Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

They would be more expensive ... but I think that they are affordable. The navy is talking about buying up to 20 OCV to replace all of the patrol, MCV and survey vessels so they obviously believe the money is there.

It wouldn't be necessary to replace the boats on a one to one basis. To start with they could stay on station longer. They would also be able to deploy their own helicopter or UAV. Plus you could add other assets such as land based UAVs.

Hopefully that would allow fewer ships to operate more efficiently.

 

[gf0012-aust]

s so they obviously believe the money is there.

No they don't - 20 is aspirational

30% of military travel budgets are cut - thats not jolly money, it means not being able to send staff to critical meetings overseas etc.... even local travel is buggered.

a whole pile of critical and important projects have been compromised - some yet to be announced.

there is a reduced pool of money, so whatever projects are killed might in theory mean more money for the remainder - unfort the remainder need to made sense as well.

there's no "20 ships" in the mix

 

[recce.k1]

30% of military travel budgets are cut - thats not jolly money, it means not being able to send staff to critical meetings overseas etc.... even local travel is buggered.

That's just an appalling figure for an organisation to endure (presumably the pollies are ultimately responsible for the funding cuts?), do other Govt departments have to also undertake such severe cutbacks or just Defence?

a whole pile of critical and important projects have been compromised - some yet to be announced.

Imagine the public and media outcry if the pollies' decision making extended to compromising expensive tax-payer funded projects in areas like infrastructure, transport, hospital building development, power generation system upgrades in the same way! But they can make such decisions on defence projects affecting billions of dollars (and no doubt against advice from officials) ... hmm, seems like the value for money requirement need not apply to those in charge of the purse strings ... something's not quite right here

 

[t68]

No they don't - 20 is aspirational

30% of military travel budgets are cut - thats not jolly money, it means not being able to send staff to critical meetings overseas etc.... even local travel is buggered.

a whole pile of critical and important projects have been compromised - some yet to be announced.

there is a reduced pool of money, so whatever projects are killed might in theory mean more money for the remainder - unfort the remainder need to made sense as well.

there's no "20 ships" in the mix

What level of GDP would you suggest is the minimum level required so the ADF can meet its obligations that the government expects it to perform at under the current white paper?

Our current defence spending is equivalent to approximately 1.56% of GDP, from memory our highest amount since WWII was during the Vietnam War when it peaked at 2.9% but that was during a war and conscription, the ADF has the same priorities as then a war time defence force.

Defence budget overview – Parliament of Australia

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[phreeky]

That's just an appalling figure for an organisation to endure (presumably the pollies are ultimately responsible for the funding cuts?), do other Govt departments have to also undertake such severe cutbacks or just Defence?

I've got no idea of actual levels in the various departments, but yes there is severe cuts being made across government. In fact not just at the federal level either, states and local gov are all doing it very tough too (think mass redundancies).

 

[brolgaboy]

That's just an appalling figure for an organisation to endure (presumably the pollies are ultimately responsible for the funding cuts?), do other Govt departments have to also undertake such severe cutbacks or just Defence?

Imagine the public and media outcry if the pollies' decision making extended to compromising expensive tax-payer funded projects in areas like infrastructure, transport, hospital building development, power generation system upgrades in the same way! But they can make such decisions on defence projects affecting billions of dollars (and no doubt against advice from officials) ... hmm, seems like the value for money requirement need not apply to those in charge of the purse strings ... something's not quite right here

It's much worse than that!

My section had a longstanding bid for funds which we normally received, pretty much we asked we got, this year we have 10% of that previous budget for training and travel...............

One deployment (to another part of Oz) and it is gone :ar15 they have absolutely raped the ADF

(Don't ask for specifics 'cause I wont tell you)

 

[Volkodav]

From my vantage point the cuts seemed to roll in following the USMC deployment to Darwin was announced, i.e. we now have a company of US marines in country so we can cut our expenditure on defence.

When I was younger I flirted with politics and found that most involved were blinkered selfish and incompetent, with an extremely low and condescending opinion of the average voter. They believed they had all the answers and everyone else should listen to them. As I was a real flirt I am able to say this in all honesty about Labor, Liberal and Democrats, the 20 and 30 something members in the early to mid 90’s when I walked away in disgust. They were indistinguishable from each other in so much as they had no concept of the real world, were predominantly uni students and already had their way into parliament planned and usually their own little personal barrow to push, i.e. gay marriage, refugees, getting rid of unfair dismissal laws, breaking unions, sterilising single mothers etc.

The sad thing is many of them made it into parliament and are just as selfish, immature and deluded as they were back then. Long story short, until we can get some grown ups, who haven’t been through political prep school, into parliament we are all screwed.

