Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Newman]

Worse than that, Hobart lost her bow to a torpedo in mid 43 and under repair for virtually the rest of the war, Australia and Shropshire were, for all intents and purposes, our cruiser force for the last two years of the war. If it wasn't for the Tribal Class destroyers being able to step up and back fill sufficient cruiser duties things would have been even worse.

Pre war the requirement was for a full flotilla of eight Tribal Class destroyers, we only completed three. The RN was suffering severe manning issues and there were discussions in relation to the transfer of HMS Ocean or even possibly HMS Implacable and Indefatigable to the RAN to serve with the BPF, it was likely they would be Australian crewed with NZ manned airgroups as the Kiwis made up a not insignificant proportion of RN FAA manpower late war. Too bad the staff discussing this didn't bother keeping the government in the loop and the whole thing fell over.

I think many people would be horrified if they realised just how small the RAN is and how few MFUs there actually are.

Yes it’s true that only three of eight planned Tribal class destroyers were built, but...

Let’s not forget the 10 new build ‘N’ and ‘Q’ class destroyers that the RN transferred/loaned to the RAN during the period of the war.

So it wasn’t doom and gloom on the Destroyer front.

 

[ddxx]

To the best of my knowledge there is no single easily available ‘spreadsheet’ (for a better word), that can give you a year by year list of MFUs in RAN commission.

You’ll likely have to do the leg work yourself.

I do have a suggestion to get you most of the way:

Warships Of Australia By Ross Gillet Hardcover Navy Book AS NEW | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Warships Of Australia By Ross Gillet Hardcover Navy Book AS NEW at the best online prices at eBay!

www.ebay.com.au

Probably the best single reference is a book called ‘Warships of Australia’ by Ross Gillett.

The book was published in 1977, 45 years ago, I’ve had my copy for almost as long, it was a very very expensive book at the time of publishing, for obvious reasons.

It can reasonably be called ‘the RAN bible’, many senior members here on DT are well aware of the book and would agree with me too.

It gives you a complete history of every single ship that has served Australia since the days of the ‘Colonial Navies’, and prior, right up to 1977.

Beyond 1977, you can refer to the navy.gov.au website for ship histories.

The book that is currently available on ebay is a cheap as chips, I’m almost tempted to buy it as a back up for my original copy.

Thanks mate! I have tried via online archives etc however, it’s incredibly hard to come to a clear total without quite a bit of guesswork. The department would have to have such data on hand?

 

[Volkodav]

Yes it’s true that only three of eight planned Tribal class destroyers were built, but...

Let’s not forget the 10 new build ‘N’ and ‘Q’ class destroyers that the RN transferred/loaned to the RAN during the period of the war.

So it wasn’t doom and gloom on the Destroyer front.

True, my dad's uncle was on one of the Ns, which were basically repeat J's. Dad himself served on Queenbough.

It's a real shame we didn't build the Counties in Australia. We ordered them from the UK because it was cheaper, then built a seaplane carrier (Albatross) at CODOC to maintain skills.

I suspect it would have been cheaper to have skipped Albatross and just built the cruisers here, then instead of having to buy the three Modified Leanders we could have built replacements for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane locally and had a hot line going into the war.

 

[DDG38]

Thanks mate! I have tried via online archives etc however, it’s incredibly hard to come to a clear total without quite a bit of guesswork. The department would have to have such data on hand?

It's a pretty niche product you're after and might not be something the RAN just hands out. Have you tried reaching out to the NHSA as they have a pretty good research team ?

 

[John Newman]

Thanks mate! I have tried via online archives etc however, it’s incredibly hard to come to a clear total without quite a bit of guesswork. The department would have to have such data on hand?

Again, I don’t believe there is a single point of reference available, if there was, I’m sure one of us here would have stumbled upon it before.

And again, I highly recommend you try and get a copy of Warships of Australia.

It is an endless source of quality information, complete ship and class histories, service lives, etc, etc.

Even after having my copy for 40+ years, I still use it as my ‘go to’ reference for everything RAN.

In fact it’s sitting here on the coffee table next to me because I’ve used it tonight to check some facts.

 

[SteveR]

Whilst the USN DDG concept outline is getting appropriate coverage on the USN forum:
Navy Unveils Next-Generation DDG(X) Warship Concept with Hypersonic Missiles, Lasers - USNI News

It is of note to the RAN that this next generation US DDG retains the SPQ-9B selected for the RAN DDGs and replaces the Phalanx with RAM in the initial baseline batch.

