Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[old faithful]

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.

164000 since May last year, immigration has not come to a stop.https://scanloninstitute.org.au/migrationdashboard
Sorry, couldn't find the may 2020 to may 2021 link

 

[old faithful]

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…

One of my work mate and his wife, are both ex Brit Army. He served in the Green Jackets / Rifles and transitioned to the ADF and served with 1 Armoured then MPs as a dog handler. Both of his sons applied to join the Army, both wanted to be infantry, both were knocked back in favour of female recruits who were deemed more suitable....sigh.....

 

[alexsa]

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

The solution is rebuilding the Australian merchant navy .... the problem is political. I have spoken about the AISR in the past but that never really got lets as the relevant departments could not agree a decent set of incentives.

 

[ASSAIL]

One of my work mate and his wife, are both ex Brit Army. He served in the Green Jackets / Rifles and transitioned to the ADF and served with 1 Armoured then MPs as a dog handler. Both of his sons applied to join the Army, both wanted to be infantry, both were knocked back in favour of female recruits who were deemed more suitable....sigh.....

Indeed I’ve heard similar which is an absolute travesty. Surely we select on available talent and not some socially engineered bs?
Has service effectiveness study ever been done.
What I mean is, time a person is available for service including retention, deployment availability etc.
While trying not to sound misogynistic, it must give manpower headaches, dealing with pregnancies and childcare, interruptions to team training, light duties, you name it, must be a pain.

 

[alexsa]

One of my work mate and his wife, are both ex Brit Army. He served in the Green Jackets / Rifles and transitioned to the ADF and served with 1 Armoured then MPs as a dog handler. Both of his sons applied to join the Army, both wanted to be infantry, both were knocked back in favour of female recruits who were deemed more suitable....sigh.....

That really is lunacy. No problem if they are the best person for the job but it smells of quotas. I hope they keep applying as I understand the turn over is pretty high. It is hard to get current turn over figures as these do not appear to be publicly available. Mind you this issue was well known in 1988 and does not seem to have improved. I suspect it may have got a bit worse.

High personnel turnover: the Australian Defence Force is not a limited liability company | Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs (anu.edu.au)

 

[ASSAIL]

The solution is rebuilding the Australian merchant navy .... the problem is political. I have spoken about the AISR in the past but that never really got lets as the relevant departments could not agree a decent set of incentives.

You cannot rebuild the Australian Merchant Marine under the current MUA enterprise agreements.
That would be totally uneconomical, would drive up transport costs to ridiculous levels for general cargo and could only occur with massive and ongoing government subsidies.
It’s a sensible solution made unworkable by the unions.
Recent examples illustrate my point;
During the construction of the Inpex gas terminal in Darwin a Master Class 5, driving a 17mtr workboat was earning $1200 per day, one week on one week off and being paid during the week off. - High value industry.
My Harbour Cruise business paid a Master 5 $150/day (6hrs work) - Tourism

 

[hauritz]

I am pro diversity to a point, but I would draw the line when it came to national security. Everybody should be required to meet exactly the same standards and if they manage to meet those standards then I would be happy to see them enlist regardless of colour, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Unfortunately that probably isn't the way it gets done. These days it is more about virtue signalling.

 

[Massive]

both were knocked back in favour of female recruits who were deemed more suitable....sigh.....

How do you know this? My understanding is that it is difficult to get into combat roles, but am surprised that this would have been provided as a reason.

Be interested to understand.

Thanks,

Massive

 

[Massive]

I think the real question that has to be asked is whether or not the RAN has enough surface combatants?

Very much so.

My original post was with this intent - originally, an OPV was ordered. Since it was ordered, the strategic environment has changed, and in the new environment would the order have been for a more capable surface combatant.

The way I read the comments on increasing the armament of the Arafura's was a reflection of this - that the Arafura's may need to be used in a combat role.

Regards,

Massive

 

[alexsa]

You cannot rebuild the Australian Merchant Marine under the current MUA enterprise agreements.
That would be totally uneconomical, would drive up transport costs to ridiculous levels for general cargo and could only occur with massive and ongoing government subsidies.
It’s a sensible solution made unworkable by the unions.
Recent examples illustrate my point;
During the construction of the Inpex gas terminal in Darwin a Master Class 5, driving a 17mtr workboat was earning $1200 per day, one week on one week off and being paid during the week off. - High value industry.
My Harbour Cruise business paid a Master 5 $150/day (6hrs work) - Tourism

Agree completely. The AISR (Australian International Shipping Register) was based on Australian officers (top four as a minimum) a Pacific crew. The MUA supported this on the assumption they would be allowed to 'represent the crew'. Other bodies had different plans and the legislation really did not let the MUA in.

