Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I totally agree mate, seamanship takes many many years to accomplish, whether it is in a tinny, yacht or a larger vessel, you need to be able to navigate the vessel first, let alone taking it to a fight.
Missing the point, PBs do nothing that can't be done on other minor vessels. PBs also do nothing to develop engineering officers or principle warfare officers.

You could have the best seaman officers in the world but they are going nowhere without engineers, and they are pretty useless if they can't fight a ship.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
I'd like to ask a dumb question to anyone who knows. Obviously hull numbers and budget are constraints, but so are people numbers.

How big a constraint is RAN crew numbers now? In terms of our number of trained crew, how many do we have?

How many warships could the RAN put to sea in the near future with various fleet upgrade scenarios?

For example, we have 3 AWDs and 8 Anzacs now, and are building an unknown number of Hunters.
Suppose we replaced 8 Anzacs with 8 Navantia "Tier 2" light frigates with a crew of 100 each, and still had 3 AWDs, how many additional Hunters could we also crew with our current numbers? 3? 6? 9?
 

iambuzzard

Active Member
I'd like to ask a dumb question to anyone who knows. Obviously hull numbers and budget are constraints, but so are people numbers.

How big a constraint is RAN crew numbers now? In terms of our number of trained crew, how many do we have?

How many warships could the RAN put to sea in the near future with various fleet upgrade scenarios?

For example, we have 3 AWDs and 8 Anzacs now, and are building an unknown number of Hunters.
Suppose we replaced 8 Anzacs with 8 Navantia "Tier 2" light frigates with a crew of 100 each, and still had 3 AWDs, how many additional Hunters could we also crew with our current numbers? 3? 6? 9?
It's not a dumb question. I think Volks might have an idea.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

They have OPV80, OPV90 and now OPV85?

opv80 range now 6,000nm?
At that means what in the Australian context? The OPV 80 is still not a large vessel and the additional range will come at the cost of something else. The other thing is …. What is the speed of advance noting the average speed of MFU tends to be at lease 18 knots. The current OPV 80 is rated at 12-14 knots to achieve its maximum range.

Added to this is the fact that there has always been paper extensions of the current range of vessels.

It comes down tp what you want the vessels to do and the capability required. The Australian OPVs will have a combat management system (SAAB 9LV again) so they are more capable of operating with other vessels, however, they are still only designed for a permissive environment in a policing role. Still an important task but these will not be front line vessels.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
2027 SRFW (if on time) will be very much needed. I’m not sure LOTE is worth it from 2026.
(If approved-Virginias 2032/35/38 + option for 2 more). Hopefully we get the nod from the u.s prior to giving the ok for LOTE.
You miss an important point, where have trained crews for these boats. LOTE tend to be expensive but when you get to the point a LOTE is the only intermediate option it means you have left it too late and it is expensive for the increased life of the vessel. However, it will be undertaken during a full cycle docking which means we can retain capability while the AUKUS project grinds along.

Building an interim boat will absorb manpower and money needed to retain the Collins and bring in the AUKUS SSNs.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Volkadav, If Austal becomes the major build partner in wa. Do you think we may see the return of the ocv program as a tier 2? Or atleast an updated version. (20 were to be built at that time to cover many classes). I think it’s called the Austal MRV 80 now but they also had a 90m variant too with more range.
People may not like it given how wel the LCS program went but it was versatile, was relatively inexpensive when compared to other offerings and had a very low crew requirement of 40-60 with accomodation for around 80. If austal does expands to 1200 people, they could probably produce 2 a year like the Capes in the current shed.
Ceafar, 16 VLS, 2x quad SSM, 1 helicopter, 1 drone, main gun, remote weapons, mass decoys, mission bay underneath flight deck carrying a few vehicles or small containers, 2 rhibs, CIWS or ram etc etc. Had 2 range listings of 4,500nm at 12 knts or 6,000nm at 12knts, max speed 26-28knts or with different propulsion up to 32+ knts. 90m version more range perhaps?


Pic from another site, taken from an austal pdf, 80m corvette combatant.
These are vessel built to the HSC Code. The have operating limitations given the hull design and hull material and operating speed dramatically reduce in high sea states. Above that and tunnel slam and other interactions with the sea will cause damage.

In commercial service, and under commercial rules, HSC need to be within 4 hours of a safe haven on a fixed route (and granted a certificate of operation) if it is going to carry passengers and 8 hours if carrying just cargo. These are fragile craft and aluminium structure is difficult (and expensive) to protect from fire damage if hit in action. They are also likely to see a shorter hull life that other vessels. If you doubt that please look as the age of the Armadale compared to the Fremantle’s (not saying the latter are perfect but they lasted a lot longer than the ACPB).

