Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Tasman]

Finally had the chance to read the pdf, thanks for posting the link Abe.

The conversion of the cruiser HMAS Hobart was interesting, they would have been looking at Sea Slug but Tartar would have been much easier and more effective to fit, either Mk11 or Mk13 launcher(s) replacing B, C, or B and C turrets with two, three or four directors and a comprehensive radar update, Type 984 may even have fit. Makes sense that this option was never seriously considered, she was a single ship, she was old and had seen hard war service , with her bow being blown off by a torpedo, but then again being a prewar build she may well have been fit for service into the 70s or even the 80s its just a question of whether it would have been worth it.

If however the RAN had been permitted to take up the UKs offer of a CVL, two Tiger Class cruisers (think Superb and Swiftsure rather than Tiger, Lion and Blake) and six destroyers during the war; cruiser conversions would have been an entirely different matter. Hobart could have been the prototype with the two Tigers following with more mature fits, sticking with Tartar as it was proven suitable for conversions and had less impact on the platforms than Terrier, Sea Slug or Talos. These three ships would have filled the RANs air defence requirement while also covering the anti surface role with their remaining 6" guns, maybe look at the Mk 26 as per the RN Tigers for the upgrade to the later two ships. They would have brought the RAN into the missile age by the mid 60s, kept the ship yards busy and filled the gap pending the design, build and delivery of the RAN Counties as replacements for the Darings during the late 60's aearly 70's.

I always thought it was a huge pity that the government did not take up the offer for the RAN to man a CVL, 2 cruisers and 6 destroyers. Later when the government finally decided that it was a good idea after all and agreed to the proposal the ships were no longer available on loan and would have had to be purchased outright so that was the end of the matter. In fairness there were limitations with the RAN manning of RN vessels. The N and Q class destroyers remained under the operational control of the Admiralty and so were unable to join the RAN cruisers and Tribal class destroyers in the SW Pacific, though they were assigned to the British Pacific Fleet when it was formed late in the war. Had the offer been accepted when it was made I believe it is likely that Australia could have purchased them at a good price after the war. Navy recognised the need for a couple of modern cruisers to support its carrier force but the age of the existing cruisers and the lack of funding to replace them saw the demise of the big gun cruiser shortly after the war with only one in commission as a training ship in the early 1950s. Hobart was to have replaced Australia as training ship when its modernisation was complete but the reduction to only 1 instead of 2 operational carriers resulted in the CVL Sydney being able to fullfill the training requirement.

In April, 1945, recognising the need for a viable local naval construction program Cabinet approved in principle the construction of 12 destroyers over a period of about 10 years. 6 destroyers were ordered shortly after the war and these were followed in 1950 with an order for 6 fast ASW frigates (similar in size to WW2 destroyers). The first 2 destroyers (Battle class) were built in reasonable time so a good start was made. Alas, the rot then set in. Construction of the next 4 (Daring class) proceeded at a snail's pace and 1 was cancelled. Likewise 2 of the Type 12 frigates were cancelled and none were commissioned until the 1960s.

Officially the navy stated that cruisers were no longer required as the role could be performed by the Daring class destroyers but I am sure that if it had received 2 modern cruisers in 1945 they would have remained as escorts for the carrier force well into the 1960s. I agree that they would have been good candidates for Seaslug or Tartar.

Almost 70 years later and we still seem to have a boom/bust naval construction program. Let us hope that future construction is well planned and staggered in such a way that there is a long term sustainable building program that offers ongoing certainty to the skilled workforce that will be required.

 

[Volkodav]

I always thought it was a huge pity that the government did not take up the offer for the RAN to man a CVL, 2 cruisers and 6 destroyers. Later when the government finally decided that it was a good idea after all and agreed to the proposal the ships were no longer available on loan and would have had to be purchased outright so that was the end of the matter. In fairness there were limitations with the RAN manning of RN vessels. The N and Q class destroyers remained under the operational control of the Admiralty and so were unable to join the RAN cruisers and Tribal class destroyers in the SW Pacific, though they were assigned to the British Pacific Fleet when it was formed late in the war. Had the offer been accepted when it was made I believe it is likely that Australia could have purchased them at a good price after the war. Navy recognised the need for a couple of modern cruisers to support its carrier force but the age of the existing cruisers and the lack of funding to replace them saw the demise of the big gun cruiser shortly after the war with only one in commission as a training ship in the early 1950s. Hobart was to have replaced Australia as training ship when its modernisation was complete but the reduction to only 1 instead of 2 operational carriers resulted in the CVL Sydney being able to fullfill the training requirement.

