Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[seaspear]

I'm not sure if this has been covered and I have missed ,but when the Virginia class is transferred to the RAN will each boat have rotating crews for maximum deployment ,as per U.S.N procedures?
I believe that Ghost Shark may be to large to be deployed from a Hunter Class but what about a Canberra class ship from the stern?

 

[Tbone]

It’s worrying to a smuggler able to deter Navy or border force at sea.
If reports that we are going to have more smugglers due to the breakdown of the rules based order it really should be an easy fix and low cost to arm our patrol boat fleet with 30mm cannons with air burst rounds, mistral 3 Leighton weight launchers and switch blade 300 box launchers to defend and prosecute vessels at sea.

 

[spoz]

25mm is perfectly adequate; it is already quite widely fitted, and there are spare guns and mountings available from the Armidales. That is the quick solution; anything else is months if not years away. If you were desperate, there are still a few 40/60s in stock; or at least there were a some years ago.

 

[StingrayOZ]

25mm is acceptable and should really be the minimum fit. If you need anything bigger than that, we have other platforms available that are likely to be more suitable. 25mm should easily out range anything pirates or smugglers are using in/near our waters.

Sabot rounds will do about 1500m/s and can easily engage targets at 1-2km. Ak rounds would be like air-rifle/.22lr energy/velocity levels, and wildly inaccurate. Probably don't have crew standing around outside, but at that range with a AK they would be lucky to hit an aircraft carrier/the ocean at that range. Most aks are notorious hitting anything even at 100m range, but the projectiles would be lethal at 100m, but at 2km its like a falling projectile rather than a fired one. Meanwhile, the 25mm would have 1000 times the energy at that range of 2km.

.50 cal would still easily outrange a AK, but put crew and everyone at a higher amount of potential risk. More of a 1km option. But for civilian ships having a high powered rifle. The USN ended up using a high powered rifle to deal with pirates off Somalia. Its always nice to have, options.

With ships, moving a little further back and watching is always an option, particularly if the ship isn't going anywhere and waters aren't crowded.

If you were desperate, there are still a few 40/60s in stock;

I thought these were only decorative and used only to avoid paying port fees.

 

[swerve]

Look what Donald Trump does with smuggling boats "obliterate them"

You think that destroying civilian boats, killing their occupants, in international waters, hundreds of km from your shores, with no provocation, is something Australia should emulate?

Since when has it been allowable for Australian law enforcement to execute suspected smugglers far from Australia? That's what the Americans have done.

 

[iambuzzard]

You think that destroying civilian boats, killing their occupants, in international waters, hundreds of km from your shores, with no provocation, is something Australia should emulate?

Since when has it been allowable for Australian law enforcement to execute suspected smugglers far from Australia? That's what the Americans have done.

Don't forget they shot unprovoked at our personnel with automatic weapons. As was said in Black Hawk Down "Well shoot back"! Again, I have no sympathy.

 

[swerve]

Don't forget they shot unprovoked at our personnel with automatic weapons. As was said in Black Hawk Down "Well shoot back"! Again, I have no sympathy.

Koala referred to Trump. Different situation.

I have absolutely no disagreement with shooting back at someone who's shooting at you, but that's not what the Americans did with smugglers in the Caribbean. Anyone who cites that as a precedent should be called out. It was wrong for the Americans, & it'd be wrong for anyone else.

 

[SammyC]

I'm not sure if this has been covered and I have missed ,but when the Virginia class is transferred to the RAN will each boat have rotating crews for maximum deployment ,as per U.S.N procedures?
I believe that Ghost Shark may be to large to be deployed from a Hunter Class but what about a Canberra class ship from the stern?

I thought it was only the Ohios that had rotating crews. I'm pretty sure the Virginias operate with a single crew. I could be wrong.

Ghost Sharks would be better launched off the back of an offshore supply vessel like ocean protector. They need a heavy duty crane.

I think the speartooth is better sized for the Hunters.

 

[iambuzzard]

Koala referred to Trump. Different situation.

