Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,422
One of the first things Rudd did(yes he did something at one stage) was ditch the Idea of a coast guard, which Latham and then Homeland security spokesman Mclelland were proponants of, as well as Department of Homeland Security to be based on the US model...which works great!
Coast Guard: It'd be a great idea, as you could amalgamate any or all of Coastwatch, Customs, Fisheries, Immigration and the Federal Police (or parts thereof) into one quasi-military service. Makes inter-departmental liason a non-player, it streamlines the processes, it allows for a much easier allocation of resources, and it also means that the boundaries of responsibility and jurisdiction are removed, and are also much clearer. The RAN and RAAF could help with SAR, etc, but seriously they should be almost able to handle anything out to 100nm themselves.
The flipside is simply the cost. We cannot support such an organization. If they make a smallish force that relies on other services, the services can withdraw force elements at any time. We couldn't allow those resources to be potentially removed at a critical time. If they make a large force, it'd drain resources and continually receive budget cuts until it became that small force with reliance on the RAN/RAAF. You'd need enough funds to have Armidale sized AND larger oceangoing ships to cover all of our EEZ, complete with sensors, datalinks and armaments to conduct boarding operations. They would also need to have significant air support, again independent of the RAAF and RAN.
There is a compromise. If such an organisation were set up, it could be staffed by RAN/Army folks as 'low activity postings'. It's not a Rest Posting, but it's closer to it than rolling sea time. It'd help with retention, no doubt. But we;d have to recruit the people for it and swell the ranks of the RAN/Army enough to allow those postings to go ahead.
There are other considerations, but funding it the biggest barrier. We just couldn't afford it.
The flipside is simply the cost. We cannot support such an organization. If they make a smallish force that relies on other services, the services can withdraw force elements at any time. We couldn't allow those resources to be potentially removed at a critical time. If they make a large force, it'd drain resources and continually receive budget cuts until it became that small force with reliance on the RAN/RAAF. You'd need enough funds to have Armidale sized AND larger oceangoing ships to cover all of our EEZ, complete with sensors, datalinks and armaments to conduct boarding operations. They would also need to have significant air support, again independent of the RAAF and RAN.
There is a compromise. If such an organisation were set up, it could be staffed by RAN/Army folks as 'low activity postings'. It's not a Rest Posting, but it's closer to it than rolling sea time. It'd help with retention, no doubt. But we;d have to recruit the people for it and swell the ranks of the RAN/Army enough to allow those postings to go ahead.
There are other considerations, but funding it the biggest barrier. We just couldn't afford it.
Last edited:
I just spent the last few hours reading the original labour proposals and associated submissions for the coastguard and personally i think it was a great idea but poorly executed.
The idea was that more ships and helicopters were to be purchased when the current job is being performed quite well using the current equipment. It was deemed too expensive in every way.
In hindsight it should have been purely a restructuring and renaming of assets under one large coastguard label. Customs will be a division of CoastGuard. Coastwatch which is a division of Customs will become a division of Coastguard.
If the Australian Navy was willing to hand over control of all its armidale patrol boats to the "Coastguard" it would give the Coastguard all the ships it needs to provide protection of our oceans. Instead of having customs boarding parties on Navy ships you'll have Coastguard boarding parties on Coastguard ships.
Of course that would be a massive loss in ship numbers to the Australian Navy, however i'd be all for that idea if it meant getting even a single extra hobart class AWD with the money saved. The Navy would simply be handing the house keeping jobs to the Coastguard.
If handing over the Armidales to a new Coastguard would result in funding and crewing of an additional Hobart I would support such a move. Unfortunately I think that what would actually happen is that the navy budget would be reduced by the amount currently spent on patrol work by the Armidales. It may also be possible that encouragement would be given for naval personnel to transfer to the Coastguard to man the patrol boats.
I'm not a fan of tying the navy up with what is largely civil patrol work (fisheries protection, people smuggling, drug running, etc) but a positive is that the ACPBs do provide valuable leadership training for the RAN's junior officers.
