Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

Except there were never 6 FFGs and 8 Anzacs in service at the one time due to the construction schedule of the latter and the decomissioning of Adelaide and Canberra.

For a very brief period around 2005 there were 5 and 8 in service (13 total) but over the past 25 years there has generally been only 11-12 escorts at any one time (and as low as 9 in 2000). Consequently whilst 3 AWDs does represent a reduction in hulls compared to the 4 FFGs they are replacing, the resultant 11 hulls is not inconsistant with the past 25 years.

Non-replacement of the FFGs is a furphy - we had 12 escorts in Jan 87 (5 DEs + 3 DDGs + 4 FFGs), we have 12 now, and when the AWDs arrive we'll have 11. So there is a reduction of 1, and that is all, not a total non-replacement of a class of 6 vessels.

So you believe that the RAN must be frozen it time while the GDP/GNI etc (economy as a whole ) is now double what it was 25 years ago.

Its this static view of capability that our politicians sell to the electorate so they can peddle the latest fad policies and underfund defence.
Our navy today is no bigger than it was when I joined in 1968, that sure is progress!

Shame on you for not striving for better.

 

[Raven22]

So you believe that the RAN must be frozen it time while the GDP/GNI etc (economy as a whole ) is now double what it was 25 years ago.

Its this static view of capability that our politicians sell to the electorate so they can peddle the latest fad policies and underfund defence.
Our navy today is no bigger than it was when I joined in 1968, that sure is progress!

Shame on you for not striving for better.

What an absurd point of view. Why does everyone insist on looking backwards instead of forwards when discussing defence policy?

Why not benchmark 1944 instead of 1987 when looking at defence policy? My god, in 1944 the defence budget was 37% of GDP! We had 600 000 men under arms! The Navy had 300 ships! The Air Force had 3000 aircraft! Our population was only one third of what it is today! How have we let ourselves fall so far?

I don't know, may be the current strategic situation is different now than it was in 1944. Maybe it is different than it was in 1968. Maybe it is different than it was in 1987. Instead of looking backwards at what we once had, how about we work out what we need in the future.

Simple statements about 'striving for better' are equally valueless. If we have 12 ships now, why not get 18? Or 24? Or 50? Where do you stop? Instead of 'striving for better', why don't we just strive for what we need?

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

So you believe that the RAN must be frozen it time while the GDP/GNI etc (economy as a whole ) is now double what it was 25 years ago.

Its this static view of capability that our politicians sell to the electorate so they can peddle the latest fad policies and underfund defence.
Our navy today is no bigger than it was when I joined in 1968, that sure is progress!

Shame on you for not striving for better.

He said nothing of the sort, that is a magnificent strawman you created there.
Richo99 pointed out (correctly) that there wasn't 14 frigates in service at the same time.

Also, the context of 1968 was the Cold War, a hot war in Vietnam, three years after Confrontation, national service and a decade of 2.4-2.8% of GDP defence spending.

How about we take off the rose tinted glasses and see that by the 1980s the DEs were little more than patrol vessels and not combat ships. The Falklands shows how useless 4.5s, Bofors and SeaCat SAMs were against fast jets and ASMs.

I would argue that a RAN with 8 x FFHs and 3 x AWDs plus the SSGs, the LHDs, the LST and AOR is going to be far more capable than the RAN of the 1960s.
It looked great with Melbourne and Sydney, but Sydney was a transport and Melbourne was still a light CV with (was it 12?) Skyhawks with dumb bombs and short-ranged AIM-9B Sidewinders.
The 3 x DDGs and 3 x DEs were the only modern escorts, with the rest being gun destroyers (3 x Darings, 1 x Battles) and frigates (3 x Type 15s). I wouldn't like to have seen how the gun boats would have done against an enemy equipped with SS-N-2, but I suspect not much better than Israel and Pakistan did.
The Oberons were only just being introduced with only 2-3 having been delivered by 1968, all 6 not being delivered until the late-1970s.
Amphibious ops conducted by the Army with John Monash and a couple of LSMs.

