Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ngatimozart]

Commerce raiding. Wouldn’t one of the best uses of the ABF and Arafuras be what they were designed for ie controlling the flow of unarmed and lightly armed vessels?

In the event of a conflict one of our key objectives would I expect be controlling (or at least disrupting) the flow of traffic through the Indonesian archipelago. China will remain heavily dependent on seaborne oil and gas from the Gulf for the foreseeable future and turning out the lights on their economy would be of great advantage to us.

The Arafura’s should be more than sufficient for interdicting a tanker.

As a side note this is why, in my view, pretty much any dollars spent on upgrading infrastructure on Christmas and Cocos Is are money very well spent.

Where did @Stampede mention commerce raiding? If the ADF was going to undertake commerce raiding in the littoral zone it has other assets that it could use. Of course in a war against the CCP / PRC it's commercial fleet is legitimate targets and will be attacked because any form of restricted conventional warfare against the CCP / PRC will guarantee your defeat. Any neutral flagged vessel carrying war material to the CCP / PRC will also be liable to interdiction, inspection and arrest. Definition of war material could include oil and fuels, and raw materials such as iron ore, bauxite, and other minerals.

 

[Stampede]

Unless/until Australia makes some changes to national law, I do not anticipate the ABF being able to follow a path similar to the USCG. The USCG is one of the US's uniformed services (one of seven IIRC), with the USCG having been moved around between different Departments and having answered to different Secretaries during it's history. Currently, the USCG is a part of the Dept. of Homeland Security during peacetime, but can be transferred and report to the DoD and be under the umbrella of the USN in the event of war. The USCG (and preceding services) is one of the US's armed services and personnel/equipment are not considered civilian but rather military/naval.

It is also very important to note the size of the USCG, at ~40k active duty personnel which puts the USCG at about two-thirds the size of the entire active duty ADF. Being that size does enable the USCG to support capabilities which the national law enforcement/customs/border security agencies of other countries realistically could not.

Australia would need to have laws which enable a civil agency like the ABF to be seconded to a military/naval organization and in addition, both the personnel and kit would need to be fit or suitable for purpose. As I understand it, many of the personnel in the ABF's Marine Unit are ex-RAN, but now prefer to work for a civil agency. However, I am uncertain whether or not Australian law permits non-military/naval agencies and personnel to operate heavy ordnance and weaponry. IIRC the ABF cutters are armed with up to 12.7mm/0.50 cal. HMG's, but is there any provision in Australian law which would enable the cutters to be fitted with weapons suitable for a wartime situation like torpedoes, missiles, or naval guns that are 30mm or greater? As it stands right now, an ABFC could certainly damage a small vessel, but would be hard-pressed to threaten a large vessel, never mind a hostile warship.

Thanks for the reply.
I'm mindful this is the RAN thread, so don't want to stray too much.
The USCG is certainly massive in size with many vessels having a weapons fit out the envy of many smaller Navy's.

Again its the anomaly of the Cape Class.
Same vessel operated by two different government departments doing the same job.
Traditionally a patrol boat sized vessel would normally have had a medium cal gun mounted on the bow.
The Capes now don't need that because???????
Or is it that the previous generations patrol boats have never really needed such a weapon?

Currently the above seemingly makes for a strange script.
Can't work it out!!!

A new question.

How often have patrol boats both today and in the past operated with Army in a non constabulary role.
Special forces / Regional surveillance units doing tactical work?

Interested

Regards S

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the reply.
I'm mindful this is the RAN thread, so don't want to stray too much.
The USCG is certainly massive in size with many vessels having a weapons fit out the envy of many smaller Navy's.

Again its the anomaly of the Cape Class.
Same vessel operated by two different government departments doing the same job.
Traditionally a patrol boat sized vessel would normally have had a medium cal gun mounted on the bow.
The Capes now don't need that because???????
Or is it that the previous generations patrol boats have never really needed such a weapon?

Currently the above seemingly makes for a strange script.
Can't work it out!!!

A new question.

How often have patrol boats both today and in the past operated with Army in a non constabulary role.
Special forces / Regional surveillance units doing tactical work?

Interested

Regards S

Regarding the Cape-class patrol boats, and the preceding Bay-class and even the Armidale-class patrol boats to a degree, really seemed to have been intended for constabulary roles in civil enforcement and not a naval combatant roles as a warship. That is not to say that patrol boats cannot be proper combatants, as a variety of Israeli patrol boat designs do come to mind that are both quite small, while packing a respectable punch for their sizes. The 20m, 45 ton Dabur-class patrol boat being one such example which mounted two 20mm guns and a pair of LWT tubes.

