Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Morgo]

TBH if the concern is about the viability of the ANZAC-class frigates into the future, I think the RAN would be better off pushing to accelerate the Hunter-class build rather than come up with a new/another vessel design to be built and commissioned into the RAN. From my POV, the concerns I would have about this makes no distinction between a 2nd class which is also built in Australia, or an overseas build.

Yes, having a 2nd class built (if it could be done in time, which might be possible by then again might not) could let the current frigates be decommissioned early/earlier, but there are a number of potential issues with doing so.

As currently structured, the RAN is setup to operate and support about a dozen major surface combatants, more or less. If 2nd class of vessel also gets built for the RAN, in addition to the Hunter-class being built and the existing Hobart-class, the RAN is still only going to be large enough to operate and support ~12 combatants. If three or four hypothetical vessels were built in a programme alongside the Hunter-class build programme, then once ~nine vessels between the Hunter-class and 2nd class were built, then the new construction for the RAN would need to stop, otherwise the RAN fleet would get overbuilt and there would be more ships than crews available, likely by three or four frigates.

This would leave the CoA with some unpalatable choices to make. Either cut back the number of Hunter-class frigates to be built down to five or six, thus shortening the build with construction for SEA 5000 likely ending by 2038 if not earlier, or keep the number to be built at nine, and then retire the additional class of vessels quite early in their careers, after spending all the coin to have them built in the first place.

If the number of Hunter-class frigates is cut down to ~six because another class also gets built, that would impact national continuous shipbuilding regardless of where a 2nd class build was done. By current numbers, the current plan was to build through to 2044 which would provide steady work to sustain shipbuilding whilst also have enough RAN personnel to crew vessels being built or otherwise in service. If the RAN were to have the ANZAC-class frigates rapidly replaced, there would be no follow-on shipbuilding for several years because the current RAN needs and capability to operate ships had been met. It might be possible to launch a replacement programme for the Hobart-class early (as in, get it started now to be ready in 10-15 years for production to start) but that would likely only be a three ship build programme which would finish in the mid to late 2040's. This in turn would likely cause a ~decade gap in shipbuilding because the first of the Hunter-class frigates likely would not be due for replacement until in the late 2050's or later.

It is unfortunate that the RAN finds itself in such a situation where there are no real good solutions. Solutions which solve certain problems end up creating other problems. To make matters worse, any potential solution would need to be one which the RAN could apply and sustain for years, likely through several changes in gov't. Given how long Australia has gone so far into the continuous national shipbuilding strategy and following a change in gov't it appears that a current programme which is a key part of the strategy is being looked at by gov't to be possibly significantly changed/cut short, it leaves me less inclined to believe that support for a nationally important strategy is strong enough to make it work.

Surely the answer is to raise, train and sustain more crews and accept we need a bigger fleet

Obviously this means more dollars, but we have 10-15 years to solve for this and a looming recession to recruit from. The RAN needs to be much larger in terms of manpower.

As others have said, an expanded East Coast presence would help. FBE looks like it’s close to capacity, so the SSN facility in Newcastle or Wollongong would help. But we also need something which allows crews to live and work in Brisbane and Melbourne while ashore. I have no idea of the logistical and operational complexity of doing this, but would it be possible to have, say, a Hunter and a Tier 2 (or at least a roster of crews for them) home ported in Brisbane and Melbourne? Does it all have to be Sydney and Perth?

 

[Anthony_B_78]

TBH if the concern is about the viability of the ANZAC-class frigates into the future, I think the RAN would be better off pushing to accelerate the Hunter-class build rather than come up with a new/another vessel design to be built and commissioned into the RAN. From my POV, the concerns I would have about this makes no distinction between a 2nd class which is also built in Australia, or an overseas build.

Yes, having a 2nd class built (if it could be done in time, which might be possible by then again might not) could let the current frigates be decommissioned early/earlier, but there are a number of potential issues with doing so.

As currently structured, the RAN is setup to operate and support about a dozen major surface combatants, more or less. If 2nd class of vessel also gets built for the RAN, in addition to the Hunter-class being built and the existing Hobart-class, the RAN is still only going to be large enough to operate and support ~12 combatants. If three or four hypothetical vessels were built in a programme alongside the Hunter-class build programme, then once ~nine vessels between the Hunter-class and 2nd class were built, then the new construction for the RAN would need to stop, otherwise the RAN fleet would get overbuilt and there would be more ships than crews available, likely by three or four frigates.

