Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Going Boeing]

The BAES Australia announcement of their development of the Strix armed VTOL Drone is exciting and it’s shaping to be quite a versatile system for the ADF. Some articles mention its compatibility with the LHD’s but, I believe that it’s design allows a lot more than that. The way that the outer wings fold would make it suitable for operating off a number of Navy vessels, possibly including the Arafura class. It’s size and weight should allow it to operate off the Arafura’s flight deck in conjunction with the S-100 Camcopter and would provide a second surveillance capability as well as an offensive role if required. It’s range is quoted as 800km so it would increase the surveillance area covered by each Arafura. At long range, it appears that it would require an airborne communications relay which probably would be via satellite but the S-100 Camcopter could potentially be modified to have this capability. I think this system has a lot of potential.

BAE unwraps Strix VTOL strike drone with 800km range at Avalon - Breaking Defense

 

[Bob53]

If

Submarines do not really follow the Rule of Threes, but more a similar Rule of Fours. Eight subs in RAN service should be enough to have two subs either available for or already on a deployment. The other six subs would then be either in some sort of training cycle or IMO more likely a maintenance, work up or recovery from deployment cycle. There could be some potential to surge deploy extra subs, depending on where things fall in terms of maintenance and training.

One of the problems that the RAN has seemed to have with only having six Collins-class SSG's was that there was somewhat of an issue in terms of having sufficient assets to achieve a critical mass. Six subs are really only enough to reliably provide one available for or on a deployment. This then has the potential for all sorts of negative flow-on effects, like difficulty establishing and maintaining a pool of submariners as well as keeping their respective skills up.

If only 1 of out 4 or 5 is deployed let’s say… do we need a full 100% crew for all other subs? Or is it possible to have some roles shared across hulls when they are deployed? Asking for a friend…

 

[SwingShift]

Not to forget, by the time an eighth Australian SSN is commissioned whatever the option chosen and drumbeat we’re a long way into the future. The population, economy, budget, technology, strategic situation, and so much more will have evolved. AI may have changed things. Drones may have changed things. China will have a new leader and potentially have had significant social change. The tactics and systems to both hunt with subs and to hunt subs will have evolved.

My point, whether we grow a fleet beyond the initial eight, we’ve got dozens of budgets and several governments to survive before that decision becomes real.

More importantly IMO is maintaining a drumbeat, growing genuine sovereignty so that if the worst evolves we can maintain and keep these assets in the fight, growing crewing and training pipelines and holding the course. Ensuring sovereign guided munitions and reliable, survivable fuel sources. Holding multiple governments to a planned, systematic, funded approach, and implore both sides of government to be bigger than playing politics with our most long term, costly, and strategic defence and deterrent investments. If we don’t, we‘ll find ourselves in the same pickle of too little too late at the next potential high risk period.

 

[OldTex]

If

If only 1 of out 4 or 5 is deployed let’s say… do we need a full 100% crew for all other subs? Or is it possible to have some roles shared across hulls when they are deployed? Asking for a friend…

While it is possible to share manning across multiple platforms it should be stressed that it is only possible for a short duration and under a much reduced tempo. So for submarines which would be considered a continuous high tempo platform short manning would affect the ability to generate emergency surge capacity. It would also result in burning out the limited number of specialist sailors.

 

[Todjaeger]

While it is possible to share manning across multiple platforms it should be stressed that it is only possible for a short duration and under a much reduced tempo. So for submarines which would be considered a continuous high tempo platform short manning would affect the ability to generate emergency surge capacity. It would also result in burning out the limited number of specialist sailors.

Another significant consideration is that whilst only a single sub might be actively deployed out of four, the other three subs and their crews are not completely idle either. Yes, a sub that is undergoing major work like a full docking cycle might not need a crew at that time, but there is more which gets done between being deployed and FCD's, and the crews are required for this.

 

[seaspear]

The U.S.N uses Blue and Gold alternate crews for some of its submarines to increase operability of the vessels ,Australian merchant ships had a scheme where how ever long the voyage was you had that time off paid as if on ship, some crew could sit at home doing nothing or find second jobs whilst waiting to be able to go back to sea, I'm not sure if the U.S.N works this way with alternate crews but if the issue was of crew retention or even enlistment this could be looked at for the crews on future nuclear submarines in Australia
Crew Rotation in the Navy: The Long-Term Effect on Forward Presence (cbo.gov)

 

[Todjaeger]

The U.S.N uses Blue and Gold alternate crews for some of its submarines to increase operability of the vessels ,Australian merchant ships had a scheme where how ever long the voyage was you had that time off paid as if on ship, some crew could sit at home doing nothing or find second jobs whilst waiting to be able to go back to sea, I'm not sure if the U.S.N works this way with alternate crews but if the issue was of crew retention or even enlistment this could be looked at for the crews on future nuclear submarines in Australia
Crew Rotation in the Navy: The Long-Term Effect on Forward Presence (cbo.gov)

The RAN could work towards a Blue/Gold crewing scheme for subs, but that would effectively double the number of submariners required. As I understand it from how the USN ran dual crews, the subs themselves were often available and in appropriate conditions to deploy but the crews were not. By having two crews for a single sub, the USN was able to rotate them keeping the sub at sea, with whichever crew was ashore working on things without the stress of being deployed and/or being able to actually work on things which are not feasible to do whilst deployed.

