Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

That’s 56 ships approved for Industry and Navy (yes of course the 2 x AORs are being built in Spain and the 21 x Pacific Patrol Boats are to be donated to our neighbours, but Australian industry will maintain them).

All of that stands in ‘stark’ contrast to the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government, not one single ship ordered, not one, and of course not taking up the option of the 4th AWD too.

I think it should be noted the white paper under Rudd outlines things like 12 new large submarines, 20 large OPV type ships, "7,000t" frigates. But I don't know how much any party of government had in that particular whitepaper. But I do remember how sceptical everyone was and how unbelievable all that sounded back then. I remember reading responses from international sites, a French one were extremely harsh, making comments of a navy of promises and paper and saying it would never happen.

But full props go to the coalition (particularly the current team, not Abbott and wacky canoe man) for translating that into a fully funded, contested and selected series of going and continuous ship building. That cannot be refuted. It isn't just the ships and the Navy either, honestly, despite things, all the ADF is in a very strong position and getting stronger every day.

I got to say on reflection I think all 3 major projects the subs, the frigates and the OPV's are all good selections and I am very happy with all three. They are definitely high end. Considering the long road to get to this point it all may have been worth it if it gets us to were we have now committed to go. Australia has surely made a very strong statement about its direction and purpose and I hope this means we will never need these in anger.

That is the type of cross commitment to defence from both parties, I hope to see that in the future as this runs along the long road. Best to put the issues in defence during the Rudd,Gillard, Rudd, Abbott into the past.

It appears to be i conflict with one of the changes in design philosophy that came about when the dreadnoughts first arrived ie all the main guns were concentrated on the centerline as they allowed a broadside to be fired with ALL main guns simultaneously. Not quite the same thing I know , but the same general philosophy.

For me 2 CIWS are better than one. Twice the munitions, more responsive, twice the rate of fire, redundancy. Some of the arcs will cross over (at the rear maybe?), but you have much wider arcs.

It is this kind of commitment and announcement that will see nearby smaller nations feel confident in their trust in Australia, above all others. I see the Pacific nations are going to formalise something very soon. Hopefully that again removes internal interference into this, as other nations will tell us to pull our head in if people do something silly.

 

[Redlands18]

Anyone have any recent news on the fitting of Phalanx to the LHDs...it was meant to happen pretty soon.

If i remember the article correctly it was said to happen in 2019 during the Canberra's first Refit.

 

[Jack Wyatt]

w

In the mid-eighties Codock was just finishing the AOR build and doing maintenance and dockings on the Oberon subs. It was heavily unionised and inefficient when measured against RN standards for dockings of their Oberon submarines. It was a sheltered workshop. The mooted second AOR was never ordered and a decision was made to find a " green fields" site for future Navy ship and submarine building. The leasee was told to get off the island and compensated. The island was then turned into a heritage site. I doubt it will ever be re-activated as a navy dockyard.

The rich history of Cockatoo Island in many ways centres around its workforce and unionism. Many workers were immigrants from the Clyde, from Newcastle and Liverpool who brought unionism with them. You will know that working conditions were poor and the unions through awards secured better conditions for its members. It's on www.cockatooisland.gov.au

 

[oldsig127]

The position of the two Phalanx weapon systems on the Type 26 has me intrigued. Are they placed laterally on the ship purely because there is no available real estate left on the centre line or is it due to some operational reason I'm unaware of?

Arcs of fire as well as real estate?

Dreadnought main armament turrets were placed on the sides to open up the firing arcs forward and aft of their position. On the centre line a midship turret can't fire anywhere but a (say) 90 degrees arc on either side, but placed off centre can fire perhaps 160 degrees on their own side. They eventually decided that chasing / running battles were unlikely and that a broadside from the centreline gave greater weight of fire in most situations since the ship could in fact be turned quickly enough.

Placed fore and aft two CIWS cover all 360 degrees and overlap on much of it *but* where to place the forward CIWS? Forward of the bridge is pretty well filled, on top is the domain of a forest of sensors and other obstructions . Anywhere else and there's no coverage forward, so out on the superstructure wings is a decent compromise.

But this is speculation by me. My field is data comms and not gunnery!

oldsig

 

[Stampede]

Arcs of fire as well as real estate?

Dreadnought main armament turrets were placed on the sides to open up the firing arcs forward and aft of their position. On the centre line a midship turret can't fire anywhere but a (say) 90 degrees arc on either side, but placed off centre can fire perhaps 160 degrees on their own side. They eventually decided that chasing / running battles were unlikely and that a broadside from the centreline gave greater weight of fire in most situations since the ship could in fact be turned quickly enough.

