Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Newman]

IMO additional P8's is entirely appropriate. We never did replace 1 for 1 with the active orions, and never acquired the max number we originally earmarked. Not even growth, just sustaining our existing levels. Going to 14 or 16 P8s would help particularly given we are short on ships and submarines during the next decade. An Anzac with a P8 overhead is probably what we will need going forward, for that kind of coverage we probably should look at expansion of the P8 fleet. Even as the hunters come in, we would then still be looking for strong P8 coverage.

It was never planned for P-8A to replace the AP-3C fleet on a ‘1 for 1’ basis, but it was planned for AP-3C to be replaced by ‘two’ aircraft types, eg, P-8A and MQ-4C.

In fact the replacement fleet of two types will be larger.

Originally there were 20 P-3C procured, one was lost, of the remaining 19 airframes, one was reported not to be upgraded to AP-3C standard, two were modified for ELINT, leaving the RAAF with 16 AP-3Cs.

The RAAF currently has 12 P-8A, two more on order, plus six MQ-4C ordered/approved.

In my opinion, the mixed fleet of 14 P-8A and 6 MQ-4C will be larger and more capable.

(There is reportedly options on one more of each type, wouldn’t hold my breath on the extra Poseidon, probably more chance of additional Triton).

Cheers,

 

[Depot Dog]

It was never planned for P-8A to replace the AP-3C fleet on a ‘1 for 1’ basis, but it was planned for AP-3C to be replaced by ‘two’ aircraft types, eg, P-8A and MQ-4C.

In fact the replacement fleet of two types will be larger.

Originally there were 20 P-3C procured, one was lost, of the remaining 19 airframes, one was reported not to be upgraded to AP-3C standard, two were modified for ELINT, leaving the RAAF with 16 AP-3Cs.

The RAAF currently has 12 P-8A, two more on order, plus six MQ-4C ordered/approved.

In my opinion, the mixed fleet of 14 P-8A and 6 MQ-4C will be larger and more capable.

(There is reportedly options on one more of each type, wouldn’t hold my breath on the extra Poseidon, probably more chance of additional Triton).

Cheers,

Inaddition to aircraft listed above the two ELINT models are being replaced with 4 Gulfstream G550 Peregrine. Plus we are getting 12-16 MQ-B Sky Guardians. I'm used to seeing earlier versions in their roles in Afganistan. I'm unsure how RAAF intend to use the MQ-B.

With all these specialist platforms it will give flexibility. This takes pressure off the P8. So I agree we dont need to go one for one with replacing the Orion.

Regards
DD

 

[John Newman]

Inaddition to aircraft listed above the two ELINT models are being replaced with 4 Gulfstream G550 Peregrine. Plus we are getting 12-16 MQ-B Sky Guardians. I'm used to seeing earlier versions in their roles in Afganistan. I'm unsure how RAAF intend to use the MQ-B.

With all these specialist platforms it will give flexibility. This takes pressure off the P8. So I agree we dont need to go one for one with replacing the Orion.

Regards
DD

In my post above I was only specifically addressing the AP-3C vs P-8A and MQ-4C fleets.

But yes, it does appear the 2 remaining AP-3C(EW) will be replaced by 4 MC-55A.

As for the planned MQ-9B fleet, the DSCA notification earlier this year detailed 12 aircraft (not 16), which can be configured as either SkyGuardian or SeaGuardian variants.

Anyway, all in all, the RAAF does appear to be procuring and developing a respectable fleet of aircraft with a strong maritime focus.

Cheers,

 

[alexsa]

The tonnage difference is right there in the article.



To do some assumption math(s): A Burke's radar is placed on 01 Deck. A Hunter's radar is placed well above 01 Deck. The corresponding effect on ballast (wasted tonnage) is going to be a multiple of at least 4. A radar system of 200 tons (cooling liquids/systems, superstructure, direct radar equipment) therefore corresponds to 800 tons of ballast. Suddenly that 7190 becomes 7990 (assuming the weight of the radar is the same). That's very close to the 8200 ton listed in the article.

