Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

Apart from LCACs there is nothing out there - at the moment - faster than the LCM-1E. The key thing to remember about the LCM-1E is they are not a replacement for the LCM8. They won't be going to the Army but to the Navy who will use them effectively as small ships of the LHD. That is they will only be doing ship to shore and back to ship. They will not be sailing independently like the LCM8s do.

So their short range and lack of facilities to look after themselves doesn’t matter so much. They are just the LHD’s runabouts and not coastal/riverine logistics assets like the LCM8s.

JP 2048 will not be seeing like for like replacement. The LCH replacements will be bigger and more effective (what the Army originally wanted) and in larger numbers (6 not 3 LSMs) and will be more effective at the coastal cargo role. The LCM8s will be replaced in 10FSB with the tactical littoral craft (TLC) which will carry a lot less cargo than an LCM8 but be capable of more aggressive missions and be available in larger numbers (16-24).

Understand that, was not confusing the two, just would have liked to see a bit more speed and keepability, but as you said unless we get LCAC there is nothing out there other than concepts, would have thought we had enought ability to make something in country from something along the lines of the BMT concept, but then again

Edit: Just thought I would ad a link to the BMT Tri Bow Fast Landing Craft for those that have not seen it before
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laZ_FSWh-Pk"]BMT Fast Landing Craft. - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[StevoJH]

defenseindustrydaily.com/serious-dollars-for-aegis-ballistic-missile-defense-modifications-03091/
The Hobart and her sisters can be upgraded to an ABM configuration in the future if necessary.

Other then stating that the Australian AWD's are getting Aegis, the only comment that suggests it *might* be possible is the following:

Other foreign warships reportedly equipped with AEGIS Long Range Surveillance & Tracking version 3.0 include the Spanish SPS Mendez Nunez [F 104], and Australia’s forthcoming Hobart Class air defense destroyers are closely derived from Navantia’s F100s.

It doesnt say that they are getting BMD, it doesnt say that the specific variant they are getting is capable of BMD. It doesnt even say if they are actually confirmed to be getting that specific baseline of system.

It is all guess work, possibly educated guesses, but still guess work.

Edit: Please read pages 71 & 72 of the white paper, BMD is not mentioned. I previously thought BMD was mentioned with regards to the Anzac II's, however unless mentioned elsewhere in the document or it has been revised since I last read it, I must have been mistaken.

 

[Suprah]

Hi guys,

My first DT post but I've been reading for a while..

I just want to go back to the HMAS Farncomb event the other week where it "almost sank" and had to blow emergency ballast. I can't post links yet but the article is on 'The Australian' website. See "Sailors feared worst as submarine HMAS Farncomb sank". While I am a firm believer that the media is often sensationalist and bias, when you compare the facts against Grigg's 'On The Record', I have one question..

Why did Farncomb blow emergency ballast? The Australian article states it is the "most drastic step available to a submarine commander". But Grigg's 'On The Record' states that it was used to just "increase the rate of ascent". Does anyone know if blowing a submarine's 'emergency' ballast is really as serious as The Australian reckons it is? Would a CO really use it to just get back to the surface a few minutes early? If so, what was the rush..?

Cheers

 

[icelord]

Hi guys,

My first DT post but I've been reading for a while..

I just want to go back to the HMAS Farncomb event the other week where it "almost sank" and had to blow emergency ballast. I can't post links yet but the article is on 'The Australian' website. See "Sailors feared worst as submarine HMAS Farncomb sank". While I am a firm believer that the media is often sensationalist and bias, when you compare the facts against Grigg's 'On The Record', I have one question..

Why did Farncomb blow emergency ballast? The Australian article states it is the "most drastic step available to a submarine commander". But Grigg's 'On The Record' states that it was used to just "increase the rate of ascent". Does anyone know if blowing a submarine's 'emergency' ballast is really as serious as The Australian reckons it is? Would a CO really use it to just get back to the surface a few minutes early? If so, what was the rush..?

