Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Well the Australian government chose this puppy as the way to go
Exactly. It’s happening. It’s a needed capability that seems to have been relatively economically acquired and is being delivered in an orderly fashion (gun aside).

It’s not a capability that will allow you to sail into the South China Sea and duke it out with enemy destroyers as part of a flotilla. It’s not mean to do that, and will never realistically be able to do that. If you want that (and fair enough) then get something else.

If that’s the aim I would suggest either:

- on the low end, something like the Sa’ar 6 the Germans are building for the Israelis. It’s a lot of capability packed into a small hull. Luerrsen/NVL seem to have proven themselves a reliable partner to date and the design is based on the Braunschweig class, which is in turn a close relative of the Arafuras.

- on the more capable end, and as others have proposed, the Mogami class, which to my untrained eye looks to be essentially a modernised ANZAC. Which to be honest is what we need more of til the Hunters show up.


But in both cases you need to find shipbuilding capacity to build it and crew to sail it. The former is perhaps less of an issue - the Germans and Japanese can probably fit us in, if the politics allow for an offshore build (I think that’s now more likely) - but the latter is a tougher nut to crack. I’ve also got questions about how long the legs are on both designs.

Anyway the point is that we should leave the OPVs alone. You’ll just muck up a well functioning procurement and won’t get the capability you want anyway.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Well the Australian government chose this puppy as the way to go
For most constab roles it should be fine, and with at least some systems commonality with major RAN vessels can also provide opportunities to train and grow the number of personnel if/when then RAN needs to expand.

Unfortunately, some cannot seem to let go of ideas about armament increases, or vessel role expansion, all whilst both ignoring current real capabilities needs, as well as realities which major design changes would have to contend with.

As I understand it, a sometime DT poster/lurker, posted a Youtube clip a week ago which raised a number of the points Marcus Hellyer raised in an ASPI report nearly two years ago. Of course both the "special" report and the clip neglect to go into any of the real, technical challenges or issues which would occur should some of the ideas be attempted.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The increased arming of the Arafura Class has been done to death and was one of the reasons why the original RAN thread was permanently shut down. The DEFPROs and others have explained the reasons why it is not going to happen and we are sick of continuously having to repeat ourselves.

If posters are going to continually rehash it again unpleasant steps will be taken by the Moderators to curb their bad habits.

NO MORE DISCUSSION ON THE ARMING OR LACK THERE OF ON THE ARAFURA CLASS. THE NEXT PERSON WHO DOES WILL FIND THEMSELVES IN TROUBLE. THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY WARNING THAT YOU WILL GET.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
on the more capable end, and as others have proposed, the Mogami class
Whilst I’m a massive fan of the Mogami Class and think the overall design and balance of capabilities is genius - it doesn’t offer the same level of inbuilt flexibility and through life growth that similarly priced and crewed platforms like the AH140 do in the context of the RAN.

That said, I’d be happy with either to assure strategic objectives are met. At the end of the day that’s all I care about.
 
Last edited:

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Whilst I’m a massive fan of the Mogami Class and think the overall design and balance of capabilities is genius - it doesn’t offer the same level of inbuilt flexibility and through life growth that similarly priced and crewed platforms like the AH140 do in the context of the RAN.

That said, I’d be happy with either to assure strategic objectives are met.
I think the right answer is whoever can get them to us soonest!
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I think the right answer is whoever can get them to us soonest!
Not sure that is the right answer. I strongly suspect that there are a number of factors involved which need to be considered. One being the RAN's ability to crew and support main fleet units. It might be quite possible to start getting deliveries to the RAN of new/additional major vessels, before the RAN has stood up sufficient base facilities or trained sufficient personnel (officers and enlisted) to crew to enable additional vessels to be commissioned.