Added to this these vessels have a low deadweight given their design which means minimal growth margin (if you doubt that look up the deadweight of the LCS ….. weigh limitation had an impact on some of the mission modules). Deadweight includes all stores, all crew, alll equipment, all munitions and all fuel and water …. A couple of hundred tonnes will disappear in a hurry.

If you want to promote an option please justify it. In want context would this craft operate noting the souther ocean is not a place these are intended to go…. Staying away fro cyclones would also be advisable).

Personally, I am of the view that vessels intended to go into a hostile environment need at lease the capable of the modified ANZAC with larger weapons load and a growth margin. Vessel selection should never be based on glossy promotional material.
 

76mmGuns

Active Member
Crew numbers are an issue, but maybe not.

A while back I discussed about submarine crews (currently still 4.5 crews for 6 subs?) and one of the more informed members here said it was unlikely to be an issue later because the new subs would be more exciting to people, and get more recruits.

If this is the case, wouldn't the Hunters also stimulate more people, being the latest, large, modern looking, technologically advanced warship in the world? I mean, it truly is. Latest design, sloping stealth, really big , fancy quiet design. It really looks far better than a 30yo small ANZAC, or even an Arleigh Burke. And it can carry a lot of drones, which are the current trend, both in military and civilian life. In fact, many younger crew would be able to transfer their civilian drone skills over...imaging your job is guiding a 5 ton UUV, or flying a 4 ton UAV, over a 150 gram dji with a battery life of 30 minutes.

What do you think?
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Crew numbers are an issue, but maybe not.
A while back I discussed about submarine crews (currently still 4.5 crews for 6 subs?) and one of the more informed members here said it was unlikely to be an issue later because the new subs would be more exciting to people, and get more recruits.
If this is the case, wouldn't the Hunters also stimulate more people, being the latest, large, modern looking, technologically advanced warship in the world? I mean, it truly is. Latest design, sloping stealth, really big , fancy quiet design. It really looks far better than a 30yo small ANZAC, or even an Arleigh Burke. And it can carry a lot of drones, which are the current trend, both in military and civilian life. In fact, many younger crew would be able to transfer their civilian drone skills over...imaging your job is guiding a 5 ton UUV, or flying a 4 ton UAV, over a 150 gram dji with a battery life of 30 minutes.
What do you think?
No. IRT boats, you're making a fairly large assumption that people will come running to serve on SSNs. Let's say that actually happens, they still have to pass submarine training and qualify. It's an incredibly unique and dangerous operating environment and it's not for everybody.
Secondly, I have never, ever, not once met a sailor who's told me that they joined because they wanted to serve on a particular class of ship. So I think there'd be very limited utility in using that aspect for recruitment.
It's simply a tight job market and the ADF is competing with other industries who are screaming for people and offer better pay and conditions.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
Technically only 6 Anzac's have crew at the moment. Anzac & Parramatta both don't have crews allocated, Anzac's old crew have moved to Ballarat in preparation for her undocking early next year.
Thanks. So I note that the Anzacs hve an official compliment of 177 and the Navantia Alfa 3000 has a compliment of “60+32”. I assume that means that for the crew of one Anzac you could crew roughly 2 light firgattes or corvettes like the Alfa 3000/Tasman.

I assume nothing smaller than the Alfa 3000 is worth building following Adm Hammonds comments last week about what Tier 1 / Tier 2 meant. The Luerssen C90 and TKM K130 both appear too small to meet Hammond’s requirements.

That means you could use the current six Anzac and three Hobart crews to operate six corvettes (= 3 Anzac crews), the three Hobarts, and three more Block II Hobarts or Hunters (with the three remaining three Anzac crews), total 12 surface warships (6 Tier 1, 6 Tier 2). More than that would need more crew. This compares closely to the offer Navantia made a year ago. I am not saying it will be chosen, but it appears to fit both our budget and crew constraints.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks. So I note that the Anzacs hve an official compliment of 177 and the Navantia Alfa 3000 has a compliment of “60+32”. I assume that means that for the crew of one Anzac you could crew roughly 2 light firgattes or corvettes like the Alfa 3000/Tasman.

I assume nothing smaller than the Alfa 3000 is worth building following Adm Hammonds comments last week about what Tier 1 / Tier 2 meant. The Luerssen C90 and TKM K130 both appear too small to meet Hammond’s requirements.

That means you could use the current six Anzac and three Hobart crews to operate six corvettes (= 3 Anzac crews), the three Hobarts, and three more Block II Hobarts or Hunters (with the three remaining three Anzac crews), total 12 surface warships (6 Tier 1, 6 Tier 2). More than that would need more crew. This compares closely to the offer Navantia made a year ago. I am not saying it will be chosen, but it appears to fit both our budget and crew constraints.
Not necessarily.

