Channelling Bismarck . . . . . who said that politics was like sausage-making; if you want to enjoy the output, it's best not to look too closely at how it's made.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Deleted
and yet the ADF are allegedly “strategic” in their outlook…
One has to be a bit careful with figures on MSC strength - there has been ups and downs as one class enters service while another leaves but the base figure hasn’t changed. We have had 11-12 destroyers or frigates as the nominative fleet size since the early 70s when it was 3 DDG, 3 Daring and 6 Type 12 (admittedly plus 1/2 ex DDSs/FFs as training ships). That went to 3 DDG, 4 FFG and 5 T12 in the mid 80s, 3 DDG, 6 FFG, and ANZACs replacing T12s on not quite a one for one basis by the late 90s, to 4 FFGs and 8 ANZACs by 2010. It’s been the achievable figure for 50 years. And the present aim is 9 Hunters and 3 Hobarts. Whether it is the right number is another question.
The elephan
There were also multiple projects to increase major combatant numbers from the late 50s onwards. Everything from ex USN destroyers, locally built corvettes or light destroyers, intended to supplement, not replace, the existing destroyers and frigates. A total of 23 was desired, while maintaining the carrier capability.
This number (23) was policy while Malcolm Frazer was Defmin. Three carriers, to support a two ocean navy, was aspirational at this time.
During the 60s there were projects to design and build a family of light destroyers with different versions for different roles, i.e. ASW, air defence, patrol. These grew into the DDL, which grew into a Daring replacement, dropping from ten additional hulls to three Daring replacements. They were cancelled and an initial two FFGs were ordered.
About the time the DDL grew into a destroyer replacement Australia invested in the Type 21 Amazon design as a potential low end complement to the DDGs, DDLs, and DEs but sitting above the Attack Class Patrol Boats. Again to increase numbers.
In the 90s the future fleet was pencilled in as three DDGs, six FFGs (tier 1) and eight ANZACs (tier 2), to be supported by a dozen corvettes (tier 3).
More recently (Rudd/Gillard) it was three Hobart's, six high end frigates to replace the ANZACs, and twenty multi role combatants (basically smaller, slower LCS).
I seriously hope the current review is looking at our geography and strategic environment. I suspect that if it is the surface fleet numbers will be shown, as they have every other time a serious review has been undertaken, to be woefully inadequate. We will be back to a mix of 20 to 30 destroyers, frigates and corvettes.
The elephant in the room is that we operated a carrier until the early 80s, with a replacement program for it on the books until 83. Publically the retirement of the carrier was meant to lead to increased MFU numbers, at one point ten FFGs being flagged.
There were also multiple projects to increase major combatant numbers from the late 50s onwards. Everything from ex USN destroyers, locally built corvettes or light destroyers, intended to supplement, not replace, the existing destroyers and frigates. A total of 23 was desired, while maintaining the carrier capability.
This number (23) was policy while Malcolm Frazer was Defmin. Three carriers, to support a two ocean navy, was aspirational at this time.
During the 60s there were projects to design and build a family of light destroyers with different versions for different roles, i.e. ASW, air defence, patrol. These grew into the DDL, which grew into a Daring replacement, dropping from ten additional hulls to three Daring replacements. They were cancelled and an initial two FFGs were ordered.
About the time the DDL grew into a destroyer replacement Australia invested in the Type 21 Amazon design as a potential low end complement to the DDGs, DDLs, and DEs but sitting above the Attack Class Patrol Boats. Again to increase numbers.
In the 90s the future fleet was pencilled in as three DDGs, six FFGs (tier 1) and eight ANZACs (tier 2), to be supported by a dozen corvettes (tier 3).
More recently (Rudd/Gillard) it was three Hobart's, six high end frigates to replace the ANZACs, and twenty multi role combatants (basically smaller, slower LCS).
I seriously hope the current review is looking at our geography and strategic environment. I suspect that if it is the surface fleet numbers will be shown, as they have every other time a serious review has been undertaken, to be woefully inadequate. We will be back to a mix of 20 to 30 destroyers, frigates and corvettes.
Yes the naval hull numbers dance has been an interesting waltz over the decades.
Will the Naval Review actually be a land mark change in the fleets composition going forward ? At this stage we don't know.
What we do know is that nuclear subs are still in and the DSR was remarkably unspectacular for both Army and Air Force.
