Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Flexson]

A couple of articles I’ve seen quote the crew size of the Supply Class being quite a bit higher at 174. This figure sounded a bit ridiculous to me, so I do hope you’re right.

122 is what wiki quotes. It's a copy of the Cantabria wiki page. Having served on both Supply and Stalwart I can guarantee it's wrong. At 122 we would not be able to watchkeep and conduct organic level maintenance or conduct damage control IAW RAN philosophies. I would listen to what CAPT Hissink quotes.

 

[Todjaeger]

122 is what wiki quotes. It's a copy of the Cantabria wiki page. Having served on both Supply and Stalwart I can guarantee it's wrong. At 122 we would not be able to watchkeep and conduct organic level maintenance or conduct damage control IAW RAN philosophies. I would listen to what CAPT Hissink quotes.

Having doublechecked, yeah it appears to be a C&P. Nothing mentioned on the RAN page either for the actual crew requirements.

I would be interested in finding out how/where the US Military Sealift Command does things differently vs. how the RAN crews AOR's., with the potential for either to learn from the other.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Who on earth is trading an ANZAC for a corvette?

It gets back a couple of pages.

Actually to crew three AWDs and 6 light frigates they may well have to pay off the entire ANZAC fleet.

This is the “corvette” Navantia are proposing, though in reality it’s a light frigate… Crewing will be interesting, unless their proposal includes cancelling the OPV fleet and paying off at least some of the ANZAC fleet…

So I was just exploring the idea, and clarifying that it gains very little for a huge expense of time and money. I think ASPI had also had someone put forward a similar idea, I think Marcus was putting forward Corvettes for Anzacs. If we are trading existing things for new things, the new things have to be much more capable.

The elephant in the room is we never replaced the DDGs, then replaced six FFGs with three FFGs but called them destroyers.

This is absolutely critical. Except you missed out the bit where there were going to be four new FFG's, but we only built three. But this is the heart of the break down of the RAN, that and everything that has happened since the 80's losing the carrier and our focus. Everything has just been whittled away. Compared that to the early 70's. This collapse of the RAN was and still is happening with Sydney commissioning in 2020. Really we should have kept HMAS Newcastle until a 4th ship was build to replace her.

Now when we, and but we I mean the west, all our allies, really need the RAN to deter, we have none, none of the capabilities we need. It is Australia's failure, and we are failing our allies and friends.

The US can't blockade Malacca. We have to. We can't. So deterring China will fail. So war is inevitable. Millions will die because of underfunding, incompetence and lack of strategic awareness.

 

[ddxx]

So I was just exploring the idea, and clarifying that it gains very little for a huge expense of time and money. I think ASPI had also had someone put forward a similar idea, I think Marcus was putting forward Corvettes for Anzacs. If we are trading existing things for new things, the new things have to be much more capable.

That's the weird part - on one hand they advocate for intercontinental stealth bombers (Forward Defence / Power Projection Asset) and on the other hand they advocate for Corvettes (Defence of Australia / Local Littoral Asset). Feels like kids in a candy shop sometimes ...

In the media, all discussions around the potential 'corvettes' has been framed as being in addition to, not instead of Hunters/Hobarts and/or more high-end Large Surface Combatants.

Corvettes, at least in my opinion, would be a significant mistake and a substantial missed opportunity to truly expand our regional presence and further strengthen our key regional relationships.

Especially when you consider a 'corvette' or 'light frigate' with a similar weapons fit to a GP Frigate is going to require both a similar crew size and a similar upfront cost - yet without the range or endurance to properly fill the regional presence role, let alone the capacity for adaption to unforeseeable future requirements. Remember how hard it was to adapt Anzac, primarily because her relatively small hull?

Anzac's range of 6,000 nmi at 18 knots and an endurance of 36 days needs to be the minimum requirement for any new second-tier type - just as it was when Anzac was first selected for the regional presence function decades ago.

 

[hauritz]

For a brief period of time the RAN had three distinct classes of warship.

