RAN News [Archive] - The Fifth Column

buglerbilly

10-07-10, 12:27 PM

NEWS RELEASE

On the web: http://www.dsca.mil Media/Public Contact: (703) 601-3859

Transmittal No. 10-37

Australia – MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters

WASHINGTON, July 9, 2010 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress July 7 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of 24 MH-60R SEAHAWK Multi-Mission Helicopters and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.1 billion.

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 24 MH-60R SEAHAWK Multi-Mission Helicopters, 60 T-700 GE 401C Engines (48 installed and 12 spares), communication equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services. The estimated cost is $2.1 billion.

Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia’s efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan have served U.S. national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.

The proposed sale of the MH-60R SEAHAWK helicopters will improve Australia’s anti-submarine and surface warfare capability and provide an improved search and rescue and anti-ship surveillance capability. Australia will also use the enhanced capability in future contingency operations encompassing humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and stability operations in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing these additional helicopters into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors are Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation in Stratford, Connecticut, Lockheed Martin in Owego, New York, General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts, and Raytheon Corporation in Portsmouth, Rhode Island. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of ten contractor representatives to Australia to support delivery of the MH-60R helicopters.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

SteveJH

10-07-10, 08:10 PM

Wonder how many years support the $2.1 Billion would include.

Deks

12-07-10, 02:55 AM

I wonder if that means it'll be purchased without competition. Given the required timetable and the low-risk nature of the MH-60R, I wouldn't be surprised.

Trackmaster

12-07-10, 04:11 AM

There is a competition underway, but I should imagine the engine problems that have grounded the MRH-90's would not be helping the European offer.

tiddles

12-07-10, 04:13 AM

I wonder if that means it'll be purchased without competition. Given the required timetable and the low-risk nature of the MH-60R, I wouldn't be surprised.
From most of the info I have read on this matter i thought a competition [2 way] was definately required, the proposal did say "possible sale" anyhow my own opinion is that the MH60R is the best bet & I think many others [not all] felt the same on other threads regarding this matter.
Tiddles

JimWH

12-07-10, 04:37 AM

The FMS application needs to be lodged in advance of the decision on the helicopter. There is still a competition underway, and this doesn't hint at anything, one way or the other. It does however tell us that you can buy 24 MH-60R for US$2.1bn with 60 engines, which is really fairly cheap. Be interesting to see what the total package comes to (i.e. the aircraft plus the spares and support) and how that compares to the NH-90 NFH.

Gubler, A.

12-07-10, 08:07 AM

Milne Bay

12-07-10, 10:22 AM

The Government first pass decision announced earlier this year (in the budget from memory) was quite specific: competition between a commercial offer from Australian Aerospace (NH-90 NFH) and an FMS offer from the US Navy (MH-60R). The DSCA Congressional announcement is part and parcel of the FMS requirement. Right now AusAero will be sweeting dollops hoping they can offer the NH-90 to the RAN’s spec (including TLS) for less than USD 2 billion. It would appear from their public relations efforts that the only way they can do this is to offer less than 24 helicopters, claiming they can meet the RAN’s needs with less.

Of course they may present the case that the NH-90 NFH will be assembled in Australia with all of the associated benefits to Australian employment and the economy as well.
There is also the substantial/partial (?) commonality with the NH-90's already being introduced into service.
This would possibly justify a higher price tag because of the side benefits.
Interesting.
When is a decision due?
MB

buglerbilly

22-07-10, 08:00 AM

DATE:22/07/10

SOURCE:Flight Daily News

Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky to submit Australia MH60R proposal

By Siva Govindasamy

The Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky team will submit its proposal for Australia's multi-mission helicopter requirement on Friday, and expects a decision to be made in the first quarter of 2011.

Their MH-60R is up against the NH Industries NH-90 in the 24-helicopter requirement, which is estimated to cost up to $2.1 billion. "We are very confident about our chances in this competition," says Leonard Wengler, vice-president for navy programmes at Sikorsky.

There is a little more uncertainty about India's naval helicopters competition. The MH-60R team submitted their proposal more than a year ago, but there has been no news since from New Delhi and it is still not clear if the requirement exists. The helicopter is up against the NH-90 there as well.

South Korea and the United Arab Emirates have submitted a letter of request for the MH-60R, while Denmark is expected to shortly begin a search to fulfill its requirement for naval multi-mission helicopters.

SteveJH

29-07-10, 06:42 PM

Currently an ANZAC class frigate in the floating forgnac dock up here.

All the sides of the ship have been covered in shade cloth where they protrude above the walls of the dock.

buglerbilly

08-09-10, 03:14 PM

HMAS Melbourne Commences Operations in the Gulf

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued September 8, 2010)

The first of the newly upgraded Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigates (FFG), HMAS Melbourne, has commenced maritime security operations in the Middle East, replacing the ANZAC Class Frigate (FFH) HMAS Parramatta.

HMAS Melbourne, now under the command of Commander Michael Harris, with an embarked Ship’s Company of 230, returns to the Middle East following previous missions in 2002 and 2004. She now boasts new missile and torpedo systems as part of the extensive capability enhancements provided by the FFG upgrade project.

Chief of Joint Operations, Lieutenant General Mark Evans, said that the men and women of the Royal Australian Navy provide essential naval support to coalition maritime security operations and the international effort to counter terrorism and piracy in the region.

“The work that our Navy people do is vital in strengthening maritime security in the Gulf of Aden and the environment around the Horn of Africa, and I have no doubt that the ship’s company of HMAS Melbourne will rise to the challenge and continue the good work already completed by HMAS Parramatta,” Lieutenant General Evans said.

Parramatta, commanded by Commander Heath Robertson, completed a successful six month rotation of maritime security operations and will return to her home base in Sydney next week.

Melbourne’s Operation SLIPPER deployment is the 24th to the Middle East Area of Operations undertaken by a ship of the Australian Navy.

-ends-

buglerbilly

27-09-10, 03:17 PM

HMA Ships Manoora and Kanimbla Alongside for Maintenance

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Sept. 27, 2010)

Information provided to the Chief of Navy by the Landing Platform Amphibious (LPA) Sea Worthiness Board, an independent body that provides robust governance advice to the Chief of Navy, about platform sea-worthiness and potential risks associated with operating the ship class has resulted in an “operational pause” being initiated for the Navy’s two LPAs, HMA Ships Manoora and Kanimbla.

The Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Crane AO, CSM, RAN, said while the decision to keep both ships alongside is precautionary, the safety of those on board must come first.

“Our LPAs are a key element of Navy capability, but if their operation has potential to impact on safety then this must be addressed quickly and openly,” VADM Crane said.

Specialist engineers and the Navy’s Sea Training Group will now carry out a closer inspection of each ship’s engineering systems, maintenance arrangements and general condition, to ensure that they can be operated safely and effectively to meet national requirements.

“We will make every effort to get both ships back to sea as soon as possible,” Vice Admiral Crane said. “But we won’t be cutting corners. While I acknowledge the significant effort to improve the state of the LPAs during 2010, the ships will now remain alongside until I am convinced potential problems highlighted by the LPA Sea-Worthiness Board have been addressed.”

The operational pause is not related to the recent small fire on board HMAS Kanimbla. That incident remains under separate investigation.

HMA Ships Manoora and Kanimbla will remain alongside in Sydney until given the all clear.

-ends-

Raven22

27-09-10, 04:59 PM

Hmmn, that could put a dent in the plans for Ex HAMEL. How are we supposed to go across the beach now?

ARH v.3.1

27-09-10, 05:44 PM

Swim.

Milne Bay

27-09-10, 11:19 PM

Raven22

28-09-10, 01:36 AM

Swim.

'Tis very hard to swim with a 15 tonne armoured vehicle under your arm.

buglerbilly

28-09-10, 02:50 AM

These two ships have been the real workhorses of the RAN since they were introduced.
While they have been invaluable to the Navy and the ADF generally, they are, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere, running on a wing and a prayer.
The new LHD's are desperately needed as the LPA's are virtually worn out.
They could be alongside for a very long time.
MB

All the more reason to pick up one of the BAY class LPD's that are bound to be disposed of by the Brits..................available immediately, low mileage, heaps of seatime left before the next major overhaul, covers all of our basic needs:thumbsup

Gubler, A.

28-09-10, 03:26 AM

The solution to the problem is to have never brought the LPAs in the first place. If the Government had ordered a THSS (ie new build LPD) in 93 when they should have it could have been available for East Timor, provided a lot more capability and provided a much more useful life than 10 years. It could have also provided a basis for a class of three ships acquired during 2000-10 rather than waiting for 2 LHDs in 2012-15. The LPA is clealty better than nothing but was always a not much from worst option for this capability. Of course the initial decision in 93 was based on spending less money which resulted in more money having to be spent and less capability delivered a lot later than when really needed.

Interestingly five years ago I spoke to the CO of Tobruk who laughed at the idea that the Rat would be first amphib to decomission as the LHDs were delivered. He said there was a lot more life in his ship than the LPAs and it was better suited to the sealift role anyway.

ADMk2

28-09-10, 04:16 AM

Interestingly five years ago I spoke to the CO of Tobruk who laughed at the idea that the Rat would be first amphib to decomission as the LHDs were delivered. He said there was a lot more life in his ship than the LPAs and it was better suited to the sealift role anyway.

I hope so. It's our only available Amphib at the moment, from the sounds of things!!! Though no doubt Kanimbla or Manoora could be put to sea if something critical came up...

Milne Bay

28-09-10, 06:17 AM

! Though no doubt Kanimbla or Manoora could be put to sea if something critical came up...

Maybe not.
There have been numerous times when these have put to sea over the last few years, only to have to return to port because of failures.
If a Bay class is available we could do worse than retire the two LPA's and replace with one Bay class.
This could continue to serve after the two LHD's are commissioned, as a third transport ship is supposed to be acquired in any case.

JimWH

28-09-10, 06:34 AM

I heard a story/rumour last week from a colleague from my battalion which in turn got to him from a friend in DMO. Basically, the story is that whilst getting ready to put to sea last week (Tuesday I think) one of the LPA lost power in the middle of Sydney harbour and had to calls tugs before she went aground on Middle Head. At any rate, I'd guess that's why they're both alongside at the moment: work out what went wrong and tr and fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
One way or the other, it's going to be jolly interesting to nurse the 'phibs through the next few years. Even if one of the Bays become available after SDSR (I don't think they will be sold off, though I've been wrong about these things in the past) we still need the LPA's for their command suites and helicopter facilities. Perhaps if things are as bad as they seem like they might be, then JP2048P4C (the sea lift ship) can be fast-tracked to run alongside the existing ships. The idea would be to do whatever jobs can be done by a lean-manned sealift ship*, and save as much sea-time from the LPAs and LSH to be used for situations which need C4ISR. The older phib's would then start decommissioning as LHD approach readiness (i.e. to keep manning leevels in check) leaving the expected 2+1 fleet structure at the end.

------
*The Bays have a crew of about 60, so running a ship with this kind of compliment should be possible at the same time as manning the LSH and LPAs.

Unicorn

28-09-10, 12:52 PM

Sod the Bays, latest word out of the UK suggests Albion or Bulwark may well be up for sale in the near future.

Much is being sacrificed to maintain the two carriers.

Unicorn

JimWH

28-09-10, 12:56 PM

I think anyone who claims to know what is going to happen with SDSR is probably lying. I've heard rumours and arguments regarding Ocean, the Albians, and the Bays. I think it's safer to wait till the damn thing is published.

Chunder

28-09-10, 03:38 PM

Sod the Bays, latest word out of the UK suggests Albion or Bulwark may well be up for sale in the near future.

Much is being sacrificed to maintain the two carriers.

Unicorn

Pigs might fly too... excuse the pun.

buglerbilly

28-09-10, 04:14 PM

Sod the Bays, latest word out of the UK suggests Albion or Bulwark may well be up for sale in the near future.

Much is being sacrificed to maintain the two carriers.

Unicorn

With respect to the Rumour Monger..........Albion and Bulwark have the Amphib Command and Control centres that are worth more than the vessels themselves as far as Military effect is concerned. The Bays are Amphib Freighters, nothing more sophisticated than that.

Unicorn

30-09-10, 12:23 PM

I wasn't suggesting they would sell Albion or Bulwark instead of the Bays, I was suggesting that news out of the UK explores the possibility of selling Albion or Bulwark, plus some of the Bays.

Stupid politicians.

Unicorn

JimWH

30-09-10, 12:52 PM

Of the three classes of 'phibs in service, I'd actually think Ocean is most vulnerable. Her role at the present is important, but there other ships which can fill it if needs be, and decomming her now(ish) to be replaced (in capability terms) by CVF in about 5 years time is no worse of a 'gap in capabilities' than retiring SHAR was (which is seeming increasingly like it was the right choice).
And in the same vein, Ocean would have both a pretty good resale price and a semi-decent market to see to. Both India and Brazil may be interested in a ship with Ocean's capabilities, and there are perhaps half a dozen others who might consider buying a ship with the crew of a frigate but the ability to embark a couple of dozen helicopters. I don't know that there would be anything like that market for the Albions (which are quite specialised after all) or the Bays (you can build new ships of that type for not very much).

Just some thoughts. I guess we'll all know one way or the other in a month. For the record I don't think the 'phib fleet will be cut, though putting 1-3 ships in extended readiness till finances improve strikes me as a distinct possibility.

Gubler, A.

30-09-10, 01:01 PM

Ocean would be a good buy for the RAN if it was available ASAP as a gap fill Super Hornet style between broken down LPAs and the LHDs. As to the wisdom of retiring the SHARs that is only if the RN doesn't face an air threat. Which is why they've kept them in store and not flogged them to India so they could be rapidly brought back into service. Why they never built the FA.2s with the new avionics on the AV-8B airframe in the first place is beyond me - off yeah penny pinching...

JimWH

30-09-10, 03:50 PM

Ocean would be a good buy for the RAN if it was available ASAP as a gap fill Super Hornet style between broken down LPAs and the LHDs.
If we could do a wet lease by the end of this year it'd make sense (say six months for a quick and dirty refit to operate as part of the RAN, six to eight months to work her up as part of the RAN, and then 4-5 years of operating), but the decision would basically need to be being made right now.

As to the wisdom of retiring the SHARs that is only if the RN doesn't face an air threat.
Well, the RN hasn't. At the time I was very loudly protest to anyone who would listen (which was basically nobody) that it was too big a gamble... but the gamble has been proved exactly right, and with the benefit of hindsight was predictable. Which is why, like I said, it was a smart move.

Which is why they've kept them in store and not flogged them to India so they could be rapidly brought back into service.
That's actually turned out not to be true, none of them have been kept in a flyable condition or preserved for future use. The closet thing to stored aircraft are a short squadron's worth which are have been kept in a state which allows them to do slow taxing to train deck crews ashore at RNAS Culdros. They would need a shite load of rehab work to get them fit to fly, even more t get their avionics back to functionality. As far as I know any stories to the contrary are merely wishful thinking by die-hards.
There is a really good question of why the Indians didn't buy themselves some SHAR FA2. The best theory I've heard was that when the Indians were talking to the MoD in '03-'04 they were convinced they were going to have the Gorshkov by mid 2008, and it didn't seem worth the money. Especially since it also seemed likely that the US would block the sale of AMRAAM (and possibly the Blue Fox) as they had embargoes against India at the time. And since then every time the question has been revisited the answer has been the same: they're expecting Gorshkov soon enough that they don't feel it's worth it. Of course with the benefit of hindsight (or with the benefit of some common sense) purchasing as many SHAR2 as possible back in 2004 with a view to introducing them in 2006 would have been deeply sensible, but since when has that ever characterised Indian defence procurement....

Why they never built the FA.2s with the new avionics on the AV-8B airframe in the first place is beyond me
Yeah me too. I think there was a large amount of piggish obstinate on the part of the FAA to be different to the RAF, probably facilitated by a feeling of superiority gained in the Falklands. I also think that there was a bad decision made regarding the need for speed in the type, where a more rational assessment of the FA2 weapons system specifications should have made it clear that a longer ranged though slower aircraft was a better choice.
Had the FA2 been on a Harrier II airframe it probably would still be in use, maybe even in mixed squadrons.

Gubler, A.

30-09-10, 04:26 PM

There is a really good question of why the Indians didn't buy themselves some SHAR FA2. The best theory I've heard was that when the Indians were talking to the MoD in '03-'04 they were convinced they were going to have the Gorshkov by mid 2008, and it didn't seem worth the money. Especially since it also seemed likely that the US would block the sale of AMRAAM (and possibly the Blue Fox) as they had embargoes against India at the time. And since then every time the question has been revisited the answer has been the same: they're expecting Gorshkov soon enough that they don't feel it's worth it. Of course with the benefit of hindsight (or with the benefit of some common sense) purchasing as many SHAR2 as possible back in 2004 with a view to introducing them in 2006 would have been deeply sensible, but since when has that ever characterised Indian defence procurement....

They weren't decommissioned until 2006. And I was standing right there at that time when the MoD oficial told the Indian Vice Admiral that the reason they weren't going to be made available for sale is to keep them in the shed in case they were needed for naval ATA until the F-35B was delivered. Of course there are two things one can take from this: all British Govt. officials are habitual liars (perfidious Albion) and the MoD’s perennial problems with cash. Even with an AMRAAM ban I’m sure the Indians would have brought them if made available. They need Harrier airframes because they keep crashing them, they would have been cheap and still very effective.

JimWH

30-09-10, 05:37 PM

Gubler, A.

01-10-10, 02:45 AM

Abe, the largest single group of airframes the UK has retained are the 9 at Culdros, but they're being kept outside and haven't had their avionics maintained. There's a handful of other at RAF Shawbury, but most of the rest are now gate guards or on display. About a dozen were sold to Everett Aero. Here's a list of the airframes and their fate: http://www.targetlock.org.uk/seaharrier/production_uk.html

Jim I'm not disagreeing with you. I guess I should have spelt it out a bit clearer (late night messages) but I suggested the most likely cause of the disconnect between the MoD's expressed intent back in '06 when they decommissioned the FA.2 and reality was a lack of cash. It cost tens of millions per annum to properly store and maintain unused aircraft so they can be rapidly returned to service (see RNZAF Skyhawks) and the UK has been squeezing their budgets to huge extremes. So by keeping them around MoD can say to the political leadership they still have a latent naval ATA capability and by not maintaining them save money. Everyone in Whitehall wins and everyone in the real world losses. Situation normal?

JimWH

01-10-10, 02:57 AM

Ah okay, I get you now. Yeah, I'd guess that there was certainly a thought (?hope) that the fleet could be properly stored, but the money was obviously never put it. I would be interested to know if government ever approved such a plan though.

buglerbilly

08-10-10, 03:13 PM

HMAS Success Conversion to Double Hull Configuration

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Oct. 8, 2010)

Defence has selected ST Marine as the preferred tenderer to convert the Royal Australian Navy tanker HMAS Success to be double hulled.

ST Marine represented the best value for money and the shortest time out of service.

The work will be carried out in Singapore, where the ship has a scheduled visit while on deployment in Asia and involves the double hulling of the HMAS Success to meet International Maritime Organisation standards for environmental protection against oil spills.

ST Marine's tender came in under budget. As a result, funds saved on this project will be re-directed towards the priority repair and maintenance work required on HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora, for which a precautionary Operational Pause was recently initiated by the Chief of Navy. This work will occur concurrently at Garden Island, Sydney.

Overseas companies were allowed to bid for the work on HMAS Success as:
-- this is a one-off project – work of this type will never again be carried out in Australia; and
-- no Australian company had ever undertaken work of this type.

The on-going repair and maintenance of Navy ships happens in Australia and will stay in Australia. This includes the regular and on-going repair and maintenance of HMAS Success.

This year Defence will spend approximately A$79M on ship repair and maintenance in the Sydney region. Next year Defence has budgeted to spend A$81M on ship repair and maintenance in the Sydney region.

Next year Defence will also issue tenders for five-year contracts for the repair and maintenance of Navy ships at Garden Island. This work will all occur in Australia and is worth about half a billion dollars over the five years.

These long term contracts will provide more security for Australian businesses and more job security for their workforce.

-ends-

buglerbilly

08-10-10, 03:15 PM

Ship Repair and Maintenance Industry to Advance Work in HMA Ships Kanimbla and Manoora

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued October 8, 2010)

Between $12 and $17 million worth of work will be undertaken to HMA Ships Kanimbla and Manoora in the Sydney region with work ramping up over the next two weeks.

This follows the “operational pause” of the Ships initiated by the Chief of Navy in late September based on advice from the Navy Seaworthiness Board.

A wide range of engineering and maintenance trade skills across the ship repair and maintenance sector will be used, as well as specialist survey services.

To minimise the time the ships are taken out of service, some repair and maintenance work scheduled for later this year and early next year has been advanced to occur during this “operational pause.”

This work will be carried out at Garden Island, Sydney, and competed amongst existing Defence suppliers.

The safety of Navy personnel is paramount and the pause will remain in force until the Chief of Navy is satisfied that the Seaworthiness Board’s concerns have been addressed.

-ends-

amtp10f

11-10-10, 12:15 PM

Ocean would be a good buy for the RAN if it was available ASAP as a gap fill Super Hornet style between broken down LPAs and the LHDs.

Not a chance in hell. Going through the two pass approval system from government would take (at the very minimum) 2 years alone.

Tobruk and an LPA are paying off in 2 or so years to free up the crews to train for LHD.

Gubler, A.

11-10-10, 02:59 PM

Not a chance in hell. Going through the two pass approval system from government would take (at the very minimum) 2 years alone.

Actually you can fast track a program once it has recieved 1st pass as in the Super Hornets but only because Air 6000 had alreay recieved first pass. Strategic Sealift has not recieved first pass but the ADAS concept would have had to be aproved for LHD. So if the op arrived a rapid acquis a la the Super Hornets could still be legal under the pre exsisting JP 2048/4 1st pass.

buglerbilly

15-10-10, 04:05 PM

Thales Wins HMAS Newcastle Maintenance Contract

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued October 15, 2010)

The Defence Materiel Organisation today announced it has signed a multi-million dollar contract with Thales Australia for the scheduled repair and maintenance of HMAS Newcastle.

The contract is worth approximately $8.7M and is anticipated to engage in the order of 100 Thales personnel with further support from subcontractors.

This is further evidence of Defence’s commitment to ensuring the on-going repair and maintenance of Navy ships occurs in Australia.

As previously stated, Defence has budgeted to spend approximately $79M on ship repair and maintenance in the Sydney region this year and $81M in 2011. This contract is part of that planned expenditure.

Last week the Defence Materiel Organisation also announced that $12 to $17 million worth of work would be undertaken in HMA Ships Kanimbla and Manoora in the Sydney region over the coming months.

-ends-

tiddles

19-10-10, 02:03 AM

Here is a story by Ian Mc Phedran from the Telegraph about problems with the Kanimbla & Manoora. These ships are a bit old so expensive problems will arrise now & then IMO.The problems are a bit costly but not all that desperate,just how long it will really take to fix up is anyones guess.
Tiddles
Aussie warships left high and dry EXCLUSIVE by Ian McPhedran From: The Daily Telegraph October 19, 2010 12:00AM NEGLECT and overwork has put the navy's two most useful ships out of action.
The amphibious ships HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla are at Garden Island in Sydney for what the navy calls an "operational pause".

The Daily Telegraph has obtained a long list of the problems besetting the ships - called Landing Platforms Amphibious (LPAs) - that could transform the "pause" into a long stay in dock.

