Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Ozzy Blizzard]

ok... well i want peoples opinions.

this is a hypothetical OK!!

if you were prime minister of aus... and a conflict arose say, concerning the indonesians making an aggressive move at australia...

the year is 2018 - what would you with your navy?

and what would be your task force youd take up there...

this is only a hypothetical... NOT a who will win... there mite not be any conflict at all...

i just want to see what everyones thoughts are like in terms of them choosing there own task group if they could.

ENJOY

I need some details mate. the task force would look verry different if it was based arround an amphib op, whether it was operating within land based air cover, whether it was just intending to wave the flag, what the threat consisted of and who if anyone else would be there i.e. is it an indipendant operation? What agressive move are the indo's making??? Is it against Timor Leste, west papua or mainland Australia itself???? What does it consist of, what are the surface combatants or SSK threat??? What's the air threat like??? Have the indo's gone through with there planned 50 odd Flanker purchase, and decent AShM's??? Have we bought F35b's??? Have we bought F35a's??? Can land based RAAF directly interviene??? questions questions questions...... Untill most of these are answered your scenario cant really be explored, all of them will alter the composition of the task force.

 

[Tasman]

I need some details mate. the task force would look verry different if it was based arround an amphib op, whether it was operating within land based air cover, whether it was just intending to wave the flag, what the threat consisted of and who if anyone else would be there i.e. is it an indipendant operation? What agressive move are the indo's making??? Is it against Timor Leste, west papua or mainland Australia itself???? What does it consist of, what are the surface combatants or SSK threat??? What's the air threat like??? Have the indo's gone through with there planned 50 odd Flanker purchase, and decent AShM's??? Have we bought F35b's??? Have we bought F35a's??? Can land based RAAF directly interviene??? questions questions questions...... Untill most of these are answered your scenario cant really be explored, all of them will alter the composition of the task force.

I agree with Ozzy. We need to know what modern weapon systems (ships, aircraft, missiles, etc) Indonesia has. Particularly, we need to be able to answer these questions:

1. How many new surface combat ships and SSKs have been added to the Indonesian navy?
2. How many Flankers are in service?

We can presume that the RAN surface fleet would include the 2 LHDs and the three new destroyers. We can also presume that Australia has at least three squadrons of F-35s, 1 of FA-18Fs and that the army has achieved its target strength of 8 bn plus specialist and supporting units.

If tension had built up over a period of several years it is possible that the navy would hang onto the FFGs rather than decommissioning them and the RAAF may also hang on to some classic Hornets. The army may also have undertaken some pre-mobilisation.

For the navy the $64m question is:

Have we acquired a squadron of F-35Bs and AEW MRH-90 variants?

Also, what strike weapons have we acquired (Tomahawk, etc)?

Once these questions are answered and we know what Indonesia is threatening (Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea, NW shelf oil/gas, interfering with Australian shipping, etc) we can respond to diggumsbang's scenario.

The one certain naval response from Australia in any scenario involving Indonesia would be the submarine force. It is not accidental that 5 or the 6 Collins class submarines operate out of Fleet Base West!

BTW, I think this would be better with a separate thread as it is impossible (in my opinion) to consider a naval response without also considering the rest of the ADF. Any response would be a combined arms response from the ADF as a whole. I suggest that diggumsbang set up a scenario which includes the information mentioned by Ozzy and myself and open a separate hypothetical thread in Military Strategy and Tactics.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

CIWS and the RAN

A recent discussion in another thread mentioned that a number of RAN units that are able to carry Phalanx do not currently have it fitted.

Perhaps someone from within the RAN could correct any errors here but my understanding is that the RAN has 9x 20mm Phalanx mountings in its inventory. Five of these are usually fitted to the five FFGs (this will soon reduce to four with the impending retirement of Adelaide). One is usually fitted to each of the LPAs when they deploy operationally and the others are used for training or held in storage ready to be fitted to RAN ships when they deploy. Success was fitted with two units for trial purposes but they were then removed. The Anzac class frigates were designed with space and weight allowed for Phalanx but it has never actually been fitted in an Australian Anzac. Even though there are now spare units I am unaware of a Phalanx ever being fitted to an RAN Anzac even for trial purposes.