It had the Perth class DDG, Adelaide FFGs and the new ANZAC patrol frigates. Then the Perths were paid off without any immediate replacement. The navy looked a couple of options such as buying some second hand Kidd class destroyers from the US, but in the end settled on upgrading the Adelaides and then up gunning the ANZACs to cover for the FFGs. This was pretty much a gerry rigged short term fix until the Hobarts came along. The FFGs were also paid off at around the same time the Hobarts entered service.

This brings me to my argument that the new Hunter class is effectively a replacement for the role originally filled by the Adelaide FFGs. The replacement of the ANZACs, or more precisely their original role of Patrol Frigate has yet to be addressed. All this talk of a corvette/light frigate is really just redressing that requirement. What Australia actually needs is a long range partrol frigate, not some short legged, underarmed corvette.

I am hoping this is properly addressed in the DSR and that a proper definition and selection process follows. I know that this process is time sensitive and the DSR is looking at solutions that can be applied in a 10 year timeframe up to 2032 but I do believe we also need to get it right. Personally I think the RAN needs something akin to the original ANZAC frigate concept.

 

[Volkodav]

It gets back a couple of pages.

My bad, I realised after I posted.

I had to start up my old junker laptop to Citrix into work while my work machine is being fixed and it popped open on that comment. While I was going through the log in fun.

I must admit thinking, FMD are we still on this, but I'm sort of used to it at work, everytime you think you've put something to bed there it is again wanting a glass of Milo.

 

[Volkodav]

Sorry guys, history lesson time.

From 1948 until 1982 the RAN was built around carriers. Initially two, then after defence cuts in the mid 50s (ironically just after they had proven themselves in combat), one.

The capability was great but very expensive with an opportunity cost on other needed capabilities. For instance the post war fleet was to have included new light cruisers, as well as roughly double the number of destroyers and frigates.

In the 1960s it was determined the RAN needed submarines, light destroyers (basically sloops) and patrol boats to supplement the existing fleet. This was part of plans to evolve the RAN into a two ocean navy. This ideally would have had three light carriers, 23 destroyers and frigates, and eight submarines, to provide a realistic, usable capability on each coast.

The submarines and patrol boats were acquired, but only six instead of eight subs, as the funding for the last two was diverted to new / additional aircraft for the FAA. The light destroyers evolved into the DDL, numbers dropped from ten, to help bring combatant numbers up to 23, to just three to replace the Daring Class destroyers.

The DDL program was cancelled in the early 70s and the first two FFGs were ordered instead.

As we know the one for one carrier replacement fell over. This was meant to trigger an increase in combatant numbers, especially as the two ocean navy had proceeded but without the required numbers.

The fleet initially, with a carrier was meant look like, one carrier, three DDG, up to ten FFG, maybe or maybe not six DE or their replacements (Type 23 ASW frigate?), fifteen PBs, five PB based FAC.

This evolved into the Dibb review / White paper fleet of three DDG and six FFG, in tier 1, six DE to be reclassified as patrol frigates and then replaced by eight new patrol frigates in tier 2, and about twelve missile armed, helicopter equipped light combatants to replace the PBs in tier 3. Plus eight submarines.

Also the training vessel / auxillary transport, Jervis Bay was to be replaced by an aviation support and training ship with a secondary amphibious role. Tobruk was to be retained.

Basically the surface fleet shrank from its planned post war level to accommodate the overheads of carriers, then when the last carrier went in the early 80s, every attempt to increase numbers failed. In fact, the already too low numbers were reduced further and this became the status quo.

 

[Stampede]

Sorry guys, history lesson time.

From 1948 until 1982 the RAN was built around carriers. Initially two, then after defence cuts in the mid 50s (ironically just after they had proven themselves in combat), one.

The capability was great but very expensive with an opportunity cost on other needed capabilities. For instance the post war fleet was to have included new light cruisers, as well as roughly double the number of destroyers and frigates.

