Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

The primary function of the navy is warfighting ... not constabulary work.

It would seem logical to me that any equipment purchased for the navy should primarily be for either supporting or conducting military operations.

To me the OPV should be flexible enough to at least provide support for the navy and not end up being just a large patrol boat.

Of course that was the original plan. That is why it was referred to as an Offshore Combatant Vessel ... not just an OPV.

The OCV was originally supposed to be a multipurpose vessel that could be used for a range of missions replacing not only the patrol boats but also the MCVs and survey ships.

It annoys me a little that this is an opportunity lost all for the sake of saving a comparatively small amount of money.

 

[hauritz]

double post

 

[oldsig127]

The primary function of the navy is warfighting ... not constabulary work.

It would seem logical to me that any equipment purchased for the navy should primarily be for either supporting or conducting military operations.

To me the OPV should be flexible enough to at least provide support for the navy and not end up being just a large patrol boat.

Of course that was the original plan. That is why it was referred to as an Offshore Combatant Vessel ... not just an OPV.

The OCV was originally supposed to be a multipurpose vessel that could be used for a range of missions replacing not only the patrol boats but also the MCVs and survey ships.

It annoys me a little that this is an opportunity lost all for the sake of saving a comparatively small amount of money.

The primary function of the navy is...whatever the Government of Australia says it is. While it'd be nice to ignore reality (and it has become fashionable within our largest Ally) the armed forces are subordinate to the government and perform such tasks as they are directed. Not what they like, or what makes for cooler fleets, however embarrassing it is to admit that protecting fisheries and intercepting drugs has been assigned as a legitimate task in place of sending a gunboat to frighten the natives (aka showing the flag)

IF a later government decides differently, or this one changes its priorities (or finds a money tree) then patrol vessels get to be gunboats.

oldsig

 

[rjtjrt]

For crying out aloud - what have you blokes been drinking tonight.
This is dreamland and fantasy.
The OPV's will be nothing more than that with minimum armament.
The budget going forward for the RAN is already "huge" in the context of what is planned and what is to be already built.
The nation is currently and for the forseeable future in financial straits, with the need to reduce spending being seen by both sides of politics as essential to economic survival.
Aged pensions have already been cut and there are more cuts on the way in welfare.
If this government is re-elected, or if a labour government is elected in its place, there will be real pressure to wind back or defer spending on defence. If the plans that have been announced for defence in all arms of the service survive the next two government terms, I will be very surprised.
MB

I agree.
I wish people who post about what new unbudgeted capabilities/armaments we should acquire, would indicate what they want us to forego to pay for it.

 

[King Wally]

The primary function of the navy is warfighting ... not constabulary work.

The RAN is a tool of Aus Gov, and whether you like it or not they seam to view things differently to you.

The RAN can either keep throwing high end warfighting ships at these mundane tasks the Gov keeps sending their way or they can purchase cheaper sea faring vessels with constabulary work in mind. I for one actually don't mind the idea of forcing the OPV's to remain very much low end. Last thing you want is a future Gov thinking they can save some money and start replacing a few Frigate numbers with a couple extra kitted up OPV's instead.

 

[Volkodav]

Did that but many of you chose not to read what I wrote and just call it fantasy and state it will never happen, even though they were suggested.

Before Timor there was no way the RAN would have gotten one LHD let alone two and a LPD to boot. With the cut backs in the 90s under Keating then Howard who would have thought the ADF would grow to have seven Infantry Battalions, three armoured Cavalry Regiments and a second special forces regiment. Then there is the C-17, the interim SH buy, Gowlers and now the special mission Gulfstreams. Who would have thought twelve submarines, AEGIS and an interim F-111 replacement would happen.

Flash forward and despite the complete revamping of the ADF which finally saw combined ops embraced and long over due investment in force multipliers and niche capabilities, there are still those, whether in uniform, government or just interested amateurs who have the default positon of , it will never happen, we can't afford it, we don't need it, its fantasy etc.

I will state it again, replace three to six of the new frigates with light carriers or JMSDF type DDHs, that's how you pay for them and find the crews.

Either build the first batch of OPVs with refurbished systems from the retired FFGs, or build an actual batch of a missile armed corvette or light frigate.

Look at acquiring F-35B as the final batch, also look at acquiring a modular heliborne AEW system to retrofit to existing in service types as required.