An unfortunate potential outcome given the current state of the world and the direction things appear to be heading towards, is that the RAN might need new/extra vessels before there are either facilities or personnel for them.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Not sure that is the right answer. I strongly suspect that there are a number of factors involved which need to be considered. One being the RAN's ability to crew and support main fleet units. It might be quite possible to start getting deliveries to the RAN of new/additional major vessels, before the RAN has stood up sufficient base facilities or trained sufficient personnel (officers and enlisted) to crew to enable additional vessels to be commissioned.

An unfortunate potential outcome given the current state of the world and the direction things appear to be heading towards, is that the RAN might need new/extra vessels before there are either facilities or personnel for them.
I think it’s important to note that any procurement program will take a period of time - something which is also actually quantifiable and able to be planned in regards to personnel resources.

It’s also worth noting that today’s RAN has more personnel than it has in over Thirty Years - and has continued to trend well in terms of average growth over the last five years.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Not sure that is the right answer. I strongly suspect that there are a number of factors involved which need to be considered. One being the RAN's ability to crew and support main fleet units. It might be quite possible to start getting deliveries to the RAN of new/additional major vessels, before the RAN has stood up sufficient base facilities or trained sufficient personnel (officers and enlisted) to crew to enable additional vessels to be commissioned.

An unfortunate potential outcome given the current state of the world and the direction things appear to be heading towards, is that the RAN might need new/extra vessels before there are either facilities or personnel for them.
I agree and said as much in my earlier post - shipbuilding capacity and crew availability are the two sides of the coin we need to solve for.

Money and political will don’t seem to be in short supply but sadly they’re about 10 years too late to the party.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
It was discussed relatively recently that the program will be back on track by ship four, with the delays not being as significant as ASPI or other media alludes to.




The Hobart-class are intended to undergo upgrades between the end of the (Osborne) Arafura build and the ramp up of the Hunter build. This will help avoid worst of situation, which is unavoidable on such a short timeframe due to the time required to make these projects a reality.




I imagine some people on the forum are just sick of hearing about weaponising the OPVs, despite the advise from those with the technical and professional knowledge saying that it isn't worth doing (and in many ways unfeasible).

These vessels are designed for a constabulory mission, though their greater size and endurance also allows flexibility that couldn't be achieved with earlier PBs (vessels that were and still are operating in conditions beyond what they were intended for). They are a far better vessel than what they are replacing, being more suitable for actions across our vast EEZ and with the endurance necessary to assist in monitoring it.

Edit: there are better options beyond arming the OPVs that even goes beyond navy. The funds of redesigning and retrofitting the OPVs (alongside all the work assosciated with procurement) could instead be diverted towards RAAF, which is far more flexible in its ability to employ maritime strike across a region greater in size. They can also do this faster, in greater volume and with greater surprise. Just a thought.

Edit2: Keeping in mind the FSP - funds must be taken from somewhere to afford either.
Can you tell me in my last posts I talked about up gunning the OPVs, It was a post about the possibility of building LSTs if and only if the Hunter and Sub builds were delayed.

Yet here we have posters who put words in my mouth and present arguments I did not put forward.

I admit I am an amature and may post the something foolish from time to time, but I resent my posts being delibertly misrepersented.

I would have hoped in a professional site the mods would have jumped on such behavior.

This is not he first time ( in fact not the the first time in the last 24 hrs) that someone has delieratly misrepresented my words.
 
Last edited:

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Can you tell me in my last posts I talked about up gunning the OPVs, It was a post about the possibility of building LSTs if and only if the Hunter and Sub builds were delayed.

Yet here we have posters who put words in my mouth and present arguments I did not put forward.

I admit I am an amature and may post the something foolish from time to time, but I resent my posts being delibertly misrepersented.

I would have hoped in a professional site the mods would have jumped on such behavior.

This is not he first time ( in fact not the the first time in the last 24 hrs) that someone has delieratly misrepresented my words.
I apologise, third set of paragraphs may have been conflated with other topics being talked about earlier, which I'll avoid talking about now. It was not deliberate, for sure.

