Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Wombat000]

I reckon you're correct Takao, ships will be in very short supply, (offensive tasking a luxury?),
and sonar bouys will need to be belt fed! Can you imagine how many of those they'd go thru!!

 

[foxdemon]

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

I was just being silly with the maser armed cruisers. Of course maritime recon satellites pass over all the earth surface so it is only necessary to build suitable directed energy weapons next to power stations in order to fry those satellite’s aerials. No need to put those weapons on a ship.

But it is vitally important to fry the satellites faster than the enemy can replace them. Japan is particularly vulnerable to sea interdiction. They won’t have a chance if ballistic missiles and other forms of long range attack are free to target whatever ships they like.


Regarding numbers of frigates for escorts, I chose the number 3 on the basis that this force structure would be the skeleton on which to build task forces. Maybe extra frigates from France, SG, Chile etc would be available? Between Australia, NZ, Hawaii, Panama, US west coast, the threat will be the odd marauding SSN. Relatively small escort groups might cope, assuming they had 2 helicopters each.

The problem will be keeping Guam, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea supplied. That will be in range of air strikes, conventional subs, missiles boats, etc. 3 frigates would need a lot of AWD reinforcement, possibly SSN support. Stealth bombers could strike airfields operating long range strike aircraft, also deploy those new US stand off, air delivered naval mines outside enemy ports, and so take the pressure off the escorts.

The Americans really need to keep their carriers in one piece. The threat of capital ships can be as effective as their use. It will be that fleet that will prevent the Chinese surface fleet from operating freely in the Pacific. I am a little worried about all the talk of sending the carriers in to save the day. If they get sunk, we might lose. So typically the carrier strike groups won’t be escorting supply convoys to Asia.

Rather, it will be our little frigates and their crews that will cop the brunt of it. It is essential to keep sea lanes open to our Asian allies or they will fold. Particularly Japan. I don’t think they can feed themselves for long if interdicted. There won’t be any choice but to risk significant numbers of frigates.

Maybe you are right about needing more of them?

 

[ngatimozart]

I was just being silly with the maser armed cruisers. Of course maritime recon satellites pass over all the earth surface so it is only necessary to build suitable directed energy weapons next to power stations in order to fry those satellite’s aerials. No need to put those weapons on a ship.

But it is vitally important to fry the satellites faster than the enemy can replace them. Japan is particularly vulnerable to sea interdiction. They won’t have a chance if ballistic missiles and other forms of long range attack are free to target whatever ships they like.


Regarding numbers of frigates for escorts, I chose the number 3 on the basis that this force structure would be the skeleton on which to build task forces. Maybe extra frigates from France, SG, Chile etc would be available? Between Australia, NZ, Hawaii, Panama, US west coast, the threat will be the odd marauding SSN. Relatively small escort groups might cope, assuming they had 2 helicopters each.

The problem will be keeping Guam, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea supplied. That will be in range of air strikes, conventional subs, missiles boats, etc. 3 frigates would need a lot of AWD reinforcement, possibly SSN support. Stealth bombers could strike airfields operating long range strike aircraft, also deploy those new US stand off, air delivered naval mines outside enemy ports, and so take the pressure off the escorts.

The Americans really need to keep their carriers in one piece. The threat of capital ships can be as effective as their use. It will be that fleet that will prevent the Chinese surface fleet from operating freely in the Pacific. I am a little worried about all the talk of sending the carriers in to save the day. If they get sunk, we might lose. So typically the carrier strike groups won’t be escorting supply convoys to Asia.

Rather, it will be our little frigates and their crews that will cop the brunt of it. It is essential to keep sea lanes open to our Asian allies or they will fold. Particularly Japan. I don’t think they can feed themselves for long if interdicted. There won’t be any choice but to risk significant numbers of frigates.

Maybe you are right about needing more of them?

"Japan is particularly vulnerable to sea interdiction." Japan isn't the only nation with that level of vulnerability - so is Australia and New Zealand and all for the same reasons. Energy i.e., oil, war materials and food. Neither of our nations are self sufficient in any of those. 50 odd years ago we could quite easily feed ourselves, but now I think that is somewhat doubtful because of globalisation and our dependence upon foreign sources.

 

[Raven22]

"Japan is particularly vulnerable to sea interdiction." Japan isn't the only nation with that level of vulnerability - so is Australia and New Zealand and all for the same reasons. Energy i.e., oil, war materials and food. Neither of our nations are self sufficient in any of those. 50 odd years ago we could quite easily feed ourselves, but now I think that is somewhat doubtful because of globalisation and our dependence upon foreign sources.