The problems include:

* DEEP corrosion in the hull structure and shell plating;

* COMPONENT replacement in the main diesel engine and drive train;

* POWER generation and fuel system overhaul;

* REPAIRS to air conditioning, fresh water plant and refrigeration;

* FAULTY main crane;

* FAULTY alarm system; and

.
* COMMUNICATIONS system and fire safety upgrades.

The ships, which began life in the Royal Australian Navy in the mid '90s after long careers in the US Navy, were riddled with rust when purchased at a bargain price from our closest ally, and $200 million was spent to make them seaworthy.

Insiders believe the navy's estimate of $17 million to fix the current woes will blow out.

"It will cost more but we don't know what the numbers will be yet," a source said.

According to senior navy officers the two ships have been neglected and overworked for far too long.

They have been in service constantly for years throughout the Asia-Pacific region and are the navy's first response to large-scale regional emergencies such as Aceh and the Solomon Islands.

They can carry 450 troops, dozens of armoured vehicles and each is equipped with an intensive-care hospital.

HMAS Kanimbla suffered a minor fire off Sydney in September and other mechanical problems were identified.

The ships are being examined in detail before a repair contract is put out to tender for Australian companies.

The vessels are due to be replaced by two huge 28,000 tonne Spanish-designed Australian-assembled Canberra Class amphibious ships in 2014 and 2015.

buglerbilly

27-10-10, 02:52 PM

Warship Project Could be Sunk in Cost Review

(Source: Australian Strategic Policy Institute; issued October 27, 2010)

(All monetary amounts are in Australian dollars unless otherwise stated)

A multibillion-dollar project to build warships for the Australian navy could be under threat as momentum gathers for a revamp of the Defence White Paper released only last year.

Defence sources have said the proposed fleet of 20 ''offshore combatant vessels'', potentially costing $20 billion, could be dropped as Defence struggles to balance the books.

And further doubts about a controversial $36 billion future submarine program have been raised by the news that an $8 billion project to create three new air warfare destroyers has suffered a setback with a key keel block of the first ship reportedly being botched at a Melbourne shipyard.

The mooted 2000-tonne offshore combatant vessels are intended to replace the navy's Armidale class patrol boats, coastal minehunters, hydrographic ships and associated survey launches. Each boat could be reconfigured to perform any of these tasks.

''The modular concept, hosting a range of capabilities in a common or near common hull, should also limit purchase and operating costs and realise cost savings demanded by the 2009 Defence White Paper,'' the navy said earlier this year.

However, there is a growing belief within Defence that a stringent review of the most recent White Paper - which was dominated by big, expensive projects - is needed.

Experts have expressed concerns about the offshore combatant vessel concept since its announcement. Andrew Davies, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said earlier this year the offshore vessel could be ill-suited to its task, particularly patrol duties.

''These are just too big, It's a bit hard to imagine a 2000-tonne ship pulling up alongside a fishing boat,'' Dr Davies said.

Ferkin WHAT?!!! Where did he get his sea-going experience the local park pond! :shakehead Do I think they NEED to be 2,000 tonnes? No I don't but Jeez its for far better reasons than this rubbish.........

It is believed companies interested in building the offshore vessel were asked how they would manufacture the boats, but were perturbed to find Defence did not have a clear vision for the project.

-ends-

Deks

28-10-10, 04:41 AM

I was under the impression that 2,000 tonnes was actually pretty tiny. No?

The LHDs will be 27000 and the AWD's something like 7 according to wikipedia.

buglerbilly

28-10-10, 04:51 AM

Physically 2,000 tonnes is quite small BUT what he said is ridiculous for the simple fact you do NOT send your major asset to go alongside a potential "problem" vessel, that is what RHIB's are for............you get your Armed Team to go on board and check everyone and everything first, even after that you still wouldn't go alongside in anything other than dire circumstances.

The comparison belongs in a Kiddies Comic NOT from what is supposed to be a Thunk Spank...........:doh

Unicorn

28-10-10, 09:43 AM

Yeah sure, you bring your 2,000 tonne warship alongside a potential terrorist dhow, perfect for re-enacting the USS Cole catastrophe.

Where do they find such fools as Davies? Tell them to send no more.

God must love idiots, he made so many.

Unicorn

tiddles

28-10-10, 12:04 PM

Yeah sure, you bring your 2,000 tonne warship alongside a potential terrorist dhow, perfect for re-enacting the USS Cole catastrophe.

Unicorn
I know that the Kormoran was not exactly a dhow but getting too close to a possible threat appears to have been the cause of the HMAS Sydneys demise.Handle these situations in a manner like the one suggested by BUG in post #44.
Tiddles

Exsandgroper

03-11-10, 05:37 AM

Rusting warships HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora will sail again after refit:
Mark Dodd From: The Australian November 02, 2010 10:57AM

Two ageing navy warships undergoing an unscheduled $17 million refit in Sydney will be put to sea again, the navy says.
However both will be retired by the time the Royal Australian Navy gets two new helicopter carriers, a navy spokesman said today.

HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Manoora, two rusting 8500 tonne warships bought at knockdown prices from the US navy in early 1990s, were pulled out of service last month for emergency repairs.

An emailed reply from Defence to queries from The Australian about the repairs mistakenly included an internal department memo describing the refit as a “sensitive issue”.

Both 40-year-old warships are now anchored at Sydney's Garden Island dockyard undergoing an unscheduled $17 million refit to fix problems officially described as ranging from “minor to major”.

Both vessels will be seaworthy and ready for operations “early next year,” said a navy spokesman, denying the ships would never put to sea again.

Both ships are suffering extensive corrosion, a problem which first surfaced in the mid-90s during their conversion to amphibious transports - additional work which added tens of millions of dollars to the refit cost.

Corrosion has again been cited as one of the latest maintenance concerns.

“They will go back to sea. Yes, they are old and need some fixing - but in an emergency they could go to sea now.

“They are in a state that needs repair but we (navy) work them hard,” the spokesman said.

Apart from rust removal, the extensive refit includes work on the ship's engines, propulsion and fuel systems, power plant, air conditioning, desalinator and deck crane.

It's understood the warships will be paid off when two new 27,000 tonne Canberra class amphibious assault ships are commissioned in 2014/15.

Appearing before a Senate estimates committee a fortnight ago, navy chief Vice Admiral Russ Crane confirmed one of the Kanimbla class ships would be paid off in 2012 and its sister ship in 2014.

He said a “masthead to keel” inspection was underway by navy surveyors to assess any further structural issues.

Cheers

buglerbilly

03-11-10, 05:56 AM

Get someone off their ass and buy the BAY-class LPD the Brits now have stated as available for disposal. Jump in now and you'll get a good choice of the group of four vessels I would suspect.

Unicorn

03-11-10, 11:24 PM

The oldest is oly four years old, which means even the RN couldn't have frakked them up too badly.

Apparently they have 1200 linear metres of vehicle space and can carry about 350 troops.

Wonder what price they are asking?

Unicorn

Milne Bay

03-11-10, 11:50 PM

Does anyone honestly believe that the RAN, the government and the Dept of Defence will actually do something about this?
I, for one, am not holding my breath.
MB

buglerbilly

09-11-10, 03:56 PM

Navy Submarine Undergoing Repairs After Tug Boat Incident

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Nov. 9, 2010)

The Royal Australian Navy submarine HMAS Dechaineux will undergo repairs after an incident involving a civilian tug boat while departing its berth at Fleet Base West in HMAS Stirling.

The submarine was carrying out a routine manoeuvre with the tug when the tug crossed over Dechaineux's stern.

No one was injured but a subsequent inspection has confirmed repairs are needed.

HMAS Dechaineux will undergo repairs over the coming weeks.

As a result, HMAS Dechaineux will withdraw from training exercises off the WA coast.

HMAS Dechaineux was scheduled to participate in Navy's annual anti-submarine warfare exercise off the Western Australia coast. She will be replaced by HMAS Collins which is currently at sea.

-ends-

amtp10f

10-11-10, 09:31 AM

Get someone off their ass and buy the BAY-class LPD the Brits now have stated as available for disposal. Jump in now and you'll get a good choice of the group of four vessels I would suspect.

There is a push from the amphib world to snap up a Bay class now. Unless Defence is able to find the funds from within its current budget, I can't see the government (desperate to get the budget into the black for the next election) coughing up the $200m+ needed.

buglerbilly

10-11-10, 09:51 AM

There is a push from the amphib world to snap up a Bay class now. Unless Defence is able to find the funds from within its current budget, I can't see the government (desperate to get the budget into the black for the next election) coughing up the $200m+ needed.

So present the case on the basis of cost efficiency, one Bay versus the costs to run-&-repair the TWO Kanimbla Class LPA's...............I could easily present a case to say its gonna be similar if not cheaper, take the next 10 years as the base case. Its NOT Einstein stuff this, its how you present it that causes people to sit up and take notice. You also may be paying less than the $200 Million quoted.............

JimWH

10-11-10, 10:25 AM

amtp10f

10-11-10, 01:52 PM

I don't have the figures in front of me, but at the beginning of the year I did the sums regarding the Bays. Basically, with the dollar trading at about 58p, a brand new Bay would cost AU$175 million based o the unit price of the two BAE built ships.The dollar is now stronger against the pound (almost 10% higher, and holding steady) and there will be a second hand Bay on the market. As anyone who has ever bought a second hand car knows, n matter how good the condition a second had car costs less than the same car brand new. As such, I'm betting that the RAN should be able to pick up a Bay for around AU$100 million with a discount for what amounts to a cash sale (i.e. the CofA can afford to pay now rather than pay with credit).
From Treasury's perspective this will be a good deal, because the funding for JP2048P4C was dues to start within the next few years anyway, so they'll save money within a time frame that they can observe rather than past the edge of the DCP. From their perspective they can spend the money now, or spend at least 150% as much in 3-4 years from now. If the RAN also offered up the running costs of one of the LPAs as a sacrifice (one in commission and one held in a semi-preserved state for a couple of years) I'm sure that Treasury would be even more obliging.

The LPA's and Tobruk have already been used as offsets for the LHD's. 2048 Phase 4C is a new capability with no offsetting current capability. The amount of money you would save by mothballing (or even decommissioning) one LPA wouldn't cover the costs of a Bay class. If you decommissioned all the LHC's plus an LPA you might RPT might cover the Bay class cost. By doing that you'll increase the cost of the LHD's (which are already going to be more expensive that previously thought) since you've lost an LPA as an offset.

The issue is that by getting 4C now you'll be bringing future expenditure that was beyond the forward estimates into the forward estimates. That means that Defence/government has to find the money now (which Defence does not have and government does not want to spend).

Additionally it removes a possible sacrifice in the DCP that could be used to plug the LHD and AWD operating cost blowout (we're talking billions over the life of type).

JimWH

10-11-10, 02:20 PM

The LSH and the LPA are being replaced by the LHD, as such their retirement isn't an offset in any normal sense of the word. I'm well aware that there are expected blowouts in the life-of-type costs for the LHD,but JP2048P4C is funded and in the forward estimates already (IIRC main gate is supposed to be in the next couple of years). The requirement was also recently endorsed, and it has been treated as part of ADAS since the very beginning. If anything from the 'phib program were to be offered up I'd put money on a portion of the LCH replacement program (anyone heard anything about that, by the way).
And my point in suggesting offering up one of the LPA is not to suggest that it would pay for a Bay class ship in and of itself, but that it would:
1). Show that the ADF is willing to act in good faith to reduce the impact on Treasury of an unexpected re-arrangement of funding priorities.
2). Free up personnel (which Treasury would also appreciate, extra manpower would be a pain in the arse)
Bear in mind that the repair bill to keep the two LPA going till 2014 is currently looking like being AU$17million, and could well turn out to be more. Offering one up could save a substantial fraction of this and future bills, which would go a long way to offsetting the likely cost of a Bay (I'm sticking with my AU$100 million guesstimate). The Bay class also requires a quarter of the crew of an LPA, which represents another very significant saving.

Gubler, A.

10-11-10, 11:52 PM

The funding models used for the LHD are based on the legacy funding model for LPA/LSH sustainment. So if it costs $200 million a year to operate two LHDs and it used to cost $150 million a year to operate two LPAs and a LSH then the budget addition only needs to be $50 million to bring the LHDs into service.

So if you were to keep one of the legacy ships in service after the LHDs or something else that pre-emptively took over their sustainment funding you would need to find another $50 million a year in the budget to meet the recurring costs of the LHD.

However that is predicated on the idea that any interim LPA replacement would stay in service after the LHDs are available. The urgent need to replace the LPAs is from a few months ago to when the LHDs are ready for service. Any Bay LSD acquisition could only be a temporary thing until the LHDs are ready when it is either disposed of or laid up in reserve until JP 2048 Phase 4C sealift capability funding can kick in to operate it (or not).

The idea is to junk the LPAs rather than try and fix them and use the Bay LSD in their place. So the offset would be the cost of fixing the LPAs and their operating costs until they were scheduled to decommission for the LHDs. The acquisition cost of the LSD is still going to be higher than these offsets and of course offsetting future expenditure (Phase 4C) or even recouping outlays through future sale (of the Bay class). However none of that is going to have much leeway when the Government’s highest financial priority is spending less today and more tomorrow.

This may be academic however as the SDR detail plans indicate the surplus Bay LSD won’t be laid up until March 2012. However this is a lay up timetable not a hot transfer which doesn’t require the same kind of up front investment to preserve the ship.

I would caution extremely any plans to cut LCHs and Phase 5 for filling the LPA/LHD capability. Frankly these ships are probably more useful in the type of regional security missions we face. Army has already been screwed by the Navy three times over coastal cargo traffic and a fourth would be too much.

buglerbilly

11-11-10, 02:13 AM

Why would you keep either LPA? The risk of the one Bay class not being available up to LHD intro can be Risk Analysed and in my opinion is low risk for the few years involved.

The availability of the Bay is more likely to be March 2011 if we move for it now.

Agree on the LCH's and Phase 5......

buglerbilly

10-12-10, 02:54 AM

Defence seeks $20m over fatal crash

Lucy Battersby

December 10, 2010

From The Age..........

THE Australian government is suing a group of insurers for nearly $20 million - including US billionaire Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway - for failing to pay claims arising from a navy helicopter crash that killed nine defence force personnel.

But the government may struggle to recoup costs, because an internal inquiry found sloppy maintenance was responsible for the crash.

On April 2, 2005 a Royal Australian Navy Sea King helicopter crashed on Nias Island, off Indonesia's west coast, killing nine of the 11 personnel on board. All were from HMAS Kanimbla, which had been on a 10-week mission to help civilians affected by the Boxing Day tsunami.

The Australian Defence Force has paid $17.8 million in compensation to families affected by the accident and spent $8.8 million on an inquiry.

The government is suing 24 insurers for $19.8 million for failing to repay the compensation costs, including $2 million in ''reasonable expenses'' for the inquiry, according to papers lodged in the Federal Court in Sydney on Wednesday.

Berkshire Hathaway is named in the claim as owing the greatest amount because it was the lead insurer for Global Aerospace Underwriting, which was part of a syndicate that provided a policy to the Commonwealth's insurance fund, Comcover and the ADF.

The claim states that the accident occurred within the scope of the policy and that the aircraft was airworthy at the time of the accident.

But an inquiry found a sloppy maintenance culture within the squadron led to the crash, specifically the absence of a nut and pin on the aircraft's controls.

The insurance policy requires parts, machinery and appliances to be ''sound and in proper order and fit for the purpose for which they are used''.

''If the inquiry found that the cause of the accident was due to faulty maintenance, then it is probable that the insurers have a good defence,'' litigation partner at Freehills, Michael Mills, said.

A defence to the claim is yet to be filed.

Milne Bay

14-12-10, 11:47 PM

Study backs Romeo for next naval helicopter
December 15, 2010

Romeo ... one of two contenders for the naval role, the MH-60R.

Romeo ... one of two contenders for the naval role, the MH-60R.

AUSTRALIA'S new naval helicopter is likely to be one used extensively by the US Navy: the Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin MH-60R (Romeo), a new study says.

An Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst, Andrew Davies, said the government could announce a final choice between the Romeo and the European NFH-90 (NATO Frigate Helicopter) early next year.

Since the tender competition began in February, Dr Davies said, events had tended to favour the Romeo - the 76 examples in the US Navy had flown more than 50,000 hours with a very high level of reliability.
Advertisement: Story continues below

He said NFH-90 had also made progress. The first aircraft had been delivered to the Dutch and French navies and more than 100 were now on order.

''The timing of this decision and the relative state of maturity of the two contenders make the Romeo the more likely winner of the competition, if project risk is the decisive factor,'' Dr Davies said in a policy analysis.

''There is no doubt that it is an able machine, but the likely outcome would be less clear if the NFH had more time to build a similar service record and reduce project risk.''

Australia will buy about 24 naval combat helicopters in a deal worth $1.5 billion. They will enter service in 2014, replacing ageing Seahawks and the never-delivered Seasprites.

The Romeo is a modernised version of the Seahawk and is familiar to Australian aircrew and maintenance crews. It has advanced proven missions systems but can only carry the small Hellfire missile.

NFH-90 is essentially a navy version of the MRH-90 of which the Australian army is buying 40. It is larger and, even with the full range of missions systems installed, can carry seven passengers in a utility role.

AAP

JimWH

15-12-10, 08:04 AM

Well Andrew Davies is a clown, so I don't trust anything he says as far as I can throw him (and I rather suspect he'll be a fat f**k so I probably can't throw him all that far).

Gubler, A.

15-12-10, 12:45 PM

Well Andrew Davies is a clown, so I don't trust anything he says as far as I can throw him (and I rather suspect he'll be a fat f**k so I probably can't throw him all that far).

He's actually pretty trim...

buglerbilly

15-12-10, 12:49 PM

Well he works for that waste-of-space organisation ASPI, what do you expect................

What's said in the article is nothing of any kind of import in any case and reaches only one (vague-ish) conclusion, MH-60R is less risky but both are now relatively mature designs (as long as we do NOT dick around with them AGAIN and add/replace standard equipment).

No mention of hangar space or heli-deck capacity to handle both/either, particularly for the ANZAC class, which I would have thought worthy of a mention if for no other reason than to add something quantative to the discussion.

JimWH

15-12-10, 01:01 PM

He's actually pretty trim...

Okay then maybe I could throw him some way, still doesn't mean I trust a thing hes saying. Reading that report is a waste of neurons I could have used for something more productive.

Gubler, A.

15-12-10, 01:29 PM

Okay then maybe I could throw him some way, still doesn't mean I trust a thing hes saying.

Why throw when dropping from great heights is available? We are talking about helicopters after all...

Milne Bay

15-12-10, 09:50 PM

Are any of you saying that the MH-60R is not a likely choice for the naval helicopter?
This is not the first time I have seen this mentioned as the probable selection because of the low risk and in service certainties.
Cheers
MB

JimWH

15-12-10, 11:07 PM

I'm still putting good money on NH-90. It may not be as in service as the Romeo, but it's also far from being an entirely unproven quantity. And the NH-90 is in many regards a better choice for Australia:
1). It's a much better utility platform than the Romeo, which is proportionally more important for the RAN than it is for the USN. Given what Australian maritime helicopters spend most of their time doing, this could well be extremely compelling.
2). The current NH-90 integration plan will see the type fitted with a far better ASM than the Romeo (though this could be 'fixed' if albeit at a cost). This may be significant as it has long been felt that the most enduring threat faced in out immediate northern waters is from surface vessels rather than subs.
3). The build of NH-90 would have greater industrial benefits to Australia.
As a related point, recall that much of the NH-90 work would happen in Qld, which is a state that both the ALP and the Coalition are desperate to butter-up as it's looking like it could make or break the next election.

buglerbilly

16-12-10, 02:51 AM

Per the MoD article I've just posted, the UK is decommissioning one of the BAY class LPD's in April 2011, slightly less than 4 months time............

The particular LPD is LARGS BAY, the second of the BAY Class:

In November 2006 Largs Bay underwent sea trials.

The Largs Bay was dedicated on 17 December 2006, the latest addition to the RFA. Largs Bay joined RFA Mounts Bay as the second Bay-class vessel in the fleet.

Fer Crissakes RAN/DoD pull your fingers out your arse and buy the damn thing!

battlensign

16-12-10, 05:16 AM

Per the MoD article I've just posted, the UK is decommissioning one of the BAY class LPD's in April 2011, slightly less than 4 months time............

The particular LPD is LARGS BAY, the second of the BAY Class:

Fer Crissakes RAN/DoD pull your fingers out your arse and buy the damn thing!

Minister's office said (paraphrasing): 'no'.

Brett.

JimWH

16-12-10, 06:48 AM

Gubler, A.

16-12-10, 07:54 AM

What the ferK? The spec for JP2049P4C were obviously written whilst looking at the Jane's entry for the Bay class, and there's a five year old example up for grabs about a year before we'd have to start spending money on it anyway. Ridiculous if they're not going to budge.

Well there is a big difference between spending money in 2011 and in 2015-2020 for the Government's financial plan. The RAN should be thankful that in the current interntional situation they were able to get the money for the FNACS helicopter before 2015.

JimWH

16-12-10, 08:24 AM

I know that there's a big difference in moving budgets forward, but we're talking about (relatively) minor figures (AUD100 million at the outside) which can pretty much be made up out of the saving we'll make on budgeted projects owing to the strength of the current exchange rate of the Australian dollar. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that we'd knock back the option of saving AUD50-100 million.

Gubler, A.

17-12-10, 10:30 AM

Can see why Defence is not interesting in a Bay class LPD for the sealift ship. The IOC for the capability has been put back to 2022-24 in the new DCP update released today. Since this ship won't be in service for over 13 years after the Largs Bay is availble no wonder they don't want it. Lets just hope there is no need for such a ship in this time frame - because that's what the government is doing.

Raven22

17-12-10, 10:42 AM

Also great to see in the DCP that the cavalry component of Land 400 has been put back a couple of years to 2021-22 and the infantry component back 2-4 years to 2024-26. The current fleet of AFVs won't last that long.

amtp10f

17-12-10, 12:22 PM

We've sent over a team to kick the tires of a Bay and to get the asking price. The final decision, sadly, will be made by Treasury and PM&C.

buglerbilly

20-12-10, 03:52 PM

Dozens of sailors in alleged NSW drug ring

December 21, 2010 - 12:59AM

Dozens of sailors are suspected of running a drug trafficking ring out of Sydney's Garden Island naval base.

A core group of sailors is believed to be operating the lucrative drug distribution network from the Sydney Harbour Base, Fairfax Newspapers reported on Tuesday.

NSW police and the Department of Defence are investigating the suspected drug ring, which is believed to have involved the sale of drugs to backpackers visiting Sydney.

Advertisement: Story continues below If proved, it would be one of the most serious drug-related scandals to hit the Australian Defence Force (ADF), which has struggled to contain the use of illicit drugs in its ranks.

A Defence spokesman confirmed the ADF investigative service was examining the allegations.

© 2010 AAP

buglerbilly

22-12-10, 04:42 AM

Admiral says navy has zero drug tolerance

December 22, 2010 - 1:29PM

Navy chief Vice Admiral Russ Crane has urged any sailor with knowledge of drug trafficking aboard navy ships to come forward.

Vice Admiral Crane said the navy had zero tolerance for drug use and members of all ranks were educated and counselled regularly about the dangers of illegal substances.

In a letter posted on the navy's Facebook page, he said it was firmly in navy's interest to ensure that warships were not being used to carry illegal contraband.

"I encourage any navy member who has an allegation to make involving drug trafficking or their use to contact the ADF Investigative Service immediately," he said.

"To have information of this kind and to ignore it runs contrary to navy values of honour, honesty, courage, integrity and loyalty."

