Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Brucedog]

Now, what to escort them with? We have but 3 AWD's and the Anzac's at the moment. The Type 26 being a long way off.

I think we missed the opportunity to build a light Frigate instead of the Arafura (stupid name) class. With each successive class of patrol boat we have gone bigger. I believe we should have jumped a size or two and built a light Frigate. No need for all to be fitted with the full range of weapons but at least 4 should be.

Hope I'm not crossing the line into fantasy fleet teritory.

A Frigate can do the boarder security role but a PB can't escort anything.

 

[Takao]

Depending on the Brigade configuration, the ARG (that's two LHD and one LSD) can lift 25% - 50% of a Brigade. For planning considerations, figure it lifts 33%. I'd be looking at most of the heavy armour and engineering vehicles, 80% of SPH, 40% of IFVs and 20% of CRVs. With applicable trucks and materiel. I can ignore TG Aviation - it fits around the edges. I'm still looking at lifting another 500 - 650 vehicles ranging from M1 chassis to Hawkei along with a hospital, and a few hundred tonnes of ammunition, fuel, food, water and random supplies. I have to plan on the Brigade being self sufficient for at least 8 days, although it's likely to be 14 (that'll allow the vessels to return to Australia, load supplies and return; some of those supplies will be attrition materiel to replace the losses taken). You can assume the second lift is about carriable on a ARG without supplementation - but the ARG may have taken losses.

So across two weeks I need the lift capability of 4x what we have - but only 3 simultaneously. If the answer is a third or fourth LHD, you still can't quite lift the first element. It does guarantee an LHD online at all times so you can put the RCT anywhere you want - but the RCT has to do the job quickly and get out - or be reinforced. That may be more than adequate for a evac or HADR task of course.

#3 and #4 also come with costs. It is really, really rough, but assume for crewing, funding and berthing purposes an LHD = a FFG (it's probably closer to 1.5 FFG for crewing and funding.....but lets stick to 1:1). So you are giving up Hunter #8 and Hunter #9. But in a situation where you are putting a Brigade ashore, an 8th and 9th Hunter is likely to be super useful (if only as attrition stock). So - are you willing to risk that? The fact is that the RAN is 105% allocated for the next 10 - 15 years too, so throwing a new ship in means taking one out.

Really, I think it comes down to civilian shipping - just like the Falklands and almost every WW2 landing. We need something that can surge, provide the lift we need (and that lift may be a constant resupply to a friendly port a'la supporting forces in Korea) but not cost us the price of a FFG. There are enough types of ships out there - it's just up to JLC to charter the correct ones!

Sea lift is about to be our Achilles heel. A recent US exercise (The US military ran the largest stress test of its sealift fleet in years. It’s in big trouble.) showed significant flaws - so assuming the US will lift our stuff has gone from not likely to not plausible...

 

[Brucedog]

You're not helping me Takao!! My brain hurts.....

The USN is in trouble across all platforms. That's why I believe Australia needs to up the Defence budget and manning. I think it's us who needs to help the USN in our region so they can be in a state to help us. There is movement from Japan and some other nations that should be more inclined to help us and not the PRC. We can't rely on them though, if they do side with us they won't have spare capacity.

 

[buffy9]

Depending on the Brigade configuration, the ARG (that's two LHD and one LSD) can lift 25% - 50% of a Brigade. For planning considerations, figure it lifts 33%. I'd be looking at most of the heavy armour and engineering vehicles, 80% of SPH, 40% of IFVs and 20% of CRVs. With applicable trucks and materiel. I can ignore TG Aviation - it fits around the edges. I'm still looking at lifting another 500 - 650 vehicles ranging from M1 chassis to Hawkei along with a hospital, and a few hundred tonnes of ammunition, fuel, food, water and random supplies. I have to plan on the Brigade being self sufficient for at least 8 days, although it's likely to be 14 (that'll allow the vessels to return to Australia, load supplies and return; some of those supplies will be attrition materiel to replace the losses taken). You can assume the second lift is about carriable on a ARG without supplementation - but the ARG may have taken losses.

