Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

ddxx

Well-Known Member
In regards to recent posts asking “how do we crew x, y, z vessel”:

Availability of personnel is often discussed, however the RAN currently has well over 500 highly trained sailors and officers dedicated to auxiliary ships.

Much larger navies have long seen the benefit of utilising uniformed civilian crews for either the majority or the entirety of those crewing requirements so as to better utilise highly trained naval crew to both man and expand their combatant fleets.

This could also be argued in regards to the Arafura Class - that by role, could be mixed crewed (navy/civilian).

I really can’t think of a logical reason as to why we continue to use finite crew inefficiently - when there are so many proven alternatives already in practice?
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
Yep I have seen it and it looks quite interesting. This is it.

Almost seems funny in light on the above discussion regarding NSM (ship/ground launched) and JSM (air launched) that the missile intergrated for air launch from the MH60 is the NSM, ground launched varient.
They explain minor hardware differences.
Seems this will be more compatabile within the navy with their canister launched version.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Operation of AORs and LHDs is a specialist skill; driving them around the ocean is the least of the issues and doesn’t use that manny members of the ships’ companies. The added complication of a mixed crew isn’t worth it (I ran a study into that very subject some years ago).

Australia no longer really has a Merchant Navy capable of doing much for more for Navy than it currently dies, running Ocean Protector, Besant, Stoker, Sycamore, and presumably the Pacific vessel; plus in effect the Border Force vessels. All of which could have been run by Navy if it had chosen to the first group; or been directed to in the case of Border Force. And, if you think RAN sailors are expensive, you should see the cost of employing those few qualified merchant mariners who are available, Finally, the Australian merchant marine has about as much trouble recruiting long voyage personnel as the Navy does.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
In regards to recent posts asking “how do we crew x, y, z vessel”:

Availability of personnel is often discussed, however the RAN currently has well over 500 highly trained sailors and officers dedicated to auxiliary ships.

Much larger navies have long seen the benefit of utilising uniformed civilian crews for either the majority or the entirety of those crewing requirements so as to better utilise highly trained naval crew to both man and expand their combatant fleets.

This could also be argued in regards to the Arafura Class - that by role, could be mixed crewed (navy/civilian).

I really can’t think of a logical reason as to why we continue to use finite crew inefficiently - when there are so many proven alternatives already in practice?
Can’t think of a logical reason? Have you thought that through?

So let’s assume we create the ‘Royal Australian Fleet Auxiliary’, or RAFA for short.

The new RAFA obviously need manpower, new trained manpower to operate the ships, it needs a new bureaucratic organisation to over see it, it will need manpower for that too, and all the relevant legislative framework set up.

It will need the commissioned RAN ships transferred to it, it will need a budget to operate and maintain those ships and a budget for the crews and bureaucratic overhead too.

Do you have a dollar figure in mind to do all of the above? Won’t be cheap, how many billion of dollars?

And while all that is happening you are assuming the RAN doesn’t have its budget and manpower cut to pay for RAFA.

No logical reason? I can think of many, including what I wrote above.

How exactly is your idea going to work and be funded, and not come off the RAN budget bottom line?

Details please?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Can’t think of a logical reason? Have you thought that through?

So let’s assume we create the ‘Royal Australian Fleet Auxiliary’, or RAFA for short.

The new RAFA obviously need manpower, new trained manpower to operate the ships, it needs a new bureaucratic organisation to over see it, it will need manpower for that too, and all the relevant legislative framework set up.

It will need the commissioned RAN ships transferred to it, it will need a budget to operate and maintain those ships and a budget for the crews and bureaucratic overhead too.

Do you have a dollar figure in mind to do all of the above? Won’t be cheap, how many billion of dollars?

And while all that is happening you are assuming the RAN doesn’t have its budget and manpower cut to pay for RAFA.

No logical reason? I can think of many, including what I wrote above.

How exactly is your idea going to work and be funded, and not come off the RAN budget bottom line?