 

[Richo99]

He said nothing of the sort, that is a magnificent strawman you created there.
Richo99 pointed out (correctly) that there wasn't 14 frigates in service at the same time...............I would argue that a RAN with 8 x FFHs and 3 x AWDs plus the SSGs, the LHDs, the LST and AOR is going to be far more capable than the RAN of the 1960s.

Thanks for understanding my comment in the context it was intended.

Sometimes I think posters on this forum are confronational for the sake of it....

 

[hairyman]

I thought it was the intention to keep the two Australian made FFG's in service until about 2020! Therefore we would have the 3 AWD's, 8 Anzacs, and 2 FFG's in our fleet.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

He said nothing of the sort, that is a magnificent strawman you created there.
Richo99 pointed out (correctly) that there wasn't 14 frigates in service at the same time.

Well in 1968 there were 3 Charles F. Adams class DDGs, 3 Daring class DDs, 4 River class Des and in reserve 4 Rapid class FFs. That is 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 14. Reserve category is the same as today’s “reduced readiness” where the ship is extant and the Navy has crew for it but they are on shore duties or part time service.

Also, the context of 1968 was the Cold War, a hot war in Vietnam, three years after Confrontation, national service and a decade of 2.4-2.8% of GDP defence spending.

Cold War so the USN and RN were at full strength and the RAN only had a minor supporting role?

How about we take off the rose tinted glasses and see that by the 1980s the DEs were little more than patrol vessels and not combat ships. The Falklands shows how useless 4.5s, Bofors and SeaCat SAMs were against fast jets and ASMs.

Just a shame then that the River class DE was primarily an anti-submarine ship… Their sonar and Ikara was still a formidable ASW capability in the 1980s.

I would argue that a RAN with 8 x FFHs and 3 x AWDs plus the SSGs, the LHDs, the LST and AOR is going to be far more capable than the RAN of the 1960s.
It looked great with Melbourne and Sydney, but Sydney was a transport and Melbourne was still a light CV with (was it 12?) Skyhawks with dumb bombs and short-ranged AIM-9B Sidewinders.

LOL of course the current fleet is more capable but that is thanks to technological development. The 1960s fleet was far more capable if you adjust for technology. Your claims otherwise simply display an ignorance of comparative and historical naval capability.

If anyone is getting upset at so called “confrontational” posts on this forum it is frankly because a lot of expressed opinions are unformed and based on a hugely inaccurate perception of current and historical capability. The armchair provides a very different perspective than the bridge wing chair. I know which one I trust.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Non-replacement of the FFGs is a furphy - we had 12 escorts in Jan 87 (5 DEs + 3 DDGs + 4 FFGs), we have 12 now, and when the AWDs arrive we'll have 11. So there is a reduction of 1, and that is all, not a total non-replacement of a class of 6 vessels.

Ahh except for the plans of the RAN and the force structure approved by government, just not funded when it came to a crunch. The RAN has been set since WWII at a force structure of around 15 surface combatants. As was reinforced with the Plan Blue plan for the 21st century. It’s just never been able to get there for a number of reasons.

As of 2001 the RAN was to have 17 surface combatants in commission by around 2015. But the FFG Upgrade became a disaster and had to be scaled back from 6 to 4 to stay in the initial budget at the DDG Replacement got pushed back five years so we could run a design competition to achieve “efficiency” in procurement (LOL). The Navy then backed away from these fleet level when they decided they needed to get into multiple crewing around 2004-05. Which was more to do with loss of funding for the sharp ends thanks to low productivity in defence and subsequent Government budget cutting.

One can also track similar fleet requirements in the 80s with the Anzac class, Australian Frigate Program, DDLs, etc. The main force behind the RAN failing to meet this level of ships has been the serious production schedule problems of Australian shipbuilding and the Government’s consistent failure to match requirements with dollars.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Instead of 'striving for better', why don't we just strive for what we need?

