Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Mikeymike]

What I think is interesting is that if Australia had something similar to the force structure proposed in 1911 by Admiral Sir Reginal Henderson (when Australia had a population of ~4m) the Australian Navy would be in a much better place than today. These figures also seem close to what was proposed at the end of the cold war.



e.g. what that would look like today:

- 8 Anti-Air Destroyers (Hobart)
- 10 Anti-Sub Frigates (Hunter)
- 18 Corvettes or GP frigates
- 8-12 Submarines

Plus additional logistics and supply ships.

 

[Redlands18]

What I think is interesting is that if Australia had something similar to the force structure proposed in 1911 by Admiral Sir Reginal Henderson (when Australia had a population of ~4m) the Australian Navy would be in a much better place than today. These figures also seem close to what was proposed at the end of the cold war.

View attachment 49771

e.g. what that would look like today:

- 8 Anti-Air Destroyers (Hobart)
- 10 Anti-Sub Frigates (Hunter)
- 18 Corvettes or GP frigates
- 8-12 Submarines

Plus additional logistics and supply ships.

Proposing Protected Cruisers in 1911? They were an obsolete concept long before 1911, not fast enough to catch Destroyers, totally outmatched by the Light Cruisers entering service. The last RN Protected Cruisers built were the Active class, 3500t and 10x4in Guns but at the same time the RN was building Town class Cruisers (including 4 for the RAN) 5400t and 8x6in Guns. The Emden was 4200t and had a similar armament to the Active's and she was totally outclassed by the Sydney.
That force structure would not have survived the Washington Naval Treaty anyway. All the Cruisers would have been obsolete and in need of replacement and Australia only got permission for 2x8in Cruisers and we lost our Battlecruiser.

 

[icelord]

Arafura will not transfer to ABF.

They would he moved to Hydro and MCM roles with Modules utilised. Everyone seems to have forgotten in this frantic few months the start of the year discussion was 12 +6 for these roles.

The Navy and ABF conduct joint patrols of the Northern EEZ. RAN will continue this role for many years. ABF union strikes over their early formation years made sure of it.

The new Enhanced Capes might be transferred further down the line, or did we forget about those as well.

Stop trying to turn the Minor War vessel fleet into Indian Ocean task force, its a waste of oxygen. The RAN will have a Major fleet and a Minor fleet.

For some unknown reason someone went out and said the Arafura was unsuitable for combat...which is why they are not used for combat. Never was their intention, fisheries and refugees was the plan. Having filled 176 people on a Armidale, I can assure you Arafura would be fantastic in Op Sovereign Borders roles.

Absence of information makes unqualified people speculate. People not involved in AUKUS were the first to complain about it as they didnt get invite to the party, same goes for SDR.

If the SDR proposes a light frigate/GP Frigate/Corvette then it will go to Tender. This fantasy of Lurssen just building K130 is Bullshit, plain and simple.

Defence has gone to great lengths to prevent random purchases without scrutiny. Yes its a hassle to get Projects approved, but they demand a solid Business Case for any purchase. You approach them, without Tender, without technical design, without workforce plans, without basing plans, without weapons system prepared or able to be implemented with low risk then you are pissing in the wind.

Alot of Tenders will come out of SDR, building a K130 without competition is definitely not one of them.

 

[Volkodav]

Arafura will not transfer to ABF.

They would he moved to Hydro and MCM roles with Modules utilised. Everyone seems to have forgotten in this frantic few months the start of the year discussion was 12 +6 for these roles.

The Navy and ABF conduct joint patrols of the Northern EEZ. RAN will continue this role for many years. ABF union strikes over their early formation years made sure of it.

The new Enhanced Capes might be transferred further down the line, or did we forget about those as well.

Stop trying to turn the Minor War vessel fleet into Indian Ocean task force, its a waste of oxygen. The RAN will have a Major fleet and a Minor fleet.

For some unknown reason someone went out and said the Arafura was unsuitable for combat...which is why they are not used for combat. Never was their intention, fisheries and refugees was the plan. Having filled 176 people on a Armidale, I can assure you Arafura would be fantastic in Op Sovereign Borders roles.

Absence of information makes unqualified people speculate. People not involved in AUKUS were the first to complain about it as they didnt get invite to the party, same goes for SDR.

If the SDR proposes a light frigate/GP Frigate/Corvette then it will go to Tender. This fantasy of Lurssen just building K130 is Bullshit, plain and simple.

