Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Jissy]

there would be a supply issue at first, as most Ammo is located in Vic and NSW, with a relatively small Thale Amunitions station in WA.

Ive been saying for a while, FBE or a new sub base in the East. Seeing as FBE is going to get a little busy in the next few years with 3 FFH, 2LPA and 1 fleet barge(tobruk...or is that 3 barges now?) handing over to 2 LHD, AO being replaced(eventually!) and 4 FFG becoming 3 AWD there is going to be a fight for room. FBW needs to be extended and enlarged over the next few years to accomadate 6 collins handing over to 12(uhuh) which will also need berthing space for regular USN visits for WA open water sub excercise areas. Then holding 5 FFH and may hold a AWD in the end with East shortage of room. With no expanding area in Darwin or Cairns able to be seen, as they are expecting a larger OPV size to replace Armidales and Hydro fleet. Waterhen wont hold Subs as the surrounding water is too shallow at this stage and little room to move. ADF still own an island in Sydney harbour which is used for large scale "char" storage, said to be a historians wet dream...im still asking how to get out to it...
Jervis Bay is no go for fleet before anyone says it, theres a rare seaweed(yep) that wont allow construction. Could be room in Hervey bay maybe?


The white paper was a waste in the end, it lead defence into a puzzling direction, as platforms named, 12 subs, OPV, had no basis when the threat is not mentioned. There is a difference between hinting and china and naming it. Its like reading the koran and having different interpretations. All it needed was to confirm some purchases and reccomend some others, instead it lacked mentioning current purchases(land 17 is still being considered, 3 years after due date and here we are claiming lack fire support). Already theres been talk of the next White paper...we're still decoding the last one!

Interesting points Icelord, about the future needs of sub bases. How are they going with crewing and maintenance now? Last public reporting, it wasn't looking too good in those areas.

Also, I was just wondering whether Botany Bay might be possible, with some dredging and whatnot? It is close to Sydney, hence crews, and our Allies, could use it for RAR docking, and it would be close to a major city for PR etc purposes.

In fact, why wouldn't the Navy set up a small docking areas for subs near every major city, rather than having them all in a "Pearl Harbour" like grouping, that is, in one big group?

cheers

 

[OpinionNoted]

In fact, why wouldn't the Navy set up a small docking areas for subs near every major city, rather than having them all in a "Pearl Harbour" like grouping, that is, in one big group?

cheers

Thats what id like to know.
Would it cause major problems if they divided the planned 12 boat fleet up between the 4 major east and south coast cities with hmas stirling retaining 4 .
That would go some way to easing the recruitment and retention problems the submarine arm are having.

 

[scatterbrains]

Do other countries have manning issues with subs or is it just Australia?

How do other countries deal with this ?

 

[SASWanabe]

Other Countries can essentialy force Sailors to be submariners, Australia's silent service is voluntary. Because of an incident on a O boat i.e. a Submariner refusing to close a valve and taking the sub nearly twice max depth...

 

[AegisFC]

Do other countries have manning issues with subs or is it just Australia?

How do other countries deal with this ?

Not sure how Australia does it but in the US the sub sailors are volunteers and get paid significantly more than any other community. They also keep getting their sub pay for up to 3 or 4 years after they get off a sub when they go to shore duty.

 

[Sea Toby]

The US Navy had difficulty keeping mine countermeasures personnel especially in the officer ranks as being stationed with the mine countermeasures community was considered a dead end secondary position. The US Navy built a new base in Corpus Christi, Texas, whose commander was in the mine countermeasures community. Its hard to move up to higher ranks when previously one would never get a base command. The solutions lie in ending the dead end job positions...

 

[icelord]

Interesting points Icelord, about the future needs of sub bases. How are they going with crewing and maintenance now? Last public reporting, it wasn't looking too good in those areas.

Also, I was just wondering whether Botany Bay might be possible, with some dredging and whatnot? It is close to Sydney, hence crews, and our Allies, could use it for RAR docking, and it would be close to a major city for PR etc purposes.

In fact, why wouldn't the Navy set up a small docking areas for subs near every major city, rather than having them all in a "Pearl Harbour" like grouping, that is, in one big group?

cheers

Crewing is an issue, the option of one base for subs is a reason some leave subs. 2 of my crew have their dolphins and are not keen to go back to the west because of lack of options for families. Having a lone base to post crew has increased the number of ships with for submariners onboard, a possiblity once never considered to go skimmer.