In April, 1945, recognising the need for a viable local naval construction program Cabinet approved in principle the construction of 12 destroyers over a period of about 10 years. 6 destroyers were ordered shortly after the war and these were followed in 1950 with an order for 6 fast ASW frigates (similar in size to WW2 destroyers). The first 2 destroyers (Battle class) were built in reasonable time so a good start was made. Alas, the rot then set in. Construction of the next 4 (Daring class) proceeded at a snail's pace and 1 was cancelled. Likewise 2 of the Type 12 frigates were cancelled and none were commissioned until the 1960s.

Officially the navy stated that cruisers were no longer required as the role could be performed by the Daring class destroyers but I am sure that if it had received 2 modern cruisers in 1945 they would have remained as escorts for the carrier force well into the 1960s. I agree that they would have been good candidates for Seaslug or Tartar.

Almost 70 years later and we still seem to have a boom/bust naval construction program. Let us hope that future construction is well planned and staggered in such a way that there is a long term sustainable building program that offers ongoing certainty to the skilled workforce that will be required.

A lot of resourses were spent upgrading the Tribals and Q class destroyers into ASW platforms delaying the Darings and Rivers. It also didn't help that the government of the day gutted defence before panicing a couple of years later and ending up likely spending much more than maintaining and upgrading existing capabilities would have. Sound familiar for some reason, maybe because its what also happened in the 20s, 30s, 70s, 80s and 90s and not just the 50s. I am sure I will be put straight if I am too far off the mark but the pattern appears to be new government comes in keen to show its fiscal superiority, cuts cash from or cancels anything it doesn't understand while ignoring professional advice, especially from big ticket projects that would make the previous government look good if allowed to continue. Down the track the proverbial hits the fan and they suddenly discover that the gear they cancelled was actually ordered for very good reasons that had nothing to with party politics and have to go running to buy what ever they could get resulting in higher cost, less capability, damage to national interests, damage to local industry or all of the above.

The decission to buy two County Class heavy cruisers from the UK instead of building locally blew away the capability to build cruisers locally. The decission to build a seaplane carrier instead of an aircraft carrier, to buy new light cruisers from the UK instead building locally, meant we were left to fight WWII without naval airpower or the ability to replenish our losses let alone build the capability of our fleet. Imagine how different the war in the Pacific would have been had we been building our own carriers and cruisers through the 20s and 30s.

 

[Tasman]

A lot of resourses were spent upgrading the Tribals and Q class destroyers into ASW platforms delaying the Darings and Rivers. It also didn't help that the government of the day gutted defence before panicing a couple of years later and ending up likely spending much more than maintaining and upgrading existing capabilities would have. Sound familiar for some reason, maybe because its what also happened in the 20s, 30s, 70s, 80s and 90s and not just the 50s. I am sure I will be put straight if I am too far off the mark but the pattern appears to be new government comes in keen to show its fiscal superiority, cuts cash from or cancels anything it doesn't understand while ignoring professional advice, especially from big ticket projects that would make the previous government look good if allowed to continue. Down the track the proverbial hits the fan and they suddenly discover that the gear they cancelled was actually ordered for very good reasons that had nothing to with party politics and have to go running to buy what ever they could get resulting in higher cost, less capability, damage to national interests, damage to local industry or all of the above.

The decission to buy two County Class heavy cruisers from the UK instead of building locally blew away the capability to build cruisers locally. The decission to build a seaplane carrier instead of an aircraft carrier, to buy new light cruisers from the UK instead building locally, meant we were left to fight WWII without naval airpower or the ability to replenish our losses let alone build the capability of our fleet. Imagine how different the war in the Pacific would have been had we been building our own carriers and cruisers through the 20s and 30s.

I agree 100% - Oh what might have been...

