Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[oldsig127]

I am sorry. I was unaware that we could not throw up for discussion anything that was not government policy on this thread..
Molan is only one of many who are calling for an increase in defence spending based on the changing circumstances that are existing today. And most are saying our fleet is too small for our large coastline.

And Assail didn't suggest that we not discuss things that are not government policy, but that what Jim Molan says isn't government policy.

The trouble with your line of argument (that Molan is one of many calling for an increase) is the definition of "many". It needs to be enough people to change governments, which means convincing not just Defence Professionals, ex service personnel and interested amateurs but also the great bulk of Australians who will take a common sense approach and start with "What will this cost?", go through to "What will happen if we don't do it?" and end up at "What will I and my family lose?" in either case. Once you take out all those who would NEVER vote for an increase in defence spending, you're left with a hell of a lot of the remaining public to convince or increased expenditure will never happen, or be wound back after the next election.

The reason our population can double without the Navy size doubling - the perceived risk ("What will happen if we don't do it?") is lower than in the aftermath of WW2, and the appetite of people who grew up beyond memory of those years for service is decidedly less. Filling even the existing numbers can be hard enough

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

I am sorry. I was unaware that we could not throw up for discussion anything that was not government policy on this thread...

No need for you to be sarcastic towards Assail. What he states is the reality. I strongly suggest that you apologise.

 

[ASSAIL]

No offence intended but the force we have is the one that Government is prepared to fund. There is no particular strategic imperative for the size of our current defence forces. We talk about generational change and other buzzwords but the reality is we effectively replace platforms more or less one for one and then write force structure documents in vague terms justifying this structure

The ‘manning constraints’ so often used as an excuse as to why we could not significantly expand the RAN or ADF more broadly is a function of the Government authorised strength of our forces, not the actual numbers of people we could recruit and train if these artificial caps were lifted.

The fact that we have effectively maintained the same sized surface combatant force for the last 45 years of more when our population has more than doubled is indicative of this.

I would disagree.
The Naval force we had in the 1960s and 70s was a force in response to the submarine threat posed by the Soviet Union and her client states hence, an ASW hunter killer force which bears no resemblance to today's RAN. We discovered its inadequacies during ET?
The force today is one with the ability to respond to out near neighbours in both defence and HADR circumstances and one which is capable of defending our SLOC to the near North. It is a far more rounded RAN than the one I joined in 1966.

It's true that the size of the force is similar to that of a generation before but it's depth and capability far exceed its predecessor.
During the Viet Nam conflict we spent 4% upwards of GDP on Defence and that obviously had ramifications to force structure most notably in Army and to a lesser extent Airforce but that was only a bubble in what has been a fairly constant although wavy allocation to defence by the Australian people. The only way that will change is if the economy grows and the 2% with it.

 

[Todjaeger]

I was reading about the distributed lethality concept which seems to effectively network the entire surface fleet.

'Distributed Lethality' Is The Surface Navy's Strategy For The Trump Era

Unless I am misunderstanding the concept of distributed lethality ... which is possible ... it means that the OPVs will already be effective combat vessels even if they aren't fitted with much more than what they already carry. They could operate as part of a networked group sharing information with other more powerful units. If that is the case you could probably get away with fitting them with a basic CIWS and they might simply serve as part of the kill chain allowing the navies new destroyers and frigates to fire their weapons remotely at extreme range.

Australia seems to have already taken a step in this direction with the mandating the all future naval vessels including the OPVs and new AORs be fitted with the SAAB Australia developed combat management system.

My take on Distributed Lethality is that it is similar to such developments for aircraft/the air force. What that essentially means is that the shooting platform and the sensing/detecting platform do not have to be one and the same.

With that in mind, I still do not see much of a role for either the SEA 1180 OPV's or the RAN's future AOR in distributed lethality, unless those vessels are going to be kitted out much better than expected or IMO even advisable. The armaments, at least as currently indicated, are not (IMO at least) at a minimum capable of basic self-defence, but instead are only sufficient vs. incoming hostile smallcraft. The OPV's and/or AOR would be vulnerable to hostile warships, aircraft, submarines, and AShM or torpedoes launched from any of the previously listed types of platforms. This would be exacerbated if the OPV's and/or AOR would be acting as a picket vessel.