In Exercise Talisman Saber I notice from the ADF website that photos show that Manoora is not currently carrying Phalanx but one is still fitted to Kanimbla.

The retirement of two FFGs is providing an extra pair of spare weapons. It seems to me that the RAN would benefit by modernising its inventory to Block 1B (as is planned in the RNZN) to allow its use against surface targets but I am unaware of any plans for this in the RAN.

Debate in the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer thread seems to indicate a growing preference for a missile based CIWS such as RAM or alternatively a move to a larger calibre gun based CIWS such as the 35mm Millennium gun rather than Phalanx. The number of RAN combat, amphibious and support units currently operating without a CIWS of any sort suggests to me that the RAN doesn't give any real priority to the provision of CIWS.

Originally it was expected that the ASMD upgrade of the Anzac class would include the provision of a CIWS or a missile based VSRADS. However, there has been absolutely no mention of this in any recent government, ADF or navy statements about this upgrade.

What is the future direction that the RAN is likely to take in this area and what is the future direction that it should take?

Cheers

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Hello everyone,
I have been reading previous postings about the BPEs capabilities and I wonder if anybody has posted this link before , is in Spanish I am afraid, is the official Spanish Navy web and it offers a few drawings about configurations and mission profiles and although its in Spanish is quite easy to follow.
Menus are at the bottom and side.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/PerfilMision.asp?SecAct=050206


Have fun, I will be glad to help with any (short) translations.


Best regards

upss!! I haven't got 15 posts, maybe somebody can do it for me?

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Upss again!!, I just saw the BPE forum…, how embarrassing!! Please disregard my last.

 

[Tasman]

Upss again!!, I just saw the BPE forum…, how embarrassing!! Please disregard my last.

No problems Blas. It's good to have another Spanish member. Hopefully you will be able to help our other Spanish members to keep us informed with 'inside' information re the Spanish designs selected by the RAN.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

NULKA now in 100 ships worldwide

The Australian produced Nulka active missile decoy system has now been fitted to 100 ships with the fitting of the system to USS Gonzales. It has now been fitted to 83 USN, 14 RAN and 3 Canadian ships. 50 more USN vessels and the three new Australian AWDs are to be so fitted and it is being considered for the LHDs.

NULKA Celebrates its Century.


July marks a very important milestone for the collaborative Australian/US Nulka Program with USS Gonzalez (DDG66) being the 100th ship to be fitted with the Nulka Active Missile Decoy System.



BAE Systems Australia have produced over 700 Nulka decoys for the RAN, USN and Canadian navies achieving regular sales of $40-50m per year. This makes Nulka Australia's most successful regular defence export, having earned $700m worth of work in Australia.



The award-winning Nulka system protects naval ships from the threat of anti-ship missiles (ASM). It uses a unique combination of rocket motor and electronic warfare technologies to mislead or seduce enemy missiles away from the target ship.

BAE Systems Australia and its partners in the Program have for many years produced the world's 'gold standard' active missile decoy system - to achieve this milestone is a credit to all those people in industry and Government who have worked on Nulka.

The decoy is assembled in Australia from subsections produced in both the US and Australia. The program originated from DSTO’s early work in ship self defence against new generation missiles such as Exocet.



The production decoy system was developed in Australia with a payload developed in the USA leading to initial sea trials on HMAS Brisbane and USS John Hancock in 1992. The operational system underwent many evaluations at sea leading to introduction into the USN fleet in 1999 and acceptance into RAN service in 2001.



The Australian Defence Materiel Organization (DMO) project manager, Mr Keith Gilby, said Nulka is a very successful collaboration between two Navies and industry.



Nulka has been fitted to 83 USN, 14 RAN and 3 Canadian Navy vessels with a further 50 USN units planned to be fitted in the near future.



It will also be fitted to the Air Warfare Destroyer and is being considered for the Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment vessels.



