Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[hauritz]

The one thing I take from all I have read about the Mogami and other GPF contenders is they are definitely Tier 2 vessels. Not sure what their planned role would be in times of war.

In the case of the Mogami it seems to have superior drone handling capabilities compared to the other contenders.

The smallish crews of all these ships would make question whether they would have the persistence and survivability to operate in an intensive combat environment. This isn’t necessarily a criticism. This sort of vessel might be perfect for littoral operations.

 

[Armchair]

The one thing I take from all I have read about the Mogami and other GPF contenders is they are definitely Tier 2 vessels. Not sure what their planned role would be in times of war.

In the case of the Mogami it seems to have superior drone handling capabilities compared to the other contenders.

The smallish crews of all these ships would make question whether they would have the persistence and survivability to operate in an intensive combat environment. This isn’t necessarily a criticism. This sort of vessel might be perfect for littoral operations.

yes in a task force but hostile littorals are where the opposing aircraft and missiles come from to create intense combat environments.
Tier 2s (without on board Aegis and/or BMD) can’t go into those zones alone.
The surface fleet analysis emphasises undersea warfare capabilities as the gap to fill. The claim in the analysis is that there was no joint force alternative (read as buying more P-8s) to deliver the necessary effect. Hunting subs (in the open ocean unless one side or the other has made A mistake) and contributing to escort looks like the war time role for a Tier 2.

 

[SammyC]

I do find it ironic that the Hunter class was reduced (in part) because the fleet would be imballanced towards ASW, but the GPF fleet is then to be optimised for sub hunting.

 

[SammyC]

Add in Exec Dept itself would be low manning.
Boatswains who run the evolution as well as safety and maintain the equipment would be small, nearly Patrol Boat levels.

Japans advantage for Mogami is they dont deploy overseas to much and are primarily for Defence of the Island with nearby ports for refuel.
South Korea is of the same position.
While they have been used in Gulf of Aden for counter piracy in 2010s, sustained operations would be draining on the small crew for two watches

Having done Operations on Patrol Boats where everyone was involved in boardings, it can be taxing on the body when you finish 10hr boarding and still need to go on watch. That was for 4 weeks with maybe a relief for port visit before return to patrol on 8 week rotation.
Do those Gulf of Aden patrols over 5 months where there is no guarantee of port visit in 6 weeks of sailing, will drain the crew hard.

Boarding parties was on my mind when I wrote that post. As a marine eng dept we used to give 2 or so people for boarding crews, and they were trained accordingly, but the exec dep took the brunt and most of the workload. Same for force protection.

I suppose boarding ops could be considered a mission function, with additional crew brought in for those specific missions. In my time we did a huge amount of boarding in the MEAO, or during piracy patrols, but other deployments the requirement could be very minimal.

 

[Todjaeger]

I do find it ironic that the Hunter class was reduced (in part) because the fleet would be imballanced towards ASW, but the GPF fleet is then to be optimised for sub hunting.

One of several reasons why I find the notion of GP frigates suspect. If a surface warship is really to be optimized for ASW ops, there are design and construction considerations (machinery isolation, rafting, etc.) which make the build more complex as well as expensive. A GP frigate, pretty much by definition, is not going to be 'optimized' for any specific role.

This then begs the question, what does the RAN actually want or feels is need, vs. what gov't wants, feels is needed, or is willing to pay for.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The smallish crews of all these ships would make question whether they would have the persistence and survivability to operate in an intensive combat environment. This isn’t necessarily a criticism. This sort of vessel might be perfect for littoral operations.

I think that is the intention. The Cynical part of me feels like, that and we are running out of ships today. These platforms can be built fast, and in-service, fast.

They have a niche that can be useful. They aren't a do everything thing. They also significantly increase the number of hulls in the RAN, which is and always has been a serious problems for over a century.

I would imagine these ships would be quite useful as general escorts. If you deploy the LHD regionally, then having at least one of these, or a tier 1 and a tier 2, would mean useful increase in capability.

Man power for RAS or boarding, may be less of a concern, because the LHD could have hundreds of sailors on it. Just move some around.

With only two AOR's, and questions about when and how reliable they will be, it may be tier 2 doesn't do any RAS, and simply does port calls. At which point flying crews in and out may be a better fit for this ships, not long duration transits.

 

[76mmGuns]

I do find it ironic that the Hunter class was reduced (in part) because the fleet would be imballanced towards ASW, but the GPF fleet is then to be optimised for sub hunting.

Perhaps tptb's way of trying to get ASW ability on the cheap?

Mentioned before, but I've wondered why the Hunter can't be downgraded to become a cheaper Tier 2 ship, unless it's the speed of aquisition. No Ceafar, CEC, Aegis. Be a "fitted for, but not with" 32 cell VLS, but only put 16-24, only 4 torpedoes instead of 6, etc

 

[seaspear]

I can understand an interest in minimum crew size but should ships not have sufficient crewing to address damage repairs ?

 

[Going Boeing]

Mentioned before, but I've wondered why the Hunter can't be downgraded to become a cheaper Tier 2 ship, unless it's the speed of aquisition. No Ceafar, CEC, Aegis. Be a "fitted for, but not with" 32 cell VLS, but only put 16-24, only 4 torpedoes instead of 6, etc

My understanding that the ultra quiet drive train of the Hunter class adds significantly to its cost - this is the reason that the British MOD gave to limiting the Type 26’s to eight and purchasing much cheaper Type 31’s to make the necessary numbers for replacing the Type 23’s.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

HMAS Stalwart is stuck in Darwin broken down with “engine defects”. This means both of our newish Spanish built auxiliary ships are out of service. That can’t be good. Is there a problem with this design pr its construction?

