Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Osborne is used for maintenance of local vessels, and has been used for ADF related vessels (Sycamore).

Wartsilla, who produce the vast majority of European ship shafting, manufacture in Sweden and China, not Norway. They have shaft maintenance facilities in Denmark, Japan and the Netherlands.
 
Last edited:

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
I had thought the Darwin and Cairns were longer than that. My error. Seems a bit short sighted. A war damaged ship might not make it back to FBW or FBE. Nothing quite like travelling an extra 1,000 kms with a hole in the side, an engine room flooded or on one shaft.

Ships normally go into dock in lightship loading. The majority of fuel, ammunition and ballast is removed, just enough to trim the ship is retained. From what I've read the upgraded Mogami lightship weight would remain under 5,000 tonnes.

The length of the synchrolift remains an issue though, you can overhang a bit, but I suspect not that much.

The good thing about synchrolifts though is they can be extended and upgraded for capacity..
Yup, they are wide enough but would need to be lengthened which also increases lifting capacity.
No doubt from 2027 we see Capes, Arafuras and possibly Anzacs at those new precincts, but it may be sometime before we see anything larger.
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
US Navy surface warfare requirements director raises questions about future of LUSVs

This is a recent article updating on the USN LUSV program. Apparently they are getting cold feet with the larger autonomous platform, mostly as it is deviating from the original low cost mandate (the word exquisit is being used). More focus on the MUSV platform in preference, as it aligns more with this concept.

This would be a concerning development, given our own plan for the LOCSV was linked to the American LUSV program. If it gets cancelled or significantly delayed, that might leave us in a pickle given how central it is to our strategy and missile bulk.

Maybe we need to consider the number of staffed combatants earlier, or except more numerous smaller LOCSVs, perhaps with 8 or 16 cells.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
US Navy surface warfare requirements director raises questions about future of LUSVs

This is a recent article updating on the USN LUSV program. Apparently they are getting cold feet with the larger autonomous platform, mostly as it is deviating from the original low cost mandate (the word exquisit is being used). More focus on the MUSV platform in preference, as it aligns more with this concept.

This would be a concerning development, given our own plan for the LOCSV was linked to the American LUSV program. If it gets cancelled or significantly delayed, that might leave us in a pickle given how central it is to our strategy and missile bulk.

Maybe we need to consider the number of staffed combatants earlier, or except more numerous smaller LOCSVs, perhaps with 8 or 16 cells.
I feel we should not place too many eggs in the LOCSV concept until someone else proves the concept.
I’m open to its feasibility down the trackbut we should base our fleet on proven manned platforms for VLS cells and focus on that realm.

Place our energy in the Hunters Class and SEA 3000.


Regards S
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
I feel we should not place too many eggs in the LOCSV concept until someone else proves the concept.
I’m open to its feasibility down the trackbut we should base our fleet on proven manned platforms for VLS cells and focus on that realm.

Place our energy in the Hunters Class and SEA 3000.


Regards S
Agree, Hunters and GPFs first, however we have to some extent banked the farm on the LOCSV concept. If we are to field a Naval strike capability, then these platforms are somewhat essential. None of the crewed ships (including the DDGs) have enough capacity for a sizable and combined AAW and strike load out.

So, if this is not to work, we either need to increase the number of crew platforms (AKA more Hunters and GPFs) or accept that LOCSVs are going to be crewed for a longer period than expected and/or we may need to develop our own design.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Agree, Hunters and GPFs first, however we have to some extent banked the farm on the LOCSV concept. If we are to field a Naval strike capability, then these platforms are somewhat essential. None of the crewed ships (including the DDGs) have enough capacity for a sizable and combined AAW and strike load out.

So, if this is not to work, we either need to increase the number of crew platforms (AKA more Hunters and GPFs) or accept that LOCSVs are going to be crewed for a longer period than expected and/or we may need to develop our own design.
Austal is working on developing autonomous systems. I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility that if the USN LOCV doesn't work out we could look at our own solution.

It should be noted that these trials are not simply looking at developing autonomous vessels but also looking at developing systems for reducing and optimising the workload for crews on the RANs current fleet.