Still, in reference to the rumoured* valley of death, the Hobart-class are set to partially fill this gap - whereas building LSTs suddenly at Osborne may throw a spanner into the works. It is only a few years before the Hunter build ramps up, trying to plug the gap with other ships (even relatively basic ones) isn't an ideal solution like the two Arafuras at Osborne.
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
….. It was a post about the possibility of building LSTs if and only if the Hunter and Sub builds were delayed….
It would depend on how long a delay you were talking about. ATM, as others have noted, there is no real availability of workforce or facilities. Osborne South is taken up with OPV and Hunter prototyping activities and looks unlikely to have any capacity. However, construction of the submarine building yard is continuing apace, as are attempts to grow the skill base. So if the submarine build was delayed by a number of years, at least five or more, it might be theoretically possible. That is, of course, if there was a decision that such vessels were needed and could be funded; and if a design was available for “build to print”, with off the shelf equipment that was readily available. Much of the lead time for a class is for design and other non metal bashing activities.
 
Failure to heed red text warning
In many respects it is a binary situation, but not the one presented above.

Realistically, it is peacetime duties and wartime duties. Peacetime duties likely really only require a 0.50 cal. M2 HMG, while the wartime duties can require quite an extensive range of potential capabilities.

Certain assets are by design really only appropriate for peacetime duties, whilst certain other assets are always operated as though they were in wartime conditions. It is also worth noting that whilst vessels capable of performing wartime duties are also capable of performing peacetime duties, the same (without requiring extensive modifications) cannot be said about vessels intended for peacetime duties. Having said that though, the costs (both acquisition as well as operating) for a proper warship are significantly higher than a peacetime capability patrol vessel like an OPV, even if the two vessels are of comparable size/displacement. An example of this would be a very rough comparison between the cost of a German K130 Braunschweig-class corvette, at €240 mil. (in 2001) vs. the cost of the RNZN's OPV HMNZS Otago at NZD$110 mil. (in 2010). At current exchange rates but not adjusting for inflation, that €240 mil. would work out to ~NZD$385 mil. OTOH if the more recent contract price for Batch 2 K130 corvettes was used at €400 mil. (in 2017) was used, the price would be more like NZD$640 mil. Basically the costs for an OPV are about a third of what a proper warship of that size would be.

By and large this is why OPV's have come into being. Various nations and naval services have realized that they need patrol capabilities which require large (larger than coastal or inshore) vessels, but are not required for combatant duties and therefore do not need all the features and systems which a proper warship would require in order to function appropriately. By not including many of these features, the cost per vessel is significantly reduced, whilst retaining the size and displacement necessary for the mission endurance, range, and sea keeping needed for the offshore patrolling role.

Where this next leads is really a question. What sort of role(s) does someone envision for the Arafura-class OPV where their current fitout appropriate for constabulary roles is insufficient, but would not expose a vessel to multi-domain threats requiring a range of wartime capabilities?

I ask because a number of people have already covered a number of the issues which would be encountered rendering attempts to improve the combat capabilities of the design difficult at best, with it more often being either impractical or a waste of resources.
The biggest problem to adding capability to the OPV is not even the purchase price its the increase in sustainment costs i.e. LCC that's easily seven times the extra acquisition cost that can often be funded using major capital underspend if you really want to go there but there are never any spare dollars in sustainment usually the opposite.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The biggest problem to adding capability to the OPV is not even the purchase price its the increase in sustainment costs i.e. LCC that's easily seven times the extra acquisition cost that can often be funded using major capital underspend if you really want to go there but there are never any spare dollars in sustainment usually the opposite.
Mate, can I give you a piece of friendly advice?
When a Mod tells the Forum to drop a subject using Red Ink, you drop it and don't continue it.
 
Last edited:

MickB

Well-Known Member
I apologise, third set of paragraphs may have been conflated with other topics being talked about earlier, which I'll avoid talking about now. It was not deliberate, for sure.