 

[hauritz]

No they don't - 20 is aspirational

30% of military travel budgets are cut - thats not jolly money, it means not being able to send staff to critical meetings overseas etc.... even local travel is buggered.

a whole pile of critical and important projects have been compromised - some yet to be announced.

there is a reduced pool of money, so whatever projects are killed might in theory mean more money for the remainder - unfort the remainder need to made sense as well.

there's no "20 ships" in the mix

You might be assuming that the current government will be making those decisions. Looking at the polls this would seem highly unlikely.

The liberal party is more likely to be making those decisions and they are being even more ambitious. They are talking about buying a dozen 3500 ton ships to do the job.

Libs plan to counter defence spending cuts

 

[gf0012-aust]

You might be assuming that the current government will be making those decisions. Looking at the polls this would seem highly unlikely.

No I'm not, and there are some at decision making level who expect the hurt to continue on a change oif Govt

even the panda orgs such as BPC are up for hurt - and also on a c hange of govt

 

[t68]

You might be assuming that the current government will be making those decisions. Looking at the polls this would seem highly unlikely.

The liberal party is more likely to be making those decisions and they are being even more ambitious. They are talking about buying a dozen 3500 ton ships to do the job.

Libs plan to counter defence spending cuts

If they are referring to USS Freedom LCS -1 I hope not, we might just get in the same jam as the current ACPB in regards to hull cracking.

If the Coalition put extra $ into defence and replace the ACPB early I would like to see a mixed fleet of enlarged 12x Protector Class OPV(NH90 capable) 6x steel version of the Austral MRV-80 6x National Security Cutters which could also double as escorts to the LHD when the LHD goes overseas.

But then again 1 NSC reportedly cost USD$641 million you can buy 18 ships at $35 million each not hard to see which way the government will jump

 

[hauritz]

If they are referring to USS Freedom LCS -1 I hope not, we might just get in the same jam as the current ACPB in regards to hull cracking.

Unfortunately they are.

The shadow defence minister is a bit of an Austal fanboy.

No I'm not, and there are some at decision making level who expect the hurt to continue on a change oif Govt

I don't hold out any hope that things will be any better under the opposition ... but this is still what they are promoting.

My major concern is how this will effect future projects.

I have an uneasy feeling that ships like the LCS may end up replacing some of the Anzacs.

 

[ASSAIL]

If they are referring to USS Freedom LCS -1 I hope not, we might just get in the same jam as the current ACPB in regards to hull cracking.

I am not advocating for an LCS solution, however;
If any oz govt were to consider the LCS they would no doubt choose LCS2 thereby avoiding the issue.

The hull cracking problems with alu hulls occur almost always, although not exclusively, to monohulls where the hull stresses in heavy seas are far greater.

Multihulls are not subject to the same slamming effects in moderate weather. That said, I would much prefer a mono in extreme weather as the tunnel slam and stiff action is horrendous.

As an aside, I can't remember any of the old Attack class steel hulls ever suffering from hull cracks despite being heavily utilized in some very heavy seas (the Snr rates mess fwd was uninhabitable in sea states 4 and above so they knew how to slam) on the N&NW coasts and in Bass Str over their relatively long lives. Their hull plates were only 3/16" (5mm)

 

[peterAustralia]

My understanding of attack class patrol boats is limited to watching patrol boat on telly when i was a kid, plus whats on wikipedia. According to wiki.. many were built around 1967 and were eventually transferred to indonesia. Whether or not they are still operational or not, i dont know (doubt it though)

However with steel hulls and a small hull they seem to have had a very long hull life. My understanding is that the Armidale class were built out of Al as that saved weight, the extra weight could be used for more fuel, thus longer endurance. Thus they were able to all of the requirements on a smaller hull.

3500t ships (are they for real), replacing a 270t boat with a 3500t ship.. sorry but how is that going to save money. I still advocate 600t steel patrol boats (large for patrol boats i know), but they have better seakeeping than smaller boats, and are still pretty cheap, plus you can add a heli pad, adds flexibility (occasionally add an A109 heli or a firescout), or use it for vertical replenishment from existing NH90s or SH60s (sorry for the rant)

 

[Volkodav]

I am not advocating for an LCS solution, however;
If any oz govt were to consider the LCS they would no doubt choose LCS2 thereby avoiding the issue.

The hull cracking problems with alu hulls occur almost always, although not exclusively, to monohulls where the hull stresses in heavy seas are far greater.

Multihulls are not subject to the same slamming effects in moderate weather. That said, I would much prefer a mono in extreme weather as the tunnel slam and stiff action is horrendous.