Defence has gone to great lengths to prevent random purchases without scrutiny. Yes its a hassle to get Projects approved, but they demand a solid Business Case for any purchase. You approach them, without Tender, without technical design, without workforce plans, without basing plans, without weapons system prepared or able to be implemented with low risk then you are pissing in the wind.

Alot of Tenders will come out of SDR, building a K130 without competition is definitely not one of them.

That said there have been captains picks on F/A-18F/G, Apache, Blackhawk, Evolved Capes etc. Infact the volume of work that goes to Austal with little if any scrutiny never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Mikeymike]

Proposing Protected Cruisers in 1911? They were an obsolete concept long before 1911, not fast enough to catch Destroyers, totally outmatched by the Light Cruisers entering service.

I believe when he refers to protected cruisers he means light cruisers as he also states the below and they were building light cruisers to fit this fleet unit.



My point was more that even though Australia is more than 5 times larger population wise yet the RAN would still be served better by a fleet structure that mirrored one from 111 years ago.

The minimum numbers determined during the post-cold war peace dividend, i.e. no China threat, were 8 or 9 tier 1, 8 tier 2 and 12 tier 3. So 16 to 17 destroyers and frigates and a dozen corvettes with Harpoon, ESSM and Penguin armed Super Sea Sprites.

As well, as per Volk's figures for the post-cold war structure it seems a similar number of fleet units to the one proposed in 1911.

This indicates to me that this is the number and size for the "ideal" peacetime RAN as Australia's geography hasn't changed. The RAN is well below these figures today and we are heading into a worse strategic outlook.

 

[Volkodav]

Proposing Protected Cruisers in 1911? They were an obsolete concept long before 1911, not fast enough to catch Destroyers, totally outmatched by the Light Cruisers entering service. The last RN Protected Cruisers built were the Active class, 3500t and 10x4in Guns but at the same time the RN was building Town class Cruisers (including 4 for the RAN) 5400t and 8x6in Guns. The Emden was 4200t and had a similar armament to the Active's and she was totally outclassed by the Sydney.
That force structure would not have survived the Washington Naval Treaty anyway. All the Cruisers would have been obsolete and in need of replacement and Australia only got permission for 2x8in Cruisers and we lost our Battlecruiser.

Looking at the numbers and roles there is actually a point.

In the days of sail and into the Victoria era of steam ironclads then the steel ships such as Warrior, there were Ships of the Line, which became battleships, while the smaller, usually fast ships, collectively known as cruisers.

The cruisers were divided by size and capability, into frigates, sloops and corvettes. They carried out scouting, trade protection, policing, duties around the world. It was these ships that evolved into armoured cruiser, protected cruiser of various rates and then Battle cruisers, light cruisers and smaller fleet cruisers of WWI.

Destroyers were initially torpedo boat destroyers, a counter to torpedo boats while submarines back then were basically submersible torpedo boats.

Extrapolating this the armoured cruisers which were recast as battlecruisers in the updated plan are now the high end AEGIS frigates and destroyers, the protected cruisers correlate to GP frigates, and destroyers to corvettes.

As for numbers as a rule of thumb three ships give you one available all the time, five gives you two, and eight gives you three. Extrapolating this ten gives you four available while the eighteen destroyers equates to two eight ship flotillas, each with a leader.

 

[Bob53]

Deleted as my response to Redlands was repeated in subsequent posts.

 

[Volkodav]

Arafura will not transfer to ABF.

They would he moved to Hydro and MCM roles with Modules utilised. Everyone seems to have forgotten in this frantic few months the start of the year discussion was 12 +6 for these roles.

The Navy and ABF conduct joint patrols of the Northern EEZ. RAN will continue this role for many years. ABF union strikes over their early formation years made sure of it.

The new Enhanced Capes might be transferred further down the line, or did we forget about those as well.

Stop trying to turn the Minor War vessel fleet into Indian Ocean task force, its a waste of oxygen. The RAN will have a Major fleet and a Minor fleet.

For some unknown reason someone went out and said the Arafura was unsuitable for combat...which is why they are not used for combat. Never was their intention, fisheries and refugees was the plan. Having filled 176 people on a Armidale, I can assure you Arafura would be fantastic in Op Sovereign Borders roles.

Absence of information makes unqualified people speculate. People not involved in AUKUS were the first to complain about it as they didnt get invite to the party, same goes for SDR.

If the SDR proposes a light frigate/GP Frigate/Corvette then it will go to Tender. This fantasy of Lurssen just building K130 is Bullshit, plain and simple.