For Navy I'd suggest the same.
A small number ( around six) tier two something's that are smaller rather than bigger and that's about it.
Some MCM, survey, amphibious ship suggestions.
Arafura class probably still 12 ships which may be allocated to some of the above missions.
The rest as already planned.
Not seeing alot of money being thrown around.
Gut feeling Lurrsen will be looked after.
Cheers S
Sydney harbour entry this morning of HMAS Canberra and USS Canberra. Must admit the 1980s sailor in me took some small pleasure in seeing an RAN ship being the biggest in company with the yanks for once. 
USS Canberra is holding the USN's first overseas commissioning ceremony next week alongside FBE. Photos by me.
USS Canberra is holding the USN's first overseas commissioning ceremony next week alongside FBE. Photos by me.
AndyinOz
Member
For the political, policy and legislative wonks among us. "Congressman Bill Huizenga (R-MI) announced the introduction of the AUKUS Submarine Transfer Authorization Act, co-sponsored by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) " (Huizenga Introduces Legislation to Strengthen Security Ties with Australia, Provide Nuclear-Powered Submarines to Deter China) The Bill makes for some interesting reading.
Yeah I was down at FBE watching them come in the yanks did an extra 'lap' in front of the opera house and bridge for some good pics.Sydney harbour entry this morning of HMAS Canberra and USS Canberra. Must admit the 1980s sailor in me took some small pleasure in seeing an RAN ship being the biggest in company with the yanks for once.
Two bands Navy bands on the wharf playing some tunes, never seen that before.
Greats pics BTW too
VIDEO: USS Canberra Commissions in Rare Overseas Ceremony - USNI News
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA – Leaders of the U.S. Navy joined their Australian counterparts on a windy winter day at the ancestral home of the Royal Australian Navy to welcome USS Canberra (LCS-30) to the American fleet. Moored at the RAN naval base HMAS Kuttabul in the middle of Sydney harbor, Littoral...
news.usni.org
Not sure how I feel about the modified funnel emblem. While it will certainly look quite Aussie to the US, it looks too much like Australia has been taken over by the US imho.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Another point in that USNI article, is, the RAN will have a permanent presence on board with at least 1 member of the RAN posted on board.VIDEO: USS Canberra Commissions in Rare Overseas Ceremony - USNI News
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA – Leaders of the U.S. Navy joined their Australian counterparts on a windy winter day at the ancestral home of the Royal Australian Navy to welcome USS Canberra (LCS-30) to the American fleet. Moored at the RAN naval base HMAS Kuttabul in the middle of Sydney harbor, Littoral...
Not sure how I feel about the modified funnel emblem. While it will certainly look quite Aussie to the US, it looks too much like Australia has been taken over by the US imho.
It will confuse the Chinese. Perfect. I think the Americans like our red kangaroo funnel symbol. I think they wish they had something similar.
Personally I would prefer the USS Canberra name to be on Cruiser or heavy destroyer. I am not too concerned with stripey the kangaroo. It looks odd, but if it makes the Americans happy to have their flag cut up into the shape of an animal we are going to cull 2 million of this year, so be it.
I hope we can return the favor with a HMAS America in the Arafura class. Reddit has some Ameristralia logo's the RAN can rip off. The bald eagle with beer cans in its claws or something.
Interesting to see Rudd and Payne there. Quite a turn out from the Americans too.
Americans have quite a lot of turret dancing and music.. Disappointing that the 101 Dolls weren't involved as per standard RAN commissioning protocol. Way too uptight these days.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I have often thought it would be symbolically appropriate for Australia to have a HMAS Lexington or HMAS Coral Sea in the RAN. It was the USN that saved Australia from a Japanese fleet at Coral Sea, and they lost a carrier and nearly 1,000 men doing it. It deserves to be remembered, just as they remember our ship that went down in the Solomons protecting their Marines.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Thanks, I think that is excellent news. The RAN getting 3 to 5 Virginias really is the critical bit of AUKUS until well beyond when I will be retired. As long as this gets through Congress while Biden is still President, that should reduce our risks a lot. In that respect it is great that Republicans are sponsoring it in their lower house (where they control at present), which should give it the numbers to pass.