Cheers

The reason i understand its a last resort, is that it was normal for subs to conduct until a USN submarine conducted the manouver off hawaii and sunk a japanese fishing boat in 2001.
Since then many measures to reduce its need have been implemented. A submarine Commander could be noted as one of the most capable officers in the RAN. These guys have to know the size of the screw that holds a sailors rack onto the bulkhead, so every manouvre available to him is well within his grasp. If he needed to conduct an emergency blast, then he needed to conduct a emergency blast.
It may not come as a surprise to all, but defence is not always going to come out and say how drastic a situation can be right away. People sadly see the negatives in an incident and jump on the anti-defence bandwagon and abuse the hard work put into our training. The fact of the matter is, A submarine of the RAN had an emergency, and the CO made a judgement that saved the lives of the crew...but in the media its a collins is shit and almost killed everyone. I sadly know to many that would crack under the kind of pressure he was placed in.
Bravo Zulu to the Commanding officer of HMAS Farncomb, hes an example of outstanding leaders in demanding positions, and i truely doubt he will need to buy a beer when out with his crew ever again!:cheers

 

[Suprah]

The reason i understand its a last resort, is that it was normal for subs to conduct until a USN submarine conducted the manouver off hawaii and sunk a japanese fishing boat in 2001.
Since then many measures to reduce its need have been implemented. A submarine Commander could be noted as one of the most capable officers in the RAN. These guys have to know the size of the screw that holds a sailors rack onto the bulkhead, so every manouvre available to him is well within his grasp. If he needed to conduct an emergency blast, then he needed to conduct a emergency blast.
It may not come as a surprise to all, but defence is not always going to come out and say how drastic a situation can be right away. People sadly see the negatives in an incident and jump on the anti-defence bandwagon and abuse the hard work put into our training. The fact of the matter is, A submarine of the RAN had an emergency, and the CO made a judgement that saved the lives of the crew...but in the media its a collins is shit and almost killed everyone. I sadly know to many that would crack under the kind of pressure he was placed in.
Bravo Zulu to the Commanding officer of HMAS Farncomb, hes an example of outstanding leaders in demanding positions, and i truely doubt he will need to buy a beer when out with his crew ever again!:cheers

Alright thanks Icelord

Looks like it has already died a death anyway, after the Coalition used it in some slander against the ALP of course. It did sound like CMDR Miles did a good job as CO and I hate seeing articles like this when they are having enough trouble getting crew numbers.. But I am a curious bastard :hehe

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If he needed to conduct an emergency blast, then he needed to conduct a emergency blast.

This is the key issue. This CO had suffered a loss of main propulsion and then the emergency didn’t kick in. The boat may have been going back to the surface but in this situation why compound risk? The CO in a split second may not know that the emergency didn’t kick in because some sailor flicked the wrong switch or that there is a major problem that could compromise the integrity of the ship. Or he just may not have been comfortable with the rate of ascent. Its only compressed air and the boat was hardly in a tactical situation where discretion mattered.

This idea that blowing emergency was the only thing between certain death and reaching the surface seems more informed by Hollywood than reality. Plenty of submarine movies where the boat is stuck on the bottom and everyone is going to die until the skipper blows the emergency tanks and it inches up from the bottom, yadda, yadda. So the newspaper can proclaim “emergency tanks” and everyone thinks it’s a Das Boot re-run.

Boats at sea, planes in the air and even cars on the road face extraordinary risks all the time. But we manage them. It’s only by reducing these risks down into a sensationalist extremist feeding frenzy thanks to general ignorance that this kind of story can be generated.

 

[t68]

Its not blind hate but rather a reasoned rejection of the defence policies he advocates. The rage comes into it because for about a decade there these policies were implemented and caused immense harm to the ADF and our operational capability. This was brought to the crux in East Timor where hundreds of people were killed and thousands abducted because the ADF was unable to deploy fast enough because White and co. had emasculated out expeditionary deployment capability.



It is a very narrow requirement focusing heavily on the high end of potential warfare situations. Which also doesn’t seem to understand that expeditionary capabilities like AWDs and LHDs are also very useful fighting in high end battles. White rejects this argument because we can only deploy a battalion group via the LHDs and of course China and other regional nations can deploy multi division corps into the field. Simple arithmetic? Or armchair general stupidity?

Sure China could deploy divisions into a battle and a single ADF battalion would not make much difference. But those Chinese army divisions can’ swim. Our region is an island chain full of complex littorals and the level of forces potential aggressors can bring into effect beyond their own internal highway system is a tiny fraction of their overall force. Suddenly that battalion (or brigade it will be the lead element of) don’t sound so puny.