Still, in reference to the rumoured* valley of death, the Hobart-class are set to partially fill this gap - whereas building LSTs suddenly at Osborne may throw a spanner into the works. It is only a few years before the Hunter build ramps up, trying to plug the gap with other ships (even relatively basic ones) isn't an ideal solution like the two Arafuras at Osborne.
Thank you
Rereading the last page or two I can see how it was a comment about the thread in general.

Looking back at my spelling I think I may have had one too many of the giggle juice and been a little over sensitive as a result.
Not that my typing is anything great on a good day.
 
Last edited:

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Fair winds and following seas Bill. Talk about a hell of a career. (article sourced through Defence News account)

Navy diver steered demolition missions
By Tim Barlass, Obituary Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald
Tuesday 15th March 2022 at 12:00am

William (Bill) Fitzgerald was a legendary clearance diver with the Royal Australian Navy who was charged with demolition of ordnance after World War II.

Wearing the heavy and cumbersome equipment of the time, he would dive on the American bombs and Japanese and British mines left in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Often, low water visibility meant that he worked at great personal risk, hardly able to see his hand in front of his metal helmet.

In later operations, he dived on an Australian atomic test site despite being told by the bomb's developer that the work would leave him sterile for five years. He also made a high-risk dive to the depth of 79 metres to free the sluice gates of the Eucumbene Dam in the Snowy Mountains.

William Terence Fitzgerald was born at the Cottage Hospital in Chatswood on March 23, 1929, one of three sons and three sisters born to father Sydney William Fitzgerald, who also had a prominent Royal Australian Navy career, and mother Florence (nee Bavistock), who was born in Southsea near Portsmouth.

Sydney Fitzgerald, who was enlisted as chief petty officer's torpedoman mate, was a survivor of the attack on the destroyer HMAS Nestor in June 1942 when the ship, part of a convoy taking supplies to Malta, came under air attack from German dive bombers and had to be scuttled the next day. In 1944, he was admitted into care suffering from what was then known as shell shock.

Bill entered the RAN on May 30, 1946, keen to follow in his father's footsteps, and when told he was to be a gunner, stood his ground, saying: ‘‘I'm not going to be a gunner, I'm going to be a torpedo man.'' He won the day.

Initially, he trained as a pump hand for a standard diver before volunteering for the three-weeklong RMS (render mines safe) course held at HMAS Penguin on Middle Head. In September 1947, he was posted to HMAS Tarangau, headquarters of the Papua-New Guinea Division of the Royal Australian Navy.

Interviewed at the age of 90 about his service, he said: ‘‘I was pulling bombs out from under wharves and God knows what else. World War Two was supposed to be finished, and it wasn't.

‘‘[On one occasion] I donned a modified diving set, went down and pulled the bombs out [and] they were 500-pound armour-piercing Japanese bombs. Jap navy bombs have got rivets on them, Jap army bombs are three-inch skinned.

They are all tail-fused. Took the fuses out, pulled the bombs up, took them away and blew them up.''

After 12 months in New Guinea, he returned to Australia in September 1948 and met his wife, Madge, at a dance at Luna Park. He had gone to her aid after the 16-year-old fainted, having inhaled from her first cigarette.

During the Korean War in 1952, he served on the Bay-class frigate HMAS Murchison, and was trapped in the Han River when the ship, ‘‘with a few holes in it'', came under continuous machine-gun fire 180 metres from the shore. ‘‘I did all the sounding in that river to get the ship into a position to bombard - 8000 soundings we did, by lead and line,'' he said.

Fitzgerald joined HMAS Hawkesbury in 1952, when he was involved in recovery of items from the Monte Bello Islands atomic test site in Western Australia. The British test involved detonation of a 25-kiloton nuclear fission bomb to gauge impact on foodstuffs, shipping and defensive structures.

