Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

Thinking in the relms of possibilities. If the government approve a Naval request to have more combat ships.
From what I have read Arafura isn't ideal and a new corvette class would take years.
Why not increase the production tempo and number of the type 26. The type 26 is configurable. The downside is it is heavier than a Corvette and more crews. My point in these times of strategic uncertainty it could be a quick option.
Regards
DD

I don't think increasing the tempo of the Type 26 is the problem. Getting that first of class into service in an acceptable timeframe is the real challenge. At the moment that looks like that will be between 2031 and 2033.

I think that one of the problems the navy will need to deal with are grey zone challenges and that may happen regardless of whether or not the Hunters are in service. The problem is a mathematical one really, with Australia laying claim to a 10 million square kilometre EEZ with just 11 frigates and a dozen OPVs.

To be honest I think the answer isn't just more ships but probably more patrol aircraft ... manned and unmanned.

 

[Todjaeger]

Part of my understanding of the ship building program is that there would be no MLU, (which can cost 2/3 the price of a new vessel),
Rather that the vessel would be sold on and replaced with a new build.
Either an incremental batch improvement of the in service design or a whole new type if deemed needed.
Ships would now serve for 18 to 20 years not 30.
Thus using the MLU to trigger the start of the replacement cycle is no longer valid.
Ready to be corrected if wrong.

I am not certain whether or not the RAN has committed to vessels having an 18 to 20 year service life, vs. the more typical 25 to 30+ year service life. With the current build cycle for the Hunter-class as currently planned likely to run through until ~2038, the replacement for the Hobart-class should likely commence construction right around that time. If that is the case, then the RAN might be currently expecting to skip a MLU. OTOH if the lead replacement destroyer is laid down in 2038 or 2039, and takes ~five years between being laid down and commissioning into RAN service (same timeframe as current HMAS Hobart), then HMAS Hobart will have been commissioned in RAN service for ~26 years before the lead replacement vessel is commissioned to replace her. If the RAN is looking at a service life of ~25 years for the Hobart-class, that could easily lead to a MLU being done in the later part of this decade. MLU design in the late 2020's would be close to when initial planning for the DDG replacement would need to start, if construction is to commence in 2038 or 2039.

Of course if a decision is made to order extra Hunter-class frigates, or have a batch built as a sub-class to expand the size of the RAN surface fleet, this could push the DDG replacement further into the future.

 

[spoz]

Planned LOT of the DDGs is 30 years. I don’t believe the HCF build schedule has been released yet, so any discussion about IOC dates is conjecture.

If there was the political will to expand the number of MSCs, if, there would be a number of potential build options, including some on shore, but deciding to do so would require a significant reorientation of federal government expenditure and there seems to be no appetite for that at present. However, even if you started the project to procure them now you would not see the first of the. ships until around the end of the decade. Even somebody like Damen will take 3-4 years in build after an order is placed, then there’s the selection process and the delivery and acceptance - with everthing going your way it would be at least seven years from a from a decision to go.

 

[ngatimozart]

I don't think increasing the tempo of the Type 26 is the problem. Getting that first of class into service in an acceptable timeframe is the real challenge. At the moment that looks like that will be between 2031 and 2033.

I think that one of the problems the navy will need to deal with are grey zone challenges and that may happen regardless of whether or not the Hunters are in service. The problem is a mathematical one really, with Australia laying claim to a 10 million square kilometre EEZ with just 11 frigates and a dozen OPVs.

To be honest I think the answer isn't just more ships but probably more patrol aircraft ... manned and unmanned.

To that you could add reorientating RAAF fast jets to maritime strike roles as well.

 

[Todjaeger]

Anyway if you are interested here is a link;

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Navy-Sampler.pdf

Read through the link, and while it does mention upgrading the optics, electronics and weapons on the Arafura-class, it does not really go into what could be realistically upgraded, or what sort of increase in capability would be provided. It does allude to the Royal Brunei Navy's Darussalam-class OPV, which were also designed by Lurssen, with the base design also being used for the Arafura-class. Looking at the OPV's in Brunei service, they are more capable in anti-shipping roles, since they can be fitted with four Exocet AShM, and slightly more capable in an anti-surface capacity having a Bofors Mk 3 57 mm gun and a pair of 20 mm guns. They also have slightly more defensive capabilities since they are also fitted with a pair of Terma soft-kill decoy systems. Such an armament upgrade would IMO still not deliver a vessel suitable for ops in hostile or contested waters without an escort, particularly if there was the potential for attacks from hostile subs, aerial threats, or even attack from land-based missiles or heavy artillery.

