Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[FutureTank]

Come on australia.What australia should be doing is welcome China as a responsible regional power and build trust through military exercises and joint task operations.This build up approach is hostile not to mention darn expensive.When australia can reach out to US then why not to China.

The Asia-Pacific region is the new Cold War Europe of the 21st Century, and yes, there is Communism on the other side, which is economically more successful, and culturally even stranger to Western democracies than the Soviet Union.

As much as the Australian Governments may not like to admit it, China has roughly the same aspirations in the region as the Soviet Union did in the 1930s, that is reasserting its dominance which China projects back to the days of Empire, but now couched in the new ideology of socialist reform.

Unlike Europe though, here what matters is not tanks but ships and submarines, and long range fighter-bombers rather than anti-tank helicopters, as well as the capability for island hoping not practised since the Second World War.

There is no Domino Theory ion the offing though. China just wants others to ask how high when it says jump, that's all.

It seems to me that in the next 20 years Australia is going to find out what an economy with a 5%+ defence budget spending is like, and dare I say probably a return to limited national service also.

 

[aricho87]

The white paper was supposed to be in by April, does anyone actually know when?

 

[splat]

It seems to me that in the next 20 years Australia is going to find out what an economy with a 5%+ defence budget spending is like, and dare I say probably a return to limited national service also.[/QUOTE]


I think that will be our future reality,both drastically higher gnp percentage allocated to defence and limited national or not so limited national service.

 

[aricho87]

Australia will never adapt national service or the draft unless it was under the threat of invasion or another WWII. Highly unlikely in the modern era.

Can anyone tell me with the current ships planned for the future why the navy hasn't insisted that the ships have at least one or even more CIWS? I find it ridiculous that the navy still hasn't learnt the lessons of RN during the Falklands War.

Both the LHD and the AWD's don't have a CIWS or many?

 

[Todjaeger]

Australia will never adapt national service or the draft unless it was under the threat of invasion or another WWII. Highly unlikely in the modern era.

Can anyone tell me with the current ships planned for the future why the navy hasn't insisted that the ships have at least one or even more CIWS? I find it ridiculous that the navy still hasn't learnt the lessons of RN during the Falklands War.

Both the LHD and the AWD's don't have a CIWS or many?

One problem with CIWS (or at least Mk 15 Phalanx 20 mm cannon) is that the 20 mm shells have a limited effective range, IIRC ~ 1-2 km, which is now being found to be insufficient or ineffective in protecting a vessel vs. a number of potential AShM. What has been found is that a number of missile-based defences have been found to be more effective in the CI/Point defence role, systems like RAM/SeaRAM, ESSM, etc.

What Australia might need to consider/do is begin transitioning to a larger caliber rapid fire gun, something along the lines of the significantly larger 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS or perhaps the 35 mm Millenium Gun. The larger rounds allow a potentially longer engagement range which might be enough to deflect/destroy inbound weaponry before it can impact the vessel in question.

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I am a little concerned that what has really happened is spending (4th AWD and other projects) has been deferred with bright promises for the future. IMHO the situation should be viewed with caution.

12 SSG's is a massive increase but ignores the fact we are a maritme nation with limited ability to protect trade. I would prefer to see 8 SSG and an increase in patrol and escort forces.

In addition to this concern, I have a few questions about the validity and accuracy of the 'leaked' information as well as the thought processes behind them.

The first thing which comes to mind, is that many or most of the mentioned replacement systems would not be expected to come 'online' until sometime around 2020, if not later. As such, the current Government would not be the one responsible for seeing such suggested systems enter into service, or even come up with methods to fund the various programmes.

To the idea of doubling the RAN SSK force... While a valuable capability potentially allowing the ADF to conduct distant intel and strike missions far from Australia, and also being able to threaten and help defend SLOC, I do not see the logic behind doubling the current force. Particularly if the RAN is currently having manning issues with just 6 subs, a more moderate increase to ~8 subs, assuming they can be properly manned seems more appropriate.

As for the notion of the Anzac follow-on frigate being destroyer-sized, BMD capable designs... I wonder how much of that is politics and/or sour grapes that the F100 design won as the AWD. From my understanding of how the programmes were to function, the AWD was to provide the 'high level' RAN surface fleet capability, and the Anzac follow-on design was to replace the Anzac frigates in the 'low level' role. It was speculated that whatever replaced the Anzac would be larger (possibly sharing the hull of the F100) and more capable than its predecessor (the Anzac) yet no usurp the area air defence role from the AWD. From the descriptions given, the vessel sounds like it is intended to be both larger and more capable than the AWD, even in air defence roles. That in turn makes me think that either some people are not satisfied with the selection of the Hobart-class as the AWD.

