Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

Well, additional personnel can be acquired in times of need or on the whim of a new government. It is far more difficult to add hulls willy nilly. I could even be done within a governments term in office. You would need to plan for this, to share new personnel among the ships you have but it would seem to be the best option.

I think having a hull or two effectively uncrewed is better than flogging the crap out of crews in peacetime and losing all the good people you need. Not ordering hulls also means you go into issues of building sustainably, cost per unit, upgrades, avalibility etc. So it could effectively cost you much the same.

The Juan Carlos design seems to be a good fit for a navy like the RAN. Although again personally I think we need 3 to have 2 available so we can sustain deployment of 2 which was identified in the original capability. Ships of this capability are limited in the region, and few are able to continuously deploy them. With two we can offer allies sea lift and sea basing capabilities to allied nations like. However with the US basing up north and the ability to have an american LHD available the need for it has been significantly reduced.

As it is I think the RAN will find it difficult to fill 1 LHD with operational helicopters.

 

[icelord]

The Juan Carlos design seems to be a good fit for a navy like the RAN. Although again personally I think we need 3 to have 2 available so we can sustain deployment of 2 which was identified in the original capability. Ships of this capability are limited in the region, and few are able to continuously deploy them. With two we can offer allies sea lift and sea basing capabilities to allied nations like. However with the US basing up north and the ability to have an american LHD available the need for it has been significantly reduced.

As it is I think the RAN will find it difficult to fill 1 LHD with operational helicopters.

You will find that one will be deployed, with the 2nd either gearing up to replace, with a 2nd wave of flights planning to join from the army, with a 3rd on training to come in if need be. the 3rd rotation would only be an issue if they need all 16 helos at once.
Noting a East timor style intervention, the first two rotations would be for launching the first units into the Area of Operations, and providing off shore support. after a few weeks or months, it would be expected for the RAAF to take over an airport or airfield, and set up for logistics chain to supply the troops, and then base the Aviation support out of there. This would then improve the ability for stores to be received by the aviation branch, and allow the LHDs to provide support to other areas. You could then bring in choules and have just two helos operating off her, with LCM or LCH to move vehicles or troops ashore.
The advantage as ive said above of the LHDs is they provide a at sea launch platform compared to moving helos by C-17 into a country nearby, then launching at long ranges.

 

[donuteater]

But then you are concentrating a large number of maritime interdiction helicopters into a single area. The advantage of having one or two helos on each surface combatant is the ships can be spread out and the helicopters can cover the gaps. Having 10 or so such helicopters on a single ship is not going to enable the same kind of coverage. The reason many ASW carriers carry a full squadron of ASW helicopters is this provides enough force to cover a convoy of ships from submarine attack.

Instead of a light carrier, maybe an escort carrier. Or even F-35B's on our LHD's. that could work with a minor refit, also 4 25mm cannons isnt sufficiant to protect an LHD. Were are the Phalanx's? Today i was watching a documentary on australian carrier aviation and it really started to annoy me that we dont have a carrier. Somewhere in this thread it said that the replacement of Melbourne could have been a modified Essex class. If still operational today I think the complement would have been about 16 hornets or even hornets and super hornets about 4 E-2 hawkeyes, 5 sea hawk helicopters which probably normaly would not be carried, 2 Sea Kings and an ASW planes- most likely 14 S-3 vikings. Also maybe 1 or 2 C-2 greyhounds.

 

[AMTP10E]

Well, additional personnel can be acquired in times of need or on the whim of a new government. It is far more difficult to add hulls willy nilly. I could even be done within a governments term in office. You would need to plan for this, to share new personnel among the ships you have but it would seem to be the best option.

You've got it backwards. Compared to growing a sustainable base of skilled and experienced personnel, especially in the PO-CPO-WO and LCDR-CMDR-CAPT ranges, adding ships is quick.

It's the bureacracythat makes adding ships a long process. Push comes to shove bureacracy can be by-passed, growing the people can't.

 

[AMTP10E]

also 4 25mm cannons isnt sufficiant to protect an LHD. Were are the Phalanx's?

There is space and weight available starboard side aft for an 8 cell ESSM should the need arise.