 

[ddxx]

Whilst the USN DDG concept outline is getting appropriate coverage on the USN forum:
Navy Unveils Next-Generation DDG(X) Warship Concept with Hypersonic Missiles, Lasers - USNI News

It is of note to the RAN that this next generation US DDG retains the SPQ-9B selected for the RAN DDGs and replaces the Phalanx with RAM in the initial baseline batch.

RAM / SeaRAM does appear to be the new procurement item of choice for the USN - Phalanx, appears (at least) to be on the way out, alongside Harpoon with NSM and VLS launched LRASM etc.

 

[Stampede]

RAM / SeaRAM does appear to be the new procurement item of choice for the USN - Phalanx, appears (at least) to be on the way out, alongside Harpoon with NSM and VLS launched LRASM etc.

The RAM missile has a lot of appeal..
Respectable range and missile numbers in a non deck penetrating system occupying a small foot print.
Two options in either a Sea RAM or MK 49 Launcher.
I'm certainly surprised we have not taken it up as it is a well used system.

Would be compatible with the Hobart , Canberra and Supply Classes plus HMAS Choules.
The Anzac Class would be on the wish list, but as discussed weight may be problematic.

Would look very nice on the three Hobart class ships as they come out of their first major refit in the mid 20's.

Fingers cross

Regards S

 

[Takao]

Let’s not forget the 10 new build ‘N’ and ‘Q’ class destroyers that the RN transferred/loaned to the RAN during the period of the war.

Oh look, 10 names that are all better than Hunter and the others. Add to that the Scrap Iron Flotilla and we have no excuse for the silly choices made (one of whom was never Navy!)

 

[John Newman]

Oh look, 10 names that are all better than Hunter and the others. Add to that the Scrap Iron Flotilla and we have no excuse for the silly choices made (one of whom was never Navy!)

Agree 100%

So many deserving names that have been skipped over, up to this point at least.

Three of my favourites are of course the Daring Class DDs, Vampire, Vendetta and Voyager.

 

[ddxx]

I love the V-class names too, however, I actually really quite like the ‘Hunter’ name.

I think a “V” name would be rather fitting for a future USV. I’ve always liked ‘Phantom’ for a UUV

 

[ADMk2]

Don’t know if this has been posted previously, but not a bad overview of Arafura’s production and launch.

 

[spoz]

VIc Cassell’s two books, The Destroyers and The Capital Ships, published around 2000, might also be useful. For many years Vic was the artist who designed ship’s badges.

Apart from that you would have to back to primary sources, the Australian Year Books and the papers accompanying the Budgets, and the Defence Reviews.

However, from the 60s on we basically had 11 or 12 escorts in commission.

Late 50s/early 60s 2 Battles, one Tribal, 4 Qs, and a couple of River Class frigates; the lot being replaced by the ships next listed, with some of the older generation retained as training ships but still with some capability (eg Queenbee and ASW in the 60s)

60s- 90s 6 River Class DEs (Type 12s)
60s- 2000 3 Charles F Adams DDGs
Late 50s - 70s 3 Daring Class DDs (OK, Ducky was in a training role from 74 but still performed escort duties, as did Vamps later)
80s - 4 FFG7s replacing Darings plus Yarra
90s & 2000s 6 FFG7s replacing In addition Parramatta and Stuart
1996 - 2007 Initially one, building to 8 ANZACs replacing Derwent, Swan and Torrens, in numbers terms (only) the DDG2s, then FFGs Adelaide and Canberra.
2010s 4 FFG7s replaced by the 3 Hobarts.

One of the Defence reviews of the 90s proposed growing to 14 escorts, but it never happened. The changeovers were however managed to keep the 11/12 figure fairly constant.

 

[Volkodav]

Oh look, 10 names that are all better than Hunter and the others. Add to that the Scrap Iron Flotilla and we have no excuse for the silly choices made (one of whom was never Navy!)

When oh when are we going reuse Swordsman, or Pioneer, even Australia, Tasmania

 

[John Newman]

When oh when are we going reuse Swordsman, or Pioneer, even Australia, Tasmania

HMAS Australia?

That’s saved for when the RAN gets an Aircraft Carrier or an SSBN, whichever comes first.... hmmm?

 

[Volkodav]

VIc Cassell’s two books, The Destroyers and The Capital Ships, published around 2000, might also be useful. For many years Vic was the artist who designed ship’s badges.