With the current federal budget being tight, I don't think that now is the right time to pursue the idea of a separate Coastguard. However, I do hope that the existing Bay class PBs and charted ocean going vessels, like Oceanic Viking, operated by Customs will be replaced by vessels with improved armament (at least a 25mm Typhoon on the larger vessels and 50 cal MGs on the PBs) and better endurance and seakeeping in the case of the PBs. The larger ships should be capable of patrolling Southern waters and should be capable of operating a helicopter.
Tas
Hmm - strange, sure I have heard this before .... wait .. doesn't that sound like a RNZN OPV ?
nfloorl:Another opportunity of some "sub-contracting" ala 2 SQN ? for NZDEF
Yes it does! I think the Kiwi OPV design would be very suitable for the kind of work being discussed.Hmm - strange, sure I have heard this before .... wait .. doesn't that sound like a RNZN OPV ?
Another opportunity of some "sub-contracting" ala 2 SQN ? for NZDEF
Tas
Here is a post I made on the Kiwi navy thread a few weeks ago
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucasnz
If an upgrade is not viable, which many seem to think, then the only real option NZ has, is to use the OPV's as MCM vessels (modular) and acquire corvettes with the ability to operate in the Pacific. Personally I think that upgrading the OPV's would allow NZ to make the max use of an asset but the costs would kill the idea.
So this raises the question - Do we need to goto a 2 frigate, 4 corvette navy. Similar to what was attempted after WWII and what we had during the Korean war? I think the short answer is yes, but which way an LCS type vessel or a ANZAC hull with K-130 sensors etc. Both offer advantages.
In terms of electronics on the OPV, I managed to find the fire control and HFDF manufacturer, but nothing at all the radars or sonar.
end quote by lucasnz
start quote by ThePuss
If NZ was serious in wanting to offload the OPV's to get something with a little more "OMPH" I would love for Australia to buy the OPV's to help mitigate the cost of new kiwi vessels.
The two ship OPV fleet is exactly what Australia needs to patrol the sothern ocean. They could either be operated by the navy or crew them with a Customs/Merchant combination like the Southern Viking.
The Southern Viking is a move in the right direction, With it we are not wasting a half billion dollar frigate and 200 sailors chasing Patagonian toothfish pochers (been their, done that...even got the tee shirt). But it falls far shot of being ideal in my (humble) opinion as it is too slow and most importantly dose not carry a helicopter so currently it is unable to conduct boardings in bad weather and lets face it......its the southen ocean!. Also if the poachers refuse to stop, fast roping a boarding team onboard is much better option than creating a international incident by firing a 50 cal into them.
Also these ships would be ideal to patrol Christmas Island to stop the "hordes".
Apperently the ACPB's can do it unlike a FCPB but I reckon they are still a bit to small for the job.
Sorry if this post is more about the RAN than the RNZN
end quote by ThePuss
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Having personaly been on a southern ocean patrol in a FFH I think the Ocean Viking (yes I got the name wrong in my original post :roll is a move in the right direction but two vessels of the kiwi OPV design would be perfect.
I agree. It would be a great idea for Australia, either its navy or a coast guard, to have 2-4 OPVs for constable duties in the Southern Ocean and around Heard Island. Doing so will free up the frigates for more useful duties abroad. The ship they have now is more of an oceanographic vessel, she is not as useful as an OPV.
Again, its important to realize an OPV is not a small warship, their value is in constable work and/or patrol. There is a wonderful television program on You Tube, which shows the Irish ocean patrol ships worth.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTxKC4csylc"]YouTube - The Navy Ep1 Pt 1[/ame]
Please note when I attempt to watch this show, the horizontal is squeezed. Please ignore this. Its a good show, in my opinion, as good as the Carrier show on PBS.
Be thankful neither Australia or New Zealand has to buy icebreakers. Their worth is shown with a TV show on the Coast Guard channel, called Breaking Ice.
Good video sea Toby!
Australia does have an icebreaker, Aurora Australis, which is occasionally used by Customs for patrol work (when not required for supply runs to Antarctica). With her bright orange colour she is a very familiar sight in the Port of Hobart. When used by Customs she mounts a pair of 50 cal MGs, the same as Oceanic Viking. Aurora Australis has an advantage over the regular customs vessel in that she has a large helicopter landing pad and hangar. She is on long term charter from P&O but IIRC the RAN was consulted re her design, to ensure she would be suitable for potential wartime use by the navy in Southern waters.