Concerning the Albatross a seaplane carrier was never a priority for the RAN and it was only built to provide a local construction project when the decision was made to build the 2 heavy cruisers in the UK. At best it would have provided maintenance facilities and spare aircraft for the cruisers. It was a poor substitute for the aircraft carrrier recommended by Jellicoe in a report commissioned prior to the Washington Treaty. Strangely, even in 1939, when some consideration was given to adding a fast battleship to the RAN (during its early design stages the Vanguard was actually suggested as being most appropriate for the RAN to take over) I can find no record of serious pre war consideration being given to acquiring an aircraft carrier. During the war there was some mention of Hermes being transferred (with a maximum capacity of 12 aircraft it would have only been useful as a trade protection carrier) but it was lost before anything came of it. It wasn't until about 1944 that the idea of the RAN manning a Colossus class CVL was first mooted.

I guess political motivation interfering with defence projects has long been a problem and regretably is likely to remain so...

Tas

 

[Todjaeger]

I guess political motivation interfering with defence projects has long been a problem and regretably is likely to remain so...

On the bright(er) side, any force likely to be engaged are likely also subject to some political interference or meddling as well.

-Cheers

 

[donuteater]

If it costed the same, who here would prefer an aircraft carrier to some frigates? Anyway could someone please tell me about what it would cost to design and buy a fleet or light carrier, get an airgroup and all the costs needed. Also about the LHD's not having sufficiant defences, Australia will only have two, if one if sunk there is only one. Australia cant afford to lose one. An LHD would have costed about the same as a light carrier. People are saying it would cost too much to buy a carrier, apart from the air group what would cost more? Even lower cost if we get a second hand one.

 

[ASSAIL]

If it costed the same, who here would prefer an aircraft carrier to some frigates? Anyway could someone please tell me about what it would cost to design and buy a fleet or light carrier, get an airgroup and all the costs needed. Also about the LHD's not having sufficiant defences, Australia will only have two, if one if sunk there is only one. Australia cant afford to lose one. An LHD would have costed about the same as a light carrier. People are saying it would cost too much to buy a carrier, apart from the air group what would cost more? Even lower cost if we get a second hand one.

Donut, Every point you have made here you have made before and all these ideas/whims have been refuted by very knowledgeable contributors. You just have to listen to their logic and forget the fanciful world of Australia owning and fighting aircraft and carriers against Darth Vader!
Enough I'm weary!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Discussions about Aircraft Carriers for contemp RAN.

1) Done to death - read the history for a background
2) Argued to death - read the history for a background
3) Force merit - read the history for a background
4) Tactical merit - read the history for a background
5) Strategic benefit - read the history for a background

Enough is enough

Any further chat on carriers for the RAN will be subject to a Mods discretion to delete without warning

 

[ADMk2]

If it costed the same, who here would prefer an aircraft carrier to some frigates? Anyway could someone please tell me about what it would cost to design and buy a fleet or light carrier, get an airgroup and all the costs needed. Also about the LHD's not having sufficiant defences, Australia will only have two, if one if sunk there is only one. Australia cant afford to lose one. An LHD would have costed about the same as a light carrier. People are saying it would cost too much to buy a carrier, apart from the air group what would cost more? Even lower cost if we get a second hand one.

Try and get it into to your head buddy, the LHD's are armed as they are for the operations ADF is planning to conduct with them. They are NOT going to be employed in a high threat area, where we or our allies can't protect them.

As we saw in the Gulf War of 2003 the RAN LPD when deployed was equipped with Phalanx and an Army surface to air missile detachment as the vessel was in a higher threat environment.

The same will happen to the LHD's if that type of deployment is considered. It will be equipped to a higher degree for self-defence if needed. The LHD's don't need Phalanx or ESSM /RAM etc for training, low intensity operations (such as Timor was) and regional relief missions.

Their current self defence suite is more than sufficient for anything we have ever used the LPD's these are replacing for.

 

[John Newman]

Discussions about Aircraft Carriers for contemp RAN.

1) Done to death - read the history for a background
2) Argued to death - read the history for a background
3) Force merit - read the history for a background
4) Tactical merit - read the history for a background
5) Strategic benefit - read the history for a background

Enough is enough

Any further chat on carriers for the RAN will be subject to a Mods discretion to delete without warning

GF, agree with you 100%, carriers for the RAN, done to death.

Ok, change of subject ........

Something I've though about for a little while, Is there life for the FFG's after being replaced by the AWD's?