Maybe he needs a history lesson and what Erwin Rommel thought of Australians,

When recalled to Berlin to explain to Hitler why one division of commonwealth troops were holding up his Afrika Korps' advance across North Africa at Tobruk in 1941 Rommel is quoted as saying to Hitler;
"These are no ordinary dominion troops. These are Australians. Give me two divisions of Australians and I will conquer the world."
- Erwin Rommel, 1941.

Needless to say Hitler accepted Rommel's explanation.


http://9thdivvy.blogspot.com/2008/07/rommel-desert-fox.html

 

[kato]

Of course not a real Rommel quote, rather something invented on the internet and spread around there.

Probably compensation issues over Gallipoli...

 

[aussienscale]

Probably compensation issues over Gallipoli...

Could you please clarify/expand on what you mean by this ?

 

[colay]

Some webpage does not make fact out of fiction. BMD is not mentioned on any of the AWD presentos I've been too. Land attack missile capability is mentioned as a growth option but that's it.

There has been some discussion in the Aus govt. and DoD about BMD capability but it is focused on a tactical BMD capability to defend the amphibious capability and beach-head like SBMSE (VLS launched PACIII missile) not SM3s and interdicting missiles being fired across the Pacific. So this is a very different BMD capability compared to that rolled out by the USN/JSMDF in CG 47s, DDG 51s and Kongos. It may not event be ship based. Though the AEGIS system does provide a very good base for it.

But there isn't even a DCP project for BMD and still a range of issues about the Govt. going down that path.

Let me understand.. are you saying the Hobart's can't be upgraded in the furure to provide ABM capability similar to that of the CG 47s, DDG 51S and Kongos? I'm not claiming that there is anything on paper or any existing program to actually realize this capability by the Oz government. BUT if at some point there were a need to do so, wouldn't it be possibe to upgrade the ships with the required kit and s/w to provide said capability?

 

[ngatimozart]

Maybe he needs a history lesson and what Erwin Rommel thought of Australians,

When recalled to Berlin to explain to Hitler why one division of commonwealth troops were holding up his Afrika Korps' advance across North Africa at Tobruk in 1941 Rommel is quoted as saying to Hitler;
"These are no ordinary dominion troops. These are Australians. Give me two divisions of Australians and I will conquer the world."
- Erwin Rommel, 1941.

Needless to say Hitler accepted Rommel's explanation.


The 9th Divvy!: [Foe] Erwin Rommel "The Desert Fox"

Funny that I am sure that Rommel said that of the 2nd NZ Division. IIRC the quote went "If I had the Maori Battalion I would have won the desert war. If I had the NZ Division I would have conquered the world". I could be wrong and it's been a long time since I read Rommels biography. One thing for sure Der Fuhrer would not have taken the defeat in Africa well. He was well known for spitting the dummy and chucking all his toys out of the cot every time he had a set back. In the end he had Rommel executed albeit "you take your life, we'll give you a heroes funeral and your family won't be harmed. If you don't, well your family will be tried as traitors." Rommel was an honourable man by all accounts. But that was has been suggested to do with the July 1944 plot against Der Fuhrers life.

 

[Kirkzzy]

The reason i understand its a last resort, is that it was normal for subs to conduct until a USN submarine conducted the manouver off hawaii and sunk a japanese fishing boat in 2001.
Since then many measures to reduce its need have been implemented. A submarine Commander could be noted as one of the most capable officers in the RAN. These guys have to know the size of the screw that holds a sailors rack onto the bulkhead, so every manouvre available to him is well within his grasp. If he needed to conduct an emergency blast, then he needed to conduct a emergency blast.
It may not come as a surprise to all, but defence is not always going to come out and say how drastic a situation can be right away. People sadly see the negatives in an incident and jump on the anti-defence bandwagon and abuse the hard work put into our training.

It's not that The Australian jumped on the anti-defence bandwagon (pretty sure Fairfax papers are on it though) as they love the Army and Air force and constantly have articles explaining the need for "more fighters, more troops. more ...etc...". It's that The Australian for whatever reason has declared a Jihad against the navy (most commonly attacking the collins.. what's that... A LABOR PROJECT! However it loves attacking the AWDs as well).