Defence revealed this week that defence investigators and NSW Police were looking into the alleged supply and use of illicit substances, including steroids, by sailors at a Sydney naval base.

Further allegations emerged on Wednesday that drugs had been smuggled into Australia aboard navy warships.

Vice Admiral Crane said he could not comment on any current investigations.

But he said the use and trafficking of drugs could have devastating consequences - both for the individual concerned and for those around them.

They end relationships, careers and eventually they end lives, he said.

"Navy tests a minimum of 25 per cent of our members each year. Since that began in the 2009-10 financial year, there has been a significant reduction in the number of positive results. We also now test 100 per cent of our trainees," he said.

Vice Admiral Crane said there had been a number of operations where sniffer dogs have been called upon and they are just one of several methods Customs used.

"Navy works pro-actively with law enforcement authorities in all states as well as Customs on a regular basis. It is firmly in navy's interest to ensure that our ships are not being used to carry illegal contraband."

© 2010 AAP

Milne Bay

23-12-10, 09:06 AM

We've sent over a team to kick the tires of a Bay and to get the asking price. The final decision, sadly, will be made by Treasury and PM&C.

At least there is some serious intent being shown.
This could have a positive outcome. Much depends on the asking price I imagine.
Fingers crossed here.
MB

McFriday

23-12-10, 09:33 AM

If we do get her it will be the second Largs Bay in Australian service, [though the first wasn't HMAS] so maybe we could save money by not having to paint on a new name?
Not really a deal maker, I realise but every cent counts.
Cheers,
Mac

buglerbilly

23-12-10, 09:52 AM

Gubler, A.

23-12-10, 09:56 AM

Largs Bay (Adelaide SA) has quite a defence history being the location of Fort Largs the coast defence facility for Adelaide. It is now the SAPOL police acadamey. But no doubt any Bay class or other second hand solution for the sealift ship will be renamed for a ship with stronger RAN connections.

McFriday

23-12-10, 05:47 PM

Abe, she was probably in RN service, I haven't checked. Thanks for the SA background.
I came across the following whilst researching other RAN ops yesterday-

"There came, in January 1944, a faint Australian echo from the Mediterranean . On the 2nd of the month the former Australian Commonwealth Government Line steamer Largs Bay (14,182
tons) was damaged by a mine while serving as a Combined Operations ship in the approache s
to Naples. She was brought into harbour and beached."
Footnote, Ch. 13, RAN 42-45, AWM History, WW2.

Bug,
Point taken!
As to a Bay Class being the 'right' ship I defer to those better qualified and as you and a [very] few others I pay attention to agree it is, I hope the pollies don't blow it.
I'll save any history dissertation for those who MUST read it, LOL, suffice to say the ADF most definitely needs the freedom of choice that having suitable major, modern, logistics capacity under the White Ensign will provide. We always have needed it and it rarely has ever been provided by Canberra until after the crisis has arisen.
If only our political masters paid as much attention to Australia's History as our military has, instead of to their retirement benefits.

Mac

buglerbilly

12-01-11, 12:52 AM

Thales's support for maritime tactical network

Australia's SEA 1442 concept.

09:03 GMT, January 11, 2011 Thales Australia has built on its successful participation in the Department of Defence’s establishment of a Maritime Tactical Wide Area Network, with the in-service support contract under SEA 1442 Phase 3 becoming operative.

The five-year contract involves the company providing a range of engineering, maintenance, supply and help desk support for the system.

SEA 1442/3 has introduced an Internet Protocol (IP) based Maritime Tactical Wide Area Network (MTWAN) into the Royal Australian Navy, supporting the Australian Defence Force’s Network Centric Warfare concept and providing the foundation for future maritime communication systems integration and implementation.

Chris Jenkins, Thales Australia’s CEO, said the contract allowed room for further enhancements: “SEA 1442/3 is the foundation architecture that will allow the evolution of tactical maritime communication and information systems into a network enabled capability.”

“Thales Australia has the expertise to deliver cost-effective support that ensures high levels of performance, plus the potential for systems upgrade as new technologies become available.”

“We are also well placed to offer a wide range of solutions for other Australian maritime programs, from the upgrade of existing equipment to the introduction of new capabilities, as shown by our recent contract to deliver a satellite communications system for the Air Warfare Destroyers.”

ADMk2

15-01-11, 08:51 AM

I don't know if this has been discussed before, because I don't really follow the Naval threads all that much, but have you guys heard of this proposal?

Ship Concept Design - Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB)

http://www.maersklinelimited.com/mts_success.php

Seems like a helluva a capability for the $450m upfront asking price. The support costs don't seem too great either, though I've no idea what the RAN budget for such is. The upfront cost fits nicely into the price band for the "Strategic Sea Lift ship" project and appears to offer a far greater capability than previously mentioned options...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46903936/AFSB-Presentation-OSD-EW-Subgroup-May-2009

JimWH

15-01-11, 09:59 AM

Yeah, but it's not really what we want. JP4048P4C is basically side-kick for the LHD. It has a smaller EMF and far less aviation capacity, but plenty of storage space for vehicles and containers. And, crucially, it can go the same places as the LHD and unload in the same way (via a flight deck, a well dock, or a mexefloat [or equivalent]). In essence, you add the sealift ship to 1 or 2 LHD and you add mobility to the deployed ground forces via a big tank deck stuffed full of vehicles which can come ashore at the same time as the LHD(s) are disgorging the men of the EMF.
The problem with the Maersk proposal is that it fills a different role to what we need the sealift ship for. It adds depth to a seaborne assault of an EMF substantially larger than anything Australia is planning to field. Added to which it's so big that there's no way it could go all the places we'd like to go with our ARG. It's also over twice the cost we've budgeted for JP2084P4C (AU$150-200m).

Let's not forget that even as is, the EMF of the ARG with 2 LHD and a Bay class LSD (or something similar) will be around 2,700 blokes with about two dozen helicopters of various flaours. That's about the maximum that the Army can put into the field for anything short of WWIII, so the current plan is hardly short-changing the Army.

tiddles

18-01-11, 03:47 PM

I would not read too much into this but it is at least a bit of news on the possibility of buying a Bay Class vessel or indeed somthing else? I doubt much will come of it unfortunately.
Tiddles
From The Australian
Australia eyes scrapped British ships January 19, 2011

AUSTRALIA might buy navy ships mothballed due to savage defence spending cuts in Britain last year.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said he would discuss the decommissioned ships with his British counterpart, Liam Fox, who is here with British Foreign Secretary William Hague for talks.

''The United Kingdom has recently decommissioned some of its naval vessels. That is one thing that I will have a conversation with Liam Fox about. There is a prospect that that may be of some interest to Australia, but we'll take that step by step,'' Mr Smith said.

The British government said in October it would cut its defence budget by 8 per cent, shrinking its armed forces and scrapping assets such as its flagship aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal. Other Royal Navy ships scrapped were four frigates, a landing ship and a larger ''landing platform dock''.

DAN OAKES

JimWH

18-01-11, 09:17 PM

Gubler, A.

19-01-11, 12:48 AM

I heard a very sensible point made elsewhere: all contingency funding in the budget has been chewed up for the next couple of years already by the floods, so we really shouldn't hold our breath for a Bay class.

I doubt you could buy a new ship (or second hand) on contigency but rather reschedulling. Pushing back some other program and using its money to buy the sealift ship. LCM-1E would be a possible contender.

Deks

19-01-11, 03:28 AM

I doubt you could buy a new ship (or second hand) on contigency but rather reschedulling. Pushing back some other program and using its money to buy the sealift ship. LCM-1E would be a possible contender.

Agree, seems reasonable - if the numbers work out in any case.

geof

20-01-11, 12:09 AM

..Smith just gave a big hint that we are going to buy a Bay Class from the UK ... nice one..

ADMk2

20-01-11, 05:49 AM

Very big...

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE

STEPHEN SMITH, MP

*

TRANSCRIPT: Q&A - DOORSTOP INTERVIEW, ADELAIDE

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE: 19 JANUARY 2011

*

TOPICS: Security cooperation with the United Kingdom, Defence investment in South Australia

*

QUESTION: Mr Smith, can you just tell us a little bit about this amphibious capability that you're looking at? What sort of cost would be involved and what would it be used for?

STEPHEN SMITH: We are transitioning to a number of large amphibious landing dock vessels. They're being built in Spain and our timetable for putting those amphibious landing and helicopter dock vessels into operation is the middle of this decade, so 2015.

In the meantime, we have to transition to that and so there is a requirement to look at our existing capability, which we have, and decide whether we need to add to that capability as we make the transition to the new landing dock vessels.

In the course of coming to office, the Cameron Government effected, and Dr Fox effected, a United Kingdom defence security review. As a consequence of that, some naval assets are available for disposal by the United Kingdom.

We want to have a very close look at whether it's appropriate for us to either lease or buy one of the so-called Bay class landing vessels. And I'm not proposing to put a cost on that, we just want to explore whether it is a sensible thing for Australia to do to acquire one of those assets.

It is, I think, reflecting the fact that both governments and both nations are enthusiastic about trying to do more together in the capability space.

As a result of the United Kingdom security review, Dr Fox is subject, and the United Kingdom is subject, to a range of fiscal restraints. Australia in the Defence area has been subject to fiscal restraints since the introduction of our white paper in 2009 and our Force 2020 posture and our Strategic Reform Program.

In the old days the anecdotal analysis used to be that there was perhaps a limitless cheque or an ongoing large cheque for defence assets. This is no longer the case in Australia, no longer the case in the United Kingdom, no longer the case in the United States as you would have seen from some of the reforms that Secretary of Defense Gates has effected in the United States recently.

So this is the modern era of Defence acquisition, of Defence capability, of Defence procurement. We think we can do more, together with the United Kingdom, on that front. As our visit to the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, DSTO, earlier today shows, we can do more on the Defence science research and technology front as well. There is already very good collaboration, and we think we can take it to a higher level.

QUESTION: What areas of procurement do you think us and the United Kingdom could work together on, in particular what sorts of projects?

STEPHEN SMITH: Naval or maritime assets is one particular area, but for example here at BAE there is work that occurring in South Australia on the new Joint Strike Fighter.

Both Australia and the United Kingdom have a part of that new Joint Strike Fighter. We're both contracted to the United States to receive some of those planes so it is all of those assets, in a sense, that are on the table. I think in the first instance the most obvious upfront potential is in the maritime or naval asset area.

QUESTION: Are there any other ships you would look leasing or purchasing?

STEPHEN SMITH: The only suggestion I've made to Dr Fox is that we get our officials together to see whether it might be appropriate for us to lease or buy one of the Bay-class amphibious landing vessels.

QUESTION: Given China's growing military spending and their desire to enlarge both their armed forces in terms of terrestrial army and the navy as well. Do you have any concern in light of the reduction in British spending on defence and the impact it might have on that area?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well I think there are three things in that. Firstly - Australia's defence posture is reflected by the 2009 white paper and our force 2030 document which is associated with that, that's the first point.

Secondly, we don't determine our asset capability or our defence posture as a result of any one particular nation. We do it by taking a regional and a global view. China is a rising power, China's economy is growing exponentially and we understand and accept that when any nation's economy grows there will also be a growth in its defence or military assets. And as we say to China publicly and privately we believe that China should be transparent about its strategic intentions so far as its military assets are concerned.

So far as the United Kingdom is concerned the security aspect of the defence posture review effected when the Cameron government came to office does not in any way reduce the United Kingdom's commitment to taking a substantial and serious interest in international community's security as reflected by a most substantial contribution in Afghanistan.

Indeed part of Dr Fox's and Foreign Secretary Hague's visit to Australia was to make a point on the part of the United Kingdom that the United Kingdom sees a world which is beyond Europe and wants to make contact and establish good working relations with country in the Asia-Pacific, that's an unambiguously good thing.

Dr Fox, for example has come to Australia from Malaysia and is off to New Zealand. So we have every confidence, absolute confidence, that firstly the close working relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom on defence and security and strategic and intelligence matters will continue to be at a very high level. Indeed our aspiration and our intention and expectations are that it'll become even higher. But secondly the United Kingdom will continue to play a very strong role in the international security space so far as the international community is concerned.

QUESTION: Minister, if we were to buy or lease one of these vessels from the UK would that have an impact on the Air Warfare Destroyer program?

STEPHEN SMITH: No, no it's entirely separate. I'm very much looking forward to going with Premier Rann and Dr Fox to the ASC facility to see the work that's being done. Premier Rann referred to the submarines. We have as a government given a commitment that the new submarines, the 12 submarines will be assembled in South Australia.

We are a very long way from concluding all of the details of that project, indeed we are very much at the initial stages. But the point that Premier Rann made about the investment the South Australian Government and the South Australia State has made into testing facilities and defence industry facilities in South Australia does make South Australia a very important part of our defence industry in Australia.

QUESTION: Okay. On a different one, what are your thoughts on companies like ASC applying for exemptions to be able to, I guess, racially profile their current employees and prospective employees?

STEPHEN SMITH: I don't know the basis on which that question is predicated but any company operating in Australia needs to conduct its affairs in accordance with Australian law and in accordance with our employment and industrial relations arrangements, and in accordance with our non-discriminatory policies.

QUESTION: Couple of years ago BAE though did win an exemption [indistinct] to deny employment for Sudanese, Chinese, Vietnamese workers, and now ASC is trying to do a similar thing.

STEPHEN SMITH: As I say, Australian companies need to conduct themselves in accordance with Australian law. In the defence industry space there are exemptions to which you have referred. And provided the legal processes and the appropriate processes are gone through, that is an application of Australian law in the defence industry space.

QUESTION: Dr Fox, could I quickly ask you something? Yesterday you mentioned that you'd like other countries to follow the example and commitment of Australia in Afghanistan. What specifically were you [indistinct]. What types of things would you like to see them do?

STEPHEN SMITH: Okay, thanks very much everyone. Thank you.

*http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/SmithTranscripttpl.cfm?CurrentId=11299

buglerbilly

20-01-11, 06:30 AM

Still only means, at this stage, that they are in discussion about it BUT thats a whole heap further along than a few weeks ago!

ADMk2

20-01-11, 07:15 AM

Still only means, at this stage, that they are in discussion about it BUT thats a whole heap further along than a few weeks ago!

And further confirmation that Defence is getting a team together to seriously look at the issues and develop proposals for it's acquisition...

JimWH

20-01-11, 07:21 AM

..Smith just gave a big hint that we are going to buy a Bay Class from the UK ... nice one..

I demand details! What has he said?

tiddles

20-01-11, 09:28 AM

ARH v.3.1

20-01-11, 11:09 AM

amtp10f

20-01-11, 11:35 AM

Also remember that the RN is also downsizing its personnel numbers too...

ADMk2

20-01-11, 11:51 AM

I demand details! What has he said?

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/SmithTranscripttpl.cfm?CurrentId=11299

Posted the full transcript earlier...

amtp10f

20-01-11, 12:00 PM

I'm still left wondering how viable our amphibious capability is going to be, given that it requires all three major ships to be available at the same time, which won't be possible for about one third to one half of the year. At a mimimum the RAN still needs a third LHD and a second LPD to ensure the 2+1 are available when needed. For the sake of a third LPD the light vehicle decks on the LHD's could also be freed up for a better airlift capability or the inclusion of some sort of AEW and/or STOVL aircraft. The presence of even just 4-6 F35B's would be an enormous boost in capability over what the ADF is projected to have.

It depends on the requirement and warning time. The implied warning time for an event that requires a full ARG (three ships packed full) is much longer than an event that only requires and ARE (one ship with a company or two). The idea is that you will always have one ship ready within a day or so to do short notice non combat stuff like an earthquake in Indonesia (in that case 3 ships means that at any point in time you will have 1 available all the time, 2 a lot of the time and 3 some of the time). A full on combat mission requiring the complete ARG like Korea v2.0 has a longer warning time (months) thus giving Navy time to get all three ships on line (and Army to get a brigade force trained, equipped and assembled).

As for F-35B (should it survive Obama) the LDH's cannot carry enough to be useful for CAP and land support is better covered by Tiger and AWD with SM6 and TacTom.

If you need a carrier capability, get a proper carrier.

buglerbilly

20-01-11, 12:07 PM

Some time ago I had several pics. of a Bay Class with a temporary Hanger on it, but seem to have lost these pics. As a matter of interest does anyone have any such pics that they could post pls. I imagine that if by chance the aquisition of a Bay Class was seen as "appropriate"[Smiths word] & then aquired that a temporary hanger in between the goalposts for one or two Helos might be considered.
Tiddles

You're talking about LARGS Bay that was photo'd with a temporary Rub Hall-type warehouse building on it to serve as a basic hangar for an Exercise in Norway if I remember rightly................here's two pics..............

As you can see you could easily still put Containers before and next to the Rub Hall whilst still allowing for access to/from the temp hangar. The Containers, or at least some of them, could easily contain helicopter Spares, Engines and other Equipment and also provide pretty good aero workshop capacity in addition to the basic facilities the Bay's already have. The hangar tales 2 x EH-101 Merlins by the looks of it, so possibly 3-4 MRH-90's............Chinooks would still have to be outside methinks?

buglerbilly

20-01-11, 12:16 PM

This is LARGS Bay with the rear deck "clean" sans Hangar...............

The thing on the side is a Mexeflote, a powered Pontoon..........another can be carried on the other side, pretty damn nice piece of 9simple) equipment especially in benign conditions like Disaster Recovery.........

Here' a Mexeflote pontoon being used with the LPH HMS Ocean...............

amtp10f

20-01-11, 12:39 PM

If we bought it we would build a hangar on the back like we did with the LPAs. A lease would probably see the temp structure.

JimWH

20-01-11, 12:47 PM

It depends on the requirement and warning time. The implied warning time for an event that requires a full ARG (three ships packed full) is much longer than an event that only requires and ARE (one ship with a company or two). The idea is that you will always have one ship ready within a day or so to do short notice non combat stuff like an earthquake in Indonesia (in that case 3 ships means that at any point in time you will have 1 available all the time, 2 a lot of the time and 3 some of the time). A full on combat mission requiring the complete ARG like Korea v2.0 has a longer warning time (months) thus giving Navy time to get all three ships on line (and Army to get a brigade force trained, equipped and assembled).

As for F-35B (should it survive Obama) the LDH's cannot carry enough to be useful for CAP and land support is better covered by Tiger and AWD with SM6 and TacTom.

If you need a carrier capability, get a proper carrier.

That's pretty much sumarised everything that I'd want to say:
1). Under normal circumstances the RAN will be able to guarantee that at least 1 LHD can get to sea in a hurry (a couple of days) and that gives the ADF the ability to get up to a thousand lads and lasses with their kit and a dozen or so helicopters into the AOA. That'll be adequate for about 90% of what we do, and overkill for most of that. Putting the full 2,600 man ARG (2 LHD and 1 LSD) ashore will be bloody rare, and I can't concieve of any situation which will sneak up on us and require the ADF to have that capability on permanently standby.
2). I really can't imagine any situations in which half a dozen F-35B are actually going to make enough of a difference to warrant the epic embuggernace of getting them into ADF service. It's not that they wouldn't be useful, it's that the capability they bring to the party doesn't really change the balance of an operation (i.e. either an operation is viable without a flight of F-35B or it's gonna require a far larger fast jet contingent [in which case we're going to need allies]).
3). I think AEW is a slightly different issue (I'd be interested in seeing whether it is possible/advisable to put the Cerberus mission systems into the back of an NH-90), but it'll be a few years before anyone will be willing to put much effort into it. Also, carrying an extra ~4 medium helicopters isn't going to be a deal-breaker in terms of the planned load for the ARG.

ARH v.3.1

20-01-11, 01:42 PM

tiddles

20-01-11, 01:51 PM

Thanks for the pics BUG., erecting a basic hanger is not a huge problem by the look of it & using containers for spares & workshoping would also simplify that requirement.
Tiddles

JimWH

20-01-11, 02:41 PM

Given the limited range of the Tigre's weapons, the aircraft itself and the ready availability of MANPADS, it doesn't take much of a stretch to come up with scenrios where even an otherwise lightly equipped enemy can put helicopter based air support at risk. That is also aside from the ISR role the aircraft can play, and while 4-6 aircraft isn't enough to maintain a continuous CAP, it is enough to keep reconnaissance aircraft away from the fleet, and substantially increase the risk associated with trying to launch an air attack, making it a far less trivial action than what would be the case with ship based missiles alone. It also wouldn't take much more than 4-6 aircraft to provide for what would be on regional terms a reasonably substantial maritime interdiction capability beyond what Seahawks / NH90's can manage. The only real interdiction capability we had for INTERFET was six F111's.

None of this requires the ability to maintain persistent air operations. If the threat is great enough to warrant the armoured support that the amphibs can carry and the AWD's, chances are it wouldn't hurt to be able to put a couple of fighter aircraft in the air at short notice, which doesn't warrant a dedicated carrier. On the same note, the European carrier equipped navies and the USMC MEU's have converged on 4-8 aircraft to support battalion to brigade sized operations for lower intensity conflicts, which is likely to be similar to what we end up doing ourselves.

1). For 'Hacking the shad', I'd submit that SM-6 should be adequate. If a platform (ship, Wesgetail, JORN, etc.) can get a reasonably solid track on the shadow, then SM-6 can get it. Modelling at the moment predicts a useful range in the territory of 300km+ against an MPA.
2). Yes MANPADS are a threat, but we know from pretty extensive experience over the past decade that they're manageable. In 7 years of conflict in Iraq (i.e. a war in which the Iranians were supplying large amounts of kit such as MANPADS to insurgents) there were a total of 12 Apaches lost. To the best of my knowledge the Israelis have never lost an attack helicopter to enemy fire, and they've been fighting against MANPAD armed opponents in built up urban areas for a decade. Taken in total I think the evidence suggests that the Tigers will be survivable in the operational environment we actually expect to operate in (i.e. they'd be obviously useless against an integrate air defence system). This is not without risk, but I think it is manageable.
3). I agree that some F-35B would have a useful deterrent value, but again one has to question how much? We are investing in TLAM, and that will give the ARG the ability to strike targets at stand-off range. It's not as flexible as a strike fighter, but it's not to be sniffed and and should have a powerful deterrent effect. Also recall that the introduction into service of JASSM and the KC-30B considerably extends the reach of land-based F-35As that we are investing in.
4). The USMC settled on 6-8 or so STOVL fighters quite a while ago, but they appear to be the only ones. Both the Spanish and the Italians want to go with twice that many flying from dedicated aviation ships (note that they're not planning on using their dual role carriers to act like USN LHD/LHAs, they'll either act as amphibious vessels or carriers).
As usual the US are pretty much the exception. Because they are the lumbering great behemoth that they are, they're predicating their armed forces on getting mixed-up in much heavier shit than anyone else. The USMC's MEUs are equipped to fight WWIII. And one of the kickers is that their Harriers/Lightnings will operate under an umbrella of cover provided by a CSG. The RAN does not have the same luxury, nor are we planning on getting our ARG into anything too heavy without substantial back-up.
Also recall that the USN's LHD/LHA are about 50% bigger than the Canberra class, it's much easier to do everything when you've got far more tonnage to play with.
5). Ultimately its a question of priorities. There might, possibly, be situations in which a commander on the ground would wish that he had a handful of F-35B on tap, but how often? And how much of the rest of the time would the ADF suffer for having to provide that capability? And I'm not just talking about the cost. I'm talking about the substantial cut into the volume available for the EMF handed over to the aircraft and their stores (consumables and spares), the personnel required to operate them (~100-150 to operate a flight of Lightnings, upwards of 10% of the EMF of one LHD), and he impact on flight deck operation required to accommodate a fixed wing QRA.
From the perspective of somebody who has to put up with being told how tight the budget already is (on at least a fortnightly basis), I just can't see this being worthwhile.