Botany bay is about to get even busier then it is now. The port of Sydney is closing to major commerical traffic with the port becoming recreational based for the future....thank you NSW Labor. The ports container traffic is heading to botany, increasing their required berthing allocations. Having 4-6 future subs will not make it any easier as long term projections see an increase in requirments, if its anything like dubai or Oman, its going to be hectic.
Port of Newcastle has some room at present with former BHP being slowly developed, but most of this land has been allocated and the port itself is quite tidal and carrys Coal Commercial as its priority vessels, leaving any RAN secondary depending on movements. Sub basing here would be good, but lack of space to allocate rules it out for near future.

While having a ship,sub or two in every port sounds good, it doesnt help. besides logistical issues, constant change of postings requiring movements etc it costs alot more in the long run. Having 2 major bases for surface fleet allows crew to be short notice posted before a ship sails, allowing a number of spare hands to be available for any crew. Having been short posted i can say the ease of just walking to ship berthed next door is easier then moving my entire home before a deployment.
In terms of subs here and there, it also increases security risk and Force Protection to these vessels. Although FBE is not the safest base, the central location and number of ships able to provide support in any emergency aids an issues. These have been shown when HMAS Melbourne had a small fire last year with reduced dutywatch able to be supported by ships berthed nearby. This is a key to dutywatch not being in full as local fire and police are able to assist rather then a full manning. This goes towards retention in a big way!

 

[Jissy]

Thanks Icelord,
for that detailed purview, I much appreciate it.
Maybe, when you have the time, you could let us all know (seprate thread maybe?) what would be ideal for crews/safety/logistics in general, the crewing issues for subs in particular, then we all can start lobbying the Fed. Gov. with some insight and facts, which I do periodically on various issues.

The more the public knows the needs, the more pressure may be placed on Gov to change, albeit within budgetry restraints.

cheers
jiss

 

[Pusser01]

Standby for our 11 frigate navy to become 9 units for the next few years. Anzac and Arunta will go into mothballs, sorry "extended readiness" from the start of next year, and be fully de-crewed with a staff from FBW looking after them. Anzac is meant to be in this state until around this time next year when she will start her go at the ASMD upgrade, that is assuming that it passes all the trials on Perth next year. On a side note, 2 MHC have been in "extended readiness" for almost a year now. Wallaroo and Bandicoot were also stood down 1 Oct long term fate unknown.
Cheers

 

[knightrider4]

Standby for our 11 frigate navy to become 9 units for the next few years. Anzac and Arunta will go into mothballs, sorry "extended readiness" from the start of next year, and be fully de-crewed with a staff from FBW looking after them. Anzac is meant to be in this state until around this time next year when she will start her go at the ASMD upgrade, that is assuming that it passes all the trials on Perth next year. On a side note, 2 MHC have been in "extended readiness" for almost a year now. Wallaroo and Bandicoot were stood down 1 Oct long term fate unknown.
Cheers

Yeah but I can sleep at night I voted liberal.

 

[t68]

Sorry to bring politic into the thread but jeez it’s going to be murder on the defence budget with a labour/ greens/independents in power with all the namby pamby with greens and their idiotic policy’s.
God help us, bring on another election

 

[scatterbrains]

Pardon me if this is out of the scope of the thread but what sort of cutbacks could they make ?

No new purchases ?
Downsizing personnel ?
Undergrad sponsorships ?


I gather that at this stage the LHD's and AWD's are safe as the contracts are all signed and work is underway. What about the Sea Sprite replacement?

Also is this the first time an obviously left wing party has been in power? if not has this been a major issue in past with navy purchases ?

 

[StingrayOZ]

The government could technically do all this and more, if things get desperate they can even sell off existing or new assets. I don't think they will sell the LHD or AWD but it is possible and other countries have had to do simular things when desperate.

Look I know there is a lot of doom and gloom about the current government particularly concerning defence. Under Rudd, defence got some major projects signed, and there wasn't a massive change in direction. I don't thank Rudd for that personally (although he does seem concerned with the Chinese and that tended to flavour what he was doing IMO). Now Im sure some members will be critical of the process, but I don't think it would have been any different under a Howard or Costello government. Both sides have demonstrated they can ferk up procurement and defence spending.

