Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

I

The think I like most is the possiblity of up-scaling the hull and propulsion systems and so on and in principle carry more fuel and increase the range and towing and rescue capacity. It could spend more time at sea and be easy to replenish.

The main thing right now that is important is the lack of the hull slamming effect even in rough seas. Then again that might not even be the problem.

OK, simple rule ..... upscaling or any other change is a weight and immersion issue. Increaed mass changes everything. So before we add 25 tonnes of additional kit in theory you need to tank test ....................


good luck with that.

 

[ASSAIL]

Any thought of a patrol capability smaller than an ACPB should be consigned to the deep, marked unsuitable.

This has all been said before but to reiterate;
The waters to the north of Australia can be rough and uncomfortable for small ships.
The distances are challenging, 1,000 nms Darwin to Christmas Is, 720 nms Darwin to Broome, 640 nms Darwin to Thursday Island (480 to Gove) with NOTHING in between.
I think I've said this before somewhere but, to build a picture for those not familiar, the task given to the patrol force is similar to - leaving Plymouth UK for Gibralter, fuelling there and proceeding to patrol the entire western Med as far as Crete for 2 weeks before returning home, not a task for short legs or poor seakeeping.
My experience in a previous smaller class was that in continuous poor weather, the crew would cease to function effectively after 48 hrs.
Any endurance less than 2 weeks is a wasteof time etc,etc

The RAN has a long history of patrolling these waters and the lessons learned should produce a 1,500 ton - 2,000 ton ACPB replacement.

 

[Dayra]

Any thought of a patrol capability smaller than an ACPB should be consigned to the deep, marked unsuitable.

This has all been said before but to reiterate;
The waters to the north of Australia can be rough and uncomfortable for small ships.
The distances are challenging, 1,000 nms Darwin to Christmas Is, 720 nms Darwin to Broome, 640 nms Darwin to Thursday Island (480 to Gove) with NOTHING in between.
I think I've said this before somewhere but, to build a picture for those not familiar, the task given to the patrol force is similar to - leaving Plymouth UK for Gibralter, fuelling there and proceeding to patrol the entire western Med as far as Crete for 2 weeks before returning home, not a task for short legs or poor seakeeping.
My experience in a previous smaller class was that in continuous poor weather, the crew would cease to function effectively after 48 hrs.
Any endurance less than 2 weeks is a waste of time etc,etc

The RAN has a long history of patrolling these waters and the lessons learned should produce a 1,500 ton - 2,000 ton ACPB replacement.

Nothing like experience to advance situational awareness. 'The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Andrew Davies' criticized the idea of a 2000 ton boatship pulling up beside a small fishing vessel. Its a $20 billion program that is coming under review.
We may need to revert back to the China Lake Way. I mean the real problem might just be that were used to thinking in a Mahan fashion yet there are no real choke points just big open distances. Anyone read Spruance, the quite warrior? He and people like him probably influenced the China way. He was notoriously brilliant with both Engineering and Strategy as well has being aware of the politics of being passed over, which is just as well. Hard to find anyone like him these days. Meanwhile there is alot of sapping going on. So maybe the Ran should be left to Fighting and let the Coast Guards take care of patrols. So I have to ask you, what do you think about the Cape Class in terms of your experience, will it be up to the Task?

 

[Todjaeger]

The other option would to go even smaller and aquire a fast interceptot craft that could be operated from either fixed bases or from larger mother ships, i.e. the ANZAC replacement if it were fitted with a stern launch and recovery system.

That is one of the things I have been wondering about. Just what/where the break point is between a ship's launch/recovery system and a well-dock in terms of cost and operating restrictions.

If such a system could be fitted to the OCV's, then whatever selected FAC could be used for boarding and intercepts in place of/in addition to RHIB's, and mount a bit more punch than a RHIB could. Going back a few years, such a fitout would have likely dissuaded Iran from seizing the RN boarding party which had been operating in the Gulf.

Also, if MCM or surveying ops were the assigned tasks, change out either the FAC configuration, or have a similarly sized but different smallcraft for the relevant specific tasks, with the OCV acting as a mothership.