He recalled he was informed on deck by the bomb's developer, Sir William Penney, about the inherent risks of the job: ‘‘He said that with the work you have to do here, you will be sterile for five years. We still did the job. We were ordered to do it and we did it.

‘‘I had two sons before the Monte Bello and didn't have a daughter until five years after, who was born on Anzac Day.'' He had two sons and then two daughters.

In 1955, there was a requirement for the first clearance divers to be called up into the navy. Fitzgerald was deemed worthy to be accepted, even though he was considered over-age at 25. He successfully passed and became one of the first clearance divers for the RAN at the rank of petty officer.

He said the requirement for a good clearance diver was ‘‘to be above average intelligence, young, healthy [and] have a can-do attitude. The impossible sometimes takes a bit longer and so long as you remember that, and you keep your mouth shut, you will make a good clearance diver.''

Following the course, he went on to become a diving instructor at Rushcutters Bay. His exploits included diving on the wreck of the destroyer USS Peary in Darwin, sunk at anchor in 1942 by Japanese aircraft, to remove weaponry before she was cut up. The dives on Peary could last only one hour a day at slack water at low or high tide because of 25 knot currents. In almost nil visibility, the dive involved rendering safe the numerous torpedo warheads.

The Eastern Area Mobile Clearance Diving Team was formed in 1956-1957. Fitzgerald became its chief before eventually it became Clearance Diving Team One, which it remains today. In the late 1950s, the team had only 12 people, but today it is 60 members strong.

In 1962, Fitzgerald was one of the team involved in a project at the Eucumbene Dam to free the sluice gates at a depth of around 79 metres - a job that took nearly six months to complete. After 12 minutes breathing air on the initial dive, he was suffering ‘‘pretty bad'' narcosis, a reversible change in consciousness as gases at high pressure cause an anaesthetic effect. He surfaced feeling terrible, believing he was going to get the staggers (decompression sickness), but after being laid down and given pure oxygen, he was considered by the underwater medical specialist to be OK.

In 1963, he dived on the British submarine HMS Tabard, which was involved in a navy exercise with HMAS Melbourne. The submarine had developed technical problems and was unable to dive. He found that a main inlet valve was blocked by sand and effected the repair, underwater and alone, with the aid of a seven pound hammer.

On a lighter note, Fitzgerald tells of playing rugby for the navy diving team up against their main rivals, a team from the HMAS Watson training school at South Head. The divers used to train in overalls in the water and in bare feet.

In a clash at Rushcutters Bay Park, the Watson team was leading 15-0 at half-time. He said: ‘‘We went behind the dressing shed, had a whiff of oxygen and half a glass of rum, took our boots off and beat them 30-15.''

He also coached the water polo team, which trained in overalls with three-pound lead weights in the pockets so that when they played a game, ‘‘they were walking on water''.

Fitzgerald finished his full-time service as a chief instructor for all courses at HMAS Rushcutter and transitioned from the permanent service in 1966. But he continued to serve as a reservist until 1984totalling 37 years and 138 days of total service.

His love of and interest in diving carried over into civilian life. He became a private diving instructor and helped to develop and establish the hyperbaric unit at Prince Henry Hospital in Sydney, delivering over 1500 therapies over four years. He was then asked to join the CSIRO to train and supervise their marine biologists in diving for a further five years.

In 1976, he took over a position with a prominent safety equipment firm and became their sales manager, discussing the safety equipment and breathing apparatus issues with managers in a wide variety of private and public industries, including the RAN, and supplying equipment to meet their needs.

In the Queen's Birthday Honours List of 1999, Fitzgerald received an OAM for ‘‘service to diving, and to the development and training in the use of life support breathing apparatus'' - a unique citation for a unique person with a unique skill set.

Speaking at the nursing home in Warriewood, he said: ‘‘If I had my time over again, I would do it exactly the same.''

Bill Fitzgerald is survived by Madge, Debra, Rebecca, Terry and Steven, sibling Gloria and six grandchildren, one of whom predeceased his grandfather.

