Wasnt the Hobart class also modified to enable patrols in the southern waters ? I dont know if patrols have gone in these regions by this class of ship
Defence Connect
Defence Connect
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Define Australia's southern waters; are they below 45°S, 50°S, 60°S etc.? NZ's southern waters go all the way to the ice (Antarctica) which we patrol in the summer. The RNZN sent an ANZAC frigate down south a few years, think it might've got too about 70°S and it suffered damage to deck fittings from the heavy seas encountered in the Southern Ocean. Now we use the Protector class OPVs.
An interesting milestone for the Canberra Class in the ADBR
RAN’s Canberra class LHDs achieve FOC – ADBR
So where are we now with the LHD's?
Crawl ,Walk or Run
These ships are truly a national asset.
Well done to those involved in their development.
Regards S
RAN’s Canberra class LHDs achieve FOC – ADBR
So where are we now with the LHD's?
Crawl ,Walk or Run
These ships are truly a national asset.
Well done to those involved in their development.
Regards S
Australian warships are normally expected to operate as far south as 50 south. However I have been south of 60 south in a destroyer. It was a little unpleasant but the ship coped well.
Setting aside for a moment the Antarctic Treaty, Australia claims about 40% of the surface area of the continent and we have three major bases there. At one there we are building 757 capable all weather, well not completely as it won’t be usable in blizzards, airstrip to complement the summer only strip currently used by A320s etc. That is our major transport for personnel; Nuyina in largely about moving cargo. But as I’m sure Kiwis are aware, the Antarctic Treaty does exist and effectively bans military activity on land south of 60 south, and although Naval ships are permitted we don’t normally send armed ships there. There are, however, ships which could be sent if necessary including Ocean Protector.
Setting aside for a moment the Antarctic Treaty, Australia claims about 40% of the surface area of the continent and we have three major bases there. At one there we are building 757 capable all weather, well not completely as it won’t be usable in blizzards, airstrip to complement the summer only strip currently used by A320s etc. That is our major transport for personnel; Nuyina in largely about moving cargo. But as I’m sure Kiwis are aware, the Antarctic Treaty does exist and effectively bans military activity on land south of 60 south, and although Naval ships are permitted we don’t normally send armed ships there. There are, however, ships which could be sent if necessary including Ocean Protector.
Last edited:
I don’t know the answer but we do know that 48S was defined as the limit for the Arafura Class (SEA1180).
There used to be a publication defining the “Australia Station” which I hazily recall from long ago and I thought those limits were defined.
Whether any of this is relevant still is moot, maybe a member with more current knowledge has an answer?
Antarctic patrols are best dealt with specific non-military ships. Lets not escalate the situation, we don't want Chinese and Russian destroyers going south (or even American ones). Anzac is not a good choice for southern latitude patrols, something like the Type 26 would be much better for something like that (bigger, more flexible, less top weight limited), but a specific OPV would be even better. Ships have to pass through warmer waters to get south, so we don't need to be sitting in the Antarctic ocean to patrol.
Something like Nuyina is perfect for Antarctic presence. It is the type of ship you want not just to break ice and deliver supplies, but maintain a general presence across the massive AAT (2/3rd the size of Canada). It is a sizable ship with significant capabilities.
The Antarctic airport is another. It will be built in an ice free part of Antarctica, so really will be available year round and is the only airfield of its type proposed by any nation on the continent. Australia will control that. So what ever happens with the treaty Australia will control the only year round entry and exit point. We will also have one of the largest resupply ships/ice breakers and the other summer airfields. It is expected many countries will basically adopt a fly in - fly out profile and use our airfield as this will be a lot cheaper and faster, particularly for European countries etc. Basically they will use Australia's logistical backbone. Which will give Australia a lot of say on what happens on the continent. The AAT is absolutely critical to the NZ, French claims and the NZ claim is essential for the US bases. All the waters around the AAT are Australian EEZ as well. having a Southern Airbase will make aviation patrol much easier and more frequent.