Australia's newest warship breaks down, undergoing emergency mechanical repairs after just 3 years of service

Australia's newest warship is undergoing emergency mechanical repairs to address "engine defects", at the same time the navy's only other supply class vessel remains out of service.

www.abc.net.au

Is this why some here speak warily of Navantia as a supplier?

 

[Reptilia]

HMAS Stalwart is stuck in Darwin broken down with “engine defects”. This means both of our newish Spanish built auxiliary ships are out of service. That can’t be good. Is there a problem with this design pr its construction?

Australia's newest warship breaks down, undergoing emergency mechanical repairs after just 3 years of service

Australia's newest warship is undergoing emergency mechanical repairs to address "engine defects", at the same time the navy's only other supply class vessel remains out of service.

www.abc.net.au

Is this why some here speak warily of Navantia as a supplier?

Hopefully not the same issue as supply.
They might need 2 replacements from elsewhere. 1 was expected to come soon to fill in for HMAS Supply.

 

[Redlands18]

Hopefully not the same issue as supply.
They might need 2 replacements from elsewhere. 1 was expected to come soon to fill in for HMAS Supply.

There is an AOR expected soon to fill in for Supply? Got any more information on that, first I've heard of it.
Wonder how busy the Kiwi's are keeping HMNZ Aeoteroa at present, might have to see if they are up for a 6 month or so lease of ship and crew.

 

[Reptilia]

There is an AOR expected soon to fill in for Supply? Got any more information on that, first I've heard of it.
Wonder how busy the Kiwi's are keeping HMNZ Aeoteroa at present, might have to see if they are up for a 6 month or so lease of ship and crew.

ParlView

ParlView

www.aph.gov.au

Looking at options to fill the gap.

Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Commitee
5th or 6th of June.

 

[Stampede]

HMAS Stalwart is stuck in Darwin broken down with “engine defects”. This means both of our newish Spanish built auxiliary ships are out of service. That can’t be good. Is there a problem with this design pr its construction?

Australia's newest warship breaks down, undergoing emergency mechanical repairs after just 3 years of service

Australia's newest warship is undergoing emergency mechanical repairs to address "engine defects", at the same time the navy's only other supply class vessel remains out of service.

www.abc.net.au

Is this why some here speak warily of Navantia as a supplier?

A most disappointing outcome
One would have thought the Supply class would of being a straight forward project
We had an established relationship with the supplier in Navantia with the Hobart and Canberra Classes
Plus we had access in home waters to the parent designed Cantabria which should of been a solid test of what we were about to buy.

Yep stuff happens.

A take away is the importance of fleet numbers to cater for redundancy and provide availability.

A navy of twos or threes across all classes of vessel.???

cheers S

 

[hauritz]

HMAS Stalwart is stuck in Darwin broken down with “engine defects”. This means both of our newish Spanish built auxiliary ships are out of service. That can’t be good. Is there a problem with this design pr its construction?

Australia's newest warship breaks down, undergoing emergency mechanical repairs after just 3 years of service

Australia's newest warship is undergoing emergency mechanical repairs to address "engine defects", at the same time the navy's only other supply class vessel remains out of service.

www.abc.net.au

Is this why some here speak warily of Navantia as a supplier?

... and yet we keep going back for more ships. The definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

 

[Reptilia]

RFA Tiderace which is in ‘extended readiness’(uncrewed reserve) due to personal shortages. might be an option?
Or RFA Fort Victoria replenishment oiler which doesn’t have much life left.

 

[John Fedup]

Sure hope our JSS project doesn’t duplicate the RAN experience, should know in a year or so, fingers crossed!

 

[Armchair]

I do find it ironic that the Hunter class was reduced (in part) because the fleet would be imballanced towards ASW, but the GPF fleet is then to be optimised for sub hunting.

I think “optimised for undersea warfare” really means “no Aegis”
Worth noting that the six Hunters are to be retained as a single batch of ASW frigates so that focus remains right into the mid 2040s (with only LOCSVs to augment strike).

On another point, in Senate estimates on June 5 the Chief of Navy asserted that the maximum crew size of the Tier 2 would be about 120.

 

[hauritz]

I think “optimised for undersea warfare” really means “no Aegis”
Worth noting that the six Hunters are to be retained as a single batch of ASW frigates so that focus remains right into the mid 2040s (with only LOCSVs to augment strike).

On another point, in Senate estimates on June 5 the Chief of Navy asserted that the maximum crew size of the Tier 2 would be about 120.

When you think about it undersea warfare is a pretty all encompassing term these days. It isn’t just submarine warfare. You also have seabed warfare, mine warefare and having to deal with dozens or perhaps hundreds, maybe even thousands of UUVs. It is everything from gathering intelligence, laying seabed sensors, repairing or destroying seabed infrastructure such as undersea cables and pipelines through to anti submarine warfare.

Warfare in the future might be more about what is happening beneath the waves than above them.

 

[icelord]

Sure hope our JSS project doesn’t duplicate the RAN experience, should know in a year or so, fingers crossed!

Cancelled

Project is unfunded and personnel were moved into other areas. Quietly removed from active projects during the Navy Review.

Awkward now that we need these types of ships to fill gap of AOR when such things happen