berlin. I would be the first to admit these claims seem pretty dodgy ... and yes it is a wikipedia page.

Click to expand...

What happened to the 1000+ lane metres? Have the Berlins been changed to accomodate that requirement?
AFAIK the RCN competition was for an AOR, if that’s the case Cantabria makes perfect sense but convert either design to carry many vehicles and you destroy the liquid cargo capability.

ASSAIL said:

I’m not sure why Navantia would even want to provide such a conversion when more suitable option are around.
Cantabria is too narrow, she has a centreline single shaft and it would take heroic re-engineering to make an unsuitable JSS.
Do you have any references as to Canada’s request to them and if you doi would question the competence of those requesting.

Click to expand...

The JSS ship envisioned by the RCN back in the late 1990s saw a preliminary design concept in early 2000-1 I believe and the estimated cost was far in access of want the Chrétien government was willing to fund. The next 15 years was spent finding a design that could be Canadianized for a reasonable cost and our "procurement specialists" came up with Berlins that are estimated at close to 2 billion per ship, about the same cost as the original JSS that RCN wanted.....only in Canada. We are getting AORs, not JSS.

The JSS and the Oz amphib acquisition projects started off very similar, but diverged. I remember the phrase Big Honking Ship was coined around the time the JSS really split away from the amphibious capability. The Canadian amphibious project died, but not before it had removed the major amphibious elements from the JSS project.
A New ‘Big Honking Ship’: Why Canada Should Procure an Amphibious Assault Ship (Part I/V)

Australia seems to really be pushing its engagement taskforce, with its LHD, AOR and two surface escorts, just having visited Sri Lanka and is now in India. So Australia seems to really be utilizing the softer power of the RAN current fleet capability to its benefit. We can get our feet in the door with a lot of our neighbors (which are quite far away, India, Solomon Islands, show them real tangible, useful capability, describe to them how we can help them and maybe they might want to embark some capability on our taskforce the following year when we go sailing. Winning friends and influence. The amphibious ships are key to the whole cohesiveness of the Asia Pacific diplomacy.

You can't do that with just an AOR. Or just a surface ship.

Here is some footage from Ausindex 2019 which IndoPacific 2019 tf has joined.

AUSINDEX 2019 is the most complex iteration to date, focusing on anti-submarine warfare and tactical maritime manoeuvre. HMAS Canberra, a Canberra-Class Landing Helicopter Dock, is the flagship of the task group, and is joined by HMA Ships Success, Newcastle and Parramatta, and embarked MH-60R maritime combat helicopters and MRH-90 maritime support helicopters. The submarine, HMAS Collins, and a Royal Australian Air Force P8-A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft have joined the Task Group for AUSINDEX.

Click to expand...

We can conduct this at the same time as sending a contingent to China's Fleet review. Timing of which I doubt is and accident. Nor is the language about rules based order used in the video.

Traveller said:

In relation to points and questions in this thread I found a series reflecting on naval logistics from the Army perspective. Given part of the logistics demand is to support Army, I thought it pertinent to post the links.

A three part Army perspective:

Support from the Sea: Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship – why it really matters to Army - Part 1 - Lieutenant Colonel Mick O'Sullivan | Australian Army

Support from the Sea: Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship – why it really matters to Army - Part 2 - Lieutenant Colonel Mick O'Sullivan | Australian Army

Support from the Sea: Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship – why it really matters to Army - Part 3 | Australian Army

Click to expand...

There are many options as to how the RAN could satisfy support from the Sea for Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship
The HNLMS Karel Doorman is one option and it does have appeal.
However!
Maybe the starting point is, how many in total ship numbers will the RAN need to conduct the above.
As things stand we have a fleet of five - Two Canberra class LHD's, HMAS Choules and two supply ships.
We can talk about a pacific support ship and a speculated Amphibious / supply ship for the 2020's but realistically these may well come to naught.
In my opinion, until we can settle on a minimum number for the long term it is difficult to know what to select.
Total numbers will dictate weather we will need flexible ships or specialised ships to fulfil, both the range of Amphibious / Supply tasks, and also provide the desired availability to do the job.
For Amphibious tasking and supply / logistical support are we looking at a navy of TWO's ,THREE's or something else?
Whatever we select, I'd suggest 5 hulls will not do the job.

Thoughts

Regards S.

