Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

I wish it was April 1st, so I didn't have to take that seriously. It makes me feel very sad.

 

[StevoJH]

I wish it was April 1st, so I didn't have to take that seriously. It makes me feel very sad.

This forum needs a like button. Agreed.

Seems a pointless change, especially since those names have probably been in use for quite a while, whats wrong with tradition?

 

[ngatimozart]

This forum needs a like button. Agreed.

Seems a pointless change, especially since those names have probably been in use for quite a while, whats wrong with tradition?

Totally agree. Tradition is important in a Navy and this smacks of a business practice of creating impressive sounding titles that in reality mean nothing apart from the fact that one may be a writer, or cook, or stores accountant, etc., which are an accurate title of ones trade or branch. I think in this case the tradition should be kept.

 

[south]

Rebranding isn't cheap either, obviously this isn't a whole "brand" but still.... Would have thought during these shrinking budget times there were probably more important things to do...

 

[StoresBasher]

Totally agree. Tradition is important in a Navy and this smacks of a business practice of creating impressive sounding titles that in reality mean nothing apart from the fact that one may be a writer, or cook, or stores accountant, etc., which are an accurate title of ones trade or branch. I think in this case the tradition should be kept.

I disagree, some of the old names have been around for many years and are pretty redundant. Trying to explain what a SN does and why it is called that is quite difficult, mention logistics and that seems to make more sense.

We basically went the same way as the poms did a couple years back with the name change. It's not going to make any difference in our day to day job and I don't think we are getting a pay rise out of it either.

But yes, the cost it going to run pretty high, new uniform badges, business cards have to be changed and all the rest.

 

[Volkodav]

I was flipping through a book on the RAN's involvement in Vietnam when an old thought re-occured to me, why didn't Australia buy or even build additional CFA/Perth Class DDGs? Of couse I suspect the reasons are along the lines of cost, too hard, would interfere with the DDL project etc. Looking at it in a more holistic way I have to wonder if DDGs could have been built instead of the additional pair of DEs and as replacements for the remaining Daring Class DDs with the DDLs, now full multi role DDGs, to follow as replacements for the remaining DE's and to build numbers up during the 80s.

For this to have been practical the a number of questions need to have been answered:

1. What is the cost of a US built CFA (standard or modified with helo) vs a pair of local DE's?
2. What is the cost of an Australian built CFA (standard or modified with helo) vs a pair of local DE's?
2. What is the cost of follow on US or Aust CFA (standard or modified with helo) vs the DDL?
3. How does the Perth Class compare to the River Class DE in ASW capability?

My thinking is that the RAN is a small to medium navy that can not afford to man the full spectrum of warships, therefore, as the RAAF does, we should look to reduce the variety of combat types down to (if possible) a single main multi role combat platform and go for the most economical options for non-combatant supporting vessels. i.e. all destroyers and no frigates supported by OPVs and patrol boats. I am trying to work out if it could have been done in the 60's and followed though to today.

 

[ASSAIL]

I

3. How does the Perth Class compare to the River Class DE in ASW capability?

There are others on this forum that would have access to strategic decision processes and financial information regarding the DDG's but I have a very well informed opinion of how they compare with the Rivers having been the ASW Officer/PWO in both classes.

Let me start by stating that the DE's were fine ASW escorts. They had a magnificent hull design, high cavitation inception speed and were adequately equipped for escort duty.
I don't have a link but I can distincly remember an RAN official photo shoot showing an aerial shot of Perth and Derwent abreast travelling at about 15 kts and the wake disturbance comparison is compelling, not a ripple for Derwent and white water everywhere for Perth.
Their range was paltry, about 2,500 IIRC and their point defence AAW capability was fair compared with the standards of the day (Derwent was trumpeted as being the first missile ship in the RAN).

As far as weapons were concerned(original) both ships had Ikara but the DDG's had double magazine capacity (approx 35 missiles per side IIRC) which was probably overkill.
Close range difference was the triple tubes/Mk 44,46 cf Mortar Mk 10 in the DE's.
Even so, I though the Limbo was a pretty useful weapon at very close range.

The sonar was the big difference. Rivers had Types 177/170 in hull outfits. These were both searchlight sonars with a practical max range of 10k yds.(177). A searchlight pattern/ trainable transducer was cumbersome and could cause contacts to be easily lost in a tight situation unless the command team were experienced. 177 was only a medium powered set thus the limited range.
I never worked with Mulloka.