 

[StingrayOZ]

Blowing emergency ballast will probably see the captain reprimanded and lose his command. Even if done for very good reasons. Simular to running a ship aground, it should never ever happen.

I don't think that’s fair, if a submarine is taking on huge quantity of water and its quantity cannot be estimated and its known to be reasonably safe above its the better decision for everyone rather than lose a submarine and its crew during peace time. Much like losing a good captain because a pilot grounds a ship.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Let me understand.. are you saying the Hobart's can't be upgraded in the furure to provide ABM capability similar to that of the CG 47s, DDG 51S and Kongos?

I didn't say anything remotely like that. Aegis FC has pointed out that all the Aegis BMD ships use the pre COTS tech Aegis build. Before our ships could recieve the Aegis BMD with SM3 capability the USN would have to develop the mod to match the latest blocks of Aegis.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Blowing emergency ballast will probably see the captain reprimanded and lose his command. Even if done for very good reasons. Simular to running a ship aground, it should never ever happen.

What the? Boats blow their emergency air all the time. That's how you get the cool looking jump from the water thing like in Hunt for Red Ocober (which was actually a Barbel class SS in that film). Some submarines are built with a special weight or ballast that they can drop of the bottom in an extreme emergency but not the Collins or any modern, western submarine. Its just compressed air used to evacuate all the water ballast tanks.

 

[Volkodav]

What the? Boats blow their emergency air all the time. That's how you get the cool looking jump from the water thing like in Hunt for Red Ocober (which was actually a Barbel class SS in that film). Some submarines are built with a special weight or ballast that they can drop of the bottom in an extreme emergency but not the Collins or any modern, western submarine. Its just compressed air used to evacuate all the water ballast tanks.

I could be wrong but I believe the Agosta and possibly the Scorpions have external ballast.

An old ex-submariner I used to work with was a real fan of the Barbel and stated that he believed the RAN would have been better off with an updated Barbel than either the Kockums Type 471 or the IKL/HDW Type 2000. Don't know enough about what an updated Barbel would have been like to agree or disagree with his sentiment.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

An old ex-submariner I used to work with was a real fan of the Barbel and stated that he believed the RAN would have been better off with an updated Barbel than either the Kockums Type 471 or the IKL/HDW Type 2000. Don't know enough about what an updated Barbel would have been like to agree or disagree with his sentiment.

That was what the Dutch bid, a 3rd generation Barbel (Walrus class). But they still built boats up from the keel and the govt. wanted modular builds, CAD and all the high tech injection that would come from the Swedish bid. The Walrus with its 8.4m diameter can would have been much better suited to an RAN sized boat than the others.

 

[Volkodav]

That was what the Dutch bid, a 3rd generation Barbel (Walrus class). But they still built boats up from the keel and the govt. wanted modular builds, CAD and all the high tech injection that would come from the Swedish bid. The Walrus with its 8.4m diameter can would have been much better suited to an RAN sized boat than the others.

I do know the Dutch combat system was seen as superior to Rockwells paper offer in many ways and had the advantage of actually being workable.

To be honest though the Collins are good subs and the project did deliver in ways the average person would never comprehend. It truly was a nation building project that lifted the standard for engineering, manufacturing and construction through out the country.

 

[Kirkzzy]

I do know the Dutch combat system was seen as superior to Rockwells paper offer in many ways and had the advantage of actually being workable.

To be honest though the Collins are good subs and the project did deliver in ways the average person would never comprehend. It truly was a nation building project that lifted the standard for engineering, manufacturing and construction through out the country.

As will hopefully the next one. Although with such bad press at the moment from our last attempt it may not eventuate into how it was fully envisioned. Especially with the coalition being opposed to 12 subs from day 1. (since last white paper)

 

[Volkodav]

As will hopefully the next one. Although with such bad press at the moment from our last attempt it may not eventuate into how it was fully envisioned. Especially with the coalition being opposed to 12 subs from day 1. (since last white paper)

Most nations inflate their achievements an overlook the failures. We are the opposite, Australians seem to glory in finding fault with success and using the smallest chink to pretend real acheivement was a waste of time and money. You just need to read the history of almost every major defence project over seas to see how successful the Collins was in comparision.