Another curious thing I noticed in the article, was that the author seemed to be suggesting that adopting into service a marinized armed light helicopter which could land on the helipad on the RAN OPV's would be a viable option. If that was indeed what the author was suggesting, then that would be a suggestion I consider unrealistic, particularly in the sort of timeframe the author appears concerned about. It also makes me question what else the author was suggesting as being a concern, as well as solution. Adopting a new aviation platform into service, getting the order placed for the desired units with the appropriate specifications, and then actually getting the helicopters built and into service, is the sort of thing which would take several years at a minimum. If the process was started now, it would likely be two years before the contract for the order could be signed. It would be some time afterwards that deliveries would be done, and more time still for the units to reach IOC and then FOC. There would also be the need to establish training and maintenance programmes for a new helicopter... Not something I would consider a realistic acquisition for the RAN given that the OPV's lack a hangar so could not sustain embarked helicopter ops, and a marinized LUH fitted with an attack capability still would not be able to fulfill the role of a naval helicopter like an MH-60R Seahawk.

 

[justinterested]

On a different note, South Korea commissioned its first Dosan Ahn Changho-class (KSS III program) submarine.
Naval News - KSS 3 Submarine
It is interesting that the basic design started in 2004 and this large, 3358 tons surface standard displacement , modern submarine had its first steel cutting ceremony held at the DSME shipyard in Okpo on November 27, 2014 and the launch took place on September 14, 2018. Would this be a similar time frame to the Attack class?
It is also interesting that they have now commenced an evolved batch 2 with a displacement of 4000t, 10x VLS tubes (up from 6x), Lithium Ion batteries and High-Temperature Superconductor (HTS) motor technology for integrated full electric propulsion system. Makes you wish that Australia had started an evolved collins class a long time ago.

 

[John Fedup]

The batch II version will be interesting. This could be another potential candidate for a future RCN sub.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Would this be a similar time frame to the Attack class?
It is also interesting that they have now commenced an evolved batch 2 with a displacement of 4000t, 10x VLS tubes (up from 6x), Lithium Ion batteries and High-Temperature Superconductor (HTS) motor technology for integrated full electric propulsion system. Makes you wish that Australia had started an evolved collins class a long time ago.

Similar time frame. Hopefully. However, South Korea has a hot submarine yard, evolving and existing class. So a few things in their favor.
I would hope the attack class undergoes a similar evolution for its batch II.

Things could have been different, imagine if we had built 8 subs, and started the attack class ~ 5-10 years earlier perhaps evolving the collins. Or 4 AWD's, or both of those. Looking back it would have been laughably cheap and we would have been in a much better position.

 

[76mmGuns]

I was wondering if the RAN does a demographic prediction on the available pool in the population to hire crew from in the future.

I think many of us on this forum are over 50, so we well remember when the Aussie population was 16 million. Well, it's rocketed up about 60% to 25+ million now. By 2050?

In addition, there could be more veterans willing to stay on, though maybe not, given it's regarded as a career and many drop out to have families. Still, there might be a program to reemploy previously naval crew. I say this because the Treasury published a paper in 2015, on their prediction of Aust in 2055. The stat I want to focus on is that life expectancy will be really, really high- those born in 2055 can expect to live to about 95.5-96.6. That means there's going to be a lot of people around, and lots more veterans

https://cdn.treasury.gov.au/uploads/sites/1/2017/06/2015_IGR.pdf

So if they're sticking to 12 Hunter MFU's, then, why? Relying on the US may not be viable. And Aust will finally have enough manpower, at least in theory, no?

 

[Redlands18]

I was wondering if the RAN does a demographic prediction on the available pool in the population to hire crew from in the future.

I think many of us on this forum are over 50, so we well remember when the Aussie population was 16 million. Well, it's rocketed up about 60% to 25+ million now. By 2050?

In addition, there could be more veterans willing to stay on, though maybe not, given it's regarded as a career and many drop out to have families. Still, there might be a program to reemploy previously naval crew. I say this because the Treasury published a paper in 2015, on their prediction of Aust in 2055. The stat I want to focus on is that life expectancy will be really, really high- those born in 2055 can expect to live to about 95.5-96.6. That means there's going to be a lot of people around, and lots more veterans

https://cdn.treasury.gov.au/uploads/sites/1/2017/06/2015_IGR.pdf

So if they're sticking to 12 Hunter MFU's, then, why? Relying on the US may not be viable. And Aust will finally have enough manpower, at least in theory, no?

The number of Full Time personal in the ADF has not really changed much since it was 16 million either, sitting around the 60,000 odd mark so in theory Australia shouldn’t have to much difficulty increasing numbers but of course the old Elephant in the room pops up, funding such an increase

 

[hauritz]

Australia's demographics have taken a bit of a hit over the last year or so because immigration has virtually come to a stop. Having said that manpower availability isn't necessarily tied in with population. The military has had many more personnel in the past than it does now.