The DDG's SQS 23 was a fantastic set and for those of us who had worked with 177 it was like a Roller compared to a mini. High power, electronic scanning etc etc, features which are taken for granted today however, there still needed to be a skilled operator with headphones because computor interpretation did not exist as we now know it.

(as an aside, I always was so impressed when visiting the main computor room, a compartment about 5metres square with a monster rack which had less power than this ancient laptop I use)

You mentioned helos, but the context of the time (1968) was that LAMPS was in its infancy and being first sorted in the Knox class DE's although there were some earlier only reasonably successful attempts in the FRAM II's, MATCH was just being introduced to the RN and both the RAN and the USN in the Pacific had a dozen or so CVS's to cover the role.

In summary, I think the DE's were good escorts for the role for which they were planned. On ther other hand, the DDG's were the vehicle which opened our eyes to the potency of US systems and weapons and once tried we realized, or should have, that returning to the old world was not an option despite some fierce resistance from the Brit trained traditionalists.

My time in DDG's certainly shaped my bias and sadly, every time our leaders divert elsewhere we seem to get multiple problems.
Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was flipping through a book on the RAN's involvement in Vietnam when an old thought re-occured to me, why didn't Australia buy or even build additional CFA/Perth Class DDGs? Of couse I suspect the reasons are along the lines of cost, too hard, would interfere with the DDL project etc.

There was a plan to buy a 4th DDG but the money went to DEs #5 and 6 as Voyager replacements. DDG # 4 was to have a hangar and flight deck for Wessex in place of the aft 5” until the USN said what the? The RAN had wanted Wessex on the new destroyers (DDG) because they thought the govt. was driving them out of the carrier business and they were very impressed with the Wessex AS capability. There were several ship concepts between the DDGs and what became the DDL which were all about replacing the various war built or designed ships in RAN service in the early to late 1960s. By the time VietNam was on the Charles F. Adams was out of production in the USA and the need was for a maritime interdiction ship which evolved into the DDL with Tartar and two Lynx helicopters.

One of the most interesting RAN concepts is what they wanted before they ran out of options and had to buy the DDG from the USN. In 1960 the RAN tried to source a modified County design from the RN. The preferred ship had Tartar with two channels of fire, three (3!) Wessex helicopters, two 4.5” guns (one of which could be replaced by an Ikara launcher and magazine when available), two Seacats, Type 184 and Type 199 sonars (the later a VDS set), ADAWS, Link 11, stabilisers and all steam machinery (to keep things simple!) sufficient for 28 knots in tropical and dirty conditions and enough oil for 4,200 NM (5,000 preferred) at 18 knots! Director Naval Construction RN said it was possible but since it was such a departure from the base County class they didn’t have the spare personnel to design it. What a shame as such a ship would make the Charles F. Adams look a little bit on the puny side especially with the County class’s high sides and excellent accommodation standards (for the wardroom at least). Everything was downhill after the DNC said no to a near new design until the RAN bite the bullet and brought the excellent DDGs from the USA.

 

[Volkodav]

I was imagining an all DDG fleet going into the 80s with say 5 or 6 Perths and 4 or 5 batch 2 DDGs (either evolved Perths or DDLs) with helos for a total of 10 ships verses the 3 Perths, 2 Darings, 6 Rivers shifting to 3 Perths, 2-4 Adelaides (OHP FFG7s), 4-2 Rivers we did have during that time.

I don't know the impact a local build of 7-9 DDG hulls through the late 60s into 70s, in addition to the original 3 US built ships, would have had on the carrier replacement but my thinking is it may have made a local build carrier more likely or may even have led to the purchase of an interim off the shelf or used ship to get us past the DDG build. Should the carrier replacement still be cancelled then a third batch of 3-5 DDGs, increasing combatant numbers and helos at sea, would have been a no brainer. How does a COGAG/COGOG DDG sound? The primary advantage is an extended DDG project would improve RAN combat power, boost shipbuilding efficiency and evolved and strengthened local design capability.

