Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

Agree to a degree. There is likely to be a comprehensive re-writing of roles in the generational shift in hardware on the new platform. We will do more with less (as others have mentioned).

Yeah, but the demands of warfighting (emergency procedures, flooding etc) are going to require a significant crew no matter the amount of automation.

Collins crews aren't exactly huge now...

I am not sure I agree with this is a particularly strong argument. The strategic reasoning could well centre around our sovereign geography and the relative degree of defensibility of our shoreline against landings. Furthermore the acquisition of knowledge pertaining to the tactical operations of a broader fleet ought not be outside our capabilities.

Hence my caveat. However, no force element in ADF is being expanded to such a significant degree, not even OTHER ASW and ASuW assets, so I truly wonder what this acquisition is REALLY about, because pure ASW and ASuW capability ain't it...

Whilst I don't doubt the significant utility of a submarine and don't actually even object to the size of this planned fleet in of itself, I do wonder whether A) we'll ever see it and B) about the capability that we will have to forgoe to pay for it...

At the heart of the Australian Defence Force is the the defence of the nation. There is no better defence than comparative advantage on the battlefield. No platform represents a greater unmitigated threat to a hostile force than our sub fleet. (IMO)

I'd suggest the maritime equivalent of a "combined arms" force, would provide greater capability. This decision seems akin to Army suddenly deciding it needs a force of "hundreds of main battle tanks", or the airforce suddenly needing 200x JSF's when the rest of the force is being left at it's present, historically small size and with relatively limited overall capability...

Again, I am not at all aware of the data used to support the acquisition of such a capability and I may be speaking out of my arse, but such a large fleet has not in any realistic way, been justified publicly by defence and seems more like a political decision to me..

Such a large fleet requirement has never appeared in RAN's Plan Blue or other recent strategic documents and Government's only "policy" on this requirement is this:

"
The White Paper reaffirms the long-held view that the primary task of the ADF is to deter and defeat armed attacks against Australia.

To this end, the White Paper recognises that the aim of establishing sea and air control in our primary operating environment does not entail a purely defensive or reactive approach. Rather, we must be able to conduct proactive combat operations at a distance from our shores.

This demands a mix of intelligence, defensive and strike assets to ensure both deterrence and, if that were to fail, an ability to impose unacceptably high costs on any potential adversary. Put simply, we need to be able to take warfare to an adversary’s front door.

The White Paper identified the need for Australia to develop and maintain a force that has a capability advantage and can provide protection against strategic uncertainty.

Submarines are able to stop an adversary from deploying its’ fleet by maintaining sea denial. By imposing disproportionate costs on an adversary, submarines represent an asymmetric threat well suited to Australia’s defence.

The Rudd Government has announced its decision to acquire 12 next generation submarines. The future submarine builds on our experience with the Collins class, aims to offer greater range, endurance and payload."


Absolutely NO link whatsoever between the number of subs and potential deployment activities. At least with the JSF purchase it is clearly identifiable - 4x operational squadrons. Army is given strategic direction - a brigade and a battalion.

With the subs - a lot of fluff and then "we are going to acquire 12x boats" IS the strategic direction that is publicly announced... I've no doubt that precise activities of the RAN submarine squadron IS classified. I've no problem with that. What I think should be releasable though, is WHY this many submarines is needed, when other RAN force elements groups and indeed ADF wide force element groups are NOT receiving such a massive enhancment.

The current Collins fleet of 6x is justified - 4x operational boats of varying readiness levels, providing 2x boats "fully" operational at any one time and 2x in varying degrees of maintenance / readiness is the operational requirement that has been publicly discussed.

A further 2x boats are provided to allow for a sustainment capability in the fleet over the longer term and to cater for deeper maintenance activities, though with a surge potential if needed for wartime activities. This has been discussed by defence.

Future submarines have no such strategic direction, publicly announced, which is why I firmly believe this decision is politically based, rather than operationally based.

I am going to disregard this simply because there is no evidence to suggest its relevent to the Sea 1000 project. Any attempt to directly associate the expansion of the sub fleet with an expansion in nuclear power in Australia is disingenuous hyperbole IMO. Unless there is hard evidence to be presented then any such discussion or comments should be redacted.

So you can't see how a domestic nuclear power generation capability is relevant to nuclear powered submarines?

Where are the enriched uranium fuel rods, coming from perchance? Should our "strategically vital" submarine capability be totally reliant upon foreign powers?

Can a foreign power even legally export enriched uranium to Australia???

Personally I cannot envisage the circumstance that we would attempt to acquire a nuclear powered naval vessel, without the capability of refuelling same, domestically within Australia, hence my earlier point...

