Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

I believe the general feeling is you need something helicopter capable and able to embark a helo. So it will be Anzacs then followed by Hunters.

An Arafura fitted with a telescopic hangar, mini-typhoons, maybe a CIWS phalanx, embarking a an AS350 and a camcopter I would have thought, again ideal. Not just for the M.E, but also for the hairier spots of SEA or off Africa.

Even if its not an every day thing, but only when the hunters are pressed in to more high end services.

I see HMAS Hobart had some practice in enforcing EEZ and constabulary duties in the bass straight recently.

 

[ASSAIL]

The OPVs could cope with Indian Ocean anti piracy patrols and drug intercepts. In fact they’re probably better equipped with the 12 metre centre launched RHIB provided the had a UAV embarked.
However, the plan is to use them closer to home with the occasional soirée further afield.
My gut feel is that the focus on our Pacific neighbours may see then used on quite long duration patrols into the Pacific, at least that’s what I would plan it I had input into the fleet programme.

 

[spoz]

Must have been last year, or maybe even 2017. Bass Strait, or the EAXA? She was in Hobart for the Regatta last year, and visited Adelaide in April.

 

[ASSAIL]

Must have been last year, or maybe even 2017. Bass Strait, or the EAXA? She was in Hobart for the Regatta last year, and visited Adelaide in April.

It was before commissioning on the delivery transit from Adelaide to FBE.
They were tying to conduct some test 5” firings and needed a clear range.

 

[Stampede]

The February issue of DTR magazine has an article on the options for the pacific support ship.

There is also an article on the USMC interest in the 70m Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) by Australian company Sea Transport Solutions. The vessel has a 1,650t cargo capacity and area for 9 Abrams and 3 LAV-25s.

Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2019, Page 1

Thanks for the link
An interesting design.
I'm interested as to the propulsion set up.
I take it that there is some type of water jet system that can be utilised forward and aft.
I've had a search for SLV's to find some graphics of the system but have had no success.
Would be interested to know more about the concept and how it works.
Any assistance always appreciated.

Regards S

 

[oldsig127]

I've had a search for SLV's to find some graphics of the system but have had no success.
Would be interested to know more about the concept and how it works.
Any assistance always appreciated.

Regards S

I'm sure that this has been posted previously but I can't find it, so apologise in advance if late to the party. Youtube, but sourced from the designer's website

oldsig

 

[Stampede]

There hasn't been a whole lot of released information about the Pacific Support Ship but if this article is anything to go by then it seems that it could tie in with Australia's seemingly abandoned plans to replace the LCHs. Having said that I think something like the LST 120 is just too small.

The more I think about it the more I believe that maybe the Choules would be the quickest and easiest option. Perhaps just transfer the Choules to the fulltime HADR role and replace it with a more capable ship for the navy's strategic sealift role.

The Damen LST 120 often comes up in conversation.
I'm just wondering how practical are vessels of this size for landing and extracting at will form a beach.
This design is for a large ship, not dissimilar to the former HMAS Tobruk and other such LST's utilised around the world.
I understand that in Tobruk's 30 year service life, actual beach landings were more of a special occurrence rather than a regular event.
If as alluded in the article a large LST type ship may be considered for the Pacific Support Ship Role, I really wonder if such a vessel by itself is appropriate to land and support a disaster zone.
Tobruk certainly gave the ADF sterling service so I appreciate it's wonderful logistic capacity for a ship of it's size.
Maybe thinking that a well dock and helicopter platform with hangar would be the preferred way to go for the PSS.
Still interested in the ability or not of parking big things on beaches.


Regards s

 

[Boatteacher]

The Damen LST 120 often comes up in conversation.
I'm just wondering how practical are vessels of this size for landing and extracting at will form a beach.

To open up the issue you raise further, my understanding was that the WW2 versions of these ships only had a certain number of landings in them. After that the accumulated damage from grounding the ship on unprepared surfaces rendered them unsatisfactory for further service. Now these were built and operated in a condition of a war emergency.

I don't doubt that both the design concept and OP have matured, but surely every landing of a large ship carries with it the risk of damage from an unsurveyed obstacle or stress inducing terrain at the very least. In an exersise, it may well be the case that the LZ is carefully surveyed first. But this can hardly happen in an opposed landing or - more relevantly - even after a disaster where the water may be turgid and strewn with debris.

No doubt, there are people on this forum who would have more live experience with these issues.

 

[foxdemon]

We also do not tolerate fantasy fleets or discussions and inevitably that is where theoretical discussions lead.