In the 1960s it was determined the RAN needed submarines, light destroyers (basically sloops) and patrol boats to supplement the existing fleet. This was part of plans to evolve the RAN into a two ocean navy. This ideally would have had three light carriers, 23 destroyers and frigates, and eight submarines, to provide a realistic, usable capability on each coast.

The submarines and patrol boats were acquired, but only six instead of eight subs, as the funding for the last two was diverted to new / additional aircraft for the FAA. The light destroyers evolved into the DDL, numbers dropped from ten, to help bring combatant numbers up to 23, to just three to replace the Daring Class destroyers.

The DDL program was cancelled in the early 70s and the first two FFGs were ordered instead.

As we know the one for one carrier replacement fell over. This was meant to trigger an increase in combatant numbers, especially as the two ocean navy had proceeded but without the required numbers.

The fleet initially, with a carrier was meant look like, one carrier, three DDG, up to ten FFG, maybe or maybe not six DE or their replacements (Type 23 ASW frigate?), fifteen PBs, five PB based FAC.

This evolved into the Dibb review / White paper fleet of three DDG and six FFG, in tier 1, six DE to be reclassified as patrol frigates and then replaced by eight new patrol frigates in tier 2, and about twelve missile armed, helicopter equipped light combatants to replace the PBs in tier 3. Plus eight submarines.

Also the training vessel / auxillary transport, Jervis Bay was to be replaced by an aviation support and training ship with a secondary amphibious role. Tobruk was to be retained.

Basically the surface fleet shrank from its planned post war level to accommodate the overheads of carriers, then when the last carrier went in the early 80s, every attempt to increase numbers failed. In fact, the already too low numbers were reduced further and this became the status quo.

This one.

"twelve missile armed, helicopter equipped light combatants to replace the PBs in tier 3."

This was close to getting up.
We purchased the Super Seasprite helicopters for the intended Corvette / OPV / light patrol vessel role, complete with the Penguin ASM.
A joint venture with Malaysia fell through, we got cold feet and off loaded the helicopters onto the new ANZAC's and decided all we needed was a "boat" to do the constabulary stuff.
Some good vessel concepts were in hand.

A lost opportunity!

The DSR will indeed be very interesting.

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

At the end of WWII the RAN had a fleet (active service and reserve) of two heavy and one light cruisers, three large (Tribal class) and five fleet (Q class) destroyers, twelve frigates (4 Bay and 8 River class), and a couple of dozen Bathurst class corvettes. There were two Battle class large destroyers under obstruction, four Daring class planned, as well as aspirations for a new class of light cruiser to be built in Australia.

That is 23 cruisers destroyers and frigates. Interesting that figure keeps coming up.

 

[Stampede]

At the end of WWII the RAN had a fleet (active service and reserve) of two heavy and one light cruisers, three large (Tribal class) and five fleet (Q class) destroyers, twelve frigates (4 Bay and 8 River class), and a couple of dozen Bathurst class corvettes. There were two Battle class large destroyers under obstruction, four Daring class planned, as well as aspirations for a new class of light cruiser to be built in Australia.

That is 23 cruisers destroyers and frigates. Interesting that figure keeps coming up.

In 1945 we had a population of around 7 million.

Today, 26 million and we are challenged with recruitment.

I trust we find some answers to crew our future fleet.

Cheers S

 

[south]

At the end of WWII the RAN had a fleet (active service and reserve) of two heavy and one light cruisers, three large (Tribal class) and five fleet (Q class) destroyers, twelve frigates (4 Bay and 8 River class), and a couple of dozen Bathurst class corvettes. There were two Battle class large destroyers under obstruction, four Daring class planned, as well as aspirations for a new class of light cruiser to be built in Australia.

That is 23 cruisers destroyers and frigates. Interesting that figure keeps coming up.

Australia also had the 4th largest Air Force in the world, with 6200 aircraft, placing us behind the US, the UK and the Russians.

Maybe that’s what we need to get back to?

 

[swerve]

Australia also had the 4th largest Air Force in the world, with 6200 aircraft, placing us behind the US, the UK and the Russians.