This would leave the CoA with some unpalatable choices to make. Either cut back the number of Hunter-class frigates to be built down to five or six, thus shortening the build with construction for SEA 5000 likely ending by 2038 if not earlier, or keep the number to be built at nine, and then retire the additional class of vessels quite early in their careers, after spending all the coin to have them built in the first place.

If the number of Hunter-class frigates is cut down to ~six because another class also gets built, that would impact national continuous shipbuilding regardless of where a 2nd class build was done. By current numbers, the current plan was to build through to 2044 which would provide steady work to sustain shipbuilding whilst also have enough RAN personnel to crew vessels being built or otherwise in service. If the RAN were to have the ANZAC-class frigates rapidly replaced, there would be no follow-on shipbuilding for several years because the current RAN needs and capability to operate ships had been met. It might be possible to launch a replacement programme for the Hobart-class early (as in, get it started now to be ready in 10-15 years for production to start) but that would likely only be a three ship build programme which would finish in the mid to late 2040's. This in turn would likely cause a ~decade gap in shipbuilding because the first of the Hunter-class frigates likely would not be due for replacement until in the late 2050's or later.

It is unfortunate that the RAN finds itself in such a situation where there are no real good solutions. Solutions which solve certain problems end up creating other problems. To make matters worse, any potential solution would need to be one which the RAN could apply and sustain for years, likely through several changes in gov't. Given how long Australia has gone so far into the continuous national shipbuilding strategy and following a change in gov't it appears that a current programme which is a key part of the strategy is being looked at by gov't to be possibly significantly changed/cut short, it leaves me less inclined to believe that support for a nationally important strategy is strong enough to make it work.

I have commented about how the need for extra crews would only occur in the late 2030s. Even if the Hunters could be churned out faster, the fifth would not be commissioned until 2038 (if entering service every 18 months from 2032).

We absolutely should be looking to expand our surface force. Having to find an additional crew every 18 months to two years from then would still be a challenge, of course, but it should not be beyond us, or a navy of our size. I would think the challenge significantly less than the one we're going to have in building a larger submarine arm.

Furthermore, there would be no need for a gap in shipbuilding down the track with a one-third increase in the size of the projected surface fleet. The Hobart replacements follow the Hunters, and then a new class could begin to be built, initially replacing what I've been dubbing an interim frigate.

I suspect that one of the reasons the government is looking at potentially cutting the Hunter order is because that program leaves us with the problem of Anzacs remaining in service for too long. It's not the solution I'd like to see, but I do believe we need to do something.

 

[Redlands18]

Surely the answer is to raise, train and sustain more crews and accept we need a bigger fleet

Obviously this means more dollars, but we have 10-15 years to solve for this and a looming recession to recruit from. The RAN needs to be much larger in terms of manpower.

As others have said, an expanded East Coast presence would help. FBE looks like it’s close to capacity, so the SSN facility in Newcastle or Wollongong would help. But we also need something which allows crews to live and work in Brisbane and Melbourne while ashore. I have no idea of the logistical and operational complexity of doing this, but would it be possible to have, say, a Hunter and a Tier 2 (or at least a roster of crews for them) home ported in Brisbane and Melbourne? Does it all have to be Sydney and Perth?

The MFUs are mainly based where their Logistics and Maintenance Hubs are located. All 3 Hobarts, all of the RAN Amphibs are at FBE, the Collins and I believe all the Anzacs* are at FBW. The MCMVs are all in Sydney, Only the AORs are split one each per base for support and trg reasons. Of course the PBs are stationed in the North for operational reasons and are far easier to support anyway. Basing two ships of different classes in say Melbourne would create a major headache.
*I may be incorrect on the Anzacs but FBW is definitely their major Hub.

 

[Todjaeger]

Surely the answer is to raise, train and sustain more crews and accept we need a bigger fleet

Obviously this means more dollars, but we have 10-15 years to solve for this and a looming recession to recruit from. The RAN needs to be much larger in terms of manpower.

As others have said, an expanded East Coast presence would help. FBE looks like it’s close to capacity, so the SSN facility in Newcastle or Wollongong would help. But we also need something which allows crews to live and work in Brisbane and Melbourne while ashore. I have no idea of the logistical and operational complexity of doing this, but would it be possible to have, say, a Hunter and a Tier 2 (or at least a roster of crews for them) home ported in Brisbane and Melbourne? Does it all have to be Sydney and Perth?

Given past history, I am by no means certain that gov't is willing to accept that the RAN should be larger. @Volkodav has commented on this history of this a number of times, but the number of surface combatants once HMAS Melbourne (R21) was decommissioned was supposed to be ~23 or so IIRC, whilst here we are ~40 years later with 11...