Tas
I didn't know Australias Customs had an icebreaker. Thanks for the tip. America's Coast Guard has three large ones, and a good sized Great Lake one, plus several smaller harbor ones on the Great Lakes. They work mostly west of Buffalo, and Canada has several too for their harbors on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I have read recently that Canada ordered several icebreaking hull OPVs for the Arctic North.
America's old WWII Great Lakes icebreaker Mackinaw did wonders breaking the ice on the Great Lakes. Every year it was needed to keep the Soo locks open at Sault Ste Marie, and there ware a few years she had to break ice all the way to Buffalo. Working together with Canada's icebreakes, Canada took care of the route east of Buffalo/Toronto. Some years are much colder than others.
I don't like the all orange color. I prefer the red hull and white superstructures of the American and Canadian icebreakers.
Here is the link to the Coast Guard channel's Breaking Ice TV show.
http://www.coastguardchannel.com/24_7_vid/BreakingIce.shtml
America's old WWII Great Lakes icebreaker Mackinaw did wonders breaking the ice on the Great Lakes. Every year it was needed to keep the Soo locks open at Sault Ste Marie, and there ware a few years she had to break ice all the way to Buffalo. Working together with Canada's icebreakes, Canada took care of the route east of Buffalo/Toronto. Some years are much colder than others.
I don't like the all orange color. I prefer the red hull and white superstructures of the American and Canadian icebreakers.
Here is the link to the Coast Guard channel's Breaking Ice TV show.
http://www.coastguardchannel.com/24_7_vid/BreakingIce.shtml
Last edited:
I found this short video at You Tube of the Aurora Australia. Appears she is a well designed icebreaker for Australia needs.
I only wished she had a red hull and white superstructure, similar to her helicopters. All orange is ugly.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGmU06voUzM"]YouTube - South: a voyage to Antarctica[/ame]
I only wished she had a red hull and white superstructure, similar to her helicopters. All orange is ugly.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGmU06voUzM"]YouTube - South: a voyage to Antarctica[/ame]
Aurora Australis is on long term lease to the Australian Antarctic Division, an arm of the Australian Government, and is occasionally used by Customs as a backup when other vessels are unavailable. She seems to have been a successful design with good cargo capacity and a very good aviation capability. IIRC, consideration was originally given to her being operated and manned by the RAN but as her main role was to be the support of Australian Antarctic interests the sensible decision (IMO) was made to lease her from P&O (the same as Oceanic Viking) and operate her as a merchant vessel. However, her design lends itself to naval use in wartime (perhaps with a different colour scheme! ). She is listed in Janes Fighting Ships in the Australian section.
Tas
). She is listed in Janes Fighting Ships in the Australian section.Tas
Last edited:
Future Submarine force
Interesting arcticle in yesterdays "The Australian" about the future size of the RAN's submarine force. Bit of a case of deja vu, I seem to remember some of the same arguments being made in the lead up to the Collins class design selection. The Labour party were tossing around the idea of an all submarine Navy.
So what are peoples thoughts on the number to be operated and type of capabilities they should possess. For mine a land attack capability, aka Tomahawk, is essential for the ADF's ability to reach out and "touch" people when required. A force of around 8-10 subs would be sufficient IMV, but I dont advocate a smaller surface fleet either. Thoughts anyone?
BTW I am well aware of the current manning issues in our subs so we don't need to bring that up.
From "the Australian"
Call to submerge our naval forceFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Patrick Walters | July 04, 2008
AUSTRALIA needs a larger and more potent submarine fleet armed with land-strike missiles and should consider a historic shift away from big surface warships.
In a new study, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute argues that the emerging build-up of navies throughout the region, which includes growing numbers of submarines and the deployment of supersonic sea-skimming missiles by Russia, China and India, is making surface ships more vulnerable.
ASPI's Andrew Davies says that rapidly evolving technologies are calling into question the survivability of warships such as the navy's $8billion air warfare destroyers, which will enter service from 2014.
"While the air warfare destroyers about to begin construction will provide a measure of protection against even the most sophisticated missiles, a simultaneous attack with multiple missiles has the potential to overwhelm the defences," he says in the study of Asian military trends and their implications for Australia.