Bigger than the RCAF? That had more personnel, though it was winding down by the end of the war, with the training of personnel for other air forces having closed down (there was a surplus), there being few u-boats left to chase, etc. Or was it "more but smaller" aircraft? The RCAF had a lot of 4-engine bombers & ASW aircraft.

World's 4th largest air force

 

[south]

Bigger than the RCAF? That had more personnel, though it was winding down by the end of the war, with the training of personnel for other air forces having closed down (there was a surplus), there being few u-boats left to chase, etc. Or was it "more but smaller" aircraft? The RCAF had a lot of 4-engine bombers & ASW aircraft.

World's 4th largest air force

Both are correct… but that’s not really the point is it.. the point would be that using numerical metrics established at the end of the largest conflict the world has ever seen, to define fighting establishments ~80 years later, is probably clutching at straws a little…

 

[Volkodav]

Australia also had the 4th largest Air Force in the world, with 6200 aircraft, placing us behind the US, the UK and the Russians.

Maybe that’s what we need to get back to?

This was the wound down RAN.

It didn't have the planned carriers yet, nor the new Squadron from the UK proposed to form it's post war core, carrier, two new cruisers, six destroyers, and the proposal that Australia take over Implacable and Indefatigable never got traction.

It was not that much larger in size and numbers to the prewar fleet with two heavy and four light cruisers, five destroyers and four sloops (two under construction). Only got three of the planned eight Tribal class large destroyers, however did crew five N class fleet destroyers for the RN (returned post war) and a couple of the Q class that were later permanently transfered with others. The heavy cruiser Shropshire was transfered to the RAN to replace Canberra. Menzies prewar desire to build a battleship never went anywhere.

The big difference was the wartime construction of the Bathursts, Rivers and Bays, all war emergency designs that were functionally obsolete but the mid to late 50s (if not earlier). The RANs equivalent to the Wirraway, Boomerang and Beaufort, useful, definately better than nothing, but not the high end gear that would have been prefered. There were also large numbers of Fairmile motor boats (basically PBs).

The post war RAAF was interesting. My understanding was it was meant to progressively adopt a permanent structure of two long range fighter squadrons (or was it three), a tactical fighter reconnaissance squadron, five interceptor (functionally the RAAF reserve but integrated with predominantly regular and only some reserve members), two heavy bomber, one general reconnaissance bomber, place transport squadrons.

A change of government, followed by Korea changed this.

The army got it worst of all, it's postwar structure was meant to be built around an armoured brigade with five regiments of Centurions, supporting mech/motor infantry, SP artillery and engineers supported by two identically structured reserve brigades with Comets instead of Centurions.

Overall the RAAF probably came closest to meeting it's proposed structure with post war acquisitions of new equipment, before being impacted by not get the full replacement of the replacements in the 50s and 60s. The RAN quickly shrunk as prewar equipment retired, followed by the wartime construction, while very few of the required new ships were ever acquired. The poor army had to make do with mostly left over wartime equipment until it's partial modernisation in the late 50s, early 60s.

 

[swerve]

When Australia first got Beauforts it was probably the best torpedo bomber the UK could supply. The Beaufighter was better, but it couldn't have been put into production in Australia, or delivered from the UK, as early as the Beaufort. It would have been better to switch to Beaufighter production much earlier, though, if possible.

 

[Volkodav]

When Australia first got Beauforts it was probably the best torpedo bomber the UK could supply. The Beaufighter was better, but it couldn't have been put into production in Australia, or delivered from the UK, as early as the Beaufort. It would have been better to switch to Beaufighter production much earlier, though, if possible.

Sorry I should have specified mid to late war when the RAAF was reequiping various squadrons using attack, light and medium bombers. It made sense in terms of standardisation, training and support.

The Beaufort was available, as well as still perfectly good enough, but no longer the best. Hence using it as analogy to the Bays and Rivers.

Beaufort was retired quickly as more modern capable types were available, while the ships on the other hand were retained and not replaced.