As things stand options such as the Mogami with its high level of automation offer another path to doing more with smaller crews.
 

devo99

Well-Known Member
Then there is a 5,500 tonne synchrolift planned for Darwin. This seems further advanced than Cairns with dredging supposedly commenced. Might also be available for a 2027 shoorting war.
Newcastle has already been selected to be the future east coast submarine base, why not move the surface fleet there as well. Plenty of room for new docking facilities. And there is no John Laws to complain about noise.
Around July last year I was told that the company behind the larger synchrolift in Darwin had folded and they were looking for another company to take up the job, so that could represent a considerable delay.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
An Arafura’s ship’s company is 42 (yes, the answer really is 42….). 6 of them will require 252 personnel. That is about 7.5% of the number of RAN personnel serving at sea, not 25%.

An Arafura’s ship’s company is 42 (yes, the answer really is 42….). 6 of them will require 252 personnel. That is about 7.5% of the number of RAN personnel serving at sea, not 25%.
Are the Arafuras the only vessels in the RAN that will undertake Constabulary duties?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
To reframe it a bit, I would view there is a requirement for coastal and offshore patrol duties across Defence and Border Force. Our offshore goes out a long way, and includes the Pacific Islands.

Defence provides P8s, Tritons, the OPVs and a bunch of Capes. Border Force the rest. Someone throws some satellites in. I suspect there is also some intelligence and signals in there somewhere. Perhaps there is a better split to Border Force for this requirement though, and less for Defence. I would concur on that.

The OPVs have turned out to be expensive, however had they remained as 12 then I suspect the unit cost would have been better. Rework has also made them expensive. I would consider there were some shortsighted moves to descope capability with them, and that limits what they can do now. That said there is still lots they can do in the non combatant function, which is what they were made for.

In regards to OPVs vs Capes. Capes are cheap and great but have limited range, cargo capacity and sea state. We have a lot of distant rough waters that need a presence, that otherwise would require a frigate. In my opinion, the OPVs fit this niche well, releasing combat frigates for other duties.

I'm not sure where 25% of the available sea personnel comes from. There's six with 40 sea billets each (300), against 3,000 across the Naval capes and larger surface ships. That's about 10% in my calculator.
And the US Coast Guard operates in the Red Sea and at the North Pole too. I am aware of the requirement to patrol inshore and offshore. I am aware we’ve chosen to give the role to the RAN / ADF in addition to it’s combat responsibilities. But such decisions weren’t made under the strategic circumstances we currently face, nor were they made when RAN / ADF’s staffing levels are as critically low as they are now.

Again with the Arafuras only. The Cape class requires significant manning from the RAN do they not? ADV’s are also assigned routinely to patrol / Op Resolute are they not?
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
Agree, Hunters and GPFs first, however we have to some extent banked the farm on the LOCSV concept. If we are to field a Naval strike capability, then these platforms are somewhat essential. None of the crewed ships (including the DDGs) have enough capacity for a sizable and combined AAW and strike load out.

So, if this is not to work, we either need to increase the number of crew platforms (AKA more Hunters and GPFs) or accept that LOCSVs are going to be crewed for a longer period than expected and/or we may need to develop our own design.
Sammy, is there anything out there which could possibly be modified with low crew numbers to carry 32 VLS cells?
If MHI win the GPF contract it might be worth talking to them about a modified hull specifically optimized for AAW and ASW.
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
OK, add in the complements of the Capes. Actual manning is a bit variable but assume that the average is about 21; and only count those used for border protection duties (the two Nav tng vessels are for other purposes; and you need those whatever else you might have). Only 4 of those 10 are planned to have long term lives in the RAN, btw, but let's be cynical an assume that they all end up being retained. That makes a total of (about) 210 people in the complements of the Capes. Add in the 252 that are in the Arafuras and that makes 462; about 12-13% of the total at sea manning of the RAN.

