Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

riksavage

Banned Member
Priority has given to improving manning and retention levels, no point having a gaggle of shiny new boats if they are destined to spend the majority of their operational life in dry dock or along side. Noted in todays press (The Australian) that there's talk of a 4th Collins being confined to port because of manning issues - crazy!

It's great to see the Aus Navy expanding, bringing to the table a true blue water capability, but I can't see where you are going to get the manpower, particualry to fill specialist trades. There's no way you an compete with salaries in the private sector, so you have to encourage recruitment by building better messes, rec facilities, housing and pushing the unique lifestyle offered by the services.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Another navy sub forced to dry-dock because of crew shortages
Mark Dodd and Matthew Franklin | September 11, 2008

THE Royal Australian Navy is set to move the fourth of its six Collins-class submarines into dry dock because of crew shortages, undermining Kevin Rudd's plans for a massive upgrade in naval resources to counter a military build-up inAsia.

Crew shortages have put a fourth sub in dock and undermined plans for naval expansion.
Defence analysts warned yesterday that severe skills shortages meant the navy could not crew its existing vessels, let alone new assets proposed by the Prime Minister in a major speech to the Returned and Services League on Tuesday night.

Mr Rudd told the RSL that financial prosperity in the Asian region was fuelling an arms race and that Australia must respond by upgrading its military forces, particularly the RAN, which has just 37 vessels, including six submarines.

While Mr Rudd mentioned no particular nations, his comments have been widely interpreted as a warning about China's continuing expansion of its navy, particularly its fleet of nuclear submarines.

As Mr Rudd intensified his language yesterday, saying Australia needed to be a "maritime power" and protect its shipping lanes to maintain trade, defence analyst Allan Behm said the RAN was struggling to retain highly skilled technicians.

Mr Behm, a consultant to universities and the defence industry, said that with three Collins-class submarines now inoperable because of crew shortages, the navy faced the real prospect of mothballing another within six months.

"This is now a real problem for the submarines and somebody has to be brought to account," Mr Behm told The Australian.

"(Chief of Navy) Vice-Admiral Russell Crane has a big task ahead."

Lowy Institute fellow and Australian National University professor Hugh White accused the Government of failing to demand action from senior Defence officials.

"Defence and navy has not delivered the capability required of them," Professor White said.

"Imagine what would happen if this was BHP and half their truck fleet was out of service."

Replying to questions from The Australian, Defence last night did not deny the allegations and defended its crewing arrangements to protect its submariners from stress.

"The RAN has over 400 submarine-qualified personnel. Not all six submarines need tobe crewed at any one time asa proportion of the force is inmaintenance," it said in a statement.

"Crewing every submarine would not be the best long-term outcome as this would impose stress on the workforce.

"The number of submarines that are crewed therefore varies to ensure the longer term sustainability of the workforce."

The Australian revealed in March the RAN was suffering a 37 per cent shortfall in its crewing requirements for the Collins Class submarines and had been forced to slash the number of sailing days for the fleet for the third time in as many years.

The Government recently offered the elite crews bonuses of up to $60,000 if they extended their service an extra 18 months. The Collins Class submarines require a bare minimum of 45 sailors to crew the warship of whom 50 per cent are highly qualified technicians.

In Townsville yesterday Mr Rudd acknowledged the RAN had manpower shortages in 24 different skills categories.

"We must, as a matter of priority, start to rebuild those skills deficits," Mr Rudd said.

"That's right now before we talk about any enhanced naval capability."

But Mr Rudd insisted his Government would work through the problems because it must meet the Asian military build-up.

"We are looking at a time in the Asia-Pacific region and world history where for the first time in several hundred years we are going to have powers other than Anglo-Saxon powers who will be dominant players in the world," Mr Rudd said.

"Therefore Australia must be prepared through its diplomacy, through its foreign policy and through its defence policy."

Dismissing suggestions his comments could be inflammatory, Mr Rudd linked the need to a strong navy to the maintenance of its international trade.