They had a tangible effect on the region. Peace has been directly secured by the capabilities we have available in the ships and the amphibious capabilities we have been investing in. It has been the perfect realisation of operating the ADF as a joint force and in purple.
My only question is when are we going to get a 3rd. Projecting power into two massive oceans continuously with just two ships isn't sustainable in the long term. No one can argue we aren't getting value out of them and that they aren't essential linchpins of Australia's projected power.
Something like Nuyina is perfect for Antarctic presence. It is the type of ship you want not just to break ice and deliver supplies, but maintain a general presence across the massive AAT (2/3rd the size of Canada). It is a sizable ship with significant capabilities.
The Antarctic airport is another. It will be built in an ice free part of Antarctica, so really will be available year round and is the only airfield of its type proposed by any nation on the continent. Australia will control that. So what ever happens with the treaty Australia will control the only year round entry and exit point. We will also have one of the largest resupply ships/ice breakers and the other summer airfields. It is expected many countries will basically adopt a fly in - fly out profile and use our airfield as this will be a lot cheaper and faster, particularly for European countries etc. Basically they will use Australia's logistical backbone. Which will give Australia a lot of say on what happens on the continent. The AAT is absolutely critical to the NZ, French claims and the NZ claim is essential for the US bases. All the waters around the AAT are Australian EEZ as well. having a Southern Airbase will make aviation patrol much easier and more frequent.
Running. They have really proven themselves. They are an essential part of Australian engagement with our global allies. Their existence and capabilities has changed our relationship with multiple countries. They are key assets in peace time and in war. Australia is a mobile global power again. Able to project power and influence across its region and beyond. It has changed our relationship with the US for the better. Total game changers. Leaders in Fiji, PNG, Vietnam, Philippines and elsewhere are genuinely impressed and welcome this new invigorated Australian capability. We can protect APEC summits in PNG, letting PNG be on the global stage, provide massive aid and morale boost to Fiji in the wake of a disaster, we can sail a sizable task force to Vietnam, Philippines now has assurances from a security partner that doesn't escalate its situation between the great powers and its own internal issues. We can then sail our task force to India, conduct multifaceted exercises with a major power, forging a new type of relationship we weren't able to have before.
They had a tangible effect on the region. Peace has been directly secured by the capabilities we have available in the ships and the amphibious capabilities we have been investing in. It has been the perfect realisation of operating the ADF as a joint force and in purple.
My only question is when are we going to get a 3rd. Projecting power into two massive oceans continuously with just two ships isn't sustainable in the long term. No one can argue we aren't getting value out of them and that they aren't essential linchpins of Australia's projected power.
Crunchtime for a third LHD could come around the mid 2030s. By that time the Choules will be up for replacement and the two current LHD would be due for midlife refits.Throw in an increased Chinese presence in the region and more pressure on Australia to step up from its allies and you could put together a fairly convincing case for a third LHD.
I think the starting point is how many ships for our Amphibious / supply group.
Currently it's four ( was five )
Will have five again when both of the new Supply Class enter service.
I think some concrete direction needs to happen sooner rather than later on this subject.
Distant projections in the DWP16 and Pacific support ship bollocks are really neither here nor there.
Defence and government plus the opposition need a consensus on this direction, because what's purchased and how many, will very much affect the availability and capability of the Fleet supply and Amphibious options in the years ahead.
The rule of three's is often mentioned, and it's not lost on the numbers acquired for some of our recent large ship building projects.
Hobart ,Hunters,Arafura and Attack Classes.
Should we have a larger mix?
I'd say yes and suggest six would be the minimum.
Can we afford it yes. Where will the money and crew come from?
Well I think most would agree these assets are great ambassadors for Australia, so suggest It would come from increased defence funding and not at the expense of existing projects.
So two of more ships of existing platforms or a hybrid capability that can do both some supply and Amphibious roles.