Stampede, In the bigger picture I ask myself why we need sealift, amphib or topic related, long range heavy lift aviation. Unless we are headed down an expeditionary force capability, do we need them? (PS: I'm an ex-grunt so naval stuff is not my forte...)

Traveller said:

Stampede, In the bigger picture I ask myself why we need sealift, amphib or topic related, long range heavy lift aviation. Unless we are headed down an expeditionary force capability, do we need them? (PS: I'm an ex-grunt so naval stuff is not my forte...)

Click to expand...

Being an ex grunt, ask yourself where have all of Australian wars been: in Australia? If your answer is yes, report to your RSM for remedial training and education. All Australian wars have been in parts foreign. Yes in 1942 the Nipponese got real close and directly attacked Australian soil, but the ADF have always been expeditionary forces because they've had to travel by ship and later air to war. It's just in recent times that the Australian govt have finally accepted that they have to actually provide their forces with such capabilities.

ngatimozart, you are factually correct, however as part of the Commonwealth there was a 'duty' to the 'mother country'. So we bled in Africa; the near east and Europe to name the majors. Post-WWII Australia has increasingly re-aligned to the Americans. Our deployments became coalitions with American foreign policy in action.

My question is whether or not it is in the Australian national interest to replicate a USMC MEU to satisfy Australian defence needs? The thread is about fleet composition with differing views, all valid given the underlying view on forward projection. I'm going the other way and suggesting that we need a fleet that is structured to meet Australian needs versus being a part of someone else's coalition.

Traveller said:

Stampede, In the bigger picture I ask myself why we need sealift, amphib or topic related, long range heavy lift aviation. Unless we are headed down an expeditionary force capability, do we need them? (PS: I'm an ex-grunt so naval stuff is not my forte...)

Click to expand...

As you have joined this forum you obviously are interested in all things so the best advice I can give is to read through the Australian Defence White Paper 2016 and you will find your question answered in detail.
http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Docs/2016-Defence-White-Paper.pdf

However the short version is that Australian Defence Policy and capabilities are guided by “Strategic Interests” and “Strategic Objectives”
Some of these derived from the lessons learned during the Timor L’Este campaign where our amphibious and sealift capabilities were found wanting to the extent that if the landings were opposed we probably would not have succeeded in landing and supplying a useable force.
Of most relevance is the “Second Strategic Defence Interest” which is in a secure nearer region encompassing SE Asia and the South Pacific.
The “Strategic Defence Objective” is to support the security of maritime SE Asia and support the governments of PNG, Timor L’Este and the Pacific Island countries
Given that PNG is on the cusp of becoming a “failed state” you can assume that the ADF will be used to prevent any insurgency or unrest resulting and that countries geography will demand a huge sealift effort.

Finally, the result of building a regionally superior ADF capable of independent combat operations to defend our region of interest it also follows that such a force enhances our ability to contribute to global operations.

(I’ve paraphrased some of the wording from the DWP)

Thanks ASSAIL, I will endeavour to take a crack at the linked 2016 White Paper. Cheers.
t

Traveller said:

Thanks ASSAIL, I will endeavour to take a crack at the linked 2016 White Paper. Cheers.
t

Click to expand...

Hi Traveller I think others have answered your question.
I do remember decades ago when we started building HMAS Tobruk thinking what do we need that for?
Really, why does our Navy need such a ship.
Over the subsequent decades, research and observation have very much confirmed for myself, that as a large maritime nation amphibious assets are very much part of our defence kit bag.
I think all three services today appreciate our amphibious fleet and trust you come to the same conclusion.
Thanks for engaging

Regards s

Stampede said:

There are many options as to how the RAN could satisfy support from the Sea for Replenishment, sea-lift, amphibious or logistic support ship
The HNLMS Karel Doorman is one option and it does have appeal.
However!
Maybe the starting point is, how many in total ship numbers will the RAN need to conduct the above.
As things stand we have a fleet of five - Two Canberra class LHD's, HMAS Choules and two supply ships.
We can talk about a pacific support ship and a speculated Amphibious / supply ship for the 2020's but realistically these may well come to naught.
In my opinion, until we can settle on a minimum number for the long term it is difficult to know what to select.
Total numbers will dictate weather we will need flexible ships or specialised ships to fulfil, both the range of Amphibious / Supply tasks, and also provide the desired availability to do the job.
For Amphibious tasking and supply / logistical support are we looking at a navy of TWO's ,THREE's or something else?
Whatever we select, I'd suggest 5 hulls will not do the job.

Thoughts

Regards S.