When the US designed the Burkes it was with a heavy radar in mind so when you look at their mast structure it's very efficient and light, as they didn't need to fight for radar space, as the radar is located in the superstructure of the ship.

And of course, Burkes were never designed for crew comfort and have no mission flex space. The liveable space for the crew likely has an impact on weapons and other equipment.

Where do you get your factor of 4 from? The other issue is it does not automatically mean the carriage of ballast (warships carry very little as built) as other equipment may be redistributed to address some of the weight difference. The additional beam is going have a significant difference here as well as it drives transverse stability as it changes the centre of buoyance when the vessel is heeled compared to the narrower ship.

Looking at your factor of 4 .... the impact depends on the mass that is moved in the design and the distance over the final mass. This cannot be guessed unless you have the full details of the UK T26 to compare to the Hunter Class. We simply do not have this. At a rough guess (very speculative and only given as an example) the addition of 800 in the bottom of the ship could give a reduction in the CoG (GG1) of about 0.4 to 0.5m ... that is a lot noting the minimum GM of a cargo ship is set at 0.15m (ships should not be too tender but being stiff is a bad thing as well). Move 100 tonnes by 12 m on a 10000 tonne ships gives you a change of 0.12m (noting this static not dynamic stability.

As I said ... just an example

 

[StingrayOZ]

(There is reportedly options on one more of each type, wouldn’t hold my breath on the extra Poseidon, probably more chance of additional Triton).

There is some scope to look at both. They are at least possibilities. The way I phrased that probably sounded like some sort of false equivalency.

It would make much more sense than trying to upgun the OPV (or even the Anzacs) to acquire more P8's, if needed. Why on earth we would try to fit a large missile on to a slow, low end platform (OPV) doesn't make sense, when we can fit four onto something travelling 900kmph and way better situational awareness etc. It would have greater blue water range, cover greater area etc. While you could argue the Anzac could move out of the range of cover from a P8, possibly, and get itself into a warm situation, the OPV that is never going to happen, ever. It is never going to have to shoot its way out of a hole against an opposing Navy.

If the Anzacs moved to a 4 NSM launcher, given that we have much better and more capable antishipping platforms and its role becomes very secondary when hunters come on line, that maybe entirely appropriate. The P8 can provide 4 or more LRASM/Harpoon launches from well beyond return fire range.

But then people aren't interested in that, its platform centric, its all about the OPV and how we can turn it into a battleship, to fight the China, not that fact there are much better and appropriate platforms for those other weapon systems. OPV's being OPV's allows us to fund an air force with P8's and a Navy with destroyers, subs etc.

If your Brunei you don't have those kind of options available. Which is why the fitout is different.

Comparing P8's to P3's again, huge win for the P8's, and combined with Tritons and the G550's, we are getting buckets more capability, but, if you felt that capability was inadequate for the new threats we see, there is some room for additional strength to be acquired. The modern arguments is the ship and sub building are perhaps a decade away from seeing results. If there was a gap then there are other ways to fill it. If needed.

IMO the argument for stronger P8's capability is that is more likely to be our overseas deployed platform. If there is trouble in Taiwan, SCS, the Gulf, we can assure our neighbors and friends *that* afternoon with its presence. We could operate it out of Japan, Singapore, UAE, Guam, not a problem. Its also one of the few platforms are friendlies like NZ could back fill us on. Its not a ship, but it would be a big enabler and force multiplier to existing ships and forces.

 

[ddxx]

MO additional P8's is entirely appropriate. We never did replace 1 for 1 with the active orions, and never acquired the max number we originally earmarked. Not even growth, just sustaining our existing levels. Going to 14 or 16 P8s would help particularly given we are short on ships and submarines during the next decade. An Anzac with a P8 overhead is probably what we will need going forward, for that kind of coverage we probably should look at expansion of the P8 fleet. Even as the hunters come in, we would then still be looking for strong P8 coverage.