 

[Stampede]

For crying out aloud - what have you blokes been drinking tonight.
This is dreamland and fantasy.
The OPV's will be nothing more than that with minimum armament.
The budget going forward for the RAN is already "huge" in the context of what is planned and what is to be already built.
The nation is currently and for the forseeable future in financial straits, with the need to reduce spending being seen by both sides of politics as essential to economic survival.
Aged pensions have already been cut and there are more cuts on the way in welfare.
If this government is re-elected, or if a labour government is elected in its place, there will be real pressure to wind back or defer spending on defence. If the plans that have been announced for defence in all arms of the service survive the next two government terms, I will be very surprised.
MB

G'day MB

It's true that all the various government departments will want more of treasuries limited financial pie in the future, and the future looks increasingly one of tight budgets and the challenges that brings to running the state.
I guess in the naval context we should be grateful if the RAN can acquire a dozen modern frigates and a equal number of OPV's. For myself I don't have any expectations that they will be anything more than a vessel of the size and weight specified with a sensor and weapon fit similar to the existing patrol boats. I guess the conversation is really about a lost opportunity with the OPV. For not much extra
some increased weapons fit out with a flight deck and hangar for a medium sized helicopter would give the ADF some greater scope of maritime response across the littoral environment. It does not have to be a light frigate but at least fitted for if not with in design the capability of a medium cal gun and a CIWS (What ever flavour) would be in my opinion not too great a stretch of fantasy and budget.
However to reiterate I have no expectations it will be anything more than what it is planned and budgeted for and that's the disappoint.

Regards S

PS Our Kids school is still waiting for the second stage it's building program.
What to do!

 

[Stampede]

The RAN is a tool of Aus Gov, and whether you like it or not they seam to view things differently to you.

The RAN can either keep throwing high end warfighting ships at these mundane tasks the Gov keeps sending their way or they can purchase cheaper sea faring vessels with constabulary work in mind. I for one actually don't mind the idea of forcing the OPV's to remain very much low end. Last thing you want is a future Gov thinking they can save some money and start replacing a few Frigate numbers with a couple extra kitted up OPV's instead.

True, I don't think anyone wants to cut back the fleets numbers of high end ships.
So that just maybe a reluctant merit of limited expectations of the OPV.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Can anyone else see a place in the RAN for a couple of Hyuga class Helicopter Destroyers? The Japanese ones carry 6 anti sub helicopters and one or two utility helicopters, and are armed with 16 VLS, 4 for ESSM and 12 for ASROC, 2 Phalanx, 2 RAM, and machine guns. I imagine if we obtained a couple we would have more than 4 VLS for ESSM. and we would want some Harpoon or similar.

It always bring a smile when I read of Japanese flat tops like the Hyuga and how such big ships allegedly only carry such limited number of aviation assets.Just wondering do all the crew members have their own rooms to justify the internal space.

And yes I do actually like their ships and I think Volk you do as well.

Regards S

 

[gf0012-aust]

The primary function of the navy is warfighting ... not constabulary work.

hasn't been this for australia for decades

the govts of the day have made it pretty clear that RAN (and the ADF in general) will be a multi-role and multi-tasking force

indeed the phat ships got up due to a number of reasons, the fact that east timor was close to being a cluster due to force composition, the fact that we had no structure to deal with HADR events, the fact that the long term analysis showed that HADR would increase in the region

same multi role arguments are why C-17's were an easy sell and large rotary in general has been an easy sell

aust and NZ consider that they have an escalating responsibility in the pacrim to be first responders to HADR and that required dual hat assets

I can say pretty confidently that if a number of our recent acquisitions were not multi-hats then the chances of getting them in the time frame or if at all would have been significant

cosgroves defining pitch for phat ships was about HADR - and thats why central agencies blessed them so quickly. All reinforced by the roles that Bill and Ben also did

the view that the RAN should just do warfighting is just not accurate - HADR is also a softpower capability. - another reason why central agencies supported them and the C-17's

 

[alexsa]

hasn't been this for australia for decades

the govts of the day have made it pretty clear that RAN (and the ADF in general) will be a multi-role and multi-tasking force

indeed the phat ships got up due to a number of reasons, the fact that east timor was close to being a cluster due to force composition, the fact that we had no structure to deal with HADR events, the fact that the long term analysis showed that HADR would increase in the region

same multi role arguments are why C-17's were an easy sell and large rotary in general has been an easy sell

aust and NZ consider that they have an escalating responsibility in the pacrim to be first responders to HADR and that required dual hat assets

