Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here you go ngati.

From the Australian newspaper.

STEPHEN Smith has told his department to bring forward the promised new defence white paper so it can be released before next month's budget - along with plans to buy more Super Hornet fighter-bombers and a fourth powerful air warfare destroyer.

Senior sources have told The Weekend Australian that the white paper, which was due by the end of June, will refocus strategy away from China as a threat and commit the government to a large new spending program.

The three air warfare destroyers under construction are costing a total of $8.5 billion and an additional vessel would be likely to cost at least $3bn, possibly more.

It is estimated that 24 more Super Hornets would cost between $2.5bn and $3bn and it is likely that money would need to be spent soon.

Sources said the Defence Minister would also narrow down to two the range of options for the design of the navy's promised 12 submarines, which the government says must be built in Adelaide. It is not known what cuts will be made elsewhere to cover the substantial cost of the new purchases.

The sources said ordering a new air warfare destroyer would bridge the so-called "valley of death" faced by Australia's ship-building industry when the work dries up after the current three destroyers are built and before the new submarine project can start.

The move would also provide a political boost as it would ensure continued jobs in Adelaide and Melbourne's Williamstown.

The Australian revealed this week that Williamstown, one of Australia's most important naval shipyards, could be mothballed or sold, placing more than 1000 jobs at risk unless the federal government gave it more work.

The new white paper is expected to back away from the theme of Kevin Rudd's 2009 version: that Australia needed to be prepared to fight a war against China. According to the 2009 document, the prospect of conflict with a superpower that was also a major trading partner and a crucial pillar of the Australian economy would require building a very potent Australian Defence Force with 12 big new submarines; giant landing ships able to carry 1000 troops, tanks and the works; air warfare destroyers to protect the lot; a host of smaller warships; and about 100 revolutionary Joint Strike Fighters.

This was expected to cost more than $200bn over many years.

In last year's budget, Julia Gillard and Mr Smith cut $5.5bn from Defence over four years, reducing spending to 1.56 per cent of GDP. That brought a huge backlash that allowed the opposition to paint Labor as soft on national security.

Mr Smith's announcements, due within a fortnight, are intended to repair that damage while bringing clarity to struggling defence-industry companies and removing the impression that the minister is stalling on major decisions.

In strategic terms, this year's white paper is expected to focus on issues much closer to home than the 2009 version.

But it will deal with the need to protect the nation and its allies against the increasing threat posed by rogue states.

It will adopt a much more conciliatory tone on China and will include a stronger focus on the use of diplomacy to defuse situations before they escalate and to encourage Beijing to use its influence to help calm issues down.

In the wake of the latest crisis on the Korean peninsula, it has also been suggested that the government may soon order a major upgrade to the missile systems being fitted to the air warfare destroyers to enable them to shoot down ballistic missiles.

The SM2 systems now being fitted are highly effective against aircraft but are not designed to shoot down ballistic missiles that North Korea is now developing.

The more advanced SM3 missile system has knocked down ballistic missiles in tests involving US and Japanese warships but that would cost many millions more to buy and fit.

The developments in North Korea have focused attention on the need for countries such as Australia to be able to contribute to a shield to knock down missiles from a rogue state.

The idea would be to place air warfare destroyers near North Korea so that they can use their highly sophisticated Aegis anti-missile systems to intercept a North Korean ballistic missile while it is still gathering speed.

The RAAF has long intended that the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter, now officially named the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II, would replace its F-111 long-range bombers and F/A-18 Hornet fighters. The Rudd government indicated in its 2009 defence white paper that it would purchase up to 100 JSFs.

Australia has ordered 14 of the revolutionary JSFs, with the first to be handed over in the US next year. The first squadron was intended to be operational by 2018.

The RAAF already has 24 Super Hornets, ordered by the Howard government in 2007 after the ageing F-111 fleet was retired earlier than intended because of safety concerns.

Australia has spent $1.5bn fitting out 12 of those Super Hornets with sophisticated Growler electronic warfare equipment, which is able to paralyse an enemy's communications and missile systems.

It is expected that some of the new Super Hornets will come fitted out as Growlers.

The RAAF also has 71 older "classic" Hornets.

If the government does buy another 24 Super Hornets, that is likely to reduce the number of JSFs that are ultimately needed by the RAAF.
 

weegee

Active Member
Hobart Class speed

Hi Guys,

I was just wondering with HMAS Sydney going to get integrated into a carrier battle group obviously she is fast enough to keep up with the group but am I wrong in reading somewhere that the Hobarts wont be fast enough to stay with a carrier battle group? Also how do the Anzac's stack up as aren't they even slower? has an Anzac ever been in a carrier battle group before?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Here you go ngati.

From the Australian newspaper.

STEPHEN Smith has told his department to bring forward the promised new defence white paper so it can be released before next month's budget - along with plans to buy more Super Hornet fighter-bombers and a fourth powerful air warfare destroyer.