Anyone else got some thoughts on this?

ADMk2

20-01-11, 03:25 PM

1)

Anyone else got some thoughts on this?

You don't need STOVL aircraft to support your operational force when Specops are the only ones allowed to do any offensive fighting... If we won't deploy conventional "green" units to Afghanistan to conduct combat operations against the Taliban, there is no WAY we will be deploying troops on amphibious operations in the face of even a low level air threat to conduct combat operations.

Our LHD's will be used for peace-keeping at the highest level of intensity for any ops we lead or conduct ourselves and STOVL aircraft are unlikely to be needed. For coalition ops, which represent the most likely higher intensity operations we would ever get involved in, I doubt our LHD's would even be deployed without USN or land based air cover available.

As per usual, we'd likely send a frigate/destroyer, a CDT team, a fighter squadon, an MPA or 2, a specwarrie detachment, a Logistic/Comms group and a handful of medium helos. That seems to me to be the upper limit of any contribution we would make to a higher intensity combat operation in the forseeable future.

From that POV, a STOVL aircraft capability seems most unnecessary...

ARH v.3.1

20-01-11, 03:27 PM

Picking up on a couple of points...

If a platform (ship, Wesgetail, JORN, etc.) can get a reasonably solid track on the shadow, then SM-6 can get it. Modelling at the moment predicts a useful range in the territory of 300km+ against an MPA.

Operative word being if. This is why if anything there needs to be extra space for an organic AEW capability if nothing else, which still requires clearing up additional hanger space, most likely requiring an additional LPD.

Yes MANPADS are a threat, but we know from pretty extensive experience over the past decade that they're manageable.

Manageable with fixed wing air support. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been supported by precisely one metric shit ton of fixed wing air support and ISR aircraft. Experience has also shown that attack helicopters operating without additional air support can struggle to operate without the risk of heavy losses when facing even marginal opposition. I still think it is going to be an enormous stretch to think our land based aircraft will provide the necessary air support.

Both the Spanish and the Italians want to go with twice that many flying from dedicated aviation ships...

The Italian and Spanish navies operate a total of sixteen and seventeen Harriers respectively, including training aircraft, and both operate a total of two ships, like the RAN, comparable to the RAN's LHD's (or identical in Spain's case). The Italian navy is intending to operate only 22 F35B's, 12 of which can be deployed on the Cavour. Minus training aircraft and maintenance/readiness considerations, the total available aircraft isn't great, and doesn't push the double digits easily. The Invincibles often didn't deploy with more than eight aircraft, and that is from a dedicated carrier.

Also recall that the USN's LHD/LHA are about 50% bigger than the Canberra class, it's much easier to do everything when you've got far more tonnage to play with.

The RAN will be using two LHD's and a LPD to more or less do the equivelant of what the USN can do with a single LHD, only without the fixed wing air support. The moral of the story is pretty much every other navy that is looking to undertake amphibious operations on the scale that the RAN is intending have included organic fixed wing air support in what ultimately amounts to modest numbers. For the sake of more hangar and ordnance storage space, which can be provided cheaply via an additional LPD, the RAN could too. It doesn't require an additional carrier dedicated to the task, just more vehicle parking space on another ship.

ARH v.3.1

20-01-11, 03:39 PM

You don't need STOVL aircraft to support your operational force when Specops are the only ones allowed to do any offensive fighting..

Ultimately agree, but if there is a sufficient threat to land forces to warrant the heavy armoured support that is planned to be deployed, chances are there will also be a sufficient threat to warrant the ability to provide fixed wing air support on relatively short notice. That threat doesn't necessarily require the outbreak of WW3 or for the Army to be undertaking offensive operations, but also doesn't require the additional capability and cost of a dedicated carrier.

Chunder

21-01-11, 01:06 AM

Bugs, is that Mexafloat pontoon with the loader on it modular? It looks like it is in at least 3 sections? Would have to be the most interesting bit of kit I've seen in awhile.

buglerbilly

21-01-11, 01:41 AM

Sort of, its actually a folder, when you drop it off the LPD you unfold ramps fore and aft.............you can join more than one together tho (I think) but this is not often done...........this basic system got a lot of publicity from widespread use during the Falklands campaign...............in fact the Brits would have been ferked without them!

tiddles

21-01-11, 08:14 AM

Here is one of the pics that I had lost of the Bay Class with hanger, not much of a pic but I hope it uploads which will be a first uploaded pic success for me on this latest version of our forum.Not a nice big pic but that is beyond me.
Tiddles

buglerbilly

21-01-11, 10:17 AM

Yeah its the same Rub Hall-type building "131's" pics showed..................

Chunder

24-01-11, 05:48 PM

buglerbilly

24-01-11, 11:24 PM

Next question... Is this the sort of thing Weasel was talking about when mentioning the LASH concept?

Nah, LASH is an acronym for Lighter Aboard Ship, basically a series of brages lashed on board a Mother ship which usually has a crane or gantry crane to unload the barges as required. The barges can then be towed to their final location.

There are a number of derivatives on this theme but in most cases the barges are unpowered and require a Tug. Longer, more detailed description is here............

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lash.htm

buglerbilly

25-01-11, 12:10 AM

HMAS Success report raises concerns

January 25, 2011 - 8:59AM

AAP

A report from an inquiry into sexual misconduct aboard HMAS Success raises serious concerns about navy culture, defence force chief Angus Houston says.

Air Chief Marshal Houston on Tuesday said he had received the 400-page first part of the HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry's report on an alleged sex ring operating onboard the ship during March to May 2009 when it was deployed to the Philippines, China, Hong Kong and Singapore.

"On my very quick review, it is clear to me that the report raises very serious issues," he said in a statement.

Those issues included questions about individual accountability and broader cultural and institutional issues and concerns.

"It is going to take time to analyse and understand the detail of the findings and conclusions."

Air Chief Marshal Houston said he expected to receive the rest of the report by the middle of the year.

A copy of part one of the report was handed to Defence Minister Stephen Smith over the weekend.

Mr Smith told ABC Radio it raised "very concerning" issues and would be released publicly in the next few weeks.

Problems with discipline and "so-called tribal culture" had been raised by the inquiry, the defence minister said.

"To be blunt about it, (the report) doesn't make good reading, either about the suggestions of individual conduct, or the suggestions of discipline, or the suggestions of a particular type of culture," he said.

"The (defence) command structure down has zero tolerance for such unacceptable behaviour."

Mr Smith said forthcoming parts of the report would look at ways defence could conduct its investigations better.

Humans weren't perfect but it was the job of defence leadership to make sure bad behaviour didn't become institutional, he said.

Mr Smith said there were many examples of outstanding actions from within the navy too.

"It's not all bad news ... we also get regular examples of very good work and great heroism whether it's the Christmas Island rescue or the Queensland and Victoria floods."

The inquiry into conduct aboard HMAS Success heard reports of an entrenched culture of disrespect for women aboard the ship, with a group of male sailors putting dollar values or "bounties" on female crew.

Known as The Ledger, the alleged sex ring involved members detailing their conquests on paper and placing dollar values on each female sailor they had sex with during an overseas deployment in 2009.

The inquiry, overseen by retired judge Roger Gyles, was launched by the defence department after an initial investigation was deemed to be biased.

© 2011 AAP

buglerbilly

31-01-11, 05:01 AM

Navy urged to buy surplus British vessel

Max Blenkin, AAP Defence Correspondent

January 31, 2011 - 1:54PM

AAP

The navy could make significant savings by disposing of the ageing landing ship HMAS Tobruk and either HMAS Manoora or Kanimbla and buying a surplus British vessel, a lobby group says.

In an editorial in its publication The Navy, the Navy League said Tobruk, launched in 1980, was becoming increasingly unsustainable.

Manoora and Kanimbla, both ex-US Navy vessels launched in 1970, are currently tied up in Sydney for urgent and overdue maintenance, with the government yet to decide their future.

In contrast, the United Kingdom's four Bay Class landing ship dock (LSD) vessels were all launched in 2006 and 2007.

Under the UK government's Strategic Defence and Security Review released last October one of the 16,000 tonne Bay class LSDs will be decommissioned.

Australia and the UK are now discussing the possibility of Australia either leasing or buying one of these ships.

The Navy League said this was a golden opportunity and it was time for a rethink and rationalisation of the navy's current amphibious capability.

Under current plans, the navy is acquiring two Spanish-built 27,000 tonne landing helicopter dock (LHD) ships, scheduled to enter service from mid-decade.

The latest Defence Capability Plan (DCP) proposes acquisition of a new strategic sealift vessel of up to 15,000 tonnes, with the initial procurement decision in mid-decade and entry to service around 2022-24.

The Navy League said there was potential for Australia to benefit from the UK review.

"Decommissioning Tobruk and/or one of the LPAs (Manoora or Kanimbla) now to purchase the UK's decommissioning Bay class would provide considerable savings in operating costs and maintenance and will free up personnel for transition training to the LHDs," it said.

"All of which would enable a far timelier realisation fo the government's 2009 White Paper strategy for the ADF's amphibious deployment and sustainment project as well as a capability increase."

The League noted the significantly smaller crew required for the Bay class vessels - 60 compared to 144 for Tobruk and 180 for Manoora or Kanimbla.

However, it wasn't optimistic defence would appreciate the benefits of this deal.

It said in 1998 Australia passed up the opportunity to acquire four surplus US Kidd class destroyers for $30 million each in favour of a so far problematic upgrade of existing guided missile frigates.

"The senior military bureaucracy's strict adherence to the DCP will mean this golden opportunity is unlikely to be considered as it will be deemed outside the scope of the current DCP," it said.

© 2011 AAP

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP

31-01-11, 07:09 AM

ADMk2

31-01-11, 08:13 AM

The Navy League is wrong? How could they be? They only only advocate a nuclear powered fleet of approx 50 major surface combatants and submarines, with multiple aircraft carriers and carrier air wings, long ranged land attack missiles and a light army designed for jungle warfare....

Doesn't seem out of touch with reality at all...

buglerbilly

31-01-11, 08:19 AM

amtp10f

31-01-11, 12:15 PM

all 3 current fatships are donald ducked. its a race to establish which ones in the worst condition.

there are people looking at Largs, so I'd say that the report implying disinterest is a tad wrong.

We've got another bunch of people flying over to the UK for further talks on the Bay. Given how tight Defence (and Navy in particular) is these days when it comes to O/S trips, you better believe they are serious.

And it's not just the big amphibs that are rooted. The LCH's are accidents waiting to happen, SUCCESS may be in refit longer that anticipated due to emergent work popping up as they fit the extra hull, and SIRIUS is a complete disappointment as we can't use that very expensive flight deck (not that she can't carry little more than fuel anyway).

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP

31-01-11, 12:22 PM

Given how tight Defence (and Navy in particular) is these days when it comes to O/S trips, you better believe they are serious.

its bad enough trying to go to meetings interstate (look at the poor bastards in DSTO - their budget has been cut by 60%!)
2 OS trips almost makes them a certainty - otherwise they'll keep them there to save money bringing them back..... :)

And it's not just the big amphibs that are rooted. The LCH's are accidents waiting to happen, SUCCESS may be in refit longer that anticipated due to emergent work popping up as they fit the extra hull, and SIRIUS is a complete disappointment as we can't use that very expensive flight deck (not that she can't carry little more than fuel anyway).

interesting to see whether they come up with other vessels on the list - there are a few big ships going out to pasture and we just might be in the right place at the right time....

JimWH

31-01-11, 12:42 PM

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP

31-01-11, 12:56 PM

Can't see us being too interested in any of the other ships they're laying off. We could probably find something useful to do with the Fort Victorias they're laying off, but AFAIK they're not doing till tale this year, by which point in time it'll be most of 20 years old an in need of an 8-15 month refit.

There are a few commercial ships on the market - not just navy, and they're already certified, twin hulls, contaminant managed etc...

buglerbilly

31-01-11, 02:10 PM

There are a few commercial ships on the market - not just navy, and they're already certified, twin hulls, contaminant managed etc...

The BAY class together with 1 or 2 commercial vessels modified with flight deck and hangar and off we jolly well go............the Koreans can build a NEW tanker quicker (and possibly cheaper) than we are going to get some of this work done...............additional work from SUCCESS should NOT be a surprise considering the age of the vessel AND the hard use its had.

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP

01-02-11, 06:19 AM

Manoora and the LCM's are gone (not that much of a surprise consider Manoora becoming parts and future razer blades)

Gubler, A.

01-02-11, 07:06 AM

You mean the LCM2000s not the LCM8s...

PS Considering the LCM2000s have been sitting in the waste space of a boatyard for a few years this is no big deal...

Unicorn

01-02-11, 08:01 AM

Source: http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Smit ... ntId=11344

01 Feb 2011

Stephen Smith MP
Minister for Defence

Transition plan to Landing Helicopter Dock

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that HMAS Manoora would be decommissioned and that Defence would develop a new comprehensive plan to transition to the new Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) Ships.

HMAS Manoora

HMAS Manoora will be decommissioned on the advice of Chief of Navy.

The Manoora was placed on operational pause by the Seaworthiness Board in September last year.

An examination of the over 40 year old ship has revealed it requires remediation of significant hull corrosion and the replacement of both gear boxes.

This work would cost over $20 million and would take until April 2012 to complete.

The Manoora was scheduled to be decommissioned at the end of next year.

“That is not value for money for another nine months of service,” Mr Smith and Mr Clare said.

Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD):

HMAS Manoora and the Royal Australian Navy’s other amphibious support ships (HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Tobruk) will be replaced by two Canberra Class LHDs, the largest Ships ever operated by the Royal Australian Navy.

Later this month (February 18) the hull of the first LHD will be launched in Spain where it has been constructed by Navantia.

The hull will arrive in Melbourne next year for further work to be completed at the Williamstown Shipyard before the LHD becomes operational in 2014. Australia’s second LHD will become operational the following year.

The LHDs are bigger than Australia’s last aircraft carrier. Each is 230 meters long and can carry a combined armed battlegroup of more than 1000 personnel, 100 armoured vehicles and 12 helicopters. Each also includes a 40-bed hospital.

“Stepping up to this new capability is going to require a lot of work by Navy,” Mr Smith said.

“It is very different to the ships we currently operate. One LHD will effectively replace the entire amphibious force we have today. It also has a number of capabilities, such as a floating dock that the Royal Australian Navy does not currently operate.

“Because of the decommissioning of the Manoora and the age of our other amphibious ships, I have asked Defence to present a new comprehensive plan for the transition towards the new LHDs.”

Transition plan:

“I have asked Defence to present me with options and recommendations to ensure the smooth transition to the LHD,” Mr Smith said.

This could include the lease or purchase Ships that would provide a platform to train and prepare for the LHDs, such as a Bay Class Ship from the UK Government.

If this option is taken up it could provide for the decommissioning of the HMAS Kanimbla or HMAS Tobruk to be brought forward.

HMAS Kanimbla was also placed on operational pause by the Seaworthiness Board last year. The Kanimbla is not now expected to be available for operations until mid-2012 and is currently scheduled to be decommissioned at the end of 2014.

HMAS Tobruk is currently being maintained at a 48 hours readiness posture in order to meet Australian Defence Force preparedness requirements.

The Tobruk will be required to dock this year to replace worn-out support bearings on a propeller shaft. She is due to be decommissioned at the end of 2012.

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP

01-02-11, 08:46 AM

did anyone see that moron hugh rimington on ch10 re this?

fmd, talk about a dumbed down effort to create controversy...

idjut

SteveJH

01-02-11, 09:14 AM

did anyone see that moron hugh rimington on ch10 re this?

fmd, talk about a dumbed down effort to create controversy...

idjut

No, is it online anywhere? (hi guys, long time no talk)

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP

01-02-11, 09:18 AM

No, is it online anywhere? (hi guys, long time no talk)

dunno, it was on george negus attempt to do a lazarus

SteveJH

01-02-11, 09:22 AM

dunno, it was on george negus attempt to do a lazarus

Not that guy again....

Surprised anyone will speak to him (George Negus) after the grilling he was giving people in Brisbane and then his later grilling of Gillard....

Will have a bit of a look.

buglerbilly

01-02-11, 11:13 AM

Apart from the fact that they were/are the wrong size, did they ever sort out the fact they had rubbish seam welds? OR is that why they are stored on land...........:razz

amtp10f

03-02-11, 11:07 AM

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/navys-rescue-ships-out-of-action-in-dry-dock/story-e6frg6nf-1225999037966)

The navy has been unable to respond to an SOS for help in the aftermath of Cyclone Yasi because its three biggest support ships are out of action.

The ships are equipped with onboard hospital facilities, helicopter landing pads, massive cargo holds and heavy duty cranes, qualities designed to play a key role in national disasters.

The RAN's inability to provide a large amphibious transport capability after a request by Queensland emergency management officials was a "national scandal", said the federal opposition's defence spokesman David Johnston.

All of the Royal Australian Navy's three main amphibious support ships are currently out of action or unseaworthy.

HMAS Manoora and its 8500 tonne sister ship Kanimbla have been in "operational pause" since last September over seaworthiness and safety concerns.

So serious are the maintenance problems neither are expected to put to sea again, and will be decommissioned.

The 5800 tonne Heavy Landing Ship HMAS Tobruk is in deep maintenance and incapable of deploying, Navy confirmed last night. Instead it offered a flotilla of smaller vessels.

Experience learnt from Cyclone Larry meant that the most appropriate defence support would be air search and rescue using aircraft and helicopters, said a ministerial spokesman.

Navy could provide heavy landing craft and small amphibious vessels which could provide a "most appropriate and immediate response", the spokesman said.

That was not good enough, said Mr Johnston. "Navy, clearly have lost the plot on this. We have a national disaster and no ships to assist our own civilian population.

"Well, I've got to tell you, if this was national emergency in terms of a military threat -- how would we be?" he said, adding, "This is just an absolute walking, living, breathing example of incompetence."

On Tuesday, an angry Defence Minister Stephen Smith announced he was scrapping a contract for six Landing Craft Mechanised (LCMs) because the 24.5m vessels were the wrong size to fit on their proposed motherships which in turn now face decommissioning.

The six rejected LCMs are parked on hardstands in Townsville, awaiting disposal.

But the decision not to accept the vessels will cost taxpayers $40 million. "In the old days, good or bad, there was very much a view -- that a defence project was a defence project almost with impunity," Defence Minister Stephen Smith told Sky TV yesterday. "We have historically too many very bad examples where projects have not been successful ending up with a capability we can't use or massive cost overruns.

"The challenge now is to bring internal rigour and accountability within defence for those procurement projects."

The Australian Defence Association lobby group said problems affecting the Navy's amphibious capability should be shared by both sides of politics.

amtp10f

03-02-11, 11:10 AM

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/talk-of-bungle-as-military-landing-craft-axed/story-fn59niix-1225998348684)

SIX trouble-plagued military landing craft will be disposed of and the contract for them cancelled in a move that will cost taxpayers $40 million and has sparked renewed claims of defence bungling.

While announcing the axing of the landing craft mechanised contract yesterday, Defence Minister Stephen Smith said reforms designed to improve military procurement efficiency would be unveiled within months.

Built originally for the army, the six 25.4m craft, ordered more than a decade ago and completed in 2005 but never accepted, were too big for their intended use, Mr Smith said.

In 2007, Defence suspended trials when the crafts developed cracks during testing.

"The great tragedy of this project is that when the watercraft were produced, they were not in a position to be utilised by Australian defence forces," Mr Smith said.

The landing crafts' proposed motherships, the ageing 40-year-old HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla -- two 8500-tonne amphibious transports docked since September over seaworthiness concerns -- will be scrapped.

The two ships, along with another veteran amphibious support ship, HMAS Tobruk, will be replaced in 2014-15 by two Spanish-designed amphibious assault ships -- at 27,000 tonnes, the largest warships ever operated by the Royal Australian Navy. Negotiations are under way with Britain for a lease or purchase replacement -- most likely a Bay-class landing ship dock -- as an interim measure.

Mr Smith and the Minister for Defence Materiel, Jason Clare, expressed renewed concern at Defence's inability to manage procurement contracts.

"A key priority for Defence -- a key priority for Jason (Clare) and I this year -- will be to put in place better accountability mechanisms, better fiscal discipline internally within Defence," Mr Smith said.

"In the past there has been too much of an attitude or a culture that, irrespective of the cost, irrespective of the outcome, a Defence project was somehow immune from rigour."

Other troubled contracts were the MRH-90 project, a $3.8 billion order for 46 helicopters to replace the army's Black Hawk and navy's Sea King fleets. That will now be subject to a high-level independent review designed to examine engine failures, transmission cooling problems and poor availability of spares.

"There's been a delay in bringing . . . those helicopters into service, something in the order of 12 months for navy and 18 months for army," Mr Clare said.

For the moment, the project has been spared a listing on the infamous "projects of concern".

Mr Clare said he would be meeting this month with chief executives involved with 11 projects of concern to ensure progress was made for the contracts to be removed from the blacklist.

Other major troubled programs include the Collins-class submarine sustainment project, continuing problems with RAAF's Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft and its Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT).

Of the 18 projects listed since 2008, seven have been removed due to remediation and two others cancelled.

buglerbilly

03-02-11, 11:17 AM

So going back to my question, do these LCM2000's have dodgy welding along with their "improbable" size problems for ships we soon won't have.................

Gubler, A.

03-02-11, 01:00 PM

So going back to my question, do these LCM2000's have dodgy welding along with their "improbable" size problems for ships we soon won't have.................

They were built to the right size its just when hoisted onto an LPA it was clearly obvious that they were too big to be safe. The welding problem is what you get when you contract a shipbuilder with a good record in fibre glass hull forming and steel repair to build something out of aluminium. Which of course they subbed out but didn't manage the process.

buglerbilly

03-02-11, 02:44 PM

Parallel Negotiations for Pacific Patrol Boat Support and Third Refit Tender Contract

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued February 3, 2011)

The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) has commenced parallel negotiations with two tenderers for the re-fit and support of Pacific Patrol Boats.

This decision was made following an independent internal review conducted as a result of a tenderer complaint regarding the initial tender process.

This is normal practice in accordance with the Defence Procurement Policy guidelines.

DMO has now agreed and commenced a parallel negotiation process with Birdon Pty Ltd and DMS Maritime Pty Ltd.

On 1 October 2010, Defence announced that the DMO had selected DMS Maritime Pty Ltd as the preferred tenderer for the provision of the Pacific Patrol Boat Support and Third Refit services.

The tender is for support for 19 Pacific Patrol Boats that were built and gifted to Pacific Island countries, and are sponsored and funded by the Defence Cooperation Program.

These vessels are used by the Pacific Island countries to patrol their Exclusive Economic Zones, conduct search and rescue operations and disaster relief.

In the interim, the Pacific Patrol Boats remain supported by the current contractor, BAE Systems.

-ends-

McDethWivFries

08-02-11, 09:55 AM

Anyone have any more news re the Bay?

Unicorn

08-02-11, 12:02 PM

Crickets chirping so far.

Unicorn

09-02-11, 07:09 AM

I note the highlighted section in this release from MinDef

VISIT TO NEW ZEALAND

I will depart Australia later today for New Zealand to participate in the annual Australia-New Zealand Defence Ministers’ Talks with New Zealand Defence Minister Dr Wayne Mapp on Thursday in Wellington.

The Australia-New Zealand Defence Ministers’ Talks are the principal forum for Australian and New Zealand Defence Ministers to discuss strategic, defence and security interests of common concern.