If the size of the RAN is to increase (and I believe it should/needs to), it will take time to get ships into commission, but it will take longer to increase the pool of personnel the RAN has to draw from, to crew additional warships. It is also not just an increase in overall numbers in terms of personnel, but also an increase in the numbers of personnel qualified for specific postings/positions aboard ship. Now I do not know enough about RAN warship crew assignments or reqs aboard ship to comment intelligently, particularly with or about specific details, but in broad strokes there are important postings that require several years of training and service for personnel to be qualified to fill and it is among these types of postings where the pool of personnel would need to expand. It therefore logically follows that several years or more would be needed before existing/new RAN personnel could become appropriately qualified. Numbers that I have heard thrown around for some of the more senior postings which would need personnel should the fleet increase suggest that it can take a decade or more before people would be ready with other numbers putting the time closer to 15 years. The RAN already has training streams producing such personnel but AFAIK the size of the current training streams for such postings are more or less only enough to support about a dozen major warships.

In many respects the time required to build up trained personnel is a serious issue because if the RAN wanted to get to a fleet of say 14 majors in say 2039 (just over 15 years from now) the decisions would need to be made now about increasing the recruitment, retention and training so that the critical postings could be filled. In addition to having the RAN, ADF and gov't make the actual decision to do so, the commitment (and everything which would be included in that) to continue doing so would need to be sustained through successive changes in gov't.

If such decisions are not made now or in the very near future, then the size of the RAN fleet could not realistically be expanded next decade unless there was some sort of crisis which would both justify and demand a crash expansion programme and/or national service requirement.

To put it another way, the RAN does not really have 10-15 years, because that is how long it would take to implement changes and increase the pool of qualified personnel.

 

[spoz]

There are three Anzacs based at FBE.

The T83 has not yet been designed, people. It may well be based on a T26; in fact BAEs recent proposal might point to the way that UK concepts are going - but unless you work for the MoD UK, you and I don’t know. So bagging the T26 or Hunter in favour of a presently vapourware T83 is pointless.

It’s very unlikely that you will be able to convince the RAN to go with a surface combatant that doesn’t have a gun. We did learn something from the RN and USN experience. Missiles are nice, but gun magazines are much deeper and the rounds a lot cheaper.

Arafuras are not combatants; they are not built to go in harms way. Nor are Armidales or Capes. Slapping on a couple of NSM box launchers does not change that.

God, the continual going round and round this tier discussion, with various people personal choices being pushed, is getting boring. @DDG38 got any more good photos?

 

[Redlands18]

Given past history, I am by no means certain that gov't is willing to accept that the RAN should be larger. @Volkodav has commented on this history of this a number of times, but the number of surface combatants once HMAS Melbourne (R21) was decommissioned was supposed to be ~23 or so IIRC, whilst here we are ~40 years later with 11...

If the size of the RAN is to increase (and I believe it should/needs to), it will take time to get ships into commission, but it will take longer to increase the pool of personnel the RAN has to draw from, to crew additional warships. It is also not just an increase in overall numbers in terms of personnel, but also an increase in the numbers of personnel qualified for specific postings/positions aboard ship. Now I do not know enough about RAN warship crew assignments or reqs aboard ship to comment intelligently, particularly with or about specific details, but in broad strokes there are important postings that require several years of training and service for personnel to be qualified to fill and it is among these types of postings where the pool of personnel would need to expand. It therefore logically follows that several years or more would be needed before existing/new RAN personnel could become appropriately qualified. Numbers that I have heard thrown around for some of the more senior postings which would need personnel should the fleet increase suggest that it can take a decade or more before people would be ready with other numbers putting the time closer to 15 years. The RAN already has training streams producing such personnel but AFAIK the size of the current training streams for such postings are more or less only enough to support about a dozen major warships.

In many respects the time required to build up trained personnel is a serious issue because if the RAN wanted to get to a fleet of say 14 majors in say 2039 (just over 15 years from now) the decisions would need to be made now about increasing the recruitment, retention and training so that the critical postings could be filled. In addition to having the RAN, ADF and gov't make the actual decision to do so, the commitment (and everything which would be included in that) to continue doing so would need to be sustained through successive changes in gov't.

If such decisions are not made now or in the very near future, then the size of the RAN fleet could not realistically be expanded next decade unless there was some sort of crisis which would both justify and demand a crash expansion programme and/or national service requirement.