The four remaining FFG's have had signifiant upgrades over and above other FFG7's still in service, sensors, weapons, etc, the questions I have are:

(a) Is there any value, for the RAN, keeping the FFG's in a maintained reserve, maybe at least the last two much younger Australian built? (I think this is unlikely)

or

(b) Selling them as a "going concern" to another navy? As the US and UK do on a regular basis.

Last year the Minister for Defence Material made a statement/media release about getting better value for retired ADF equipment, other than just scrapping.

I'm sure that other Navy's would be interested in ships of their capability, then there is another question, who?

Pakistan, an FFG operator, might be interested, but then there are political issues because of India.

Taiwan, another FFG operator, might be interested, and of course mainland China wouldn't be happy, another political issue.

I know its been a long time since we sold surplus equipment to a 3rd party, Mirage III's to Pakistan, A4's to NZ.

Interested what you all think......

 

[Vanguard]

As some of the few OHPs left with their missiles, I am fairly sure none of the American ones have them now, they could be quite valuable - if not for spare parts. I would be thinking of nations that do not operate them already as having a better chance although with Pakistan's present relationship stance with the US they could take one or two for spare parts. Taiwan under the Labor Gov't will be very unlikely due to their links with the PRC.

 

[Todjaeger]

Something I've though about for a little while, Is there life for the FFG's after being replaced by the AWD's?

The four remaining FFG's have had signifiant upgrades over and above other FFG7's still in service, sensors, weapons, etc, the questions I have are:

(a) Is there any value, for the RAN, keeping the FFG's in a maintained reserve, maybe at least the last two much younger Australian built? (I think this is unlikely)

or

(b) Selling them as a "going concern" to another navy? As the US and UK do on a regular basis.

Last year the Minister for Defence Material made a statement/media release about getting better value for retired ADF equipment, other than just scrapping.

I'm sure that other Navy's would be interested in ships of their capability, then there is another question, who?

Pakistan, an FFG operator, might be interested, but then there are political issues because of India.

Taiwan, another FFG operator, might be interested, and of course mainland China wouldn't be happy, another political issue.

I know its been a long time since we sold surplus equipment to a 3rd party, Mirage III's to Pakistan, A4's to NZ.

Interested what you all think......

There are several potential problems with Australia looking to sell the Adelaide-class FFG's, some practical, some political/diplomatic.

On the political/diplomatic side, it is possible that any country that Australia would feel comfortable selling an FFG to, would could the US to be uncomfortable. Given that the FFG is a US-sourced design, I suspect that there are ITARS issues with the RAN selling an FFG which would require US State Dept/Congressional approval.

The second is whether or not the vessels (even the newest Australian built) would be viable. Yes, the FFG-UP is an upgrade and mod programme to help keep the FFG's relevant to RAN service for ~10 more years (out to ~2020-ish) by which time the youngest RAN FFG would be ~30 years old IIRC.

At some point, age, usage and fatigue wold have taken enough of a toll that either the vessel needs essentially a complete overhaul and re-build to retain reliability, or the service availability drops while the maintenance costs spike.

Unless the RAN for some reason adopts a dramatically different force structure, I would expect that the RAN would attempt to keep vessels in commission for their entire projected service life. Not retiring vessels early and striking them from the rolls.

In short, I would expect that by the time the RAN decommissions the FFG's, they would no longer be practically useful without requiring significant sums which would generally be better spent on new kit instead.

-Cheers

 

[t68]

There always the Philippine Navy which is in the process of acquiring ex USCG cutters, there high end vessel are all generally used ship from the US or UK. I would imagine that the US would not object as the Philippines is a former member of SEATO which Australia was also a member before dissolving in 1977.

 

[John Newman]

There are several potential problems with Australia looking to sell the Adelaide-class FFG's, some practical, some political/diplomatic.

On the political/diplomatic side, it is possible that any country that Australia would feel comfortable selling an FFG to, would could the US to be uncomfortable. Given that the FFG is a US-sourced design, I suspect that there are ITARS issues with the RAN selling an FFG which would require US State Dept/Congressional approval.

The second is whether or not the vessels (even the newest Australian built) would be viable. Yes, the FFG-UP is an upgrade and mod programme to help keep the FFG's relevant to RAN service for ~10 more years (out to ~2020-ish) by which time the youngest RAN FFG would be ~30 years old IIRC.

