Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Now without even that, the whole fleet is just...training...and they can't deploy to Sth East Asia to cover "our backyard"
Yeah sorry going to have to pull you up on that statement. *original text redacted by request* The RAN has regular RPD commitments it fulfills every year as part of larger government policy, there is no current concern that the fleet cannot deploy to SEA on a regular basis. So not quite as bad as you're alluding to.
 
Last edited:

GregorZ

Member
That wasn't what Trump did. He mixed up contributions to NATO with national military spending, apparently not understanding that they're different things.
I believe NATO requirement was for each nations to spend min 2% of GDP on defence, a lot of members were not. This is what he was pointing at? Am I incorrect on this?
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Probably not the correct thing to mention ship deployments after reading the FAS.
No one on this page has a need to know what is on an official Defence page.
No dates or ship names, so low risk. General assumption that naval deployments happen and short term public notices of ship movements can be accessed readily. Well aware of need to know and OPSEC.
 

Jason_DBF

Member
No dates or ship names, so low risk. General assumption that naval deployments happen and short term public notices of ship movements can be accessed readily. Well aware of need to know and OPSEC.
I don't think you understand opsec if you are posting official information from the DRN.
It should be posted on a public forum. I will be reporting this post as security breach.

Remove the post now.
 

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
I don't think you understand opsec if you are posting official information from the DRN.
It should be posted on a public forum. I will be reporting this post as security breach.

Remove the post now.
Genuine question: How many people would have, or could have, seen the information he is referring to where it was posted?
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I don't think you understand opsec if you are posting official information from the DRN.
It should be posted on a public forum. I will be reporting this post as security breach.
Remove the post now.
1. To keep you happy I've modified the post but I'm not removing it as the main point I was making in response to icelord's post still stands.
2. You are not a mod, don't go making demands.
3. I guarantee you I am very well versed in security and OPSEC. Referencing the FAS (which most people don't know it is) in general terms doesn't constitute a security breach. If FIS want to find out what projected fleet movements are going to be, they have far easier and more sophisticated methods to use than trawling niche discussion forums.
4. You now have to modify your own post as it quotes the original text which you wanted removed.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There is no mention of specific dates or names of ships and as a serving senior sailor, if it was any kind of issue, I would have raised it.
And so would I. Also, there was no mention of where they are going; blind Freddy would know that there was going to be deployments, there are every year, which is effectively all that was said. If you subscribe to the (publicly available) Navy News you will generally know at the start that such a deployment is underway, roughly where it is going, and who is involved. They are deployments to, amongst other thing, show the flag; doing that normally requires some publicity (as well as dipclear).
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
This article about the lack of LCS deployed to the Red Sea, asks the question “If the LCS can’t fight the Houthis, who can they fight? The likely answer is: no one.” It has parallels to the discussion about upgrading the Arafura’s armament where you could spend a lot of money but still have a ship that is too vulnerable to deploy to any hotspots.

Better off spending the money on more capable frigates.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
This article about the lack of LCS deployed to the Red Sea, asks the question “If the LCS can’t fight the Houthis, who can they fight? The likely answer is: no one.” It has parallels to the discussion about upgrading the Arafura’s armament where you could spend a lot of money but still have a ship that is too vulnerable to deploy to any hotspots.

Better off spending the money on more capable frigates.
It's an interesting debate.
One would think that a vessel with a base line combination of a 57mm gun and Sea RAM would have a reasonable measure of self defence , coupled with other missile / gun combinations trailed and employed across the Freedom and Independence Classes.
Somewhat surprised they are not up for the job at hand against the Houthis level of threat.
Their absence, if true maybe the answer to my expectation.

That said it does play to our fleet and it's capability going forward.
It we get a "Tier Two thing" it will need a respectable offering across all realms of threat.
That's probably at least a 5000t ship

Maybe my assumption that there is still a place for a basic Tier Three long ranged helicopter capable vessel with a medium calibre gun are over.

We will know soon enough.