Details please?
They'd be civilian crewed wouldn't they, hence unionized and that's another set of problems as well. They'd go on strike at the drop of a hat especially if it was near a public holiday like Easter or Xmas and a deployment was due.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not aimed at anyone in particular.

Due to the upcoming Australian Federal election on 21 May 2022, keep Australian partisan politics out of any discussions. The Moderators will have little tolerance for it.
 

Gryphinator

Active Member
Crewing/manning whatever you want to call it is so easy- if you want to pay for it. Bring back pensions and gold cards for x amount of service and retention becomes less of an issue. Make uni free (either ROSO or for x amount of years service for those not up to Officer standard) and recruitment is less of an issue. Make it an attractive career. It's really so simple, yet seemingly so hard. I hope the next parliament sort it out-and DVA....
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
They'd be civilian crewed wouldn't they, hence unionized and that's another set of problems as well. They'd go on strike at the drop of a hat especially if it was near a public holiday like Easter or Xmas and a deployment was due.
My father who served in PNG during WW2 related tales of warfies who were already being paid 3 times what a soldier in combat was being paid, refused to load ammo ships unless being paid additional danger money. Thus holding vitalaly needed supplies.

Setting up a rift between my dad lifer Austarlian Army and his dad Warfie port of Brisbane that never healed.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My father who served in PNG during WW2 related tales of warfies who were already being paid 3 times what a soldier in combat was being paid, refused to load ammo ships unless being paid additional danger money. Thus holding vitalaly needed supplies.

Setting up a rift between my dad lifer Austarlian Army and his dad Warfie port of Brisbane that never healed.
In NZ wharfies went on strike at some stage, for whatever reason, and refused to load war material bound for the Pacific. More than once wharfies got dealt to in the local pubs by servicemen.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
Operation of AORs and LHDs is a specialist skill; driving them around the ocean is the least of the issues and doesn’t use that manny members of the ships’ companies. The added complication of a mixed crew isn’t worth it (I ran a study into that very subject some years ago).

Australia no longer really has a Merchant Navy capable of doing much for more for Navy than it currently dies, running Ocean Protector, Besant, Stoker, Sycamore, and presumably the Pacific vessel; plus in effect the Border Force vessels. All of which could have been run by Navy if it had chosen to the first group; or been directed to in the case of Border Force. And, if you think RAN sailors are expensive, you should see the cost of employing those few qualified merchant mariners who are available, Finally, the Australian merchant marine has about as much trouble recruiting long voyage personnel as the Navy does.
I’m not suggesting this is a short term option, but rather something that would be prudent to consider as an option over the next 10+ years.

There have been calls from both sides of politics for Australia to significantly expand upon its fleet of flagged and crewed merchant ships. This would require support in regards to workforce training and growth, which would naturally provide an opportunity for Defence.

It might not be an option today, or in five years, but it’s important to always reassess options which are dependent on ever changing factors.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I’m not suggesting this is a short term option, but rather something that would be prudent to consider as an option over the next 10+ years.

There have been calls from both sides of politics for Australia to significantly expand upon its fleet of flagged and crewed merchant ships. This would require support in regards to workforce training and growth, which would naturally provide an opportunity for Defence.

It might not be an option today, or in five years, but it’s important to always reassess options which are dependent on ever changing factors.
The prospect of the fleet relying on the MUA (Maritime Union of Australia for our non Oz members) to provide fuel, food and ammunition resupply in a war zone worries the beejeezus out of me.
Their record from previous conflicts was deplorable.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I’m not suggesting this is a short term option, but rather something that would be prudent to consider as an option over the next 10+ years.

There have been calls from both sides of politics for Australia to significantly expand upon its fleet of flagged and crewed merchant ships. This would require support in regards to workforce training and growth, which would naturally provide an opportunity for Defence.

It might not be an option today, or in five years, but it’s important to always reassess options which are dependent on ever changing factors.
Critical mass is important .... as is cost efficiency. I would never advocate that the LHD's should ever be under a future A-RFA (if it ever happens) and I am in two minds about the JSS (Its capability and purpose may point to 100% uniformed crew). As Spoz notes to build up to support an RAF like fleet would need an investment in training which would either need to be borne by defence or the merchant marine would need to be revitalised in a manner that promotes training and controls costs. Seafarers deserve a good wage and conditions but they must be in line with reasonable expectations.