Australia and New Zealand’s contemporary security cooperation, including important contributions to missions in East Timor, the Solomon Islands and Afghanistan, underlines the enduring importance of our bilateral defence relationship.

This will be my first visit to New Zealand as Minister for Defence, and my second meeting with Dr Mapp following our meeting at the ASEAN-Plus Defence Ministers’ Meeting in Hanoi in October last year.

In August 2009, Australia and New Zealand jointly announced a range of practical measures to enhance Australia – New Zealand defence cooperation, including the establishment of a joint Rapid Reaction Force for regional contingencies and the strengthening of an ANZAC airlift capability.

Dr Mapp and I will discuss progress in these initiatives, as well other existing and prospective areas of defence cooperation between Australia and New Zealand. I will raise formally with Dr Mapp at our meeting the prospect of greater cooperation between Australia and New Zealand in the use of amphibious lift vessels for regional disaster relief and humanitarian assistance.

The Defence Ministers’ Talks will be preceded by the Australia – New Zealand Consultative Committee (ANZCC) meeting between the Chiefs of Defence Force and Defence Secretaries from both countries.

The last Australia-New Zealand Defence Ministers’ Talks were hosted by then Defence Minister Senator John Faulkner in Sydney in September 2009.

Australia and New Zealand share a legacy of defence cooperation dating back to the ANZAC landings at Gallipoli in 1915.

Trackmaster

09-02-11, 01:38 PM

On the first highlighted point... there was a story in Aviation Week last year on reported negotiations for a joint Austrlian-NZ purchase of a C-17. As I recall, the report was sourced out of Long Beach.

rawcs

09-02-11, 10:25 PM

Troubled waters for sick navy fleet

* EXCLUSIVE Cameron Stewart
* From: The Australian
* February 10, 2011 12:00AM

Is this a bit more sensationalisation by Stewart or is the RAN doing badly with maintaining and upgrading the fleet?

TWO-THIRDS of the Royal Australian Navy fleet could not operate at full capacity at some stage of the first half of last year, putting the force under pressure to scale back its activities around the world.

The parlous state of the navy is revealed in full for the first time by figures that show 38 of the fleet's 54 vessels were at some stage hit by faults, repairs, operational restrictions or crew shortages in the first half of last year.

The navy was further embarrassed last week when it was unable to send any of its three main amphibious support ships - HMAS Tobruk, HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla - to Queensland to assist in recovery efforts after Cyclone Yasi because the ships were either out of action or unseaworthy.

According to the navy's figures, which were provided in response to questions on notice from opposition defence spokesman David Johnston, each of the navy's six Collins-class submarines spent between five and 12 months of the year to last June in dock undergoing repairs or maintenance.

On average, the submarine fleet was seaworthy for only 32 per cent of the year because of faulty diesel engines, broken generators, crew shortages and maintenance.

The troubled fleet cost $325 million to sustain during that period.

The navy's surface ships were also hard hit by problems, with eight of its 12-frigate fleet running on "lower levels of operational readiness" as "crewing gaps" affected trials, training and regional engagement in the six months to June last year.

Likewise, its fleet of amphibious, replenishment and hydrographic ships was riddled with problems, ranging from engine and hull defects to shortages of crew.

Senator Johnston said the figures revealed a level of disrepair in the navy that was shocking and unacceptable.

"I want to know who is accountable for this multi-billion-dollar mess and how have we come to this," Senator Johnston told The Australian.

"Virtually all force element groups are about 70 to 80 per cent laid up through maintenance and are non-operational. Clearly this is not good enough."

Navy chief Russ Crane told The Australian last night that a shortage of trained crews had contributed to lower operational readiness levels for some ships.

"We have some pressures in terms of manning," Vice Admiral Crane said.

While navy recruitment had bounced back strongly, there was an imbalance between the numbers of trained and untrained crew, which was limiting the options for the navy.

"We have a lot of very young, inexperienced people in the training system," he said. "We need to train our way out of the surge of trainees we have at the moment."

A navy spokesman said the situation was improving with 496 more trained people now than at the same time last year.

Vice Admiral Crane said that, despite the pressures, he saw no immediate need to scale back the tempo of naval operations.

"I am comfortable I have sufficient capacity to meet the requirement directed to me by the chief of the defence force," he said.

Navy figures show that all six hydrographic ships were affected in the first half of last year by either defects, crew shortages or upgrades. The navy said eight of its frontline Anzac and FFG frigates had operated "with managed crewing gaps and conducting lower levels of operational readiness activities such as scheduled maintenance, trails activities, training exercises and regional engagement activities".

The amphibious and replenishment fleet had crewing shortfalls, HMAS Tobruk had a hull defect, HMAS Sirius an engine defect and HMAS Kanimbla had unexpected maintenance delays.

Vice Admiral Crane said the availability of submarines and submarine crews had improved in the seven months since the 2009-10 financial year and that the navy would be creating a fourth submarine crew that would ease pressure further.

* PDF GRAPHIC: Our non-shipshape navy (http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/02/10/1226003/338041-110210-navy.pdf)

Mercator

10-02-11, 02:07 AM

Which reminds me. Senate estimates is in a couple of weeks. Looks like Sen Johnston is warming up with some questions on notice. Could be an uncomfortable time for Navy types at the big table...

geof

10-02-11, 08:21 AM

Unicorn

10-02-11, 08:46 AM

More from the Minsterial talks

New Zealand Defence Minister Wayne Mapp met his Australian counterpart Stephen Smith in Wellington today to discuss a range of defence and security issues.

(deleting the usual fluff)

Ministers also announced the sharing of key capabilities, including HMNZS Canterbury, as part of the RRF banner, with a view to early opportunities to exercise planning functions and amphibious interoperability.

“HMNZS Canterbury’s amphibious-lift capability will be particularly important in our region over the next few years in light of the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) transition to a new amphibious capability. During the transition period, the RAN faces challenges in amphibious capability. The integration of HMNZS Canterbury in this way is a practical example of ANZAC cooperation which can benefit our region, particularly in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief,” said Minister Smith.

Ministers further highlighted the successful reinvigoration of the Australia-New Zealand Airlift Agreement – an initiative developed at the previous Defence Ministers’ Meeting in Sydney in 2009. By streamlining airlift procedures and improving trans-Tasman communication, our air forces have produced a more efficient and effective ANZAC airlift capability, which will complement the RRF.

New Zealand and Australia have a strong security relationship based on a long history of cooperation, going back to the ANZACs in the First World War. “This cooperation continues to this day with combined operations in the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. Through the initiatives agreed at today’s meeting, our countries will continue to expand our already very extensive defence ties and demonstrate our continued commitment to security in the region,” the Ministers said.

ADMk2

10-02-11, 09:10 AM

Ministers further highlighted the successful reinvigoration of the Australia-New Zealand Airlift Agreement – an initiative developed at the previous Defence Ministers’ Meeting in Sydney in 2009. By streamlining airlift procedures and improving trans-Tasman communication, our air forces have produced a more efficient and effective ANZAC airlift capability, which will complement the RRF.

Reading further between the lines... "Fine you can use our Hercules because you haven't invested in yours and they're ferged, whilst we will use your Amphibious ship because we haven't invested in ours and they are ferged"...

What a wonderful world we live in.

And I heard today that the Greens want defence cut, because Government is threatening their precious "anti-global warming" schemes to pay for the damage a large amount of water caused. The schemes that are called "anti-Global warming" are ferging rubbish ANYWAY and should be cut because of this. At least the money will go into something useful in Defence.

If they want to reduce greenhouse gasses, then invest money in finding ways to avoid burning carbon in the first place instead of ferging around trying to figure out how to make burning carbon cleaner, seems the OBVIOUS way to do so. But of course it won't happen because Government thinks it will affect their revenue too greatly.

Fergwits! The lot of them.

Rant off...

Please resume normal broadcasting...

:)

Gubler, A.

10-02-11, 09:22 AM

This is ALP speak for ... "We don't want to spend money on a Bay Class ... Our other ships are forked because we didn't maintain them .... Can we use your ships please until our other one's turn up"" ...
If I was the kiwi's I would tell them to ""puss off""

No its Govt. speak for, "Even if we win the auction for the Largs Bay in a few months time our amphib fleet is so screwed we need the help of the RNZAN to sustain a capability". Oz dodged a bullet with TC Yasi and more are forming. The Navy can't put a single amphib to sea and the next few months could see disaster of a high scale. We need the MRV on hand NOW and even if we puy Largs Bay it will not be enough.

Jezza

10-02-11, 09:36 AM

Well whats our chances of winning the auction for the Largs Bay???

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP

10-02-11, 10:14 AM

Well whats our chances of winning the auction for the Largs Bay???

considering the fact that everyones overseas travel budgets are absolutely slaughtered (and even interstate travel is hard to get approved) - then the fact that 2 teams have done overseas travel inspections is history in the making...

McDethWivFries

10-02-11, 10:33 AM

Interesting... whats the Canterbury like again? (pls refresh my limited memory (o: )

buglerbilly

10-02-11, 11:20 AM

The construction of the MRV was sub contracted-out to Merwede Shipyards in the Netherlands by Tenix Shipyards in Williamstown, Melbourne, with the design based on the commercial RoRo ship Ben my Chree. However, the choice of a commercially-based design has been criticised after the ship was delivered, as it placed several limitations on the functionality of the ship in rough seas - rather than the coastal environment for which the Ben my Chree was designed.

She was constructed with an ice-strengthened hull to allow her to operate in the subantarctic waters, where New Zealand claims several islands, and where Canterbury is to assist scientific expeditions

In September 2008, an independent review of the safety and functionality of the ship revealed that some operating limitations will have to be accepted, as sea keeping performance is poor in high sea states. The "selection of a commercial Roll-on, Roll-off (Ro-Ro) design" has "been at the root of differences of opinion between Tenix, the Ministry of Defence and New Zealand Defence Force and the shortfalls in performance". The report also recommended relocating the ships boats (or protecting them from waves if relocation was not possible) and adding more ballast / improving the ballasting system of the Canterbury.New Zodiac inflatable sea boats were ordered from Tenix Australia to replace the two Gemini sea boats that were damaged

In short she's a POS in any sea...........fundamentally they picked the wrong design and should have picked an ENFORCER class vessel which is what the BAY's are based on.................

McDethWivFries

10-02-11, 12:27 PM

cheers Bug

Jezza

10-02-11, 01:16 PM

Kanimbla and Manoora or Tobruk gets the chop???

buglerbilly

10-02-11, 02:25 PM

Buy the BAY and get the FORT Class AOR thats being disposed of (Fort George?)............get rid of Tobruk and all the rest......

We have HMAS Success tied up with an increasoing problem list and still to have her double hull installed. Personally, I'm neither surprised nor disappointed that she has an increasing list of faults, what did anyone expect? Its like opening up Pandora's Box doing this srt of work/modification, dumb idea to even attempt and a possible complete waste of money.

We only need to keep the Fort for probably 2-3 years and then see if we want to replace her or simply scrap her out-of-service.
The ships have the capacity to carry a cargo of up to 6,250m³ of solids stores plus 12,500m³ of liquids, 4 x refuelling points (and we are short of this ability at the moment), and is also fitted with a two-spot flight deck, a hangar and maintenance facilities for five Sea King or Merlin helicopters (or NH-90's).

The ships entered Service in 1994 so not new but good enough for the short-term needs we have..............

Unicorn

12-02-11, 03:25 AM

The problem is that if we were to acquire a Fort Class, the Government would then say "we bought you a new ship, that ex-British tanker, only a few years ago, There is no way you are getting any money for another ship so soon".

Don't forget, when it comes to ignorance, most politicians are wilfully so.

.

Weasel

12-02-11, 04:23 AM

You know... I was in Ulsan once, tied up (as you do) at an unexpected open berth, just after a typhoon had come through. On the bricks over the other side of the bay was the heavy lift barge that had conveniently made room for us during the storm, by breaking free and ending up where it did. The entire double hull had to be redone. Over 5000 short tons of steel. And the cost of that was mind boggling.

WHO in their right mind would want to try and convert a single hulled SUPPLY ship ( not a dedicated single cargo ship, or single purpose use vessel) into a double hulled boat?

Does Australia have a 90 day on-the-job grace period where you have to look intelligent and after that you can be as stupid as you like without fear of losing your job? Sounds like it.

cheers

w

ADMk2

12-02-11, 05:51 AM

Apparently the first Camberra Class is going to be launched on February 17... The Hull is now painted along approximately 3/4 of her length (since this pic was taken).

Unicorn

12-02-11, 10:44 AM

Lots of people have no idea just how big they will be.

There will be a lot of very surprised people living at the Finger Wharf redevelopment who won't know what hit them when the first ties up and completely blocks out the morning sun. :D

.

buglerbilly

12-02-11, 12:28 PM

Unicorn

15-02-11, 06:25 AM

Team of experts to plan way forward on Amphibious Ships Fleet

The Government will appoint an independent team of experts to develop a plan to address problems in the repair and management of the amphibious and support ship fleet.

Mr Paul Rizzo, a Director of a number of major Australian corporations including the National Australia Bank and Malleson Stephen Jacques and the Independent Chair of the Defence Audit and Risk Committee, will lead the team.

He will be supported by Air Vice Marshal Neil Smith (rtd) and Rear Admiral Brian Adams (rtd) who have relevant experience in defence administration, engineering, maintenance, logistics, systems engineering, safety certification and the operation and support of amphibious ships.

The Terms of Reference for their work is released today and attached.

On 1 February, the Government announced that HMAS Manoora was to be decommissioned on the advice of the Chief of Navy. The Manoora was placed on operational pause by the Chief of Navy after the Seaworthiness Board in September last year, and an examination of the 40 year old ship has revealed it requires remediation of significant hull corrosion and the replacement of both gear boxes. As this work would cost over $20 million and take until April 2012 to complete, it is not considered value for money when Manoora was scheduled to be decommissioned at the end of next year.

On receiving that advice the Minister for Defence asked Defence for further advice outlining the reasons for the early decommissioning of HMAS Manoora and the extended unavailability of HMAS Kanimbla.

This advice, released today and attached, identifies systemic and cultural problems in the maintenance of the amphibious ship fleet.

Today we also outline ongoing maintenance activity with respect to HMAS Tobruk.

On 28 January, we were advised that with the decommissioning of HMAS Manoora, and the extended unavailability of HMAS Kanimbla, Navy was maintaining HMAS Tobruk at 48 hours notice for sea to ensure an amphibious lift capability was available.

On 2 February, we were advised that HMAS Tobruk was to commence maintenance work in order to be fully prepared to provide any assistance in the days following Cyclone Yasi, in the event not required.

On 4 February, we were advised that HMAS Tobruk had left its dock and was being prepared to return to 48 hours notice for sea.

This has however not yet occurred as further maintenance issues and problems have been identified.

This work includes efforts to survey, verify, certify and replace a number of safety critical flexible hoses necessary to ensure the safe operation of HMAS Tobruk.

The advice about the amphibious fleet provided by the Secretary of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force makes it clear that problems with the amphibious fleet have built up over the past decade or more.

It states that many of the seeds of the problems we now face were sown long ago, and insufficient resources have been allocated to address materiel and personnel shortfalls since the ships were brought into service many years ago.

It also states that the establishment of the Seaworthiness Board in 2009 was a long overdue means of providing Chief of Navy with an independent review of maritime systems and its review of the amphibious ships provided a focus on the situation that was not previously available.

It is essential that the problems outlined in the advice are addressed as a matter of priority ahead of the transition to the new Landing Helicopter Dock Ships.

That is why we have asked Mr Rizzo to develop a plan to address the problems identified by the Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force, to reform these practices, and oversee early stage implementation of those reforms.

Their work will be additional to the new comprehensive transition plan we have asked Defence to prepare to ensure a smooth transition to the introduction of the LHD ships in the middle of the decade.

Media Note:
Reform of Amphibious and Afloat Support Ship Repair and Management Practices Terms of References can be found at:

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/docs/amphibiousReview.doc

Causal factors contributing to the unavailability of the Navy’s two LPAs can be found at:

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/docs/causalFactors.pdf

buglerbilly

15-02-11, 02:31 PM

Navy feared another Sea King disaster

Max Blenkin, AAP Defence Correspondent

February 15, 2011 - 5:39PM

AAP

The navy's amphibious landing ships had to be withdrawn from service last year to avoid a possible repeat of a disaster like the 2005 Sea King crash that killed nine defence personnel.

Defence head Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston and defence department secretary Ian Watt said the decision to invoke an "operational pause" for HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla was necessary.

The government has now decided to retire Manoora while repairs to Kanimbla will keep her out of service until April 2012.

Both are 40-year-old vessels acquired from the US Navy in poor state in 1994, requiring an extensive upgrade.

In addition, problems with landing ship HMAS Tobruk have left the navy unable to put a heavy amphibious support vessel to sea when most needed to assist with cyclone relief.

Air Chief Marshal Houston and Dr Watt said this situation was unpalatable.

"Had this not occurred it would not be unreasonable to predict an increased risk of a repeat of a Sea King sort of accident in 2005 which killed nine of our ADF people," they said in a statement outlining factors contributing to the unavailability of the two vessels.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said an independent team, headed by businessman Paul Rizzo, would assess how this could be fixed ahead of the entry to service of new landing ships around 2015.

He said a frank assessment by navy chief Vice Admiral Russ Crane led to the government decision to decommission Manoora.

"It outlines the adverse side effects of a can-do and make-do culture," Mr Smith told a defence industry conference.

"It outlines a perception that major support ships are not subject to the same level of risk as submarines and aircraft, almost a perception that HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla are second-tier ships."

Mr Smith said the assessment also outlined insufficient resources being applied to address shortcomings.

"I will be as frank in public as I have been frank in private in expressing my disappointment at this," he said.

Sharing around the potential blame, Mr Smith said many of the seeds of the problems were sown more than a decade ago. That was during the term of the coalition government.

He said Mr Rizzo's team would develop a plan to repair the amphibious and support ships and make them seaworthy.

Two new large amphibious landing ships will enter service about 2015.

Until then, the government is considering various options including acquiring a surplus British Bay class landing ship.

Australia has also agreed to share use of the New Zealand navy's landing ship HMNZS Canterbury for some operations.

Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston said he backed Mr Smith in his anger.

"I think that the defence minister himself has been ambushed by his own department who never disclose to anybody the parlous state of their vessels and continue to obfuscate on this issue," he said in a statement.

"The fact is after the recent cyclone in Queensland we may have needed our amphibious ships up there, but we find out we don't have any that are seaworthy - why isn't anybody being held accountable for this?"

© 2011 AAP

Unicorn

16-02-11, 01:45 AM

TRANSCRIPT: INTERVIEW WITH SABRA LANE, AM, ABC RADIO

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE: 16 FEBRUARY 2011

TOPICS: Amphibious ships fleet

SABRA LANE: Minister, good morning. Welcome to AM.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thank you.

SABRA LANE: How angry were you when you found out that the Tobruk was unfit for service just days after you announced Manoora's decommissioning and Kanimbla's long-term unavailability.

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I've seen references to my anger. A couple of things: firstly, it is not about me. I expressed my disappointment privately as I did publicly but the most important thing when you are dealing with these issues is how one responds, how do we respond? And what we've tried to do is to make sure firstly that we get a comprehensive new transition plan for our amphibious fleet. And I've indicated publicly that we are looking, for example, at leasing or buying a Bay Class from the United Kingdom.

We've agreed enhanced arrangements with New Zealand in terms of joint use in our region of the HMNZS Canterbury. But we need to, as I've said to Defence, all options are on the table in terms of bridging this capability gap. That is the first point.

Secondly, I was very keen to ensure that we had a very close look at how we had come to this. So I got formal advice from the Secretary of the Defence Department and the Chief of the Defence Force and I published that yesterday. And I've asked now Mr Rizzo, supported by two former Navy and Air Force personnel, to essentially do a due diligence on how we work our way through a reform program so that this never happens again.

SABRA LANE: You say you won't talk about being angry but surely you must be disappointed? And were you misinformed when the Defence Chief told you that the Tobruk was leaving dock and ready for service when in fact it wasn't and it is still out of action?

STEPHEN SMITH: I've said publicly and privately that I was disappointed. In the case of the Tobruk I detailed yesterday the changing advice that I have received and I am disappointed that what I was told, effectively, at the end of January and the beginning of February has not materialised so far as the Tobruk is concerned.

But it is also clearly the case that both with Manoora, Kanimbla and also I believe with the Tobruk, these are not issues which have emerged in the last few months or the last few years. They are of long standing - a decade and a half or more.

A very important initiative of the Chief of Navy was the establishment of the Seaworthiness Board and really, it was the report of the Seaworthiness Board in September last year which brought these issues into a real focus and there will be a lag effect.

The reform by the Chief of Navy is a good one. That, I think, will help ensure we don't see this situation again, but there will be lag effects.

SABRA LANE: What percentage of the entire fleet is able to perform to 100 per cent of its capabilities now, including the Collins Class subs?

STEPHEN SMITH: Look I think, you know, I have made this point before. It is a faulty basis and a faulty starting point to assert that every ship that Navy has needs to be in the water at the same time. They are often on training, being enhanced with additional combat systems, or they are under sensible maintenance.

SABRA LANE: Sure, people would appreciate that. But how many of them are 100 per cent capable to go out now?

STEPHEN SMITH: Two points: firstly Navy has met all of its tasked operational assignments over the last 12 months. That is very important. We do have very significant challenges on submarines, which is of long standing and well known and I don't seek to underestimate those challenges.

We have ongoing maintenance and operation issues with the Collins Class submarines and we have a significant problem with the amphibious fleet but despite those two significant issues, as I say, the Chief of Navy advises me that Navy has been able to perform all of its assigned operational tasking over the last 12 months, and that is obviously a very good thing.

SABRA LANE: But are you able to give us a figure or you can't?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, firstly in terms of the amphibious fleet, I have made that as transparent as humanly possible. Indeed, some commentators have said more transparent that any Minister before me, including publishing very frank advice I received from the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary.

In terms of submarines, I don't in advance indicate the precise detail or nature of operational readiness. We do that after the event. I don't do it for current purposes or in advance for all of the obvious operational reasons.

But we publish on a regular basis the operational capability and capacity of our submarines on a regular basis and I again underline and reinforce, we have significant long standing operational and maintenance challenges so far as our submarine fleet is concerned.

SABRA LANE: Will heads roll over this?

STEPHEN SMITH: I think there is a general point here that I made yesterday. I received yesterday formally from Dr Rufus Black his report on accountability. We have very significant accountability issues in Defence. There is a lack of institutional accountability; there is a lack of personal accountability and this will form a very strong feature of the reform program which I will introduce in the next few months.

SABRA LANE: Mr Smith, thanks for your time.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thank you. Thanks very much.

tiddles

16-02-11, 02:43 AM

With the heavily worked Tobruk nearly 30 years old & the ManKans about 40 yo somthing like this was probably always going to happen ,its just that it all happened at once & just when we needed the RAN to provide some local [Natural disaster] relief they are unable to do it. A rather sad state of affairs, but if enough maintenance was not done on these ships well where has the money gone that should have been provided for it, or was there none or little money for it in the Def Budget for the RAN in the first place. I suspect that successive govts had hoped that the current amphibs would struggle through until the new LHDs arrive with minimum amount of money spent on them & are now paying the embarrasing price. IMHO no matter how much money they threw at these old ships it was always going to be a hard ask to keep them going until 2014++??.Getting the Largs Bay should not pose a big problem for the Govt.,the cost to the Feds with regard to flood & cyclone damage will be covered by the levy assuming it goes through the Senate.We are well out from a Federal election so the unpalateable extra cost for a defence item as usually seen by the general public is not going to effect them electorily at Federal level in the long run,although the coalition might get a bit of mileage out of it but that would be soon forgotten.
Tiddles

amtp10f

19-02-11, 12:59 AM

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/navy-scuppered-by-can-do-make-do-culture/story-e6frg6zo-1226008357757)

Navy scuppered by 'can do, make do' culture

OF all the criticisms that Defence Minister Stephen Smith heaped on the Royal Australian Navy this week, it was his questioning of a "can do" culture that has set tongues wagging.