Take your pick.
For myself it's an additional LHD that in hindsight of the sterling recent service should of definitely been ordered yesterday.
Didn't the defence minister back in the day when the Canberra Class were ordered and some in Navy suggested a third ship, say "They were out of control"
If we had three Canberra's today they'd still be the some of the busiest ships in the fleet.
Suggest give Navantia a call.................Now!.
Regards S
Still working my way through the DDG paper and just about fell off my chair when I read the suggestion in the Combat System chapter that when tallying the costs of the multiple upgrades required to the DDGs, Belknap CGs (DLGs) may actually have been, not only more suitable for Australia, but may well have ending up delivering their greater overall capability at a lower lifecycle cost than our DDGs delivered. They came with NTDS, superior command, control and communication systems, greater growth margin as well as helicopter facilities. Unlike the USN Adams class, all of the Belknaps were extensively upgraded through their service lives, while the Adams were seen as too tight to be worth upgrading, meaning it would have been cheaper to tag along with the USN upgrades.
Reading between the lines the other advantage the Belknaps would have delivered is originally rated as DLGs (destroyer Leaders), they were reclassified as Cruisers in 1975. This means that not even the most delusional politician could have believed that a tarted up patrol frigate could deliver equivalent capability when it came time for replacement. That is a key recurring point in the paper, the grouping of the DDGs and the FFGs as Tier 1 combatants, led to the uninformed believing that an FFG was equivalent to and as capable as a DDG, had the RAN had DLG/CGs instead of DDGs then there is no way a upgraded FFG could have been seen as a replacement, i.e. even a Burke would have been seen as a down grade from cruiser to destroyer.
Then again there are politicians who believe M-113s are tanks and who honestly believed the original spec ANZAC was equivalent to a DDG, i.e. the FFGs are replacing the DDGs, the FFG is a frigate and the ANZAC is a frigate, therefore an ANZAC is equivalent to a DDG.
Reading between the lines the other advantage the Belknaps would have delivered is originally rated as DLGs (destroyer Leaders), they were reclassified as Cruisers in 1975. This means that not even the most delusional politician could have believed that a tarted up patrol frigate could deliver equivalent capability when it came time for replacement. That is a key recurring point in the paper, the grouping of the DDGs and the FFGs as Tier 1 combatants, led to the uninformed believing that an FFG was equivalent to and as capable as a DDG, had the RAN had DLG/CGs instead of DDGs then there is no way a upgraded FFG could have been seen as a replacement, i.e. even a Burke would have been seen as a down grade from cruiser to destroyer.
Then again there are politicians who believe M-113s are tanks and who honestly believed the original spec ANZAC was equivalent to a DDG, i.e. the FFGs are replacing the DDGs, the FFG is a frigate and the ANZAC is a frigate, therefore an ANZAC is equivalent to a DDG.
All that is old is new again.
4000t destroyer didn't have the room for an upgrade path that would keep it relevant, a 9000t destroyer did.
3500t ANZAC v 8000t Type 26
Hopefully the AWD are big enough to stay relevant.
Regards,
Massive
The LHD's provide something that DFAT and aid dollars don't. Actual presence. A reason to collaborate and integrate. Tangible peace and wartime capability. There is an ease and an openness with the LHD that make them excellent for engagement. Also look at where China is funding its ship building, is has now also prioritized Amphibious capability. We have land 400 which will result in significant pressure on our amphibious capability. While we are capable now, with only 2 LHD we will actually see a reduction in sealift and in amphibious capability as the Land400 replacements are much heavier and larger. Also our operations with India in AUSINDEX focused on ASW capability, again something we could expand if we had more LHD to support that kind of activity. It would be another capability Japan would gladly welcome and would become central to Japan Australia operations.