On the cost front .... Australian seafarer's have progressively priced themselves out of the general merchant fleet market quite some time ago but there is still a good number in the offshore industry (and most of those folk earn their salaries). Looking at fleet size ... in 2020 there were about 60 vessels of 500 gross tonnage or more that were certified for unrestricted operations (international). None of the operators appear to be training new officers and crew so there is a diminishing workforce.

The finger is often pointed at the MUA in regard to cost and efficiency.

I discussed this issue in the old RAN site noting that solutions were actually advocated under Labour for an Australian International Shipping Register (AISR) and this still exists in the Shipping Registration Act 1981. It never got traction as the carrots were inadequate (and the departments that was to apply them never really understood the requirements and disagreed with each other). AMSA built the mechanism to register the ships but only one vessel ever registered and it was then sold.

The intent was Australian officers (including residence) in the at least the top four positions with overseas crews (with a focus on Pacific Islanders). The latter was seen by some a a chance to increase union membership.

Register a vessel on the Australian international shipping register (amsa.gov.au)
Australian International Shipping Register | Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, Australian Government

If the enticements on offer were comparable with Singapore this may have got up as the large miners currently register in Singapore. It would have offered a mechanism for supporting our pacific neighbours (who in my experience are very good seafarers) and would have build a larger trained workforce. A long time has passed since this measure was adopted and will be be harder to get it up and running if there was the will from government (It was a pretty half baked attempt last time and neither side of politics or the relevant departments really helped), however, it could be a good option.

Based on past experience this may need a seismic shift from all parties ... but noting the SSN situation ... perhaps this may be possible. I would not recommend you hold your breath.
 
Last edited:

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Hunter-class frigates won’t meet the RAN’s needs

Piece by Paul Greenfield and Jon Stanford on The Strategist.
Again with the claim of the 32 VLS on the Hunter-class. They provides no source on this - and I'm not inclined to trust them blindly after the recent JSM/NSM issue. That among other issues.

Even if feasible, rectifying these problems would require a new design. In principle, the changes required could be accommodated in a 10,000-tonne design, as exemplified by the Arleigh Burke. Australia is already paying an eye-watering $6.27 billion for the redesign of a ship that Defence once classified as ‘mature’.

If the necessary design changes prove impossible, however, the government should move rapidly to cancel the Hunter and order more Hobart ships to an updated design. This must include the installation of CEAFAR2, and the contract with Lockheed Martin to integrate it with Aegis should continue. Alternatively, we could seek to construct in Australia the Flight III version of the Arleigh Burke destroyer, again with the CEAFAR2 and Aegis. We could then use that as a basis for seeking involvement in the DDG(X) program. But time is of the essence. If nothing changes, the navy won’t deploy a single additional VLS cell for another decade.
As Gryphinator has already stated, they reach the conclusion that we should seek to invest into either the AB III or an upgraded Hobart-class with CEAFAR2 if their necessary design changes prove impossible. They complain, immediately prior to this, that Australia is paying $6.27 billion for the redesign of a ship Defence classified as mature. How do they expect either the Hobart or the AB III to be different in this regard? If the Hobart is to be redesigned, then the ship is likely not going to be brought into service any faster than the Hunters are now - meaning we still won't achieve any more VLS within the decade as they note.

The concept of crewing the AB has been only recently noted, with the takeaway being that it will take time - whilst also costing a great deal, even to arm with the large VLS pools they have. This is at a time when a large RAN portion of the additional 18,500 personnel funded for out to 2040 will go towards the SSNs, which will already be a significant expansion of the service. Their point of the future being a missile-to-missile game may be relevant, though questions also then need to be raised as to why the USN is investing into the Constellation-class (with 32 VLS) and why Japan is investing into the Mogami-class (with 16 VLS). Not every task, mission or operation is going to be a missile-to-missile fight and ships are rarely going to operate alone in any peer conflict. This is also only relevant if the Hunters do possess the stated 32 VLS - which may not be the case unless I have missed something at some point. To be clear, more VLS on the Hunters would be ideal - though we work with what we have, not necessarily with what we want or need.