Etc etc etc
Thanks for that mate. Very much appreciated. A very interesting read and we'll have to wait and see if this journos crystal ball gazing turns out to be close to the mark.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Any truth to the rumour that the RAN intend to fly the Romeo with a single pilot rather than than the two that the USN do? Just a comment I saw on an Australian Aviation story about the Kiwi buy of the ex RAN Seasprites.

Wayne says:
April 22, 2013 at 12:57 pm

Once again the clowns in DMO assisted by some in Navy tried to build a helicopter on a on-off basis on unproven technology. Off the shelf with some possible limitations [see C-17/F-18F/C-130J] is the best bet foe the small numbers of kit we buy. Although the RAN is planning to operate the MH-60R’s single pilot vs. two pilot ops in the USN. Again we try to re-invent the wheel…
NZ acquires Seasprites originally ordered by Australia | Australian Aviation Magazine
One would think one journey down that course would be more than enough roughers to make even the most hardened jack tar foreswear Nelsons Blood and commit to a life of sobriety.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Any truth to the rumour that the RAN intend to fly the Romeo with a single pilot rather than than the two that the USN do? Just a comment I saw on an Australian Aviation story about the Kiwi buy of the ex RAN Seasprites.



One would think one journey down that course would be more than enough roughers to make even the most hardened jack tar foreswear Nelsons Blood and commit to a life of sobriety.

the nature of that posters response shows that they're an armchair expert

DMO does not define the requirements for the operational requirements of the platform, thats derived from the services themselves who set it as part of their requirements and concept of operations

Its not up to DMO to tell the uniforms how to drive their platforms.

he lost credibility with his opening statement as its pretty apparent that he doesn't know how the platforms are selected and what the validation processes are

to whit: DMO doesn't determine the requirements, they assess and select off the requirements which are defined by the uniforms
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
the nature of that posters response shows that they're an armchair expert

DMO does not define the requirements for the operational requirements of the platform, thats derived from the services themselves who set it as part of their requirements and concept of operations

Its not up to DMO to tell the uniforms how to drive their platforms.

he lost credibility with his opening statement as its pretty apparent that he doesn't know how the platforms are selected and what the validation processes are

to whit: DMO doesn't determine the requirements, they assess and select off the requirements which are defined by the uniforms
Thank you kind sir. I was unsure.
 
the nature of that posters response shows that they're an armchair expert

DMO does not define the requirements for the operational requirements of the platform, thats derived from the services themselves who set it as part of their requirements and concept of operations

Its not up to DMO to tell the uniforms how to drive their platforms.

he lost credibility with his opening statement as its pretty apparent that he doesn't know how the platforms are selected and what the validation processes are

to whit: DMO doesn't determine the requirements, they assess and select off the requirements which are defined by the uniforms
Perhaps worth pointing out that the DMO isn't just a civilian organisation and that is had many uniforms inside it just like CDG. Trust me there is plenty of blame to be swept around.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Perhaps worth pointing out that the DMO isn't just a civilian organisation and that is had many uniforms inside it just like CDG. Trust me there is plenty of blame to be swept around.

yep, suits and uniforms work in the same space.

people like seem to be oblivious of the fact that DMO have no input into determining what the services seek, their job is to find what platform/capability can be delivered to fulfill that capability.

and for DMO to make a change to requirements means that they have to go back to CDG, the services and in large spending changes, back to Govt for endorsement.

bloody "internet cornflakes analysys"
 
yep, suits and uniforms work in the same space.

people like seem to be oblivious of the fact that DMO have no input into determining what the services seek, their job is to find what platform/capability can be delivered to fulfill that capability.

and for DMO to make a change to requirements means that they have to go back to CDG, the services and in large spending changes, back to Govt for endorsement.

bloody "internet cornflakes analysys"
An therein lies the problem, of CDG doesn't capture the correct requirements or DMO can't interpret the requirements to the effect then the user gets screwed.

I've seen this on every single project I've been invoked with. Simply there is always a significant dislocation between the user and the contractor who's being paid to deliver the capability.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
An therein lies the problem, of CDG doesn't capture the correct requirements or DMO can't interpret the requirements to the effect then the user gets screwed.
but the user has visibility and input all along the way. DMO can interpret the change as they have the users spelling out the change. DMO cannot change anything without the endorsement of the capability manager - to do so is illegal and now a situation where people will be held accountable (and be pursued if negligent)

eg CDG has to accept the requirements as part of their endorsement to proceed - and the users/services sign off as part of that endorsement.

the users may go to DMO and ask for a change but DMO can't unless the users go to CDG (eg), get it blessed and then it comes back

where the process fails more than anything else is where the operators do the job differently and expect the solution to adapt to the change in the way that they want/need (scope change death wish)

- and then you have Central Agency involvement where some ex uniforms who have been passed over suddenly become SME's and see it as an opportunity to become king killers and conduct regicide on the service that rejected them or didn't see the opportunity for career brilliance which they now wield with enthusiastic blunt force.
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Es 3701

I couldn't find any details for the USN but now that all the RAN's majors will be fitted with this ESM capability and given that the company blurb states that the 3701 is the predominant system in the Asia Pacific, does the USN also use it or have we an orphan system purchased on price?
Are those in the know happy with this outcome?
Cheers and excuse the ignorance please.
 