100% Agreed on the P8s - there's two additional units already on order, bringing the fleet to 14, with an option for a 15th. (Source)

It seems to be a no-brainer to at least take up the remaining option.

The 2020 Force Structure Plan certainly doesn't rule it out: "In addition, Government will keep under review the future balance between the MQ-4C Triton, the P-8A Poseidon, and other capabilities in light of emerging technological and strategic change."

 

[John Newman]

There is some scope to look at both. They are at least possibilities. The way I phrased that probably sounded like some sort of false equivalency.

It would make much more sense than trying to upgun the OPV (or even the Anzacs) to acquire more P8's, if needed. Why on earth we would try to fit a large missile on to a slow, low end platform (OPV) doesn't make sense, when we can fit four onto something travelling 900kmph and way better situational awareness etc. It would have greater blue water range, cover greater area etc. While you could argue the Anzac could move out of the range of cover from a P8, possibly, and get itself into a warm situation, the OPV that is never going to happen, ever. It is never going to have to shoot its way out of a hole against an opposing Navy.

If the Anzacs moved to a 4 NSM launcher, given that we have much better and more capable antishipping platforms and its role becomes very secondary when hunters come on line, that maybe entirely appropriate. The P8 can provide 4 or more LRASM/Harpoon launches from well beyond return fire range.

But then people aren't interested in that, its platform centric, its all about the OPV and how we can turn it into a battleship, to fight the China, not that fact there are much better and appropriate platforms for those other weapon systems. OPV's being OPV's allows us to fund an air force with P8's and a Navy with destroyers, subs etc.

If your Brunei you don't have those kind of options available. Which is why the fitout is different.

Comparing P8's to P3's again, huge win for the P8's, and combined with Tritons and the G550's, we are getting buckets more capability, but, if you felt that capability was inadequate for the new threats we see, there is some room for additional strength to be acquired. The modern arguments is the ship and sub building are perhaps a decade away from seeing results. If there was a gap then there are other ways to fill it. If needed.

IMO the argument for stronger P8's capability is that is more likely to be our overseas deployed platform. If there is trouble in Taiwan, SCS, the Gulf, we can assure our neighbors and friends *that* afternoon with its presence. We could operate it out of Japan, Singapore, UAE, Guam, not a problem. Its also one of the few platforms are friendlies like NZ could back fill us on. Its not a ship, but it would be a big enabler and force multiplier to existing ships and forces.

Would I argue against more P-8A? Hell no, would I argue against a whole range of additional equipment and capabilities for the ADF as a whole? Again, hell no.

But......

As we all know the Defence Budget is not a bottomless pit to procure equipment or pay for manpower to either operate or maintain that equipment.

We have to be smarter, and use technology where possible, to make up for any perceived shortfall in numbers, and that is exactly what I believe we are doing with the fleet of maritime aircraft.

The MQ-4C reportedly has an endurance of at least 30hrs, the MQ-9B reportedly has an endurance of 40+hrs (I believe one was recently aloft for 48+hrs), and at distance for both types too.

Both of those types of aircraft are able to spend endless hours, at long distance, day after day, monitoring the sea lanes, the seas and oceans surrounding us gathering information.

By being able to be tasked to perform all this ‘donkey work’ day after day, it frees up the P-8A fleet to be far more focused on responding to operations where it’s weapons capabilities are required.

Looking at the big picture I think we are doing pretty well indeed.

Cheers,

 

[OPSSG]

1. This Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0 thread is a continuation of the older thread (starting 20 Nov 2021). The older RAN thread at 1,500+ pages is a bit too long and further discussions should continue here. Some prior posts before this was moved here from the RAN thread to seed future discussions.