As others on the thread have noted, ASPI seem to have their own goals in mind that do not necessarily align with Defence's own plans or that presented by Government. The Strategist has a wide variety of articles on excellent topics, though I fear it is becoming or has become a means of biased commentary in pursuit of particular agendas. The use of loaded language and a lack of provided sources within articles is, imho, concerning...

One thing that did peak my interest is the highlighted difference in doctrine between the UK and Australia/US. Doctrine is complex and I'm sure there are many nuances to it, though I would have thought a great deal of overlap in how we tackle ASW? And, if true that we chose the Hunters with knowledge of our own doctrine, then what is the concept or thought driving this?
 
Last edited:

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
Again with the claim of the 32 VLS on the Hunter-class. He provides no source on this - and I'm not inclined to trust him blindly after the recent JSM/NSM issue. That among other issues.

Will break it down for my own sake on this post later. ASPI seems to be less about strategic policy and more about deciding which platforms are apparently better.
Different authors, the one I know of is very well thought of.
 

Gryphinator

Active Member
The article is a bit contradictory. It complains the AB class design is 40 years old, then later wants us to build them. Also quoting HW saying finding ships is a cinch and sinking them trivial then compliments China on its expanding fleet.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I just think the Anzacs should age gracefully out. That is one maxed out platform, IMO you can feel how maxed out they are in that photo DDG38 posted. With the first one laid down in 1993. We have taken cheap and cheerful as far as it can go.

Spending half a billion to get the platform to do anything more IMO is grasping at straws. I wonder if NSM will even be fitted to them, as by the time delivery and integration was completed, they would be moving on out, honestly, an Anzac isn't going to be firing shipping missiles in a first strike situation. Hunters and Hobarts should get the new gear.

Even with seaRAM, the Anzacs are not going to shift the fighting equation enough. They should probably miss ESSM II.
It was in the MinDef announcement that NSM is to be fitted to the ANZAC Class…


ESSM Block 2 will also be first fielded in RAN aboard the ANZAC Class as well.


Additionally they are about to go through TRANSCAP and receive new towed sonar arrays and torpedo self-defence systems as well, so it seems they’ll be around for a bit…
 
that do not necessarily align with Defence's own plans
This point however was the specific reason why ASPI came into being.

It‘s unlikely that anyone here agrees with every POV put forth by ASPI and it would in fact be flawed if they did as regularly competing POV’s are put forward by different authors over a series of articles. They are intended as thought starters to challenge acceptance thinking and as a check and balance.

It is unfortunately Defence and multiple government‘s decisions, changing of decisions and lack of vision, for reasons regularly thrashed out that have led to our current naval capability predicament as regional tension have escalated.

As has become very clear, there are no perfect, easy or fast fixes. Just a need to relook at our evolving short, medium and long term threat environment and be brave enough to adapt where pragmatic and to back ourselves where needed to make the best of what we have and what we can practically get/build and integrate.

I’m in no way supporting the notion of canning Hunter. In fact I’m an advocate for doubling down but as Alexsa suggested several weeks back, starting a Batch 1 using the UK in production design now whilst the Batch 2 adapted design to include more Oz spec is completed.
 

ddxx

Well-Known Member
It was in the MinDef announcement that NSM is to be fitted to the ANZAC Class…


ESSM Block 2 will also be first fielded in RAN aboard the ANZAC Class as well.


Additionally they are about to go through TRANSCAP and receive new towed sonar arrays and torpedo self-defence systems as well, so it seems they’ll be around for a bit…
Additionally, they’re transferable additions - they’re not fixed within the hull. They can be ‘unbolted’ and moved to another platform.

On the current timeline, the last Anzac won’t leave service until the eighth Hunter is fully commissioned. That’s at least two decades from now.
 
Top