In order for the RAN to adopt a dual-crew practice for SSN's, the RAN would first need to have raised both the initial crew, as well as establishing the training cadre to oversee the development of future submariners. Getting to the point where the RAN had enough nuclear submariners to be able to dual crew subs is years further away than getting that initial pool of SSN crews. As discussed in the thread previously, just getting that initial pool of crew likely a decade or more away.

 

[John Fedup]

Blue/Gold crewing is employed for USN boomers but is that the case for SSNs as well?

 

[Volkodav]

If

If only 1 of out 4 or 5 is deployed let’s say… do we need a full 100% crew for all other subs? Or is it possible to have some roles shared across hulls when they are deployed? Asking for a friend…

Short version, no.

A major issue the RAN has had is not having a sufficient number of experienced and qualified submariners to do all the jobs that require qualified and experienced submariners. The only way to get experienced and qualified submariners is to have a sufficient number of boats at sea with sufficient qualified and experienced crew to coach and mentor the trainees on board.

 

[alexsa]

The U.S.N uses Blue and Gold alternate crews for some of its submarines to increase operability of the vessels ,Australian merchant ships had a scheme where how ever long the voyage was you had that time off paid as if on ship, some crew could sit at home doing nothing or find second jobs whilst waiting to be able to go back to sea, I'm not sure if the U.S.N works this way with alternate crews but if the issue was of crew retention or even enlistment this could be looked at for the crews on future nuclear submarines in Australia
Crew Rotation in the Navy: The Long-Term Effect on Forward Presence (cbo.gov)

I would be careful about Australian Merchant Vessel manning (1 for 1, plus annual leave) being indicative of normal practice in general. The British Merchant Navy genrally operated a 4 on 2 off (months) schedule. The crew could remain on board for up to 11 months (it used to be longer) before heading home for leave. This would not apply to UK crew members.

Believe me, four months flat out on a merchant ship and you do not get a second job when on leave.

Double crewing was tried on the Armidales and I understand it was not a raging success and will be discontinued. Certainly the SSBN's due to the nature of their operations (go somewhere ... stay there ... don't get detected) did have a two crewing arrangement. I would suggest the SSN operations (go somewhere, find your opposition and sink them) would be less suited to twin crews.

 

[Volkodav]

I would be careful about Australian Merchant Vessel manning (1 for 1, plus annual leave) being indicative of normal practice in general. The British Merchant Navy genrally operated a 4 on 2 off (months) schedule. The crew could remain on board for up to 11 months (it used to be longer) before heading home for leave. This would not apply to UK crew members.

Believe me, four months flat out on a merchant ship and you do not get a second job when on leave.

Double crewing was tried on the Armidales and I understand it was not a raging success and will be discontinued. Certainly the SSBN's due to the nature of their operations (go somewhere ... stay there ... don't get detected) did have a two crewing arrangement. I would suggest the SSN operations (go somewhere, find your opposition and sink them) would be less suited to twin crews.

Armidales were a bit different with multiple divisions, each consisting of three crews and two boats, plus a POMT (the Hull PO) assigned to each boat. The boats, which initially were leased, were then handed over to ans maintained by the "Owner", DMS.

This resulted in a disconnect between the various parties and a lack of a sense of ownership, responsibility, or accountability.

Blue and Gold crews, jointly own one platform, and in theory, work together, with some healthy competition, to make their boat the best.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

The French Navy uses two crews (red and blue) for all its nuclear subs, both SSBN and SSN. SSN crews have to do lots of shore training including using simulators, so there is no possibility of economising on crews if we want the RANs SSNs fully utilised.

1st Crew of French Navy's New SSN Completes Simulator Training Ahead of Sea Trials - Naval News

The first crew of the Suffren, the French Navy (Marine Nationale) new generation nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), achieved its training at the nuclear submarine school in Toulon.

www.navalnews.com

One plus side of this issue is that once Australia has three fully operational SSNs, they could effectively replace most or all of the Collins class, since they could take six double crews.

 

[DDG38]

Deck landing trials video of AH-64 landing on HMAS Canberra :

 

[StoresBasher]

I know nothing of this issue, but given the RAN had Spain's supply ship Cantabria for about a year, there should have been no surprises as to what we were getting.
Trust if there are issues they can promptly be sorted out.

As to reliability and availability the RAN of the future needs to be a Navy of three's.


Cheers S

If it were that easy, lots of complex issues, things breaking, a supply chain that is slow and unreliable and much more.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Deck landing trials video of AH-64 landing on HMAS Canberra :

Exciting stuff, and as a defence “enthusiast” I’m really enjoying the quality of the PAO/PRO information being produced by the ADF.

 

[ngatimozart]

Mogami class hull, or hull & propulsion? Would a corvette-ised Mogami need the 30+ knots & MT30 GT? And if not, would the degree of redesign needed be too much?