The Australian and US governments have granted permission to market the decoy system to New Zealand, UK, Japan and seven other NATO member states. Approvals will be on a case by case basis.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6823

This seems to have been an excellent co-operative effort between Australia and the USA and a real success story for the Australian Defence Industry.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

This seems to have been an excellent co-operative effort between Australia and the USA and a real success story for the Australian Defence Industry.

Cheers

I went to a DSTO Christmas dinner at Keswick Barracks a few years back and managed to score the table with the principle weapons and rocket scientists from Maritime Division and Kinetic Weapons section.

The bloke sitting next to me (doubling up his retirement party) was one of the original developers of Nulka - he spent some 5 years on the project prior to the USN and DARPA being allowed in to participate.

Needless to say, he had some interesting stories to tell - and the early tests were "interesting"

 

[mug]

The Australian and US governments have granted permission to market the decoy system to New Zealand

I saw this on another website. Does this relate to the 'self defence upgrade' circa 2010 as per LTDP, or something else?

 

[Todjaeger]

In light of what seem to be significant personnel shortages in the RAN I was curious how the RAN crews the major surface vessels. Given the rough numbers available, it seems that at any one time, of any three vessels in a given class, two will be deployed operationally or in training, with the third undergoing maintenance, repair, upgrading, etc.

If this is indeed the case, then wouldn't the personnel requirements be met with sufficient crews for the two deployed/training ships, and then a staff to oversee/conduct whatever needs to be done while in dock? And then, in the event of war, more personnel can be trained to allow a surge deployment of all three vessels at once?

Or is it necessary, or more effective, to have a full crew with a vessel while it's in dock, or conversely is the crew effectiveness degraded if they are rotated between different vessels?

Curious as to the thoughts of others on this.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Here are some pics of the new A-109E Power's RAN has chosen to provide flying opportunities for it's pilots whilst the Seasprites are sorted out.

Cheers

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/Blargon2002/rmi_a109.gif

http://www.thefifthcolumn.ru/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=153&d=1184567230

 

[gf0012-aust]

Here are some pics of the new A-109E Power's RAN has chosen to provide flying opportunities for it's pilots whilst the Seasprites are sorted out.

Cheers

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/Blargon2002/rmi_a109.gif

http://www.thefifthcolumn.ru/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=153&d=1184567230

If Augusta had any brains, they'd get their Media Liaison Unit to shove Nelson into the black one and take him roo shooting in it. - guaranteed sale.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If Augusta had any brains, they'd get their Media Liaison Unit to shove Nelson into the black one and take him roo shooting in it. - guaranteed sale.

Or poach Boeing's salesmen...

 

[Sea Toby]

Navies aroung the world allow the crews to stick together, with some transfers. Keep in mind you won't keep your sailors if they are at sea all of the time. Everyone wants their shore time to be with their families.

The idea of manning three ships with two crews is not good. That is the quickest route to having no one in ypur navy. Its bad enough to compete with the civilian world recruiting.

 

[icelord]

Navies aroung the world allow the crews to stick together, with some transfers. Keep in mind you won't keep your sailors if they are at sea all of the time. Everyone wants their shore time to be with their families.

The idea of manning three ships with two crews is not good. That is the quickest route to having no one in ypur navy. Its bad enough to compete with the civilian world recruiting.

That and while your ships in port your still getting your $10,000 a year sea going allowance, no point moving around with different crew if no incentive, plus its gives sailors more time to do recreation things, like drinking,sport,family,drinking.
Some roles may get moved to fleet base, admin,cook, while others recieve extra training.

 

[Tasman]

I think the current arrangement of having a crew for every commissioned ship has served the RAN (and other navies) well and ought to be retained. When a ship is undergoing maintenance there are still onboard duties for some crew and it provides opportunities for leave and training. There are also times when it may be possible to delay a refit for a short time to allow a ship to remain operational to meet emergencies that may arise. This could not happen if only a portion of commissioned ships were assigned crews.

I also agree with the comments made by Sea Toby. I think that it is good for a crew to stick together so that they can develop a sense of pride in the operation of a particular ship. I accept that there is a case for multi crewing smaller units such as patrol boats but in the case of major fleet units I think it is preferable for sailors to be able to identify with a particular ship.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Here are some pics of the new A-109E Power's RAN has chosen to provide flying opportunities for it's pilots whilst the Seasprites are sorted out.