However, it is the GotD which sets policy in terms of who does what, and with what. Had the ADI's submisison for the Fremantle-class patrol boat replacement been selected instead of the Austal submission, then the RAN would have gotten vessels of roughly the same size but ~50% greater displacement. Had the RAN also adopted the StanFlex system of containerized naval weapons and systems, then the RAN Minor Warfare fleet would have also been capable of significantly greater combat operations. Looking back to WWII and the years following, the RAN did operate a number of smallcraft like HDML's and the like, armed with a variety of guns like 20mm guns, 3-pounders, depth charges and machine guns. If the GotD and/or the RAN decided that such operations where necessary again, then I imagine that new designs fitted for such armament would enter service. As it is now, I cannot really see it being worthwhile to make any serious attempts to turn the current patrol boat classes in combat capable vessels.

IIRC RAN patrol boats have operated with/in support of other ADF assets, particularly involving Australian personnel deployed to island nations. RAMSI springs to mind as one such deployment, though TBH not sure whether or not that might be considered a constabulary deployment or not. I seem to recall RFSU's getting some new small craft of their own for movements in and around some of the more remote areas. Not sure how often RAN patrol boats would really work alongside them, since I would imagine that RAN vessels would spend more time farther out to sea but I could be wrong on that.

 

[seaspear]

Re legal side has the Australian government committed to the recommendations outlined in this paper for U.AV,s

https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Soundings_No_11_0.pdf

 

[Morgo]

Where did @Stampede mention commerce raiding? If the ADF was going to undertake commerce raiding in the littoral zone it has other assets that it could use. Of course in a war against the CCP / PRC it's commercial fleet is legitimate targets and will be attacked because any form of restricted conventional warfare against the CCP / PRC will guarantee your defeat. Any neutral flagged vessel carrying war material to the CCP / PRC will also be liable to interdiction, inspection and arrest. Definition of war material could include oil and fuels, and raw materials such as iron ore, bauxite, and other minerals.

Something to consider is what would be the role of smaller vessels in a time of a major crisis?

He didn’t directly but he posed this very good question:

Something to consider is what would be the role of smaller vessels in a time of a major crisis?

to which I would add “Commerce Raiding” to his other answers.

I agree that there are other platforms that could do this better. But those platforms will have plenty of other good things they could be doing at the same time. Having the Arafuras do this frees those other platforms up to do higher end stuff.

The bit I don’t know (amongst many other things) is whether they have the range, speed and sea keeping to do this effectively (notwithstanding the O in OPV).

 

[ngatimozart]

to which I would add “Commerce Raiding” to his other answers.

I agree that there are other platforms that could do this better. But those platforms will have plenty of other good things they could be doing at the same time. Having the Arafuras do this frees those other platforms up to do higher end stuff.

The bit I don’t know (amongst many other things) is whether they have the range, speed and sea keeping to do this effectively (notwithstanding the O in OPV).

DID YOU NOT GET THE MESSAGE ABOUT RAN FANTASY FLEET POSTS? SUGGESTIONS OF ARAFURA CLASS OPV FOR COMMERCE RAIDING COMES UNDER THAT DEFINITION. TWO DAYS BAN FROM POSTING IN THIS THREAD.

 

[icelord]

Again its the anomaly of the Cape Class.
Same vessel operated by two different government departments doing the same job.
Traditionally a patrol boat sized vessel would normally have had a medium cal gun mounted on the bow.
The Capes now don't need that because???????
Or is it that the previous generations patrol boats have never really needed such a weapon?

From my time on Armidales, the 25mm main gun was primarily a reason to have a second Greenie(Electronic Technician) onboard the boat for watchkeeping as the damn thing never seemed to work. When they did Greenies would complain as they had to maintain it and keep it servicable.

How often have patrol boats both today and in the past operated with Army in a non constabulary role.
Special forces / Regional surveillance units doing tactical work?

Army were mostly for Transit Security Element (TSE) who would be utilised during SIEV or FFV boardings as extra security team for overnight steaming. Most were Reservists would come up for 6mth rotation.

RSU or NORFORCE were rarely involved with Armidales unless the crew was doing coastal fisheries patrols. NORFORCE work with Darwin based LCM more who drop them off the coast and pick them up week later after doing coastline patrol or surveillance.

 

[STURM]

as the damn thing never seemed to work.

Was it because if the fire control issues with the mount itself?

Army were mostly for Transit Security Element

Sorry but why were arny teams involved?