So across two weeks I need the lift capability of 4x what we have - but only 3 simultaneously. If the answer is a third or fourth LHD, you still can't quite lift the first element. It does guarantee an LHD online at all times so you can put the RCT anywhere you want - but the RCT has to do the job quickly and get out - or be reinforced. That may be more than adequate for a evac or HADR task of course.

#3 and #4 also come with costs. It is really, really rough, but assume for crewing, funding and berthing purposes an LHD = a FFG (it's probably closer to 1.5 FFG for crewing and funding.....but lets stick to 1:1). So you are giving up Hunter #8 and Hunter #9. But in a situation where you are putting a Brigade ashore, an 8th and 9th Hunter is likely to be super useful (if only as attrition stock). So - are you willing to risk that? The fact is that the RAN is 105% allocated for the next 10 - 15 years too, so throwing a new ship in means taking one out.

Really, I think it comes down to civilian shipping - just like the Falklands and almost every WW2 landing. We need something that can surge, provide the lift we need (and that lift may be a constant resupply to a friendly port a'la supporting forces in Korea) but not cost us the price of a FFG. There are enough types of ships out there - it's just up to JLC to charter the correct ones!

Sea lift is about to be our Achilles heel. A recent US exercise (The US military ran the largest stress test of its sealift fleet in years. It’s in big trouble.) showed significant flaws - so assuming the US will lift our stuff has gone from not likely to not plausible...

Has there been any consideration into utilising the eventual Choules replacement for a larger platform more comparable to the LHD? It would be more expensive, though the overall ARG capacity would be lifted substantially.

It appears in the background that there has been some consideration into a large amphibious platform in the mid-term as either a Choules replacement or a further ARG enabler. Noting that the overall fleet is effectively fully planned, it just seems weird for politicians and industry to be grinning and winking about adding to or replacing parts of the fleet. (IIRC there was an article a few years back with Payne/Pyne discussing interest in a XLUUV platform irt the cost-capability argument. I can't find the article however, so maybe I'm remembering things wrong). I don't want to loop back to the PSS since it has little information tied to it, but there is some relevance to the current discussion regarding sea lift.

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News (Exact quote by David Sippel in video)

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...vot-to-the-south-pacific-20181108-p50es8.html

Another LHD is certainly more costly than a PSS/LSD/JSS type vessel, but it would provide a significantly increased lift capacity for the ARG whilst at the same time increasing the sustainability of major deployments (noting previous concerns about surging two vessels continuously). It would certainly be an expensive solution, taking away from escorts and other manning requirements whilst adding to sustainment costs. However, as your noted, sea lift is likely going to be a future Achilles heel when looking at current trends (including budget difficulties for the USN).

At the end of the day though this could all just be political hubris. Just my two cents.

 

[ASSAIL]

The fifth Guardian Class Patrol Boat is on her way to the Solomon Islands under the Pacific Patrol Boat programme.
Deliveries are progressing well with deliveries already made to PNG, Tuvalu, Tonga and Samoa.
5 down 16 to go.

Royal Australian Navy

 

[alexsa]

The fifth Guardian Class Patrol Boat is on her way to the Solomon Islands under the Pacific Patrol Boat programme.
Deliveries are progressing well with deliveries already made to PNG, Tuvalu, Tonga and Samoa.
5 down 16 to go.

Royal Australian Navy

Interesting that Maryborough is under the command of 'Commnader' Unwin. A brass hat for an ACPB is a first for me. I understood the ACPB were under the commaned of a two and a half as was the case for the FCPB. The Attack class were Lieutenants in command.

A Commander seems a bit much for a patrol boat.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Has there been any consideration into utilising the eventual Choules replacement for a larger platform more comparable to the LHD? It would be more expensive, though the overall ARG capacity would be lifted substantially.

I don't think there is any official policy in this direction, but I think its under consideration. The original budget for Choules was substantial. There have been indications a 3rd would be looked at by the Navy. However timing currently isn't ideal. Choules isn't end of life yet. The Army also have several significant projects that would impact any procurement. It would seem prudent to have a look at that, after the Army sorted all its land 400 stuff out. We certainly want to avoid issues where the Army acquires something and then the Navy can't shift it. Also the Army may want more time to work out exactly how its Amphibious capability will look like.