 

[ThePuss]

Mistral Diagram

My google foo failed me on the wasp.

I am so VERY glad we did no ahead an buy that poor man's excuse of a LPD. The Juan Carlos class is vastly more capable. Hope you all enjoyed my 2 cents: P,s I can't wait to serve on one!

 

[icelord]

Talking about training, how many personel are on LHD with the USN/Spanish navy or on HMS Ocean?

Theres a large block of billets for exchange in the UK on Bulwark to focus on Amphib Ops and Loading Deck for LCM launches etc. nothing AFAIK in regards to Spain and USA. i know theres a few people about to focus on Aegis in the US, so it wouldnt surprise me if there are spaces, more for officers atm i'd say.

I am so VERY glad we did no ahead an buy that poor man's excuse of a LPD. The Juan Carlos class is vastly more capable. Hope you all enjoyed my 2 cents P,s I can't wait to serve on one!

SAME!

 

[rossfrb_1]

I reiterate my prev.

the current executive in ASC need removing.
the current engineers in ASC need retiring

if ASC are to be involved with the 2020 build then they need to be swept clean or only allowed fo build on an established design. all of the australian design fixes have not come from ASC, they've been developed and designed through other australian companies (usually involving ex ASC staff who left in disgust, or with ex submariners)

if we are to partner with anyone it should be the americans so that we can leverage off their management style and abilities.

continuing to have ASC as a prime is a first class WOFTAM.

its time to clean shop.

Is this a step in the right direction?
British nuclear expert Stephen Ludlam to head Australian Submarine Corporation | The Australian
"British nuclear expert Stephen Ludlam to head Australian Submarine Corporation"

I can only guess what conclusions the general media will arrive at because of this appointment.
rb

 

[PeterM]

Is this a step in the right direction?
British nuclear expert Stephen Ludlam to head Australian Submarine Corporation | The Australian
"British nuclear expert Stephen Ludlam to head Australian Submarine Corporation"

I can only guess what conclusions the general media will arrive at because of this appointment.
rb

I think it is a good idea to bring in management and expertise from Britain to help improve things at ASC. ASC has already has partnership agreements with the US Electric Boat Company.

I did a little quick research

In 2007 [Rollys Riyce] signed an innovative 10-year contract with the UK Ministry of Defence worth £1 billion to help keep Royal Navy submarines at sea.

It covers support of nuclear powerplant systems on board the current fleet of 13 Swiftsure, Trafalgar and Vanguard class submarines and new Astute class submarines when they enter service.

The contract breaks new ground – Rolls-Royce and MoD will form a joint team to set agreed service levels, and the company will be paid for meeting those targets rather than through individual contracts.

We will also receive additional incentive payments for improvements, creating savings for the Ministry when submarines are in service. Both parties share savings made through improved business efficiency and effectiveness.

The new working arrangements respond to the Ministry’s requirement for closer co-operation from its contractor base to better manage costs, as outlined in the Defence Industrial Strategy White Paper.

from Submarines - Rolls-Royce

 

[LancasterBomber]

I think it is a good idea to bring in management and expertise from Britain to help improve things at ASC. ASC has already has partnership agreements with the US Electric Boat Company.

Stephen is 56 years old and holds a Master of Science from Royal Naval College, Greenwich and is a Chartered Engineer and a Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

Stephen has worked for Rolls Royce for 34 years and is currently the President – Submarines, responsible and accountable for Rolls Royce’s entire submarine business.

Over the 34 years Stephen has held numerous positions with Rolls Royce as he moved up the management ranks. Stephen has been, among others, the Executive Vice President – Naval Marine Europe, Executive Vice President – Naval Marine, Submarines and the General Manager – Reactor Test Establishment. Stephen is widely regarded as a leading authority in nuclear engineering and implementation of the risk management in major engineering programs.

Stephen is a senior stakeholder in a number of Ministry of Defence strategic change programs; he has strong relationships with the Ministry of Defence and major industry not only in the United Kingdom but also in Europe and the United States.

British SIS for sure 4...but I doubt we are too bothered about it. He seems well qualified.

 

[LancasterBomber]

Deleted.

 

[t68]

The British are looking into increasing the calibre of the naval support gun. It will also have the benefit of have compatible ammunition as the new Army artillery gun to come into service with the ADF. Do you think we should tag along and possibly think of putting these onto the new Hobart class destroyer’s and next gen frigate design?

4.5 inch Mark 8 naval gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don’t know if it is the same gun they are placing on the Zumwalt class as by wiki (don’t rely on it i know) it cannot use the same ammunition. so it might defeat the purpose of increasing the calibre size.

