Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

We are spending $25 billion a year on defence and a huge slice of it is going to things that don’t have anything to do with generating military capability for Australia. A huge amount of needless bureaucracy and administration that could be cut and the self-licking ice-creams that run them made redundant and save money in the billions per annum. If an efficiency cleaver is applied to defence there will be plenty of money to fund new capability within current allocations. Not to mention a restoration of 2% of GDP per annum for defence funding. Combine those two (efficiency and 2%) and any kind of realistic wish list for the ADF is possible: four Beersheba brigades, light carrier, UCAV, SOF infill/exfill.

I have no doubt Abe that you are correct.

I'm sure that if you gave the Defence bureaucracy tree a big big shake a lot of dead wood would fall out (and to be fair to Defence, the same can probably be said for most, if not all, of the other large Government departments too).

A couple of Billion in savings per annum and a sustained increase to 2% of GDP would go a hell of a long way, if not most of the way, to providing the capital expenditure needed to fill that wish list.

Sadly (sorry can't help but be the cynic I am), those potential savings would no doubt be redirected and end up in the general revenue pot to be used by Government for its next 'election winning' scheme.

Some sort of new stimulus package or a new welfare package, all designed to get votes.

Unfortunately National Security (as opposed to border security / protection) isn't the vote winner it may have been in the past.

I'm trying to think of the last time I saw a 'top 10' list of issues that concerned the Nation and I think National Security was no where near the top, as it used to be in days gone by.

 

[aussienscale]

If for instance we did get the green light for a CV and choose to use the exiting Super Hornets then buy F35C at a later date, would the French carrier CDG be the minimum size required. As I recall the recovery of E2D Hawkeyes were marginal at best and F35C being heavier than Super Hornets and the catapults being shorter than a USN CV could they operate from her or would we need something along the proposed CATOBAR UK CVF to future proof ourselves.

From a realistic POV "if" the RAN were to get back into the game, it would not be a CATOBAR CV, apart from being overkill, it would not suit our probable use of the capability.

STOVL Carrier would make a much better fit, you would still have the ability to maintain pilots and crew on the LHD's, they would generate a better sortie rate for our possible needs and are within a reasonable price scale and manning requirements.

As far as upgrading Nowra, it would not happen either way, keep it for Helos, any fixed wing ops would be with the RAAF

Cheers

 

[t68]

From a realistic POV "if" the RAN were to get back into the game, it would not be a CATOBAR CV, apart from being overkill, it would not suit our probable use of the capability.

STOVL Carrier would make a much better fit, you would still have the ability to maintain pilots and crew on the LHD's, they would generate a better sortie rate for our possible needs and are within a reasonable price scale and manning requirements.

As far as upgrading Nowra, it would not happen either way, keep it for Helos, any fixed wing ops would be with the RAAF

Cheers

Oh I whole heartily agree if the RAN was to acquire only one platform STOVL would make the most sense. But if RAN where to acquire two small CATOBAR carriers of up to 45000t displacement which could accommodate 18x F/A-18F with 6x EA-18G plus 3x E2D Hawkeye and a number of MH-60R, it relinquishes the problem of using a LHD for concurrent training whilst one CV is in the maintenance cycle as well as provide a better balanced force to not only the surface fleet but also the ARG with the E2-Hawkeye supporting the land force with battle management and data link and communication rely.

We would be looking at least 6/8 years before a carrier could be commissioned in the RAN and gives us time for the RAAF to start receiving F35A in numbers then transfer of aircraft to the RAN. In that time the RAN could start by cutting deal with the USN for advanced carrier pilot training within their respective schools and carriers. Besides the government replacing legacy Hornets with F35A the only other aircraft needed would be the E2-Hawkeye and a COD and possibly more MH-60R then F35C when the SH are too shagged.

cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Oh I whole heartily agree if the RAN was to acquire only one platform STOVL would make the most sense. But if RAN where to acquire two small CATOBAR carriers of up to 45000t displacement which could accommodate 18x F/A-18F with 6x EA-18G plus 3x E2D Hawkeye and a number of MH-60R, it relinquishes the problem of using a LHD for concurrent training whilst one CV is in the maintenance cycle as well as provide a better balanced force to not only the surface fleet but also the ARG with the E2-Hawkeye supporting the land force with battle management and data link and communication rely.