So no talk about 15,000 ton nuclear powered cruisers armed with maser arrays in the megawatt range?

Defence pro response: “Only what you see, pal”.


On the subject of frigates, has anyone commented on this article yet?

‘You’re on your own’: US sealift can’t count on Navy escorts in the next big war


It seems there is a serious lack of capacity in escorts. Now, some are talking about Australia going it alone but realistically any major war in the region will involved multinational cooperation. It would be helping to fill this escort short fall that the RAN’s frigates and replenishment vessels would make a useful contribution to the collective effort.

With 9 frigates and 3 replenishment vessels, 3 escort groups could be formed. That would be one escort group available at a time. If the New Zealand navy had 3 frigates and a replenishment vessel, and the Canadian navy could have 6 frigates and 2 replenishment vessels in the Pacific, there would be 6 such groups. If we added 18 USN FFG(X) and 6 more replenishment vessels, there would be 12 escort groups, or 4 at sea. That would be closer to what is needed.

Reinforced with some AWDs, these groups would cover amphibious task groups.

To look at it another way, America would probably have 6 of their carriers in the Pacific. Possible 3 dozen Arleigh Burke destroyers. In a major war, that would be the core of the main battle fleet. Typically it could only be in one or two places at once. It would be those frigate flotillas doing most of the sea control stuff. Capital ships tend to be concentrated.

The Japanese navy has 4 SAGs, as I understand it. They sit half way between an escort group and a fleet carrier strike group. I think they would be fully occupied trying to escort supply ships to and from Japan, given Japan has the same weakness as the UK in respect to vulnerability to sea interdiction.

So for countries like Australia and NZ, it is building up frigate groups that would be most helpful by freeing up the more powerful ships to fight fleet actions. This is why we need all 9 type 26 frigates (and NZ needs 3 frigates).

 

[spoz]

It was before commissioning on the delivery transit from Adelaide to FBE.
They were tying to conduct some test 5” firings and needed a clear range.

All firings were conducted after commissioning (policy not to do any beforehand when the ship was being operated by a civilian crew), so if that’s what they were doing they’re in the EAXA and the guys in the boat shouldn’t have been there, even if the ship’s on Beecroft. Range clearance is normally done with a helo, so it’s a bit surpring they didn’t see that first, although maybe it saw them and that’s why the close approach.

 

[ASSAIL]

All firings were conducted after commissioning (policy not to do any beforehand when the ship was being operated by a civilian crew), so if that’s what they were doing they’re in the EAXA and the guys in the boat shouldn’t have been there, even if the ship’s on Beecroft. Range clearance is normally done with a helo, so it’s a bit surpring they didn’t see that first, although maybe it saw them and that’s why the close approach.

The fishing boat had come from Lakes Entrance and I can’t remember how far South the EAXA comes but I didn’t think it came that far.

What the video shows however is just how ignorant the yobo recreational fishers are in general. I would have thought a radio operators licence was mandatory and that electronic charts (if they were using them) would show the restricted areas.
These numbnuts had no idea other than go and drag fish out of the ocean.

 

[hauritz]

Considering that our manpower pool is likely to remain somewhat constant and a limiting factor in acquiring more vessels, perhaps reducing the Hunter class build from nine to six and using the 540+ crew envisioned for those three vessels to crew a fleet of smaller combatants like Saab's stealthy steel/composite next generation corvette/FlexPatrol-98 would be a better solution. With each requiring a complement of just 80, this would enable three additional surface combatants (15) in the water with a new class of six multirole patrol corvettes that would fill a niche between the Arafura class OPV's and Hunter class FFG's- being able to support up to 10x containerized mission modules with a large mission bay and stern ramp similar to the OPV's for mine countermeasures, survey, humanitarian assistance/disaster relief etc. whilst at the same time possessing near identical warfighting capabilities as the AMCAP upgraded ANZAC class FFH. The design also seems well suited to our geographic requirements with a range of 5,000nmi+ @ 15kts as opposed to similar concepts like the littoral combat ships whilst its carbon-fibre superstructure would go a long way in reducing the top-weight issues found in small combatants such as the ANZAC's. Just a thought.


The next generation Corvette | Multi-mission advantage | Saab
https://saabgroup.com/globalassets/...ad-2017/saabnavalsolutions_brief_laad_eng.pdf

Numbers of hulls are important but not at the expense of large escorts such as the Hunter class.

I wouldn't want to see Australia go down the British path of trading off large escorts for less capable ships.

