Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

I'd imagine the MHC role would at times result in them being in some form of harms way as they will need to be accompanying or preceding any amphibious force. Of course there will likely be other escorts screening for them but something a little more useful than the 25mm guns could come in handy, if perhaps a hard sell bearing in mind RAN efforts to decrease the number of different gun calibres in use.

That would potentially be true if they had an MHC role, which they do not. They are to perform the constabulary role.

There was a proposal that a modified OPV design be used for the mine warfare role, but it has been proceeded with, at least so far as can be determined in the public arena, and nobody outside the people who worked on that know what, and how extensive, those needed modifications might have been. That proposal did not however envision the ships themselves entering mine fields but rather that, as with the new Dutch/Belgian ships, AUVs perform the function while the mothership stood off.

 

[old faithful]

Capable airframes, but critically missing some things that the F-111C had (e.g Harpoon, AGM-142, pave tack for LGB delivery) - they weren’t directly mission capable and my understanding is the G was mostly used by 6SQN for training.

1. We cannot (currently) man the ships we have, yet let’s propose we get (even more) spare ships.
2. It’s well established that having a ship alongside provides respite to members (and their families), and allows for shore based training and leave etc (see @Pusser01 reply above). Would having a ship to swap crews into and sending them straight back out be beneficial for retention long term? Unlikely.
3. 15 surplus USAF F-111’s is a huge difference in cost to additional state of the art warship

I can not understand why Defence cannot keep their numbers up.
We had a population of @ 15 million in the 80s and the ADF has not grown in size. Now we have a population of @25 million.
I really think that recruitment has gone backwards since it was privatised.
Then there is the "woke" qoutas. By that I mean, not hireing the best person for the job, hiring the best person from a certain demographic for the job.
One of my colleagues is ex Brit Infantry, and both his sons wanted to join the Australian Army. Both fit strapping young lads...both rejected because Army only wanted females for infantry at the time. That was Madness! Just fill the positions with the best applicants, be they male female or other, black,white or brindle.

 

[iambuzzard]

I can not understand why Defence cannot keep their numbers up.
We had a population of @ 15 million in the 80s and the ADF has not grown in size. Now we have a population of @25 million.
I really think that recruitment has gone backwards since it was privatised.
Then there is the "woke" qoutas. By that I mean, not hireing the best person for the job, hiring the best person from a certain demographic for the job.
One of my colleagues is ex Brit Infantry, and both his sons wanted to join the Australian Army. Both fit strapping young lads...both rejected because Army only wanted females for infantry at the time. That was Madness! Just fill the positions with the best applicants, be they male female or other, black,white or brindle.

Old Faithful, that's just common sense. Something rarer than the dodo these days.

 

[hauritz]

That would potentially be true if they had an MHC role, which they do not. They are to perform the constabulary role.

There was a proposal that a modified OPV design be used for the mine warfare role, but it has been proceeded with, at least so far as can be determined in the public arena, and nobody outside the people who worked on that know what, and how extensive, those needed modifications might have been. That proposal did not however envision the ships themselves entering mine fields but rather that, as with the new Dutch/Belgian ships, AUVs perform the function while the mothership stood off.

Given that the actual MCM system itself is intended to be platform agnostic I think the idea of using the Arafura as an MCM mothership was more to do with political expediency. It was just a captain’s choice by the Morrison government in an attempt to grab some extra votes in the west. To my knowledge the current government hasn’t made any commitment to it.

What to know about SEA 1905; Australia's Future Mine Counter Measures System - Naval News

Saab Australia and Exail are in the the running to deliver a Mine Counter Measures and military survey capability to the Australian Navy...

www.navalnews.com

The actual construction of new ships is the second tranche of SEA1905 and in fact may ultimately be dependent on what systems are selected for tranche one. A lot could also depend on what the government plans will be for a tier 2 warship.

 

[Volkodav]

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?

Believe it or not, the Type 82 Cruiser was derived from the Type 12 ASW frigate. Take the basic frigate hull form and scale it to fit Seadart, Ikara and 4.5" gun, as well as two RR Olympus GTs and you get a pretty big ship.

The Type 26 is already a pretty big ship, apparently derived from the Type 45 AWD hull form.

Given that the actual MCM system itself is intended to be platform agnostic I think the idea of using the Arafura as an MCM mothership was more to do with political expediency. It was just a captain’s choice by the Morrison government in an attempt to grab some extra votes in the west. To my knowledge the current government hasn’t made any commitment to it.

What to know about SEA 1905; Australia's Future Mine Counter Measures System - Naval News

Saab Australia and Exail are in the the running to deliver a Mine Counter Measures and military survey capability to the Australian Navy...

www.navalnews.com

The actual construction of new ships is the second tranche of SEA1905 and in fact may ultimately be dependent on what systems are selected for tranche one. A lot could also depend on what the government plans will be for a tier 2 warship.

Now the elephant in the room, containerised MCM could be deployed by the baseline Hunter from its multi mission deck.

Logically any platform that could ship the containers and launch the deployable components, could become a craft of opportunity.

Perhaps instead of a Corvette or light frigate we should be looking at a versatile APD with a GP frigate like core combat system than can execute litoral ASW, MCM, hydrographics, oceanography, etc.

 

[Stampede]

Believe it or not, the Type 82 Cruiser was derived from the Type 12 ASW frigate. Take the basic frigate hull form and scale it to fit Seadart, Ikara and 4.5" gun, as well as two RR Olympus GTs and you get a pretty big ship.