To put it another way, the RAN does not really have 10-15 years, because that is how long it would take to implement changes and increase the pool of qualified personnel.

The RAN is going to have to expand numbers wise to man the Subs, 3 Virginia's require more crew than 6 Collins. The RN was able to reduce the crew size on the Astutes from 130 on the Trafalgar's to 97 on the Astute's and I suspect they will try to at least maintain or even further reduce crew size on SSN-AUKUS. But it would take every last Submariner currently in the RAN to man 3 Virginia's and 5 Astute's. Working on the 3x3x3 principle the RAN is going to need at least 2200-2500 Submariners.

 

[DDG38]

God, the continual going round and round this tier discussion, with various people personal choices being pushed, is getting boring. @DDG38 got any more good photos?

Plenty, but magic crew land fantasy fleets seem more popular.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have commented about how the need for extra crews would only occur in the late 2030s. Even if the Hunters could be churned out faster, the fifth would not be commissioned until 2038 (if entering service every 18 months from 2032).

We absolutely should be looking to expand our surface force. Having to find an additional crew every 18 months to two years from then would still be a challenge, of course, but it should not be beyond us, or a navy of our size. I would think the challenge significantly less than the one we're going to have in building a larger submarine arm.

Furthermore, there would be no need for a gap in shipbuilding down the track with a one-third increase in the size of the projected surface fleet. The Hobart replacements follow the Hunters, and then a new class could begin to be built, initially replacing what I've been dubbing an interim frigate.

I suspect that one of the reasons the government is looking at potentially cutting the Hunter order is because that program leaves us with the problem of Anzacs remaining in service for too long. It's not the solution I'd like to see, but I do believe we need to do something.

TBH not sure that the timeframes for the Hunter-class build is correct, particularly if the drumbeat is increased.

IIRC the current plans should see the lead ship Nuship Hunter completed in 2029, after which it is expected to undergo testing and trials before getting accepted into RAN service sometime in 2031/2032. I believe at least some RAN personnel would be required for the testing and trials ahead of commissioning for each vessel so the need for increased personnel would come before the late 2030's and that it without an increase in the drumbeat. As part of the current plan adopted in 2018, which also slowed down/dragged out the build to enable continuous shipbuilding, the last Hunter-class is to finish being built in 2044, so a total of nine vessels built over the course of 15 years. The testing and trials for the vessels ahead of acceptance are extra time before a vessel would be available for service but do not normally require the shipyard to be completed.

From what I understand, the facility at Osborne where the Hunter-class will be built can have two frigates under construction at the same time. I would therefore anticipate that some time before 2029 when Nuship Hunter should be finished, first steel for Nuship Flinders would be cut and the keel laid down, followed by construction of Nuship Flinders likely being completed some time on or before 2031. I would also anticipate work on Tasman beginning in 2029 or early 2030 with construction finishing sometime in 2031/2032 give or take. If the drumbeat were to get accelerated, then construction times might drop by six months per vessel. This could mean that Tasman gets finished possibly as early as late 2030 and the final Hunter-class (of nine) being finished ahead of trials by 2042 but could also be even earlier.

Side note, cutting back the number of Hunter-class frigates built to six would do nothing towards enabling the ANZAC-class frigates to be retired earlier, as reducing the number of frigates built does not increase how quickly they could be completed. The best a reduction in the number built might do, is free up production capacity for a follow-on class to be built in Osborne sooner. If the objective is to retire the FFH's earlier then the RAN would need to have more replacement vessels ready sooner. As mentioned before though, there are the dangers of overbuilding the RAN (more warships than crews ), creating a gap in warship production, or retiring new vessels far earlier than is typical given their service life.

Consider also this scenario, if an interim class of four frigates were built to accelerate replacement of the FFH's; The RAN keeps the Hunter-class build at nine vessels with the last being completed in 2044, but also has four GP frigates built at another yard (Henderson, overseas or wherever, does not really matter) and in service by 2038. This would leave the RAN with a fleet composition in 2038 of 3 Hobart-class DDG's, 4 of the XYZ-class interim frigates and likely either 5 or 6 Hunter-class FFG's. By 2044, there would be an additional two Hunter-class FFG's in the RAN with the final one having finished construction and likely to enter service within two years. By 2046, the number of RAN major surface combatants would have grown to 16, with the Hobart-class replacement likely at least another two years away. Outside of wartime conditions, how long do people think it would take the RAN to increase the number of available personnel to crew warships by 25% when some of the postings take 10-15 years to build the needed level of skill and experience? Also when would the effort to expand the pool of personnel need to start?