Following the DDGs with a new carrier a pair of AOR or AOE and pair of large amphibious ships would have set Australia up very well to design, or at least extensively modify and existing DDG design to supplement and then replace the DDGs from the early to mid 90s. No FFGs, no ANZACs, just 10 to 12 general purpose, multi role, guided missile destroyers. What they would be I have no idea, Spruance DDGs/Kidds, DDMs, Burkes, perhaps an evolved DDL or even a resurrected UK Type 44/45 modified with Falklands lessons learnt. Maybe even a dozen (up to 16 if the carrier is not replaced) Australian equivalent F-100s built in series from the mid to late 90s. An 18 month tack time for a 18 to 24 year build cycle with AOR/AOEs and amphibs (possibly also carrier/s) interspersed permitting a 30 year hull life for the DDGs and a continual build sounds pretty good to me.

I suppose what it all comes down to is whether the initial number crunching could have made building additional DDGs viable in the 1960s.

As an aside this is my sensible concept for a more powerful RAN in the 60s and 70s, my off the wall one was for 3 carriers (2 modernised Implacable class fleet carriers and a US SCB-125 Essex conversion) 3 modified Leahy class DLG, 12 modified CFA class DDG and 3 AOEs.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was imagining an all DDG fleet going into the 80s with say 5 or 6 Perths and 4 or 5 batch 2 DDGs (either evolved Perths or DDLs) with helos for a total of 10 ships verses the 3 Perths, 2 Darings, 6 Rivers shifting to 3 Perths, 2-4 Adelaides (OHP FFG7s), 4-2 Rivers we did have during that time.

Well it was certainly never planned. The missile destroyer, from customised RN version of a County through to off the shelf USN DDG-2, were always planned to be built overseas. As soon as possible delivery of warships to the RAN was to resume from local sources. Which was the case with the Voyager replacement being two more Type 12s in place of another US built DDG-2. These ships were to be followed by a new local built ship to an Austral-British design. Which eventually became the DDG like DDL. The need for Wessex carrying destroyers was rapidly assuaged by the Government reversal of the decision to remove HMAS Melbourne from commission. The Lynx helicopters for the DDL were for the primary role of maritime interdiction with what became the Sea Skua missile and were replacing the initial plan for a large number of smaller corvette sized ships.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just looked through some of my sources and there was a second RAN plan to acquire a fourth DDG in late 1966. This was a compromise as part of the Daring class DD upgrade. The RAN had wanted Vendetta and Vampire to be rebuilt with Tartar but was willing to accept cheaper Ikara in place of Tartar only if they could acquire a fourth “comprehensive” escort or DDG. Such a ship could have followed Brisbane from Dafoe around the same time three Adams class were built for West Germany. At this, still pre DDL, time the RAN was planning on building a new common RN/RAN frigate hull in Australia after Swan and Torrens. The common frigate became Type 21 after the RAN pulled out. The RAN Type 21 would have been a nice ship with mostly American weapons (5”, Sea Sparrow (32 missiles), EDO sonar and Huey helicopter) and compared to the T21 a reinforced hull for >36 knot sprint speeds. So the RAN would have ended up in the mid 1970s with four Adams DDGs, two Daring Ikara, six Type 12 with Ikara and four Type 21 with US weapons, strong hull and high speed sprint.

 

[Volkodav]

Just looked through some of my sources and there was a second RAN plan to acquire a fourth DDG in late 1966. This was a compromise as part of the Daring class DD upgrade. The RAN had wanted Vendetta and Vampire to be rebuilt with Tartar but was willing to accept cheaper Ikara in place of Tartar only if they could acquire a fourth “comprehensive” escort or DDG. Such a ship could have followed Brisbane from Dafoe around the same time three Adams class were built for West Germany. At this, still pre DDL, time the RAN was planning on building a new common RN/RAN frigate hull in Australia after Swan and Torrens. The common frigate became Type 21 after the RAN pulled out. The RAN Type 21 would have been a nice ship with mostly American weapons (5”, Sea Sparrow (32 missiles), EDO sonar and Huey helicopter) and compared to the T21 a reinforced hull for >36 knot sprint speeds. So the RAN would have ended up in the mid 1970s with four Adams DDGs, two Daring Ikara, six Type 12 with Ikara and four Type 21 with US weapons, strong hull and high speed sprint.

Now thats more like it, so now it makes sense that we invested in the Type 21. I assume this could have led to a Tartar armed variant to replace the Darings and Rivers, a DDL?

 

[ADMk2]

Just reading through ANAO's Major Projects Report 2011-2012, released a couple of weeks ago.