We would be looking at least 6/8 years before a carrier could be commissioned in the RAN and gives us time for the RAAF to start receiving F35A in numbers then transfer of aircraft to the RAN. In that time the RAN could start by cutting deal with the USN for advanced carrier pilot training within their respective schools and carriers. Besides the government replacing legacy Hornets with F35A the only other aircraft needed would be the E2-Hawkeye and a COD and possibly more MH-60R then F35C when the SH are too shagged.

cheers

All very nice but ain't going to happen unless the manure hits the fast rotating object big time. If the ADF were given absolute control of 5% of GDP without any interference from the pollies then yes it would be quite possible. But that's not going to happen either and IMHO Australia is going to be worse off because of it. I follow things that are happening further north and now the the PRC have formally stood up a Coast Guard I feel things will escalate in and around the South China Sea. The Russians have decided to strengthen their Pacific Fleet as well with more subs plus surface vessels plus they are restarting SSBN patrols in the Pacific, both North & South.

 

[t68]

All very nice but ain't going to happen unless the manure hits the fast rotating object big time. If the ADF were given absolute control of 5% of GDP without any interference from the pollies then yes it would be quite possible. But that's not going to happen either and IMHO Australia is going to be worse off because of it. I follow things that are happening further north and now the the PRC have formally stood up a Coast Guard I feel things will escalate in and around the South China Sea. The Russians have decided to strengthen their Pacific Fleet as well with more subs plus surface vessels plus they are restarting SSBN patrols in the Pacific, both North & South.

No one here really expects to see a CV with a kangaroo on the side any time soon, but it’s not say they are not needed.

5% of GDP no never happen but one cannot overlook the implications of the US defence spending and how it will affect our own security in the decades ahead, with the US in decline and cuts to their own spending it just may be the catalyst for Australia to really look long and hard how we see defence in the future.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

A quote in the analysis is thought provoking and I quote,
“So while it might be comforting to think that the US technological edge makes up for declining numbers, this is not the case. All other things being equal; the smaller the US military becomes, the more limited the options are for the United States to exercise military power effectively”

That will be the dilemma not only for Australia but also New Zealand, a combined Australia/New Zealand land force will not be large enough to produce a strategic influence on other nations other than the smaller Pacific nations, but a strong layered maritime force(aerial, surface and subsurface) can have a disproportionate strategic effect and may influence how other nations engage with each other.

In other words diplomacy by other means

cheers

 

[Hoffy]

No one here really expects to see a CV with a kangaroo on the side any time soon, but it’s not say they are not needed.

5% of GDP no never happen but one cannot overlook the implications of the US defence spending and how it will affect our own security in the decades ahead, with the US in decline and cuts to their own spending it just may be the catalyst for Australia to really look long and hard how we see defence in the future.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute

A quote in the analysis is thought provoking and I quote,
“So while it might be comforting to think that the US technological edge makes up for declining numbers, this is not the case. All other things being equal; the smaller the US military becomes, the more limited the options are for the United States to exercise military power effectively”

That will be the dilemma not only for Australia but also New Zealand, a combined Australia/New Zealand land force will not be large enough to produce a strategic influence on other nations other than the smaller Pacific nations, but a strong layered maritime force(aerial, surface and subsurface) can have a disproportionate strategic effect and may influence how other nations engage with each other.

In other words diplomacy by other means

cheers

Now I’m not an economist, like most of us here, but common sense would suggest that if the USA is something like $16 trillion dollars in debt at the moment :
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
there must shortly be some more serious pressure on current government spending levels before this becomes unsustainable.
At some point in the not too distant future there will be some deep spending cuts that will directly affect the current level of reliance that Australia has on the firepower of the military defense forces provided to us by the USA. The new arrangements in relation to mutual defense in the Northern Territory are really very minor in the overall scheme of things.
This is the sensible level of discussion and foresight our defense planners should be having in relation to how we manage our own strategies. Obviously we have to consider monetary budgets for procurement purposes as well as ongoing costs associated with staffing etc , but a “protective umbrella” is not going to be there in its current state for too much longer.
My point is that if you view the current USA/Australian defense alliance as if things will be maintained as per the status quo into the future you are mistaken. Time and money are the main key variables.

 

[Volkodav]

Heah we can conceive and design good ships in Australia too. Vessels like the Codock/Vickers DDL, Protector AOE and the Tenix OPC are what the Navy has wanted and needed far more than any Italian ship. And for other areas there is no shortage of good ship designs from America. SCS, Barbel, DDG-51, and amphib ship (various options to fit) have all been available and the design expertise to customise and upgrade them for the Navy.