Since Gallipoli the Australian Defence Force has worn the reputed internal culture as a badge of pride. "It is almost part of the Anzac legend about the resourcefulness and innovation which defence force personnel can summon to overcome obstacles and find inventive ways to get around problems," the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Mark Thomson says of .

"But what might be a merit in military operations might not be so advantageous when it comes to the long-term repair and maintenance of military assets."

Smith's comments to a defence conference in Canberra were made in the context of the navy's much publicised mismanagement of its three large amphibious ships, HMAS Manoora, HMAS Kanimbla and HMAS Tobruk.

All three ships were unavailable to help in the clean-up after Queensland's Cyclone Yasi because of chronic maintenance problems associated with age and neglect, despite the navy's promise Tobruk would be ready if needed. The new-generation helicopter and amphibious landing ships, the first of which was launched in Spain this week, are not expected to begin entering service in 2014.

On Tuesday an angry Smith said the cyclone fiasco "outlines the adverse side effects of a 'can do' and a 'make do' culture and a lack of sufficient adherence to verification, certification and assurance processes".

Although Smith's comments this week were made in the context of the problems with the navy's amphibious fleet, they reflect a broader and deeper maintenance and management culture within the navy that saw two-thirds of its fleet unable to operate at full capacity at some stage during the first half of last year.

As The Weekend Australian reveals today, a navy review of its engineering capabilities in late 2009 concluded there was a crisis in its ranks of naval engineers who were vital to the maintenance of the fleet. It said the navy had only half the engineers it needed and navy chiefs had failed to recognise the importance of its engineering arm, leading to under-resourcing and poor policy oversight.

But how does a "can do" culture - one in which getting results somehow outweighs all other considerations - become a problem, or even a liability, for complex organisations such as the navy? Some answers may be found in the sorry tale of the NASA space agency, which has faced parallels to the problems confronting the Australian navy.

When the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated on re-entry into the earth's atmosphere in February 2003, killing its seven crew members - the second fatal shuttle crash following the loss of Challenger in 1986 - the official investigation took aim at the downside of NASA's "can do" culture, which had propelled man to the moon.

"The Apollo era created at NASA an exceptional 'can do' culture marked by tenacity in the face of seemingly impossible challenges," the US Accident Investigation Board wrote in its final report. But as time went on, NASA became an "agency that was rooted in the glories of an earlier time" and failed to appreciate the technological, financial and managerial changes that were transforming the organisation.

"Within NASA centres as managers strove to maintain their view of the organisation, they lost their ability to accept criticism, leading them to reject the recommendations of many boards and blue-ribbon panels. External criticism and doubt, rather than spurring NASA to change for the better, instead reinforced the will to 'impose the party-line vision on the environment, not to reconsider it,' according to one authority on organisational behaviour."

Investigators concluded that this group-think organisational culture within NASA "had as much to do with [Columbia's] accident as foam did". (Loss of a slab of protective foam on the shuttle led to it burning up on re-entry.)

Similarly, in the case of Australia's navy, experts say there is a vacuum of critical voices inside the system willing to speak up and debate the key decisions that have led, through many years, to the present state of the fleet.

For too long, the culture inside the navy has been to instinctively say "we can do it" without applying a rigorous reality check as to whether "it" is possible within a certain budget or timetable.

Alan Dupont, director for the Centre of International Security Studies at the University of Sydney, says a healthy "can do" culture must be tempered by an ability at times to say honestly that something can't be done.

"While the military has to have a can-do culture to some degree because it is essentially a 'doing' organisation, there also has to be a culture which encourages reflection about decisions on complex defence projects and where responsible criticism is accepted," Dupont says.

"But rather than criticism being seen as a positive part of the decision-making process, it looks as if it has been seen as a negative."

Smith is frustrated that these cultural and managerial shortcoming have been obvious for many years, yet Defence has been slow to act.

Back in 2007, ASPI's Thomson wrote a report on defence management that found a lack of "robust internal contestability" in Defence decision-making was leading, by default, to a "group think" mentality.

"The only real contestability comes from the various 'central agencies' external to Defence, especially the Department of Finance and Administration," Thomson wrote. "While this is proper, it is also inadequate. No external body can hope to fully understand the issues, let alone mount compelling arguments from afar - especially with Defence tightly controlling access to information and data."

Smith believes this lack of healthy debate partly reflects an absence of accountability across the Defence hierarchy.

"We need to instil much greater rigour and individual and institutional accountability to our consideration and management of major projects, acquisition and capabilities,' he said this week.

Yet this is easier said than done. The size of the Defence bureaucracy is such that important decisions on equipment are made by a raft of different sections and divisions, so that when something goes wrong no one appears directly accountable.

ASPI's Thomson says the mismanagement of the amphibious ships provides a good example of how difficult it is to sheet home blame within the defence system.

"There is no point banging on the table of the chief of navy about this because he does not control all the necessary levers," Thomson tells Focus.

"The crewing of these ships will be the navy's responsibility, but the facilities from which they operate will be the run by the defence support group, while the responsibility for maintenance will lie with the Defence Materiel Organisation and the decisions on their deployment will be made by the Joint Operations Command. The people in navy work hard and are focused on doing the right thing, they work in a dysfunctional system of accountability." This lack of accountability encourages defence planners to shoot for the stars, knowing that if they miss, they won't be blamed.

There is no better example of this than the government's extraordinarily ambitious defence white paper of 2009, delivered by the Rudd government, which promised the largest naval expansion since World War II with 12 new submarines, three new air warfare destroyers and a fleet of more muscular frigates.

Yet less than two years later, many analysts believe this blueprint is dead in the water because it was so divorced from the reality of what was achievable.

Far from being ready to expand, the navy cannot manage or operate its existing fleet properly. It cannot send a large percentage of its ships to sea because of maintenance, crew or operational issues. Navy also cannot properly staff or maintain its trouble-plagued six-submarine fleet, yet it is expected to double the size of that fleet and find crews for it.

"I think the defence white paper was misconceived and over-ambitious, particularly in regard to the navy," says Dupont.

"It exceeds what we need and what we can produce. The perfect example of this is the proposal for 12 new submarines.

"There was no proper strategic assessment of the need for 12 submarines and no rigorous assessment of the business case for a project, which is so big that it will distort every area of defence planning. You would have to say with Smith's comments this week about the state of the navy that there are now big doubts about some of these [white paper] projects."

Smith recognises that the navy's problems, including its organisational culture, have been decades in the making . He has acknowledged the navy is making belated attempts to reform the service and improve the accountability of its managers.

An example is the setting up in 2009 of the Seaworthiness Board to independently review maritime systems.

But it is notoriously difficult to change the culture of an organisation as large as Defence. Smith is hoping that a series of reviews, including one into ship management by an independent team led by strategic reformer Paul Rizzo, will help to kickstart the process.

Strategic analyst Paul Dibb says the task will be helped if Smith stays in the portfolio long enough to complete the landmark cultural change he has embarked on. Defence has had eight ministers in the past 15 years, robbing the portfolio of the continuity it needs.

"In my time we had [Kim] Beazley for six years and [Robert] Ray for six years, and we did not have the same sorts of huge problems in that period," Dibb says. "More needs to be done by senior management to resolve intractable cultural and institutional barriers to effective decision-making in the defence organisation."

amtp10f

19-02-11, 01:02 AM

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/cancerous-morale-risks-our-navy-fleet/story-e6frg8yo-1226008439486)

THE navy is facing a critical shortage of engineers to maintain and run its fleet, raising grave doubts about its ability to operate more than $50 billion worth of new ships and submarines due to be delivered over the next decade.

An internal navy report obtained by The Weekend Australian has delivered a scathing assessment of naval engineering, which it says has reached a critical low point and is rocked by "cancerous" morale problems, a massive shortfall in numbers and a broken management system.

"The current situation has an urgency and a criticality that cannot be overstated," says the November 2009 Report on the Strategic Review of Naval Engineering. "Navy is potentially exposed due to the poor state of engineering policy should there be further accidents."

Despite the strong language and damning findings, the report was not sent to the Defence Minister at the time.

The report's revelations come in the wake of current Defence Minister Stephen Smith's angry rebuke to the navy this week for the mismanagement of its amphibious fleet, which meant none of its three largest ships was seaworthy to help in the aftermath of Queensland's Cyclone Yasi.

The troubled fleet will be replaced in three years by two new helicopter landing dock ships. The hull of the first new boat was launched in Spain yesterday.

The Australian revealed last week that two-thirds of the navy's fleet were unable to operate at full capacity at some stage in the first half of last year because of repairs, maintenance, crew shortages or operational restrictions.

The navy's engineering report has alarmed the top brass because engineers play such a pivotal role in maintaining and running the fleet. It says the navy has failed to upgrade the skills of its engineers to prepare them "to manage the challenges of new capabilities such as air warfare destroyers, landing helicopter dock ships and new submarines".

As a result, there is a "grave" morale problem among engineers. "The negative attitude of some sailors is cancerous and can quickly pervade large sectors of the fleet support unit, souring many junior sailors even before their first sea-going experience."

The report makes a range of recommendations but says more money and more personnel are needed urgently. It traces the current crisis to multiple reform, efficiency and cost-saving initiatives over the past two decades, which it says have fragmented, diluted and strained the navy's resources.

Much of the report focuses on personnel, skills and training, noting that the navy's need for engineering knowledge and experience has never been greater but that the current status is cause for "grave concern".

The review was commissioned by the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Crane, and chaired by retired Air Vice Marshall Julie Hammer, a former president of Engineers Australia, who told The Weekend Australian her work ended when she handed the report to the Chief of Navy more than a year ago.

The navy has initiated a "remediation plan" and this week Mr Smith also appointed businessman Paul Rizzo to head a team of experts to improve the management and repair of naval ships.

In a speech to the defence industry, Mr Smith said maintenance should be "bread and butter business" for Defence and stressed that "the seeds of the problems we now face were sown more than a decade ago".

The engineering report gives voice to concerns about a lack of corporate management that some Defence insiders have complained of privately for many years. It identifies "serious problems" in career management, saying navy personnel need to have higher qualifications.

Describing the technical sailor community as "in crisis", the review outlines a lack of training and "meaningful work" for sailors when they are not at sea.

Simply put, it points out that hundreds of technical sailors attached to fleet support units such as Garden Island in Sydney are sitting idle, underworked and under-trained, even while the navy is struggling to keep ships in service.

The report recommends ensuring these technical sailors are put to sea more often and given more useful shore-based work.

It also recommends greater recognition and promotion for engineering professionals, who are often overlooked in favour of sea command personnel.

At the same time, it notes that civilian engineering and technical officers working within the navy have been reduced in number from "many hundreds in the 1980s to a fraction of that number today".

The report recommends urgent action to recognise the problem and provide more people and more money.

"Navy is fundamentally a technological service," it says. "Its war-fighting ability is critically dependent on the engineering design of its platforms and systems and the state of serviceability in which they are maintained."

The report was completed in late 2009 but not sent to then defence minister John Faulkner. Mr Smith, who became Defence Minister last September, was briefed on its findings this year and a spokesman for him says the Chief of Navy has accepted 73 of the report's 76 recommendations.

Defence associate at the Lowy Institute James Brown said last night the report was further evidence of the size of the problems facing the navy.

"This is a navy that is tactically excellent but technically bankrupt,' he said.

"We are probably past working out who is to blame and we need to now work out how to fix it."

Additional reporting: Cameron Stewart

buglerbilly

21-02-11, 07:50 AM

Navy sex misconduct report due out

February 21, 2011 - 3:44PM

AAP

Findings from an independent inquiry into an alleged sex ring aboard a navy ship will be made public on Tuesday afternoon.

The federal government has promised to release the bulk of a report looking at sexual misconduct aboard HMAS Success between March and May 2009.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith says some details may need to be withheld to protect the rights of some of those involved.

A copy of the report was handed to defence force chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston in January.

He has noted the findings raised serious concerns about navy culture.

Mr Smith has acknowledged the report contains "very concerning" matters of discipline.

The alleged sex ring, known as The Ledger, involved members detailing each female sailor they had sex with during an overseas deployment in 2009.

Sources have told AAP the report paints a devastating picture of the culture aboard the ship.

The inquiry heard reports of an entrenched culture of disrespect for women, with men putting dollar values on female crew members.

The inquiry, conducted by retired judge Roger Gyles, was launched by the defence department after an initial investigation was deemed to be biased.

"To be blunt about it, (the report) doesn't make good reading, either about the suggestions of individual conduct, or the suggestions of discipline, or the suggestions of a particular type of culture," Mr Smith said last month.

The second part of the report, looking at the way defence conducts internal investigations, will be released later in the year.

© 2011 AAP

Unicorn

22-02-11, 08:34 AM

TRANSCRIPT: INTERVIEW WITH GILLIAN BRADFORD, ABC 24

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE: 22 FEBRUARY 2011

TOPICS: Release of the HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry Report

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Mr Smith, good morning.

STEPHEN SMITH: Good morning.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: How damning is this Report and what is the worst of it in your eyes?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, it's a very disturbing Report. I will table an edited or redacted version of the Report in Parliament later this afternoon, and following that the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of the Navy will outline Defence and Navy's response to it.

But it is very concerning. I've said earlier, it's a very bad read, it is confronting. It goes through a breakdown of discipline, a breakdown of command, inappropriate behaviour in conduct both onshore and offshore, inappropriate attitude to women sailors, suggestions of predatory sexual conduct. So a tribal culture which is inappropriate in the modern day, inappropriate in the modern Navy.

One of the reasons that I'm making it public is that we want to be as transparent as possible about the problems on this ship but also it sends a message that we regard such conduct as inappropriate generally, below community standards, bringing the Navy into disrepute. And such conduct won't be tolerated by Navy or by Defence or by the Government.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Now you are releasing the bulk of the Report, what assurances though can you give about what you are keeping private?

STEPHEN SMITH: Because there are serious allegations about inappropriate individual conduct, we do have to respect individual rights. And so the editing of the names of individuals has been done on legal advice. I have provided complete copies of the Report to the Chairs and Deputy Chairs of the relevant Senate Committees and to the Shadow Minister for Defence.

So essentially what is removed is matters or materials which would identify individuals because they may well be the subject of disciplinary or administrative action. So it's done to respect their rights. But effectively other than that the full story is there in all its confronting nature. It's a sorry read. Most important is the response from Navy and the response from the Defence Force which is to very clearly send the signal that such conduct, such attitude is not just inappropriate, it won't be tolerated.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: And of course this Report deals with events that took place now nearly two years ago on a Navy tour. What has happened to individuals involved in that misconduct? What will be happening?

STEPHEN SMITH: In general terms we're dealing with events from March to May 2009 when HMAS Success, one of our supply ships, was on an Asian mission.

Currently the Success is in Singapore, it's having some refurbishing and maintenance work done. About 10 per cent of the crew who were on the ship at the time remain with the ship so there's been a substantial turnover and I'm not proposing to identify some individuals or be more particular or more specific than that.

It has taken a lot of time and one of the reasons for that is because a small number of crew members were sent off the ship or landed and Commissioner Gyles effectively finds that that wasn't according them fair process. He will give the Chief of Navy and the Chief of the Defence Force a subsequent Report dealing with the way in which Defence and Navy deal with enquiries of this nature. That will occur in the course of the middle or the second half of this year. That will also be a most helpful Report because it's quite clear that there are some weaknesses in the enquiry system and I think we can do better on that front as well.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: So have any of these people left the Navy? Have any of the alleged victims of this misconduct...

STEPHEN SMITH: Again I'm not proposing to go into that. People may well be subject to disciplinary charges under the Defence Force Discipline Act. That is a process which the Chief of the Defence Force and the Chief of Navy will outline later today. That’s as well as the action that the Chief of Navy will take in addition to a program called New Generation Navy which he introduced in 2009. That will very clearly make the point that leadership is required on these issues, that inappropriate behaviour and conduct by Navy or community standards will not be tolerated, particularly when it comes to not treating fellow crewmen and crewwomen with the appropriate respect that they're entitled to, both in the work place and outside the work place.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: And how far up the chain of command does this go? Where does the buck officially stop?

STEPHEN SMITH: I'll leave that for the publication of the Report and subsequent consideration but it's quite clear there was a breakdown on the ship of discipline, effectively a breakdown of some of the lines of command.

It's not entirely a bad story. One of the good features of the Report is that people who believe that there was inappropriate conduct drew attention to it in circumstances which showed that they were made of pretty stern stuff.

More generally I know that Navy's going through a tough time with this Report, with difficulties on heavy amphibious lift, but despite some difficulties we still see Navy doing great work - in the response to the floods and the cyclone; in the response from crew members of HMAS Pirie and the Christmas Island tragedy just before Christmas; and over the weekend crew members from HMAS Bathurst acting in a very heroic way in rough seas to bring an asylum seeker boat to shore on Christmas Island. So it's not all a bad story but we can't tolerate conduct of this nature.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: And just briefly on that Mr Smith, this reflects on a series of incidents on one ship. What do you say about what's happening in the rest of the Navy?

STEPHEN SMITH: It's clear that we have had particular problems on HMAS Success. But there are lessons here more generally for Navy and the Defence Force generally which we have to be conscious of. We are, for example, making the point that abuse and misuse of alcohol is inappropriate across the Force and that's one of the issues which becomes clear in the reading of this Report, the need for sensible use of alcohol, the need for alcohol and drug testing to be of the highest order. These things apply across the board and they're treated across the board.

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Mr Smith thank you very much for joining us.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thank you, thanks very much.

buglerbilly

22-02-11, 09:38 AM

Currently the Success is in Singapore, it's having some refurbishing and maintenance work done.

THAT is an understatement for the amount of rebuild necessary for the second skin to be put in place IF they don't find even more work to do, which is highly likely for a vessel this age..............

The rest of it is obvious, he cannot, for legal reasons, name people BUT it will be interesting to see who gets court-martialled for what................

buglerbilly

25-02-11, 12:02 PM

DATE:25/02/11

SOURCE:Flight International

Lockheed Martin issues MH-60R pylon RFI in Australia

By Greg Waldron

Lockheed Martin has issued a request for information to Australian firms to supply weapons pylons for the MH-60R multi-mission naval helicopter.

"Growth in orders for the MH-60R has resulted in an urgent need for an expanded supply base, and Australian industry has a depth of capability that would be an ideal supplement to our dedicated supplier base," says George Barton, Lockheed Martin's naval helicopter programme head.

The pylons are located on either side of the helicopter and carry either missiles or torpedoes. The selection process is likely to be concluded by the end of 2011, says Lockheed Martin.

The MH-60R is competing against the NH Industries NH-90 to fill a 24-helicopter requirement for the Royal Australian Navy, the AIR 9000 Phase 8. Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky submitted their original proposal for the competition in July last year, at which time they said a decision was likely to be announced in the first quarter of 2011.

The MH-60R is being pitched by 'Team Romeo', which comprises Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky Aircraft, General Electric, Raytheon, and CAE.

Separately, in early February the United States Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified congress of a possible military sale to Australia of a 10-year, $1.6 billion through life support programme for the MH-60R including helicopters, parts, and logistical support.

Unicorn

02-03-11, 10:25 AM

buglerbilly

02-03-11, 12:04 PM

New details.

The RN has to have Largs Bay off their books by 30 March.

There is a lot of interest in acquiring Largs Bay, with at least nine countries having registered interest. This includes Chile, Brazil, Malaysia, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico and Australia so far. Even the Argentinean Navy have said they are interested!

The final determinant will be on who is prepared to pay the most, this trumps friendships, alliances, ties of language you name it.

The Brits are so desperate for cash that they would sell it to the Argentineans if they offered the most cash.

The price is around $200-250 million, but who knows how much it will finally go for.

Argentina could offer $400 Million, it still wouldn't be sold to them..............politically totally and absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!

Out of the rest, India is probably the biggest opposition, financially fer sure and politically, lots of sucking up being done by the UK to India to get them to buy Brit as opposed to buying Britain.................

tiddles

02-03-11, 09:34 PM

QUOTE: Out of the rest, India is probably the biggest opposition, financially fer sure and politically, lots of sucking up being done by the UK to India to get them to buy Brit as opposed to buying Britain.................QUOTE:
I thought that India was only interested in colonising Britain not buying the place.Anyway of the countries mentioned in Unicorns post - Argentine as you say really no chance IMO,Phillipines & Indonesia would be looking for a real knockdown price,Malaysia & Chile ditto but to a lesser extent, Brasil is cutting spending & would be unable to make up its mind anyhow which leaves India ,Oz & Mexico,of the latters prospects I have no idea.
Tiddles

Unicorn

03-03-11, 09:53 AM

Brazil is apparently a real option, as they are showing (or at least feigning) interest in Type 26 frigates.

India is offering circa $200 million.

Argentina is of course not an option, however Chile has apparently blotted its copybook. Normally a close ally, the last time Argentina started banging on with the Malvinas crap, Chile started talking about Latin American solidarity...

Went over not at all well with Whitehall.

buglerbilly

03-03-11, 11:14 AM

The new Brazilian Presidente is NOT a fan of the UK or anybody else from the West, whilst the Type 26's might fly I doubt whether anything will happen in the next 18-24 months, Brazil has its own monetary problems........and the Airforce is going to get first stab at any money no matter what the Navy may think.............

India is the prime opposition, however don't forget they have their own LPD programme which is being bid right now or very shortly at most, so who knows...........? IF I was India I'd be taking a look at a bunch of Harriers going cheap instead.

buglerbilly

03-03-11, 11:29 AM

Avalon 2011: Australia considers contenders for naval helicopter requirement

March 03, 2011

The Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) has submitted its recommendations to the Department of Defence (DoD) for its naval helicopter replacement programme with a final decision expected in June, industry sources have told Rotorhub.com.

The Air 9000 Phase 8 'Future Naval Aviation Combat System' programme, which has seen Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky's 'Team Romeo' MH-60R competing against Australia Aerospace's MHR-90, is designed to replace the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) S-70B-2 Seahawks with a total of 24 airframes and follows the cancellation of the earlier SH-2G(A) Seasprite procurement.

'Evaluation is done and the government budget is due in the first week of May. So a decision is expected in June,' one source explained. The total programme is understood to be worth around AUS$1.5 billion. It is envisaged that at least eight of the selected helicopters will be operational at any one time, exclusive of training fleets and airframes undergoing maintenance and repairs.

Both competing helicopters are being exhibited at the Avalon Australian International Airshow in Geelong from 1-6 March.

The US Navy's USS Shoup DDG-86 also stopped in Melbourne on route back to the US, complete with two MH-60R helicopters.

US Navy pilots told Rotorhub.com that during the six-month rotation the helicopters had flown every day on missions encompassing both anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare payloads. Such operations included tracking of submarines in Guam as well as counter-piracy operations off the Somalia coast and in the Gulf of Aden.

Lockheed Martin Director for Naval Helicopter Programs George Barton, said Team Romeo was 'ready to execute' should the Australian government select the MH-60R.

This, he said, could include a proposed project to integrate the helicopter's tactical data link into RAN ANZAC-class frigates in order to provide an 'advanced network centric warfare capability'. He said such a concept could also be rolled onto landing helicopter dock and air warfare destroyer ships.