I think a new class of corvette is inevitable but probably more as a direct replacement for the Arafura class sometime in the late 30s early 40s. Every new generation of patrol vessel has been larger and more capable than its predecessor and I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

Also our defence force is becoming more networked with just about every surface ship and aircraft more or less part of an integrated kill chain regardless of whether or not it is actually armed itself. The only advantage I can see with an armed corvette was if the mission was time critical and no other assets were available.

 

[OldNavy63]

The fishing boat had come from Lakes Entrance and I can’t remember how far South the EAXA comes but I didn’t think it came that far.

What the video shows however is just how ignorant the yobo recreational fishers are in general. I would have thought a radio operators licence was mandatory and that electronic charts (if they were using them) would show the restricted areas.
These numbnuts had no idea other than go and drag fish out of the ocean.

Had Hobart launched a RHIB the yobs would have pulled up their hoodies, declared they’d “done nuthin” and were just waiting for a mate!

 

[spoz]

An operator’s licence is mandatory for VHF, so if they were up on 16 then they should have had one but the evidence is certainly against it! Just had a look at the chart, can’t see anything anywhere near Lake’s Entrance other than the oil ang gas installations; nearest part of the EAXA is up north of Twofold Bay. Might have been something temporary of course.

 

[old faithful]

The fishing boat had come from Lakes Entrance and I can’t remember how far South the EAXA comes but I didn’t think it came that far.

What the video shows however is just how ignorant the yobo recreational fishers are in general. I would have thought a radio operators licence was mandatory and that electronic charts (if they were using them) would show the restricted areas.
These numbnuts had no idea other than go and drag fish out of the ocean.

Which is what our defence force is for....to protect the rights of the civilian population , so that they can perdue activities like recreational fishing.
Beecroft peninsular is unique in that game fish like Yellofin tuna and black marlin can be caught close to and even from the shore. It juts out into the pacific some 5km catching the current and causing eddies that keep game fish there for extended periods of time.
Rec fishers were told they had been banned from certain ledges due to environmental damage that they caused by driving 4x4 vehicles off track. Ha! More damage than a 5" shell? More damage than 1000lb bomb?
Yobbo rec fishers used take risks , and most are well aware of exclusion zones.
Perhaps another , alternate range would have been a better idea, Beecroft is to beautiful and unique to use as a firing range, its also very close to Currarong.
Yobbo fishers were regularly members of our defence force(like me) and several other soldiers and sailors from Albatross, and I will admit to accessing the range when the red flags were up.

 

[ASSAIL]

Which is what our defence force is for....to protect the rights of the civilian population , so that they can perdue activities like recreational fishing.
Beecroft peninsular is unique in that game fish like Yellofin tuna and black marlin can be caught close to and even from the shore. It juts out into the pacific some 5km catching the current and causing eddies that keep game fish there for extended periods of time.
Rec fishers were told they had been banned from certain ledges due to environmental damage that they caused by driving 4x4 vehicles off track. Ha! More damage than a 5" shell? More damage than 1000lb bomb?
Yobbo rec fishers used take risks , and most are well aware of exclusion zones.
Perhaps another , alternate range would have been a better idea, Beecroft is to beautiful and unique to use as a firing range, its also very close to Currarong.
Yobbo fishers were regularly members of our defence force(like me) and several other soldiers and sailors from Albatross, and I will admit to accessing the range when the red flags were up.

Except that this was Bass Strait, the Eastern end, not Beecroft Range, and most rec fishers from the ADF have boat licences (except NT), they register their boats and they have basic voice procedure.
OT
I’ve had to deal with boozed up idiot fishers on Darwin harbour for 30 years and it’s plain dangerous, particularly at night.

 

[ngatimozart]

So no talk about 15,000 ton nuclear powered cruisers armed with maser arrays in the megawatt range?

If powered by a twin flux capacitor with an output in the gigawatt range possibly.

It seems there is a serious lack of capacity in escorts. Now, some are talking about Australia going it alone but realistically any major war in the region will involved multinational cooperation. It would be helping to fill this escort short fall that the RAN’s frigates and replenishment vessels would make a useful contribution to the collective effort.

With 9 frigates and 3 replenishment vessels, 3 escort groups could be formed. That would be one escort group available at a time. If the New Zealand navy had 3 frigates and a replenishment vessel, and the Canadian navy could have 6 frigates and 2 replenishment vessels in the Pacific, there would be 6 such groups. If we added 18 USN FFG(X) and 6 more replenishment vessels, there would be 12 escort groups, or 4 at sea. That would be closer to what is needed.

Reinforced with some AWDs, these groups would cover amphibious task groups.