A crew is not a single homogenous entity, it is a dynamic organisation with individuals who have different levels of experience, knowledge and competence across different specialities.

The size and composition of crew a ship needs is down to the type, quantity age and arrangement of systems onboard.

On old small ship may have less automation but higher maintenance requirements. Hydraulics and pneumatics not only require a difference skill set to electrical, they require different amounts and types of maintenance.

Even introducing upgrades into service requires massive efforts in training on the new equipment, let alone introducing new platforms with radically different equipment.

One of the reasons the RAN is introducing as many common systems across platforms as possible is training and crewing, over and above the more traditional parts issue.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
To take Volk’s point a bit further, automation tends to apply more to ship’s functions than to the way it generates combat power. If there are say 20 people in the Operations Room of one ship design, it doesn’t mean that a more modern ship can make do with 10. Many are highly trained specialists in their fields. They are singleton specialists who cannot be divided in half! So, while automation will help in an overall sense, it’s not a simple proposition to work out the best way to employ those savings.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro

I am curious as to how they define value for money.

When you look at the apparent ability to significantly upgrade the offensive power of the Type 26 versus the other contenders it looks like pretty good value for money. Conversely look at the ANZAC, originally seen as too large and too capable for its role, it is now too small, and too limited.
 

d-ron84

Member

I am curious as to how they define value for money.

When you look at the apparent ability to significantly upgrade the offensive power of the Type 26 versus the other contenders it looks like pretty good value for money. Conversely look at the ANZAC, originally seen as too large and too capable for its role, it is now too small, and too limited.
I'd say the whole AWD 'F100 vs Arleigh Burke' decision was a big reason why 'the navy removed a requirement for "value for money" from the tender process.' But that's just my opinion
 

d-ron84

Member
Is there an estimate of how much did Australia invest into che CEFAR in total?
Australia has been pumping hundreds of millions into CEA Technologies for over a decade


And looks like it won't be stopping anytime soon

 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Gibbs and Cox unveil Australian Light Frigate - Naval News

I've been reflecting on G&C's decision to omit the main gun from its Australian Light Frigate design, and I am wondering whether they're on to something. A single AusLFcould pose a real dilemma for a hostile task group in our region - even a Chinese carrier group - if it was carrying a loadout of, say, 24x NSM, 16x LRASM and 64x ESSM for self defence. I would not want to be a defender trying to stop a salvo of 40 stealthy advanced AShM, especially when the launch platform can run home to reload and be replaced by one of it's peers while I am weeks from home.

The question in my mind is are the extra 16 strike length VLS worth losing the main gun? My (very amateur) thinking is that perhaps it is. G&C have said that:

While not shown on the model displayed at Indo Pacific 2023, Naval News also understands that any production design would feature several remotely operated 30mm cannons, spread around the ship.

So I think counter piracy, counter drone, warning shots, small boat / littoral warfare and point missile defence roles filled by a main gun could be filled by these "several" cannons, with shore bombardment probably being the primary mission that would be missing. To me this seems like a pretty good trade off.
 

25 years on

New Member
Gibbs and Cox unveil Australian Light Frigate - Naval News

In mentioning Gibbs & Cox, the Australian Light frigate is a nice design.

1701850457463.png

Leidos who acquired Gbbs & Cox in 2021 is increasing its Australian foot print in other defence related areas. Defence minister Richard Marles said acquisition interest in Austal by some private equity firms would need to meet stringent National Security tests:

‘National asset’: Austal sale faces likely security test, Marles warns

Hanwha is also looking at getting the US shipbuilding assets of Austal

Meet the $42 billion mystery Korean in Austal’s data room

Leidos would also surely meet any National Security test if they bought Austal.

Purely “Food for thought” only but any buyer would then be a determining factor for a tier 2 vessel.

Will be interesting to watch this space in 2024!
 

Meriv90

Active Member

I am curious as to how they define value for money.

When you look at the apparent ability to significantly upgrade the offensive power of the Type 26 versus the other contenders it looks like pretty good value for money. Conversely look at the ANZAC, originally seen as too large and too capable for its role, it is now too small, and too limited.
Someone is clearly pushing politically and with the media against the T26. Can you help me understand? The image i created in my mind is the next one.

The parameter of CEFAR made it clear the requirement of a ship like the T26 and not like the other two competitors. No other way around it.

But what if the problem was the CEFAR itself in combination with a SEA5000 that started 5-7 years delayed because politics didn't answer to RAN needs. Thus not leaving time margins to make changes of directions.

I feel your politics are doing a blame-game towards the RAN preparing the ground to whats going to come considering that it will have an high political price.
 
Top