Another LHD is certainly more costly than a PSS/LSD/JSS type vessel, but it would provide a significantly increased lift capacity for the ARG whilst at the same time increasing the sustainability of major deployments (noting previous concerns about surging two vessels continuously). It would certainly be an expensive solution, taking away from escorts and other manning requirements whilst adding to sustainment costs. However, as your noted, sea lift is likely going to be a future Achilles heel when looking at current trends (including budget difficulties for the USN).

At the end of the day though this could all just be political hubris. Just my two cents.

I'm a big supporter of a 3rd LHD. While the crewing is significant and higher than other options, this isn't as ominous as it sounds. Many of the key ratings are of the same or similar number and type. You already have a pool of trained crew with the other two ships, so the additional crew in making a 3rd makes a larger pool for the other 2 as well. The ships are well liked by sailors, and having more ships provides more career options and flexibility. Training and logistical support is already well in place and benefits by become larger and it becomes cheaper per sailor and per ship.

IMO why build a modified LPD, for the same amount of risk build a modified LHD with far greater capabilities or a regular LHD with very low risk with still more capability (the standard JC1 design had significant resupply capability for example).

Time probably works in the Navys favour. HDAR seems to be a big issue both locally and internationally. Climate change. Growing Chinese egarness to be around, etc. The recent fires, recent cyclones, etc have put this as a priority. This ships have become key components in engagement in the wider region and underpinning region security.

The army basically doubling the mass of its vehicles will mean if we do nothing we will be halving our amphibious capability within 10 years, from what we currently have, which is still undersized for what we need.

 

[Bob53]

I think the deployment of Choules to evacuate Mallacoota is going to add weight to a quick decision on the 3rd LHD or its alternative. I wonder why defence choppers aren’t used in the fire bombing role? Park a LHD a few kms off shore and used as a fire base?

 

[ASSAIL]

Interesting that Maryborough is under the command of 'Commnader' Unwin. A brass hat for an ACPB is a first for me. I understood the ACPB were under the commaned of a two and a half as was the case for the FCPB. The Attack class were Lieutenants in command.

A Commander seems a bit much for a patrol boat.

I think there have been a few in the past. I suspect promoted while in the job? Or maybe they have a Squadron/Division Commander who drives?

 

[Massive]

So across two weeks I need the lift capability of 4x what we have - but only 3 simultaneously. If the answer is a third or fourth LHD, you still can't quite lift the first element.

The ARG just does not seem realistic to me.

Particularly inserting it into a combat situation, characterised by needing a significant escort, where heavy losses are expected to be incurred.

Can't help but feel that the whole concept needs a rethink.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Stampede]

Some advice from our Darwin members and others

As I understand it 40 years ago when Cyclone Tracy devastated the City of Darwin, defence played a key role in the immediate aftermath.
I think this was one of the biggest relief operations conducted by the ADF with Navy been a major contributor.
Many ships including the Aircraft Carrier Melbourne contributed.
As I understand, we learnt a lot on the trot in 74, as to command and control and delegation of responsibility across Civil / Military / Commonwealth and Territory departments.

I wonder if we have the structures in place today to deal with national disasters around and across our nation and her surrounds.

With the recent bushfires it does beg the question as to how / when and if, we should use ADF assets to assist with the national emergency's.
My view is YES, they are a national resource to be utilized on such occasions.
Keeping this as a RAN Forum, it does beg the question if a single amphibious asset with a single docking well and a flight deck with no hanger is the best we can contribute in an emergency fortuitously not too far from the home port of our three ship amphibious fleet.

I do kind of role my eyes when we talk of landing brigades size force in distant places when a local bushfire puts it all into perspective.

Maybe when the dust and embers settle later in the year, a conversation about the current size of the Supply / Amphibious fleet of five ships will be had and some serious coin will be found to address their numbers
Five ships is just not enough for our needs across the broad spectrum of expectations from HADR to High end war fighting and everything in between.