Labor has some factions inside that can be good for defence. Collins was birthed under labour. While the execution was flawed, the end result is an excellent sub and even more important gave us direction for future production and development. While HMAS Melbourne was towed out, I doubt Liberal would have done anything dramatically different. The White paper was a very bold plan, developed under labor which outlined a significant strong direction.

Im not saying Labor is good for defence, but I don't think we will see massive changes from where we are currently heading. Saying that, we are not heading in the right direction on a lot of issues. We have a lot of equipment that needs upgrading, overhauling etc. We have some issues in recruitment. We have issues in terms of naval birthing. None of that is going to get any better. Decisions will be put off and easy/inappropriate options will be taken. (mothball it).

The current government is extremely marginal. Its not going to take much for it to collapse. It won't last 3 years, it will be lucky to run 18 months. I don't see the government making large wholesale changes in that time. A few issues will run the country and I see/hope that defence isn't one of them. The whole train will derail and a stronger government will be elected.

Faulkner has been moved out of defence, after reviewing the debarckles of previous ministers. Smith seems to be from labors right. I don't see him having particular fondness for the defence, but it means hes not a fringy hippy. Having a law background and previously a Keating advisor seems to imply a very right bent. Will it be cut defence spending or develop some strong defence policy and oversea the process effectively? Remains to be seen.

 

[knightrider4]

The government could technically do all this and more, if things get desperate they can even sell off existing or new assets. I don't think they will sell the LHD or AWD but it is possible and other countries have had to do simular things when desperate.

Look I know there is a lot of doom and gloom about the current government particularly concerning defence. Under Rudd, defence got some major projects signed, and there wasn't a massive change in direction. I don't thank Rudd for that personally (although he does seem concerned with the Chinese and that tended to flavour what he was doing IMO). Now Im sure some members will be critical of the process, but I don't think it would have been any different under a Howard or Costello government. Both sides have demonstrated they can ferk up procurement and defence spending.

Labor has some factions inside that can be good for defence. Collins was birthed under labour. While the execution was flawed, the end result is an excellent sub and even more important gave us direction for future production and development. While HMAS Melbourne was towed out, I doubt Liberal would have done anything dramatically different. The White paper was a very bold plan, developed under labor which outlined a significant strong direction.

Im not saying Labor is good for defence, but I don't think we will see massive changes from where we are currently heading. Saying that, we are not heading in the right direction on a lot of issues. We have a lot of equipment that needs upgrading, overhauling etc. We have some issues in recruitment. We have issues in terms of naval birthing. None of that is going to get any better. Decisions will be put off and easy/inappropriate options will be taken. (mothball it).

The current government is extremely marginal. Its not going to take much for it to collapse. It won't last 3 years, it will be lucky to run 18 months. I don't see the government making large wholesale changes in that time. A few issues will run the country and I see/hope that defence isn't one of them. The whole train will derail and a stronger government will be elected.

Faulkner has been moved out of defence, after reviewing the debarckles of previous ministers. Smith seems to be from labors right. I don't see him having particular fondness for the defence, but it means hes not a fringy hippy. Having a law background and previously a Keating advisor seems to imply a very right bent. Will it be cut defence spending or develop some strong defence policy and oversea the process effectively? Remains to be seen.

I'd have to disagree as an example under previous labor governments heavy armour was a no no. And the ADF in general had rundown to a woeful degree. I am sure if the ALP had been in power during the acquisition of the AWD/LHD these assets would never have been procured. I'm not saying that the Liberal Party is a pro defence party but they certainly recognised some of the glaring deficencies and tried to rectify them. What is needed is the political will to increase funding, it is laughable that wealthy Australia has issues in funding and procurement of what is by any measure a minute force structure.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well I think the common thing for labor in government is that your not going to see any significant spending in defence at this stage. There may be some far off dream projects comming, but not in the near term.

Its what suprised me about the white paper so much. For one under a labor government it chanted capability, huge upgrades, extensive depth. It went beyond what most armchair generals and admirals would have sought. 7,000t + BmD on our 2nd tier ships? 20 OCV? 12 subs!