Looking at the time frames involved, if we wanted a modified LHD (with some slight improvements) with some additional capability and space and size for growth. We would need to start such a project now to really fit in replacing Choules. Ideally discussing it with Spain, government to government and see if they would want to go halvies and get one as well. As we have 2 already in service and the Spanish have proven themselves quite successful at building ships on time, it would seem to be a very low risk project. We could even look at forward deploying one to Lombrum as sign of our commitment to the region. This ship could do all the Asia engagement and lead taskforces heading to Asia where Indonesia, Phillipines, Malaysia and Vietnam, Guam and Japan are just a short trip, while the other ships at FBE can focus on the South Pacific.
Because in reality we are trying to have a presence in three huge locations. The Indian ocean, The Pacific, and in Asia.
Small ships are such a false economy. I reckon with the Belknaps we could have got a better deal with US loan terms, and there would have been less need to modify and greater capability. Chunky crew size however. Wasn't really a big issue when we were procuring them.
Last edited:
I think the Belknaps would have been beyond the capabilities of the RAN in both manpower and money.
It would have been a huge stretch going from the Battles and Darings whereas CFA manpower was similar to the Darings and they were cheap compared with the only other contender, steam powered (maybe) RN County Class.
I also think the single aft mounted 5/54 would cause angst amongst the very gunnery orientated RAN leadership during the infancy of Ship to Air Missiles. As it transpired, the CFA’s found their niche during Viet Nam where NGS was paramount. I’m not sure if COM7th FLT would have been happy deploying a TG escort to Such journeyman tasks.
the USN did upgrade 10 x CFAs at a cost of USD 178.5m each (Janes-American Fighting Ships of the 20th Century) this included installing Standard, Harpoon, SPS 58, an integrated Automatic Detecting and Tracking system(SYS1), Mk58FCS, 2xSQQ 23 Sonar domes and Much more. Some of the improvements were already in the RAN ships but remember the first CFA hull was laid down in June 58 the year after our first Daring, HMAS Voyager,, commissioned.
Last edited:
We decommissioned HMAS Sydney back in 73.. some crew would have been available. It would be interesting to see RAN personnel size over time to see if it was getting smaller in man power (which I think it was around that time that it really started to shrink). But the crewing of the Belknaps would have been a big consideration in choosing between Adams or Belknaps.
We could have retired Melbourne earlier acquired an Invincible and saved man power that way as well. Coming into the 80's we could have had 3 cruisers and a new carrier with harriers. Quite a formidable mix (if unlikely).
I do think Assail has point about priority of NGS and guided missiles weren't exactly getting rave reviews in Vietnam generally. Guns were a major priority in the RAN for decades. There was even rumors about HMAS Vampire being put back into service in the 90's and mid 2000's, due to its apparent superiority in Guns. Looking at what our neighborhood was packing, guns were still pretty desirable and effective. If we were looking at the Belknaps, I'm sure someone would have wanted another 5" on it.
We could have retired Melbourne earlier acquired an Invincible and saved man power that way as well. Coming into the 80's we could have had 3 cruisers and a new carrier with harriers. Quite a formidable mix (if unlikely).
I do think Assail has point about priority of NGS and guided missiles weren't exactly getting rave reviews in Vietnam generally. Guns were a major priority in the RAN for decades. There was even rumors about HMAS Vampire being put back into service in the 90's and mid 2000's, due to its apparent superiority in Guns. Looking at what our neighborhood was packing, guns were still pretty desirable and effective. If we were looking at the Belknaps, I'm sure someone would have wanted another 5" on it.
Its intriguing, the same thinking is affecting acquisitions decades apart. Smaller must be cheaper, cheaper must be better value for money, complex upgrades are better than new builds etc. Then reality bites, lessons are learned but apparently forgotten before the process starts again, same costly, capability sapping mistakes are made again.
I wonder how long it will be until we are regretting not going to a bigger, more capable, base AWD? This time though we will have the Hunters in production and a full AWD version may well work out better value for money than a complex upgrade for the Hobarts.