Lastly, with mention of replacing the Armidale PC with ~1,500 ton corvettes... I have to wonder how accurate is that statement. As has been generally indicated, the use of corvettes in and around Australia itself is of somewhat limited use, as most corvettes are of fairly limited range due to size, and the distances between different ports in Australia is already vast. That and that general assumption that a corvette usually have an armament comparable to but perhaps slightly weaker than that of a larger vessel like a frigate. This would be a far cry, and a huge increase when compared to the paltry 25 mm Bushmaster cannon aboard current Armidales. IMO what seems more likely, and would be a better choice, would be to purchase ~1,500 ton OPV(H)s in the roughly 80-95 m length range. This would give the RAN a patrol capability of most likely greater endurance, as well as greater operational area, than currently exists with the light and small, aluminum-hulled Armidates.

This to my mind would be more sensibile, particularly since an OPV is generally not considered a warship and also costs less than a warship typically.

-Cheers

 

[splat]

Australia will never adapt national service or the draft unless it was under the threat of invasion or another WWII. Highly unlikely in the modern era.

If the current force levels dont increase significantly in the coming decades,then yes there wont be a personell issue any more different from today.
But if this 12 submarine,7000 tonne anzac replacement is the inkling of a realization that aus has to have significantly more assets andt unless theres a revolution in recruitment and automation there will have to be some for of conscription to people the platforms.

 

[aricho87]

Australia will never adapt national service or the draft unless it was under the threat of invasion or another WWII. Highly unlikely in the modern era.

If the current force levels dont increase significantly in the coming decades,then yes there wont be a personell issue any more different from today.
But if this 12 submarine,7000 tonne anzac replacement is the inkling of a realization that aus has to have significantly more assets andt unless theres a revolution in recruitment and automation there will have to be some for of conscription to people the platforms.

Even if we have all the equipment and not the personnel to man them Aust Govt who ever was in power would never conscrpt or introduce national service, it would be political suicide for any govt. What Aust needs is investment in the image of the ADF, ever since i was young the image young kids grow up with of the ADF is something of a joke! While the Aust Govt are taking steps to improve technology of the defence forces the image or perception in peoples minds is still the same.

With an aggressive marketing campaign and in the economic climate we are in it is the perfect time to heavily recruit a new generation of personnel, looking for job security and overseas adventure. Put togeather with the new technology it would seem like a lucrative position for young men and women coming out of HS.

 

[winnyfield]

New White Paper. RAN gets a big slice.

Offshore Combatant Vessels

9.20 The Government has therefore decided that Defence will develop proposals to rationalise the Navy's patrol boat, mine counter measures, hydrographic and oceanographic forces into a single modular multirole class of around 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels combining four existing classes of vessels. This has the potential to provide significant operational efficiencies and potential savings. The new vessels will be larger than the current Armidale class patrol boats, with an anticipated displacement of up to 2,000 tonnes.

9.21 This concept relies on the use of modular unmanned underwater systems for both mine countermeasures and hydrographic tasks. These systems are envisaged to be containerised and portable modules capable of being used in any port or loaded onto any of the Offshore Combatant Vessels or other suitable vessels.

9.22 The future Offshore Combatant Vessel will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting roles, border protection tasks, long-range counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, support to special forces, and missions in support of security and stability in the immediate neighbourhood. Defence will examine the potential for these new ships to embark a helicopter or UAV, to allow a surge in surveillance and response capabilities without the need to deploy additional ships. This increased capability will also ensure that major surface combatants are free for more demanding operations.

Reads like the USN's littoral combat ship program (expected complement ~40-80). Could also see it as ANZAC frigate-lite, missile corvette etc. Frankly more ambitious than the usual OPV.

 

[winnyfield]

Highly speculated 3rd amphib:

9.24 The Government has decided to enhance this amphibious capability by acquiring a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel. Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure. The new ship will provide ongoing sustainment support for deployed forces, allowing the LHD ships to remain in areas of operations in direct support of the land force ashore.

eg. Rotterdam class LPD.

 

[Navor86]

Furthermore a 4th AWD is still on hands and may be purchased.

 

[FutureTank]

Offshore Combatant Vessel

New White Paper. RAN gets a big slice.
Reads like the USN's littoral combat ship program (expected complement ~40-80). Could also see it as ANZAC frigate-lite, missile corvette etc. Frankly more ambitious than the usual OPV.

Would be nice if they were catamarans built in Hobart

 

[uuname]

Link to the White Paper:
Defence White Paper

Reads like the USN's littoral combat ship program.

Yes, it does sound very similar. However, they seem to be suggesting "up to 2,000 tonnes", while (afaik) the US ships are a little larger. I would have suggested letting the Americans work out which design worked best, and going with that. Still, I like the idea.