Yet why push for a paper like that when you have no intention of getting near even the basic requirements. Why not plan for a more reasonable force?

We should have a more capable force. Recent operations with the Dutch showed that Australia is lacking in many areas even compared to a smaller population nation with lower defence requirements. We aren't as capable, we should be more capable. The white paper made signficant moves towards that. I was hoping the policy think tanks had come to a consensus on defence policy from both sides of politics.

I wonder. I wonder who drive the whitepaper in that direction. I wonder why Rudd is acting like he is, particularly towards the Chinese (rat f**ker comment). I wonder if Julia has any direction regarding Australia's international relations and awareness of what we need to do to be proactive in avoiding crisis. I wonder why Tony abbot seemed to not be interested in prime ministership early on. Surely all of these people should be professional operators who do things with reason and purpose.

 

[Jissy]

Well I think the common thing for labor in government is that your not going to see any significant spending in defence at this stage. There may be some far off dream projects comming, but not in the near term.

Its what suprised me about the white paper so much. For one under a labor government it chanted capability, huge upgrades, extensive depth. It went beyond what most armchair generals and admirals would have sought. 7,000t + BmD on our 2nd tier ships? 20 OCV? 12 subs!

Yet why push for a paper like that when you have no intention of getting near even the basic requirements. Why not plan for a more reasonable force?

We should have a more capable force. Recent operations with the Dutch showed that Australia is lacking in many areas even compared to a smaller population nation with lower defence requirements. We aren't as capable, we should be more capable. The white paper made signficant moves towards that. I was hoping the policy think tanks had come to a consensus on defence policy from both sides of politics.

I wonder. I wonder who drive the whitepaper in that direction. I wonder why Rudd is acting like he is, particularly towards the Chinese (rat f**ker comment). I wonder if Julia has any direction regarding Australia's international relations and awareness of what we need to do to be proactive in avoiding crisis. I wonder why Tony abbot seemed to not be interested in prime ministership early on. Surely all of these people should be professional operators who do things with reason and purpose.

Well, while trying not to bring this discussion into a purely political arena, obviously the current administration must take care to balance the budget, and eliminate budget deficit as promised. So there will not be any additions to military expenditure till that is achieved and there will be temporary reductions/suspensions in areas that are not contract bound, until the debt is paid.

Obviously Australia must get cracking on building up a force across all services to achieve a parity or better within our region, we need to get high tech across the board, not necessarily larger in numbers, as General (ret) Cosgrove commented recently.

Personally, I'd love to see our forces being able to quickly deploy a fully self supported force, but realistically, to cover all contingencies, that would also entail a proper carrier group I would have to assume, not just a helicopter transport, as useful as that will be.

Instead of the massive US carrier format, we should look to multiple smaller carriers, the LHDs size probably, that can take fixed wing, like the JSL stovl short take off variant.

Any further thoughts from the professional members here?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I very much doubt the Gillard government is going to do anything harsher to defence than the Rudd government. That is try and achieve some efficiency in defence by enforcing a self managed strategic funding program. Which is of course a disaster because the bloated bureaucracy just passes the cost savings down to the sharp end. The other thing the Rudd government did is push back some programs. The need to save funds because of the GFC is all about immediate expenditure so cancelling SEA 1000 won’t mean squat. There have been quite a few projects slipped that need to be underway now and that will probably continue.

Of course none of this means cancelling LHDs, AWDs and so on. The same kind of crap people were saying in 2007 which never happened. As to the Finance Department report saying defence should be cut every finance report says that. The key difference here is the new minister for finance obviously supports this so leaked it to the media. But it is cabinet that sets expenditure not the minister.

We could provide a massive increase to ADF capability within the current budget by cutting the bureaucracy. First stop would be the Military Prosecutors office and don’t stop until all the extreme governance mechanisms in place in Russel Hill and its satellites (because Russel isn’t big enough!) are gone.

There are 23,000 public servants on Defence’s payroll and that doesn’t count the thousands of uniformed personnel in essentially civilian positions that realistically couldn’t be redeployed. Many of these people do important work but many are simply moving paper around. Much of this results in unnecessary activities that make the defence force less efficient. If you were to get rid of 10,000 public servants you would save around $800 million a year in direct labour costs not to mention savings from unnecessary programs. In the 10 year DCP outlook that’s over $8 billion from unneeded civilian salaries alone that you could spend on new equipment.