Much as I like the Mogami, the description I read here of what's needed rather resembles Type 31 (not the up-armed Polish version of Arrowhead 140), though I can see the same problem with both: even corvette-ised, they're rather too big warship like, at 15-20 metres longer than the ANZACs. That could fall foul of politics.

Maybe not. There's no reason why the GT cannot be omitted. But it's the range that a larger hull than normal for a corvette can provide. That's not so much of a problem in Europe etc., but for both the RAN & RNZN that range is extremely important because of the vastness of the Pacific and the distances that need to be sailed.

 

[icelord]

Armidales were a bit different with multiple divisions, each consisting of three crews and two boats, plus a POMT (the Hull PO) assigned to each boat. The boats, which initially were leased, were then handed over to ans maintained by the "Owner", DMS.

This resulted in a disconnect between the various parties and a lack of a sense of ownership, responsibility, or accountability.

Blue and Gold crews, jointly own one platform, and in theory, work together, with some healthy competition, to make their boat the best.

I was a fan of the multi-crew as it meant you could enjoy off rotation without duties.

Meant more stability for crew, with many taking advantage of cheap flights to Asia in the off rotation.

My issue stood with requirements to use leave during this off rotation. If the Navy were smart, they would look at it again with a different method.

You take away rental assistance, turn it into FIFO flights, and have sailors across the country. ABF have this process, and RAN could look to how they've done it. 8wks on, 4 wks off again with a larger pool of FSU and sailors in Darwin or Broome even, available to short notice sail on rotating stand by position. However RAN has lost appetite for crewing up North. Unsure if Mine Warfare continue to this day as they had it better planned, which might do with ownership of the hull.

As you point out, Navy did own the boat as much as other RAN vessels. Handing the maintenance and upkeep to DMS meant the state of some boats could be terrible. There was nothing worse than being handed a boat in a poor state, especially if the crew hadn't been away at sea for some time. This was also reflective of some crews doing bare minimum and not storing the boat ready for operations, which was due to command teams.

I lost count of short notice handovers on rotation where the boat was not at the same level as the vessel we come off, resulting in a pillage of the vessels in port.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

There is a lengthy article in the Australian today that contains some significant details of what Greg Sheridan thinks might be recommended in the Defence Review and AUKUS.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/defence-review-australia-must-increase-military-power-and-fast/news-story/12286d1757ee4229616d12b3baee94be?amp

Key points are:
- RAN will get 3 more AWDs
– RAN will get 6 missile corvettes by switching OPV contract (Lurssen design?)
– RAN will get 6 not 9 Hunter frigates
– east coast SSNs will be based in Port Kembla
– Sheridan still argues for Virginia subs, admits we can’t crew them, then says we won’t start building to 2030 (I ignore this as a political defence of Dutton’s recent statement)
– tank purchase canned and Land 400 shrunk from 450 to 300 IFVs
– extra squadron of F35s

This is in addition to the previously announced emphasis on LR missiles, mines, drones and hardening northern bases.

 

[ngatimozart]

There is a lengthy article in the Australian today that contains some significant details of what Greg Sheridan thinks might be recommended in the Defence Review and AUKUS.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/defence-review-australia-must-increase-military-power-and-fast/news-story/12286d1757ee4229616d12b3baee94be?amp

Key points are:
- RAN will get 3 more AWDs
– RAN will get 6 missile corvettes by switching OPV contract (Lurssen design?)
– RAN will get 6 not 9 Hunter frigates
– east coast SSNs will be based in Port Kembla
– Sheridan still argues for Virginia subs, admits we can’t crew them, then says we won’t start building to 2030 (I ignore this as a political defence of Dutton’s recent statement)
– tank purchase canned and Land 400 shrunk from 450 to 300 IFVs
– extra squadron of F35s

This is in addition to the previously announced emphasis on LR missiles, mines, drones and hardening northern bases.

We'll see.

 

[Redlands18]

There is a lengthy article in the Australian today that contains some significant details of what Greg Sheridan thinks might be recommended in the Defence Review and AUKUS.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/defence-review-australia-must-increase-military-power-and-fast/news-story/12286d1757ee4229616d12b3baee94be?amp

Key points are:
- RAN will get 3 more AWDs
– RAN will get 6 missile corvettes by switching OPV contract (Lurssen design?)
– RAN will get 6 not 9 Hunter frigates
– east coast SSNs will be based in Port Kembla
– Sheridan still argues for Virginia subs, admits we can’t crew them, then says we won’t start building to 2030 (I ignore this as a political defence of Dutton’s recent statement)
– tank purchase canned and Land 400 shrunk from 450 to 300 IFVs
– extra squadron of F35s

This is in addition to the previously announced emphasis on LR missiles, mines, drones and hardening northern bases.

In other words just more of the speculation that has been going on for the last 6 months, nothing we haven't already heard. Smith and Houston may recommend the cutting of the Tank purchase, but the penalties incurred, seeing that the work is already underway, may see the Government not follow through on that one.
I take it, that the Defence Chiefs would already have copies of the DSR and would have the chance to argue with and against any recommendations.