Click to expand...

That is a part of my reasoning a couple posts back in regards to an extra AOR and LPD/Logistics ship or 2 x Karel Doorman type ships (JSS). With the policy of having a two fleet navy you have to have at a minimum 2 ships of each type to support each fleet. My thinking on the extra ships would have been to have a back up for either fleet in the event the respective asset that fleet was unavailable which has happened at times.

That said not saying it would be our best use of resources of achievable but I imagine the best fleet possible for us would be 2 - 3 AOR's, 2 LHD's, 1 - 2 JSS and a logistics ship (Would imagine a military spec ship purchased from SK would be financially doable). Have come around to Volks view that increased logistics is needed to be self sufficient in sustaining larger deployed forces but disagree that such a capability should be acquired as a direct replacement for HMAS Choules as such a vessel does do well in the smaller operations in the Pacific that one of the Canberra's is over kill for or unavailable.

Apologies to admins and mod's for small 'fantasy' fleet listing, Please dont slap me

vonnoobie said:

That is a part of my reasoning a couple posts back in regards to an extra AOR and LPD/Logistics ship or 2 x Karel Doorman type ships (JSS). With the policy of having a two fleet navy you have to have at a minimum 2 ships of each type to support each fleet. My thinking on the extra ships would have been to have a back up for either fleet in the event the respective asset that fleet was unavailable which has happened at times.

That said not saying it would be our best use of resources of achievable but I imagine the best fleet possible for us would be 2 - 3 AOR's, 2 LHD's, 1 - 2 JSS and a logistics ship (Would imagine a military spec ship purchased from SK would be financially doable). Have come around to Volks view that increased logistics is needed to be self sufficient in sustaining larger deployed forces but disagree that such a capability should be acquired as a direct replacement for HMAS Choules as such a vessel does do well in the smaller operations in the Pacific that one of the Canberra's is over kill for or unavailable.

Apologies to admins and mod's for small 'fantasy' fleet listing, Please dont slap me

Click to expand...

I think you have to be careful when promoting us as a “two fleet” Navy because we aren’t.
We have ships stationed in two places but you need to take note of function.
We have an amphibious capability that is based close to where the troops are based with a capability to deploy and load at short notice.
We hav3 an Hydrographic capability based close to where the majority of their effort is performed and we have a Minewarfare capability based in Sydney which I would argue is illogical but historical..........
So we have this dispersed major unit fleet which has more to do with sustainment than with any strategic plan although I don’t argue that a western presence has no strategic value, simply that the basing has nothing to do with duplicating a functioning fleet.

The more I read about the Karel Doorman the more I like the idea as a focused cross-service Army/Navy asset, but given the current Australian defense manpower & budget issues, a factor that been left out of the discussion/equation is 150 per/Ship crew, + 150 Non-ship each ship (Helicopter, medical, army), + 2 medium helicopters per/Ship, + 2 landing craft per/Ship, that are most likely a whole new class that is bigger than a LCM-1E ie max limit of say 30 tons to carry 2 x M1A1 per trip.

In short great idea but where did they get the money and manpower for that?

Sideline said:

The more I read about the Karel Doorman the more I like the idea as a focused cross-service Army/Navy asset, but given the current Australian defense manpower & budget issues, a factor that been left out of the discussion/equation is 150 per/Ship crew, + 150 Non-ship each ship (Helicopter, medical, army), + 2 medium helicopters per/Ship, + 2 landing craft per/Ship, that are most likely a whole new class that is bigger than a LCM-1E ie max limit of say 30 tons to carry 2 x M1A1 per trip.

In short great idea but where did they get the money and manpower for that?

Click to expand...

There is a spot in the DWP/IIP for either another AOR or a Amphibious Ship so it is budgeted and planned for, possibly will replace Choules so the Landing Craft and Helicopters are already accounted for if we go down that path. A Karel Doorman Type Ship would be able to both Jobs to some extant.

We will just have to wait and see what happens, possibilities include another AOR, or a LPD, a Karel Doorman Type or something else entirely including keeping the Choules in service or I wouldn’t be surprised if we went another way and got genuine replacements for the LCHs. Not forgetting the longer the time passes since the 2016 DWP/IIP the more likely we will see changes to that plan as new Leadership in both Government and Defence take over and our Strategic circumstances never sits still for long.