 

[Tasman]

Instead of a light carrier, maybe an escort carrier. Or even F-35B's on our LHD's. that could work with a minor refit, also 4 25mm cannons isnt sufficiant to protect an LHD. Were are the Phalanx's? Today i was watching a documentary on australian carrier aviation and it really started to annoy me that we dont have a carrier. Somewhere in this thread it said that the replacement of Melbourne could have been a modified Essex class. If still operational today I think the complement would have been about 16 hornets or even hornets and super hornets about 4 E-2 hawkeyes, 5 sea hawk helicopters which probably normaly would not be carried, 2 Sea Kings and an ASW planes- most likely 14 S-3 vikings. Also maybe 1 or 2 C-2 greyhounds.

I think it was a great pity that the Essex class option was not taken up (although it would have been manpower intensive) but if it had been there is no way it would still be operational in 2012 = it would be well over 60 years old! The RAN would still have needed a new carrier by the end of the 1980s.

I agree that a carrier would be a great addition to the ADF but as we have already discussed in this thread the RAN is stuggling to even man its frigates adequately. The addition of a carrier and a viable air group would require a huge increase in manpower and hence funding that would be way beyond the country's resources. For government to agree to such a proposal there would need to be a major change in Australia's strategic situation and even if the RAN was given a major funding boost I am sure a carrier would be well down the priority list


Tas

 

[ADMk2]

Instead of a light carrier, maybe an escort carrier. Or even F-35B's on our LHD's. that could work with a minor refit, also 4 25mm cannons isnt sufficiant to protect an LHD. Were are the Phalanx's?

The Phalanx CIWS systems we have are largely in storage and embarked on vessels when needed.

4x 25mm Typhoon gun systems, 12.7mm machine guns, small arms and electronic warfare systems are more than sufficient to protect a ship that isn't being shot at or in the worse case, is only likely to be engaged by small arms and perhaps attempted suicide type bombings.

You might have noticed that even the all-knowing Spanish (no disrespect intended to any Spaniards, that comment was aimed at those who think we should necessarily adopt everything the Spanish are doing with their LHD's) are only fitting 4x 20mm guns and 12.7mm machine guns to the Juan Carlos 1 as well. Does that not tell you something about the intentions of the 2 users of this class of vessel?

I think it will be a LONG time before these ships are deployed to an AOR where they could potentially be shot at and as AMPT10E mentioned, there is sufficient margin on the ship to "up" arm it if it becomes necessary.

 

[Volkodav]

I think it was a great pity that the Essex class option was not taken up (although it would have been manpower intensive) but if it had been there is no way it would still be operational in 2012 = it would be well over 60 years old! The RAN would still have needed a new carrier by the end of the 1980s.

I agree that a carrier would be a great addition to the ADF but as we have already discussed in this thread the RAN is stuggling to even man its frigates adequately. The addition of a carrier and a viable air group would require a huge increase in manpower and hence funding that would be way beyond the country's resources. For government to agree to such a proposal there would need to be a major change in Australia's strategic situation and even if the RAN was given a major funding boost I am sure a carrier would be well down the priority list


Tas

I am curious as to the minimum manning and operating cost of a RAAF base supporting two fighter bomber sqns, an ASW sqn, an AEW detatchment, as well as the necessary base defence and support functions, vs. an aircraft carrier plus supporting vessels supporting a similar air group?

 

[mankyle]

you might have noticed that even the all-knowing Spanish (no disrespect intended to any Spaniards, that comment was aimed at those who think we should necessarily adopt everything the Spanish are doing with their LHD's) are only fitting 4x 20mm guns and 12.7mm machine guns to the Juan Carlos 1 as well. Does that not tell you something about the intentions of the 2 users of this class of vessel?

Yes you are right. The idea with the Juan Carlos I was to fit her with two RAM launchers, fore and aft, but due to the horrible financial situation the former government (plus the regional governments) has got us into, it is impossible to fit them with CIWS. Not enough money for that, sorry.

FYI, unfortunately I agree with you, the average spaniard (and I'm one of those) thinks he knows more about almost everything than he really knows.

 

[Milne Bay]

I think it was a great pity that the Essex class option was not taken up (although it would have been manpower intensive) but if it had been there is no way it would still be operational in 2012 = it would be well over 60 years old! The RAN would still have needed a new carrier by the end of the 1980s.