Agree totally but was thinking along the lines of how our pollies and bureaucrats operate. They discount local capability and in fact actively undermine it before selecting either an FMS option in an emergency ( the project has stretched too long and the requirement has become urgent) or a Euro option when there is time to spare. I was just musing that the Italian options were more timely and suitable than other options once the Aust designs had been killed off.

Personally I still believe the best option would have been to build DDL and Protector before moving to a locally constructed carrier (or two) adapted to Australian requirements. Instead we let our local capability wither and die, before rebuilding it again at great expense, letting it whither again and then bitched about how expensive it is to build things in Australia when we saw the cost of rebuilding yet again. The simple truth is had we built DDL we would have been in a position to design and build our own AWD or at least partner another nation on the project for less than it has cost us to start from scratch and build the F-100s.

 

[ngatimozart]

Personally I still believe the best option would have been to build DDL and Protector before moving to a locally constructed carrier (or two) adapted to Australian requirements. Instead we let our local capability wither and die, before rebuilding it again at great expense, letting it whither again and then bitched about how expensive it is to build things in Australia when we saw the cost of rebuilding yet again. The simple truth is had we built DDL we would have been in a position to design and build our own AWD or at least partner another nation on the project for less than it has cost us to start from scratch and build the F-100s.

And thats the point. Whilst the military planners have the long term plan pollies see things in three year cycles. They seem to think if we need it in a hurry we can just whip down to Bunnings or Mitre 10 or in the case of miltary gear and Aussie pollies we'll just ring our mates in the Pentagon up and she'll be right. However as pointed out by others the US is facing a financial squeeze and at some point something has to give. One advantage of US sequesteration for the likes of Australia and maybe NZ (money) is if this continues then the US Armed Forces will, at some stage, have to divest themselves of a lot of equipment and it may come onto the market relatively cheaply. Of course most of it will not be the latest gear but there will be things that may be of interest. Then there is the people aspect with very highly trained people maybe looking for employment in similar areas.

 

[John Newman]

If the US was to reduce its carrier force by say 2 or 3 supercarriers and cut its amphib force as well then that might create a reason to go shopping for a RAN carrier. Which Cavour sized would be suitable.

We are reliant on the US umbrella. If they left or unable to act, could be for several reasons, then maybe. Personally I think the unable to act thing is a bigger reality. There is tension, US plays a global strategic game. It may be possible it is unable to umbrella us. Amphibs are about being more self reliant. You can't dictate when you want US amphibs or carriers to help out our little problems, priorities may lie elsewhere.

Talking of the US considering reducing their carrier force by 2-3 carriers, I came across this today:

A US Navy With Only 8 Carriers? | Defense News | defensenews.com

A couple of paragraphs on the USN carriers and their air wings:

And it’s not just about cutting carriers — it’s air wings with seven or so squadrons of aircraft, it’s a cruiser and three or four destroyers, and it’s the crews. Substantial savings would be found from reducing nearly 10,000 personnel billets with the elimination of each strike group.

Reducing the air wings would ease carrier acquisition, maintenance and recapitalization. The fleet of legacy F/A-18 Hornet aircraft – mostly C models — could be swiftly retired, leaving an all-Super Hornet fleet of Es and Fs that itself could be smaller than what exists today. Retirement of older SH-60 helicopters could also be accelerated.

The next paragraphs cover the possible reduction in USN cruisers, destroyers, LCS and amphibious fleets:

The Navy’s 22 remaining Aegis cruisers are on the back-half of their projected 30-35 year careers, and the service already is trying to decommission seven.

The first Arleigh Burke-class destroyer entered service in 1991, and the Aegis ships are still being built. Complicating the decision about which ships would be cut are expensive modernization upgrades to the older ships, most of which have already received a ballistic-missile defense (BMD) capability — a key requirement among most regional combatant commanders.

For littoral combat ships, contract options to build them run through LCS 24, and the Navy is considering how to approach the rest of the planned 52-ship force. Options include eliminating one of the two LCS variants or ending the program at 24.

Cutting the Navy Department means cutting the Marine Corps, which inevitably leads to fewer amphibious ships. While the Navy seeks a 10 or 11-ship big-deck amphibious force, nine are in service today. Peleliu, the oldest assault ship, already is to be replaced by the new America. A reduction to eight big decks would likely mean the Wasp — about to begin a sorely-needed $110 million modernization overhaul — would be decommissioned.