Sideline said:

The more I read about the Karel Doorman the more I like the idea as a focused cross-service Army/Navy asset, but given the current Australian defense manpower & budget issues, a factor that been left out of the discussion/equation is 150 per/Ship crew, + 150 Non-ship each ship (Helicopter, medical, army), + 2 medium helicopters per/Ship, + 2 landing craft per/Ship, that are most likely a whole new class that is bigger than a LCM-1E ie max limit of say 30 tons to carry 2 x M1A1 per trip.

In short great idea but where did they get the money and manpower for that?

Click to expand...

Actually I am the opposite. The more I read about the Karel Doorman the less I like the idea of this sort of ship.

In the short term, I would prefer a third Supply class. There is little doubt in my mind that we need a third AOR and we know the capabilities and costs of this ship. It is the lowest risk option.

In the longer term we can look at the options available for replacing the Choules.

Sideline said:

... + 2 landing craft per/Ship, that are most likely a whole new class that is bigger than a LCM-1E ie max limit of say 30 tons to carry 2 x M1A1 per trip.

Click to expand...

Except that this class does not have docking wells and the landing craft that can actually be carried are limited to LCVP size. Larger landing craft can use the stern beach but would need to be transported to the area of operations in other ships (e.g. LHD or LSD).

The JSS would make a useful complement to the LHDs but, IMO, the lack of a dock for larger landing craft limits its capacity to operate independently when docking facilities are unavailable.

Tas

Im starting to think there is no real perfect answer for us. We need increased logistics, lane meters, refueling and a well dock/deck large enough to support our LCM-1E's or similar if we want said ship to be able to operate independently if needed and so far all of this under the current DWP for a single ship. Not saying all of that will be in the one ship but those are items that a strong case could made for each and every one so its either we work out what is needed more, increase the number of ships or build something that by the time we fit all that would be approaching 50,000 tons.

This is where a third AOR ordered from Spain right now, A modified container ship with Ro/Ro capability from SK and a hand full of LST's from Damen would come in handy right now. Would solve everything with out breaking the bank.

Being proactive in a realistic way, Has the Government and ADF ever thought about a similar concept to what the RFA has done with her Point class Ro/Ro's? Off hand Tasmania has always wanted and needed extra shipping across the Bass strait and even between Australia and NZ wouldnt go a miss. Hand full of Ro/Ro's and a container ship or two ADF owned but leased out for such services as is done with the Point class would mean we have such ships available should we ever truly need that capability.

I don't know if this vapor or not but after reading vonnoobie's post RE:

vonnoobie said:

what the RFA has done with her Point class Ro/Ro's?

Click to expand...

this came up when I searched the point class

On 11 February, Britains Defence SecretaryGavin Williamson announced a whole range of new initiatives, the most dramatic of which were new littoral strike ships.First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Philip Jones followed up with a tweet showing an artist’s impression of the new vessels. The new littoral strike ships will be able to command an assault force rather than just transporting it, and they would carry equipment ranging from helicopters and fast boats to unmanned underwater vehicles. Plus, of course, large numbers of troops. Some commentators immediately noticed how similar the ship looked to both the American MV Ocean Trader and the UK’s own Point-class sealift ships.



http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/MSS.jpg

Royal Navy Wants Amphibious Ships That Looks Just Like Secretive U.S. Spec Ops Mothership

Navy's Stealthiest Warship May Be a Merchant Vessel

hauritz said:

Actually I am the opposite. The more I read about the Karel Doorman the less I like the idea of this sort of ship.

In the short term, I would prefer a third Supply class. There is little doubt in my mind that we need a third AOR and we know the capabilities and costs of this ship. It is the lowest risk option.

In the longer term we can look at the options available for replacing the Choules.

Click to expand...

The question stands
Can we have an amphibious / supply / logistics fleet greater than the current group of five ships.
I don't think it is so much about need, as I feel a strong case could be answered for additions across all of the in service ships.
It's probably more to do with budget and priorities across defence.
Maybe the cheapest way forward is to maintain HMAS Sirius in service when we get the two new Cantabria supply ships for a total fleet of three.
Sirius has a relatively small crew and while not as capable as the new ships will certainly provide some options to the fleet.
Maybe a relatively cheap short term solution to build up total numbers to six.
As to the late 2020's who knows.

Regards S

https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...oXoywC1LbOIrPyrY7qthVHzgx9aHZackpNbUvWzkIwcvo

About halfway down it says the Hunter Class will have 48 Mk 41 missile cells. It's the first time I've read a definite number.