I can’t speak for New Zealand, but Australia is certainly self sufficient in food. About two thirds of our food production is exported. We import a lot of high-value food like fancy cheeses and whatnot that distorts comparisons, but we export massive amounts of basic food types. Even with interrupted fuel and machinery supplies, we would have no problems feeding the nation.

Clearly, we have issues with pretty much everything else, but even in a long and unsuccessful war there would be no problem putting food on the table.

 

[Wombat000]

there would be no problem putting food on the table.

How would the farmer gather the produce?
How would that food get from the farm to the table?
How would you get to work to pay for that food?
How much fuel does the military get v the community?

.....sorry, this is a defence forum.

I sometimes feel for Dowding referring to pilots in the movie Battle of Britain.
“In the end, doesnt matter what kit you have, if there is no fuel for it”.

 

[Raven22]

How would the farmer gather the produce?
How would that food get from the farm to the table?
How would you get to work to pay for that food?
How much fuel does the military get v the community?

.....sorry, this is a defence forum.

I sometimes feel for Dowding referring to pilots in the movie Battle of Britain.
“In the end, doesnt matter what kit you have, if there is no fuel for it”.

I think you are painting a pretty dire picture there. Even without taking coal into account, Australia is a net energy exporter. The agricultural sector uses less than 2% of Australia’s energy, and the entire transport industry about a quarter. Imports of refined fuels might be disrupted during a war; history shows they wouldn’t be stopped.

Our lack of refining capacity is certainly an issue as far as war fighting goes, and interrupted supplies would certainly disrupt the economy, but it’s not going to cause the nation to starve.

 

[Wombat000]

I think you are painting a pretty dire picture there. Even without taking coal into account, Australia is a net energy exporter.

Not trying to be glum, and I'm aware this is an RAN thread, but it is linked.

Energy is not fuel. Fuel is fuel.
Coal requires fuel, to mine it, transport it and facilitate its burning. Without fuel, there is no coal energy.
(Coincidentally renewables gather ambient energy on site).

The slow uptake in renewables exacerbate this 'energy' scenario from a strategic POV.
The slow uptake of 'electric' cars (which ironically are fuelled by 'energy') exacerbates what fuel is then available to be shared by the ADF from the entire national holdings.

Imagine if your city ran out of 'fuel', what was available would cost a ransom.
We no long have the milkman with a horse and cart.
Think about that for a moment, no one in your suburb as fuel for transport and no power to their homes.

The question was asked about convoys,
The number of escorts required is directly proportional to keep the national power and fuel CONSTANTLY supplied.
The ADF get the scraps from that.

 

[Wombat000]

It's a bleak scenario.
We can chat about power projection in 'stable' fuel certain world.
The number of F35s aboard a LHD, where we land our amphibs etc. that's great and warming to the soul.

In a hot scenario I'm tippin the ADF will be constantly trying to secure fuel supply, and we will need 'millions' of sonarbouys more than bullets.

The weak underbelly is NZ, they're (NZG) asleep at the wheel, they're the 'Italy-to the-Reich'.
Lack of co-ordinated capability just compounds everything.
Dowding, from an air war perspective, faced the same issue with his lack of pilots as we will with fuel.

 

[hauritz]

Not trying to be glum, and I'm aware this is an RAN thread, but it is linked.

Energy is not fuel. Fuel is fuel.
Coal requires fuel, to mine it, transport it and facilitate its burning. Without fuel, there is no coal energy.
(Coincidentally renewables gather ambient energy on site).

The slow uptake in renewables exacerbate this 'energy' scenario from a strategic POV.
The slow uptake of 'electric' cars (which ironically are fuelled by 'energy') exacerbates what fuel is then available to be shared by the ADF from the entire national holdings.

Imagine if your city ran out of 'fuel', what was available would cost a ransom.
We no long have the milkman with a horse and cart.
Think about that for a moment, no one in your suburb as fuel for transport and no power to their homes.

The question was asked about convoys,
The number of escorts required is directly proportional to keep the national power and fuel CONSTANTLY supplied.
The ADF get the scraps from that.

Absolutely ... never confuse energy with fuel.

At the moment Australia imports 90% of its fuel. It has less than a month's fuel reserves. Blocade Singapore, South Korea and Japan and you effectively account for around 80% of our petroleum supply.