What really scuppered this was the lack of real tax incentives (bugger all really). Made the whole thing pointless but it is still in the legislation having only having one ship on the register (and that lasted a very very short time).

 

[old faithful]

How do you know this? My understanding is that it is difficult to get into combat roles, but am surprised that this would have been provided as a reason.

Be interested to understand.

Thanks,

Massive

It was a quota, no males were recruited at the time. It when the 1 RAR experiment was at full swing.

 

[StingrayOZ]

My original post was with this intent - originally, an OPV was ordered. Since it was ordered, the strategic environment has changed, and in the new environment would the order have been for a more capable surface combatant.

The way I read the comments on increasing the armament of the Arafura's was a reflection of this - that the Arafura's may need to be used in a combat role.

Still way more capable than an Armidale patrol boat.

If someone, something thing else could crew some of the OPV's. Then perhaps. It would certainly be worth while looking at some of the low crew ships that are out there.

The Mogami for example, crew of 90 - 5" gun, seaRAM (Phalanx?), 16 x Mk41, torpedos and 8 x antiship missiles - The Japanese were able to make a ship with less than half the crew, have half the Mk41 (but still 5", same 8 antiship, etc). 30+kt performance (MT30!)

IMO that would seem to be a way more capable ship than a OPV90 or similar small corvette. or up gunned OPV.
Japan is planning to build 22 of them.

Trade 6 Afurua's for 3 Mogami's?
Or trade 2 Anzac/Hunters for 4 Mogami?
Or trade 1 DDG for 3 Mogami?

Or just presume that by the time 2040 comes around, the RAN has grown, we have been at war, ships have been lost or disposed of. But is that sort of ship survivable in the 2040+. Does that size fleet get the RAN in any particularly more useful position?

 

[Todjaeger]

Still way more capable than an Armidale patrol boat.

If someone, something thing else could crew some of the OPV's. Then perhaps. It would certainly be worth while looking at some of the low crew ships that are out there.

The Mogami for example, crew of 90 - 5" gun, seaRAM (Phalanx?), 16 x Mk41, torpedos and 8 x antiship missiles - The Japanese were able to make a ship with less than half the crew, have half the Mk41 (but still 5", same 8 antiship, etc). 30+kt performance (MT30!)

IMO that would seem to be a way more capable ship than a OPV90 or similar small corvette. or up gunned OPV.
Japan is planning to build 22 of them.

Trade 6 Afurua's for 3 Mogami's?
Or trade 2 Anzac/Hunters for 4 Mogami?
Or trade 1 DDG for 3 Mogami?

Or just presume that by the time 2040 comes around, the RAN has grown, we have been at war, ships have been lost or disposed of. But is that sort of ship survivable in the 2040+. Does that size fleet get the RAN in any particularly more useful position?

While the Mogami-class frigate/compact destroyer certainly looks "interesting", in terms of vessel size and displacement, the closest analogue in current RAN service would be the ANZAC-class frigate, albeit with a less full load displacement. To put a little cost perspective, IIRC the approximate cost per Arafura-class OPV is AUD$300 mil. while the cost was estimated back in 2018 to be approx ¥50 bil. per vessel for eight vessels built in pairs. At current conversion rates and not adjusting for inflation of changes in the currency purchasing power, that works out to over AUD$626 mil. per vessel.

So in a nutshell, we are talking about a vessel that is over twice the displacement of a RAN OPV, has over twice the crew, is over 50% longer with a similar beam, and costs more than twice as much. Also, the expected role for the JMSDF is quite different than what the RAN currently plans to use the OPV's for.

Honestly, if the RAN had not opted to go for as comprehensive sensor, electronics and CMS as they seemed to for the OPV's, they would likely have cost considerably less than AUD$300 mil. per vessel. To my mind, there is potential value in having better sensors, electronics and CMS in the OPV's even though they are really not combatants. Having patrol vessels with such systems and capabilities provides more berths that can be filled training and qualifying more operators, technicians, and officers while also enabling the RAN to carry out needed constabulary missions stopping EEZ violations and/or SIEV's.

