The Collins class also aren't multi-crewed. Cheers.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Sorry, no. I only know thing's that have been published & I've not tried digging through all the various programmes. It could be a big job.
Sadly I don't think the RAN has ever had sufficient qualified personnel to provide a single crew for each of the six boats. I do know boats were laid up well before scheduled availabilities to provide crew for those coming out of availabilities.
In the most recent Defence Senate Estimates, VADM Noonan stated that there's currently ~900 qualified submariners in the Navy.
With each Collins Class SSG requiring a crew of around 58, one crew for each of the six only adds up to 348 submariners.
What are the other 552 qualified submariners doing if not assigned to a boat?
Don't forget that some submarine qualified officers and crew will also fill technical shore billets, some will be promoted beyond the submarine service (officers particularly), some will be undertaking further training (Perisher, weapon systems etc), some will move away from submarines for career advancement, some may just and to get out of WA and ..... as critically .... you need to have sufficient crew to allow this to happen for the sake of families.
If all submariners were assigned to a boat all the time it is going to be a rough life and marriages will suffer.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would imagine filling other posts throughout the RAN. The RAN site currently lists bios for four of the CO's of Collins-class subs, two Canadians, a Brit, and one native from VIC, all are Commanders. Since I doubt that a posting as the CO of a RAN sub is a career-ending post, I would imagine that there are at least a few former sub commanders still in the RAN who have moved on and/or been promoted whilst still being qualified as a submariner.
I would also imagine that similar sorts of situations exist for other sub posting as well. If this were not the case, then there would be no berths available for sub service personnel develop professionally and/or be promoted. There also would not be anything like a cadre of personnel to train new personnel to become submariners.
EDIT: D'Oh! @alexsa beat me to it...
It does make you wonder how much easier it would be to recruit and retain suitable personnel if more subs were based on the east coast (recognising the inefficiencies that come from duplicated infrastructure / potentially longer transit times depending on where they’re going).
I very much appreciate your and Todjaeger’s insights on this. I’m interested in whether you both think this proportion is ideal in terms of total workforce being utilised as efficiently as possible?
A question with regard to accommodation numbers on the Arafura Class.
Defence and other publications quote.
"40 crew with accommodation for up to 60 personnel"
Is this 60 personnel accommodated to the same standard, each with their own bunk and hotel services?
Or is it 40 for crew, with 20 pax accommodated in container accommodation with total hotel services for up to 60 pax?
Just curious
Regards S
Defence and other publications quote.
"40 crew with accommodation for up to 60 personnel"
Is this 60 personnel accommodated to the same standard, each with their own bunk and hotel services?
Or is it 40 for crew, with 20 pax accommodated in container accommodation with total hotel services for up to 60 pax?
Just curious
Regards S
Likely Aux accommodation. Instead of 2-4 berth cabins with ensuite, it would be 2 x 10 berth or 2 x 8 berth and extra 4 berth allocated for extra personnel. These accommodations are for non ships company as the expectation is they will only be on board for a shorter period.
They have these areas on Armidales and Capes. They are further down the rear of the ship and slightly more uncomfortable compared with the Ships Company berths.
The shipping containers could have accommodation pods but ships missions containers would be primarily for this space.
The FFG were good for using Stbd hanger for accomidation pod during training such as Navigation courses with students berthed in these. Arafura will be the same with future Officer training etc when dedicated to these Operations.
It’s called “austere accommodation”. It’s not up to the standard of the ship’s company’s accommodation, but it’s not bad. A separate mess deck with its own ablutions in the same general area as the rest of the accommodation. It’s not containers, although because the ship can carry several of those you could probably add even more berths above the 60 if you wanted to.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
I wonder seeing RNZN is in the early process of requiring a Southern Ocean patrol vessel wether it might be possible to just go for the Arafura class with some alterations as we will also be be needing to replace our current two later in the decade.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Won't the Southern Patrol Vessel require at least a basic Ice rating and an ability to handle Sea states that the Arafura class would go out of there way to avoid? The RAN are building the Arafura's with mainly tropical conditions in mind.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Surely this is a modification Australian naval shipyards could do ? Australia did build our 'protector fleet' after all.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect it depends on the intent of the idea.
AFAIK the Arafura-class design would be unsuitable for use as the basis for a Southern Ocean patrol vessel, short of major design changes which would make it essentially an entirely different design. As I understand it, it is not merely an issue of ice-strengthening the hull, but also ensuring the design is long enough, beamy enough, and with sufficient displacement to handle the sea conditions in far southern waters. As it currently stands, the Arafura-class design is shorter, has less beam, and is of lower displacement than the RNZN's current OPV's.
However, if the idea was not to have the Arafura-class design be changed until it was suitable for Southern Ocean conditions, but to provide the RNZN with replacement OPV's when the current vessels reach the point of needing replacement (likely in the 2030-2035 timeframe) for non-ice/Southern Ocean patrolling, then possibly.