Well the RAN has been striving for what we need but it’s the lack of ‘better’ that has been keeping them from this aim. Keeping things to the past three decades for brevity if the Australian Frigate Program had delivered to schedule the RAN would have had the 3 DDG, 6 FFG, 6 FF (DE) fleet (15) it wanted in 1990. If the Anzac Program had kept to schedule the RAN would have had 3 DDG, 6 FFG and 8 FFH (17) fleet it wanted by 2002. If the 1992 FSR had been followed the RAN would have had 6 DDG, 2 FFG and 8 FFH (16) fleet (plus 12 corvettes: 28 ships with combat systems and guided missiles) it needed by 2010.

The need is based on the fleet requirements of the RAN. Adding amphibious warfare to the ADF’s capability adds significant requirements to the RAN for surface combatants. Either the RAN only escorts the amphibious task force with a ridiculous 3-4 surface combatants or is increased in size.

 

[ThePuss]

This news is a little bit old, but here is an interesting article on the "keel laying" of the first Cape class PB for Customs I don't know how they are calling in a keel laying when the hull is so advanced, but that is typical Austal bastardisation of naval tradition. I went to the "Launch" of NUSHIP Bathurst years ago yet she was along side the wharf and had been for several months

Austal celebrates Cape Class keel laying

 

[ASSAIL]

Thanks for understanding my comment in the context it was intended.

Sometimes I think posters on this forum are confronational for the sake of it....

Australia's place in the world, the strategic shift towards the Asia Pacific and the strength of the Australian economy all lead to an expectation that our naval forces have a far greater role to play today than they had 25 or 35 years ago. Then, we were little brother to the UK and US and the region consisted of underdeveloped ex colonies.
Obviously and strategically the navy we had then was not what we need today

All the comments of comparative capability of then and now for our fleet are irrelevant and without historical context.

Therefore, when someone suggests that what was good enough then, will do for now, suggests a lack of understanding or commitment to advocate to improve our defence capability to keep pace with the strategic situation we are faced with today.

Just for the record; in 1971 we had; 3 x DDG's, 3 x DD's (Duchess was still on loan), 6 x Rivers, 1 x Battle and 1 x type 15. A total of 14 escorts!
This list does not include the reserve fleet. Also 20 PB's, 6 x tons, 4 x survey fleet, etc etc,

I'm not being confrontational, I'm just passionate about the ADF in general and the RAN in particular and near enough is not good enough.

 

[ASSAIL]

How about we take off the rose tinted glasses and see that by the 1980s the DEs were little more than patrol vessels and not combat ships. The Falklands shows how useless 4.5s, Bofors and SeaCat SAMs were against fast jets and ASMs.

I

If you had a modicum of knowledge regarding the Type 12/ Leander class ships, you would not have made that silly comment.

These ships were built throughout the 1950's and 60's as world class ASW escorts, they were never intended to have an AAW capability so of course they were vulnerable if left without appropriate air cover. (by the way, much of the damage caused by the Argentine Airforce during the Falklands campaign was delivered by those A4's with dumb bombs you were so disparaging about re Melbourne)

I served as the PWO ASW on 3 such ships DERWENT, ACHILLES and BACCHANTE and I can assure you our success against a variety of submarines including Russian is not to be sneered at.

As you correctly point out, they did make for very useful patrol frigates.....as well.

 

[icelord]

The RAN surface combatant fleet stands as follows, 4 FFG, 6 FFH(at any time, 2 are in maintanence, 1 is in the MEAO, one has returned from MEAO and is conducting work ups for MEAO, so that leaves 1 FFH for tasking( a FFG does enter the rotation occasionally, as 2 FFH are not to be deployed to MEAO for budget reasons. The other FFGs are either on Aus station, or if lucky 1 is overseas on excercise.
2 FFH of the 8 that has been mentioned are in "upgrade" or Extended readiness as it was known for the 3 years before they moved to Henderson, and will be for some time.
While you add numbers of this many platforms and this many ships, odds on your not even close to a capability. If a situation emerges which requires a surface combatant, we will be struggling to find one ready to sail and will have the fleet at breaking point.

 

[Richo99]

I was responding solely to the issue of falling hull numbers raised in the following following comment:

We have already seen a reduction in the number of combat capable ships, remember we did have 6 FFGs and 8 ANZACs not so long ago......