Me being me, I prefer the notion of a small well-dock on the OCV, since that would permit a larger FAC, or LCP. This would be useful regionally if OCV's end up being assigned to transport personnel or kit to the beach in areas where port facilities are either lacking or damaged, especially if the amphibs are assigned other tasks.

OTOH the requirements for a well-dock in terms of space, displacement and location might mean that they are not appropriate for such a small vessel.

-Cheers

 

[STURM]

Even if only a pooled capability as we've traditionally done with Phalanx CIWS, I'd think a warship carrying as vital a cargo as the LHD's would be worth the rather minimal overall investment in a latent capability to add Phalanx etc as may be required for deployments...

Off-topic but after reading your post, something occured to me. Most combatants in most navies - even smaller non-NATO ones - are fitted with chaff launchers to decoy missiles. But, are most LPDs, LSTs or even combatants in larger NATO [which also have chaff launchers] fitted with torpedo decoys? Granted, it depends on the circumstances but I think people tend to place too much emphasis on the threat posed by air, land and sub launched sea skimmers but surely sub launched heavyweight torpedos pose an even greater threat? Do we know if USN, RN and Marine Nationale carriers are fitted with torpedo decoys as insurance in case a sub gets past their escorts?

Also, do we know yet if the AWDs will be fitted with Nulka or another system?

 

[Todjaeger]

Off-topic but after reading your post, something occured to me. Most combatants in most navies - even smaller non-NATO ones - are fitted with chaff launchers to decoy missiles. But, are most LPDs, LSTs or even combatants in larger NATO and non-NATO navies fitted with torpedo decoys? Granted, it depends on the circumstances but I think people tend to place too much emphasis on the threat posed by air, land and sub launched sea skimmers but surely sub launched heavyweight torpedos pose an even greater threat? Do we know if USN, RN and Marine Nationale carriers are fitted with torpedo decoys as insurance in case a sub gets past their escorts?

Also, do we know yet if the AWDs will be fitted with Nulka or another system?

On a related note to the question about torpedoe decoys, how effective are they against modern heavyweight torpedoes, realistically?

Given that many of the sub-launched heavyweight torpedoes have wire guidance from the sub for some distance, I would imagine that decoys might only be effective when the torpedoe is reliant on its own onboard guidance package.

What might work better are bubbling systems like Praire Masker, perhaps working in concert with a noisemaker and/or depth bomb.

-Cheers

 

[STURM]

On a related note to the question about torpedoe decoys, how effective are they against modern heavyweight torpedoes, realistically?

I see your point but surely we can say that same about chaff vs Sea skimmers as there are many variables involved as to whether chaff will work against the seeker head of a particular missile when the missile goes in the terminal phase? Same I think goes with active jammers as to how effective they will be against sea skimmers, especialy given that certain missiles have home on jam stuff fitted [assuming of course they work as advertised].

 

[hairyman]

Slight change of subject. Todays The Age is reporting that the Americans are less than impressed with our current defence spending, as Australia's current defence spending as a share of GDP is at its smallest level since 1938. They have said they suspect Australia is taking advantage of the US Marine deployment to Darwin to reduce its spending.
Will this criticism be sufficient to cause the government to increase our defence spending to a decent level?

 

[Marc 1]

Slight change of subject. Todays The Age is reporting that the Americans are less than impressed with our current defence spending, as Australia's current defence spending as a share of GDP is at its smallest level since 1938. They have said they suspect Australia is taking advantage of the US Marine deployment to Darwin to reduce its spending.
Will this criticism be sufficient to cause the government to increase our defence spending to a decent level?

No. Present government are so fixated on achieving their surplus that they would probably sell off Tasmania to achieve it if necessary. They would have diggers equipped with slingshots to achieve this if necessary. Mind you, the opposition are in many ways just as much to blame - as they have created the 'wedge' that Labor have trapped themselves in. Politics... well I suppose its better than anarchy...(maybe).

 

[the road runner]

Have just been reading an article in the Financial review regarding nuke subs once again on offer to the ADF by the USA.Why is there such a big push from the press to buy nukes? Is it they are that ill informed?