 

[spoz]

Fremantles certainly operated far afield; they were with us, in a TG, in the South China Sea in the 80s. That kind of thing did put a strain on their ship’s companies, particularly in tac comms; I seem to remember they had to borrow some signalmen. But they were perfectly capable of doing it; and they had a 40/60 up front which was for their main purpose a perfectly adequate bang.

I seem to reminder that one actually used its main armament during a hot pursuit out of Cairns, maybe in the 90s. Assail probably knows the details which age has removed from my brain.

 

[ASSAIL]

Fremantles certainly operated far afield; they were with us, in a TG, in the South China Sea in the 80s. That kind of thing did put a strain on their ship’s companies, particularly in tac comms; I seem to remember they had to borrow some signalmen. But they were perfectly capable of doing it; and they had a 40/60 up front which was for their main purpose a perfectly adequate bang.

I seem to reminder that one actually used its main armament during a hot pursuit out of Cairns, maybe in the 90s. Assail probably knows the details which age has removed from my brain.

I think it might have been common. We put a 40/60 round ahead of a Taiwanese pair trawler (not reported) who wouldn’t stop out on the edge of the continental shelf south of Rowley Shoals, he stopped in a hurry.
The early ROEs for fishery protection were pretty elastic and in the early 70’s there were 70 odd pairs of these trawlers operating on the edge of the shelf.
This caused the creation of RANDET Broome, S2 Trackers based in Broome to monitor and report pair trawling activity.

 

[alexsa]

Fremantles certainly operated far afield; they were with us, in a TG, in the South China Sea in the 80s. That kind of thing did put a strain on their ship’s companies, particularly in tac comms; I seem to remember they had to borrow some signalmen. But they were perfectly capable of doing it; and they had a 40/60 up front which was for their main purpose a perfectly adequate bang.

I seem to reminder that one actually used its main armament during a hot pursuit out of Cairns, maybe in the 90s. Assail probably knows the details which age has removed from my brain.

It was Townsville in 1981 from memory. They had towed a boat into TI and they did a runner. It was report to XO/CO desig courses that the FV rammed Townsville during the subsequent slow speed pursuit and would not stop …. It took quite a bit of time to get permission to fire on the vessel to stop them. A staged approach with SLR, AR warning shots then 50 cal. They did fire on the after part of the vessel once the crew went forward. The vessel then stopped.

The process of getting permission to use more force was improved. Launceston has the boarding crew turfed in the water when the FV ran the rubber duck down. The fished the boarding party out and when after the FV leaving the rubber duck behind. They had permission to use force by the time they caught up and the FV stopped when they noticed everything was aimed at them. The boarding officer (pretty sure it was the XO) who and been turfed in the water led the boarding party with Launceston laying herself alongside the fishing boat.

This led to the adoption of RHIBs on the Fremantle’s as the rubber ducks were too bloody slow.

And yes, the Fremantle’s ranged far and wide. Dubbo escorted an ASI 31.5 Pacific Patrol boat to Micronesia then stopped off in Guam and Vanuatu. Quite a hike in some interesting weather.

Post script

Townsville with the vessel running from Cairns according to the face book page page 24 December 2019.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[Stampede]

It was Townsville in 1981 from memory. They had towed a boat into TI and they did a runner. It was report to XO/CO desig courses that the FV rammed Townsville during the subsequent slow speed pursuit and would not stop …. It took quite a bit of time to get permission to fire on the vessel to stop them. A staged approach with SLR, AR warning shots then 50 cal. They did fire on the after part of the vessel once the crew went forward. The vessel then stopped.

The process of getting permission to use more force was improved. Launceston has the boarding crew turfed in the water when the FV ran the rubber duck down. The fished the boarding party out and when after the FV leaving the rubber duck behind. They had permission to use force by the time they caught up and the FV stopped when they noticed everything was aimed at them. The boarding officer (pretty sure it was the XO) who and been turfed in the water led the boarding party with Launceston laying herself alongside the fishing boat.

This led to the adoption of RHIBs on the Fremantle’s as the rubber ducks were too bloody slow.

And yes, the Fremantle’s ranged far and wide. Dubbo escorted an ASI 31.5 Pacific Patrol boat to Micronesia then stopped off in Guam and Vanuatu. Quite a hike in some interesting weather.

Post script

Townsville with the vessel running from Cairns according to the face book page page 24 December 2019.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

Thanks everyone for the feed back.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my take is the main gun was rarely used on the various generations of patrol boats, but it's very existence was a necessary tool of deterrence.
As some posts have suggested, it was the top end of an escalated layer of response.

The Cape class currently don't have such a layer of deterrence and I believe they should.

Which goes back to the my original conundrum of who should crew the Cape Class.
If it's to be a border force asset, should they operate a 25 / 30 mm canon?



Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks everyone for the feed back.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my take is the main gun was rarely used on the various generations of patrol boats, but it's very existence was a necessary tool of deterrence.
As some posts have suggested, it was the top end of an escalated layer of response.

The Cape class currently don't have such a layer of deterrence and I believe they should.

Which goes back to the my original conundrum of who should crew the Cape Class.
If it's to be a border force asset, should they operate a 25 / 30 mm canon?



Regards S

I think that they definitely should.

In NZ we had an experience with a Taiwanese FFV that did a runner from a RNZN Lake Class PB. The FFV was able to outrun the PB. It was during the 1970s and they ended up scrambling a Skyhawk to stop it. A single firing pass of 20mm cannon fire by the Skyhawk convinced the FFV that the time to heave to had come.

 

[Todjaeger]

A question and an associated thought bubble (yes, those can be dangerous esp coming from me...).

From the RAN entry on the Hunter-class FFG here, it mentions 2x 30mm short range guns. Has a selection been made, or additional information released, on what guns these will be?

With the planned 40mm gun for the Arafura-class OPV now no longer part of the plan, this could be an opportunity for the RAN to start to standardize some of the small calibre guns in use throughout the fleet. Is there any information out that indicates the RAN/ADF is looking at doing so?

Size note, if this is actually being done (working on adopting a common, multi-role rapid fire small calibre gun) for use across the fleet, this could provide opportunities to both increase the scope of defenses a vessel has, as well as provide modest (very modest) increases in overall firepower. IIRC there have been some small calibre gun mountings that include options for small, direct fire missiles. Now I am not using this as an argument to turn patrol vessels into missile-carrying warships fit to sail into harms way, but IMO it would potentially provide another defensive layer if a combination 30mm gun + Hellfire or RAM were fitted. Just a thought.

 

[StingrayOZ]

IMO I think there is a bit of a move away from standardization to capability within the ADF.

While I am a big fan of standardization where possible, and valuing standardization over getting niche capability, capability has value.
Supporting different guns isn't impossible for a country like Australia.

AFAIK the 30mm guns were going to be something like the DS30mm gun on the Type 26's. DS30B are used on the Huon mine hunters. The bushmaster 30mm II has ~70% commonality with the 25mm gun, so while they are different, they aren't completely orphaned systems.

The first few OPV's were mentioned to be fitted with the 25mm, but the Huon guns would also be available, I don't think it would be impossible for them to be fitted with a 30mm, at least initially. I presume the mount is basically the same?

 

[ADMk2]

A question and an associated thought bubble (yes, those can be dangerous esp coming from me...).

From the RAN entry on the Hunter-class FFG here, it mentions 2x 30mm short range guns. Has a selection been made, or additional information released, on what guns these will be?

With the planned 40mm gun for the Arafura-class OPV now no longer part of the plan, this could be an opportunity for the RAN to start to standardize some of the small calibre guns in use throughout the fleet. Is there any information out that indicates the RAN/ADF is looking at doing so?

Size note, if this is actually being done (working on adopting a common, multi-role rapid fire small calibre gun) for use across the fleet, this could provide opportunities to both increase the scope of defenses a vessel has, as well as provide modest (very modest) increases in overall firepower. IIRC there have been some small calibre gun mountings that include options for small, direct fire missiles. Now I am not using this as an argument to turn patrol vessels into missile-carrying warships fit to sail into harms way, but IMO it would potentially provide another defensive layer if a combination 30mm gun + Hellfire or RAM were fitted. Just a thought.

One of the reasons cited for cancelling the Leonardo 40mm gun contract for the Arafura Class was a stated desire for increased weapons commonality across the fleet and perhaps ADF wide…

How this looks in reality is difficult to predict. 25mm Typhoon seems to have a limited remaining lifespan with ASLAV and Armidales retiring from service, however they will live on with LHD’s and the Supply Class.

30mm x 173mm gun systems are going to be in significant numbers across Army via LAND 400 so that presents an opportunity for RAN to achieve this stated goal, given the abundance of suitable 30mm gun systems that could be applied to it’s naval fleet, however this would represent a step-down in capability for the Arafura’s given what was previously assumed to be required. I’m also unsure how this gels with RAN’s ‘revised threat assessments’ for this class and how such a decision might be reconciled with our leaders oft-repeated statements about our deteriorating security environments...

I cannot for the life of me believe RAN has decided that the Arafura’s now need less firepower than they did when the 40mm gun was selected back in around 2017, but given the absolute glacial pace they seem to have decided is adequate for weapons and combat systems upgrades across the RAN fleet, again despite the ‘drums of war are beating’ warnings from our own Defmin, perhaps that is the case…

Will be interesting to observe I should think…

 

[Todjaeger]

IMO I think there is a bit of a move away from standardization to capability within the ADF.