In addition, while the vessels are to be fitted with the common 9LV CMS in use aboard the FFH's and LHD's, without comprehensive (and expensive) sensor fitouts like air & surface search radars, hull & towed sonar arrays, ESM, etc. the vessels would be unsuitable for the sensor role, in addition to already being unsuitable for the shooter role. Absent more capabilities than the SEA 1180 OPV design is currently understood to have, or major upgrades to the current design, I suspect the vessels would be little more than targets in a future shooting war.

I think these are all good suggestions and in the interests of the original question and delving into fantasy money land I would offer that any expansion of the RAN should concentrate on Warfare helos as you mention above and increasing the submarine fleet by a further 50% above the planned 12. Subs are the most effective force multiplier in our arsenal producing a strategic and tactical response way in excess of their actual numbers.
However, as Maritime and anti submarine warfare acquisitions already consume 25% of the entire planned investment in our defence force any non emergency increase is in the realm of fantasy.
The ACPBs and Capes are a complete aberration with a planned 15 year life and I doubt if they will ever be repeated, although Alex probably knows what the build rules are for the Lurssen replacement, I don't.

My interest in seeing more naval helicopters like the MH-60R 'Romeo' brought into service is their ability to participate and expand upon the capabilities of whatever group or task force they are assigned to. Having four or more 'Romeos' in a task force should permit one to stay aloft in most conditions, and provide an extended and expanded sensor footprint beyond what the vessels themselves could do. This is of course operating under the assumption that such a hypothetical RAN task force was operating outside of the range at which the RAAF could sustain land-based surveillance aircraft operations. On a related note, I would also like to see more such enabling systems like a closer to 1:1 replacement ratio for the AP-3C to P-8A, more E-7's, more AAR, etc.

Where things start to get questionable is how and where a RAN task force could have sufficient helicopters embarked to provide both an ASW when needed, and air/surface surveillance coverage. One of the LHD's definitely has sufficient helicopter spots, but utilizing them would degrade the LHD's ability to land, move and support embarked troops in their primary role.

As a side note, in the event of hostilities, having orbiting naval helicopters near some of Australia's major ports could help detect and deter (or destroy) unfriendly visitors and any 'tourists' they might attempt to deliver.

 

[hairyman]

No need for you to be sarcastic towards Assail. What he states is the reality. I strongly suggest that you apologise.

I have no intention to offend anyone, but ASSAIL has only partly answered my post. ignoring my reference to others, by whom I meant Peter Jennings and Mark Thomson both of ASPI,while ex PM Paul Keating has proposed a more independant stance for Australia,more rooted within the region. And Angus Houston estimates we would have to double our defence spending to replace the US Alliance.

I am aware that what ASSAIL states is the reality and government policy, but it is not set in stone, and can and should be changed.

 

[hairyman]

ASSAIL, I see you joined the RAN in 1966, so you should be like me, happily retired.

 

[vonnoobie]

My 2 cents.

The entire proposal about his increase centers around a larger budget based on his arguments. Finding money is easy (Though getting it diverted not so simple) however the biggest issue is personnel. For every ship based person statistically your looking at twice as many shore based if not more. It isnt a matter of finding a few hundred extra bodies but rather finding possibly thousands. On that alone his increase is dead and dusted.

Increase in helo assets. Probably the quickest, easiest and less risky approach. Easier to poach few hundred aviatiors from overseas then several thousand seaman/woman. If we could get 2 per each ship (Destroyers, Frigates, LHD's etc) we would have a potent force.

More submarines, Definitely better move then more surface ships. Simple numbers game surface ships could be swamped by opposition outnumbering us 2+ to 1, With submarines they need multiple ships per each one and the more we have the more area's they have to watch at any one time. With the size of there crews it would be easier to man them (Would have the time due to acquisition time frame).

To me though 2 things we could do.

1. Artificially lower the life of our submarines and surface combatants replacing them earlier while mothballing our other assets. Production wise such an approach has shown it wouldnt cost any more if down around 18/21 years of life, Younger though and may incur a cost. Would allow us to have a reserve fleet should it be needed (ie: replacing losses).