 

[hauritz]

164000 since May last year, immigration has not come to a stop.https://scanloninstitute.org.au/migrationdashboard
Sorry, couldn't find the may 2020 to may 2021 link

I think the damage happened after March 2020.

According to this story only about 3,300 migrants for 2020 and I expect about the same this year. That compares to about 244,000 the previous year.

COVID-19 Slashes Immigration into Australia

COVID-19 border closures drive Australian immigration to a 100-year low

www.voanews.com

Actually in terms of demographics and population Australia is still in a relatively good position compared to China. China may be able to build and man a massive navy now but by around the mid 2030s not only will its workforce be shrinking, but the economy will also slow and might even go into reverse. China's rise to super power status may be pretty short lived.

If we get through the next 20 years we might be all right.

 

[Stampede]

It was a quota, no males were recruited at the time. It when the 1 RAR experiment was at full swing.

Navy thread yes- but what was the 1 RAR experiment?


S

 

[old faithful]

Navy thread yes- but what was the 1 RAR experiment?


S

Not really an experiment, just my twist on it, but that's where the first female infantry went to be broken. Sorry about my tone, I'm all for female soldiers in appropriate jobs, I just don't consider infantry one of them. Tiger pilots and crew no worries, armoured Corp no worries, but I don't think infantry is the right place, for the same reason we don't have mixed rugby league teams or women competing against men in combat sports like MMA or boxing.

 

[Massive]

... they will NOT be the size of the Arafura class, but significantly larger, most likely 3,000 -- 3,500 tonnes displacement.

Essentially you end up back at an Anzac class ship. Though noting that this is now a second tier warfighting asset.

How long could the Anzacs be kept in the fleet?

Regards,

Massive

 

[Todjaeger]

Essentially you end up back at an Anzac class ship. Though noting that this is now a second tier warfighting asset.

How long could the Anzacs be kept in the fleet?

Regards,

Massive

Hard to say, as there are a number of factors which come to my mind which would be involved in determining the answer, and likely even more factors I am unaware of or have not considered. The RNZN is currently planning on keeping their frigates until the mid-2030's vs. the current RAN plan which IIRC would start replacing them in the late 2020's as the Hunter-class frigates commission. The RAN ANZAC-class frigates might be able to have a service life of ~40 years, which could se the earlier vessels serve until around 2035, assuming the hull and machinery are still in good nick.

However, the RAN ANZAC-class frigate fitout would need to still be suitable for the possible services the RAN would utilize one of the frigates for. If the sensors, CMS, or weapons were obsolete or insufficient for the needed tasks, and upgrading to an appropriate fitout was not deemed realistic or worthwhile (IMO quite likely for a vessel like to be nearing 30 years service at that point) then it would not be appropriate to try and retain the frigates further.

Also, the question of crewing and support for retained frigates would need to be considered and answered. If the RAN has increased the pool of personnel available to draw upon when assigning crews to vessels so that there is a sufficient surplus to make retaining an older frigate worthwhile, that would be one thing. OTOH if there are not so many RAN personnel available so that personnel (officers and enlisted) are looking for berths and that any crew for a retained frigate would strain the availability for other RAN vessels and shore establishments, then I would have doubts about whether the service provided would be worth it.

There might be some value in retaining one of the newest frigates longer, if used as a training ship, but that would likely be something the RAN, ADF and gov't think about a good deal in order to decide whether that is a worthwhile idea or not.

 

[Stampede]

Not really an experiment, just my twist on it, but that's where the first female infantry went to be broken. Sorry about my tone, I'm all for female soldiers in appropriate jobs, I just don't consider infantry one of them. Tiger pilots and crew no worries, armoured Corp no worries, but I don't think infantry is the right place, for the same reason we don't have mixed rugby league teams or women competing against men in combat sports like MMA or boxing.

Cheers

 

[Pusser01]

Essentially you end up back at an Anzac class ship. Though noting that this is now a second tier warfighting asset.

How long could the Anzacs be kept in the fleet?

Regards,

Massive

The attached ANAO report from 2019 suggests that the first Anzac would possibly decommission in the 2029-30 time frame & the last around 42-43. Whether the latest potential delay in the first Hunter delivery affects this I don't know. They have started planning the next upgrade, TransCAP, which is looking at potentially starting around 2025-26. Cheers ANZAC Class Frigates — Sustainment | Australian National Audit Office