All this talk of unfullfilled plans, relative capabilities of ships, Australias place in the Asia/Pacific etc are interesting, but not strictly relevant to my comment.

Well in 1968 there were 3 Charles F. Adams class DDGs, 3 Daring class DDs, 4 River class Des and in reserve 4 Rapid class FFs. That is 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 14. Reserve category is the same as today’s “reduced readiness” where the ship is extant and the Navy has crew for it but they are on shore duties or part time service.

As to the assertion that the 4 Q class in reserve in 1968 are comparable to the 2 Anzacs in reduced readiness now, I think it is fair to say that the Qs would have been of very limited use in 1968 other than for patrol/training purpose, something which cannot be said of the 2 Anzacs.

 

[John Newman]

The information I have for Destroyers / Frigates types in commission in 1968 is as follows:

* 3 x DDG - (Perth, Hobart, Brisbane)
* 3 x Daring DD - (Vampire, Vendetta, Dutchess)
* 4 x Type 12 DE - (Yarra, Parramatta, Stuart, Derwent)
* 1 x Battle DD - (Anzac – Training ship)
* 1 x Q Class Type 15 FF (Queenborough – Training ship)
* 1 x Australian River Class FF – (Diamantina – as an oceanographic survey ship)

Destroyers / Frigates in reserve / inactive in 1968, is a follows (scrapping dates in brackets):

* 1 x Battle DD - Tobruk (1972)
* 1 x Tribal DD - Arunta (Sank under tow for scrapping 1969)
* 2 x Q class Type 15 FF – Quiberon (1972), Quickmatch (1972)
* 2 x Australian River Class FF – Barcoo (1972), Gascoyne (1972)
* 1 x Australian Bay Class FF – Culgoa (1972)

Note: Quadrant had already been scrapped back in 1963.

Under construction:

* 2 x Type 12 DE – (Swan, Torrens)


Also at this time the DDL project was underway with the plan for 10 ships, finally reduced to 3, then cancelled in 1973.

Cheers.

Information source:
"Warships of Australia" Ross Gillett (great book had it for over 25 years!)

"Ship Histories" RAN website:

http://www.navy.gov.au/Ship_Histories

 

[ASSAIL]

The information I have for Destroyers / Frigates types in commission in 1968 is as follows:

Swan and Torrens were both in commission by 1971.
Duchess was still on loan from the RN and purchased outright in Jul '72 (AUD 300,0000

Despite Anzac and Queenborough being assigned to the training squadron (with Sydney), these ships played an active part in fleet duties including participating in international exercises. They also retained the majority of their weapon capabilities.

Cheers

 

[John Newman]

Swan and Torrens were both in commission by 1971.
Duchess was still on loan from the RN and purchased outright in Jul '72 (AUD 300,0000

Despite Anzac and Queenborough being assigned to the training squadron (with Sydney), these ships played an active part in fleet duties including participating in international exercises. They also retained the majority of their weapon capabilities.

Cheers

Thanks Assail,

Yes I was aware that Swan and Torrens were both commissioned by 1971, but I was just giving a "snapshot" of the fleet as it was in 1968.

And yes I knew Dutchess was "on loan" till being purchased outright, but I would have assumed she was a fully active member of the fleet even though technically still owned by the RN in 1968.

In regard to the weapons on both Anzac and Queenborough at that time.

Anzac had retained her A turret, but had lost her B turret to a class room and I believe most of the 40mm Bofors as well.

Queenborough, as converted to a training ship, still had the twin 40mm Bofors in front of the bridge, but the twin 4" was removed.

So yes there was still some weaponry, but most had been removed on both when converted to the training roles.

Cheers.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As to the assertion that the 4 Q class in reserve in 1968 are comparable to the 2 Anzacs in reduced readiness now, I think it is fair to say that the Qs would have been of very limited use in 1968 other than for patrol/training purpose, something which cannot be said of the 2 Anzacs.

Well just plain no. The Type 15, Q Class were rebuilt for one reason: anti-submarine warfare. And until the River class were refitted with Ikara (something that they were never built for) they had essentially the same ASW capability as the Type 15. At that time, the mid late 1960s, the type of ASW capability of the Type 15 was pretty much standard.