2. The thing that matters most. RESERVES. Not in ships or personnel but in fuel and munitions. Read recent article An enemy could cut off Australia ‘easily’ in which the ADF would be rendered useless in under 3 weeks due to lack of fuel reserves and missile stock piles. Before even getting more ships or aircraft we need to look at more at the sustainment and support side, More assets just means they will chew through what stock piles we currently have faster. Get the support side right so we can go for more then 3 weeks other wise the opposition doesnt have to beat us directly, Just make us starve our selves out.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Certainly Jim Molan has advocating for going above the 2% of GDP.
Jim has also been quite specific about his concerns regarding fuel and missile reserves.

I think spending much more than 2% is harder to argue in peacetime with no imminent threat.

You also have to ask is it expeditionary warfare, or something much closer to home?
Certainly Pyne seemed to indicate Australia was looking at manufacturing capability perhaps including things like missiles and other munitions. Not just buying stockpiles but actually having the capability to make stuff.

 

[Takao]

It's true that the size of the force is similar to that of a generation before but it's depth and capability far exceed its predecessor.
During the Viet Nam conflict we spent 4% upwards of GDP on Defence and that obviously had ramifications to force structure most notably in Army and to a lesser extent Airforce but that was only a bubble in what has been a fairly constant although wavy allocation to defence by the Australian people. The only way that will change is if the economy grows and the 2% with it.

I won't quibble with your higher comments about "to what end" - strategic justification needs to be in place before buying kit. It is something that not enough uniformed members understand, let alone random discussion boards. And I cannot question the increase in capability since 1966. But I will disagree with depth. I suggest that the RAN, and ADF as a whole, is considerably less deep than any time since at least pre-1939, if not pre-1914. We are more reliant than ever on overseas for everything, we have no redundancy for a major breakdown, let alone the sinking of a ship; our munitions and fuel holdings are abysmal and we don't make either in sufficient quantities in Australia any more. The logistics and support elements for the ADF and individual services are fragile and have little resilience. Finally, I suggest that the mistaken belief about our operations in the Middle East being something significant has seen our Navy (and definitely Army) slip into bad habits that suggest high end conflict within a SAG has been forgotten about in place of single ship operations.

Capability in terms of kit - yes. Depth? I'm not convinced

 

[vonnoobie]

Certainly Jim Molan has advocating for going above the 2% of GDP.
Jim has also been quite specific about his concerns regarding fuel and missile reserves.

I think spending much more than 2% is harder to argue in peacetime with no imminent threat.

You also have to ask is it expeditionary warfare, or something much closer to home?
Certainly Pyne seemed to indicate Australia was looking at manufacturing capability perhaps including things like missiles and other munitions. Not just buying stockpiles but actually having the capability to make stuff.

Yep, For most part by DWP they seem to already be looking at these issues. Not sure how but anything will be an improvement on current situation.

On side not, In regards to fuel and by extension munitions. What would be an appropriate stock pile ? 2 months? 3 months? 6 months?

 

[hauritz]

Certainly Jim Molan has advocating for going above the 2% of GDP.
Jim has also been quite specific about his concerns regarding fuel and missile reserves.

I think spending much more than 2% is harder to argue in peacetime with no imminent threat.

You also have to ask is it expeditionary warfare, or something much closer to home?
Certainly Pyne seemed to indicate Australia was looking at manufacturing capability perhaps including things like missiles and other munitions. Not just buying stockpiles but actually having the capability to make stuff.

I absolutely agree that Australia should manufacture its own missiles.

To start with if we had an in-country capability to build missiles we wouldn't need to stockpile them. The cost of maintaining a capacity to build these weapons could ironically be paid for by us not having to actually buy them.

The other thing that concerns me is that everytime we buy missiles from the US they announce it in congress along with details such as how many we are going to buy. This isn't information you would want to share with the world.

 

[SpazSinbad]

ASSAIL, I see you joined the RAN in 1966, so you should be like me, happily retired.

I joined Jan 1966: https://www.defencetalk.com/military/members/spazsinbad.34917/ but only 9.5 some years served. Retired? Sure.

 

[ADMk2]

I absolutely agree that Australia should manufacture its own missiles.

To start with if we had an in-country capability to build missiles we wouldn't need to stockpile them. The cost of maintaining a capacity to build these weapons could ironically be paid for by us not having to actually buy them.

The other thing that concerns me is that everytime we buy missiles from the US they announce it in congress along with details such as how many we are going to buy. This isn't information you would want to share with the world.