 

[t68]

Not trying to be glum, and I'm aware this is an RAN thread, but it is linked.

Energy is not fuel. Fuel is fuel.
Coal requires fuel, to mine it, transport it and facilitate its burning. Without fuel, there is no coal energy.
(Coincidentally renewables gather ambient energy on site).

The slow uptake in renewables exacerbate this 'energy' scenario from a strategic POV.
The slow uptake of 'electric' cars (which ironically are fuelled by 'energy') exacerbates what fuel is then available to be shared by the ADF from the entire national holdings.

Imagine if your city ran out of 'fuel', what was available would cost a ransom.
We no long have the milkman with a horse and cart.
Think about that for a moment, no one in your suburb as fuel for transport and no power to their homes.

The question was asked about convoys,
The number of escorts required is directly proportional to keep the national power and fuel CONSTANTLY supplied.
The ADF get the scraps from that.

While our ability to refine fuel has taken a hit with closures of refinery plants, but also one of our biggest problems is storage capacity, I reads not long ago even during ET in 99 getting stocks of fuel for the task group was taxing in not only getting it to the right place at the right time. we were sourcing it from NT & nth Qld, but also direct from Singapore.

ill have to go searching for the article again I should have saved it.

 

[John Fedup]

Absolutely ... never confuse energy with fuel.

At the moment Australia imports 90% of its fuel. It has less than a month's fuel reserves. Blocade Singapore, South Korea and Japan and you effectively account for around 80% of our petroleum supply.

If stuff was ever to hit the fan, I believe Australia has NG which could be used to fuel agricultural machinery and some civilian transport. If the infrastructure is not currently in place for this, it might be a partial backup plan. I think Japan and SKorea have much more to worry about. Realistically China would have a difficult time blockading all three nations plus having to contain the USN as well. In 30 years the situation could be more dire.

 

[Rob c]

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.

This was a very good augment in years in the past, but with aircraft radars with detection ranges in the 100s of KMs and weapons to suit and subs with modern sonars that can detect modern merchant ships at similar distances and again weapons of very long range,(i remember reading some years ago that the Americans were tracking noisey russian subs doing full power trials from the other side of the Atlantic and merchant ships are not built for stealth) it still leaves The escort in the position of simply trying to intercept the weapons and if these are fired in mass this could be difficult. I cannot see a traditional convoy as being workable against any high intensity threat. In a low intensity threat area it could still work. Even older missiles like the Exocet fired in number from either a sub or aircraft in numbers would present a problem for the merchant ships if they have not been fitted with either passive and or active defence. The very concentration which in ww2 made the convoy work could now be the problem due to modern detection methods and weapons and there ability to detect and be used at very long range and the main detection and defence against such weapons being relatively short ranged. These systems are fine for warships which in the main look after themselves and a relitively small area around them selves either actively or passively, but a convoy of merchant ships covering many square Kms (some ww2 convoys were over 250 square Kms) presents a vast area to defend against long range attack from missiles and modern torpedo's Some modern torpedo's have ranges reportly of over 80 Kms. The modern warship can deceive these, but a merchant ship for which there has been no attempt to quieten its propeller or engine noise during construction has a real problem.

 

[Raven22]

Absolutely ... never confuse energy with fuel.

At the moment Australia imports 90% of its fuel. It has less than a month's fuel reserves. Blocade Singapore, South Korea and Japan and you effectively account for around 80% of our petroleum supply.

This has got a bit away from my point, which is that we are self sufficient in food (three times over) and a war wouldn’t change that.

But how exacty is anyone going to blockade Singapore, South Korea and Japan? The only nation that might conceivably be able to do that is more reliant on fuel supplies to/through those places than we are. Their economy would collapse much faster than ours in such a scenario. And, should those places be blockaded, there is still a world’s worth of fuel supplies that have to go somewhere - if it can’t go to Asia it will probably come here. There is no realistic contingency that would see us go to zero fuel imports overnight. A disrupted fuel supply will certainly impact the economy, but it would be more a case of not having the right type of fuel at the right place at the right time, rather than an issue with overall imports to the nation. Any long term disruption would lead to Australia developing a refining capacity again, and converting other energy types to POLs. Even the fuel supply problem for the ADF can be over stated, as the ADF uses only a tiny fraction of the overall economy’s supply. Again, it is more a problem of the right type of fuel at the right place at the right time than overall stocks, which would be a massive problem even without a disrupted fuel supply to the economy.