Cheers

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/Blargon2002/rmi_a109.gif

http://www.thefifthcolumn.ru/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=153&d=1184567230

The A-109E should provide a good stepping stone to the Seasprite/Seahawk force for pilots who have completed their training in the Squirrel. For that reason I would like to see it retained after the Seasprites finally (fingers crossed!) become operational.

Is it planned to embark the A-109Es to provide experience in shipboard operations or will they be used purely for shore based training (perhaps with occasional landing /takeoff practice at sea)?

Cheers

 

[Pusser01]

Is it planned to embark the A-109Es to provide experience in shipboard operations or will they be used purely for shore based training (perhaps with occasional landing /takeoff practice at sea)?

In the winter edition of the RAN Sea Talk magazine an article by the OIC of the A109 Flight states that they will be used to support units from shore which includes surveillance and reporting & personnel transfers by winching (but not as an embarked asset/no deck landings." I would have posted the link but the mag hasn't been placed on the web yet.

I personally believe that it is better to keep the whole crew of a MFU together rather than multi-crewing which has worked for the ACPB's and survey boats. The flexi-crewing scheme will be ending when Arunta returns from the Gulf mid next year. I have not been subjected to it myself but mates have said they are not a fan of it. Basically they have 3 members for 2 positions, it was only implemented for LS and below, thus command was untouched. To get these extra members it meant raiding shore billets and deactivating them which in turn has reduced the number of postions ashore. The members are told when to take leave which most times doesn't relate to when is convenient for them.
I would prefer to have a shore based team that would provide the duty watch and basic maintenance when alongside in your home port. There is nothing more frustrating than returning from a 6 month deployment to be made duty the first day back and then have to paint the ship's side.
Just my 5 cents worth
Cheers

 

[Tasman]

In the winter edition of the RAN Sea Talk magazine an article by the OIC of the A109 Flight states that they will be used to support units from shore which includes surveillance and reporting & personnel transfers by winching (but not as an embarked asset/no deck landings." I would have posted the link but the mag hasn't been placed on the web yet.

I personally believe that it is better to keep the whole crew of a MFU together rather than multi-crewing which has worked for the ACPB's and survey boats. The flexi-crewing scheme will be ending when Arunta returns from the Gulf mid next year. I have not been subjected to it myself but mates have said they are not a fan of it. Basically they have 3 members for 2 positions, it was only implemented for LS and below, thus command was untouched. To get these extra members it meant raiding shore billets and deactivating them which in turn has reduced the number of postions ashore. The members are told when to take leave which most times doesn't relate to when is convenient for them.
I would prefer to have a shore based team that would provide the duty watch and basic maintenance when alongside in your home port. There is nothing more frustrating than returning from a 6 month deployment to be made duty the first day back and then have to paint the ship's side.
Just my 5 cents worth
Cheers

Thanks for the info re plans for the A-109E.

Interesting comments re crewing. It's always good to get info from people with first hand experience.

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

RAN ships and crews

Okay, it appears that some of the idea I was considering didn't quite come out right, so I'll try another tack to see if I can make myself understood.

I was not suggesting that the RAN start having different crewmembers switch out during the course of a deployment. As mentioned, it is better for a crew to work and train together than to continually have turnover. Nor for that matter was I suggesting that the RAN start operating warships in the manner the US used to do with submarines, having a Blue and a Gold crew which would switch between deployments. In fact, I recommend keeping the crew togher is best.

The idea was (given the potential shortfall of RAN personnel) that there would be two crews, each crew working, training and deploying together. The difference would be in which vessel the crew were aboard for a particular deployment. In some respects it would be like have a Blue ship, and a Gold ship, with the crew changing from one ship to another for a time.

As I mentioned though, not sure exactly how effective this would be, and I would consider this more of an alternative plan to scrapping or mothballing existing warships (or those in the process of being acquired) that due to lack of sufficient crews can't be manned at all times.

-Cheers