Personally, I'd love to see our forces being able to quickly deploy a fully self supported force, but realistically, to cover all contingencies, that would also entail a proper carrier group I would have to assume, not just a helicopter transport, as useful as that will be.

Instead of the massive US carrier format, we should look to multiple smaller carriers, the LHDs size probably, that can take fixed wing, like the JSL stovl short take off variant.

Even a carrier lite capability is extremely expensive. There are new ways of doing things that can replace such a light carrier. For example combining AEGIS, SM6 and an AEW aircraft gives you over the horizon and long range engagement of threat aircraft. So rather than buy a carrier we can increase the Wedgetail fleet and/or add an organic AEW capability to the Navy (unmanned helicopter with appropriate radar and data link). For close air support there are a range of land attack options. A rapid missile capability (ie a boosted GMLRS/NTACMS) in an arsenal ship (several hundred shots) would provide the equivalent of a small force of STOVL jets out to a few hundred km. Naval helos already provide ASW/ASuW reach for the task force.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Regionally we can deploy a significant aircraft force with our long range aircraft and refuelling. The Super hornets and F-35 are both long ranged for what they are, and we have significant refuelling capability with some long ranged munitions. We also have many regional bases. If we have to deploy out of region then we can work with US or UK forces or local ground based aircraft. Its a pretty specific/unrealisitic requirement where our own carrier would really have much value.

When you look at what was talked about the anzac replacement frigates being 7,000t warships with BMD,essm, 5", sm6, harpoon (inc ground attack) and Tlam then that requirement for naval airpower gets weaker. If the 12 new subs have harpoon and Tlam capability it weakens it again. I don't really see the point of an arsonal ship if we have 12 ships with 48 VLS + 8 Harpoons each. If things get hotter then integrating with other Aegis ships like the Burkes, or the Kongos, or the S.K or the spanish F-100 each of them offering atleast the same fire power. If we form a taskforce with 2 AWD, 3 ANZAC II, 2 subs (8 tlam each) locateded regionally thats ~56 harpoons and 256 VLS avalible. If the US was to throw in a Burke or a Tico, we are now well over 300 cells. We can then cover that with 24 SH operating over anywhere in the region and what ever 35 or F-18 we can muster over most of the region.

Based around the LHD's the RAN is heading in a good direction. 2 LHD (Ideally 3 LHD), 3 AWD (ideally 4), 8 ANZAC II, 20 OCV, 12 subs. With resources more equally based east and west. This combined with the improvement Ab was talking about would seem to offer the power to control the sea/air gap.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Regionally we can deploy a significant aircraft force with our long range aircraft and refuelling. The Super hornets and F-35 are both long ranged for what they are, and we have significant refuelling capability with some long ranged munitions. We also have many regional bases. If we have to deploy out of region then we can work with US or UK forces or local ground based aircraft. Its a pretty specific/unrealisitic requirement where our own carrier would really have much value.

And that gives you strike but it doesn’t give you persistent coverage for air defence over a naval task force or CAS for an amphibious landing. The Hornet (Super and un-Super) and the F-35 can both stay in the air for eight hours with no shortage of tanking. But every 200-250 NM between the task force and the air base is an hour off for flying out and flying back. So if the mission area was the south east end of the South China Sea (Sabah/Sulu) and no local bases available (using Darwin/Tindal) then that’s six hours of flying and only two hours of coverage and you need two tanker orbits between here and there. Even if you could base from RMAF Butterworth you have four hours of flying and four hours of coverage and a lot of tanking. With a full wing force (36 airworthy aircraft) you are only going to be able to sustain 2-4 overhead with another 1-2 nearby running or drinking to/from the tanker. That’s almost the entire RAAF strike fighter force to have two (mainland base) or four (regional base) planes overhead.

So to say that even in a regional context that a carrier or a carrier like capability does not provide “much value” is pretty misguided. Land based air power is a poor substitute for organic in our big region.