History shows us that our nations and our economies are far more resilient than we usually give them credit for. If they weren’t, strategic air power advocates would be right (they never have been), and Germany would have had to surrender in WWII before the Allied armies were sitting in Berlin.

Don’t get me wrong, fuel security is a massive problem, but while they might stop us fighting they won’t stop us feeding.

 

[Redlands18]

This has got a bit away from my point, which is that we are self sufficient in food (three times over) and a war wouldn’t change that.

But how exacty is anyone going to blockade Singapore, South Korea and Japan? The only nation that might conceivably be able to do that is more reliant on fuel supplies to/through those places than we are. Their economy would collapse much faster than ours in such a scenario. And, should those places be blockaded, there is still a world’s worth of fuel supplies that have to go somewhere - if it can’t go to Asia it will probably come here. There is no realistic contingency that would see us go to zero fuel imports overnight. A disrupted fuel supply will certainly impact the economy, but it would be more a case of not having the right type of fuel at the right place at the right time, rather than an issue with overall imports to the nation. Any long term disruption would lead to Australia developing a refining capacity again, and converting other energy types to POLs. Even the fuel supply problem for the ADF can be over stated, as the ADF uses only a tiny fraction of the overall economy’s supply. Again, it is more a problem of the right type of fuel at the right place at the right time than overall stocks, which would be a massive problem even without a disrupted fuel supply to the economy.

History shows us that our nations and our economies are far more resilient than we usually give them credit for. If they weren’t, strategic air power advocates would be right (they never have been), and Germany would have had to surrender in WWII before the Allied armies were sitting in Berlin.

Don’t get me wrong, fuel security is a massive problem, but while they might stop us fighting but it won’t stop us feeding.

And the Government of the day would introduce rationing f needed, especially of fuel with priority to Primary users and the Transport industry. Tourism would be the big loser but we would not go hungry.

 

[seaspear]

Defence Connect

Interesting article on the Attack class of submarines the first of which to be named H.M.A.S Attack
much of the discussion has focussed on surface warfare and not subsurface

 

[hauritz]

Plans were announced for $6 billion to be spent arming our new subs.

Australia to arm new submarines with A$6bn weapons despite delays

These include unmanned drones and perhaps even an anti-aircraft missile system. The article doesn't mention them but I guess land attack missiles will also be considered.

I guess one question would be whether there will be any replacement for the sub-Harpoon. The USN an RN don't use them any more and I haven't heard anything about the French developing a replacement for their sub-launched exocets.

Anti-aircraft missiles could be interesting but I don't really know much about how practical this system would be. It seems to me that a submarine would not want to engage an aircraft unless it absolutely had no other options.

 

[John Fedup]

Formal signing of sub contract done.

Government Delivers on Future Submarine Program

 

[weedyau]

I think there is an even greater chance of something closing the Persian gulf in the next 3 years. It is effectively already a war zone. Iran and the Saudis have a number of internal and external problems. That would have a huge impact on the worlds oil and gas supply, which would dramatically rise prices and affect the supply of oil at least in the short term.

The alternative not mentioned yet are biofuels. Industries already produce ethanol and vegetable oil from crops. A great deal a knowledge is being developed in Australia, so I'm sure a fuel crisis would promote rapid expansion. Here in Queensland, recycling waste vegetable oil (WVO) into biodiesel is encouraged and is creating demand for WVO.
My Landcruiser runs on fish and chips . Bruce

 

[oldsig127]

I genuinely am not trying harp on the point, but:
NG, is transported by truck, correct? A diesel truck. Find another way cos there's very little diesel available.
Coal. Coal *NEEDS* fuel at every single stage of its use. EVERY STAGE. It exacerbates the shortage IF it runs at all??

Gas pipelines require no trucks. They just kind of lie there on or underground. All the way to industrial users and ports.

Queensland coal travels by train. Electric trains mostly, powered by coal generated electricity.

No, these are not absolutes. But neither is the revers - it's neither doonsday nor paradise

oldsig

 

[oldsig127]

I am surprised your Greenies in Oz haven’t been demanding NG buses to replace diesel or is most of your public transport electric? Many diesel backup generators run on NG. Synthetic fuels derived from NG is an easier process than from coal. In any event, NG conversion is better than nothing.

Public buses in Brisbane run on gas. Gas gas, not petrol

oldsig