However, Australian Aerospace chief executive officer Dr Jens Goennemann argued there was 'compelling evidence as to why [MRH-90] was a superior helicopter' for the RAN requirement.

Goennemann explained how a crew of four could convert the helicopter from an anti-submarine warfare platform into a troop carrying or utility variant for ship boarding operations. 'Ninety per cent of the time, a helicopter is used as a truck and not for anti-submarine warfare,' he said.

Referring to the much-publicised engine problems of the MRH-90, Goennemann said such issues illustrated how Australian Aerospace was a 'credible partner for the Australian Defence Force to work through difficult problems with'.

Andrew White, Melbourne

buglerbilly

03-03-11, 11:32 AM

DATE:03/03/11

SOURCE:Flight International

AVALON: Team Romeo mounts tour-de-force

By Greg Waldron

Australia's decision on a new naval combat helicopter could come by the middle of this year, with a Lockheed Martin-led team mounting a major effort at Australia's Avalon air show.

The two contenders in the 24-helicopter Air 9000 competition are the NH Industries NH90 and the Sikorsky MH-60R offered by Team Romeo, which in addition to Lockheed and Sikorsky includes CAE, General Electric and Raytheon.

Officials from both camps say a decision is likely by the middle of this year. The winner will replace the Royal Australian Navy's 16 Sikorsky S-70B Seahawks, which have served for 20 years.

Team Romeo mounted a substantial campaign at Avalon, featuring a dedicated chalet. In addition, the USS Shoup, a US Navy destroyer returning from a deployment off the Horn of Africa, visited Melbourne for the event, displaying and making its MH-60R available for discussion (below), with air crew also providing briefings. The USN has now taken delivery of 86 of 300 MH-60Rs since the type's introduction in 2006.

© Will Horton/Flightglobal

Although the MH-60R resembles the S-70B, it provides substantial upgrades in avionics and sensors. A key sensor is the AQS-22 airborne low-frequency sonar. The aircraft also can carry torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and machine guns.

The marketing efforts on behalf of the NH90, by contrast, were more subdued, amounting to a briefing in the chalet of Eurocopter, a shareholder in NH Industries along with AgustaWestland and Fokker.

A claimed key advantage of the NH90 is its large size and cabin doors on both sides of the fuselage, compared with just one door for the MH-60R. In addition, the NH90 can carry 14 passengers without requiring the removal of its mission package, while the MH-60R has a far smaller cabin.

However, the MH-60R is a mature platform that can probably reach Australian forces sooner. If chosen, it could achieve its initial operating capability with the service by 2013, says one industry source. The aircraft is also compatible with the support infrastructure that has grown up around Australia's fleet of army UH-60 Black Hawks and navy S-70Bs.

Another challenge facing the NH90 could be the issues Australia is having with the introduction of the MRH90 transport helicopter variant. Australia ordered 46 MRH90s to replace army Black Hawks and the navy's Westland Sea Kings. Canberra has so far accepted 13 MRH90s, which are being used for testing and initial crew training.

Deliveries of more MRH90s are running behind schedule, with the maritime version delayed by 12 months and the army's by 18 months, says Australia's Department of Defence. The acquisition is undergoing a major review this month.

Unicorn

04-03-11, 10:20 AM

Apparently, talking to a programs guy at Avalon, the USN is already running into fatigue / cracking problems with their Romeo fleet.

Sikorsky is downplaying it but the USN operators are pretty upfront that they are having cracking problems even in relatively new members of the Romeo family.

JimWH

04-03-11, 01:25 PM

Not a good look for Sikorsky, and if it's made it back to DMO (and one would presume that it would had to have) possibly a war-stopper.

Unicorn

07-03-11, 12:48 PM

TRANSCRIPT: INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS UHLMANN, ABC TV - 7:30

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE: 7 MARCH 2011

TOPICS: Amphibious ships fleet and accountability in the Department of Defence

LEIGH SALES: Let's cross now to our political editor Chris Uhlmann in Canberra. Chris, has Defence administration been accountable?

CHRIS UHLMANN: I'm sure that there are many people inside the Department of Defence who would say that they are accountable, but I think there's a broader question: what does accountability mean in the Department of Defence?

And to discuss that I'm joined by the Defence Minister Stephen Smith.

Welcome to 7.30.

STEPHEN SMITH: Pleasure Chris.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Why did the Chief of Navy tell you the Tobruk was ready to sail when it wasn't?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well I think that's with respect, a bit of a pejorative analysis of the advice that I received on the Tobruk. The disappointing feature of the advice, and I've made my disappointment clear both publicly and privately, was the advice that saw Tobruk's condition deteriorate quite rapidly. I asked for the state of the Tobruk.

I was told that it was within 48 hours of operational readiness.

And then when it went into dry dock to be put into a full state of preparedness for the potential Cyclone Yasi, the ship deteriorated from that point and it's only been recently that I've been advised that, as from 27 February it's ready to operate on 48 hours notice.

CHRIS UHLMANN: But is that acceptable to you?

STEPHEN SMITH: What is not acceptable is that we have a very clear gap in our heavy lift amphibious capability. That's why in response to this issue I've required three things of Navy and the Defence Force. Firstly I have ordered an independent review by Paul Rizzo so that we can make some reforms to ensure this never happens again. This is the second time that we've seen this over a period of a quarter of a century.

Secondly, to require an urgent plan to make up that capability gap - and that's why you've seen from the beginning of this year me talk in terms of a United Kingdom Bay Class as a possibility, and also close cooperation with New Zealand. But thirdly…

CHRIS UHLMANN: Sure. And Minister, we could… go on, sorry.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thirdly, in doing this, I want to make sure that I don't leave effectively the same legacy for my successors as has been left with respect to the Kanimbla, the Manoora, and the Tobruk. We're dealing here with problems that have essentially been around for 30, 40 years.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Minister, all that is understood. It's an historic issue. But the question is - is it acceptable that you should be told the ship is ready when it isn't. And are there any consequences for that?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well in the end as a Minister for Defence, I'm the one who is accountable to the public, and that's why I've taken the action that I have referred to. So far as Defence itself is concerned, there's no doubt that senior officials - whether it's the Chief of the Defence Force himself, the Chief of Navy, the Secretary or Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation- all also have to accept responsibility.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And what does that mean? What are the consequences of those actions?

STEPHEN SMITH: What that means is we need to urgently make sure that we put a reform program into place so that this type of incident doesn't occur again - but secondly we urgently put in place what we need to cover the capability gap until the arrival of the so-called Landing Helicopter Docks in the middle of this decade.

CHRIS UHLMANN: All right, come to that in a moment. Is the Tobruk available today?

STEPHEN SMITH: The advice I have as at today is that the Tobruk continues to be available on 48 hours notice and readiness to sea - and that's been the case since 25 February.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And the advice is from the same people that told you last time, so you have confidence in that advice?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well I have confidence in that advice until such time as I get different advice, and I've made the point both internally and publicly that one of the very serious issues of concerns so far as the Tobruk was concerned was the deteriorating advice in a rapidly short space of time.

CHRIS UHLMANN: All right, now this ship that - the replacement for these ships don't come online for four years. What are you going to do in between now and then? Because this ship will not be on 48 hours for the next four years.

STEPHEN SMITH: That's true, and that's why I've been saying since the beginning of this year that we have to look at alternative options. I'm leaving Australia early tomorrow for the United Kingdom. I'll be having further discussions with the UK Defence Secretary about the possibility of Australia leasing or purchasing a Bay Class amphibious lift vessel which is available from the United Kingdom.

But we also have all other options on the table including as we have in the past, the use potentially of commercial options available in Australia whether they're catamarans or trimarans. So we are exploring every option because as you correctly point out and as I have appreciated for some time, we cannot proceed with confidence that the Tobruk will always be available.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Finally and very briefly Minister how can we have confidence in the navy which [indistinct] enormous amount of money over the next few years to build up its capability if it can't manage the kit that it's got now?

STEPHEN SMITH: We need to ensure that we continue with the reform program that this Government has put in place. Forever and a day we've had difficulties in Defence procurement and acquisition and we've put in place reform programs over the last three or four years to improve that, but there's a lot more work to be done.

The single most important thing we can do and bring to Defence is to substantially improve the personal and institutional accountability that goes with the making of decisions, and together with the Defence Material Minister Jason Clare I'll be bringing forward such a program over the next few months.

CHRIS UHLMANN: All right. Stephen Smith, we'll have to leave it there, thank you.

STEPHEN SMITH: Thanks Chris. Thanks very much.

Trackmaster

08-03-11, 12:11 AM

Sadly, there wasn't much attention to detail in the Navy story on the 7.30 report.

Apparently the Wedgetails are "not airworthy" and there was a "$60 million helicopter" sitting on the back of the Kanimbla (?) when it ran into the problems near the Heads.
If they can't get the detail right, you wonder about the other stuff.

geof

08-03-11, 08:56 AM

.. So what happens if Smith comes up empty handed regarding the Bay, and it does go to say India, or is the deal already in the bag and they are just going through the motions ...

Milne Bay

08-03-11, 09:00 AM

[QUOTE=Unicorn;14379]TRANSCRIPT: INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS UHLMANN, ABC TV - 7:30

TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE

DATE: 7 MARCH 2011

TOPICS: Amphibious ships fleet and accountability in the Department of Defence

STEPHEN SMITH: That's true, and that's why I've been saying since the beginning of this year that we have to look at alternative options. I'm leaving Australia early tomorrow for the United Kingdom. I'll be having further discussions with the UK Defence Secretary about the possibility of Australia leasing or purchasing a Bay Class amphibious lift vessel which is available from the United Kingdom.

But we also have all other options on the table including as we have in the past, the use potentially of commercial options available in Australia whether they're catamarans or trimarans. So we are exploring every option because as you correctly point out and as I have appreciated for some time, we cannot proceed with confidence that the Tobruk will always be available.

amtp10f

08-03-11, 09:26 AM

.. So what happens if Smith comes up empty handed regarding the Bay, and it does go to say India, or is the deal already in the bag and they are just going through the motions ...

The deal is most definitely not in the bag. The Poms are after as much cash as possible as fast as possible. The Poms made it very clear that the highest bid wins and historical ties count for nothing.

And forget the leasing option, they want this ship gone and sold.

If the deal falls through then we are stuck with Toobroken, and the Kiwi's.

Mercator

08-03-11, 09:29 AM

And maybe a high-speed ferry from someone, by the sounds of it.

amtp10f

08-03-11, 01:43 PM

And maybe a high-speed ferry from someone, by the sounds of it.

Two problems with a Jervis Bay 2.0:
1) They need a functioning port to unload, and
2) Limited range for fast cats (commercial vessels aren't set up to do RAS).

Deks

08-03-11, 11:04 PM

The deal is most definitely not in the bag. The Poms are after as much cash as possible as fast as possible. The Poms made it very clear that the highest bid wins and historical ties count for nothing.

And forget the leasing option, they want this ship gone and sold.

If the deal falls through then we are stuck with Toobroken, and the Kiwi's.

Yeah. At least it seems like we're seriously making a play for it though :)

amtp10f

09-03-11, 08:12 AM

Yeah. At least it seems like we're seriously making a play for it though :)

We really need to be serious since we are very ferked.

The bidding is literally a closed envelope process. You put your bid amount into an envelope, seal it, send it off to the Poms, they open all the bids and the highest figure wins. It is quite possible we will be out bid.

Milne Bay

09-03-11, 08:44 AM

We really need to be serious since we are very ferked.

The bidding is literally a closed envelope process. You put your bid amount into an envelope, seal it, send it off to the Poms, they open all the bids and the highest figure wins. It is quite possible we will be out bid.

So let's talk price.
How much is the capability of the Largs Bay worth to Australia?
.....$300m, $400m, $500m ........?
What else could we get for the same money that would be worth investing in?
And is this a value for money equation, or is the capability so sorely needed that we would be/ should be prepared to pay a premium for it?
I would be interested to hear your comments.
MB

Unicorn

09-03-11, 11:08 AM

amtp10f

09-03-11, 12:10 PM

So let's talk price.
How much is the capability of the Largs Bay worth to Australia?
.....$300m, $400m, $500m ........?
What else could we get for the same money that would be worth investing in?
And is this a value for money equation, or is the capability so sorely needed that we would be/ should be prepared to pay a premium for it?
I would be interested to hear your comments.
MB

The Poms are after as much as they can get. I doubt that the final winning bid would be more than 100m pounds though.

The thing is that this is only going to be in RAN service until the second LHD come into service. That's not to say that there may be a change of plans down the track.

amtp10f

09-03-11, 12:37 PM

We need the capability. Do we need it more than a new replenishment ship?. I have my doubts.

To my mind a new replenishment ship (or even better two so we can pay off that white elephant Sirius) is a more useful long term capability than a single amphib.

Success is not getting any younger, I am seriously concerned regarding what they find when they unzip her to turn her into a claytons double-biottomed AOR by reducing her capabilities (real smart that is) and we have no serious option to replace her at this time, whereas we do have two vastly more capable ships due on stream to replace the current amphibs.

Is the window particularly dangerous if we have to reply on a crippled LST? Possibly.

Is the situation particularly dangerous if we have no functioning AOR? Probably yes.

If I was to have to make a decision between allocating 300 million for a second hand LSD from the RFA or a new AOR to support the fleet deploying anywhere much beyond 2000 Km from Australia, I would choose a new AOR.

Mind you, I understand just how fundamental AORs are to naval operations, politicians can't see them as useful as despatching an amphib to help out some South Pacific nation that's just been frakked over by a cyclone.

.

Between the amphibs and the tankers, right now the lack of amphib capability is the bigger risk for Navy and Defence. A lack of tankers would hurt like hell and constrain ops but it wouldn't stop Navy from doing stuff. No amphibs, on the other hand, is a show stopper for a number of ops.

That being said, I would nominate the tanker capability as Navy's number 2 force structure problem.

If Navy force structure was up to me I would make a couple of rules:

1) Don't buy second hand.

2) Ships should be replaced after 20 years and no ship should ever get to 30 (aka Logan's Run).

3) '3 for 1 + 1' If the requirement is that 1 ship must be available at all times, then you need 3 ships (1 refit/working up, 1 ready/deployed, 1 reconstituting). If there is an expectation that several rotations on an op are required, then you need an additional ship to ensure training continuation. So 1 ship needs 4, 2 needs 7, etc...

4) Fitted for but not with: not just no, but hell no.

ADMk2

09-03-11, 12:54 PM

We are truly only ferked if we consider overseas missions of importance. We COULD adopt an extremely insular attitude for several years until we are in a position to help others again. It might impact upon how we see ourselves on the world stage, but it wouldn't physically impact us. We moan about the lack of an amphibious ship during the recent cyclone Yasi, yet the emergency services on the ground in FNQ didn't notice the lack of it...

Every single war we have ever fought has been a war of choice, as opposed to a war of survival. Consequently we COULD adopt a selfish attitude for a short period in the lack of another choice...

It would create controversy, but that only matters as long as politicians perceive it to be an issue. If they could adopt the moral courage they seem to demand of others, it wouldn't be such a huge problem. For us...

Trackmaster

10-03-11, 12:24 AM

SteveJH

10-03-11, 01:43 AM

A proper combined stores replenishment ships along the size and capability of the RFA Fort (II) class could probably almost help out as much as a small amphib in that scenario. Room for 3 or 4 helicopters, and they could hopefully lift off any vehicles stowed on the decks.

Unicorn

10-03-11, 07:39 AM

From an interview with MINDEF today

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Okay. A couple of other quick issues before you go, Minister. You've also met today with executives from the defence manufacturer BAE. Now, that company is going to provide replacements for some of our troubled amphibious landing craft. Did you get any - any assurances that the project on that front is on-track or perhaps those replacements, given the problems with the amphibious craft, may be fast-tracked?

STEPHEN SMITH: BAE which is one of our important defence industry companies in Australia are headquartered in the United Kingdom, so I took the opportunity of visiting UK headquarters. BAE are involved in two of our important naval projects: the Air Warfare Destroyers and the Landing Helicopter Docks which are our amphibious heavy lift replacements expected in 2014 to 2016 and they're both very important projects.

I've indicated publicly in recent times, we do have problems and difficulties in making the transition to those Landing Helicopter Docks and I had, with Defence Secretary Fox, an important conversation where I made it clear to him that Australia will put forward a formal bid to either lease or purchase the heavy amphibious lift ship that the United Kingdom is putting on the market, the Bay Class amphibious heavy lift ship. So I formally advised Defence Secretary Fox this evening in our meeting, London time, that we'll place a bid for that and so we are keen to pick up that.

There's no suggestion that our timetable for the arrival of the Landing Helicopter Docks will change. We're looking at that in the middle of decade, 2014 to 2016, but we do need to get better and more available and more capable heavy amphibious lift in the meantime. That's the transition plan that we've been working on very assiduously for the last few weeks.

MICHAEL ROWLAND: How much will the leasing - if Australia wins the bid - how much will the leasing of that UK craft cost?

STEPHEN SMITH: I wouldn't propose to go into those details in advance of a successful bid. Obviously some of those matters are clearly commercial in confidence so I wouldn't be making public comments about that. If we are successful in our bid, then quite clearly it's appropriate that those details be made public which we would but I wouldn't be proposing to do that in advance of a competitive bid process.

.

Unicorn

10-03-11, 07:44 AM

I notice the comment from AMPT about Sirius and I have picked up some other negative comment.
Can someone help sort out my ignorance on that matter?
What are the issues with the ship?
Was it a a mistake to buy a commercially built ship and then try and turn it into a useful asset?

We bought a mobile fuel tank.

Sirius is a large self-propelled storage tank for petroleum product with a basic capability to pass that fuel to other ships while underway.

She has minimal non-fuel liquid capabilities and buggar all solid replenishment capabilities.

In addition, the fitting of a flight deck literally hanging off the stern of the ship was a major design flaw, as it is right at the very end of the ship movement arm and is unusable at most sea states. She also lacks any facilities to support a helicopter as she has no hangar

Basically we replaced one tanker (Westralia) with another (Sirius) and neither can do the job that Success does for deployed task forces.

A basically crap decision made to avoid having to pay the money for a purpose built AOR. We turned up our nose at buying a sister ship from the French Navy when they were downsizing, she ended up with the Brazilian Navy

.

amtp10f

10-03-11, 10:54 AM

We bought a mobile fuel tank.

Sirius is a large self-propelled storage tank for petroleum product with a basic capability to pass that fuel to other ships while underway.

She has minimal non-fuel liquid capabilities and buggar all solid replenishment capabilities.

In addition, the fitting of a flight deck literally hanging off the stern of the ship was a major design flaw, as it is right at the very end of the ship movement arm and is unusable at most sea states. She also lacks any facilities to support a helicopter as she has no hangar

Basically we replaced one tanker (Westralia) with another (Sirius) and neither can do the job that Success does for deployed task forces.

A basically crap decision made to avoid having to pay the money for a purpose built AOR. We turned up our nose at buying a sister ship from the French Navy when they were downsizing, she ended up with the Brazilian Navy.

Exactly, plus it's yet another orphan in a force group of orphans, it runs on heavy fuel oil (the rest of the fleet is on marine diesel), there's too much ship for too few crew, and it's got next to no self defence capability (the risk of it getting hit by pirates means it shouldn't go anywhere in SE Asia or the western Indian Ocean without an escort).

geof

13-03-11, 08:51 AM

.. So whats happening with SEA1654 ... this was to replace Sirius & Success .. wasn't it .. ??

Unicorn

13-03-11, 09:40 AM

Supposedly.

Navantia is hot to trot to deliver a solution based on their Cantabria class AOR, under the same deal as the Canberra class, build in Spain, fit out in Australia.

From the SEA1654 website:

This project seeks to replace the existing Royal Australian Navy (RAN) afloat support capability for maritime operations. HMAS WESTRALIA and HMAS SUCCESS provide the current afloat support capability.

The Defence White Paper clearly articulates the Government’s requirement to replace the existing afloat support capability. The Phase 2A will replace HMAS WESTRALIA with a commercial second hand double hull Auxiliary Oiler (AO), which can be modified in Australia by 2006/07.

The Phase 2B will provide a new oiler as the HMAS WESTRALIA replacement reaches the end of its life and will comply with impending international conventions and regulations governing maritime hull design by 2018/20. Phase 3 will replace HMAS SUCCESS with a purpose built support ship when it reaches end of service life in around 2015.

Success is getting a lot of work for a ship supposedly due to be replaced in three and a half years.

.

buglerbilly

13-03-11, 12:27 PM

NOT impressed by the approx 500 tonnes of Food and Ordnance she can carry altho the the ability to use 3 x SeaKings/MRH-90/SeaHawks is not to be sneezed at.............

Gubler, A.

13-03-11, 12:50 PM

NOT impressed by the approx 500 tonnes of Food and Ordnance she can carry altho the the ability to use 3 x SeaKings/MRH-90/SeaHawks is not to be sneezed at.............

That's just the Spanish spec. For a RAN order the internal volume can be rearranged giving up some liquid storage for another dry cargo deck and so on.

buglerbilly

13-03-11, 01:24 PM

Of course but even for the Spanish spec I would have thought 500 tonnes a light load..........

Unicorn

13-03-11, 01:57 PM

buglerbilly

13-03-11, 02:10 PM

Especially as you are quoting the stats for the smaller Patino class AOR that preceded the Cantabria.

The Patino is 17,000 tonnes, Cantabria is almost 3,000 tonnes heavier.

Cantabria has 470 tonnes dry consumables storage, 280 tonnes ammunition 9,000 square metres of fuel storage and 1600 square metres of JP5 storage

Basically not a bad replacement for Success and hell of a lot better than Sirius.

Not being picky here but Patino is 17,045 tonnes and Cantabria 19,500 tonnes.............

Either the earlier or later model is FAR better and superior to what we have now, the Dry Storage capacity can be frigged with to anyone's, even mine, heart's content.............

ADMk2

13-03-11, 02:26 PM

500 tonnes sounds like an awfully large amount of canned "bunghole" to me...

:)

Deks

13-03-11, 07:53 PM

500 tonnes sounds like an awfully large amount of canned "bunghole" to me...

:)

Glad I wasn't the only one ;)

buglerbilly

14-03-11, 09:32 AM

500 tonnes is a mere pittance IF one considers the potential in the future for a Task Force of 1 x LHD, 1 X LPD, 2 X AWD, 2-4 X ANZAC plus Collins Sub. You plan around worst-case scenario NOT what you can squeeze by with for peace-time Ops. Similar, for Rescue Ops after a major natural disaster more capacity is FAR better than less..............especially when its SPACE we are talking about, open volume........

Also the thought of 500 tonnes of Bunghole is enough to make my ass squeeze shut permanently...........at least throw a few tins of Baked Beans in there!

(As you all well know "Dry Goods" covers a raft of sins, and so-called dry goods may be frozen dependant on scenario)

Gubler, A.

15-03-11, 06:33 AM

500 tonnes is a mere pittance IF one considers the potential in the future for a Task Force of 1 x LHD, 1 X LPD, 2 X AWD, 2-4 X ANZAC plus Collins Sub. You plan around worst-case scenario NOT what you can squeeze by with for peace-time Ops. Similar, for Rescue Ops after a major natural disaster more capacity is FAR better than less..............especially when its SPACE we are talking about, open volume........

The LHDs' needs for resupply will be meet by the sealift ship. The actual requirement for the AOR replacement will be calculated by need and any potential contender like the Cantabaria modified to align to it. Just as the Juan Carlos I LHD was modified to meet the need of the ADF's ADAS system. Its a non issue.