Politics could play a role but I haven't heard any strong opposition from the US. I have a feeling that most of the final decisions will be made by the next administration. The timeline suggests that Australia will receive its first submarine around 2031/32 which to my way of thinking suggests that decisions on which submarine Australia gets may have to be decided in the next presidential term of office. I expect that whatever boat is chosen will need to undergo some sort of mini-refit and perhaps be jointly crewed under US navy control until Australia is ready to operate it by themselves.
Hard to say how long it will take to hand over control of a nuclear submarine to another country, but I expect it is more complex than just handing over the keys.
India leased its first SSN from the USSR back in 1988. The Indian crew had to undergo a two years training and even then the boat always had to be partly manned by a Soviet crew. There were even parts of the boat the Indian crew were not allowed to enter. In fact really the whole point of leasing a boat from the Soviets was to gain experience and knowledge of operating an SSN rather than having a fully operational nuclear sub.
It wasn't until nearly 20 years later that the Indians started building its own SSNs.
That really puts Australia's own ambitions into perspective. Could be why the Collins class will still soldier on well into the thirties and beyond.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Obviously the state of US politics in 2031/32 will matter a lot to the RAN getting Virginias. But the politics in 2023/24 matters for the construction getting started now. If the extra SSN production does not start in USA now, it will not be possible to give the RAN an SSN in 2031, as there will be none spare to give.
On Collins LOTE, I appreciate that the extension of Collins life was something the navy was forced into by failures of multiple previous governments to progress the Collins replacement with sufficient speed. Nevertheless I remain a huge skeptic of the whole idea of taking those subs beyond 35 years, let alone a 40+ year life. This is not a criticism of ASC manufacturing or maintenance, or the efforts of anyone involved in the LOTE project. Everyone will do their best, but I think it is a bad idea.
IMO LOTE creates unavoidable risks we are running, that are highly undesirable. All the surveys in the world do not guarantee a system as complex as an SSK is completely fault free after 30 years at sea. There have been several losses of SSKs over 40 years old recently. The Indonesian sub had been recently refurbished in Korea, and was originally German built. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to the RAN. I'd rather we had continued building the first three Attack SSKs as a transition, or bought new SSKs internationally in the interim.
Attack is dead, there has been no work on it for two years now. Even if SEA1000 had proceeded to schedule LOTE was a given, the only thing that has changed is all six SSKs are now to be extended.
Any interim acquisition would still require LOTE as it simply could not be ready in time to avoid needing LOTE. For example, Singapore's 218SG took a decade from the order being placed to delivery, add in a selection process and we are taking notional interim type being delivered in the mid 2030s at the earliest.
Any interim acquisition would require resources we simply don't have and can't expand in time. LOTE can, to an extent, hook into existing sustainment and design capability, and facilitate their expansion, while an interim option would result in duplication of effort and a contraction of capability.
LOTE is needed to ensure a critical mass of submarine operators, maintainers and designers is grown and maintained into the future, so the SSN acquisition, in turn, can be adequately executed.
Any interim acquisition would still require LOTE as it simply could not be ready in time to avoid needing LOTE. For example, Singapore's 218SG took a decade from the order being placed to delivery, add in a selection process and we are taking notional interim type being delivered in the mid 2030s at the earliest.
Any interim acquisition would require resources we simply don't have and can't expand in time. LOTE can, to an extent, hook into existing sustainment and design capability, and facilitate their expansion, while an interim option would result in duplication of effort and a contraction of capability.
LOTE is needed to ensure a critical mass of submarine operators, maintainers and designers is grown and maintained into the future, so the SSN acquisition, in turn, can be adequately executed.
That could explain why the US and UK will be basing boats in Perth. There could be no guarantee that the Collins class will remain effective beyond this decade.
Australia has really got itself into quite a mess replacing the Collins subs. So much now depends on the goodwill of our allies to extricate us from the problems we caused ourselves.
I would hope we will learn from these lessons but I sense that current government is still intent on kicking the can further down the road rather than making any real decisions.
Agree fully. Good suggestions. Also worth considering either Houston (after the heavy cruiser that went down fighting with Perth at Sunda Straight) or one of the 3 USN heavy cruisers that went down the same night as Canberra at Savo Island.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Lexington could represent a problem, in that the name originally comes from the Battle of Lexington in 1775 during the War of Independance. So represents a rebellion against the British Crown.