Pretty much every way I look at it, an interim frigate build could let all the FFH's retire a little earlier than apparently planned but within a few years would leave the RAN with more warships than it could crew.

EDIT: Additional comment. One also needs to keep in mind what @Redlands18 brought up in post #7066 about the need to increase the number of submariners in order to crew the SSN's when they start entering service in the 2030's. With proper planning and effort, I believe that the number of RAN personnel can be increased to meet reasonable increases in their demand, but a significant expansion of the number of submariners, plus a 25% increase in the number of service fleet crew would be too much IMO.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Indonesia is building her own. Not sure about the others, but they'll buy at the lowest possible price and that won't be us. We're not competitive on price and we likely wouldn't be able to deliver in good time either.

Box flogging with lowest bidders isn't really what the region is particularly interested in. Everyone has been burnt before. Countries need solutions, not just a floating box. They need support, upgrades, training, access to technology, doctrine, CONOPs, allies, support soft and hard military and political power.

Acquiring equipment from someone also means you are aligning yourself with that someone, as you are now dependent on them for support.

If it was just about lowest price, everyone would be buying everything from China. Because if you think Korea can build a cheap ship, China can build it for free or less than free. No one believes that when war breaks out SK will be going anywhere other than barely looking after SK interests and not being wiped off the map.

Australia is in a unique position of being *the* regional power. Arguably we have some of the most influence over the US, US media and the US Asia policy. Australia can tend to support the boxes we make, pretty well. We have a special relationship with Singapore. With Malaysia. With the pacific islands that no one else has.

Now when China leans on countries, countries tend to crumble. Australia has been surprisingly resilient and strong against Chinese pressure. So much that even the Chinese recognize it. Australia is exactly the sort of animal China finds hard to box in. Australia also isn't the US, so any long term non-aligned policy is safe, and frankly, China is less worried about countries working with and being supplied by Australia, than being US proxies.

Part of the pacific boat program is also about helping nations that can't really run a naval acquisition program for boats and ships. These nations are flat out just operating power, water, sewer for their people. Australia has a role and need to be able to supply MOTS solutions for these nations as part of a wider strategy.

At the end of the day, the golden rule applies. He who has the gold, makes the rules. If there is no gold, nothing will happen.

Industry has generally spoken. The tie up between Navantia, Civmec and Austal is significant. Industry is betting on something being built out at Henderson, and being built based around a Navantia design. This solves issues with these three Australian companies.

This could include:

• Landing craft
• JSS
• Small combatant
• Large combatant

BAE has a tight hold of ASC/Osborne and are likely to be major primes on the Sub program, but with partners. BAE has its own catalogs. But BAE hasn't partnered with anyone else yet, its paranoid about protecting its Hunters. TBH the AUKUS sub and the Hunters and all the Hobart/Collins/Anzac upgrades is a metric shit tonne of work.

Overseas builds are huge hurdles to jump. Like what yard? Where the local industry support and maintenance and upgrades? You would need sovereign support (ruling the US and UK out) and time to set up local industry footprint (ruling out any new names).

The Anzacs are fucked. In an effort to squeeze more days at sea out of them, we have worn them out. I don't know how to tell people this we are in deep trouble. More trouble than the early settlers. The Hobarts have been doing like half the sea days the Anzacs have been doing.

It will probably be more than one ship that is decommissioned and does not undergo upgrades. It could be all of them. RAN won't be much of a Navy with no Anzacs, no Hobarts and no Collins. And all this is happening before 2030.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Plenty, but magic crew land fantasy fleets seem more popular.

I don't think you are even reading the thread if you think that's where the discussion is going.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

TBH not sure that the timeframes for the Hunter-class build is correct, particularly if the drumbeat is increased.

IIRC the current plans should see the lead ship Nuship Hunter completed in 2029, after which it is expected to undergo testing and trials before getting accepted into RAN service sometime in 2031/2032. I believe at least some RAN personnel would be required for the testing and trials ahead of commissioning for each vessel so the need for increased personnel would come before the late 2030's and that it without an increase in the drumbeat. As part of the current plan adopted in 2018, which also slowed down/dragged out the build to enable continuous shipbuilding, the last Hunter-class is to finish being built in 2044, so a total of nine vessels built over the course of 15 years. The testing and trials for the vessels ahead of acceptance are extra time before a vessel would be available for service but do not normally require the shipyard to be completed.