However, all that is of course irrelevant. Civilian control of the military, as enshrined in the Constitution and the Defence Act. means that the RAN (and the RAAF and Army). undertake those tasks directed by the GOTD. Since the 60s, for the RAN that has included border protection, and it doesn't seem likely it will change any time soon. So the RAN is obliged to devote resources to the task appropriate to its achievement until such time as it told not to, One could discuss whether the way those resources are allocated could be better than it presently is (all Arafuras at one end, all Capes at the other - and that debate has of course been had) and whether or not the resources allocated are too much or insufficient but not whether or not the RAN has any option but to allocate those resources.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
OK, add in the complements of the Capes. Actual manning is a bit variable but assume that the average is about 21; and only count those used for border protection duties (the two Nav tng vessels are for other purposes; and you need those whatever else you might have). Only 4 of those 10 are planned to have long term lives in the RAN, btw, but let's be cynical an assume that they all end up being retained. That makes a total of (about) 210 people in the complements of the Capes. Add in the 252 that are in the Arafuras and that makes 462; about 12-13% of the total at sea manning of the RAN.

However, all that is of course irrelevant. Civilian control of the military, as enshrined in the Constitution and the Defence Act. means that the RAN (and the RAAF and Army). undertake those tasks directed by the GOTD. Since the 60s, for the RAN that has included border protection, and it doesn't seem likely it will change any time soon. So the RAN is obliged to devote resources to the task appropriate to its achievement until such time as it told not to, One could discuss whether the way those resources are allocated could be better than it presently is (all Arafuras at one end, all Capes at the other - and that debate has of course been had) and whether or not the resources allocated are too much or insufficient but not whether or not the RAN has any option but to allocate those resources.
Canning Capes won't help with MEOs, WEOs and PWOs. Those are the bottle necks, the qualified senior LEUTs and LCDRs, they take years to grow and are needed, not just on platforms but on projects and in sustainment.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Canning Capes won't help with MEOs, WEOs and PWOs. Those are the bottle necks, the qualified senior LEUTs and LCDRs, they take years to grow and are needed, not just on platforms but on projects and in sustainment.
Nor will it provide many GT qualified charge Tiffs who also take years to train. Or senior CIS, EW or CSO sailors which a combatant needs and again (guess what) take years to train while working in the appropriate environments. Most of a Cape’s or an Arafura’s ship’s companies are BMs or MTPs, usually with a Cook or two and one or two junior CIS to round it out. And the MTPs are not that senior. In fact, without running the figures I doubt if there are enough in total to run the ME department in more than one ANZAC; and even if that number did add up the rank structure wouldn’t. And while a combatant certainly needs BMs, as a proportion of the ship’s company they seem a lot less than they used to be (does mean that plenty of non dibbies get practice in seamanship evolutions, though)
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nor will it provide many GT qualified charge Tiffs who also takes years to train. Or senior CIS, EW or CSO sailors which a combatant needs and again (guess what) take years to train while working in the appropriate environments. Most of a Cape’s or an Arafura’s ship’s companies are BMs or MTPs, usually with a Cook or two and one or two junior CIS to round it out. And the MTPs are not that senior. In fact, without running the figures I doubt if there are enough in total to run the ME department in more than one ANZAC; and even if that number did add up the rank structure wouldn’t.
Yes the tech sailor numbers are very small on PBs, also many of the systems are COTS, so the skills they learn don't necessarily translate to majors.

I don't know about the Arafuras, but the PBs don't even really qualify as a suitable training platform.

SEA 3000 on the other hand has real potential in rapidly growing experienced people. Get them on MFUs to start, but once they have useful skills, get them onto a GPF to grow to mastery.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
OK, add in the complements of the Capes. Actual manning is a bit variable but assume that the average is about 21; and only count those used for border protection duties (the two Nav tng vessels are for other purposes; and you need those whatever else you might have). Only 4 of those 10 are planned to have long term lives in the RAN, btw, but let's be cynical an assume that they all end up being retained. That makes a total of (about) 210 people in the complements of the Capes. Add in the 252 that are in the Arafuras and that makes 462; about 12-13% of the total at sea manning of the RAN.