"When we look at places like this where we have huge exports going to the rest of the world, we must be in a position in the future to defend Australia's own sea lines of communication," Mr Rudd said.

"If we are going to defend our sea lines of communication to the rest of the world, we have got to make sure that we have got the naval capability to underpin that.

"We are either serious about Australia as a maritime power into the 21st century or we're not."

Mr Rudd said the navy would need to plan for new ships "subsurface and surface" and to invest in personnel to operate the new hardware.

Mr Rudd refused to speculate on whether his Government would lift defence spending to fund the military build-up. He said he would await the publication of his Government's Defence white paper before considering funding but had guaranteed real annual growth of 3 per cent in defence spending for the next 10 years.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson said Mr Rudd was all talk and no action.

"If he's concerned about the arms race and wanting to build up the navy, why will he not make a decision and announce that we will build a fourth air warfare destroyer," Dr Nelson told ABC radio.

He rejected Mr Rudd's criticisms of the Howard government's record on skills, saying the defence force was stronger and more modern now than when John Howard took office in 1996.

And he pointed out the white paper, which was to have been released this year, would be delayed until next year.

Obtained from http://http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24327700-2702,00.html
Good to see some more spin about the Collins. It's not totally true, yes Collins in going onto the slip at Henderson in a couple of months until after Xmas, but it is due to having a bottom scrap and other maintenence, not due to crewing issues. Waller is currently around uptop on exercises, Farncomb doing trials off SA and Collins playing in the WAXA. The other 3 are in varying stages of going through their CS upgrade. The submariners are hurting in numbers, but to say that the subs are in mothballs for this reason is just plain bollocks. Not sure if they deserve an extra 60 grand for their troubles, wouldn't get me changing over though, I like the thought of blue sky above my head :)
Cheers
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
WHG at flinders is closed for 2yrs while being upgraded, and before then i cannot recall seeing one, or mounts for it. 40/60s sat there for a while...things of beuaty:rolleyes:
My understanding is that they are being installed as part of the upgrade of Westhead. Will chat with a couple of mates at Bosun's World in Cerberus to confirm or deny it.
Cheers
 

zort boy

New Member
When the new Canberra class LHD's are commissioned should a fixed wing air element be seen as essential for them? I am assuming it would be easy to get hold of some Harriers until the VSTOL F-35 becomes available. How many should be embarked on each ship?
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
When the new Canberra class LHD's are commissioned should a fixed wing air element be seen as essential for them? I am assuming it would be easy to get hold of some Harriers until the VSTOL F-35 becomes available. How many should be embarked on each ship?
Hi, welcome to the forum. This has been discussed many times in this thread, please do a search.
 

thorpete1

New Member
When will we have to replace our ANZAC class frigates and what kind of criteria and requirements would be used to replace them?
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
When will we have to replace our ANZAC class frigates and what kind of criteria and requirements would be used to replace them?
I'm unsure of the requirements, however assuming a 25 year life, the last pair of FFG's will be 25 years old in 2018, with the oldest ANZAC reaching that age in 2021, so probably 8-10 ships starting from around 2020 depending on whether a fourth AWD is ordered.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I'm unsure of the requirements, however assuming a 25 year life, the last pair of FFG's will be 25 years old in 2018, with the oldest ANZAC reaching that age in 2021, so probably 8-10 ships starting from around 2020 depending on whether a fourth AWD is ordered.
Using the AWD hullform for the replacement FFH sounds like a good idea, providing commonality and a significant step up from the MEKO design. Afterall its the AEGIS combat system, additional VLS and SPY 1D that make them AWD's, without those the Hobart's are more like uber frigates. 10 hulls would provide the RAN with 14 (hopefully) surface combatants. Not too shabby. But we'll have to wait and see.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
I suppose it really depends on when the AWD's are commissioned, when the last 2 FFG's are decommissioned and whether a fourth AWD is ordered.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
When the new Canberra class LHD's are commissioned should a fixed wing air element be seen as essential for them? I am assuming it would be easy to get hold of some Harriers until the VSTOL F-35 becomes available. How many should be embarked on each ship?