 

[Volkodav]

I was responding solely to the issue of falling hull numbers raised in the following following comment:



All this talk of unfullfilled plans, relative capabilities of ships, Australias place in the Asia/Pacific etc are interesting, but not strictly relevant to my comment.



As to the assertion that the 4 Q class in reserve in 1968 are comparable to the 2 Anzacs in reduced readiness now, I think it is fair to say that the Qs would have been of very limited use in 1968 other than for patrol/training purpose, something which cannot be said of the 2 Anzacs.

I believe I addressed that when I stated in my reply that I "stand corrected". I checked and realised that HMAS Sydney did in fact retire several months before HMAS Perth formally commissioned so did not hesitate to admit to my error.

As to your comment on the usefulness of the Qs in 1968 vs that of the ANZACs today it could be argued that Qs were more representative of the required capability of that time than the unmodernised ANZACs are today. Than again if you were suggesting that the RAN would have been better off with a pair of ANZACs in service in 1968 rather than 4 Type 15 conversions I would have to agree although for the life of me I can't see how it could have been achieved.

The simple fact of the matter is procurement plans are based on need while cuts occur when there either isn’t the money or the money is seen to be needed else where. Crewing is also a consistent issue that relates to an ongoing failure to maintain a critical mass of trained professionals to crew and maintain the ships we have let alone those we need.

 

[Volkodav]

The information I have for Destroyers / Frigates types in commission in 1968 is as follows:

* 3 x DDG - (Perth, Hobart, Brisbane)
* 3 x Daring DD - (Vampire, Vendetta, Dutchess)
* 4 x Type 12 DE - (Yarra, Parramatta, Stuart, Derwent)
* 1 x Battle DD - (Anzac – Training ship)
* 1 x Q Class Type 15 FF (Queenborough – Training ship)
* 1 x Australian River Class FF – (Diamantina – as an oceanographic survey ship)

Destroyers / Frigates in reserve / inactive in 1968, is a follows (scrapping dates in brackets):

* 1 x Battle DD - Tobruk (1972)
* 1 x Tribal DD - Arunta (Sank under tow for scrapping 1969)
* 2 x Q class Type 15 FF – Quiberon (1972), Quickmatch (1972)
* 2 x Australian River Class FF – Barcoo (1972), Gascoyne (1972)
* 1 x Australian Bay Class FF – Culgoa (1972)

Note: Quadrant had already been scrapped back in 1963.

Under construction:

* 2 x Type 12 DE – (Swan, Torrens)


Also at this time the DDL project was underway with the plan for 10 ships, finally reduced to 3, then cancelled in 1973.

Cheers.

Information source:
"Warships of Australia" Ross Gillett (great book had it for over 25 years!)

"Ship Histories" RAN website:

Ship Histories - Royal Australian Navy

Got a copy myself, had it since my late teens. As an aside I got to meet the NA Draftsman who did the line drawings in the book and bought a set of 1/96 scale plans for HMAS Vendetta from him. Stuffed if I can remember his name though.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The information I have for Destroyers / Frigates types in commission in 1968 is as follows:

It’s an interesting exercise converting these ships to equivalents today. Taking into account that back in the 1950s and 60s technology was advancing far faster today and equipment stayed in service for less time (as frontline assets at least) and the purpose of why the ships were ordered. Here is a possible 1968 fleet update to today’s technology:

1 x Invincible class CVL
3 x Arleigh Burke class (Flight IIA) DDG
3 x Kidd class DDG
4+2 x Type 23 FF
2+2 x Scorpene class SS
6 x Sandown class MCM
18+2 x Armidale class PB
1 x Ocean class LPH
1 x Lewis & Clark class AKE
1 x Henry J. Kaiser class AO

Reserve and Training Ships:

2 x Charles F. Adams class DDG
3 x Type 21 FF

Aircraft:

10 x Sea Harrier shad hacker fighter
16 x Merlin ASW helicopter
24 x Seahawk ASW helicopter

Somehow I don’t see how the RAN even with the current shipbuilding will get close to this.