I agree that a carrier would be a great addition to the ADF but as we have already discussed in this thread the RAN is stuggling to even man its frigates adequately. The addition of a carrier and a viable air group would require a huge increase in manpower and hence funding that would be way beyond the country's resources. For government to agree to such a proposal there would need to be a major change in Australia's strategic situation and even if the RAN was given a major funding boost I am sure a carrier would be well down the priority list


Tas

While, emotionally I lament the passing of HMAS Melbourne and I look back on my trips on Sydney Harbour and the sight of the carrier at Garden Island with nostalgia, I think that the chances of the RAN ever having another carrier are so remote as to be non existent.
The phrase ..buckley's and none ..... comes to mind.
I am also at a total loss as to why the RAN cannot attract more recruits and even man the ships and boats that it has. It doesn't seem to be an aversion to joining the ADF, Army gets plenty of applicants - and unlike Navy, they don't even get to bathe every day or sleep in a bed every night.

 

[ngatimozart]

I am also at a total loss as to why the RAN cannot attract more recruits and even man the ships and boats that it has. It doesn't seem to be an aversion to joining the ADF, Army gets plenty of applicants - and unlike Navy, they don't even get to bathe every day or sleep in a bed every night.

It could be the quality of recruit not having the right skills mix. The modern navy is more tech orientated so that lifts the bar a bit. It could also be how the RAN markets itself. It could be the couple of instances of bad press in the media recently that have changed the publics perception especially amongst the females. Maybe it's not seen as being warry enough. You have the Army in combat in Afganistan and previously Iraq with the RAAF. So maybe the RAN needs to take a look at how it markets itself to potential recruits.

Yes I agreed when I was in the pussers (and still do) why carry your home around with you, sleep in a hole in the ground when your home carries you around, gives you 3 hot square meals and a warm dry bunk every night.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

It could be the quality of recruit not having the right skills mix. The modern navy is more tech orientated so that lifts the bar a bit. It could also be how the RAN markets itself. It could be the couple of instances of bad press in the media recently that have changed the publics perception especially amongst the females. Maybe it's not seen as being warry enough. You have the Army in combat in Afganistan and previously Iraq with the RAAF. So maybe the RAN needs to take a look at how it markets itself to potential recruits.

Maybe it is perception that the Navy is technical, because most Navy jobs aren't any more technical than Army ones are. Join the Navy as dibbie and paint the world!

I was disappointed by public reaction by the RAN in many of these scandals, though. If the public reaction was a reflection of the actions taken internally, then the navy really does have a culture and/or judgement problem. I hope it was just my perception from the outside.
It is one thing for an instructor to politely, but firmly and with a raised voice, suggest that a recruit should "dry your eyes" before adding a friendly "Princess", and another for commanders to be passively complicit in fostering a physically or sexually aggressive workplace (a "workplace" that a "worker" has to remain in 24/7 for months at a time).

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

You know the sad bit is that the current ships are getting flogged due to operational requirements and haveing extra hulls may actually cost less in the long run as one can be un-manned and in reserve/maintenance. The UK are doing this (for cost at the moment) but it does take pressure off maintance cycles and allows extra time for upgrades.
<...snip...>
I am day dreaming I know but, trust me, emergency maintenace cost a shed load more that that work that si programmed well before its due date and the know on effect of delaying nececsary work is................... more things break.

At the time of your comment I thought it was a good idea but a criticism I made was that in addition to the up-front costs, class upgrades would also rise.

I'm going to utilise the X chromosome I inherited from my mother to change my mind! At least when it comes to the support vessels. Daydreaming myself during a long drive last week I thought that if the replacement AOR isn't made in Australia (and the associated additional costs), there is an opportunity to institute an arrangement such as you suggested.

Without the weapons, sensors and combat systems the AOR isn't going to cost anywhere near as much as the AWDs and FFs and purchasing 3 instead of 1 AOR (SEA1654Ph3) and the (now cancelled) Sirius replacement (SEA1654Ph2B) is going to be much more affordable up front, and because AORs don't go through the kinds of upgrades and modernisation programs that combat vessels do (such as the ASMD upgrade or FFGUP), through life support costs would be much more affordable.

The recent link here to the new RFA vessels being made in South Korea shows how affordable even large vessels are when they don't need to have expensive combat systems and they are built by a company with the kind of huge economies of scale as Daewoo, Hyundai, Samsung or STX.