2. The older RAN thread was locked for a week and now this 2.0 thread is reopened for discussion by all. Please take heed of the Red text warning that followed to closure of the 1.0 thread. In particular:

​

(a) the continual "redesigning" of the Hunter Class FFG, unending speculation on its dimensions, number of VLS cells, Centre Of Buoyancy, COG, and so on when the design isn't even finalised, has become repetitive and tiresome; and​

​

(b) posts on building a fourth Hobart Class DDG, arming the Arafura Class beyond what the RAN has already determined to be fitted, are to cease.​

3. There are also daughter threads related to:

​

(a) submarines in Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems (that provides a 23 page overview with 2016 comments/predictions that proved to be accurate); and ​

​

(b) the more recent and topical 16 page, RAN Discussions on SSNs only, which is locked. If anyone intends to post an opinion on SSNs, please read all 16 pages of the prior discussion.​

4. I note that the first major initiative under AUKUS is Australia’s acquisition of at least 8 SSNs. The Australian Government intends to build these submarines in Adelaide. No alternate universe discussions please, unless backed by sources. If there is any further attempt at speculation on Australia getting Block V Virginia-class submarines (as this takes the thread into fantasy land); or actions that violate US laws, this thread will be paused for at least 2 weeks or longer. Lack of discipline and failure to cite sources will see perfectly good discussion threads locked.

 

[ngatimozart]

Able Seaman Thomas Welsby Clark, Sonar Operator, RAN Cruiser HMAS Sydney (II) Sunk 19/11/1941 whilst in action against the Kreigsmarine Merchant Raider Koromant off the Western Australian coast. AB Clark's body was the only body recovered from the Sydney when he was found in a carley float at Christmas Island several months later. When he was found he was an unknown sailor from the Sydney, and it was only on the 80th anniversary of the battle between the two ships that he's been given his name back.

To AB Clark, his shipmates on Sydney and to the sailors on Koromant who didn't survive the battle to return home.

There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar.

E kore rātou e kaumātuatia
Pēnei i a tātou kua mahue nei
E kore hoki rātou e ngoikore
Ahakoa pehea i ngā āhuatanga o te wā
I te hekenga atu o te rā
Tae noa ki te aranga mai i te ata
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou
Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We will remember them
We will remember them.

 

[76mmGuns]

Just to get the ball rolling, the HMAS Stalwart was commissioned on November 13th, which is a nice bit of news.

Have to say, the Spanish got quite a bit of business from Australia. Got to be pleased with that bit of export success.

Royal Australian Navy Commissions Replenishment Ship HMAS Stalwart - Naval News

The Royal Australian Navy commissioned HMAS Stalwart, the second of the Supply-class auxiliary oiler replenishment ships on November 13 at Fleet Base West, Rockingham, Western Australia.

www.navalnews.com

edit- sorry,ngatmozart, you just beat me to posting, so I missed your post.Didn't mean to sound like I was ignoring such a respectful post.

 

[Gryphinator]

Anyone seen a reason as to why the RAN Seahawk ditched the other week? Cheers

 

[DDG38]

Good shot of our outgoing tanker sailing out the heads with our newest supply ship in company.
"HMAS Sirius leads HMA Ships Supply and Arunta out past the heads of Sydney Harbour following its farewell lap of Sydney Harbour."
Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[spoz]

Anyone seen a reason as to why the RAN Seahawk ditched the other week? Cheers

Only thing so far is a rumour (emphasised) that the crew experienced disorientation possibly following a problem with non NVG rated lights - but it is only a rumour and at a fair distance from any real source. In some ways that doesn’t seem to line up with known facts, including that all the crew got out with only minor injuries, as in that situation one might have expected that the impact with the sea would been at a reasonably high velocity, horizontal or vertical or both.