To look at it another way, America would probably have 6 of their carriers in the Pacific. Possible 3 dozen Arleigh Burke destroyers. In a major war, that would be the core of the main battle fleet. Typically it could only be in one or two places at once. It would be those frigate flotillas doing most of the sea control stuff. Capital ships tend to be concentrated.

The Japanese navy has 4 SAGs, as I understand it. They sit half way between an escort group and a fleet carrier strike group. I think they would be fully occupied trying to escort supply ships to and from Japan, given Japan has the same weakness as the UK in respect to vulnerability to sea interdiction.

So for countries like Australia and NZ, it is building up frigate groups that would be most helpful by freeing up the more powerful ships to fight fleet actions. This is why we need all 9 type 26 frigates (and NZ needs 3 frigates).

First NZ & FFGs. Definitely 3 FFGs minimum, with 4 being better. The only issue that I see with the replenishment ship, Aotearoa, is that its speed is 16 kt which in IMHO is about 6 kt to slow.

I just wonder if 3 FFGs per escort group will be enough. The escorts will be high priority targets because once they are taken out, then the rest of the convoy are basically sitting ducks and can be picked off relatively easily, almost at leisure. There is also the missile load out and subsequent magazine depletion of SAMs to consider if a saturation or series of saturation attacks are encountered. At the present point in time, reloading missiles at sea isn't an evolution that is performed, so once you run out you are reduced to guns. Therefore what number of FFG should be considered optimal for such an escort group?

 

[Rob c]

I just wonder if 3 FFGs per escort group will be enough. The escorts will be high priority targets because once they are taken out, then the rest of the convoy are basically sitting ducks and can be picked off relatively easily, almost at leisure.

I wonder if a convoy system could even be made to work in the modern world of long range sub and air launched weapons. It would appear that any attempt at a convoy would mean keeping any attacking submarines or aircraft outside of the range of their weapon systems and that is becoming increasingly difficult due to the ranges these weapons have or are projected to have in the future. With the increasing use of stealth aircraft and the fact that the modern sub is very stealthy you may not even know of their presents until they discharge their weapons at you from a significant distance from you.+. Are we going to be left in a situation of simply having to try and destroy incoming weapons? Has the convoy had its day? Do we need to protect an area or lane and allow shipping to pass through it?

 

[Wombat000]

Fuel.
Because of slow uptake of civilian 'alternate fuelled vehicles', the ADF is forced to share its fuel with the greater national supply.
We don't produce our own fuel.
Without fuel, society stops, pretty ADF kit becomes statues.

I think we need to protect shipping lanes on both sides of the continent.

 

[Takao]

I wonder if a convoy system could even be made to work in the modern world of long range sub and air launched weapons. It would appear that any attempt at a convoy would mean keeping any attacking submarines or aircraft outside of the range of their weapon systems and that is becoming increasingly difficult due to the ranges these weapons have or are projected to have in the future. With the increasing use of stealth aircraft and the fact that the modern sub is very stealthy you may not even know of their presents until they discharge their weapons at you from a significant distance from you.+. Are we going to be left in a situation of simply having to try and destroy incoming weapons? Has the convoy had its day? Do we need to protect an area or lane and allow shipping to pass through it?

Absolutely it would.

The advantage of the convoy system was two-fold.

First, it reduced the chance of ship detection. As big as the ocean is, there wasn't too much of a difference between a single ship and forty. But, with 40 spread all over, it would be easier for detectors to find ships. To some extent, the advent of satellites has impacted this - but for a war against that type of enemy (one that can interdict convoys or needs convoying against), there is a good chance (a) those satellites are looking elsewhere or (b) those satellites can be jammed / destroyed.

If that fails, it brings up the second advantage to convoys - it concentrates escorts. There will never be enough escorts to support all this shipping needed. Add to that, as with most platforms, two escorts is not twice as capable than one, its something like 2.5 - 3 times. So an escort of 5 - 10 ships is a very potent force, and it doesn't matter if there are 5 or 50 cargo ships in the convoy. Those escorts may not be positioned as per 1943, but that is a threat response that is natural. While submarines are very effective weapons, they do have their own drawbacks that a convoy commander (or wider Maritime Commander) can take advantage of.

Ultimately, you will never defend a SLOC from end-to-end (unless it's across the Bass Strait). They are just too big. So you seek to establish local control over a part of the sea (in a convoy's case, that bit keeps moving). And you'll also always need ships, as they are the cheapest way of moving bulk stuff - and some bulk stuff can only be moved via ships.