Placed fore and aft two CIWS cover all 360 degrees and overlap on much of it *but* where to place the forward CIWS? Forward of the bridge is pretty well filled, on top is the domain of a forest of sensors and other obstructions . Anywhere else and there's no coverage forward, so out on the superstructure wings is a decent compromise.

But this is speculation by me. My field is data comms and not gunnery!

oldsig

Phalanx CIWS position.

As a clean slate I'd suggest a forward and aft position would offer a full 360 degree cover plus some inter locking fire.
However I'd speculate there may be an increased benefit of stability having the CIWS close to the middle of the ship.
Trying to hit an incoming object potentially travelling at Mach 3 with a out going 20mm round doing a similar speed is a tough ask.
It would take a amazing stabilization system on the CIWS mount to achieve this end. A heaving and pitching ship is the enemy of stability so just maybe a central location has a benefit over the forward and aft location.
For myself I think Phalanx has had its day, but I confess not to know its true capability and I'm sure those who do are not in a position to say.

But It's what we have until a substitute is found so better to have it than not.

Regards S

 

[aussienscale]

Phalanx CIWS position.

As a clean slate I'd suggest a forward and aft position would offer a full 360 degree cover plus some inter locking fire.
However I'd speculate there may be an increased benefit of stability having the CIWS close to the middle of the ship.
Trying to hit an incoming object potentially travelling at Mach 3 with a out going 20mm round doing a similar speed is a tough ask.
It would take a amazing stabilization system on the CIWS mount to achieve this end. A heaving and pitching ship is the enemy of stability so just maybe a central location has a benefit over the forward and aft location.
For myself I think Phalanx has had its day, but I confess not to know its true capability and I'm sure those who do are not in a position to say.

But It's what we have until a substitute is found so better to have it than not.

Regards S

Thinking along the right lines guys, but Old Sig almost had it !! It is not just about firing arcs, you have to think that it is another system amongst a system of sytems, RF interference is a major factor to be taken into account, it is all about compromise and making all the parts of the puzzle fit.

Put one piece of kit in the perfect desired position, then where do you put the next ? oh, now that is affecting the transmission of that, oh crap, no that cant see that, oh no, now that can't talk to that, bugger now that is interfering with that. Oh well lets move that, that has fixed it ??? ..........

Very complicated matrix and risk assessment to come up with the answer and design

Cheers

 

[Oberon]

w

The rich history of Cockatoo Island in many ways centres around its workforce and unionism. Many workers were immigrants from the Clyde, from Newcastle and Liverpool who brought unionism with them. You will know that working conditions were poor and the unions through awards secured better conditions for its members. It's on www.cockatooisland.gov.au

Yes, I recall the workers had no lunch room and mainly had to spend their breaks sitting on the asphalt outdoors. I only spent a year "on the rock" before moving on to bigger and better things.

 

[Jack Wyatt]

Regardless of your feelings for the workers, their politics or beliefs, it is important to capture its history, and for that matter the history of Sydney as a working harbour, for future generations.

The Bays Precinct, which incorporates Glebe Island, White Bay Power Station, and Wentworth Park among other sites, is identified as a State Significant Precinct by the NSW Government under State Planning Law. This means the Minister for Planning is of the view the area contains social, economic or environmental characteristics of State significance.

www.planning,nsw.gov.au contains this information including links to the Bays Precinct and State significant development.

There is a long term vision for the future of Sydney Harbour, similar to the vision Paul Keating had for Barangaroo. I know John Newman if you chose to visit Barangaroo you will remember Keating's vision and the work of all levels of government including the many non Defence professionals who made this happen.

 

[John Newman]

I think it should be noted the white paper under Rudd outlines things like 12 new large submarines, 20 large OPV type ships, "7,000t" frigates. But I don't know how much any party of government had in that particular whitepaper. But I do remember how sceptical everyone was and how unbelievable all that sounded back then. I remember reading responses from international sites, a French one were extremely harsh, making comments of a navy of promises and paper and saying it would never happen.

But full props go to the coalition (particularly the current team, not Abbott and wacky canoe man) for translating that into a fully funded, contested and selected series of going and continuous ship building. That cannot be refuted. It isn't just the ships and the Navy either, honestly, despite things, all the ADF is in a very strong position and getting stronger every day.

I got to say on reflection I think all 3 major projects the subs, the frigates and the OPV's are all good selections and I am very happy with all three. They are definitely high end. Considering the long road to get to this point it all may have been worth it if it gets us to were we have now committed to go. Australia has surely made a very strong statement about its direction and purpose and I hope this means we will never need these in anger.

That is the type of cross commitment to defence from both parties, I hope to see that in the future as this runs along the long road. Best to put the issues in defence during the Rudd,Gillard, Rudd, Abbott into the past.