I can say pretty confidently that if a number of our recent acquisitions were not multi-hats then the chances of getting them in the time frame or if at all would have been significant

cosgroves defining pitch for phat ships was about HADR - and thats why central agencies blessed them so quickly. All reinforced by the roles that Bill and Ben also did

the view that the RAN should just do warfighting is just not accurate - HADR is also a softpower capability. - another reason why central agencies supported them and the C-17's

Yep, and lets not forget the SAR function. Ships at sea perform a significant proportion of maritime rescue and the RAN can be, have been and should expect to and has be, called on to assist in this area.

The OPV will have the advantage of being designed for southern ocean operations (not ice) and will be a useful additional capability that the current APB simply cannot perform.

 

[Volkodav]

The reason we are getting OPVs is because the PBs were never fit for purpose, i.e. with our EEZ and obligations under international treaty PBs have been out of their depth for a couple of decades. This was realised when the replacements for the Fremantle's were first planned, hence the OPC / corvette. What isn't commonly realised is the ANZACs were also ordered as part of defending our territorial and economic interests, not as GP Frigates, but as Patrol Frigates to conduct regional security patrols and support the fleet of eight or more high end FFGs and DDGs.

The RAN was planned to have eight or nine major combatants, each with two upgraded Seahawks with Penguin as well as their more usual ASW role, plus eight ANZACs and ten-twelve OPCs each with one medium helicopter, again armed with Penguin or torpedos. That's a total of twenty six to twenty nine missile armed helicopter carrying combatants with a combined thirty four to thirty eight helicopter spots, each protected by a minimum of a point defence missile system.

Sounds like a lot of helicopters and a lot of combat power, maybe as much as a couple of helicopter carriers could have provided. Funny that, it almost sounds like the RAN was being designed to have helicopter carrier like capability without actually having any helicopter carriers, or more to the point, looks similar to what Japan was trying to do before they bit the bullet and designed the through deck DDHs. The reason Australia doesn't have this capability is because of the savage cuts and hollowing out of the 90s.

Since the 90s every alternative plan for the RAN has failed or been cancelled, it doesn't mean that the capabilities lost or never completed aren't needed, just that the government has failed to fund what was needed.

 

[Massive]

... and large rotary in general has been an easy sell.

Given this I find it strange how few Chinooks the ADF has.

Cheap to run, super flexible etc etc.

Regards,

Massive

 

[gf0012-aust]

Given this I find it strange how few Chinooks the ADF has.

Cheap to run, super flexible etc etc.

Regards,

Massive

I suspect that thats due to someone doing the sums and working out that based on the all the combat and operational capability scenarios that the crossover to use fixed wing air becomes more attractive and that for most missions they can use smaller fare

 

[oldsig127]

I will state it again, replace three to six of the new frigates with light carriers or JMSDF type DDHs, that's how you pay for them and find the crews.

Yes we know, you post it about every second page, but reducing the number of hulls still has the effect of reducing the flexibility of the force. One powerful ship is great, if she's not in dock, or train and sustain, and if there were three and somehow all at sea they could still only be in three places simultaneously while twice as many frigates can cover twice as many tasks. The RAN is not large enough to allow putting most of the eggs in a single basket.

Either build the first batch of OPVs with refurbished systems from the retired FFGs, or build an actual batch of a missile armed corvette or light frigate.

Look at acquiring F-35B as the final batch, also look at acquiring a modular heliborne AEW system to retrofit to existing in service types as required.

Finance minister (any political colour) says:

nfloorl:
Show me the money.
nfloorl:

oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

I suspect that thats due to someone doing the sums and working out that based on the all the combat and operational capability scenarios that the crossover to use fixed wing air becomes more attractive and that for most missions they can use smaller fare

Which is fine when your deploying from airbase to airbase. But we didn't even do that for Timor.

Doesn't solve all the problems with amphibious ops from the LHD's or some MAGTF sort of capability. Or intratheater transport without airports.

If your talking operational cost per man per km of course something like the C27/C130/C17 will win out. That will get them into the region, but it won't tactically deploy everyone where they need to be. Modern tactics don't really have set beach heads anymore, you move directly to where you need to be.