All the best to those in the bushfire affected areas and to those in what ever uniform are providing service to those in need


Regards S

 

[Stampede]

The ARG just does not seem realistic to me.

Particularly inserting it into a combat situation, characterised by needing a significant escort, where heavy losses are expected to be incurred.

Can't help but feel that the whole concept needs a rethink.

Regards,

Massive

Yep

I'm more interested in what we can do with a single amphibious unit, escorted by the type of number of escorts we have in inventory.
The IPE series of naval task groups, I would suggest is a realistic expectation of both what we can do, and what we cannot.
A single Canberra Class LHD with 12 - 14 ASW, ARH and logistic helicopters, complete with around 700 troops and associated vehicles is a realistic sovereign sized amphibious force..
Add a supply ship and two or three escorts and that's realistically it.
Anything more would require an increase in numbers across the fleet or luck of availability or alternatively excellent intelligence of a pending situation.

Choules will get a refit this decade and the remaining two Canberra will not always be 100 percent available.
We have just two supply ships to be replaced by two more, but even though they will be new, stuff happens.
The new Canberra class proved that when they were out due to fouling in their pods.

We have a medium sized Navy. It's very professional and good for its size but we cannot make it something its not.

Perspective please

regards S

 

[Brucedog]

Then just what are our Ampbibs for? If it's high end job isn't to land forces on a hostile shore, what is it? Why do we require them to land MBT's and other heavy equipment? If it's just low end stuff like HADR then we can get a better capability cheaper.

Now, i don't see us invading anybody but who knows what might happen.

The Government has to have a plan for whichever policy they/we decide to implement and it has to fund it.

 

[OldNavy63]

I think there have been a few in the past. I suspect promoted while in the job? Or maybe they have a Squadron/Division Commander who drives?

If you search for the officer’s name in the RAN website ..... Our People... Biographies

Also, in my experience when A boats and FCPBs operated in company the senior CO commanded the formation. I guess it hasn’t changed much.

 

[ASSAIL]

Some advice from our Darwin members and others

As I understand it 40 years ago when Cyclone Tracy devastated the City of Darwin, defence played a key role in the immediate aftermath.
I think this was one of the biggest relief operations conducted by the ADF with Navy been a major contributor.
Many ships including the Aircraft Carrier Melbourne contributed.
As I understand, we learnt a lot on the trot in 74, as to command and control and delegation of responsibility across Civil / Military / Commonwealth and Territory

Operation Navy Help Darwin was a very successful and much appreciated operation.
Many ships took part and whilst the major fleet units of the time provided the manpower and logistics many smaller units contributed.
The port fairway had to be surveyed, LCHs provided much help and the remaining serviceable Patrol Boat was employed on SAR duties, divers recovered bodies and searched wrecks and much more.
The Command and Control was much more clear cut then, the NT was a commonwealth Territory, it was yet to self govern.
The RAN provided the bulk of ADF manpower in Darwin (initially) as the RAAF and Army only had a small presence here so in the immediate response, NOCNA (Naval Officer Commanding North Australia) Capt Eric Johnstone RAN took charge with a committee of business and government administrators. It wasn’t until the self promoting Major General Stretton was sent by the commonwealth to head relief efforts the excessive rules and arbitrary regulations slowed the recovery.
Much was learned but what stood out for me was that in such situations there is no substitute for quick and decisive action even if normal protocols and time wasting regulations are ditched in doing so.

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting that Maryborough is under the command of 'Commnader' Unwin. A brass hat for an ACPB is a first for me. I understood the ACPB were under the commaned of a two and a half as was the case for the FCPB. The Attack class were Lieutenants in command.

A Commander seems a bit much for a patrol boat.

I know there were some three ringers heading up divisions (three crews) when they were multi crewing the ACPBs. Maybe also the Arafuras are planned to have three ringers and the RAN has started growing the new crews pre delivery.

Of note Sycamore has been deployed to support firefighting efforts off Vic. I see this as the way of the future as the Arafuras will have a similar potential to support HADR with their flight decks and mission decks. Infact, I imagine we will see them doing things currently not even on the radar, i.e. supporting special forces detachments on surveillance, reconnaissance or recovery missions, clearance diving teams, even 2 RAR elements.