From what I understand, the facility at Osborne where the Hunter-class will be built can have two frigates under construction at the same time. I would therefore anticipate that some time before 2029 when Nuship Hunter should be finished, first steel for Nuship Flinders would be cut and the keel laid down, followed by construction of Nuship Flinders likely being completed some time on or before 2031. I would also anticipate work on Tasman beginning in 2029 or early 2030 with construction finishing sometime in 2031/2032 give or take. If the drumbeat were to get accelerated, then construction times might drop by six months per vessel. This could mean that Tasman gets finished possibly as early as late 2030 and the final Hunter-class (of nine) being finished ahead of trials by 2042 but could also be even earlier.

Side note, cutting back the number of Hunter-class frigates built to six would do nothing towards enabling the ANZAC-class frigates to be retired earlier, as reducing the number of frigates built does not increase how quickly they could be completed. The best a reduction in the number built might do, is free up production capacity for a follow-on class to be built in Osborne sooner. If the objective is to retire the FFH's earlier then the RAN would need to have more replacement vessels ready sooner. As mentioned before though, there are the dangers of overbuilding the RAN (more warships than crews ), creating a gap in warship production, or retiring new vessels far earlier than is typical given their service life.

Consider also this scenario, if an interim class of four frigates were built to accelerate replacement of the FFH's; The RAN keeps the Hunter-class build at nine vessels with the last being completed in 2044, but also has four GP frigates built at another yard (Henderson, overseas or wherever, does not really matter) and in service by 2038. This would leave the RAN with a fleet composition in 2038 of 3 Hobart-class DDG's, 4 of the XYZ-class interim frigates and likely either 5 or 6 Hunter-class FFG's. By 2044, there would be an additional two Hunter-class FFG's in the RAN with the final one having finished construction and likely to enter service within two years. By 2046, the number of RAN major surface combatants would have grown to 16, with the Hobart-class replacement likely at least another two years away. Outside of wartime conditions, how long do people think it would take the RAN to increase the number of available personnel to crew warships by 25% when some of the postings take 10-15 years to build the needed level of skill and experience? Also when would the effort to expand the pool of personnel need to start?

Pretty much every way I look at it, an interim frigate build could let all the FFH's retire a little earlier than apparently planned but within a few years would leave the RAN with more warships than it could crew.

EDIT: Additional comment. One also needs to keep in mind what @Redlands18 brought up in post #7066 about the need to increase the number of submariners in order to crew the SSN's when they start entering service in the 2030's. With proper planning and effort, I believe that the number of RAN personnel can be increased to meet reasonable increases in their demand, but a significant expansion of the number of submariners, plus a 25% increase in the number of service fleet crew would be too much IMO.

I hope you're right about the Hunter deliveries, but the ANAO has said the first won't be commissioned until 2032 and I think it's been rather widely reported that they are being built to a two-year drumbeat. Yes, surely it wouldn't take too much to increase the drumbeat to 18 months - you would hope anyway.

I do not challenge your view on the time needed to increase personnel. I would simply note that we are talking about a scenario that would be roughly 15 years into the future (by the time the surface force would actually increase), and further that it's about 800 extra officers and sailors. On a side note, I would - as with the army - love to see a breakdown of where people are posted within the navy. I do question the size of our fleet given the overall manpower.

You could take Redlands' valid comment either way - if we can grow the submarine arm, we can grow the navy generally. Indeed, it might help if there are more postings within the surface fleet, perhaps. Maybe those with naval service could comment on how that all works.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The Anzacs are fucked. In an effort to squeeze more days at sea out of them, we have worn them out. I don't know how to tell people this we are in deep trouble. More trouble than the early settlers. The Hobarts have been doing like half the sea days the Anzacs have been doing.

It will probably be more than one ship that is decommissioned and does not undergo upgrades. It could be all of them. RAN won't be much of a Navy with no Anzacs, no Hobarts and no Collins. And all this is happening before 2030.

This is the commentary that worries me. This is why, as I see it, we need to act and soon.

 

[protoplasm]

The Anzacs are fucked. In an effort to squeeze more days at sea out of them, we have worn them out. I don't know how to tell people this we are in deep trouble. More trouble than the early settlers. The Hobarts have been doing like half the sea days the Anzacs have been doing.

It will probably be more than one ship that is decommissioned and does not undergo upgrades. It could be all of them. RAN won't be much of a Navy with no Anzacs, no Hobarts and no Collins. And all this is happening before 2030.