Advanced Gun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think the need for shore bombardment with high calibre gun’s still a requirement?

What other naval weapon’s are available for shore bombardment?

In the 2003 war in Iraq was the last time NGFS was used in support of operations on the Al-faw Peninsula in the early stages of the war by Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy Royal frigates.

 

[ThePuss]

The British are looking into increasing the calibre of the naval support gun. It will also have the benefit of have compatible ammunition as the new Army artillery gun to come into service with the ADF. Do you think we should tag along and possibly think of putting these onto the new Hobart class destroyer’s and next gen frigate design?

4.5 inch Mark 8 naval gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don’t know if it is the same gun they are placing on the Zumwalt class as by wiki (don’t rely on it i know) it cannot use the same ammunition. so it might defeat the purpose of increasing the calibre size.

Advanced Gun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think the need for shore bombardment with high calibre gun’s still a requirement?

What other naval weapon’s are available for shore bombardment?

In the 2003 war in Iraq was the last time NGFS was used in support of operations on the Al-faw Peninsula in the early stages of the war by Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy Royal frigates.

The big difference between naval ordnance and artillery for gun's of comparable size (114mm for the RN, 127mm for the USN/RAN and 155mm for Artillery) is that the ammunition is fundamentally different. Naval ordnance use fixed or semi fixed ammunition. Which means that the round is either fixed, I.e. The projectile(Boom) and the cartridge(Bang) is combined into a single piece (think of a scaled up bullet). This is what the 4.5 (114mm RN gun) uses. Or the round comes into two pieces (Semi Fixed, Projectile and cartridge are separate). In both cases the cartridge in encased in either brass or aluminium. Artillery uses a completely different system which is called "case less". Which means that the cartridge is in a bag (not in a study brass round). This is the major problem the British are having integrating their 155mm gun into the MK 8 Vickers These two systems use have a fundamentally different ammunition handling requirement. Also naval ordnance fires much faster than self propelled artillery and bags can’t take the extra stress of the violent ramming. But the biggest concern is bagged cartridges, They are not safe for onboard stowage. Yes Ships used to use bagged cart's, but how many ships did the RN lose at Jutland’s because of it? (Heaps).

 

[t68]

The big difference between naval ordnance and artillery for gun's of comparable size (114mm for the RN, 127mm for the USN/RAN and 155mm for Artillery) is that the ammunition is fundamentally different. Naval ordnance use fix or semi fixed ammunition. Which means that the round is either fixed, I.e. The projectile(Boom) and the cartridge(Bang) is combined into a single piece (think of a scaled up bullet). This is what the 4.5 (114mm RN gun) uses. Or the round comes into two pieces (Semi Fixed, Projectile and cartridge are separate). In both cases the cartridge in encased in either brass or aluminium. Artillery uses a completely different system which is called "case less". Which means that the cartridge is in a bag (not in a study brass round). This is the major problem the British are having integrating their 155mm gun into the MK 8 Vickers These two systems use have a fundamentally different ammunition handling requirement. Also naval ordnance fires much faster than self propelled artillery and bags can’t take the extra stress of the violent ramming. But the biggest concern is bagged cartridges, They are not safe for onboard stowage. Yes Ships used to use bagged cart's, but how many ships did the RN lose at Jutland’s because of it? (Heaps).

Thanks the Puss
I was only going by this piece of information,

155mm variant
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is investigating a proposal from BAE Systems to "up gun" the 4.5 inch to accept the 155 mm gun barrel and breech from the AS-90 self propelled gun.[5] This would introduce a common gun calibre with the British Army and Royal Navy, helping with ammunition logistics, and encouraging joint Army-Navy development of extended range and precision guided shells.[6] A £4m contract has been awarded to develop a prototype, and firing trials are scheduled for 2009.[7

I will have to have a look at the battle of Jutland a little closer when i have time was wondering what the main difference were in ammo type’s

 

[ThePuss]

Thanks the Puss
I was only going by this piece of information,

155mm variant
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is investigating a proposal from BAE Systems to "up gun" the 4.5 inch to accept the 155 mm gun barrel and breech from the AS-90 self propelled gun.[5] This would introduce a common gun calibre with the British Army and Royal Navy, helping with ammunition logistics, and encouraging joint Army-Navy development of extended range and precision guided shells.[6] A £4m contract has been awarded to develop a prototype, and firing trials are scheduled for 2009.[7

I will have to have a look at the battle of Jutland a little closer when i have time was wondering what the main difference were in ammo type’s

No probs mate.