I know this has been said before,
But i am still not convinced of the merit of putting F35b on a third lhd if were to get it.
I understand the need for the third lhd but it should be use for it intended purpose, 1 for ops, 1in training and 1 as a buffer or if 1 goes done for repair or surge ops if required.
I cannot see the value of put about a dozen planes on it, and losing it value for it intended use.

If we require a carrier then we need a dedicated one, I know that this will put a huge hole in the defense budget and not to mention manning levels, but we should look in going with the British with the new carrier Queen Elizabeth class, instead of puttingF35b model on them imo we should be putting super hornets or F35c if we could afford it.
I believe it will give us more options in the future, more heaver ordnance over target and could stand off a bit further from the target
I know it will change the composition of the fleet and will require escorts as well, but i believe this would give us better overall force structure for now and into the future.
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I know this has been said before,
But i am still not convinced of the merit of putting F35b on a third lhd if were to get it.
I understand the need for the third lhd but it should be use for it intended purpose, 1 for ops, 1in training and 1 as a buffer or if 1 goes done for repair or surge ops if required.
I cannot see the value of put about a dozen planes on it, and losing it value for it intended use.

If we require a carrier then we need a dedicated one, I know that this will put a huge hole in the defense budget and not to mention manning levels, but we should look in going with the British with the new carrier Queen Elizabeth class, instead of puttingF35b model on them imo we should be putting super hornets or F35c if we could afford it.
I believe it will give us more options in the future, more heaver ordnance over target and could stand off a bit further from the target
I know it will change the composition of the fleet and will require escorts as well, but i believe this would give us better overall force structure for now and into the future.
Woah, I think we are getting a tad too ambitious here. As you pointed out above two ships of a certain class are really the bare minimum to maintain a capability and three is preferable. Where are we going to find the dollars to fund two of these things? Particularly as you are thinking conventional carrier aircraft that could not even use the LHD's to keep the capability whilst the CV was in dock.

Speaking of the airframes, I suppose the superhornets could be used, but whats the point in equipping a front line asset with an airframe that will be another 10 years older by the time the new CV's reach IOC? So that will mean the purchase of F35C's, yet another purchase of another subtype will add still further pressure to the budget.

Nah, can't see it myself unless we discover Saudi Arabia levels of oil in someone's backyard.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
It was all hypothetical speaking ,we only ran the one carrier in the end with HMAS Melbourne and with certain people remarks in earlier talk about this the number of air craft on board the she was only marginally effective, from memory she only had 24 aircraft on board .

I am not saying get the carrier over the third lhd but my preference would be both, I would assume lf one of the lhd was used as a mini carrier you would still require the escorts and you still have the problem with different model aircraft

I don’t know how much difference in price it is between a/b/c model aircraft and the amount of ordnance that it could carry, but to offset the difference in aircraft one option is to go with a fleet of F35c that way all the frontline squadrons are capable of taking up the slack on the carrier
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It was all hypothetical speaking ,we only ran the one carrier in the end with HMAS Melbourne and with certain people remarks in earlier talk about this the number of air craft on board the she was only marginally effective, from memory she only had 24 aircraft on board .

I am not saying get the carrier over the third lhd but my preference would be both, I would assume lf one of the lhd was used as a mini carrier you would still require the escorts and you still have the problem with different model aircraft
My point is that say we do get the extra LHD - great, but if we want to also add a conventional carrier, we would really need two carriers, because with a conventional carrier air wing they could not operate off a LHD (lack of deck space, arrestor gear, catapault) so, we could end up spending billions for one ship with its unique air wing that would only be useful when it wasn't in dry dock, undergoing training etc (a la Melbourne) or we spend the extra couple of billion getting a second CV that should ensure we pretty much have one available when needed. That would then mean we would have a navy nearly as powerful as the poms with what, one quarter of the population? I'm shuddering at just imagining the tax burden...