But we can't run an amphibious operation from bengin airports alone. We need presence and persistance. We need to be able to get people in, resources in, then get them out again. Particularly in a fragmented archipelago region like ours. We aren't in the middle east or europe, where you can make or there just is a convient airfield nearby and there often is no convient ocean or sea nearby.

It still feels like Australia is struggling to adopt marine concepts, and rather wants to operate like a mini USAF and a mini regular ground army.While some concepts are purple, services are still going to base themselves around their own personal core objectives.

Say we did get half a dozen MV-22 which service would they operate under. Army, Navy or Airforce? To which do they fit.

 

[Stampede]

Yes we know, you post it about every second page, but reducing the number of hulls still has the effect of reducing the flexibility of the force. One powerful ship is great, if she's not in dock, or train and sustain, and if there were three and somehow all at sea they could still only be in three places simultaneously while twice as many frigates can cover twice as many tasks. The RAN is not large enough to allow putting most of the eggs in a single basket.

Many of us, myself included like the big stuff but your correct. Availability is often capability, hence the number of platforms.
I feel the future RAN is not in too bad a place if all pans out but would add a class of ship to replace the LCH. With recent discussion around HADR and soft power this asset does seem a strange one to sweep under the carpet.

Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

Yes we know, you post it about every second page, but reducing the number of hulls still has the effect of reducing the flexibility of the force. One powerful ship is great, if she's not in dock, or train and sustain, and if there were three and somehow all at sea they could still only be in three places simultaneously while twice as many frigates can cover twice as many tasks. The RAN is not large enough to allow putting most of the eggs in a single basket.






oldsig

I keep posting it because it answers the (rhetorical) question you and others keep posting every page to shut down the discussion. Twelve frigates and destroyers can very rapidly become nine frigates and destroyers as almost happened when Smith was def min. A perfect example of this is what I posted earlier about the planned fleet for the 90s, i.e. 16 (SIXTEEN) to 17 (SEVENTEEN) guided missile destroyers and frigates, supported by 10 (TEN) to 12 (TWELVE) missile (ESSM and Harpoon) corvettes / light frigates, became four modernised FFGs that were less capable in air defence, NGS than the retired DDGs, and eight Patrol Frigates, plus 14 coke cans masquerading as low end patrol boats.

Its even worse when you factor in the 40 or so high end maritime combat helicopters that were intended to replace the capability previously provided by Melbournes air group, that would have been the real combat power of the RAN going forward. For years the RAN had to make do with only 16 SH-60B and no anti surface capability, while the 11 Sprogs were in a development nightmare, now at least they have / are getting 24 Romeos and Hellfire, but still not quite the same as 40 odd with Penguin is it? Oh by the way all of these cuts happened when Australia had more money than the government ever expected to have or knew what to do with.

What were the finance ministers saying then? I'll give you a clue, "Spend it in my state, spend it in my state!" There is sadly a correlation between where the lions share of the money spent on major defence projects, in particular ship building, is spent and where the finance, defence and/or foreign ministers come from. The most influential usually being the finance minister due to their control of the purse strings. How much money do you think has been wasted on moving ship building from Sydney, to Melbourne to Adelaide since the early 80s, how much more would have been wasted if Corman, Johnston and Bishop had been able to replicate the success of Minchin, Hill and Downer? How much extra or better gear would the ADF have today had the money that was wasted had been spent on capability instead?

Perhaps if people stopped justifying the status quo and started asking why not, or more to the point, demanded that money stopped being wasted on flawed procurements and relocation of existing capabilities and was spent effectively instead, governments wouldn't be game to repeat the same bs decade after decade.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes we know, you post it about every second page, but reducing the number of hulls still has the effect of reducing the flexibility of the force. One powerful ship is great, if she's not in dock, or train and sustain, and if there were three and somehow all at sea they could still only be in three places simultaneously while twice as many frigates can cover twice as many tasks. The RAN is not large enough to allow putting most of the eggs in a single basket.

Many of us, myself included like the big stuff but your correct. Availability is often capability, hence the number of platforms.
I feel the future RAN is not in too bad a place if all pans out but would add a class of ship to replace the LCH. With recent discussion around HADR and soft power this asset does seem a strange one to sweep under the carpet.