At some point, age, usage and fatigue wold have taken enough of a toll that either the vessel needs essentially a complete overhaul and re-build to retain reliability, or the service availability drops while the maintenance costs spike.

Unless the RAN for some reason adopts a dramatically different force structure, I would expect that the RAN would attempt to keep vessels in commission for their entire projected service life. Not retiring vessels early and striking them from the rolls.

In short, I would expect that by the time the RAN decommissions the FFG's, they would no longer be practically useful without requiring significant sums which would generally be better spent on new kit instead.

-Cheers

Todjaeger, thanks for your thoughts.

On the first point, political/dipomatic, yes I should have said in my original post, a navy that is acceptable to both the USA and Australia, that's a given.

On the practical side, I'd been under the impression that because of the significant delays in the FFG-UP that the ships were going to be decommissioned well before their "use by date", especially the last two Australian built.

Sure the hulls and machinery date from their original construction date (don't know what rectification work was done on the hull and machinery during the update process?), but the updated sensors and weapons are still fairly modern and relevant.

If the FFG upgrades had meant that they would be viable till the 2020's, as you had suggested, well if i'm not mistaken the AWD's will be in service in the 2014-2017 time frame.

Yes its getting close to the the FFG's "time" in RAN service, but as we know, a lot of countries seem to operate naval ships way beyond what "frontline western" navies do.

If I was a foreign government looking for a second-hand FFG type ship in the next few years, I think i'd be more interested in the RAN ships vs the retiring US FFG's.

Anyway, the next few years will see if they end up as "dive wrecks" like their 2 older sisters, or if they have another life, and we get a few $'s in the process!!

 

[Tasman]

Todjaeger, thanks for your thoughts.

On the first point, political/dipomatic, yes I should have said in my original post, a navy that is acceptable to both the USA and Australia, that's a given.

On the practical side, I'd been under the impression that because of the significant delays in the FFG-UP that the ships were going to be decommissioned well before their "use by date", especially the last two Australian built.

Sure the hulls and machinery date from their original construction date (don't know what rectification work was done on the hull and machinery during the update process?), but the updated sensors and weapons are still fairly modern and relevant.

If the FFG upgrades had meant that they would be viable till the 2020's, as you had suggested, well if i'm not mistaken the AWD's will be in service in the 2014-2017 time frame.

Yes its getting close to the the FFG's "time" in RAN service, but as we know, a lot of countries seem to operate naval ships way beyond what "frontline western" navies do.

If I was a foreign government looking for a second-hand FFG type ship in the next few years, I think i'd be more interested in the RAN ships vs the retiring US FFG's.

Anyway, the next few years will see if they end up as "dive wrecks" like their 2 older sisters, or if they have another life, and we get a few $'s in the process!!

If the FFGs were sold I suspect they would be minus SM2, ESSM and Nulka equipment and capability. They do seem to have far greater capability than their contempraries in other navies but I am certain that the RAN would want to recycle their missiles and other equipment such as Nulka and CIWS.


Tas

 

[John Newman]

If the FFGs were sold I suspect they would be minus SM2, ESSM and Nulka equipment and capability. They do seem to have far greater capability than their contempraries in other navies but I am certain that the RAN would want to recycle their missiles and other equipment such as Nulka and CIWS.


Tas

Tas,

Yes I'm sure the SM2, ESSM, Nulka and CIWS would all get recycled and used in the AWD's, etc.

But the FFG's themselves would still have been upgraded to be able to use all of those systems, unlike their non-upgraded USN cousins that seem to have been stripped bare.

A navy buying a "pre-loved" RAN FFG could still obtain those weapons as they are current and not out of date like SM1 for example.

Like I said, it was a thought that had crossed my mind, especially since the Min for Def Material said the government was going to try and get a better return for retired equipment in the future.

To me the FFG's seem to be a possible candidate for a return on our investment, rather than being used as diving wrecks or coming back to OZ as razor blades or toasters from China!

 

[Volkodav]

Tas,

Yes I'm sure the SM2, ESSM, Nulka and CIWS would all get recycled and used in the AWD's, etc.

But the FFG's themselves would still have been upgraded to be able to use all of those systems, unlike their non-upgraded USN cousins that seem to have been stripped bare.