However, all that is of course irrelevant. Civilian control of the military, as enshrined in the Constitution and the Defence Act. means that the RAN (and the RAAF and Army). undertake those tasks directed by the GOTD. Since the 60s, for the RAN that has included border protection, and it doesn't seem likely it will change any time soon. So the RAN is obliged to devote resources to the task appropriate to its achievement until such time as it told not to, One could discuss whether the way those resources are allocated could be better than it presently is (all Arafuras at one end, all Capes at the other - and that debate has of course been had) and whether or not the resources allocated are too much or insufficient but not whether or not the RAN has any option but to allocate those resources.
RAN absolutely serves at Government direction and the maintenance of capabilities to give the options Government requires, including a patrol force. But it’s also a contributor to the overall debate around priorities and that’s what this point is mainly about.

A concern on “RAN knows what it needs and the way it is, is the way it must be” I don’t think is particularly helpful in a discussion. Priorities change over time afterall:

RAN vociferously argued it needed 12 Arafuras. Until it didn’t.

It needed dedicated minehunters, until it didn’t.

It needed LCH and hydrographic survey ships, until it didn’t.

What it needs now is a patrol force supposedly, while half of it’s already diminished ANZAC Class fleet sit on blocks for want of crew...

It also per Government direction has to find crew for six Hunters, 11 GPF and 8 Virginias in upcoming years despite at the same time, recruiting and attrition rates going backwards and have been for years, seemingly beyond the ADF’s ability to address, no matter how many star rank positions they create to do so…

We are told also that we are in the most dire strategic circumstances since the 1930’s.

We are also told that it is necessary for 30% of the RAN’s commissioned ships to have no wartime role. They have in fact literally been designed with a specific focus, so that they can’t perform a role in wartime.

Yet there are other services that do many of the roles of the patrol force. Other countries navies don‘t do the role at all and focus entirely on their combat roles… How do they manage to organise themselves to do so?

Perhaps priorities have changed and neither the RAN nor Government have woken up to that fact yet… ABF doesn’t want to do Coast guard? Well, ABF serves at the same Government direction the RAN does…
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
RAN absolutely serves at Government direction and the maintenance of capabilities to give the options Government requires, including a patrol force. But it’s also a contributor to the overall debate around priorities and that’s what this point is mainly about.

A concern on “RAN knows what it needs and the way it is, is the way it must be” I don’t think is particularly helpful in a discussion. Priorities change over time afterall:

RAN vociferously argued it needed 12 Arafuras. Until it didn’t.

It needed dedicated minehunters, until it didn’t.

It needed LCH and hydrographic survey ships, until it didn’t.

What it needs now is a patrol force supposedly, while half of it’s already diminished ANZAC Class fleet sit on blocks for want of crew...

It also per Government direction has to find crew for six Hunters, 11 GPF and 8 Virginias in upcoming years despite at the same time, recruiting and attrition rates going backwards and have been for years, seemingly beyond the ADF’s ability to address, no matter how many star rank positions they create to do so…

We are told also that we are in the most dire strategic circumstances since the 1930’s.

We are also told that it is necessary for 30% of the RAN’s commissioned ships to have no wartime role. They have in fact literally been designed with a specific focus, so that they can’t perform a role in wartime.

Yet there are other services that do many of the roles of the patrol force. Other countries navies don‘t do the role at all and focus entirely on their combat roles… How do they manage to organise themselves to do so?

Perhaps priorities have changed and neither the RAN nor Government have woken up to that fact yet… ABF doesn’t want to do Coast guard? Well, ABF serves at the same Government direction the RAN does…
All government departments evolve overtime and border force should not be any different.
They should be more than just a slight change in responsibilities compared to the old customs service.

if Navy down the track hand over the constabulary role then a federal government departments will have to pickup the role complete with the coordinated air , sea and land assets to do the job.

Suggest that’s Boarder Force and that they either come under the department of defence or but come much more allied with it

cheers S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Chinese Task force letting Australia know they can operate in Australia's backyard just like Australia operates in the South Chine Sea.
Will be interesting the reaction if / when a Chinese taskforce transits bass Strait and circumnavigates the continent.
That would be a statement

Cheers S
 
Top