Another problem with enlarging ship gun's for the NGS (Naval Gunfire Support) role, is their utility in other roles drop dramatically. Both the MK8 (RN 4.5") and the MK 45(USN 5") are extremely effective in the anti surface and anti air modes. 6"(155mm) with it's bagged cartridges simply cannot come anywhere the needed rate of fire needed for these modes.

The sad thing is that the ERGM round was proved to not to work.....who would of thought that the GPS would not work in a round that was rotating a thousand nfloorlGive or take) times a minute). If it had there would of been no need to even think of going larger than 5” /127mm.

 

[StingrayOZ]

So it was the rifling that stopped it working? Is there a movement for smoothbore naval guns?

I had suggested this before but was argued against that there is no reason to have smoothbore guns on naval ships.

 

[riksavage]

Moving forward I think we will see a version of the telescoped ordinance being developed for FRES, but in a 155mm land and maritime application. The breach and loading mechanism is much simpler, lighter and takes up much less space in the turret. The round and propellent are contained in a single outer casing and then fed into a rotating magazine similar to a revolver. This would prove ideal for a maritime application, so short of moving to rail-gun technology I see this as the next logical step. By having 155mm standardised across land and sea applications your FOO's will be able to switch very easily between modes of delivery and have a excellent understanding of the fire and effect of a common series of rounds (HE, illumination, smoke & fragmentation).

The RAN needs to decide whether it wants a quick firing lower calibre weapon better suited to AeW and small fast targets, or a larger slower rate of fire weapon better suited to ship-to-shore gun fire support.

Incidentally, the separate bagged charges were not the primary reason for Beatty's fast cats blowing up at Jutland, that was caused by the lack of flash-doors in the hoists connecting the magazine to the turret (removed to speed up loading) and the stockpiling of shells and charge-bags in the turret (against established SOP's). This practice was driven by the RN's obsession with weight and speed of broadsides. Hence the fast cat design sacrificed protective armour-plate for large guns and speed. This would have worked, but for Beatty's enthusiasm for combat, which caused him to make a fatal tactical error and bring his ships within range of the more heavily armoured, but not armed German Dreadnoughts. The Germans followed the same practice until one of their ships during a previous engagement almost exploded (saved at the last minute by a quick officer flooding the main magazine), as a result they fitted extra flash-doors and banned the stockpiling of shells. The lack of flash-doors meant that when an enemy shell struck the main turret, the subsequent blast/flame travelled down the unprotected hoist into the main magazine. The force of the blast would have ripped open a brass case or cordite bag.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The British are looking into increasing the calibre of the naval support gun. It will also have the benefit of have compatible ammunition as the new Army artillery gun to come into service with the ADF. Do you think we should tag along and possibly think of putting these onto the new Hobart class destroyer’s and next gen frigate design?

4.5 inch Mark 8 naval gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don’t know if it is the same gun they are placing on the Zumwalt class as by wiki (don’t rely on it i know) it cannot use the same ammunition. so it might defeat the purpose of increasing the calibre size.

Advanced Gun System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think the need for shore bombardment with high calibre gun’s still a requirement?

What other naval weapon’s are available for shore bombardment?

In the 2003 war in Iraq was the last time NGFS was used in support of operations on the Al-faw Peninsula in the early stages of the war by Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy Royal frigates.

The Air Warfare Destroyers are gaining an upgraded NGS capability with the Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm naval gun being fitted (as opposed to the Mk 2's fitted to the ANZAC's).

The difference is primarily a longer barrel, (and a different shroud for the gun, but the later ANZAC's have that anyway) which provides near double the effective range compared to the older Mk 45 guns - 40k's for Mod 4 compared to about 23k's for Mod 2's.

Extended range munitions will be brought into service eventually for the 127mm gun. The Italians for example already have the Vulcano range of munitions and others will catch up.

The chance of a different gun system being integrated onto the AWD's is roughly the same chance as I have of being Australia's next Prime Minister...

 

[ThePuss]

The Air Warfare Destroyers are gaining an upgraded NGS capability with the Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm naval gun being fitted (as opposed to the Mk 2's fitted to the ANZAC's).

The difference is primarily a longer barrel, (and a different shroud for the gun, but the later ANZAC's have that anyway) which provides near double the effective range compared to the older Mk 45 guns - 40k's for Mod 4 compared to about 23k's for Mod 2's.

Extended range munitions will be brought into service eventually for the 127mm gun. The Italians for example already have the Vulcano range of munitions and others will catch up.

The chance of a different gun system being integrated onto the AWD's is roughly the same chance as I have of being Australia's next Prime Minister...

The section I run onboard maintains and operates the MK 45 gun as well as all the other weapons bigger than a 50 cal. Anything smaller than that is a pop gun and is bellow us. We LOVE the new shield. If you look at the profile of a old (round) and new (square) shield you will see that there is much more room in a square shield mount.