Australia's technological edge in relation to its neighbours is increasingly being called into question and together with the rising maritime capabilities of larger powers, led by China and India, should dictate a major review of the existing force structure of the ADF, the study says.
"The defence white paper currently in development will need to factor our narrowing capability advantage into its calculus. Rather than simply perpetuating a force structure that has served us well for the last four decades, it may be time to think hard about change."
Dr Davies recommends the army should increase the size of the elite special forces, which would undertake future war-fighting in conjunction with allies, while other army units should specialise in stabilisation and assistance missions.
"The traditional combined arms approach of infantry, armour and artillery is less relevant for near regional stabilisation and assistance missions and has not proven to be required in recent coalition operations," he argues.
Dr Davies expressed confidence that Australia could not be directly threatened, in the conventional military sense, by any Southeast Asian state.
"While our near neighbours are acquiring newer and more sophisticated capabilities, the ability to project power across the sea-air gap to the north of Australia and defeat the ADF will remain beyond them for decades to come," he says.
The RAAF's planned combat force consisting of F/A 18 Super Hornets and the F-35 joint strike fighter were well placed to meet any regional challenge.
But Australia did not have such a clear-cut advantage in naval power and the RAN had an "Achilles heel" under water.
The navy's anti-submarine warfare capability was in poor shape, which, when faced with the proliferation of submarines in the region, could "seriously affect the freedom of action of the RAN's surface fleet".
Further afield, the great power relationships of the region were shifting after 50 years of stability.
"If the current growth patterns continue, our advantage will be further eroded. Access to advanced US technologies may keep us ahead of European- and Russian-sourced equipment, but the capability differential will narrow."
Dr Davies said Australia should not expect to be able to unilaterally defend itself against a major power.
Interesting arcticle in yesterdays "The Australian" about the future size of the RAN's submarine force. Bit of a case of deja vu, I seem to remember some of the same arguments being made in the lead up to the Collins class design selection. The Labour party were tossing around the idea of an all submarine Navy.
So what are peoples thoughts on the number to be operated and type of capabilities they should possess. For mine a land attack capability, aka Tomahawk, is essential for the ADF's ability to reach out and "touch" people when required. A force of around 8-10 subs would be sufficient IMV, but I dont advocate a smaller surface fleet either. Thoughts anyone?
BTW I am well aware of the current manning issues in our subs so we don't need to bring that up.
From "the Australian"
Call to submerge our naval forceFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Patrick Walters | July 04, 2008
AUSTRALIA needs a larger and more potent submarine fleet armed with land-strike missiles and should consider a historic shift away from big surface warships.
In a new study, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute argues that the emerging build-up of navies throughout the region, which includes growing numbers of submarines and the deployment of supersonic sea-skimming missiles by Russia, China and India, is making surface ships more vulnerable.
ASPI's Andrew Davies says that rapidly evolving technologies are calling into question the survivability of warships such as the navy's $8billion air warfare destroyers, which will enter service from 2014.
"While the air warfare destroyers about to begin construction will provide a measure of protection against even the most sophisticated missiles, a simultaneous attack with multiple missiles has the potential to overwhelm the defences," he says in the study of Asian military trends and their implications for Australia.
Australia's technological edge in relation to its neighbours is increasingly being called into question and together with the rising maritime capabilities of larger powers, led by China and India, should dictate a major review of the existing force structure of the ADF, the study says.
"The defence white paper currently in development will need to factor our narrowing capability advantage into its calculus. Rather than simply perpetuating a force structure that has served us well for the last four decades, it may be time to think hard about change."
Dr Davies recommends the army should increase the size of the elite special forces, which would undertake future war-fighting in conjunction with allies, while other army units should specialise in stabilisation and assistance missions.
"The traditional combined arms approach of infantry, armour and artillery is less relevant for near regional stabilisation and assistance missions and has not proven to be required in recent coalition operations," he argues.
Dr Davies expressed confidence that Australia could not be directly threatened, in the conventional military sense, by any Southeast Asian state.
"While our near neighbours are acquiring newer and more sophisticated capabilities, the ability to project power across the sea-air gap to the north of Australia and defeat the ADF will remain beyond them for decades to come," he says.