As an aside, I can't remember any of the old Attack class steel hulls ever suffering from hull cracks despite being heavily utilized in some very heavy seas (the Snr rates mess fwd was uninhabitable in sea states 4 and above so they knew how to slam) on the N&NW coasts and in Bass Str over their relatively long lives. Their hull plates were only 3/16" (5mm)

I am a fan of Austals work as well but acknowledge aluminium has its limitations, limitations that make it unsuitable for the OCV as outlined to date, i.e. able to operate in the Southern Ocean. If it is done properly the OCV project can be used to build a sustainable naval ship building industry in Australia in that it will provide enough ongoing work to keep all our major yards busy in-between frigate, amphibious, support ship and submarine projects. It will provide a critical mass of fabrication, engineering, procurement and planning work to keep our industry skilled and better able to support not only major ship building projects but also the construction phases of any future recourses booms as well as making the industry more competitive for exports.

 

[Volkodav]

3500t ships (are they for real), replacing a 270t boat with a 3500t ship.. sorry but how is that going to save money. I still advocate 600t steel patrol boats (large for patrol boats i know), but they have better seakeeping than smaller boats, and are still pretty cheap, plus you can add a heli pad, adds flexibility (occasionally add an A109 heli or a firescout), or use it for vertical replenishment from existing NH90s or SH60s (sorry for the rant)

Large ships is what the RAN has always needed for patrol of our coastline and out into our region, the issue has always been that when ever it came time to order the actual hulls the government of the day opted for just another class of patrol boats, slightly larger and more capable than those that preceded them.

The precursor to the Attack Class patrol boats was (I believe) the original DDL project, a class of 10 light destroyers equipped with a helicopter and a medium calibre gun to fill the regional patrol and security role that was at the time being undertaken by frigates and MCMVs. Scope creep morphed this into a Mk13 / Standard missile armed DDG that priced its self out of existence. By the time the RAN was considering what to replace the Fremantle’s with a Sea Sparrow and medium calibre gun armed, helicopter equipped corvette emerged as the way to go, this was killed off by a change of government who believed the Fremanltes could be life extended to 2015 or so, reality intruded and the ACPBs were ordered in a panic.

 

[Milne Bay]

I am a fan of Austals work as well but acknowledge aluminium has its limitations, limitations that make it unsuitable for the OCV as outlined to date, i.e. able to operate in the Southern Ocean. If it is done properly the OCV project can be used to build a sustainable naval ship building industry in Australia in that it will provide enough ongoing work to keep all our major yards busy in-between frigate, amphibious, support ship and submarine projects. It will provide a critical mass of fabrication, engineering, procurement and planning work to keep our industry skilled and better able to support not only major ship building projects but also the construction phases of any future recourses booms as well as making the industry more competitive for exports.

I have despaired over any possibility that any government will think this way in the national interest. Yes it is an excellent idea. Yes - opposition and government defence spokespersons will mouth the sentiments behind it, BUT - when times get in any way difficult, they will all run home to their most basic instinct - self preservation. And as a consequence - anything will be sacrificed to meet that end. Look at the present gutting of the defence budget in the name of returning the federal budget to some kind of token surplus.
What an absolute joke.
Will the opposition perform any differently if they are in government - of course not.
Let's all join the ADF and learn how to shout BANG!.

Rant off!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The precursor to the Attack Class patrol boats was (I believe) the original DDL project, a class of 10 light destroyers equipped with a helicopter and a medium calibre gun to fill the regional patrol and security role that was at the time being undertaken by frigates and MCMVs. Scope creep morphed this into a Mk13 / Standard missile armed DDG that priced its self out of existence. By the time the RAN was considering what to replace the Fremantle’s with a Sea Sparrow and medium calibre gun armed, helicopter equipped corvette emerged as the way to go, this was killed off by a change of government who believed the Fremanltes could be life extended to 2015 or so, reality intruded and the ACPBs were ordered in a panic.

The DDL was not a precursor to the Attack class but rather a fellow traveller. With the Indonesian Confrontation and the Indonesian invasion of West Papua the Navy sought to modernise its capabilities in what is now called ‘littoral warfare’. Two ships for this were a ‘patrol frigate’ (my term) requirement that eventually became the DDL and the Attack class patrol boat. The Attack class was conceived for more of an inshore defence role and the various ‘patrol frigate’ options for coastal maritime interdiction. The ‘patrol frigate’ started with looking at a solution with the RN in the early 1960s but then the Admiralty wanted a ship that could sail at 40 knots from the UK to Singapore and the RAN decided they needed to avoid such craziness and go their own way. This became a light, modular frigate called DDL.