Nice to see getting some ASW helicopters is a priority, too.

 

[winnyfield]

9.74 The Government places a priority on broadening our strategic strike options, which will occur through the acquisition of maritime-based land-attack cruise missiles. These missiles will be fitted to the AWD, Future Frigate and Future Submarine. Defence will fit the necessary control and firing systems to the AWD as an early enhancement. The incorporation of a land-attack cruise missile capability will be integral to the design and construction of the Future Frigate and Future Submarine. We will not seek to retrofit this capability to the Collins submarine fleet.

Strongly suggest VLS tomahawk capability. The Spanish are doing the same with their destroyers.

 

[Tasman]

Strongly suggest VLS tomahawk capability. The Spanish are doing the same with their destroyers.

Acquisition of a LACM capability is a real political breakthrough - previously Australian governments have shied away from this as it might 'upset the neighbours'. Providing this capability from 11-12 surface combatants together with 12 submarines will give the RAN and the ADF in general a massive increase in its strike capacity.

None of this will count for much, however, unless the navy can make huge strides forward in its ability to actually man the submarine force. 12 submarines is really a fourfold increase on the 3 presently operational. Here's hoping!

Tas

 

[Sea Toby]

Highly speculated 3rd amphib:
eg. Rotterdam class LPD.

Depending upon the number of troops carried, and the number of lane meters of vehicle and cargo space, a Rotterdam or Bay class LPD/LSD should fulfill this requirement. A larger Canterbury design could also fit this requirement as well. When the time comes to buy the ship, I suspect much would be settled by the price of the ship.

 

[Tasman]

Depending upon the number of troops carried, and the number of lane meters of vehicle and cargo space, a Rotterdam or Bay class LPD/LSD should fulfill this requirement. A larger Canterbury design could also fit this requirement as well. When the time comes to buy the ship, I suspect much would be settled by the price of the ship.

The following quote from the Executive summary of the White Paper outlines the main characteristics of the new sealift ship and its role within the amphibious force:

Amphibious Capability
9.23 Our capacity to deploy and sustain land forces from the sea will be substantially enhanced when the two new Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) amphibious ships enter service in the coming decade. They will be able to carry a substantial quantity of equipment, stores and personnel. In terms of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations, they will most likely be the best means available to provide assistance in our region without becoming a burden on damaged and fragile land infrastructure. They will also provide a significant capacity for maritime manoeuvre of land forces in our littoral environment.
9.24 The Government has decided to enhance this amphibious capability by acquiring a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel. Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure. The new ship will provide ongoing sustainment support for deployed forces, allowing the LHD ships to remain in areas of operations in direct support of the land force ashore.
9.25 The Government will also introduce six new heavy landing craft with improved ocean-going capabilities, able to transport armoured vehicles, trucks, stores and people in intra-theatre lift tasks to augment the larger amphibious vessels.

Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030 73

It seems to me that the requirement for the new ship to have the ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure makes a designed for the job LPD or LSD more likely than a Cantebury type based on a merchant design.

Tas

 

[swerve]

There's more than one way to skin a cat. While an LSD such as the Bay-class (same basic design as Rotterdam, etc) can land stores & vehicles without port infrastructure, so can a suitably equipped ro-ro. Carry Mexeflotes or similar, its own cranes for offloading any deck cargo. A container ship with its own cranes & deck stowed lighters could do it. I must say, though, that it sounds more like an LSD than anything else.

Cue bids from at least Navantia, Damen Schelde, & some Koreans.

 

[Sea Toby]

No where in the White Paper did I read an amphibious ship with a well dock. Without the well dock, a suitable ro-ro could fit the bill. But I will agree I prefer a ship with a well dock. I did not read a LPD or LSD in the White Paper.....

Being a former Coast Guard sailor, I wonder about the 2000 ton OPV/LCS vessel too. While a larger patrol ship may suit the Navy better as a warship, minehunter, hydrographic and/or oceanographic ship, in my opinion they make very poor inshore patrol boats. Is this a recognition of the fact the Armidales are too large for proper inshore patrols and too small to be proper warships?

The US Coast Guard have these OPV sized ships for ocean going patrols, but also have smaller patrol boats as well, which is missing in this White Paper....

 

[Sea Toby]

There's more than one way to skin a cat. While an LSD such as the Bay-class (same basic design as Rotterdam, etc) can land stores & vehicles without port infrastructure, so can a suitably equipped ro-ro. Carry Mexeflotes or similar, its own cranes for offloading any deck cargo. A container ship with its own cranes & deck stowed lighters could do it. I must say, though, that it sounds more like an LSD than anything else.

Cue bids from at least Navantia, Damen Schelde, & some Koreans.

I am sure the RAN will get what they want. The question is what do they want?