Cheers S
 

Jason_DBF

Member
There is no mention of specific dates or names of ships and as a serving senior sailor, if it was any kind of issue, I would have raised it.
As a serving senior sailor myself I believe jts wrong to post this information.
.Every little bit of classified information released helps foreign intelligence services.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Only the subs stuff is top secret, the surface ships are all over social media, a HMA ship deployed last week, family were wharf side to say farewell and it was plastered all over RAN Facebook.
Going from subs too PBs I just about fell off my perch when I saw all the junior sailors pull out their phones and start facebooking and snapchatting when they saw dolphins rooting near the boat ramp at Coonawarra.

My experience of defence to that point had been pre smart phone army, and then industry, where phones or taking photos would have resulted in your head on a pike at the gates as an example to others.

These days you fill in a form and promise to follow policy. I leave my phone in a desk draw for meetings because I don't trust the bloody thing.

But there are very definately something's that are still very very strictly controlled. You are having a conversation with someone about something, you reach a point you stop taking and book a room for the rest. It just becomes second nature.

Need to know is the key.
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
It's an interesting debate.
One would think that a vessel with a base line combination of a 57mm gun and Sea RAM would have a reasonable measure of self defence , coupled with other missile / gun combinations trailed and employed across the Freedom and Independence Classes.
Somewhat surprised they are not up for the job at hand against the Houthis level of threat.
Their absence, if true maybe the answer to my expectation.

That said it does play to our fleet and it's capability going forward.
It we get a "Tier Two thing" it will need a respectable offering across all realms of threat.
That's probably at least a 5000t ship

Maybe my assumption that there is still a place for a basic Tier Three long ranged helicopter capable vessel with a medium calibre gun are over.

We will know soon enough.

Cheers S
Boeing and Stampede, good point on the LCS classes, and it is very insightful to observe how the Red Sea operation unfolds.

I will suggest however that the LCSs were never meant to be AAW platforms. Their original strategy was to provide functions such as minesweeping/submarine hunting in shallow waters, or launching special forces ashore, all (and always) under the cover of a nearby destroyer. As the Houthis have not started laying mines or launching small submarines, then they don't really have a purpose in the Red Sea. I would view that this is more the reason that they are not there, and it doesn't mean they are of no use, just this is the wrong theatre.

That said I would agree the LCSs are currently struggling to find a purpose in the new world, and hindsight indicates it was at best an odd decision to build a warship with no substantial inbuilt weapons. In particular the lack of an AAW defence capability seems to now be a shortsighted decision.

Perhaps they could have been used if they were fitted with say an 8 or 16 cell VLS with ESSM and an appropriate radar to match. They are large enough ships that this could have been considered at the design stage.

In regards to the Arafura's I would also agree that it is unwise to retrofit them as a frontline warship, both from the perspective that they were not designed for this purpose, but also that it would detract from their intended function. I would suggest that the Arafuras represent a very good and substantial upgrade to the patrol fleet (once the current issues are sorted), and that the patrol fleet provides an essential and ongoing requirement that we need. The Arafuras have a purpose, so let them do their job as intended.

I would however differ on the view that small ships can't be capable, and that all warships must be large platforms. Basic AAW/ASuW/ASW functionality is available on corvettes in the sub 3,000 tonne range. It comes with some compromises, such as possibly range and endurance, but not every mission requires this.

To illustrate, lets say the world deteriorates (my glass half empty view of the future) and we get the type of grey warfare (push and shove) that is occurring in the China Sea moving down through the Indonesian archipelago, the Pacific Islands, Christmas island and maybe even to the Abrolhos. Perhaps foreign fishing fleets, coast guard or naval vessels start getting based out of the Solomon Islands, Naru or Myanmar for more agressive patrols through the Indian and Pacific regions.

Large MWVs certainly have the lead role to play in confronting this, but even with an expanded fleet of say 15-18 tier 1s and the upcoming SSNs, this will get stretched very quickly.