This is a key point that politicians and accountants miss. We need to be building more ships if we want to maintain the tempo we have been going at already, let alone go at a higher tempo in a "warm" or worse case "hot" conflict. I would much rather we had 16-18 MFUs, and a longterm plan in place to be continuously building at a drumbeat which supports this, than 12 MFUs that we are destroying with the tempo they run at. Having ships in extended readiness that are ready for crews to be assigned to is a far better situation than killing ships with excess sea days.

I went onboard HMAS Warramunga last weekend in Adelaide. The new electrical boxes that I'm assuming came in with the ASMD and then CEAFAR2 upgrades look considerably out of place compared with the rest of the ship which looked really tired.

Kinda hard to convince some of my students that a career in the RAN is the way to go when the vessel they're using for advertising looks nearly as old as their parents...

 

[Todjaeger]

I hope you're right about the Hunter deliveries, but the ANAO has said the first won't be commissioned until 2032 and I think it's been rather widely reported that they are being built to a two-year drumbeat. Yes, surely it wouldn't take too much to increase the drumbeat to 18 months - you would hope anyway.

I do not challenge your view on the time needed to increase personnel. I would simply note that we are talking about a scenario that would be roughly 15 years into the future (by the time the surface force would actually increase), and further that it's about 800 extra officers and sailors. On a side note, I would - as with the army - love to see a breakdown of where people are posted within the navy. I do question the size of our fleet given the overall manpower.

You could take Redlands' valid comment either way - if we can grow the submarine arm, we can grow the navy generally. Indeed, it might help if there are more postings within the surface fleet, perhaps. Maybe those with naval service could comment on how that all works.

Keep in mind there is a difference, subtle though it might be, of being built and being commissioned. So Nuship Hunter could indeed be finished/completed for the build in 2029 which I believe is what the current schedule calls for, and then getting commissioned once the testing and trials are completed which should take place some time in either 2031 or 2032 (sort of depends on what, if any issues are discovered).

As mentioned, in order to meet a 15 year target date to increase personnel, such work needs to begin now, basically. Also the increase would need gov't approval and resources, since gov't sets the number of pers authorized. Unless/until gov't auth an increase in pers then the RAN gets into a crunch since more submariners are needed for the future SSN's.

As I have mentioned in other posts across the spectrum of Australian defence threads, the crew issue is part of a concern I have about what came out from the public version of the DSR and then the naval review. Certain changes in policy and especially force structure take years to actually implement and there are usually tells which come out to indicate certain changes have been made or steps taken to implement changes. For instance, if the RAN surface fleet to planned for an increase starting ~15 years, one would expect to see certain recruitment efforts having begun.

Absent seeing some of these things going on, some of us I suspect cannot help but be skeptical.

 

[Redlands18]

Keep in mind there is a difference, subtle though it might be, of being built and being commissioned. So Nuship Hunter could indeed be finished/completed for the build in 2029 which I believe is what the current schedule calls for, and then getting commissioned once the testing and trials are completed which should take place some time in either 2031 or 2032 (sort of depends on what, if any issues are discovered).

As mentioned, in order to meet a 15 year target date to increase personnel, such work needs to begin now, basically. Also the increase would need gov't approval and resources, since gov't sets the number of pers authorized. Unless/until gov't auth an increase in pers then the RAN gets into a crunch since more submariners are needed for the future SSN's.

As I have mentioned in other posts across the spectrum of Australian defence threads, the crew issue is part of a concern I have about what came out from the public version of the DSR and then the naval review. Certain changes in policy and especially force structure take years to actually implement and there are usually tells which come out to indicate certain changes have been made or steps taken to implement changes. For instance, if the RAN surface fleet to planned for an increase starting ~15 years, one would expect to see certain recruitment efforts having begun.

Absent seeing some of these things going on, some of us I suspect cannot help but be skeptical.

Defence overview – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
The Morrison Government did announce a project for an additional 18500 ADF personnel by 2040, in Mar 22. There has been no indication from the Albanese Government as to whether this plan still stands.

 

[iambuzzard]

Surely the answer is to raise, train and sustain more crews and accept we need a bigger fleet

Obviously this means more dollars, but we have 10-15 years to solve for this and a looming recession to recruit from. The RAN needs to be much larger in terms of manpower.

As others have said, an expanded East Coast presence would help. FBE looks like it’s close to capacity, so the SSN facility in Newcastle or Wollongong would help. But we also need something which allows crews to live and work in Brisbane and Melbourne while ashore. I have no idea of the logistical and operational complexity of doing this, but would it be possible to have, say, a Hunter and a Tier 2 (or at least a roster of crews for them) home ported in Brisbane and Melbourne? Does it all have to be Sydney and Perth?