Construction of the eleventh and last of the highly capable LPD 17 San Antonio class of amphibious transport docks has begun at HII’s Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., and the ships are nearly as effective as the bigger assault ships, so they would likely survive.

But the older dock landing ships of the Whidbey Island class would be on the chopping block — as would be their LSD(X) replacement.

Assuming such a reduction was to happen, to the degree mentioned, what would the Australian Government do in response?

My first thought is, probably very little (and using the excuse of the current economic circumstances too), but would this be the sort of event that could be the catalyst to force the Government to reconsider the size and composition of the RAN, and possibly including carrier(s) too?

Looking at the ships and aircraft that the US would retire (if such an event to this level happened), I can't really see anything that we would rush out to buy, even on the cheap.

Certainly not the Carriers or older Classic Hornets or SH60's, not the older cruisers or destroyers and not the older amphibious ships either.

A reduction of up to 25% in the USN Carrier fleet, and their supporting elements, would surely make the Australian Government look at having to pick up the slack in our region and have a closer look at our capabilities, well you would think so anyway!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Personally I still believe the best option would have been to build DDL and Protector before moving to a locally constructed carrier (or two) adapted to Australian requirements. Instead we let our local capability wither and die, before rebuilding it again at great expense, letting it whither again and then bitched about how expensive it is to build things in Australia when we saw the cost of rebuilding yet again.

I think that was clearly the long term plan (Plan Blue) back in 1972 before the RAN had the local shipbuilding carpet pulled out from under them. Williamstown build frigates and Codock builds major units and submarines. Codock did develop a modular ship design that used large pre fit out modules and could be built as various carrier, replenishment and landing ship options. Also Vickers had a range of light carrier designs. In 1977 the RAN requested $500m for a new carrier and $400m for a new fighter but by then Fraser and Howard (as PM and Treasurer) were as unfriendly to local shipbuilding as Whitlam was.

The simple truth is had we built DDL we would have been in a position to design and build our own AWD or at least partner another nation on the project for less than it has cost us to start from scratch and build the F-100s.

Sure and it could have been built in the 1990s on time to replace the Charles F. Adams DDGs. One would also imagine problems in the DDL build back in the mid 70s could have lead to shipbuilding reform in Australia 10-15 years before it happened. Privatisation of Williamstown and Codock (the later in ownership) could have allowed for better modernisation of shipbuilding in the 1970s and 80s. This could have resulted in a less troublesome Collins class build at Codock.

 

[Volkodav]

I think that was clearly the long term plan (Plan Blue) back in 1972 before the RAN had the local shipbuilding carpet pulled out from under them. Williamstown build frigates and Codock builds major units and submarines. Codock did develop a modular ship design that used large pre fit out modules and could be built as various carrier, replenishment and landing ship options. Also Vickers had a range of light carrier designs. In 1977 the RAN requested $500m for a new carrier and $400m for a new fighter but by then Fraser and Howard (as PM and Treasurer) were as unfriendly to local shipbuilding as Whitlam was.



Sure and it could have been built in the 1990s on time to replace the Charles F. Adams DDGs. One would also imagine problems in the DDL build back in the mid 70s could have lead to shipbuilding reform in Australia 10-15 years before it happened. Privatisation of Williamstown and Codock (the later in ownership) could have allowed for better modernisation of shipbuilding in the 1970s and 80s. This could have resulted in a less troublesome Collins class build at Codock.

Agreed except for the Collins, there were comparatively few build issues rather design and combat system ones. The quality and performance of the build was world standard.

 

[t68]

Whilst lurking on another site I came across this video for Ex Talisman Sabre focusing on HMAS Choules with thanks to ASSAIL.

War games test Australia's amphibious skills - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[ASSAIL]

Whilst lurking on another site I came across this video for Ex Talisman Sabre focusing on HMAS Choules with thanks to ASSAIL.

War games test Australia's amphibious skills - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Thanks mate, I thought it may be old news for DT so went for the Brit site.
I do get frustrated over there as the mods put up with an awful lot of backward looking, opinionated, unsubstantiated BS
Cheers

 

[t68]

Thanks mate, I thought it may be old news for DT so went for the Brit site.
I do get frustrated over there as the mods put up with an awful lot of backward looking, opinionated, unsubstantiated BS
Cheers

Cheers mate, I did have a quick look thru this site if was put up before, thought it might interest a few people here. Sadly we don’t see enough of that sort of PR for defence looking forward to the first operational test for the Canberra’s hopefully they will do something similar.