Australia Military Size 1960-2024

Armed forces personnel are active duty military personnel, including paramilitary forces if the training, organization, equipment, and control suggest they may be used to support or replace regular military forces.

www.macrotrends.net

The average sailor would probably have to be a lot better educated now and they would be a little harder to find.

I often wonder just how efficiently run Australia's military is in terms of getting the most out of the manpower it currently has available. Things like maintenance could be privatised.

Perhaps the RAN could look at a system something like the Royal Navy's RFA to man its support and constabulary vessels.

 

[ASSAIL]

Australia's demographics have taken a bit of a hit over the last year or so because immigration has virtually come to a stop. Having said that manpower availability isn't necessarily tied in with population. The military has had many more personnel in the past than it does now.

Australia Military Size 1960-2024

Armed forces personnel are active duty military personnel, including paramilitary forces if the training, organization, equipment, and control suggest they may be used to support or replace regular military forces.

www.macrotrends.net

The average sailor would probably have to be a lot better educated now and they would be a little harder to find.

I often wonder just how efficiently run Australia's military is in terms of getting the most out of the manpower it currently has available. Things like maintenance could be privatised.

Perhaps the RAN could look at a system something like the Royal Navy's RFA to man its support and constabulary vessels.

We’ve tried privatising maintenance.
We shut the service trade schools and employed contractors and the overall condition and reliability in the fleet plummeted.
The ability of ship’s staff to repair defects, particularly on minor war vessels is almost zero.
PBs return from sea and the engineering division walk off! SMPs are a thing of the past, not sure about AMPs.
I’m unaware of the skill levels in MFUs currently but it used to give me great pride serving on the Gunline in VN when USN units frequently asked our ME and WE personnel to transfer over and fix their problems.

Another problem with today’s manpower is that retaining members beyond the old retirement ages of 45 -55 (depending on rank) causes blockages in the promotion process and many blocked youngsters get fed up and leave.

As to and RFA, we’re simply not big enough. By way of example, Border Force have a real problem manning their patrol force already, an RFA would only compound that manning issue

 

[Stampede]

We’ve tried privatising maintenance.
We shut the service trade schools and employed contractors and the overall condition and reliability in the fleet plummeted.
The ability of ship’s staff to repair defects, particularly on minor war vessels is almost zero.
PBs return from sea and the engineering division walk off! SMPs are a thing of the past, not sure about AMPs.
I’m unaware of the skill levels in MFUs currently but it used to give me great pride serving on the Gunline in VN when USN units frequently asked our ME and WE personnel to transfer over and fix their problems.

Another problem with today’s manpower is that retaining members beyond the old retirement ages of 45 -55 (depending on rank) causes blockages in the promotion process and many blocked youngsters get fed up and leave.

As to and RFA, we’re simply not big enough. By way of example, Border Force have a real problem manning their patrol force already, an RFA would only compound that manning issue

If Border Force are having trouble with manning their current fleet, is there a fix?


Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

If Border Force are having trouble with manning their current fleet, is there a fix?


Regards S

The major problem for Border Force is going to be the low local populations to draw from. How many people in Northern Australia have the required expertise? The RAN can of course transfer people in and out of Darwin, Cairns and Townsville. Border Force doesn’t have the same options

 

[ngatimozart]

We’ve tried privatising maintenance.
We shut the service trade schools and employed contractors and the overall condition and reliability in the fleet plummeted.
The ability of ship’s staff to repair defects, particularly on minor war vessels is almost zero.
PBs return from sea and the engineering division walk off! SMPs are a thing of the past, not sure about AMPs.
I’m unaware of the skill levels in MFUs currently but it used to give me great pride serving on the Gunline in VN when USN units frequently asked our ME and WE personnel to transfer over and fix their problems.

Another problem with today’s manpower is that retaining members beyond the old retirement ages of 45 -55 (depending on rank) causes blockages in the promotion process and many blocked youngsters get fed up and leave.

As to and RFA, we’re simply not big enough. By way of example, Border Force have a real problem manning their patrol force already, an RFA would only compound that manning issue

The other thing was when the forces had all their own trade schools they were attractive because they were seen as being a way of obtaining a trade with good quality training and a good reputation. You learned your trade did your time and when you got out you were fully qualified with good experience under your belt. Not so much any more.

 

[ADMk2]

Australia's demographics have taken a bit of a hit over the last year or so because immigration has virtually come to a stop. Having said that manpower availability isn't necessarily tied in with population. The military has had many more personnel in the past than it does now.

Australia Military Size 1960-2024

Armed forces personnel are active duty military personnel, including paramilitary forces if the training, organization, equipment, and control suggest they may be used to support or replace regular military forces.

www.macrotrends.net

The average sailor would probably have to be a lot better educated now and they would be a little harder to find.