When you look at what was talked about the anzac replacement frigates being 7,000t warships with BMD,essm, 5", sm6, harpoon (inc ground attack) and Tlam then that requirement for naval airpower gets weaker. If the 12 new subs have harpoon and Tlam capability it weakens it again. I don't really see the point of an arsonal ship if we have 12 ships with 48 VLS + 8 Harpoons each.

Because those ships only have a small allocation of available VLS for land attack and none of those missions you mentioned are cost effective for sustained close air support. Even with a full fleet of 12 AF100 and AF100 (-) (which BTW won’t be in place until the 2030s) you will only have as much as six or eight combatants available for a full fledged amphibious task force. So that’s a force of 48-64 of each TLAM and Harpoon. Missiles which will be needed for shaping of enemy bases to deny them air and sea power and ASuW and high value targets. Nothing for destroying the enemy land force and keeping our soldiers alive in the face of enemy fires. Also these combatants will be spending their time fighting the air sea battle keeping the task force alive and not necessarily skulking around the coast line on call for the Army.

Based around the LHD's the RAN is heading in a good direction. 2 LHD (Ideally 3 LHD), 3 AWD (ideally 4), 8 ANZAC II, 20 OCV, 12 subs. With resources more equally based east and west. This combined with the improvement Ab was talking about would seem to offer the power to control the sea/air gap.

Sea/air gap? We aren’t re-fighting WWII, the Japs aren’t about to invade. The amphibious force has a few crucial shortfalls and while some are being addressed not all. In a permissive, low intensity or administrative landing environment we’d be fine. But in the face of anyone serious about anti-littoral warfare we couldn’t operate without organic or improved persistent AEW and engagement and much better organic or persistent fires for the landing force.

 

[icelord]

Standby for our 11 frigate navy to become 9 units for the next few years. Anzac and Arunta will go into mothballs, sorry "extended readiness" from the start of next year, and be fully de-crewed with a staff from FBW looking after them. Anzac is meant to be in this state until around this time next year when she will start her go at the ASMD upgrade, that is assuming that it passes all the trials on Perth next year. On a side note, 2 MHC have been in "extended readiness" for almost a year now. Wallaroo and Bandicoot were also stood down 1 Oct long term fate unknown.
Cheers

Dont Frakking remind me, we get 2mths in the west before 3 mths in asia thanks to consort for workups and excercises...after 6mths deployment. ive also had the good news that i wont be posted off in march, its now july after uptop trip...so much for me posting to patrol boats. Those staying on next year have it better, after asia they score 6mth deployment, sucks to be an eastern FFH...

This is a load of BS, as there are plenty of crew based ashore, if you actually go through the billets listed for sailors, theres a shit tin sitting around at FSU and alike, wasting time for all. Someone needs to start purging these billets, and posting them to sea. Its at the stage where new seaman go straight to FSU, and dont want to go to sea as its to easy going alongside. As for the experience, its around in these places, just hiding and knocking back sea time, as well as work.
As for officers, theres plenty ashore OOW qualified, and theres a large number of Phave IV OOW who cant go to sea as theres not enough bunks for them. We've been asked repeatedly to take more on, but cannot as we're full. taking 2 FFH offline will only make it worse. This is a stupid brass decision and will only come back to bite them in the arse...yep, angry about the short sightedness. If this is for budget cuts, ill be even more dumbfounded.

We could provide a massive increase to ADF capability within the current budget by cutting the bureaucracy. First stop would be the Military Prosecutors office and don’t stop until all the extreme governance mechanisms in place in Russel Hill and its satellites (because Russel isn’t big enough!) are gone.

There are 23,000 public servants on Defence’s payroll and that doesn’t count the thousands of uniformed personnel in essentially civilian positions that realistically couldn’t be redeployed. Many of these people do important work but many are simply moving paper around. Much of this results in unnecessary activities that make the defence force less efficient. If you were to get rid of 10,000 public servants you would save around $800 million a year in direct labour costs not to mention savings from unnecessary programs. In the 10 year DCP outlook that’s over $8 billion from unneeded civilian salaries alone that you could spend on new equipment.

When it comes to government bureaucracy i think i might make a hundred copies of 'yes minister' and send them up the hill...thinking episode with a hospital of 300 Admin staff, no patients and scaffolding out the front so people dont think its ready and open...much like defence some days.