The article goes on to talk about a Collins 2 design or a Type 214 as other choices.

Coalition leaders float nuclear navy

Its the standard dribble that the press seems to pump out to sell papers.
How is it a Virgina Class is cheaper to operate? It will have an extra 70 crew members compared to a Collins.I assume it is rather expensive to train a Submariner up to a high standard.

I would like to see an article written by someone in the know instead of these presstitutes.

 

[ASSAIL]

So I have to ask you, what do you think about the Cape Class in terms of your experience, will it be up to the Task?

The Cape Class are simply Armidales without a gun (more or less) and will be fine for border protection duties.

SEA 1180 is the defence capability requirement for the RAN to replace the ACPB's with a MRV of some description. A capability that combines Minewarfare, Hydrographic/geospatial duties and littoral defence in an area from 5degs North to 48 degs South within the australian sphere of influence. There has been plenty of discussion in this forum on this topic.

Suffice to say that there has been a conflict between requirements set by Aust govts for the patrol force in past decades. First and foremost, we don't have a Coastguard and border protection has been undertaken by the RAN but the navy's fundamental wish is to have all its forces equipped for warfighting.
This has led to some very ineffective compromises in our past ship designs that have rendered them hopeless at both tasks (the ACPB's are an improvement for border protection)
Since the mid 90's our Customs service has acquired offshore patrol capabilities and it seems that our governments have less political angst in approving a growing Customs force than a growing naval force.

The proposed OCV (SEA 1180) should complete the cycle and steer the the navy away from pure border protection back to a useful naval capability although the effort in border protection will remain unchanged. Aviation capable ships, UAV's etc will be both useful for border protection but also vital for the tasks (Hydro, littoral defence and mine warfare) described in the DCP.

 

[hauritz]

Since the mid 90's our Customs service has acquired offshore patrol capabilities and it seems that our governments have less political angst in approving a growing Customs force than a growing naval force.

The proposed OCV (SEA 1180) should complete the cycle and steer the the navy away from pure border protection back to a useful naval capability although the effort in border protection will remain unchanged. Aviation capable ships, UAV's etc will be both useful for border protection but also vital for the tasks (Hydro, littoral defence and mine warfare) described in the DCP.

I have always wondered what the navy really thinks of doing this sort of work. On the one hand it would prefer to concentrate on the warfighting role ... on the other hand it might be concerned that funding for an expanded customs fleet might be coming from its budget.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

'The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's Andrew Davies' criticized the idea of a 2000 ton boatship pulling up beside a small fishing vessel.

That’s the dumbest argument I’ve heard against an OPV in a long time.

Its a $20 billion program that is coming under review.

SEA 1180 is NOT a $20 billion program. More like $200 million. But what’s three significant figures between friends…

 

[ASSAIL]

on the other hand it might be concerned that funding for an expanded customs fleet might be coming from its budget.

They're concerned alright, $130m has already been robbed from the Navy budget by the purchase of the Skandi Bergen/Ocean Shield.
What's not clear to me is the source of the sustainment costs, particularly as this is a civilian crewed ship on full commercial MUA (Maritime Union of Australia) rates of pay and conditions. If sustainment is against the navy budget the drain on funds continues.

 

[alexsa]

They're concerned alright, $130m has already been robbed from the Navy budget by the purchase of the Skandi Bergen/Ocean Shield.
What's not clear to me is the source of the sustainment costs, particularly as this is a civilian crewed ship on full commercial MUA (Maritime Union of Australia) rates of pay and conditions. If sustainment is against the navy budget the drain on funds continues.

60m of that value will never get used (ROV hangers. heave compensated crane and DP2). What a waste.......... all because it had tobe bought in that budget cycle and the 'shed' on the Ocean Protector can be moved to it when it is given to ACBP.

Still it looks nice sitting there doing sod all.

 

[sea1000]

Slight change of subject. Todays The Age is reporting that the Americans are less than impressed with our current defence spending, as Australia's current defence spending as a share of GDP is at its smallest level since 1938. They have said they suspect Australia is taking advantage of the US Marine deployment to Darwin to reduce its spending.
Will this criticism be sufficient to cause the government to increase our defence spending to a decent level?

yes I suspect the Americans are very worried about defence spending.