Lower end warfare functions such as picket duties to close off/monitor choke points and hold local regions are an important part of any denial strategy. However it's not the best use of a big ship, and many of these points/regions are within easy reach (say 1,000 km) of Darwin or Broome (or other friendly port), so range is not so much of a requirement. Likewise it is a job that requires some offensive capability, so the Capes and Arafuras that would normally be in this region would be out of their depth by themselves.

I would suggest that a number of corvette style ships, with an ESSM capable VLS, a helo, a few ASMs and perhaps some mine laying capabilities could do this type of role very effectively. Maybe they could coordinate and protect a range of Arafura, Cape and Guardian patrol boats to support them in this activity. Or they team up with some of the other SE Asian Navy corvettes/frigates/patrol boats in a broader network. Resupply (fuel and food) could be obtained relatively easily on (by AOR) or nearby (port).

My take on the tier 2 conversation, is that this is the type of wartime/ heightened threat duty that a tier 2 would be required to do (robust area denial and local defence close to Australia). Anything more is a tier 1 function, and needs a tier 1 type of platform.

Our MWVs then get to operate further away from home (where range, endurance and high end fire power is important) on more high risk activities, stopping the bigger threats from getting close to the choke points that are closer to home.
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
This article about the lack of LCS deployed to the Red Sea, asks the question “If the LCS can’t fight the Houthis, who can they fight? The likely answer is: no one.” It has parallels to the discussion about upgrading the Arafura’s armament where you could spend a lot of money but still have a ship that is too vulnerable to deploy to any hotspots.

Better off spending the money on more capable frigates.
A lot depends on what the ship is intended to do. If it is going to be a pure warfighter than I would be looking at something the size of the Type 31, Hobart or Constellation. However I think a lot of other factors will come into play. For example will it be expected to take on a constabulary role. What about littoral operations, MCM or survey work? Then of course there is the ongoing issue of manpower availability.

This is why getting the naval review right, is so important. Nothing happens without a clear vision as to the role of the navy going into the 30s and beyond.
 

StoresBasher

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Going from subs too PBs I just about fell off my perch when I saw all the junior sailors pull out their phones and start facebooking and snapchatting when they saw dolphins rooting near the boat ramp at Coonawarra.

My experience of defence to that point had been pre smart phone army, and then industry, where phones or taking photos would have resulted in your head on a pike at the gates as an example to others.

These days you fill in a form and promise to follow policy. I leave my phone in a desk draw for meetings because I don't trust the bloody thing.

But there are very definately something's that are still very very strictly controlled. You are having a conversation with someone about something, you reach a point you stop taking and book a room for the rest. It just becomes second nature.

Need to know is the key.
I served 2 years recently down at NAS Nowra and the squadron I worked had no phones in the workplace policy that was strictly enforced.
Also access throughout the building was restricted only to where you need to work, everywhere else was off limits.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That is not entirely correct, there are still deployments, RPD for example that would normally entail at least three decent O/S port visits and then we have RIMPAC every two years. Not sure how many vessels we are sending this year, with the tight budget and BLD 195 likely to still be along-side.
Sorry if theres confusion

By deployment, i mean operations of high risk.
Trips to Singapore and Thailand carry a medical risk and not a risk to life.

Yes we can keep up flag waving and training with foreign navies, but no ones going to MEAO anytime soon
 

Jason_DBF

Member
1. To keep you happy I've modified the post but I'm not removing it as the main point I was making in response to icelord's post still stands.
2. You are not a mod, don't go making demands.
3. I guarantee you I am very well versed in security and OPSEC. Referencing the FAS (which most people don't know it is) in general terms doesn't constitute a security breach. If FIS want to find out what projected fleet movements are going to be, they have far easier and more sophisticated methods to use than trawling niche discussion forums.
4. You now have to modify your own post as it quotes the original text which you wanted removed.
1. You obliviously realised the post needed changing otherwise you wouldn't have done it.
2.I will make demands when I see the need to.
3.FIS will use all methods of information gathering so don't be foolish.
4.I have modified my post thanks for the reminder.

I know deployments are posted all over social media but it's an authorised release by Defence.
 
Top