Regards S

The point is in combat operations ships do not deploy alone meaning you are talking complementary capabilities of the ships within a task group, not the individual capabilities of individual ships operating in isolation. When at least one of those ships has a high end combat system tailored for air defence each of the others becomes infinitely more effective, same when at least one has a high end towed array. Then there is the pooled helicopters and the extended sensor, strike and ASW range they add to the equation.

With twelve major combatants the RAN would likely have ten available at any given time. With maintenance availabilities and training requirements probably four would be available for deployment (oddly if we had thirteen total the deployable number increases to five). Now if we had say eleven majors, including three DDH, three DDG and five frigates the deployable task force is one DDH, one DDG and two frigates, which by my counting is still four ships, funny that.

 

[Volkodav]

Another history lesson, the reason the DDL program evolved from a plan to build and additional several to a dozen Light Destroyers to bring major surface combatants number up to a total of twelve, to only building an initial batch of three larger ships to replace the existing Daring class destroyers, was the decision to embark a pair of missile armed helicopters on each. More to the point it was the realisation that a pair of embarked helicopters would permit a single ship to do what would take a couple of ships (three or four rather than tow that is) without helicopters to do.

Once the helicopters were embarked it made sense to improve the ships self defence capabilities through the addition of Tartar / Standard MR in place of Seacat, as well as superior sensors and combat system to what had been intended. Rather than an addition to the Fleet these ships were recast as a replacement for the 1950s designed Daring and Battle class destroyers and River Class DEs/frigates with a total of ten eventually planned. The program was cancelled and the OHP / FFG-07 class FFGs ordered instead with two plus two ordered from the US and up to six planed to be built locally at the time plans were still underway to replace Melbourne.

The FFGs were still equipped with helicopters and both the Lynx and Seahawk were considered and an anti ship missile was planned as well but never procured for the Seahawks. Again this helicopter procurement was planned when it was still assumed the carrier would be replaced meaning the Seakings would still be able to go to sea and that additional Seakings and eventually Harriers would be acquired as well.

Plans also existed at the time to build a final batch of five Fremantles as FACs fitted with 76mm Oto Melara guns and canister launched Harpoon, while the first fifteen had the potential to be upgraded to the same standard. Again this was when it was assumed the carrier would be replaced, additional large ASW helicopters acquired along with Harriers. In fact it was when the carrier capability was retired that planning began to massively increase the number of helicopter capable ships in the Fleet, i.e. up from maybe ten or eventually thirteen (FFGs plus the eventual DDG replacement) plus the carrier, to sixteen to seventeen frigates and destroyers plus up to a dozen corvettes, each with at least one missile and torpedo capable helicopter. i.e. a single helicopter carrier with fourteen helicopters and the potential to embark Harriers/Seaharriers was seen to be worth all of the missile armed helicopter equipped corvettes and three to four guided missile frigates and destroyers.

It is quite sobering when you realise just how much of a game changer helicopters are, not just in the obvious ASW and ASvW roles, but in increasing an individual ships situational awareness, targeting abilities and effective presence, i.e. how much area it can apply influence to. Many don't realise that the RAN was seriously looking at fitting the Armidales with UAVs and that they regarded the lack of helicopter facilities in the requirements as the single biggest failing of the project.

When you are talking single ships you need multi role helicopters on each and every one, when you are talking task forces not all need their own helicopter but the ability to support and rapidly launch what you do have become paramount. This is where even a small helicopter carrier, or for that matter an AOR or aviation support ship that can launch, recover, hanger and maintain (even down to deeper level repairs)multiple helicopters become a force multiplier that can justify a reduction in actual combatant numbers.

On the OPVs I believe it is a serious mistake to be deliberately overlooking the requirement to at least provide space and weight for additional sensors, weapons, an upgraded (or actual) combat system, as well as facilities for mission modules. This is because it is better to have the facility to upgrade the capability and not need it than to need it and be unable to do jack, i.e. the exact situation the RAN was left in when they got coke cans instead of corvettes. When the RAN has a pool of suitable weapons, sewnsors and systems left over from upgrades to or the retirement of other platforms there is even less of an excuss for the pure bloody minded ness involved. I actually wonder if the root cause of this apparent short sited stupidity is actually more a case of the realisation that the WA mafias poster child ship builder Austal would be completely incapable of building or even supporting such a design. Is the RAN missing out again because the selected builder are not capable of actually building what is really required?