Nah, spend less than a billion more on more second hand KC30's convert most to tanker config, keep one or two with a QC interior that the pollies could use for their joy flights thus releasing the KC30's for fuelling. With the extra tanking capacity we can then better employ our existing (and ordered) air assets to project power offshore. If we need air support further away than our immediate neighbours then I'd hazard a guess that we'll at least have the poms or the septics with a carrier air wing we could tap into.

You never know - if we get enough of the maritime patrol MPV's we may be able to use their extraordinary range to project limited power to assist our troops at a pinch.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
My point is that say we do get the extra LHD - great, but if we want to also add a conventional carrier, we would really need two carriers, because with a conventional carrier air wing they could not operate off a LHD (lack of deck space, arrestor gear, catapault) so, we could end up spending billions for one ship with its unique air wing that would only be useful when it wasn't in dry dock, undergoing training etc (a la Melbourne) or we spend the extra couple of billion getting a second CV that should ensure we pretty much have one available when needed. That would then mean we would have a navy nearly as powerful as the poms with what, one quarter of the population? I'm shuddering at just imagining the tax burden...

But would that also be the case if we made mini carriers, you still might need two set up in that configuration, I am not sure on how quickly we could convert the other lhd to do extended flight ops if the one was in dry dock., and you are still left with one of each when you might need the second as moving heavy equipment and helo support.

You are still going to have a unique air wing with the mini carriers, the dollars spent on aircraft is there no mater which way you go, but you can reduce the maintenance cost with one type of aircraft being the F35c,with the squadrons rotating between the at sea squadron or on shore establishment

At the end off the day we have to find out do we really need a carrier and all it’s might of power projection and ability to support the troops on the ground if needed without going to the US/UK for help, not all our deployments in the future might be so close to home that we could support from land based airfields.

But then i reckon our chance’s of getting a fleet air arm again is when hell freezes over
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Boys you wouldn't use the 3rd LHD as a carrier. that would be silly, and as said before you might aswell buy a dedicated carrier. However if you had a 3rd LHD you could buy 10~14 F-35B's for the RAAF (who will still find the platform very handy for deployments to places like Afghansitan) and if we ever need to use all three in a surge operation, i.e. a peace enforcement mission where the bad guys are well armed and we're going in without significant support you can operate those RAAF F-35b's of the 3rd LHD. The level of firepower a short squadron of F-35's brings a to the theater should not be underestimated. Can you imagine the difference in target effects between a Hellfire 2 and a Mk 84 delivered precisely? An order of magnitude may be close. That sort of capability has significant effects in the battle space, not to mention the fleet air defence capability a supersonic, 5th gen AIM-120D equipped STOVL fighter provides. Land based fighters may not all ways be there.


Therefore for ever other time when you're doing things like Timor or the Solomons where that level of fire power is not needed, the RAAF can go back to flying arround in the desert and you have your 3 LHD's back. That's the flexibility the two platforms concerned (Canberra and F-35B) provide the ADF, the option to use the vessels in whatever configuration deemed necessary to meet the requirements of that specific mission.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Boys you wouldn't use the 3rd LHD as a carrier. that would be silly, and as said before you might aswell buy a dedicated carrier. However if you had a 3rd LHD you could buy 10~14 F-35B's for the RAAF (who will still find the platform very handy for deployments to places like Afghansitan) and if we ever need to use all three in a surge operation, i.e. a peace enforcement mission where the bad guys are well armed and we're going in without significant support you can operate those RAAF F-35b's of the 3rd LHD. The level of firepower a short squadron of F-35's brings a to the theater should not be underestimated. Can you imagine the difference in target effects between a Hellfire 2 and a Mk 84 delivered precisely? An order of magnitude may be close. That sort of capability has significant effects in the battle space, not to mention the fleet air defence capability a supersonic, 5th gen AIM-120D equipped STOVL fighter provides. Land based fighters may not all ways be there.