I couldn't find any details for the USN but now that all the RAN's majors will be fitted with this ESM capability and given that the company blurb states that the 3701 is the predominant system in the Asia Pacific, does the USN also use it or have we an orphan system purchased on price?
Are those in the know happy with this outcome?
Cheers and excuse the ignorance please.
Very popular in Europe but it’s a US system:

EDO CS-3701 Condor ESM

It’s also on the S Class Hellenic Navy Frigates.

As to how well it performs I couldn't comment.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Any truth to the rumour that the RAN intend to fly the Romeo with a single pilot rather than than the two that the USN do? Just a comment I saw on an Australian Aviation story about the Kiwi buy of the ex RAN Seasprites.



One would think one journey down that course would be more than enough roughers to make even the most hardened jack tar foreswear Nelsons Blood and commit to a life of sobriety.
Obviously has never dealt with, been associated with or spoken to anyone in the navy, let alone the squadrons. There is that much oversight in the aviation branch now, that having a lone pilot without an observer who could take over is a load of bollocks. There is too much going on for just one pilot to take off and land a helo without his observer, and considering the amount of training that already goes into pilots, i doubt then telling them they have to double their workload while trying to land on a moving platform in sea state 5 with a strong wind is going to make them happy. The only people who will fly anything in the RAN by themselves is a UAV operator and thats with a supervisor in the room at all times(if we get the damn things!)
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The defence whitepaper has just been released.

This is an abridged report from the Australian.

POTENT new electronic warfare aircraft that can freeze enemy missile defences over a huge area, the likelihood that the Navy's promised 12 new submarines will be a bigger evolved version of the Collins Class boats, and a more conciliatory approach to China, are key elements of the Gillard government's new defence white paper.

The document released today reveals that the RAAF will get 12 new Growler electronic attack aircraft instead of the original plan to refit 12 of its existing 24 Super Hornets as Growlers.

The government says that will not affect plans to buy around 100 fifth generation Joint Strike Fighters in the future.

Defence will get additional funding for the Growlers.

The number of options for replacing the Collins Class submarines has been cut from four or five to two - with the evolved Collins firming as the most likely but with an undertaking to include new technology that could well emerge overseas. The new submarines will be built in Australia.

The government will also bring forward replacement of the navy's Armidale Class patrol boats, which have been heavily used on border protection operations across Northern Australia.


That will be one of a number of key decisions designed to keep Australia's vital shipbuilding industry operating strongly and bridge the so-called “Valley of Death” expected when two giant landing ships now under construction are completed before the submarines are ready for construction.

Replacement supply ships may be built in Australia to replace HMAS Sirius and HMAS Success.

The white paper makes no commitment to acquiring advanced Hobart-class air warfare destroyers.

Neither does it make a firm decision on long-running proposals to acquire long-range surveillance drones to watch over Australia's northwest.

But Australia still plans to replace the RAAF's ageing AP-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft with Boeing P-8A aircraft and unmanned aircraft, with a final decision due later this decade.
 

the road runner

Active Member
So we are down to two choices for our future submarine fleet.
*Evolved Collins class
*A new design

I can see us evolving the Collins ,as with all this talk of budget cuts i would assume it would be the cheapest of the 2 options.I am glad we did not select an off the shelf design submarine for the reasons mentioned by the def pros here.

EDIT: On the below link you can see Mr Smith talk aboutCollins serving in to the 2038 time frame

As for the patrol boats do we know what we are looking at?
Steel hull ? Corvettes? Or we going cheap again?

No 4th AWD :(

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-03/release-of-defence-white-paper/4667084
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
So we are down to two choices for our future submarine fleet.
*Evolved Collins class
*A new design

I can see us evolving the Collins ,as with all this talk of budget cuts i would assume it would be the cheapest of the 2 options.I am glad we did not select an off the shelf design submarine for the reasons mentioned by the def pros here.

As for the patrol boats do we know what we are looking at?
Steel hull ? Corvettes? Or we going cheap again?

No 4th AWD :(

China still the key to future Defence strategy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
I would say that they are just looking at cheap patrol boats.

On a positive note they do seem to be moving forward with the Collins replacement and the replacement of the navy's two tankers is being bought forward. I do notice that one of the options is leasing an existing vessel.