The ANZAC derivative was mentioned in the paper, depending what it was it could have been much better value than the FFGUP and even ANZAC upgrades, though could not have been an alternative to a DDG. The ANZAC derivative, assuming a Type123 sized hull, combined with NTU derived capabilities could well have worked out cheaper than the two major upgrade programs, supported by either an interim Kidd acquisition or a US Flighty IIA Burke build. Geeting into fantasy land here though.
A disturbing description of the time line related to the deliberate decision to stop acquiring major combatants after the ANZACs as they and the 6 upgraded FFGs would be sufficient for the RAN going forward into the 2000s, with air defence being provided by the RAAF. The paper suggested this was because replacement F/A-18 had priority for future funding. The reality was as the RANs air defence capability was degraded through the retirement of the DDGs (that were already obsolescent) while the F-111 was to be retired without replacement, their role covered by the upgraded HUGBUGs, with tanker support and stand off missiles. ie the RAAF was expected to takeover air defence of the RAN, while losing one quarter of their air combat force.
In a nut shell the government of the day decided not to replace the DDGs, to cancel the PB replacements, push any new major combatant acquisitions off into the future (post 2010), retire the F-111 all based on the idea that 72 upgraded legacy hornets, supported by four tankers, four Wedgetails and armed with a stand off missile was somehow going to cover all out needs. This is more than just an RAN issue, its a question of government (political and public service) competence. But for the wakeup call of Timor the ADF would have been rendered useless by now.
I hear you and agree. The steam County was delusional but the RAN lacked the technical depth to realise this at the time, with the full blown COSAG ship actually being a more balanced option. I cant recall if it was Brown or Friedman, but the story is when the RAN approached the RN about missile ships and their desire for a cut and bob tied mini county, their reply was the full blown design would be a better option, but the RAN requirements would actually be best met by the Escort Cruiser they were developing at the time. Don't know which design sketch they were on at the time but they ranged from Sea Slug armed hybrid cruisers, through deck with Sea Slug, through deck with Tartar and Mk6 4.5" twin mount, etc. there were even variants with Ikara, Seadart etc. but the RNs recommendation was wait for the Escort Cruiser and use it as a replacement for the destroyers and the carrier.
Vendetta did very well in the NGFS off Vietnam, no reason why Vampire and Duchess couldn't have as well.
Just been told I need to go shopping, will continue this later.
Don't forget to buy some Navy Magazines when out on the retail quest.
Oh and check the fridge for milk?
Good for coffee and cereal in the morning
Regards S
Vendetta’s deployment was hard work. NGS navigation was much more intensive as she didn’t use the “offset” method.
Sustainment was more of a problem also although she could use Singapore and did but keeping up the supply of ammunition required special supply runs from Australia.
The difference with the CFAs was stark. They would pull into Subic after 34 days on the Gunline and the 7th FLT organisation couldn’t be more helpful, to the extent that at times spares, help and stores were almost given away.
During the deployment off the VN coast the CFAs would pull away a small distance offshore to refuel and rearm every 4 or 5 days. COMSERGRU5 ships provided a constant caravan off resupply to all naval units, it was like pulling into a servo and we got food, mail, ammo and whatever was needed.
Vendetta could get most of this but ammo was a huge problem, from memory we fired in excess of 10,000 rounds during the deployment so you can imagine the effort required to keep us topped up.
I’m not suggesting Vendetta’s deployment was less effective, simply that it required much more effort.
NUSHIP Sydney DDG42 has completed her Sea Trials.
It will be great to see these three DDGs together once she commissions (Feb next year).
She still has to complete the whole trial process both here and on the US West coast so we probably won’t see her deploy for another year.
Final Air Warfare Destroyer completes sea trials
It will be great to see these three DDGs together once she commissions (Feb next year).
She still has to complete the whole trial process both here and on the US West coast so we probably won’t see her deploy for another year.
Final Air Warfare Destroyer completes sea trials
- Status