Those DSCA announcements announce the opening of an FMS case in relation to the particular products listed in the announcements. They don’t announce when further acquisitions are made within the already approved cases however, which is why you see announcements like Japan’s recent one for a whopping 4x SM-3 missiles. Their actual warstock will be purchased through that FMS case, but we won’t hear the details of it...

 

[Todjaeger]

I absolutely agree that Australia should manufacture its own missiles.

To start with if we had an in-country capability to build missiles we wouldn't need to stockpile them. The cost of maintaining a capacity to build these weapons could ironically be paid for by us not having to actually buy them.

The other thing that concerns me is that everytime we buy missiles from the US they announce it in congress along with details such as how many we are going to buy. This isn't information you would want to share with the world.

With respect to Australia engaging in domestic production of missiles, at what cost and in what quantity would this be viable?

As I understand it, Australia either already engages in some munitions manufacture (at Lithgow IIRC), or has manufactured some of the munitions in the past and retains tooling to restart or resume. This covers common munitions like 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, 12.7 mm and larger rounds like 76 mm, 105 mm, 127 mm and possibly 155 mm. Where things could easily become extremely expensive and problematic is if Australia attempted to maintain production for a range of sophisticated munitions.

The US manages maintaining production in part due to the US military and defence budgets being significantly larger so there is more funding for orders. The US also maintains a much larger warstock of munitions than most other nations. IIRC when strikes were being conducted in Libya, there were emergency orders placed for munitions in the US to restock depleted European warstocks.

I do agree that re-examining what is considered a sufficiently large warstock, but I feel it improbable that Australia could manage to maintain domestic production of all (or even many) of the munitions used. For one thing, the various smart, precision, and guided munitions are quite complex and require specialized training, facilities, and components to build. Australia could raise a workforce with the appropriate training, and build the proper facilities, but maintainer either would become a problem once the warstock order had been fulfilled. In the event of a major conflict which would be likely to disrupt trade and/or a potential munitions re-supply from the US, that would also most likely cut the supply of at least some components needed for high tech munitions.

There is the potential for Australia to raise and maintain some advanced munitions production, especially if there would be little export competition for producing that specific munition, but IMO the range of munitions Australia should have is too wide for such a small force to sustain the entire production capability.

 

[alexsa]

I have a suggestion on the above. Increase the number of naval helicopters and ensure that sufficient are in inventory to be operational whilst embarked on all major vessels. Also work/re-work to ensure that SEA 1180 vessels can have and support an embarked naval helicopter. As for where the sacrifice should be made in service... How does from PM&C and the MP's sound?

There are a number of ways that could be realized to expand the capabilities of the RAN. As Assail mentioned though there are issues of balance and affordability. I would like there to be more VLS cells available for a larger and wider range of missile loads than currently possible for the RAN. However, one problem with more VLS cells (apart from the cells themselves have acquisition and maintenance costs) is that getting enough munitions to fill those cells can be an expensive proposition.

What might be possible is to require all future RAN (as opposed to vessels in general gov't service) be built to naval as opposed to other build standards. I do not know about the SEA 1180 vessels, but the ACPB and I strongly suspect the Cape-class patrol boats in RAN service were built to HSC standards. I also believe that the ADV Ocean Protector was built to a civilian/commercial shipping standard, as opposed to a naval standard. By taking such a step, it could potentially aid from letting a ship with a 'glass jaw' into the fleet. Even for non-combat ships like the AOR, having improved damage control features should make RAN vessels more survivable in the event of an incident.

Good day all

Yes the Cape Class are built to the HSC Code and need to be managed within their operating envelope because of that. I would note that the vast majority of smaller vessels will have operating limitations based on strength and stability (or both). The CCPB were build to a particular commercial standard which would see the more prone to damage compared to a steel hull vessel in genera terms.

However, it would be wrong to say that all commercial vessels are built to a standard below that of warships. This is simply not correct as the structure of a commercial vessel will depend on what it is built for and to what Class notation is selected (noting the owner can aim higher where needs be). While Warships may have more compartmentisation it does not mean that commercial ships Sinke easier either and in many cases a commercial vessel will have a greater residue all stability than a warship because:
1. There are actually survivability rules that apply .....due in part to protect life but (more so in my cyniview) to protect the environment when one get clobbered in a collision or grounds .... and
2. Many commercial ships have large ballast volumes (because the are designed to carry cargo) meaning there is potentially quite a bit of scope to deal with flooding.