Page 275, confirms RAN is to acquire the AGM-114N Hellfire missile for it's MH-60R helicopters. It doesn't say if it's the Thermobaric or Enhanced Blast Warhead variant though...

I'll update if I see any further tidbits.

 

[Volkodav]

Now this is interesting, Treasury recommended the Walrus Class instead of the Kockums due to it being a real vs paper design with a real vs paper combat system. Why oh why didn't cabinet listen?

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why oh why didn't cabinet listen?

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Because the suits always think that they are blessed with a greater understanding of warfighting requirements than the uniforms

Ministers and their staff always know better - today it's worse because we now have the central agencies model as well

the arrogance of being elected.......

(I don't have any difficulty with the concept of providing balanced input from disparate sources, but I have to say that from my perspective, having worked on all sides of the procurement and management fence line - and in different countries, that I just despair at some of the interference in the decision making of what will effectively be a 30-40 year capability requirement)

both sides of Govt make decisions which are in the Party's idealogical interest and less driven by a military purpose)

 

[Volkodav]

Quite ironic, during the 70's many RAN Submariners pegged an updated Barbel as being the best option to replace the Oberons and thats exactly what the Walrus is, an updated Barbel. They were very close to what the RAN needed, much more so than the Swedish or German designed in service boats and would have served quite well as a MOTS option. Failing that, being a second generation blue water design I would have trusted the expertise of the Dutch to modify their existing 80 to 90% there blue water design more than trusting the Swedes or Germans to design a new sub over twice the size of anything they had done previously, based on small designs designed and built for the Baltic. Another advantage the Dutch had was the combat system they used on the Walrus was the preferred option of the RAN operators for the Colins, rather than the Raytheon debacle.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Quite ironic, during the 70's many RAN Submariners pegged an updated Barbel as being the best option to replace the Oberons and thats exactly what the Walrus is, an updated Barbel.

Out of all the conventionals the Barbels were regarded as the subs that were close to being acoustic "gold" - someone should have wondered why the Walruses were an extension of the design and wondered why - just like the Japanese did

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Now this is interesting, Treasury recommended the Walrus Class instead of the Kockums due to it being a real vs paper design with a real vs paper combat system. Why oh why didn't cabinet listen?

This issue was comprehensively covered in the excellent book by Yule and Woolner: “The Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin”. Basically the money for the Collins class was being wringed out of Cabinet to modernise Australian industry by Peter Button not for defence needs by Kim Beazley. So while the Dutch offer best meet Defence’s needs it was still built up from the keel with chalk ups on steel. The Swedish offer included modular construction and computer aided design which Button wanted to introduce into Australian industry. Therefore the Swede offer won. On the combat system side it was actually the RAN that wanted a distributed computer network versus a big central computer because of their very positive experience from the Oberon class upgrade. This all fell down in the detail phase via poor contracting.

 

[Volkodav]

This issue was comprehensively covered in the excellent book by Yule and Woolner: “The Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin”. Basically the money for the Collins class was being wringed out of Cabinet to modernise Australian industry by Peter Button not for defence needs by Kim Beazley. So while the Dutch offer best meet Defence’s needs it was still built up from the keel with chalk ups on steel. The Swedish offer included modular construction and computer aided design which Button wanted to introduce into Australian industry. Therefore the Swede offer won. On the combat system side it was actually the RAN that wanted a distributed computer network versus a big central computer because of their very positive experience from the Oberon class upgrade. This all fell down in the detail phase via poor contracting.

Yes read the book and remember the reference to the Walrus, i just wasn't aware the Treasury had bought into it and gotten it more right than Industry or Defence. Interesting about the different build methods as those used for the AWD are different to those used for the F-100.

 

[aussienscale]

Cantabria Departure

Just an FYI for you, a guy I chat to on Youtube who lives in Coruna Spain posted a vid of the Cantabria arriving in Coruna

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykpMH8q1st0&feature=em-comment_reply_received&lch=email_reply&lc=YB4wUGR9a_sK6Db0-qcR1imS8gxq1z7bb5Cz9GgevlE"]B.A.C. CANTABRIA arrives in A Coruña - YouTube[/nomedia]


He advises she will be departing Coruna 11.30 local time 3rd Jan bound for Australia, not sure what her arrival date is though

Cheers