Defence has gone to great lengths to prevent random purchases without scrutiny. Yes its a hassle to get Projects approved, but they demand a solid Business Case for any purchase. You approach them, without Tender, without technical design, without workforce plans, without basing plans, without weapons system prepared or able to be implemented with low risk then you are pissing in the wind.

Alot of Tenders will come out of SDR, building a K130 without competition is definitely not one of them.

My initial response may have come across as dismissive. I know your background and where you are coming from and agree with much of what you say.

What I also know is the angst suffered when the strategic situation changes to the degree that the assumptions made when a capability was acquired no longer apply. It's extremely frustrating trying to bodge additional capability onto a restricted platform when it was never designed for it, even worse when the capability was initially specified but cut as being unnecessary.

The original Fremantle class replacement, the Transfield corvette, would have been more capable than the K130, with a steel hull, it would have much more durable so no need for an interim replacement, a near term permanent replacement, or an upgrade.

 

[icelord]

My initial response may have come across as dismissive. I know your background and where you are coming from and agree with much of what you say.

What I also know is the angst suffered when the strategic situation changes to the degree that the assumptions made when a capability was acquired no longer apply. It's extremely frustrating trying to bodge additional capability onto a restricted platform when it was never designed for it, even worse when the capability was initially specified but cut as being unnecessary.

The original Fremantle class replacement, the Transfield corvette, would have been more capable than the K130, with a steel hull, it would have much more durable so no need for an interim replacement, a near term permanent replacement, or an upgrade.

All good, I would have preferred the Corvette for Op Resolute then jamming people on Armidales.

We have discussed many times the lack of foresight with certain vessel purchases. Im of the mind that a gap is now formed, where Corvette to replace Fremantles was a direct replacement in 2000s. Now, Capes replace Armidales and a new class can be formed that is not directly for SIEV patrol.

Whether thats Frigates or Corvettes, will be up to RAN assessment.

 

[Stampede]

All good, I would have preferred the Corvette for Op Resolute then jamming people on Armidales.

We have discussed many times the lack of foresight with certain vessel purchases. Im of the mind that a gap is now formed, where Corvette to replace Fremantles was a direct replacement in 2000s. Now, Capes replace Armidales and a new class can be formed that is not directly for SIEV patrol.

Whether thats Frigates or Corvettes, will be up to RAN assessment.

Hats off to you and the crew dealing with the anxiety,expectations and needs of 176 people on such a small vessel.
Certainly a challenge for an 80m OPV, yet alone an Armidale PB.

I can hear your frustration with the conversation.

Maybe in part its about what label we put on all the vessels within the fleet and as such our expectation of them.
We live in uncertain times, so in broad terms I believe we need to be much more flexible in how we use our assets.
Just because it's painted Navy grey does not make it a warship; I get it!
But at the same time it doesn't make it completely impotent.

All vessels should be able to make a contribution to a "certain level of threat ". There are many, many scenarios under the threat level of taking on the Amarda in high end warfighting that need a response.
Opportunity should be explored across all our vessels big and small to enhance their potential in time of conflict and in peace.
Flexibility is key to having options.
Options are amplified by capitalizing and enhancing what you have!

As to the OPV's, we are certain to build at least 12 and maybe more if the survey / MCM option goes ahead.
Regardless of corvette / destroyer combo's, we will get a minimum of 12 large 80 m OPV vessels.

It would be a waste of such an asset if we pigeon hole this vessel in the I only do constabulary roles camp and therefore cannot do anything else.

They are better than that and potentially much ,much better than that.
They need to be, because they many well be tested while doing their constabulary stuff in this changing world to a "certain level of threat."
By the nature of their work they will be on our front line and vulnerable.
The majors cannot escort everything or be everywhere.


At the end of the day the ADF does not have that many assets across the services.

Everything that fly's / floats and drives counts.

Cheers S

PS - Thanks for your service and input.

 

[Redlands18]

Labor reveals new defence budget - Australian Defence Magazine
Labor has announced funding for Sea 3033 phase 5, $155m for an Undersea Support Vessel to support trials and integration of undersea warfare and surveillance systems. This Vessel will also host small teams and offboard optionally crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems.

 

[hauritz]

Probably something off the shelf for that price. Actually the Pacific Support Vessel would be close to what they would need.
It occurs to me that when Australia is ready to adopt a fleet of uncrewed systems it may eventually need a small flotilla of these kinds of vessels.