I often wonder just how efficiently run Australia's military is in terms of getting the most out of the manpower it currently has available. Things like maintenance could be privatised.

Perhaps the RAN could look at a system something like the Royal Navy's RFA to man its support and constabulary vessels.

Defence accepts about 8000 applicants for positions each year, but receives in excess of 80,000 applications per year… So either the talent pool is extremely low in Australia, that more than 9 out of 10 ADF applicants are unsuitable, or Defence is insanely picky… Or it is simply not funded to accept any more…

We could massively expand the ADF workforce within a few years if necessary. The training pipelines would be the hardest thing to expand, but even so the numbers of applicants is huge even in comparison to the existing size of ADF and we could build numbers rapidly were the floodgates to be opened, so to speak…

 

[alexsa]

The major problem for Border Force is going to be the low local populations to draw from. How many people in Northern Australia have the required expertise? The RAN can of course transfer people in and out of Darwin, Cairns and Townsville. Border Force doesn’t have the same options

Border force do fly their folk about so that is not an issue. The problem is twofold:

1. The is a real shortage of civilian mariners at the moment as the vessel operators (those that are left) are not investing in training.
2. The mariners that are out there can do a lot better in the offshore industry, towage or routes that suit their lifestyle (the crews on the Bass Strait run get home pretty regularly as an example).

There is a better supply of officers and crew for domestic operations but those with unrestricted tickets are getting older (on average) and rarer. The Cape class require a Master Class 1 and similar engineering qualifications ... hence the problem. They have trained folk to that level but then they may be poached by other operators.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Defence accepts about 8000 applicants for positions each year, but receives in excess of 80,000 applications per year… So either the talent pool is extremely low in Australia, that more than 9 out of 10 ADF applicants are unsuitable, or Defence is insanely picky… Or it is simply not funded to accept any more…

The ADF has a good reputation and people in Australia are interested in military service, we don't have the problem say Germany has with its military in how its seen and getting people to sign up and stay.

The problem hasn't really been people applying, its been funding to increase the size. But increasing size isn't easy, you need to then increase the size of the training pipeline, which is a problem in itself, and small incremental increases aren't always possible. The pipeline is also leaky.

Wages in Australia are extremely high. Man power is expensive in Australia, it always has been. This isn't a new problem.
Australia needs to make each and every platform count. High tempo, high endurance, high capability, low man power.

Gutting civilian maritime and manufacturing has killed a lot of transferable skills between civilian and military worlds.

You can increase the crew size, but its just not a magic wand. You can introduce new weapon systems, but an analysis needs to be done on if the benefits outweigh the downsides. There are real limitations.

 

[76mmGuns]

We’ve tried privatising maintenance.
We shut the service trade schools and employed contractors and the overall condition and reliability in the fleet plummeted.
The ability of ship’s staff to repair defects, particularly on minor war vessels is almost zero.
PBs return from sea and the engineering division walk off! SMPs are a thing of the past, not sure about AMPs.
I’m unaware of the skill levels in MFUs currently but it used to give me great pride serving on the Gunline in VN when USN units frequently asked our ME and WE personnel to transfer over and fix their problems.

Another problem with today’s manpower is that retaining members beyond the old retirement ages of 45 -55 (depending on rank) causes blockages in the promotion process and many blocked youngsters get fed up and leave.

As to and RFA, we’re simply not big enough. By way of example, Border Force have a real problem manning their patrol force already, an RFA would only compound that manning issue

Hearing "privatise" made me shudder in fear, after reading the LCS debacles.

About the promotions....would there be 45-60 year olds who had left the RAN when, say, 28-35, be willing to come back, even at a low rank, to help with the work? I know I keep harping about this, but you see volunteers and such in other fields come back to help tutor, help run organisations.
Surely logistics ? Ok, I promise I won't bring this up again

 

[Stampede]

Border force do fly their folk about so that is not an issue. The problem is twofold:

1. The is a real shortage of civilian mariners at the moment as the vessel operators (those that are left) are not investing in training.
2. The mariners that are out there can do a lot better in the offshore industry, towage or routes that suit their lifestyle (the crews on the Bass Strait run get home pretty regularly as an example).

There is a better supply of officers and crew for domestic operations but those with unrestricted tickets are getting older (on average) and rarer. The Cape class require a Master Class 1 and similar engineering qualifications ... hence the problem. They have trained folk to that level but then they may be poached by other operators.

Any suggestions going forward.

I know the push pull arguments of who should man constabulary vessels like the Capes and Armidale class as well as the future OPV's is a subject for debate on many levels.

If the realistic practicality is that Navy are better placed to crew such vessels in the north, is this the path we should take?

Don't have the answer, just wondering.


Regards S