Also, due to the nature of wartime production the RAAF ended the war much larger and more capable, with far more high end capabilities. Think Mustangs, Mosquitos, Liberators, Beaufighters, etc. Vampire and Lincoln just around the corner.

The RAN on the other hand had lost half its cruisers, replacing one with an equivalent, and had built three large destroyers of prewar design and had two of a new design on order.

This is an example of fighting with what you have, something the RAAF now faces as aircraft have become far more complex and time consuming to build.

 

[Tbone]

I mentioned it before on this forum but didn’t really get any further information and hoping the experts on here could enlighten me on the MCM Vessels the RAN are acquiring.

my limited knowledge is that 8 vessels are to be built following the 12 Arafura class vessels which currently 6have either been completed or in production.

what I have read is that in 2021 the government down selected-a variant of the Arafura class OPV.

my question is say the opv 80 is the hull to be used is the MCM vessel just using modular shipping containers to spec out the vessel for this role or will significant redesigns be needed for the MCM class?

could the current Arafura class OPV be handed to the mine hunting crews to preform their duties and hydrographic operations be undertaken by these 6 OPV’s that have been built or in production?

like to get a better understanding of these MCM vessels as not much info around.

 

[ddxx]

I mentioned it before on this forum but didn’t really get any further information and hoping the experts on here could enlighten me on the MCM Vessels the RAN are acquiring.

my limited knowledge is that 8 vessels are to be built following the 12 Arafura class vessels which currently 6have either been completed or in production.

what I have read is that in 2021 the government down selected-a variant of the Arafura class OPV.

my question is say the opv 80 is the hull to be used is the MCM vessel just using modular shipping containers to spec out the vessel for this role or will significant redesigns be needed for the MCM class?

could the current Arafura class OPV be handed to the mine hunting crews to preform their duties and hydrographic operations be undertaken by these 6 OPV’s that have been built or in production?

like to get a better understanding of these MCM vessels as not much info around.

That’s all really up in the air until things are clarified by the Defence Strategic Review.

In my personal opinion, I think the UK has it right in utilising flexible OSVs as motherships for the same kinds of autonomous systems Australia is pursuing for the MCM & Undersea Surveillance roles.

I don’t fundamentally see the need for ~8 dedicated MCMVs when their active ingredient is a containerised autonomous system which can be carried by pretty much any vessel.

These OSVs are then augmented by other ships capable of launching and recovering UXVs, such as the Type 26, and Type 31.

 

[Todjaeger]

I mentioned it before on this forum but didn’t really get any further information and hoping the experts on here could enlighten me on the MCM Vessels the RAN are acquiring.

my limited knowledge is that 8 vessels are to be built following the 12 Arafura class vessels which currently 6have either been completed or in production.

what I have read is that in 2021 the government down selected-a variant of the Arafura class OPV.

my question is say the opv 80 is the hull to be used is the MCM vessel just using modular shipping containers to spec out the vessel for this role or will significant redesigns be needed for the MCM class?

could the current Arafura class OPV be handed to the mine hunting crews to preform their duties and hydrographic operations be undertaken by these 6 OPV’s that have been built or in production?

like to get a better understanding of these MCM vessels as not much info around.

Unfortunately there does not appear to be much in the public domain about SEA 1905, which is the project to replace the MCM and survey vessels. There was a down select in Jan 2021 to look into using a variant of the Arafura-class OPV design as the basis for a MCM mothership of sorts. To my knowledge it was not a decision to use the OPV as the basis for the MCM. It might end up being that in time, but it was still early days in 2021.

One of the issues with attempting to pin down a vessel design is that until there has been some sort of firm decision about what will provide the MCM capability and how it would be utilized and deployed, it would still be somewhat early days to settle on the embarking ship.

Trying to settle on a vessel first could end up selecting something which is either too small or too large for the ROV's and USV's which would be desired for the actual MCM work.

 

[spoz]

The Arafuras would (or maybe, will) require require considerable modification to carry out the MCM or Hydro functions. That would be particularly true if they were planned to be used for offshore hydro.