It strikes me that the Collins replacement will happen over an extended period
of time ... around 20 years. It is possible that both options will happen with the first batch being evolved Collins and a second batch being a new design.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/...defence-white-paper-naval-shipbuilding-relea/
 

Padfoot

New Member
So we are down to two choices for our future submarine fleet.
*Evolved Collins class
*A new design

I can see us evolving the Collins ,as with all this talk of budget cuts i would assume it would be the cheapest of the 2 options.I am glad we did not select an off the shelf design submarine for the reasons mentioned by the def pros here.

EDIT: On the below link you can see Mr Smith talk aboutCollins serving in to the 2038 time frame

As for the patrol boats do we know what we are looking at?
Steel hull ? Corvettes? Or we going cheap again?

No 4th AWD :(

China still the key to future Defence strategy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
2038? Does that mean it won't enter service until 2038?
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think that the RAN has done as well as could have been hoped out of these announcements. It could have been much worse.

The 4th AWD has gone, the OCV has gone, and as predicted by many, the replacement of the ACPB's with a like for like sooner for all the reasons discussed on this thread re their chances of longevity given their construction and workload.
Supply and Sirius to be replaced asap and the govt is looking at all options including the possibility of leasing (no cookies for guessing what).
The MCM's and survey ships to be maintained and upgraded.
The future frigate to be fed into the fleet as the ANZACs retire.
Choules to be retained as a permanent capability within the amphib fleet.

It all seems pretty much the status quo and hopefully there will be some continuity and bi-partisanship regarding defence policy and acquisitions.
The only point of contention could be that the oposition may take the axe to the submarine replacement which would be an act of vandalism IMO.

Having awoken this am with some trepidation I am relieved that the White Paper has delivered what it has under trying circumstance.
I only hope that the opositions declaration to redo the White Paper after an election victory only tinkers with that released today.
Cheers
 

the road runner

Active Member
2038? Does that mean it won't enter service until 2038?
The link i posted shows the Def Minister in a video talking about how the Collins had a 28 year life cycle from 2003 to 2031,but that the Collins fleet can be pushed out to 2038 if need be.

I have to agree with ASSAIL ,i think the RAN did very well ,once you consider how budget cuts will effect our economy as a whole.

Now to see what will happen with our supply fleet ,will we call Navantia,purchase /lease SPS Cantabria or build at home.
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think that the RAN has done as well as could have been hoped out of these announcements. It could have been much worse.

The 4th AWD has gone, the OCV has gone, and as predicted by many, the replacement of the ACPB's with a like for like sooner for all the reasons discussed on this thread re their chances of longevity given their construction and workload.
Supply and Sirius to be replaced asap and the govt is looking at all options including the possibility of leasing (no cookies for guessing what).
The MCM's and survey ships to be maintained and upgraded.
The future frigate to be fed into the fleet as the ANZACs retire.
Choules to be retained as a permanent capability within the amphib fleet.

It all seems pretty much the status quo and hopefully there will be some continuity and bi-partisanship regarding defence policy and acquisitions.
The only point of contention could be that the oposition may take the axe to the submarine replacement which would be an act of vandalism IMO.

Having awoken this am with some trepidation I am relieved that the White Paper has delivered what it has under trying circumstance.
I only hope that the opositions declaration to redo the White Paper after an election victory only tinkers with that released today.
Cheers
Disapointed about no 4AWD as that was on one side a gap filler for the work between Sydney and Anzac II, and also more flexibility with the fleet.

Id have any money on Austal building more Cape class PB vessel for the navy to replace ACPB, and in 10 years we will be back to a need for a OPV. The biggest advantage of a OPV over a PB was the size and room available. We need more room for the number of refugees coming in, 50 PII on the upper decks of a ACPB is ridiculous and dangerous, and ive had 150 in the past! This will be a bandaid in the short term, and will develop into a bigger problem in the long. If the boats build and launch within two years, once done start on looking for OCV or OPV, just something bigger to support the northern fleet!

Success needs to be replaced 4 years ago, so thats a no brainer, but the lack of timeline is discomforting. does she get decommisioned this year or in 2018? Sirius could hold out a little longer then most people give her credit for. Shes not operationally viable, but for transits, excercises and fleet concentrations shes best we got. If the loan is confirmed id expect success gone by end of the year.

We hardly sail the Huons as is, and 2 are mothballed so adding more years to them shows the lack of interest in mine clearence. Im gathering when discussing survey its the SML or Melville and Leuwin, goes either way the whole fleets held together with duct tape. What people fail to realise is that melville and leuwin are tasked to Op Resoloute, not surveying...which is draining what little life is left in them for longer distance transits at increased speed( id say fast speed but....it just does not happen) so that will take a hit on both.

The minor war vessel fleet is back doing all the work, and getting screwed yet again, and sadly it could have been alot worse:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top