I have absolutely no disagreement with shooting back at someone who's shooting at you, but that's not what the Americans did with smugglers in the Caribbean. Anyone who cites that as a precedent should be called out. It was wrong for the Americans, & it'd be wrong for anyone else.

I absolutely agree. Our defence personnel work in a different world to a certain politician.

 

[Reptilia]

I thought it was only the Ohios that had rotating crews. I'm pretty sure the Virginias operate with a single crew. I could be wrong.

Ghost Sharks would be better launched off the back of an offshore supply vessel like ocean protector. They need a heavy duty crane.

I think the speartooth is better sized for the Hunters.

yeah the mission bay is roughly 15m long by 20m wide.
Speartooth is around 8-12m long and weighs about 2ton, 2 broken down fit in a single 20ft and the mission bay holds a maximum of 10-12 20ft containers(2 rows of 5-6) or 150ton.
MBHS can lift about 15ton.

Thats 20-24 Speartooth uuvs per Hunter.

the smallest Ghost Shark is probably too heavy.

 

[H_K]

I'm not sure if this has been covered and I have missed ,but when the Virginia class is transferred to the RAN will each boat have rotating crews for maximum deployment ,as per U.S.N procedures?

AFAIK the only double crewed attack subs in the world are the French SSNs. No double-crewed SSKs anywhere, though the Dutch will be double-crewing their Orka SSKs, as they expect the same high availability using similar maintenance practices.

Double crewing appears to work quite well. The French standard for the old Rubis class is ~130-140 sea days/sub/year or ~800-850 sea days/year for 6 SSNs. With 1 sub always in dock and 5 operational subs (10 crews) that translates to ~160-170 sea days per operational sub and 80-85 sea days per crew. It's quite impressive to see a 36 year old sub retire having spent almost 14 years dived (5,000+ days underwater)! (The stats have slowly trickled out as 5 of the 6 Rubis have now decommissioned)

During peaks they've surged 4 of the 6 SSNs to sea and exceeded 1,000 sea/days/year. The new Barracuda SSNs have even better availability apparently, having eliminated the 6 month long mid-cycle docking every 3.5 years and extending the full cycle docking interval from 7 to 10 years. That means the only regular maintenance required is a short 10 week period every year.

So all in all, that's quite a lot of sea time. Makes you wonder why more navies haven't adopted double-crewing for their SSNs or SSKs... it could certainly be useful for the RAN if maintenance could be adapted to allow it.

(Finally double crewing allows for crew swaps when deployed to maximize forward presence, reducing time wasted in transit. AFAIK the RN has occasionally done this with their Astutes by reassigning crews from one sub to another)

 

[Volkodav]

If it occurred, it certainly points to the need to restore main armament of at least 25mm to allow engagemrnt from stand off range of automatics

A .50cal would do, even a mounted MAG58 would out gun them.

Sounds more like the CO deciding ( or being ordered) not to engage rather than being unable to.

What mitigating circumstances where there, i.e. did they see children onboard. Context is everything.

 

[Volkodav]

The recent Ak47 incident/ concept / scenario does highlight how should our constabulary vessels respond be they Navy or BF.
I think of our state and federal police officers and the wide range of scenarios they will come up against.
If the scenario is a physical threat then with time being critical, the situation will be judged essentially as a fight or flight.
Snap decisions will need to be made.

All our police do carry guns for the worst case time critical scenario.

Our constabulary forces should do the same.
That gun should not be a “pistol “ but rather an over overmatch weapon / weapons for the challenged world of today.
Worse case scenario against low end kinetic threats.
30 mm should be the minimum
Our Constabulary forces should have a range of kinetic options if the need arises.

Any adversary should know actions have consequences.

This is not about being gunho and blasting everything in sight.
We are not the USA

That said we should not be a pushover


Cheers S

They have had pistols, ARs and MAG58s for two decades. I dont know their rules of engagement or training, but they have firepower.

 

[Todjaeger]

A .50cal would do, even a mounted MAG58 would out gun them.

Sounds more like the CO deciding ( or being ordered) not to engage rather than being unable to.