Unicorn

17-03-11, 12:29 PM

From an interview with MINDEF today

LYNDAL CURTIS: And finally you spoke about purchasing another C-17 aircraft. Have any decisions been made about purchasing amphibious ships to make up for the ones that had so much trouble?

STEPHEN SMITH: Yes. We have a gap which I've spoken about extensively in recent times, and I've indicated in the past that we were looking to either seeking to buy or lease an amphibious ship from the United Kingdom. I spoke with my UK counterpart, Defence Secretary Fox in a b... about that matter, both in London and in Brussels when I was there last week, and I can indicate today that today, London time, we will formally put forward a bid, formally enter a bid for the purchase of a Bay class, a large amphibious heavy-lift ship. We're very keen to pick it up. We think that will go a long way to meeting the gap that we have until the arrival of our new landing helicopter docks in 2014 through to 2016.

buglerbilly

17-03-11, 12:54 PM

Good! About time........

JKM Mk2

17-03-11, 01:54 PM

But why do they continue to talk about leasing, when the Brits obviously are only interested in a straight sale?

JKM

Gubler, A.

17-03-11, 02:45 PM

But why do they continue to talk about leasing, when the Brits obviously are only interested in a straight sale?

Because the Minister isn't at the coal face. He would have approved an attempt to 'buy, lease or borrow' the Bay class with an obvious preference for the cheapest option. The public servants or naval officers then go out and try to seal the deal. He won't be asking for daily status updates on the Bay class disposal process because its not something the ministerial level can play a role in.

So when the public asks about how its going he will just talk in terms of what he approved. Obviously we won't get a lease unless we offered such at higher rates than any purchase deal (stranger things have happened).

amtp10f

18-03-11, 09:45 AM

Because the Minister isn't at the coal face. He would have approved an attempt to 'buy, lease or borrow' the Bay class with an obvious preference for the cheapest option. The public servants or naval officers then go out and try to seal the deal. He won't be asking for daily status updates on the Bay class disposal process because its not something the ministerial level can play a role in.

So when the public asks about how its going he will just talk in terms of what he approved. Obviously we won't get a lease unless we offered such at higher rates than any purchase deal (stranger things have happened).

Forget the leasing. The Poms want to be rid of the ship, they don't want to have to go through getting rid of it again in 5 years time.

Unicorn

18-03-11, 10:32 AM

Baically, the Minister was sold on the acquisition, but with finances strained, he may have asked about only leasing it until the Canberra class come on stream.

Either CDF, CN or an advisor suggested that the Brits may be interested in leasing it, knowing full well that while that may be part of a submission to the UK, the main deal would be a purchase.

The Minister goes away thinking the Navy will try to lease it if that is cheaper, the Navy goes away knowing that they are there to buy her and will include a note in their submission that they are 'prepared to lease from the UK' to allow the UK the option to take the ship back in five years when the MoDs finances are in better shape.

The UK will say 'thank you but we need the cash", and go back to the amount on the table.

Minister is happy, Navy's happy.

Welcome to how the world (in Canberra) works.

.

buglerbilly

24-03-11, 04:43 PM

Navy Opens High-Tech Warship Simulator

(Source: Australian Department of Defense; issued March 24, 2011)

Junior officers in the Royal Australian Navy will learn to pilot the next generation of warships, in an upgraded $10m training facility at HMAS Watson, Sydney, which will be officially opened tomorrow.

The new high-tech simulator uses computerised virtual-reality software to simulate a working warship's bridge, complete with a 240-degree view of a computer generated 2D scene through the bridge windows.

The bridge training faculty, one of the most advanced simulators in the world, will be opened by Commander Australian Fleet Rear Admiral Steve Gilmore.

“This facility is at the cutting edge of simulator technology and provides junior Seaman Officers with very realistic training so they will be capable of carrying out the duties of the Officer-of-the-Watch before heading out to sea,” Rear Admiral Gilmore said.

“Our Navy is the first in the world to use multi flex touch screens in a warship bridge simulator, which increases functionality without cumbersome hardware,” Rear Admiral Gilmore said.

The simulators replicate the full range of maritime operations likely to be experienced while on the bridge of a warship and can be reconfigured to match most classes of ship in the RAN’s current fleet. New functionality includes boat operations, interdiction, and docking and beaching evolutions pertinent to the new Landing Helicopter Dock ships, the first of which is due to enter service in 2014.

“An example of a complex scenario is manoeuvering a 3500-tonne warship within 2000 yards of a number of other ships while under air attack, or ships within 50m of each other conducting replenishment-at-sea approaches” Rear Admiral Gilmore said.

With two full-mission simulators and four part-task simulators, the facility allows up to six warship bridge teams to train for specific scenarios in a joint exercise environment or, conversely, run six independent scenarios.

The graphics system can replicate different environmental conditions, from a clear day through to a raging storm, detailed land-and sea-scape features as well as dynamic models of aircraft, tugs and other ships, including the Canberra Class LHDs and Hobart Class AWDs.

A dedication ceremony will also be held for the combined navigation and bridge training faculties, which was renamed the Taylor Building, after former Chief of Navy (1994-97), the late Vice Admiral Rod Taylor AO, a specialist navigation and operations officer.

The ship bridge simulation system was delivered to the Navy by the Defence Materiel Organisation on time and under budget. The system was provided by Kongsberg Maritime Simulation & Training, Norway.

-ends-

Milne Bay

30-03-11, 09:14 AM

So if memory serves, tomorrow is D-day for close of bids on RFA Largs Bay.
Is there a time frame for a decision on the successful bidder?

I note that Wiki already has Australia as the successful tenderer:
On 17 March 2011, Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith announced that the RAN will be purchasing Largs Bay.[10] (quoting: Taylor, Rob (17 March 2011). "Australia to buy amphibious military transport ship, aircraft". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/australia-defence-idUSL3E7EH06L20110317. Retrieved 18 March 2011.)

Hope we get her.
MB

Trackmaster

04-04-11, 11:51 AM

I've seen elsewhere that Forgacs has picked up AWD work originally slated for BAE.
Any update on this and will there be an impact on completion time?

buglerbilly

06-04-11, 02:14 AM

YEAH! We got it!

Just announced by Stephen Smith in Canberra on SKY, we have got the Bay Class LPD for GBP65 Million/$100 Million, delivery by the end of the year............we are going to lease a Trimaran/Catamaran in the Interim as well as have access to HMNZS Canterbury as agreed with NZ..........

No idea why its going to take to the end of the year but probably due to Upgrade to RAN standards?

All we now need are LCM's............:thumbsup

Also the fifth C-17 negotiations are well advanced - a firm contract by the end of the year.

tiddles

06-04-11, 02:36 AM

Good news is always good to see,the price will surprise many members of various forums as the predicted cost was generally predicted to be much higher. I expect news of just what model of Catamaran/Trimaran will come out in time .End of year seems a long time so I hope it is for the reasons in post 219.
Tiddles

ADMk2

06-04-11, 04:57 AM

Milne Bay

06-04-11, 05:33 AM

I imagine they will be transferring as much o the Manoora's C4I fitout as possible to the Largs Bay.

Be interesting to see what it is done about the lack of a hangar. Some sort of moveable shelter no doubt, but the solution will be interesting...

If this is to be the case, then we should expect to see Largs Bay here in Australia soonish.
Would there be an RAN crew sent to the UK for working up with the Brits or is there some other kind of protocol for these things?
Interested to know.
Relieved to know that we have it
MB

Mercator

06-04-11, 06:10 AM

Unless it's something easy to erect, I hope they don't delay the introduction into service messing about with a hangar. If push comes to shove, we could send along a couple of frigates with a pair of Seahawks a piece crammed into them to support the Largs Bay (is that still going to be its name?). A couple of years from now we'll have all the space we need for helicopters. I think it's much more important to get this thing ready to go as soon as possible. Just my two cents (I wouldn't even mention it except for the mindless tendency of some in our defence hierarchy to go around goldplating things).

Gubler, A.

06-04-11, 06:18 AM

The Largs Bay comes with a big tent that acts as a hangar. The time for modifications would include silly things like the right OH&S compliant labels and the like. However I'm sure it could sail into action at anytime once in country if needed and someone was willing to sign a waiver.

buglerbilly

06-04-11, 06:26 AM

Just to remind people, this is what the "Big Tent" looks like on the Largs Bay...............

I hope we are going to buy the pair of Mexflotes as well?

Gubler, A.

06-04-11, 08:34 AM

Just to remind people, this is what the "Big Tent" looks like on the Largs Bay...............

Check out that ladder going up the rear of the superstructure. Wouldn't be fun climbing that.

buglerbilly

06-04-11, 09:27 AM

Nah more an emergency egress rather than access..............landing on each deck level (so you can take a breather on the way up! I'd need oxygen......good cardio exercise for troops-on-board tho........)

buglerbilly

06-04-11, 09:50 AM

Now I wonder, theoretically speaking, whether we could actually buy "sensible" LCM/LCU's for this new LPD?

Like any one of the new cat/tri/maran hybrids....................

PASCAT

BMT Tri-Bow Fast Landing Craft.

French EDA-R / L-CAT (Landing Catamaran)

L-CAT Trials......

Unicorn

06-04-11, 12:21 PM

Don't be wet, Defence has made two correct and sensible purchasing decisions on the trot, the 5th C-17 and Largs Bay, that's used up their quota for the next few years.

.

buglerbilly

06-04-11, 12:26 PM

And I thought I was cynical...........:abovelol :abovelol

Gubler, A.

06-04-11, 12:43 PM

Don't worry the as usual form will return sharpish. Looks like Smith is sizing up buying/leasing the Austal 102m tri built on spec. Since it just missed out on the Taiwan contract to Incat they might need some cash for clunkers.

JimWH

06-04-11, 12:46 PM

buglerbilly

06-04-11, 01:58 PM

Largs Bay Acquisition

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued April 6, 2011)

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that Australia has been successful in its bid to acquire the United Kingdom’s Bay Class amphibious ship Largs Bay.

The Government has previously announced that it had asked Defence to develop new and comprehensive options to ensure transition to Australia’s Canberra Class amphibious Landing Helicopter Dock ships, which become operational from 2014, including the lease or purchase of a Bay Class Ship from the UK Government.

Today, the Government is confirming that Australia has been successful in its bid to acquire a Bay Class ship, Largs Bay.

Largs Bay is a Landing Ship Dock (LSD) which was commissioned into service in 2006. It became surplus to United Kingdom (UK) requirements as a result of the UK Government’s 2010 Defence Strategic Review.

The ship weighs 16,000 tonnes. It is 176 metres long and 26 metres wide. Its flight deck has room for two large helicopters and can also carry around 150 light trucks and 350 troops. Its cargo capacity is the equivalent of the Royal Australian Navy’s entire amphibious fleet.

Largs Bay is a proven capability having provided humanitarian relief as part of the international response to the Haiti earthquake in 2010.

Largs Bay will help ensure that the Royal Australian Navy has the amphibious capability it needs for operation and humanitarian support in our region in the period leading up to the arrival of the Landing Helicopter Dock Ships.

The ship has been acquired for £65 million (approximately $100 million).

Teekay Shipping Australia has thoroughly inspected the ship and found that: “The ship presents very well, and from a technical point of view, there are no major defects.”

Before the acquisition is finalised, Defence and the Royal Australian Navy will conduct sea trials to confirm the material state of the ship.

The ship is expected to arrive by the end of the year in time for it to be operational in early 2012.

The Government will announce further details of the transition plan for Australia’s amphibious ship capability to provide this essential capability until arrival of the Canberra Class in due course.

-ends-

ADMk2

06-04-11, 02:32 PM

Even just using the LCM-8 aboard HMAS Largs/Jervis Bay will be a huge step up for the RAN. Especially as this'll be the first experience of operating a well dock. Also, I notice that the phrasing of the release says that she'll be operational at the beginning of next year, to me that implies that at least a substantial fraction of the time between now and then will be training and working up a crew to man her (which takes some time). Which means that any modifications are going to be pretty minor.

RAN is also taking her out for a test drive before we actually buy her and at the very least modifications including electrical points, RAN spec comms systems and crew/maintenance training and a support system in Australia wll have to be established before she will be operational in any sense.

As Abe and me (and others have speculated over on DT) she'll probably also get a 25mm Typhoon system or 2 and some mini-typhoon systems transferred across from Manoora too.

That would seem to be the extant of the modifications she is likely to get before 'early' next year.

Gubler, A.

07-04-11, 02:48 AM

I doubt they will get the Typhoon fit this year. Unless the RFA allready had a light weapons fitout plan for the Bay class LSD. Otherwise it will take a bit of time to do the right engineering study.

buglerbilly

07-04-11, 02:55 AM

Considering the Bay Class are part of the Enforcer family then I would have thought the Dutch have the studies and plans to suit.............mind you that was the basis of buying the Bay design originally but the poor bugger, who was also Dutch, who owned the Tyne shipyard at the time, found out he had to Engineer the whole package, top to bottom, this was the prime reason the first Bay's were late and why BAE Glasgow got the last two to build, the whole programme was overdue and over-cost. Still a damn sight cheaper than anything else offered...........

Doohan

10-04-11, 10:45 AM

No matter what this is as good Buy (as long as we dont go Australianisation Happy).. A really good third platform to support the Canberra Class. Now all we need is a new Highspeed HMAS JB and we will be set

Deks

10-04-11, 12:14 PM

$100m AUD is an amazing price, far less than I'd seen speculated before.

Chunder

10-04-11, 01:20 PM

Less than a C-17... almost half the price, in fact... the support package for the C-17 is up to 300 mil value
Certainly hope they keep the platform to support the LHD's...

buglerbilly

15-04-11, 03:04 PM

Call for Budget to Fund Next Sub Design

(Source: Australian Strategic Policy Institute; issued April 15, 2011)

And people say I haven't got a sense of humour...............

Funds must be allocated in the May budget for early design work on Australia's next submarine if a serious capability gap is to be avoided, Defence experts have said. Time is running out if new submarines are to be in operation by 2025 the date proposed in the latest Defence Capability Plan update.

That plan and the 2009 Defence White Paper calls for the construction of 12 new submarines at a cost of at least $36 billion. They would replace the six Collins class submarines currently in service.

Experts from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have said that given this will be Australia's most expensive ever weapons program and a similar spend to the National Broadband Network pressure from the Government and voters for sound planning and effective delivery would be intense.

Defence insiders have already said, off-the-record, the Navy is dreaming if it expects the Government to sign off on the 12-boat plan this year.

Mark Thomson, the director of budget and maintenance at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said the Government needed to use the budget to get the project moving.

A failure to do so would likely result in the existing boats reaching the end of their effective lives before their replacements were ready to put to sea.

This had happened in the transition from the old Oberon class boats to the Collins class between 1992 and 2003.

While Defence had started winding back the use of the outdated O-boats in the early 1990s, the Collins class boats were not fully operational until 2003.

Andrew Davies, ASPI's operations and capability director, said this created a decade-long capability gap that had seen many experienced submariners lost to the fleet.

The Collins class boats have been plagued by crew shortages ever since.

Mr Thomson, who worked with Mr Davies on a discussion paper on the submarine replacement issue that was released late yesterday, said the Government was due to make a ''first pass decision on the shape and size of the next submarine fleet in the next two years''.

Once that was done, the initial design work expected to cost between $500 million and $1 billion could begin.

The problem is that at the moment Defence does not have the information it needs to make informed recommendations to Government he said.

Mr Davies agrees. ''You need to understand the true costs and benefits if you are to do an informed cost benefit analysis,'' Mr Davies said. He said Defence had a history of playing down costs while playing up benefits.

At this point, despite the White Paper recommendations, the only certainties surrounding the next generation of submarines is that they will be conventionally powered and they will be built in Adelaide.

Political factors have at least partly driven those parameters.

The size of the boats, the numbers to be built and the tasks they should be required to perform are yet to be determined, Mr Davies said.

He described the White Paper recommendation as an ''ambit claim'' and questioned the need for the submarines to be able to deploy special forces units.

Mr Davies said it was difficult to conceive of a circumstance under which the need to land a small group of men on a beach would justify placing a $3 billion submarine at risk. Meanwhile, others haven't given up the fight for the nuclear option. Graham Harris, the president of The Navy League, has called for nuclear power to remain under consideration.

Click here to download the related report “The once and future submarine: raising and sustaining Australia’s underwater capability” (7 pages in PDF format) from the ASPI website.

http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=291&pubtype=-1

-ends-

buglerbilly

28-04-11, 06:00 AM

New landing ship set for capability boost

Max Blenkin, AAP Defence Correspondent

April 28, 2011 - 11:54AM .

AAP

Mexeflotes and a Helihangar............finally some commonsense.........

Australia's new landing ship, the surplus British fleet auxiliary Largs Bay, is set for a major upgrade even though it hasn't yet been delivered.

Largs Bay, which will be renamed for Australian navy service, appears to be a bargain at $100 million.

To boost its capability to land troops and equipment where no port facilities are available, defence will buy a pair of mexeflotes - large diesel engine powered rafts able to transport loads of up to 110 tonnes.

Mexeflotes can be transported attached to the ship's side or in the rear well deck. Britain used them extensively during the Falklands war and in recent relief operations.

"The likely source of mexeflotes will be from civilian operators. Defence is investigating the acquisition of two reconditioned ex-military mexeflotes from UK civilian operators," a defence spokesman said.

Defence is also buying a helicopter hangar for Largs Bay.

As built, the Largs Bay has no aircraft shelter but the Royal Navy developed a temporary facility that can be installed forward of the flight deck to provide shelter from the elements and as an area to conduct maintenance.

"This capability was determined as necessary to support long-term aircraft embarkations, hence it was included in the project scope submitted to government," the spokesman said.

The new vessel is expected to arrive by year's end and be in service in early 2012, providing the navy with a much-needed amphibious heavy lift capability.

That follows well-publicised problems with older landing ships HMAS Manoora and HMAS Kanimbla, both ex-US Navy vessels launched in 1970 and acquired by Australia in 1995.

The government announced last month Manoora would be retired but repairs to Kanimbla would proceed, with the vessel back in service in April 2012.

With Largs Bay set to provide a major new amphibious capability far earlier than expected, defence and the government have yet to decide whetherto retire Kanimbla now and save on repair costs.

Defence has decided its six LCM-2000 landing craft, deemed unsuitable for use on Manoora and Kanimbla, aren't suitable for use on Largs Bay either and will proceed with plans for their disposal.

Well if they leak and sink, no they are not suitable........simple really

In the meantime, the navy will continue to use older LCM-8 landing craft. The navy is investigating whether the crane aboard Largs Bay could lift a 100-ton LCM-8 onto its deck for transport overseas.

© 2011 AAP

JimWH

28-04-11, 02:59 PM

In the meantime, the navy will continue to use older LCM-8 landing craft. The navy is investigating whether the crane aboard Largs Bay could lift a 100-ton LCM-8 onto its deck for transport overseas.

Or we could just park one in the well dock....

ADMk2

29-04-11, 08:07 AM

Also confirmed is that Largs Bay will undergo, "regeneration refit and recertification" process in the UK to ensure it meets RAN standards, as well as "Communications, weapons and Navigation" modifications to meet ADF requirements.

(Source - Australian Army newspaper April 28 page.5. Where this "correspondent" got his "scoop" from...)

http://digital.realviewtechnologies.com/default.aspx?xml=defencenews_army.xml

Gubler, A.

29-04-11, 08:25 AM

Or we could just park one in the well dock....

Or remove the 66 tonnes of lead weight in thecargo bay of this LCM8 and lift it empty (at a nice 34 tonnes) onto the deck.

geof

30-04-11, 09:46 AM

Milne Bay

30-04-11, 10:29 AM

.. so the hanger is the same as the one's that have been used on the Bay's .. the one that resembles a zeplin hanger .. ? I'm sure that they could come up with a perminant solution in the long run that could fit two helo's and that is more shall we say aesthetic .. Maybe there was an option for a permanant hanger in the original design that the RN didn't take up .. ??

The necessity of taking an embarked helicopter will only continue until the arrival into service of the LHD's. I assume that after that time there will be no need to house a helicopter(s). They will of course be used in re-supply but will be embarked with the LHD.
So a temporary hangar appears quite appropriate.

buglerbilly

30-04-11, 11:00 AM

The Bays are a simplified version of the Family of LPD Designs called the ENFORCER Class...........more complex versions from which ENFORCER was derived came c/w C&C suites and other variations operate in the Spanish (Galicia class) and Dutch navies (Rotterdam class) c/w Heli-hangars big enough to take up to 4 x EH-101's or 4 x MRH-90's; they can also take 4 x LCM8's...........

Gubler, A.

30-04-11, 12:46 PM

Maybe there was an option for a permanant hanger in the original design that the RN didn't take up .. ??

Nope. But there is a lift going down into the garages. So you could always store helos down there as long as they fit. But its really a non issue. The Largs Bay is a sealift ship for ferrying gunk from port to port. Tobruk survived without a hangar and even without a flyco that could see the flight deck. So Largs Bay should do fine with its big tent.

Unicorn

11-05-11, 10:20 AM

Purchase of Largs Bay

The Government announced on 6 April that Australia had been successful in its bid to acquire the United Kingdom’s Bay Class amphibious ship Largs Bay at a cost of £65 million (approximately $A100 million).

Australia has now signed a Letter of Intent with the UK Government and the first two payments of £22 million each (£44 million or $A66 million in total) have been made on the ship.

A sea-trial of the ship has also been conducted.

The trial was conducted in two phases - a harbour phase (11-17 April) followed by the at-sea phase (18-19 April).

Defence’s final report on the sea-trial confirms that the ship is in good material state.

International shipping firm, Teekay Shipping Australia, thoroughly inspected the ship prior to the submission of Australia’s bid and found that:

"the ship presents very well, and from a technical point of view, there are no major defects.”

Teekay was also engaged on the sea trial and have provided an updated report that confirms their previous assessment.

The Government will now give consideration to what modifications are necessary for Australian use of Largs Bay, with such work on the ship subject to Government approval.

The ship remains on track to arrive in Australia by the end of the year in time for it to be operational in Australia in early 2012.

HMAS Tobruk

HMAS Tobruk will be docked in Sydney today for previously announced required maintenance, which is expected to take around two months.

In order to ensure Australia has an amphibious capability during this period, the Australian Government has chartered the long range support ship Aurora Australis from P&O Maritime Services from 8 May 2011 to 30 June 2011, with options for an extension up to a month.

The Aurora Australis is a 94 metre Super Icebreaker.

It can carry 700 tonnes of cargo, transport 116 passengers, embark watercraft and support helicopter operations.

The vessel regularly supports Antarctic bases with limited or no port facilities, making it unique among commercial vessels currently available and ideal for humanitarian and disaster relief work.

The charter of this vessel will help ensure that Australia is able to respond to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief incidents over this period.

The lease will cost $3.375 million and will be met from within existing Defence resources.

If required for operations it can be supported by a Guided Missile Frigate as well as Heavy Landing Craft.

The charter of the Aurora Australis is in addition to Australia’s agreement with New Zealand that the New Zealand amphibious lift ship HMNZS Canterbury would be made available as part of the joint Pacific-focused Ready Response Force during Tobruk’s maintenance period, subject to any operational requirements in New Zealand.

HMAS Tobruk is also scheduled for routine maintenance for around a six week period in September and October 2011 to prepare the ship ahead of cyclone season.

Detailed planning is currently underway to ensure Australia has an amphibious capability during this period. Details will be provided closer to that time.

Options under consideration include ongoing cooperation with New Zealand over the use of HMNZS Canterbury, Aurora Australis and a range of commercial options.