Access to work on the rotating mass is greatly improved and you can even walk into the mount through one of the two doors! sheer luxury. On a round shield the only up in to the mount is by climbing up through the ammunition handling system, which is a real pain in the arse.

The reason The MK 45 got the square shield was for reduced radar reflection. But my boys and I could not careless about that stuff, We just like being able to swing a cat in there.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The section I run onboard maintains and operates the MK 45 gun as well as all the other weapons bigger than a 50 cal. Anything that small is a pop gun and is bellow us. We LOVE the new shield. If you look at the profile of a old (round) and new (square) shield you will see that there is much more room in a square shield mount.

Access to work on the rotating mass is greatly improved and you can even walk into the mount through one of the two doors! sheer luxury. On a round shield the only up in to the mount is by climbing up through the ammunition handling system, which is a real pain in the arse.

The reason The MK 45 got the square shield was for reduced radar reflection. But my boys and I could not careless about that stuff, We just like being able to swing a cat in there.

Are you aware that RAN looked at upgrading the Mk 45 on the ANZAC's to Mod 4 standard fully, but then decided against it due to "other pressing priorities"?

Would have come in handy in the bragging stakes against the Brits on "5 inch Friday"...

Out of interest, are there any plans to upgrade the earlier ANZAC's that don't have the "stealth" shield?

 

[ThePuss]

Are you aware that RAN looked at upgrading the Mk 45 on the ANZAC's to Mod 4 standard fully, but then decided against it due to "other pressing priorities"?

Would have come in handy in the bragging stakes against the Brits on "5 inch Friday"...

Out of interest, are there any plans to upgrade the earlier ANZAC's that don't have the "stealth" shield?

I heard that MOD 4 was a possibility for the ANZACS years ago but it died because the capacity of the mag (And I won't say what it is so don't ask anybody) would be reduceded by too much so, that proposal was shit tined (Navy term for thrown in the bin, boys and girls). Mind you the ERGM rounds where much bigger (They required a double ram.....I.e. Projectile and cart rammed separately) and ERGM has been cancelled. I believe and I’m not 100% sure but the MK 45 Mod 3 exits that adds the 64 cal barrel of a Mod 4 without all the other electronic stuff required for the ERGM. The Mod 3 MAY be a possibility

And no there is no plans to put the Square/Stealth shield on Anzac,Arunta or Perth..........Unfortunatley

Cheers.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Just be glad people are taking naval guns seriously again. For a while they were looking at going the same way as cannons on aircraft.

I think the RAN will be sticking with 5" shells. 5" is a compromises and does all things pretty well.

While NGFS is still usable, its not exactly common.

 

[riksavage]

Just be glad people are taking naval guns seriously again. For a while they were looking at going the same way as cannons on aircraft.

I think the RAN will be sticking with 5" shells. 5" is a compromises and does all things pretty well.

While NGFS is still usable, its not exactly common.

Your last quote confuses me, reference NGFS being not exactly common? Correct me if I'm wrong but if we look at the last thirty odd years with regard to Destroyer / Frigate main gun armament usage in 'real' combat scenarios the NGFS role has been dominant, from the Falklands through GWI & GWII. When was the last time the primary gun on any post WWII vessel went toe to toe with an enemy fleet (not counting some abandoned dug smuggling vessel or pirate skiff) or shot down a fixed or rotary wing aircraft?

With the increased likelihood of littoral combat, and with Aus buying new LHD's, I would have thought having a capable NGFS capability to support amphib ops would be an absolute priority. It amazes me to see nations expand their amphib abilities, yet still continue to fit small calibre quick firing guns on anything larger than a corvette?

The next generation of main guns will IMHO move to 6" (155mm). Single or separate (charge and shell) is a minor obstacle when compared to the savings of being able to use common 155mm ammo and barrels. Having the same 52 calibre barrel used for both land based SPA and Naval applications means you can draw from a single stock to replace those worn through excessive usage. Plus you can also use a standard range of ammunition. The only sacrifice being a slower rate of fire (current applications 4.5 & 5" providing 20+ rounds per minute when compared to 14+ rounds per minute for a double stroke marinised 155mm application (unless we see 155mm adapted for use with a fixed brass casing that is).

 

[Sea Toby]

Amphibious operations today aren't the same as they were during WWII. Instead of frontal beach assaults facing a dug in enemy, troops are flown in helicopters a considerable distance from the beaches encircling beach defenses. Its the old MacArthur's hit them where they ain't philosophy. Helicopters have changed the game. BIg guns aren't needed.