What mitigating circumstances where there, i.e. did they see children onboard. Context is everything.

Another possibility would be to add or perhaps co-mount a stabilized Mk 19 in addition to something like an M2. They also might be close enough to crew-served weapons vs. a vehicle weapon like the 25 mm Bushmaster that both RAN and ABF patrol boats could be armed with them.

 

[Going Boeing]

A weapon with sufficient range to stand-off from small arms fire is highly desirable as the aluminium hulls of the Armidales/Capes/Evolved Capes do not offer any significant ballistic protection.

 

[Todjaeger]

A weapon with sufficient range to stand-off from small arms fire is highly desirable as the aluminium hulls of the Armidales/Capes/Evolved Capes do not offer any significant ballistic protection.

An M2 has an effective range of ~1.8 km, an M19 has an effective range of ~1.5 km which is significantly farther than the effective range of most non-support weapon small arms. If there are concerns that suspect vessels might start embarking heavier weaponry like a DShK, then it might be time for Australia to revisit patrol boats that are armed more like HDML's were.

 

[StobieWan]

Deterrence is probably the aim of my post really, but I'm concerned at the lack of aggression. Maybe I'm just too Army...

If the standing order is to disengage and watch from above, why arm them with 50cal or even put them to sea?

I feel a bit like Buzzard...

Oh, absolutely - as far as I'm concerned, lead incoming, no takesy back, they get brassed up until they can be rolled flat and used for reactor shielding. There's got to be a tax for taking that shot.

 

[ADMk2]

They have had pistols, ARs and MAG58s for two decades. I dont know their rules of engagement or training, but they have firepower.

There are numerous, documented examples of organised crime elements even within Australia being armed with automatic weapons, light anti-armour weapons, grenades and on occasion, weapons the ADF would classify as light support weapons, including belt fed weapons.

Equipping our damned navy with small arms does not overmatch this threat.

it’s a disgrace we can spend $5b a pop on frigates, but can’t afford to put a 25mm gun (or bigger) on a patrol boat.

Absolutely wrong priorities, I’m sorry to say. It’s the stupidest idea ADF has come up with, since it looked at the M113 fleet and said you know what this needs to take us into the 21st century? A $450m upgrade to deliver us a vehicle with less firepower than the non-upgraded one currently has and STILL managed to make it undeployable to anything beyond what a G Wagon could survive…

People here are literally defending a situation where one can legitimately ask whether or not a Royal Australian Navy ship on operations, can actually provide a lethality overmatch against a bloody speedboat…

 

[Stampede]

There are numerous, documented examples of organised crime elements even within Australia being armed with automatic weapons, light anti-armour weapons, grenades and on occasion, weapons the ADF would classify as light support weapons, including belt fed weapons.

Equipping our damned navy with small arms does not overmatch this threat.

it’s a disgrace we can spend $5b a pop on frigates, but can’t afford to put a 25mm gun (or bigger) on a patrol boat.

Absolutely wrong priorities, I’m sorry to say. It’s the stupidest idea ADF has come up with, since it looked at the M113 fleet and said you know what this needs to take us into the 21st century? A $450m upgrade to deliver us a vehicle with less firepower than the non-upgraded one currently has and STILL managed to make it undeployable to anything beyond what a G Wagon could survive…

People here are literally defending a situation where one can legitimately ask whether or not a Royal Australian Navy ship on operations, can actually provide a lethality overmatch against a bloody speedboat…

Agree
Must have the firepower and systems to do all the policing stuff and plus a bit more.

This request is not a great expense.
The alternative is wasting our few precious majors on robust constabulary duties.

Cheers S

 

[seaspear]

As per suggestion of two crews per boat , the U.S ballistic missile boats perform such to maximise their usage , this may make it attractive to crews if they have a long time at home before deployment to be used for shore based training and whatever. The reason also the Collins class coming to end of life spend long periods tied up , perhaps we would have more submarines at at once.

Crews & Rates | USS Benjamin Franklin SSBN-640

How the Blue and Gold crews operated—and the ratings that kept the boat ready.

ssbn640.com