 

[oldsig127]

Then just what are our Ampbibs for? If it's high end job isn't to land forces on a hostile shore, what is it? Why do we require them to land MBT's and other heavy equipment? If it's just low end stuff like HADR then we can get a better capability cheaper.

Now, i don't see us invading anybody but who knows what might happen.

The Government has to have a plan for whichever policy they/we decide to implement and it has to fund it.

I've bolded the important bit. Especially given our status as a middle power, flexibilty is massively important. Plan as you might, the ability to swing from one priority to another is gold.

oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Amphibs aren't just for HDAR. That is something that can fall under their remit, but its HDAR with message of capability.
Take for example Fiji. There were many ways we can offer help and assistance. We can dump stuff at the airport from C17's, we can lease a commercial ship to deliver a whole bunch of stuff and dump it at a port. But surprisingly its not just about sending packages. Its about solving problems and working alongside. Many of these other forms of assistance don't solve problems people need. Having a presence, to see the mission through for the long haul. We can bring vehicles, heavy machinery, turn up with a fully stocked hospital, helicopters, fuel, command and communication capabilities beyond what the mission requires. The subtext is if the shit ever really hit the fan we would have capabilities to solve these types of problems. While its hard to prove causality Fiji's elections weren't coincidental with the LHD's coming into existence, there is a connection. PNG hosting APEC, referendums being held around the region, were all being underwritten by Australia's amphibious capabilities. IndoPacific Endeavor also showed, that having a big flexible but also high end capability has made us new friends and stronger connections in ways we didn't read before. It puts Australia as a critical part of the regions security. We are avoiding wars and conflicts by having this capability.

Nor do we ever intend them to participate in Amphibious Assaults landing troops under heavy fire like WW2. But that still leaves heaps of likely situations where SHTF. It is the medium intensity stuff where we are likely to find our powerful friends failing to carry the weight or backbone the operation. We need to become that backbone for our other allies. Making us the critical stakeholder.

While we envisioned them forming a full ARG, that is not their only function. India and Japan have shown big genuine interest in it as a ASW platform. Philippines, Vietnam, Fiji, Vanuatu, the US, Singapore all have interests in what we are doing with them and us having them opens doors. Big ships are also ideal for big long missions. The LHD's are key to long range power projection. We can operate them half a world away for many months at a time. They have a persistence that other assets struggle to possess. That other nations can not sustain.

Which is why the two we have are getting flogged. More will be asked of them in the future. Two reasons, the footprint of the amphibious elements will increase in mass and dimensions. The other is other countries are keen to engage with Australia as part of some sort of wider security engagement. As part of a wider attempt to reduce the polarity that is occurring across the region.

 

[ngatimozart]

Then just what are our Ampbibs for? If it's high end job isn't to land forces on a hostile shore, what is it? Why do we require them to land MBT's and other heavy equipment? If it's just low end stuff like HADR then we can get a better capability cheaper.

Now, i don't see us invading anybody but who knows what might happen.

The Government has to have a plan for whichever policy they/we decide to implement and it has to fund it.

HADR is always a low priority for a military force, never the first consideration. The prime mission for any defence force is always warlike - defend your nation to the best of your ability and that requires the correct tools and people for the job. If you want to acquire specific HADR only gear then form a separate HADR agency and fund & equip it as such.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Former Canadian CDS famously stated "......we are not the public service. We are the Canadian Military and our job is to kill people"

As Ngati stated the primary purpose of a military is to be able to use force at the direction of its Government to protect its citizens and sovereignty.

I agree that organizations such as the typical three divisions of a military with its command and control capabilities, trained staff, variety of equipment are well suited to assisting the GOTD to provide domestic and international HADR when needed but the military must be equipped for war fighting first.

Good on all aspects of the Australian military for their efforts in helping their country during these trying times. As a firefighter for 33 years i hope I never have to face such a situation as the conditions are truely overwhelming.

This use of Sycamore is interesting as it takes what was supposed to be a primary aviation training assett and using it for domestic support. Nice job.