Bill Fitzgerald was the navy's top clearance diver, receiving an OAM in 1999; Fitzgerald and wife Madge met as teenagers.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Henderson has scored today, from PM's press release :
"The Morrison Government will invest up to $4.3 billion to deliver Western Australia’s first large-vessel dry berth, creating a world-class precinct at the Henderson shipyard and supporting thousands of local jobs.

The Henderson dry-dock will enable the construction and sustainment of large naval vessels in Australia and support an even stronger commercial shipbuilding and sustainment market in Western Australia.

Government-owned Australian Naval Infrastructure will oversee the design and build of this nation building infrastructure, with work to start in 2023 and initial operations to commence in 2028.

The Commonwealth will work closely with the Western Australian Government and industry to develop a comprehensive master plan for the defence precinct at Henderson to ensure this investment fully supports our national naval shipbuilding enterprise effectively.

This project is likely to create at least 500 direct construction jobs at its peak and thousands more through local sub-contracts and the national supply chain. Once completed, this infrastructure will help support at least 2,000 direct shipbuilding jobs at Henderson, particularly as continuous naval shipbuilding in Western Australia comes to fruition as part of the national naval shipbuilding enterprise."
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Fair winds and following seas Bill. Talk about a hell of a career. (article sourced through Defence News account)

Navy diver steered demolition missions
By Tim Barlass, Obituary Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald
Tuesday 15th March 2022 at 12:00am

William (Bill) Fitzgerald was a legendary clearance diver with the Royal Australian Navy who was charged with demolition of ordnance after World War II. ...

Bill Fitzgerald was the navy's top clearance diver, receiving an OAM in 1999; Fitzgerald and wife Madge met as teenagers.
Sunset and evening star,...
And one clear call for me!
And may there be no moaning of the bar
When I put out to sea.

But such a tide as moving seems asleep
Too full for sound and foam,
When that which drew from out the boundless deep
Turns again home.

Twilight and evening bell,
And after the dark!
and may there be no sadness of farewell,
When I embark.

For, though from out our bourne of time and place
The flood may bear me far,
I hope to see my Pilot face to face.
When I have crossed the bar.

TENNYSON

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them
We will remember them.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
We’ve all known this was coming, but certainly good news to hear the dry dock is officially being proceeded with.

Interesting to note construction starts in 2023, initial operational capability in 2028, and I read elsewhere final operational capability in 2030.

I would imagine the first ‘customer’ for the dry dock will be the 2 x JSS project, which is projected to start in 2026 and complete in 2034.

Good news, expect more defence announcements leading up to the Federal election.
 

Hoffy

Member
From Seapower Magazine:

Submarine Program 'Alive and Well,' Lawmakers Tell Industry Leaders - Seapower (seapowermagazine.org)

AUKUS Opportunity

In addition to U.S. submarine programs, Courtney said the Australia-U.S.-U.K nuclear submarine program called AUKUS will also provide opportunities for American companies. By law, sharing nuclear technology with other nations must be approved by Congress, something that was done for the United Kingdom in 1958, and will be required for Australia — Courtney said he’s confident that will happen.

AUKUS will be a huge program and a boon to Australia’s industrial base, he said. But Courtney, who also chairs the Friends of Australia Caucus, said some of that capability and capacity will need to be provided here in the U.S.

“Australia is an incredible ally. But it isn’t reasonable to expect that a country of 30 million people can do it all by themselves. The spirit is there, but it’s probably a reach that they just can’t get to with their own indigenous workforce,” he said.

While the technicalities of an agreement with Australia need to be worked out, Courtney said it is his personal opinion that Australian naval officers should already be training at the Nuclear Power School in Charleston, South Carolina.

“They have good submariners, but they’re obviously familiar with diesel electrics, and they need to start getting people over to South Carolina and connected with the system,” he said. “You can’t just snap your fingers and have nuclear trained submariners.”

Worth a read....
 
Top