While I am a big fan of standardization where possible, and valuing standardization over getting niche capability, capability has value.
Supporting different guns isn't impossible for a country like Australia.

AFAIK the 30mm guns were going to be something like the DS30mm gun on the Type 26's. DS30B are used on the Huon mine hunters. The bushmaster 30mm II has ~70% commonality with the 25mm gun, so while they are different, they aren't completely orphaned systems.

The first few OPV's were mentioned to be fitted with the 25mm, but the Huon guns would also be available, I don't think it would be impossible for them to be fitted with a 30mm, at least initially. I presume the mount is basically the same?

With regards to the 30mm in the DS30B mounting as used aboard the Huon-class MHC, that is quite a bit different from, and AFAIK also quite a bit larger, heavier and more robust, than the Typhoon mountings that the 25mm Bushmasters are fitted to aboard the Armidale-class patrol boats. One thing to note about the mountings aboard the MHC's is that they are of the locally-controlled, LOCSIG type, which if I understand it correctly means that the gun is crewed/manned, as opposed to controlled remotely from elsewhere within the vessel. Such a crewing requirement could present a response time problem for engagement which could occur in high threat areas. Another key point is that the MHC's 30mm gun is the Oerlikon KCB 30mm/75 gun, which IMO has greater potential value for naval use than Mk 46 30mm Bushmaster II. The difference being the value of a higher ROF in defending vs. aerial threats, with the guns having notional ROF's of 650 and 250 RPM respectively.

Now if a small calibre, rapid fire gun that has a decent sized magazine with multiple ammo feeds loaded with different types of advanced munitions options, then such a gun/mounting combination would enable a RAN warship so fitted to have another anti-surface/smallcraft/FAC weapon, as well as an additional response for aerial threats. Even with the Hunter-class to be fitted with Mk 15 Phalanx 20mm CIWS (rated effective out to ~1.5km) I would also rather they have an additional set of rapid fire guns which could be effective out to ~2.75km in an AA role.

 

[ddxx]

In regards to the shipbuilding plan, and Hunter's well-known timeline changes, I'm trying to understand how continuous shipbuilding is possible given this and known fleet size? Ship One is now scheduled for Delivery in 2031, with the delay to be recovered by Ship Four which was originally scheduled for late 2034. (source)

Even if then the remaining five hunters and 3 future Hobart replacements are then built on a two-year drumbeat, there's a significant gap of time remaining before Hunter's replacement is required (assuming a 25 year service life). That gap becomes even more significant if you assume a 30 year service life.

I'd be interested in others thoughts as I can't quite see how this all works from a continuous shipbuilding perspective without additional hulls being built? Am I missing something here?

 

[ngatimozart]

In regards to the shipbuilding plan, and Hunter's well-known timeline changes, I'm trying to understand how continuous shipbuilding is possible given this and known fleet size? Ship One is now scheduled for Delivery in 2031, with the delay to be recovered by Ship Four which was originally scheduled for late 2034. (source)

Even if then the remaining five hunters and 3 future Hobart replacements are then built on a two-year drumbeat, there's a significant gap of time remaining before Hunter's replacement is required (assuming a 25 year service life). That gap becomes even more significant if you assume a 30 year service life.

I'd be interested in others thoughts as I can't quite see how this all works from a continuous shipbuilding perspective without additional hulls being built? Am I missing something here?

I think if you read back through the drumbeat allows for a service life of around 25 years because of the of the time to introduce each new block into service. Furthermore the AWD replacement would be at the end of the Hunter build and if they used their brains they would build at least four, maybe five AWD which could be a variant of the Hunter Class., or a completely new design. At the present point in time it's difficult to forecast intentions that far ahead with any degree of certainty.

 

[ddxx]

I think if you read back through the drumbeat allows for a service life of around 25 years because of the of the time to introduce each new block into service. Furthermore the AWD replacement would be at the end of the Hunter build and if they used their brains they would build at least four, maybe five AWD which could be a variant of the Hunter Class., or a completely new design. At the present point in time it's difficult to forecast intentions that far ahead with any degree of certainty.

To avoid significant workforce contraction, the AWD replacement would have to begin construction alongside the final Hunters to allow for a continuous shipbuilding drumbeat. E.g. If the drumbeat is 24 months, the first AWD replacement would require delivery 24 months after the last Hunter is delivered.

The 'continuous shipbuilding' line just doesn't seem to be supported by planned fleet numbers?