The type fo ship is also important. The Ocean Sheild and Ocean Protector are both ICE Class. While not fully ice capable they can play in ice prone waters. This means they are pretty bloody solid. The Antarctic vessel is an Ice Breaker designed to smash through ice over 1m thick inn atrocious conditions ...... and has considerable redundancy. This vessel would survive a lot of things a warship simply could not.

Lets go one step further .... livestock vessels (under the current rules in Australia) are required to be able to withstand a casualty to any service without that service being degraded to an unacceptable standard. This means everything is duplications (including fire fighting systems) and round from two completely independent power supplies. We have had engine room fires burn for 8 hours on one of these things (by which time they got it out) while the livestock were happily sitting in their pens with the duplication ensuring survives and fire fighting (including boundary cooling) ran without a hiccup.

To summarise ..... being built to a commercial standard does not necesssarily mean the vessel is less survivable than a vesssel built to warship (defence) standard. It is important to look at the vessel and the specifications applied. Finally many warship rules are now being developed by Class (such as LR) based on commercial standards as that is where there is a lot of R&D investment taht can be used in either type of vessel. By way of examples things that came from commercial vessels or are in the pipeline....
1. Pod drives
2. All electric ships
3. Shaft bearings and seals
4. Navigational systems (ECDIS, ARPA, AIS etc etc were not developed for warships)
5. Duel fuel engines
6. Large scale fueel cells
7. Automation ...... including UMS
8. Wast heat recovery (large scale)
9. Gas membrane tanks
10. Conformation type C gas tanks

Etc etc etc

 

[alexsa]

I think these are all good suggestions and in the interests of the original question and delving into fantasy money land I would offer that any expansion of the RAN should concentrate on Warfare helos as you mention above and increasing the submarine fleet by a further 50% above the planned 12. Subs are the most effective force multiplier in our arsenal producing a strategic and tactical response way in excess of their actual numbers.
However, as Maritime and anti submarine warfare acquisitions already consume 25% of the entire planned investment in our defence force any non emergency increase is in the realm of fantasy.
The ACPBs and Capes are a complete aberration with a planned 15 year life and I doubt if they will ever be repeated, although Alex probably knows what the build rules are for the Lurssen replacement, I don't.

I suspect they will rely largely on DNV-GL warship rules with an eye applied to German Warship regulation (noting GL before joining DNV was heavily involved in the classification of german warships). That was certainly the intonation on the ission packages discussed in the attached

Next-Generation.pdf | Anti Submarine Warfare | Navies

 

[ASSAIL]

I have no intention to offend anyone, but ASSAIL has only partly answered my post. ignoring my reference to others, by whom I meant Peter Jennings and Mark Thomson both of ASPI,while ex PM Paul Keating has proposed a more independant stance for Australia,more rooted within the region. And Angus Houston estimates we would have to double our defence spending to replace the US Alliance.

I am aware that what ASSAIL states is the reality and government policy, but it is not set in stone, and can and should be changed.

No offence taken.
Remember the IIP only covers Defence acquisition plans out to the 2030s and as and if the strategic circumstances change in out region so will our force structure in response. It's a very dynamic process and under constant review.

 

[ASSAIL]

ASSAIL, I see you joined the RAN in 1966, so you should be like me, happily retired.

You don't get that option when your family business continues to operate. In any case I think I'd go bonkers if I didn't go to work regularly, even if not full time anymore, and if I stayed at home my wife would divorce me in a month.

 

[Wombat000]

Oldsig wrote: "The reason our population can double without the Navy size doubling - the perceived risk ("What will happen if we don't do it?") is lower than in the aftermath of WW2, and the appetite of people who grew up beyond memory of those years for service is decidedly less."

Sadly, undeniable facts:
We are an island nation, dispersed of similar size to Europe,
We do not refine our own fuel,
There is not one single facet of modern society that doesn't ultimately rely on fuel.
Is there realistically a better question to ask than "what will happen if we don't?"

 

[hairyman]

I believe I read somewhere that we were considering a production line for ESSM missiles. I am not sure if it was for the Navy or the NASAM under consideration.

ASSAIL, your military or Navy service beats mine by a fair bit. 3 months National Service (Pucka) and 3 years CMF, shortened by Menzies thankfully. I did have a 30 year Police career, 20 years as a Detective, before retiring to take up farming.