 

[seaspear]

Previously in this forum was the discussion of the difficulties of tracking naval ships at sea because of the amount of distance and other merchant shipping ,this article suggests that for some time satellites have been designed to track naval ships by their particular radars ,this is an old article and it could be expected that capabilities may be more advanced

The Space Review: Shipkillers: from satellite to shooter at sea

www.thespacereview.com

 

[ASSAIL]

Previously in this forum was the discussion of the difficulties of tracking naval ships at sea because of the amount of distance and other merchant shipping ,this article suggests that for some time satellites have been designed to track naval ships by their particular radars ,this is an old article and it could be expected that capabilities may be more advanced

The Space Review: Shipkillers: from satellite to shooter at sea

www.thespacereview.com

That review is old enough for even me to be familiar with those sensors and weapons.
It’s a simplistic assumption that warships will be steaming around with all emitters burning and turning which, with a disciplined force, simply doesn’t happen.
EMCON - Emission Control policies and enforcement is an integral part of operating. Ships can stay silent and use info transmitted from remote sources and encrypted broadcasts, ships together use visual signalling so it’s likely that full suites of emitters remain silent until combat is joined.
I don’t suggest that space based ears are useless, simply that they can be made less useful by a disciplined force.

 

[STURM]

ships together use visual signalling so it’s likely that full suites of emitters remain silent until combat is joined.

Navies still use visual signalling [just like how signals units in armies still maintain the ability to use Morse] but ultimately if a group of ships is on EMCON for an extended period; do C3 issues arise?

 

[spoz]

If the shooting has started or is about to, yes. Otherwise not really. And up links to western military satellites are really hard to detect.

But there are also all sorts of other deceptive tactics employed; as well as such things as LPI radars being available. As usual, attack/defence are in a dance, with first one then the other leading. Plus, information has to be conveyed from a sensor to shooter and that introduces time delays, which can be significant when mobile units are involved; and offer opportunities to disrupt the kill chain. The sky is not falling.

 

[Morgo]

The sky is not falling.

Or maybe it is, if you have a few SM-3s and it’s raining satellite debris!

I have wondered why we haven’t sought to acquire and integrate a small number of SM-3s on the Hobarts for anti satellite duties.

I imagine it is some combination of getting SM-6 / Tomahawks integrated first, the threat not being sufficient to justify the cost, CEA radars not being right for the job or there being alternative ASAT capabilities in the pipeline (perhaps a follow on once LAND 19 is complete).

 

[DDG38]

Fleet happenings :
"HMAS Arunta sails in company with ROK Cheonjaong while conducting officer of the watch manoeuvres as part of a Regional Presence Deployment."
Image Source : ADF Image Library

"Australian Defence Vessel Reliant alongside at Betio port in Kiribati to unload disaster relief stores." Image Source : ADF Image Library

"HMAS Hobart sails through rough weather during a transit through the Luzon Strait as a part of a Regional Presence Deployment." Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[buffy9]

Fleet happenings :
"HMAS Arunta sails in company with ROK Cheonjaong while conducting officer of the watch manoeuvres as part of a Regional Presence Deployment."
Image Source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 49818
"Australian Defence Vessel Reliant alongside at Betio port in Kiribati to unload disaster relief stores." Image Source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 49819
"HMAS Hobart sails through rough weather during a transit through the Luzon Strait as a part of a Regional Presence Deployment." Image Source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 49820

Just to add to the image of ADV Reliant, there is a video uploaded as well:

A fairly quick turn into operating. Can't really identify the makeup of the crew (Teekay or service) though a RAN figure is shown, and there are two figures in black overalls at the 0:44 mark who may be Teekay. I suspect the crane operator would also be, considering quals.

The two LCVP on the back appear to give it some SSC ability, with with each lifting 7t full load. I'm not familiar with the procedures, but could it be expected that the crane could lift cargo onto a larger external SSC (L8710?).

Not a bad ship, and doing officially what it was purchased for with short-notice.

 

[alexsa]

Just to add to the image of ADV Reliant, there is a video uploaded as well:

A fairly quick turn into operating. Can't really identify the makeup of the crew (Teekay or service) though a RAN figure is shown, and there are two figures in black overalls at the 0:44 mark who may be Teekay. I suspect the crane operator would also be, considering quals.

The two LCVP on the back appear to give it some SSC ability, with with each lifting 7t full load. I'm not familiar with the procedures, but could it be expected that the crane could lift cargo onto a larger external SSC (L8710?).

Not a bad ship, and doing officially what it was purchased for with short-notice.

It looks to be a heave compensated crane designed for offshore work it 'should' allow cargo to be transferred at sea ..... but, this generally to a fixed platform as heave compenstated cranes cannot compensate for the movement of the receiving platform or ship. In calm conditions it would be quite useful.