The growth of this little DDL into the DDG like big DDL was NEVER to do with scope creep. It has been labelled as such by many people who never read the requirement nor understood the actual scope. It is a typical example of reverse analysis based on the looks of something.

DDL went from a patrol frigate to a DDG because of helicopters. After involvement in the VietNam War the RAN realised that light helicopters were far more effective than patrol frigates in the role of maritime interdiction. So they replaced 10 patrol frigates with 3-4 helicopter carrying frigates and 12-16 helicopters. The later force was far more effective. Because the larger helicopter ship was seen as more valuable the Tartar launcher was added for self-protection. The planned helicopter was the Westland Lynx with the Sea Spray radar and Skua missile. There was no scope creep just a different and more effective way of achieving the scope.

That was before it actually went to Government who killed the whole thing off and ordered a sub par replacement (Squirrel helicopters in place of the Lynx) so it was ever realised. The same thing happened with the Fremantle replacement where the Navy wanted to get the helicopter into the patrol mission but again the Government (Howard now in place of Whitlam) caned it for the cheaper Armidales.

 

[Volkodav]

The DDL was not a precursor to the Attack class but rather a fellow traveller. With the Indonesian Confrontation and the Indonesian invasion of West Papua the Navy sought to modernise its capabilities in what is now called ‘littoral warfare’. Two ships for this were a ‘patrol frigate’ (my term) requirement that eventually became the DDL and the Attack class patrol boat. The Attack class was conceived for more of an inshore defence role and the various ‘patrol frigate’ options for coastal maritime interdiction. The ‘patrol frigate’ started with looking at a solution with the RN in the early 1960s but then the Admiralty wanted a ship that could sail at 40 knots from the UK to Singapore and the RAN decided they needed to avoid such craziness and go their own way. This became a light, modular frigate called DDL.

The growth of this little DDL into the DDG like big DDL was NEVER to do with scope creep. It has been labelled as such by many people who never read the requirement nor understood the actual scope. It is a typical example of reverse analysis based on the looks of something.

DDL went from a patrol frigate to a DDG because of helicopters. After involvement in the VietNam War the RAN realised that light helicopters were far more effective than patrol frigates in the role of maritime interdiction. So they replaced 10 patrol frigates with 3-4 helicopter carrying frigates and 12-16 helicopters. The later force was far more effective. Because the larger helicopter ship was seen as more valuable the Tartar launcher was added for self-protection. The planned helicopter was the Westland Lynx with the Sea Spray radar and Skua missile. There was no scope creep just a different and more effective way of achieving the scope.

That was before it actually went to Government who killed the whole thing off and ordered a sub par replacement (Squirrel helicopters in place of the Lynx) so it was ever realised. The same thing happened with the Fremantle replacement where the Navy wanted to get the helicopter into the patrol mission but again the Government (Howard now in place of Whitlam) caned it for the cheaper Armidales.

I was wondering how far off the mark I was but was sure you would put me straight soon enough. Rumour has it "The Navy" magazine is going to have an article detailing the DDL project, I just havent seen it yet : I remember reading that the RN considered each Wessex (later Seaking) in the air to be more than equivalent to an ASW escort and what you've just posted seems to fit with that thinking. The big difference between an screening frigate and a helo, besides speed of deployment is the fact subs can't kill helos.

The fact many seem to forget though is numbers, while helos provide a massive force multiplier if you don't have enough hulls to get them to where they are needed then they are useless. This is where the corvette option (and now the OCV) are so critical, they get helos to sea where and when they are needed.

 

[Volkodav]

p.s IMHO the Lynx would have been ideal not just for the RAN but for the Army as well. No money wasted on Sea Sprites, Squirels etc. something more useful than a Kiowa and able to supplement the Blackhawks and Seahawks (assuming we bought Seahawks rather than just using the Lynx and Seaking as the RN did). Long term join the Wildcat project and keep using current platforms and support elements with minimum modification.

 

[SpartanSG]

My understanding of attack class patrol boats is limited to watching patrol boat on telly when i was a kid, plus whats on wikipedia. According to wiki.. many were built around 1967 and were eventually transferred to indonesia. Whether or not they are still operational or not, i dont know (doubt it though)

Most recent sighting of them I can find on the internet is of KRI Sibarau (formerly HMAS Bandolier) on Apr 2011:

KRI Sibarau - ShipSpotting.com - Ship Photos and Ship Tracker

That's a 44 year old ship running around!

Being really old ships, the TNI-AL don't usually put them in their news articles, so I have no idea if they are still operational at the moment.