Not a naval engineer, but I believe what would be required for a design to be "suitable" for the Southern Ocean is significantly different than the extant design. A design based off the Harry DeWolf-class OPV for the RCN and Canadian Coastguard has been suggested as being a more suitable replacement. The basic characteristics of these vessels are ~20 m longer, 6 m greater in beam, and ~6,600 tonnes. These vessels are significantly larger than either the Arafura-class or what is currently in service with the RNZN.
Ahem, the Arafura class wouldn't come anywhere close to the specifications for the SOPV. It couldn't handle the Southern Ocean and the Protector Class OPVs have real trouble handling it.
There's quite a bit to designing and building ships for operation in polar regions. For a start they have to meet strict maritime engineering criteria and you just can't take any old ship and go hey presto it's polar certified. Secondly, the NZG want significantly more out of the SOPV than just a patrol vessel so it will be larger and have science research labs etc., onboard as well plus it will have the same ice classification as Aotearoa which IIRC is Lloyds Ice Class 5, meaning that it will be able to go all the way into McMurdo. I have heard rumours that it might be Ice Class 3 even, making it an icebreaker. WRT the replacement of the Protector Class OPV, the Arafura class will be a non starter because they don't even meet the current RNZN OPV specs.
As noted by others designing and building an ice class ship is no simple matter. The vessel should comply with IMO Polar code which impacts almost every part of the vessel. A summary of the Polar Code is available here;
Shipping in polar waters (imo.org)
full text of the code is here
POLAR CODE TEXT AS ADOPTED.pdf (imo.org)
Comparative ice classes are here
If NZ were to piggy back on any Australian project for the SOPV it would appear to be the Ocean Protector replacement. According to the shipbuilding plan that vessel is due to commence construction in the late 2020's.
Factsheet_Maritime.pdf
ShipbuildingWAFactsheet.pdf (defence.gov.au)
Both the Naval auxiliary Ocean Protector and Border Force's Ocean Shield are designed and built with an ice rating of DNV-1B. This is not the same as Polar Code category B vessels which correspond to the IACS PC6 and PC7 rating. Under DNV ratings Ice Class 1B relates to ship means a ship designed to operate in open water or in ice conditions less severe than those included in Categories A and B. Polar Code category B vessels means a ship (not included in Category A), designed for operation in polar waters in at least thin first-year ice, which may include old ice inclusions.
It may be reasonable to expect the the Ocean Protector replacement should be at least Category C to retain the capability for southern ocean patrol purposes. Category B would be better. It will be interesting to see what the requirements are when they are published.
Last edited:
The Arafuras are designed to regularly operate as far as 50 South - they are not intended merely for ops in tropical waters. They are not, however, intended to operate in ice. They could almost certainly operate to the ice in summer, but it’s not something that you would want to do as your normal conops. As others have noted, there are much better designs of an appropriate size to do that; so why would you compromise on a likely less successful solution.
Oh, I forgot it’s NZ, so given Charles Upham and to a lesser extent the Protector group maybe…. (Sorry Kiwis ….. but this discussion belongs in your thread, not ours
)
Note however that in the Australian context, the Ocean Protector replacement may well fit in this space.
Oh, I forgot it’s NZ, so given Charles Upham and to a lesser extent the Protector group maybe…. (Sorry Kiwis ….. but this discussion belongs in your thread, not ours
)Note however that in the Australian context, the Ocean Protector replacement may well fit in this space.
Last edited:
Its not just hull strength. A journey further than 50s would likely require additional endurance and range. Extensive deck and fitting heating etc. Most of the time these ships will never be cutting through any sea ice at all, its the other aspects that are probably more important than the ability to break ice of significant thickness. While in the north there tends to be a wide variety of ice thickness, it is less so in the south. year ice, will be broken by a ice breaker in the first part of summer. Then basically any ship can pull up at the coast in summer. No one goes through in winter. Icebreakers have been trapped in glacial calving events at any time of the year.
The Arafuras could make a visit like the Colombians did in 2015 with their OPV. It is based off a Fassmer 80.
dialogo-americas.com
Due to Antarctica remoteness and harshness, oceanic conditions, you tend to want larger, more powerful more capable ships with greater range and endurance with very different needs.
The Arafuras could make a visit like the Colombians did in 2015 with their OPV. It is based off a Fassmer 80.
Colombian Navy Supports Scientific Expedition in the Antarctic - Diálogo Américas
The Colombian Navy is providing logistical, operational, and scientific support – and its largest and most sophisticated ship – for 20 researchers conducting the country’s first scientific expedition to the Antarctic. The Colombian Navy is providing logistical, operational, and scientific...
dialogo-americas.com
Due to Antarctica remoteness and harshness, oceanic conditions, you tend to want larger, more powerful more capable ships with greater range and endurance with very different needs.