 

[Tasman]

HMAS Yarra has been slowly 'exploring' the River Derwent during recent days. Curious as to what she is doing. She has been moving very slowly and seems to be checking every inch of the harbour and its approaches. A few years ago a group of mine warfare vessels spent a week in Hobart doing the same thing. Rumour has it that it concerned tides and currents and a possible future oil leak from the sunken Lake Illawarra, which still rests on the river bed next to one of the piers of the Tasman Bridge. However I am yet to get confirmation from anyone in authority who is prepared and able to comment. Certainly looks like she is mapping something.



Tas

 

[aussienscale]

The official signing of the AUKUS
Exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information sharing agreement

Media release from Defmin on the agreement and remarks release.

Australia signs exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information sharing agreement | Defence Ministers

The signing of the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement (the Agreement) with our AUKUS partners – the United Kingdom and the United States – is another important step in Australia’s pursuit of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines.Minister for Defence the Hon...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

Remarks at the signing of the exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information agreement, Parliament House, Canberra | Defence Ministers

EO&E………………………………………………………………………………………… I’d like to offer some warm words of welcome to High Commissioner Vicki Treadell, thank you very much for being here Vicki. Thank you so much for your support over a long period of time and the future obviously is very important to this arrangement and I’m...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

Bit of a mouthful, but an important step heading into the next 18 months to hash out the selection and process going forward.

Wonder whether this new agreement between the three AUKUS member nations supersedes and replaces the 1958 US-UK MDA ?

Cheers

 

[mattyg]

HMAS Yarra has been slowly 'exploring' the River Derwent during recent days. Curious as to what she is doing. She has been moving very slowly and seems to be checking every inch of the harbour and its approaches. A few years ago a group of mine warfare vessels spent a week in Hobart doing the same thing. Rumour has it that it concerned tides and currents and a possible future oil leak from the sunken Lake Illawarra, which still rests on the river bed next to one of the piers of the Tasman Bridge. However I am yet to get confirmation from anyone in authority who is prepared and able to comment. Certainly looks like she is mapping something.

View attachment 48669

Tas

I wonder if they are testing drone tech ? I know the AMC and others have been testing at Lake St Clair with new drones .

 

[spoz]

The other possibility is that she is doing a route survey.

If you are hunting mines in an area, it is important to identify, and accurately record the the location of, non mine items which give sonar returns similar to mines so that they can be discounted when hunting for real. That is best done well before any live requirement arises.

 

[ADMk2]

HMAS Yarra has been slowly 'exploring' the River Derwent during recent days. Curious as to what she is doing. She has been moving very slowly and seems to be checking every inch of the harbour and its approaches. A few years ago a group of mine warfare vessels spent a week in Hobart doing the same thing. Rumour has it that it concerned tides and currents and a possible future oil leak from the sunken Lake Illawarra, which still rests on the river bed next to one of the piers of the Tasman Bridge. However I am yet to get confirmation from anyone in authority who is prepared and able to comment. Certainly looks like she is mapping something.

View attachment 48669

Tas

One of these was used in the Brisbane river during the Daniel Morcombe investigation….

 

[ngatimozart]

I wonder if they are testing drone tech ? I know the AMC and others have been testing at Lake St Clair with new drones .

You're a newbie on here and we have an expectation that posts be longer than one line. The acceptable minimum is two lines. Please read the rules. Yes I know older posters post one liners but that's a privilege that is earned.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Only thing so far is a rumour (emphasised) that the crew experienced disorientation possibly following a problem with non NVG rated lights - but it is only a rumour and at a fair distance from any real source. In some ways that doesn’t seem to line up with known facts, including that all the crew got out with only minor injuries, as in that situation one might have expected that the impact with the sea would been at a reasonably high velocity, horizontal or vertical or both.

I agree with your "rumour" scepticism. With aircraft incidents, it's important to give the investigation teams time to breathe. Lots of weird things can make an aircraft crash. The recent Cyclone crash with the RCAF in the Med took a number of months before the reason was truly understood. It ended up being an intersection between software and training. I'm very glad to hear the aircrew were able to get out relatively unscathed.