A navy buying a "pre-loved" RAN FFG could still obtain those weapons as they are current and not out of date like SM1 for example.

Like I said, it was a thought that had crossed my mind, especially since the Min for Def Material said the government was going to try and get a better return for retired equipment in the future.

To me the FFG's seem to be a possible candidate for a return on our investment, rather than being used as diving wrecks or coming back to OZ as razor blades or toasters from China!

I wonder if NZ could be an option for the first of the remaining FFGs to be decommisioned. A recently upgraded ship fully compatable with their closest ally (Australia), access to training and logistics, it could be a goer and bridge them over until they decide what will be their next generation combatant.

 

[Todjaeger]

Tas,

Yes I'm sure the SM2, ESSM, Nulka and CIWS would all get recycled and used in the AWD's, etc.

But the FFG's themselves would still have been upgraded to be able to use all of those systems, unlike their non-upgraded USN cousins that seem to have been stripped bare.

A navy buying a "pre-loved" RAN FFG could still obtain those weapons as they are current and not out of date like SM1 for example.

Like I said, it was a thought that had crossed my mind, especially since the Min for Def Material said the government was going to try and get a better return for retired equipment in the future.

To me the FFG's seem to be a possible candidate for a return on our investment, rather than being used as diving wrecks or coming back to OZ as razor blades or toasters from China!

What I would expect is that those systems and subsystems which would still have some use, would be stripped out and re-used or be available for re-use in other RAN vessels. In other words, any ex-RAN FFG on offer for purchase would consist of the hull, machinery, and basic sensors and electronics.

While the PN is/was interested in ex-USCG Hamilton-class cutters which had seen ~40 years of service, AFAIK those vessels were designed with that sort of vessel longevity. Additionally, the vessels were sold for ~USD$7 mil. with the expectation that upgrades which could cost tens to hundreds of millions would be done.

Unless Gov't is prepared to sell the ex-RAN vessels for a very small amount, or sell them as kitted for RAN service, I do not anticipate much interest in them, or the RAN being interested in trying to find a buyer.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

What I would expect is that those systems and subsystems which would still have some use, would be stripped out and re-used or be available for re-use in other RAN vessels. In other words, any ex-RAN FFG on offer for purchase would consist of the hull, machinery, and basic sensors and electronics.

While the PN is/was interested in ex-USCG Hamilton-class cutters which had seen ~40 years of service, AFAIK those vessels were designed with that sort of vessel longevity. Additionally, the vessels were sold for ~USD$7 mil. with the expectation that upgrades which could cost tens to hundreds of millions would be done.

Unless Gov't is prepared to sell the ex-RAN vessels for a very small amount, or sell them as kitted for RAN service, I do not anticipate much interest in them, or the RAN being interested in trying to find a buyer.

-Cheers

France and Italy are building FREEMs, so their frigates are becoming available as well. The Germans are beginning a new frigate build as well, so theirs could be available too. There are a lot of good, used frigates which will be available during this decade. Pakistan, Brazil, the Philippines, and Chile will choose concerning price. Chile will probably buy more Type 23s to match what they have today. It may be best to sink the FFGs as dive wrecks.

Plus I doubt whether the Aussies will be able to match the US FMS sales concerning loan packages.

 

[hairyman]

Looking at selling the FFG"s from another point of view, I think the RAN will retain these ships until their service life is over. Otherwise we will be left with only 11 destroyer/escort type ships, whereas even after retiring two recently we still have twelve.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The RAN FFGs are already planned to decommission to free up crews for the AWDs. HMAS Sydney I think is schedule to haul down the flag this year.

The FFGs, especially the two Australian built ships, do have a bit of hull life left and of course the most modern systems fit of any FFG. The Government and ADI thought they were going to be selling FFG Upgrades like hotcakes to all those ex USN FFGs out there in the world. A typical market misunderstanding especially of the nature of most second hand ship users (ship is for show not for the sea). The huge delays and bad press didn’t help.

But I would expect the FFGs are likely to find new homes as long as the political side can be managed. The new DoD Disposal plan should help. I very much doubt the RNZN will be a customer but further afield in South America and the Middle East there should be buyers. Indonesia and Pakistan would be at the top of the list if the USG would release them to these countries.