Apart from that you would have to back to primary sources, the Australian Year Books and the papers accompanying the Budgets, and the Defence Reviews.

However, from the 60s on we basically had 11 or 12 escorts in commission.

Late 50s/early 60s 2 Battles, one Tribal, 4 Qs, and a couple of River Class frigates; the lot being replaced by the ships next listed, with some of the older generation retained as training ships but still with some capability (eg Queenbee and ASW in the 60s)

60s- 90s 6 River Class DEs (Type 12s)
60s- 2000 3 Charles F Adams DDGs
Late 50s - 70s 3 Daring Class DDs (OK, Ducky was in a training role from 74 but still performed escort duties, as did Vamps later)
80s - 4 FFG7s replacing Darings plus Yarra
90s & 2000s 6 FFG7s replacing In addition Parramatta and Stuart
1996 - 2007 Initially one, building to 8 ANZACs replacing Derwent, Swan and Torrens, in numbers terms (only) the DDG2s, then FFGs Adelaide and Canberra.
2010s 4 FFG7s replaced by the 3 Hobarts.

One of the Defence reviews of the 90s proposed growing to 14 escorts, but it never happened. The changeovers were however managed to keep the 11/12 figure fairly constant.

The elephant in the room was the retirement of Melbourne was meant to free up resources to increase MFU numbers and individual capability.

When you retire a carrier with a crew of 1300+ an airgroup of Trackers, Skyhawks and your only way of getting usable numbers of SeaKings to sea (thereby hamstringing Ikara as well), it frees up a lot of manpower and money.

The plan according to Beazley was 17 MFUs, eventually all with helicopters, and corvettes with ESSM, Harpoon and Helicopter replacing the Fremantle class. That's very different to a dozen MFUs and a dozen OPVs.

My understanding is during the 2000s the effective fleet consisted of two un-upgraded FFGs, six ANZACs, with one other ANZAC being used exclusively for sea training and another for alongside training, while the Fremantle's were being sent to sea held together with string and chewing gum.

This was when the fleet had been supposed to consist of three replacement DDGs, four replacement FFGs (possibly the same design or maybe a Burke plus frigate hi low mix), two upgraded FFGs, eight ANZACs, and a dozen corvettes.

 

[Redlands18]

When oh when are we going reuse Swordsman, or Pioneer, even Australia, Tasmania

It is going to be interesting to see what names the SSNs get, would they go with MFU names? Melbourne, Darwin, Newcastle, Fremantle, Perth*
*depending on availability of course.

 

[John Newman]

It is going to be interesting to see what names the SSNs get, would they go with MFU names? Melbourne, Darwin, Newcastle, Fremantle, Perth*
*depending on availability of course.

I’d rather see those names stay with the surface fleet.

For the subs, we have six historical ‘O’ boat names available, won’t be too hard to add a few more either.

 

[Wombat000]

Just cos the sub itself and the program has changed, doesn’t mean the names have to.

Perhaps future generations will look upon whatever the potential Attack class names could be and think the same of them as we now look at past O-boat names?
Will we name our new subs inspired from their parent design, like we did from Oberons ?

For a submarine, what’s wrong with Attack?

 

[John Newman]

The elephant in the room was the retirement of Melbourne was meant to free up resources to increase MFU numbers and individual capability.

When you retire a carrier with a crew of 1300+ an airgroup of Trackers, Skyhawks and your only way of getting usable numbers of SeaKings to sea (thereby hamstringing Ikara as well), it frees up a lot of manpower and money.

The plan according to Beazley was 17 MFUs, eventually all with helicopters, and corvettes with ESSM, Harpoon and Helicopter replacing the Fremantle class. That's very different to a dozen MFUs and a dozen OPVs.

My understanding is during the 2000s the effective fleet consisted of two un-upgraded FFGs, six ANZACs, with one other ANZAC being used exclusively for sea training and another for alongside training, while the Fremantle's were being sent to sea held together with string and chewing gum.

This was when the fleet had been supposed to consist of three replacement DDGs, four replacement FFGs (possibly the same design or maybe a Burke plus frigate hi low mix), two upgraded FFGs, eight ANZACs, and a dozen corvettes.

When it comes to ‘the plan’ for the RAN fleet structure, or should I say ‘change of plan’ you actually have to go right back to the very beginning.

Prior to HMAS Australia and it’s accompanying flotilla arriving in Sydney Harbour on 4th October 1913, the planned fleet structure had been modified.

And it’s continued to change and evolve ever since, no one decade can really be singled out.