Hi Mate,

Wouldn’t disagree with you at all regarding the 2009 Rudd DWP, it did indeed set the stage for the 12 x Submarines, 8 x large Future Frigates and the 20 x OPVs (to replace the 26 ACPBs, mine warfare and two classes of Hydrographic ships), agree, all true.

By the time we got to the 2013 Gillard DWP, the goal posts had been moved, yes the 12 x Submarines were still there, so were the 8 x large Future frigates, but the 20 x OPVs had been pushed way off into the distance (I’ve just been re-reading the 2013 DWP).

The Gillard DWP plan was to replace the ACPBs with another, as they called it, a ‘proven’ vessel (probably another version of the ACPBs), and upgrade the mine warfare and hydrographic fleet.

As we well know during that period, the then Government was distracted and obviously too busy with it’s own internal squabbles, and the net result of those six years was no ships ordered for the RAN and the option of the 4th AWD lapsed, historical fact.

We will never know what an Abbott DWP might have contained, the Libs decided to ‘repeat history’ and start their own internal war of playing leadership ‘musical chairs’ by copying the ALP (will these children on both sides of politics ever grow up? Don’t think so!).

Which then brings us to the 2016 Turnbull DWP, we see a continuation of the 12 x Submarines , the 8 x large Future Frigates grew into 9 x large Future Frigates (in some respects the 9th FFG makes up for the previous potential 4th AWD), personally I think the 9th ships is less about making up for the 4th AWD and more about the Continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan (more about that later).

And we saw a ‘part’ restoration of the 2009 Rudd DWP for 20 x OPV, 12 x OPV to replace the ACPBs and an upgrade of the Mine Warfare fleet (similar to the Gillard plan), and something out of ‘left field’ for the Hydrographic fleet, a combination of a Commercial and Military solution (whatever that will eventually mean?).

So yes, hats off to Rudd for starting the ball rolling (the less said about both Gillard and Abbott the better), and finally delivered by the Turnbull Government.

Where I think the current Government has been smart (read, politically smart), is producing the Continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan, it’s going to be a brave (or stupid) future Government that tinkers too much with that plan (hopefully not, in my opinion).

As for the Continuous plan, twelve major fleet units is probably just enough to keep the 24mth drumbeat going, plus of course the 12 Future Submarines and the minor vessels to be built in WA into the future too.

Whilst we all know the ‘average punter’ in the street knows (or cares) little about Navy and Defence, they certainly know about bread and butter issues like employment, continuing employment.

So again that’s where I think the current Government has been politically smart, they have set the stage with their various announcements and decisions, and it’s smart politics in the smaller states like SA and WA, where a continuation of employment for a particular industry is noticeable if it lives or dies (one or two seats in a future Federal election can mean the difference between sitting on the Government benches or being the opposition for another three years!).

Cheers,

 

[hauritz]

Hi Mate,

As we well know during that period, the then Government was distracted and obviously too busy with it’s own internal squabbles, and the net result of those six years was no ships ordered for the RAN and the option of the 4th AWD lapsed, historical fact.

And we saw a ‘part’ restoration of the 2009 Rudd DWP for 20 x OPV, 12 x OPV to replace the ACPBs and an upgrade of the Mine Warfare fleet (similar to the Gillard plan), and something out of ‘left field’ for the Hydrographic fleet, a combination of a Commercial and Military solution (whatever that will eventually mean?).

We may yet regret the decision not to take up the option for the 4th AWD.

Given that the new frigate is a brand new and totally untested design a 4th destroyer entering service in the early 2020s would have been a useful cover in case there are any delays with the Hunter class.

It looks like the navy might just get a single vessel to replace its existing Hydrographic/Oceanographic fleet.

ADECS 2018: Australia hunts for new hydrographic survey ship

It sounds like the navy will restrict itself to just a strategic military survey capability and hand off the other responsibilities to civilian organisations.

 

[MickB]

It is easy to forget that the Perth is only 12 years old, barely run in and only just past the 1/3 mark of its life expectancy. The ANZACS will still need significant Refits down the track.

What form do you see this refit taking, sensors/propulsion?
Will it be all 8 Anzacs or just those intended to serve the longest?

 

[ASSAIL]

HMAS Warramunga home from a 9 month deployment to the ME.
It was a fantastic effort, over 31 tonnes of narcotics seized, BZ to all her Ships Company

Royal Australian Navy

 

[Redlands18]

What form do you see this refit taking, sensors/propulsion?
Will it be all 8 Anzacs or just those intended to serve the longest?

Mick one of the RAN guys on here replied to this post, saying that it will only be fairly minor Refits from here on(except for the CEAFAR upgrade).
I was probably wrong to say Signifigant Refits instead of several. my bad From what i have gathered you can't add any more top weight to the ANZACS(reason they don't have a Phalanx CIWS)

 

[seaspear]

I dont believe I would be wrong to suggest that if a need for a higher level of AAW was identified ., then a future stage of the frigates build program could me modified to increase that capability and capacity

 

[StingrayOZ]

Where I think the current Government has been smart (read, politically smart), is producing the Continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan, it’s going to be a brave (or stupid) future Government that tinkers too much with that plan (hopefully not, in my opinion).