Have just been reading an article in the Financial review regarding nuke subs once again on offer to the ADF by the USA.Why is there such a big push from the press to buy nukes? Is it they are that ill informed?

The article goes on to talk about a Collins 2 design or a Type 212 as other choices.


Its the standard dribble that the press seems to pump out to sell papers.
How is it a Virgina Class is cheaper to operate? It will have an extra 70 crew members compared to a Collins.I assume it is rather expensive to train a Submariner up to a high standard.

I would like to see an article written by someone in the know instead of these presstitutes.

actually it seems to talk about the type 214s

Mod edit: Merged posts. Additionally, please provide more than a single line of commentary. "One-liner" posts add little to a discussion and are frowned on. Please read the forum rules.
-Preceptor

 

[hauritz]

The submarine story mentions that the Soryu class won't be available to Australia.

I am not sure that this is necessarily the case. Australia is negotiating with Japan over this very issue at the moment.

As far as leasing Virginia subs is concerned ... exactly where will the subs come from?

The USN have 33 built, or on order and I am pretty sure that they would want to hang onto them. I can't see them giving up between 6 and 12 of these boats for Australia.

 

[justsomeaussie]

Let's get this straight: the US doesn't want Australia to have nuc subs. The reason being is that quiet diesels complement nuclear subs quite well. So rather than having to split its sub force (US is only nuc), its far better to partner with a country that has the capabilities that you lack.

12 diesels are here to stay. Ill bet a dollar a signifiant portion are built in Australia as well.

 

[Dayra]

The submarine story mentions that the Soryu class won't be available to Australia.

I am not sure that this is necessarily the case. Australia is negotiating with Japan over this very issue at the moment.

As far as leasing Virginia subs is concerned ... exactly where will the subs come from?

The USN have 33 built, or on order and I am pretty sure that they would want to hang onto them. I can't see them giving up between 6 and 12 of these boats for Australia.

The Virginia Class can only be built at one of 2 places on the eastern seaboard of the USA. The current requirement of the United States Navy has both yards fully booked until 2035 leaving no room at all for an order from the Australian Navy. This is a fact. Besides this we are a medium sized nation with no real need to buy or lease long range submarines. This has always been a factor influencing the collins class and will also be a factor of the collins class 2 which design is probably going to include a transfer of Japanese propulsion technology including their electric/diesal combination or correct me it this is incorrect however it has been discussed on lots of other forums including the Diplomat. During the same discussions there was a bit of banter about the Song Class that uses a similar set up and how it layed in wait under the USS Kittyhawk and in Electric mode surfaced to embaress the USN. Wether or not the Japanese model we may adapt will be as good is up for discussion however the rumor is that its better as you would expect from Japanese technology. What is interesting is that the person in charge of overseeing the project, Mr David Gould is a very well respected person, however even he may agree that the situation is as bad if not worse as the one faced in the UK. What he recommended over there in his 2004 report was to rid the UK of its 50% UK build requirement. Then they had the down turn in the economy and this is where he ended up and since then which might just be a coincidence we have ordered a number of ships from the UK and Spain etc and god knows what else. Having worked in a couple of the Yards myself I can tell you that cost is not the only issue we face when it comes to problems delivering. I think the latest problem though is that they buggered up the keel or hull on the first AWD. Ill sum it up like this. The roman empire failed because they always found fault with everyone else and it was never their fault. :goodbad

 

[Todjaeger]

I see your point but surely we can say that same about chaff vs Sea skimmers as there are many variables involved as to whether chaff will work against the seeker head of a particular missile when the missile goes in the terminal phase? Same I think goes with active jammers as to how effective they will be against sea skimmers, especialy given that certain missiles have home on jam stuff fitted [assuming of course they work as advertised].

Started a new thread to specifically discuss countermeasure useage by surface vessels, that way the discussion remains on topic with the RAN here. New thread can be found here.

-Cheers