That's a good point The USN home port all over the place. Why do we restrict the ships to two cities. You're going to retain more crews if you diversify.

 

[iambuzzard]

This is a key point that politicians and accountants miss. We need to be building more ships if we want to maintain the tempo we have been going at already, let alone go at a higher tempo in a "warm" or worse case "hot" conflict. I would much rather we had 16-18 MFUs, and a longterm plan in place to be continuously building at a drumbeat which supports this, than 12 MFUs that we are destroying with the tempo they run at. Having ships in extended readiness that are ready for crews to be assigned to is a far better situation than killing ships with excess sea days.

I went onboard HMAS Warramunga last weekend in Adelaide. The new electrical boxes that I'm assuming came in with the ASMD and then CEAFAR2 upgrades look considerably out of place compared with the rest of the ship which looked really tired.

Kinda hard to convince some of my students that a career in the RAN is the way to go when the vessel they're using for advertising looks nearly as old as their parents...

It's also worth looking at what happens if we get into a hot war.
The USN have a reserve fleet, they could even get a couple of Iowa Class BBs out of the museums if they needed to. We have nothing except a few fish reefs off Sydney and Brisbane!
If we start losing hulls in a fight what do we do?
It's not like you can build a Tier 2 hull in a week. WWII production speeds don't exist any more. In the US they were launching Fletchers in 212 days. For the aviation minded, a B-24 Liberator rolled off the production lines every 63 minutes. Nobody can do that anymore so we have to plan for attrition.
It's better to have a couple of hulls laid up in reserve than no reserve at all!

 

[spoz]

That's a good point The USN home port all over the place. Why do we restrict the ships to two cities. You're going to retain more crews if you diversify.

Not if you diversify away from major population centres. Plenty of past experience of that wrt the north, and even for east coast origin people required to move West. Some people love it, many hate it because of the climate or the isolation from family or lack of partner employment options or requirement to (again) change the kids schools and the group of friends; or all of the above.

 

[Volkodav]

It's also worth looking at what happens if we get into a hot war.
The USN have a reserve fleet, they could even get a couple of Iowa Class BBs out of the museums if they needed to. We have nothing except a few fish reefs off Sydney and Brisbane!
If we start losing hulls in a fight what do we do?
It's not like you can build a Tier 2 hull in a week. WWII production speeds don't exist any more. In the US they were launching Fletchers in 212 days. For the aviation minded, a B-24 Liberator rolled off the production lines every 63 minutes. Nobody can do that anymore so we have to plan for attrition.
It's better to have a couple of hulls laid up in reserve than no reserve at all!

Late in WWII the UK had so much new gear coming online they couldn't operate it without decomissioning existing capabilities. They tried to get Australia to crew two new fleet carriers and potentially a couple of cruisers, while we were disbanding army units to send warm bodies back home to bring in the harvest.

To my thinking, the only reserve that makes sense is an extra example or two of an in-service type. It is current config, and lays up prior to major maintenance or upgrade, with its crew going to its sister that is coming out of maintenance. If the proverbial hits the fan a crew can be formed and get the extra hull back in operation.

So, indeally, instead of three DDGs, there are five. Three in active service (including intermediate maintenance) for two always available, one in reserve, one in refit or upgrade.

As a new class enters service, the ship being replaced isn't disposed of until the new ship reaches FOC.

 

[Milne Bay]

Late in WWII the UK had so much new gear coming online they couldn't operate it without decomissioning existing capabilities. They tried to get Australia to crew two new fleet carriers and potentially a couple of cruisers, while we were disbanding army units to send warm bodies back home to bring in the harvest.

To my thinking, the only reserve that makes sense is an extra example or two of an in-service type. It is current config, and lays up prior to major maintenance or upgrade, with its crew going to its sister that is coming out of maintenance. If the proverbial hits the fan a crew can be formed and get the extra hull back in operation.

So, indeally, instead of three DDGs, there are five. Three in active service (including intermediate maintenance) for two always available, one in reserve, one in refit or upgrade.

As a new class enters service, the ship being replaced isn't disposed of until the new ship reaches FOC.

This is a very sensible solution and sounds like absolute common sense.
The past practice of decommissioning ships before their replacements had even arrived was far too common.

As for WW2 - Australia had nearly 10% of its population involved in the ADF in various ways.
There was a massive shortage of personnel left to run the country.
That is the equivalent of around 2 million from today's current population.
MB