As for the Continuous plan, twelve major fleet units is probably just enough to keep the 24mth drumbeat going, plus of course the 12 Future Submarines and the minor vessels to be built in WA into the future too.

Whilst we all know the ‘average punter’ in the street knows (or cares) little about Navy and Defence, they certainly know about bread and butter issues like employment, continuing employment.

So again that’s where I think the current Government has been politically smart, they have set the stage with their various announcements and decisions, and it’s smart politics in the smaller states like SA and WA, where a continuation of employment for a particular industry is noticeable if it lives or dies (one or two seats in a future Federal election can mean the difference between sitting on the Government benches or being the opposition for another three years!).

Cheers,

I just hope both parties can remain consistent and take a lot of the destructive politics out of it. How many defence ministers have we had over the past 15 years? Part of the problem lies there.

I think the future has defence, in particular naval ship building integrated into Australia in a non-removable way. Which is great, and will flow benefits to everyone and all services. I recall something about the Bushmasters armour plate being either developed from submarine steel (or some process or technology used for submarine steel) or the process to join and shape it. GT engines, systems, integration also will flow onto the RAAF.

That kind of build commitment is also going to mean a lot to small and big allies a like.

For states like SA and WA, it will mean a huge amount to them. But the work share is national.

I think the only ones that will be annoyed, is those working against Australia's and the regions interests.

 

[MickB]

Curious about the division of taskings once the RAN has a mix of both Anzac and Hunter class ships.

A. Will the Hunters, with their superior sensor and weapon fit do the solo missions. Leaving the Anzacs to team with the AWDs to form escort groups for the LHDs etc.

Or

B. Will the Hunters with their superior ASW suite be the prime escort for the LHDs.

Not talking about contested areas, in that case I would assume it would be all available hands on deck.
But in general day to day operations.

 

[hauritz]

I just hope both parties can remain consistent and take a lot of the destructive politics out of it. How many defence ministers have we had over the past 15 years? Part of the problem lies there.

I think the future has defence, in particular naval ship building integrated into Australia in a non-removable way. Which is great, and will flow benefits to everyone and all services. I recall something about the Bushmasters armour plate being either developed from submarine steel (or some process or technology used for submarine steel) or the process to join and shape it. GT engines, systems, integration also will flow onto the RAAF.

That kind of build commitment is also going to mean a lot to small and big allies a like.

For states like SA and WA, it will mean a huge amount to them. But the work share is national.

I think the only ones that will be annoyed, is those working against Australia's and the regions interests.

All the big defence decisions have already been made and everything has been mapped out for the next 30 years. At this stage I don't see either political party wanting to interfere with these programs because it could either cost them votes in some key electorates or would incur some pretty hefty financial penalties if they try to renege on existing contracts.

 

[ASSAIL]

Curious about the division of taskings once the RAN has a mix of both Anzac and Hunter class ships.

A. Will the Hunters, with their superior sensor and weapon fit do the solo missions. Leaving the Anzacs to team with the AWDs to form escort groups for the LHDs etc.

Or

B. Will the Hunters with their superior ASW suite be the prime escort for the LHDs.

Not talking about contested areas, in that case I would assume it would be all available hands on deck.
But in general day to day operations.

The tasking will depend on the operation and the strategic/tactical circumstance however, if you’re talking about ME deployments I would be amazed if an 8,500 ASW escort would be deployed for that role while the Anzacs are still around.
Who knows what the world situation will be in the 2040s once all the Anzacs are gone.

The Hunters are the primary surface ASW asset and as such would always be assigned to those duties in a TG.

However, I’m sure a bit of flag waving, soft diplomacy will come their way on a regular basis.

 

[alexsa]

The tasking will depend on the operation and the strategic/tactical circumstance however, if you’re talking about ME deployments I would be amazed if an 8,500 ASW escort would be deployed for that role while the Anzacs are still around.
Who knows what the world situation will be in the 2040s once all the Anzacs are gone.

The Hunters are the primary surface ASW asset and as such would always be assigned to those duties in a TG.

However, I’m sure a bit of flag waving, soft diplomacy will come their way on a regular basis.

I suspect we may see the OPVs range further as they would be well suited to drug interdiction role if they carried a containerised UAV. It would really depend on the nature of the task and the threat .

 

[Stampede]

Agree

It will be very interesting as to how this new class of ship are used.
I'm sure they will be regular visitors / ambassadors to our near neighbours

Regards S.