Therefore for ever other time when you're doing things like Timor or the Solomons where that level of fire power is not needed, the RAAF can go back to flying arround in the desert and you have your 3 LHD's back. That's the flexibility the two platforms concerned (Canberra and F-35B) provide the ADF, the option to use the vessels in whatever configuration deemed necessary to meet the requirements of that specific mission.



Yes I understand the merits of what you are saying, i am only bringing it up as a somewhat different perspective on zort boy’s question and keeping with the pm’s recent comments on maritime security.

But realistically if they say that we require F35b than it’s a defacto admission we need a carrier imo .

With the debate on having too many different models for maintenance cost, I have been having a dig around but haven’t come up with concrete numbers ,just this site the F35c has a (The larger wing of the naval F-35C provides increased range and payload capacity)
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/index.html

We already have a fleet of aircraft that are navel orientated, if you were going to get the extra aircraft for the lhd then an additional squadron of c model aircraft is no drama, the only big question is the carrier itself
 

Marc 1

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Yes I understand the merits of what you are saying, i am only bringing it up as a somewhat different perspective on zort boy’s question and keeping with the pm’s recent comments on maritime security.

But realistically if they say that we require F35b than it’s a defacto admission we need a carrier imo .

With the debate on having too many different models for maintenance cost, I have been having a dig around but haven’t come up with concrete numbers ,just this site the F35c has a (The larger wing of the naval F-35C provides increased range and payload capacity)
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/index.html

We already have a fleet of aircraft that are navel orientated, if you were going to get the extra aircraft for the lhd then an additional squadron of c model aircraft is no drama, the only big question is the carrier itself
I don't know what the basic differences in air to air capability would be but the F-35C with its larger wing (and range) seems like the smarter choice of the two CTOL variants regardless of whether we intended to get their feet but wet on a carrier. Dunno the 'ins and outs' of it but given that the superbugs have bought us some more time, would it be a better choice for our fixed wing purchase?

Just curious t68, you are aware that it would probably be impossible to operate F35C's off a LHD even if it were catapault and arrestor wire equipped?
So that in the scenario you pose above you would be talking about operating a minimum of 2 CV's (Queen Elizabeth class perhaps).
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Yeah iam

Just curious t68, you are aware that it would probably be impossible to operate F35C's off a LHD even if it were catapault and arrestor wire equipped?
So that in the scenario you pose above you would be talking about operating a minimum of 2 CV's (Queen Elizabeth class perhaps).


Yeah i am.

Historically we have run the one carrier in the past, it’s not ideal but I think it gives us more options than only having 8 to 12 b models to go off an lhd and having to reconfigure it when need.

Having a fleet of c model’s in RAAF colours also gives us the flexibility in that we can rotate the fleet around to minimize the exposure to sea life, and gives the aircrew another choice of assignments

In regarding the choice of carrier I have not seen any thing smaller and modern design that could do CTOL ops, incidentally the USN has started on a new carrier design which is larger again from what I can see
 

Navor86

Member
I'm unsure of the requirements, however assuming a 25 year life, the last pair of FFG's will be 25 years old in 2018, with the oldest ANZAC reaching that age in 2021, so probably 8-10 ships starting from around 2020 depending on whether a fourth AWD is ordered.
So does that mean that FFG wiil be operated for some Years along the AWD which are supposed to enter 2013/14/15. Or will does FFG wiil be written off as soon as the 1st AWD enters?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
So does that mean that FFG wiil be operated for some Years along the AWD which are supposed to enter 2013/14/15. Or will does FFG wiil be written off as soon as the 1st AWD enters?
My understanding is that as the three currently planned Hobart-class AWD are commissioned, they will replace an Adelaide-class FFG. However, the expected timeframe for the ships being commissioned is AFAIK currently planned for 2013, then 2015 and finally 2017, right around when the last Adelaide is due for decommissioning. Once that programme is complete (assuming a 4th AWD is not ordered) then the RAN will have 11 major surface combatants and the Anzac replacement programme should be just about starting the build phase.

-Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top