The RAAF's planned combat force consisting of F/A 18 Super Hornets and the F-35 joint strike fighter were well placed to meet any regional challenge.
But Australia did not have such a clear-cut advantage in naval power and the RAN had an "Achilles heel" under water.
The navy's anti-submarine warfare capability was in poor shape, which, when faced with the proliferation of submarines in the region, could "seriously affect the freedom of action of the RAN's surface fleet".
Further afield, the great power relationships of the region were shifting after 50 years of stability.
"If the current growth patterns continue, our advantage will be further eroded. Access to advanced US technologies may keep us ahead of European- and Russian-sourced equipment, but the capability differential will narrow."
Dr Davies said Australia should not expect to be able to unilaterally defend itself against a major power.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,436
Well that would put me out of a job, as a dibby...we are not needed on Subs, and that kinda limits the posts...and another point, can i get some of the weed the ASPI use? seriously these guys have the good stuff to come up with the crap they do,i've read a couple of reports, and they are.'ok' but seriously, they ruin credibility with this sort of unrealistic rubbish.
With regards to ACPB moved to a "coastguide", alot of people would leave the navy for CG, as most of the patrol fleet is made up of people who do time on a major, and switch to a minor, which is what i hope to do.The options are great, but you take it away, you kinda lose a bonus of postings. And you dealve into territorial battle for resources, look at the USCG, they received for years 2nd hand and 3rd rate Ex-USN ships, and it wasn't till they moved from Transport to Homeland security that they started to receive some money and new plans and equipment, whats to stop that happening here?
No feasibility in a CG and won't be now if ever.
I agree. a maritime nation with out a sea control ability is hamstrung. Submarines are an offencive weapon and SSK's make really poor escorts for trade, can provided only minimal support of combined operations (if the are TLAM fitted) compared to an LHD and have minimal abilitly to suppot operatsins such as Timor and Solomons.................... however they are very capable of forward defence provided they are properly tasked.
This is an ALP hobby horse based on public appeal (read spin) with the result we have an unbalanced force with limited capability in respect of broader operations. Submarines are part of a blamnced force structure ad should not be considered as it only major element.
I cannot believe we are seeing the 80's re-run and the opposition have not gone after them on it.
The Coast Guard was funded adequately under the Treasury Department, unfortunately, it wasn't under the Transportation Department, where Congress starved the Coast Guard to fund their pet pork road projects. Thank goodness the Coast Guard is under Homeland Security today. In this day and age where many of the isolationsists want to build a wall on both borders, and stop importing Arabian oil and Chinese toys, cutters are finally receiving their proper funding.
The key is to fund both, not one or the other due to what is popular. There is no need for a face off. Its the same with public transportation too. Why does a commuter rail project have to turn a profit when the roads and sea routes don't?
consription adf
New Member
defence budget
hello all...can anyone tell me what percentage of the defence budget navy receives?
hello all...can anyone tell me what percentage of the defence budget navy receives?
I suggest googling the subject. I found many hits on the ADF budget, not much on the RAN budget. Then there are operating budgets, and procurement budgets, which vary with each weapon system. While the navy procures very expensive ships as compared to the air force's aircraft, many more aircraft are being purchased compared to ships. The army has twice the personnel, thus twice the payroll of the air force and navy.
I don't think the government cares whatsoever what the percentages are between navy, air force, and army. I think the government cares more on whether the entire ADF is funded, for operations and for procurement.
The question you asked about budget percentages is exactly what the government attempts to avoid. The government has no intentions of dividing the pie into thirds, its just one pie. If the governemnt chooses to add or subtract a battalion or ship, the government won't be interested about services budget percentages. For example, the recent C-17 buy. While the C-17 is an air force asset, they are used to fly the army around, mostly.
I don't think the government cares whatsoever what the percentages are between navy, air force, and army. I think the government cares more on whether the entire ADF is funded, for operations and for procurement.
The question you asked about budget percentages is exactly what the government attempts to avoid. The government has no intentions of dividing the pie into thirds, its just one pie. If the governemnt chooses to add or subtract a battalion or ship, the government won't be interested about services budget percentages. For example, the recent C-17 buy. While the C-17 is an air force asset, they are used to fly the army around, mostly.
- Status