That other forum is not so bad compared to some but you do find the occasional golden nugget as well.

 

[Massive]

I’ve focused on a CVL of around 20,000 tonnes like a modern Invincible because it is the cheapest, easiest and most balanced type of capability to acquire.

Thanks for that pictorial comparison Abe.

Quick question - what would the displacement of the 26 CTOL version be?

The 40 CTOL is about the size of the QE class I imagine?

Regards and thanks again,

Massive

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Quick question - what would the displacement of the 26 CTOL version be?

300m long so probably about 70,000 tonnes

The 40 CTOL is about the size of the QE class I imagine?

350m long so in the supercarrier range at around 100,000 tonnes.

For reference the CVF is 280m long and the Nimitz 330m.

 

[StingrayOZ]

A reduction of up to 25% in the USN Carrier fleet, and their supporting elements, would surely make the Australian Government look at having to pick up the slack in our region and have a closer look at our capabilities, well you would think so anyway!

Well there are several things to look at:
1) Reduction in CVN or Reduction in operations of CVN
2) Reductions in amphibious capabilities.
3) Reductions in US capability in our region

As the article states, cutting CVN's isn't easy. TBH I don't see the US scrapping good carriers, but they could be a minimal operational levels with less aircraft (ie killing all C models) with less time at sea. The CVN don't have to be melted down, they just have to not be as active as much as they are now.

Reductions of the amphibs is a very real possibility as it could be done without the cost, irrevocableness of CVN cuts. Again, they don't have to be struck off the register, just not being highly active at cold war levels of readiness.

Then you have issues of Australia and US positions on issues. Indonesia, pacific nations, PNG, Malaysia, South China sea etc. There are just times where is going to be highly inappropriate for the US to send its carriers, aircraft, personnel into a delicate situation. Not every situation needs superpower sledge hammers to fix it. Particularly if those are engaged or scheduled to be elsewhere.

What is better is a multinational effort lead by a confident, stable, trusted, well resourced middle power with the political will and capabilities to backbone the effort and a proven track record.

For that you need sustainable amphibious capability and some form of carrier located in the region. Now if its not Australia, then whom.

 

[ASSAIL]

Now if its not Australia, then whom.

I've stayed away from this discussion because I get far too passionate about our political lack of will (both shades of govt) in accepting our regional responsibility as a stabilizing force within the developing regional architecture.
In fact, the reason I resigned from the RAN was because of the Hawke govt's decision to cancel the Melbourne replacement and relegate us from the bottom of the 1st Division to the bottom of the 2nd division of naval powers at the time. It clearly illustrated that the ADF had no importance to either the politicians or the voters.
rant over.
Back to the topic - The choice of platform is limited by the choice of CAS airframe.
It would seem the F 35B is dream world for now but there are plenty of half life AV8 B's which would be suitable for our region for the next decade at least. I think we're pretty snookered on AD and would have to rely on missiles.
Codock is gone so unless they expand the lifters at Henderson or Port Adelaide, we need an offshore build.
IMHO that leaves a purchase of a modified JC1 as being the most compatible and least risky option and leaves the door open for 35B's some time in the future.
Cheers
Chris

 

[rjtjrt]

Re the HMAS Choules video, I find it sad that the comment from Commander Papp was that the primary role of the ship is humanitarian support.

 

[alexsa]

I've stayed away from this discussion because I get far too passionate about our political lack of will (both shades of govt) in accepting our regional responsibility as a stabilizing force within the developing regional architecture.
In fact, the reason I resigned from the RAN was because of the Hawke govt's decision to cancel the Melbourne replacement and relegate us from the bottom of the 1st Division to the bottom of the 2nd division of naval powers at the time. It clearly illustrated that the ADF had no importance to either the politicians or the voters.
rant over.
Back to the topic - The choice of platform is limited by the choice of CAS airframe.
It would seem the F 35B is dream world for now but there are plenty of half life AV8 B's which would be suitable for our region for the next decade at least. I think we're pretty snookered on AD and would have to rely on missiles.
Codock is gone so unless they expand the lifters at Henderson or Port Adelaide, we need an offshore build.
IMHO that leaves a purchase of a modified JC1 as being the most compatible and least risky option and leaves the door open for 35B's some time in the future.
Cheers
Chris

OK I will say it ................ What about the Sea Harriers! Bit of an ophan though.


I also suspect the AV-8B+ will be pretty shagged as well