With HMNZS Endeavour up for replacement soon, and the MARS design capable of being scaled to customer requirements (as are other designs out there), there is opportunity to present a significant block of naval work to a builder such as Daewoo and get the vessels back in good time and ready for work, instead of a single Australian-built vessel whose procurement will drag on as a builder/location is lobbied for and selected (and argued over), the site established or upgraded, the ship itself built and inevitable remedial work completed before being placed into service.

 

[icelord]

It could be the quality of recruit not having the right skills mix. The modern navy is more tech orientated so that lifts the bar a bit. It could also be how the RAN markets itself. It could be the couple of instances of bad press in the media recently that have changed the publics perception especially amongst the females. Maybe it's not seen as being warry enough. You have the Army in combat in Afganistan and previously Iraq with the RAAF. So maybe the RAN needs to take a look at how it markets itself to potential recruits.

Yes I agreed when I was in the pussers (and still do) why carry your home around with you, sleep in a hole in the ground when your home carries you around, gives you 3 hot square meals and a warm dry bunk every night.

Quality, have you seen the Seaman Techos we are getting through atm? im going with quantity then quality with some of them...

Maybe it is perception that the Navy is technical, because most Navy jobs aren't any more technical than Army ones are. Join the Navy as dibbie and paint the world!

Thats why you become ships painter, to issue paint and not paint, worked for me!

 

[Marc 1]

Yes I agreed when I was in the pussers (and still do) why carry your home around with you, sleep in a hole in the ground when your home carries you around, gives you 3 hot square meals and a warm dry bunk every night.

From an ex grunt: Because after being shelled for a while our hole in the ground doesn't sink....Unlike your formerly "warm dry bunk and 3 hot square meals". Besides, what's wrong with cold round meals (rat pack cans)?:lol2

 

[icelord]

From an ex grunt: Because after being shelled for a while our hole in the ground doesn't sink....Unlike your formerly "warm dry bunk and 3 hot square meals". Besides, what's wrong with cold round meals (rat pack cans)?:lol2

We get cold meals! salad and cold meat for the fresh bread rolls, and the Wranexpander 3000(ice cream machine)

 

[ASSAIL]

Recruitment/retention

During my time with the RAN the average retention rate was about 15% albeit after 6 or 9 yrs. This was about doubled in the Army and trebled in the Airforce.
During the same time the average age of the sailors was 20, the average age of the grunt was 25 and the average age of the airman was in the low 30's.
I always considered it was the separation factor which always effects the RAN, sometimes the Army and almost never, the RAAF which was almost as good as being in the public service! (hope I haven't offended too many here)! The figures spoke for themselves.
Maybe its all different in the new generation Navy

 

[donuteater]

I am also at a total loss as to why the RAN cannot attract more recruits and even man the ships and boats that it has. It doesn't seem to be an aversion to joining the ADF, Army gets plenty of applicants - and unlike Navy, they don't even get to bathe every day or sleep in a bed every night.

Maybe if the RAN spent a bit more money on adds( not the crappy 5 second adds) and even a bit more money from the government to purchase some more ships we could advertise, Oh look at our ships there so good but we need more men to man them.

 

[AMTP10E]

From an ex grunt: Because after being shelled for a while our hole in the ground doesn't sink....Unlike your formerly "warm dry bunk and 3 hot square meals". Besides, what's wrong with cold round meals (rat pack cans)?:lol2

For a Navy ship to be shelled is akin to the grunt getting bayonetted in his hole...

...in the ground

Sixty mile combat fought out by computers in air conditioned comfort with last night's pizza and ice cream staining our 'cams.

THAT'S how we roll in the Navy!

 

[AMTP10E]

During my time with the RAN the average retention rate was about 15% albeit after 6 or 9 yrs. This was about doubled in the Army and trebled in the Airforce.
During the same time the average age of the sailors was 20, the average age of the grunt was 25 and the average age of the airman was in the low 30's.
I always considered it was the separation factor which always effects the RAN, sometimes the Army and almost never, the RAAF which was almost as good as being in the public service! (hope I haven't offended too many here)! The figures spoke for themselves.
Maybe its all different in the new generation Navy

The previous CN was worried that we might be working our sailors too hard, so he ordered new standards to be developed for how long sailors could be expected to work (similar to the USN's standard work week).

The key part of the proposed standards were: no more than 12 hours per day, no more than 72 hours per week.

They were rejected with the words "I can't run a navy on that."

BTW, the USN expects their sailors to work 81 hours per week.