The Type 26 is already a pretty big ship, apparently derived from the Type 45 AWD hull form. Its capabilities are primarily

Now the elephant in the room, containerised MCM could be deployed by the baseline Hunter from its multi mission deck.

Logically any platform that could ship the containers and launch the deployable components, could become a craft of opportunity.

Perhaps instead of a Corvette or light frigate we should be looking at a versatile APD with a GP frigate like core combat system than can execute litoral ASW, MCM, hydrographics, oceanography, etc.

Hi Volk

Clarity for APD.

Not familiar with this term

Aircraft ?
Platform ?
Dock ?

Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

Hi Volk

Clarity for APD.

Not familiar with this term

Aircraft ?
Platform ?
Dock ?

Regards S

Basically it's an assault transport based on the conversion of an obsolete destroyer or a new build Destroyer Escort in WWII.

High-speed transport - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Todjaeger]

Hi Volk

Clarity for APD.

Not familiar with this term

Aircraft ?
Platform ?
Dock ?

Regards S

APD is a US hull classification which came about during WWII and was used for High Speed Transports, with AP indicating a transport and the D being for Destroyer. The designation started with mothballed ex-WWI USN destroyers which had half their boilers removed to make room for troops and could transport ~200 troops. They were considered 'high speed' by comparison with the speed of actual troop or landing ships. Later on in WWII then conversions started to be done on 'new' destroyers or DE's that were being built for the war to make them into high speed transports.

EDIT: And @Volkodav types faster than I do...

 

[Volkodav]

APD is a US hull classification which came about during WWII and was used for High Speed Transports, with AP indicating a transport and the D being for Destroyer. The designation started with mothballed ex-WWI USN destroyers which had half their boilers removed to make room for troops and could transport ~200 troops. They were considered 'high speed' by comparison with the speed of actual troop or landing ships. Later on in WWII then conversions started to be done on 'new' destroyers or DE's that were being built for the war to make them into high speed transports.

EDIT: And @Volkodav types faster than I do...

In some ways the Danish Absalon, could be seen as a modern day APD. As could the LCS.

WWII DEs were also completed as high speed mine sweepers. Post WWII the RAN repurposed River class Frigates as Hydrographic vessels, and corvettes I to multitude of roles.

 

[Stampede]

In some ways the Danish Absalon, could be seen as a modern day APD. As could the LCS.

WWII DEs were also completed as high speed mine sweepers. Post WWII the RAN repurposed River class Frigates as Hydrographic vessels, and corvettes I to multitude of roles.

I do like the Absalon class concept on many levels.
A nice balance of function and flexibility.

Surprised the concept has not being embraced by other medium sized navy's.

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

product-sheet-xo-139-cf.pdf (damen.com)
Damen Crossover series is probably another one, capable of being armed as well as a modern Corvette/Light Frigate, can carry up to a further 128 personnel, can carry and launch 2 LCVP, other boats, 2 Med Helicopters or UAVs, has good speed, 30kt and decent range 6700nm@14kt

 

[Todjaeger]

Believe it or not, the Type 82 Cruiser was derived from the Type 12 ASW frigate. Take the basic frigate hull form and scale it to fit Seadart, Ikara and 4.5" gun, as well as two RR Olympus GTs and you get a pretty big ship.

The Type 26 is already a pretty big ship, apparently derived from the Type 45 AWD hull form.

Now the elephant in the room, containerised MCM could be deployed by the baseline Hunter from its multi mission deck.

Logically any platform that could ship the containers and launch the deployable components, could become a craft of opportunity.

Perhaps instead of a Corvette or light frigate we should be looking at a versatile APD with a GP frigate like core combat system than can execute litoral ASW, MCM, hydrographics, oceanography, etc.

My personal preference would probably be for LPD's like ST Marine's Endurance-class which Singapore classifies as a LST, but with a cruising speed of 18 kts and range of at least 4,500 n miles @ 18 kts, and possibly a top speed around 25-26 kts.

I would be looking for an armament fitout suitable for self-defence and then able to provide NGFS to landed troops. For sealift I would want at least a company of troops be able to be lifted, landed and supported, plus vehicles including heavies.

It would be 'nice' if Australia were to develop or adopt a modular/containerized system of weapons and kit for warships like the Danish StanFlex system or its successor SH Cubed, as that could enable specific weapons/kit fitouts to be adjusted for specific deployments.

However, unless/until gov't has decided that RAN/Australian sealift needs to be increased, as well as how RAN personnel requirements are to be met, this is all just speculating about a type of capability which the ADF might find useful.

 

[Redlands18]

My personal preference would probably be for LPD's like ST Marine's Endurance-class which Singapore classifies as a LST, but with a cruising speed of 18 kts and range of at least 4,500 n miles @ 18 kts, and possibly a top speed around 25-26 kts.

I would be looking for an armament fitout suitable for self-defence and then able to provide NGFS to landed troops. For sealift I would want at least a company of troops be able to be lifted, landed and supported, plus vehicles including heavies.

It would be 'nice' if Australia were to develop or adopt a modular/containerized system of weapons and kit for warships like the Danish StanFlex system or its successor SH Cubed, as that could enable specific weapons/kit fitouts to be adjusted for specific deployments.

However, unless/until gov't has decided that RAN/Australian sealift needs to be increased, as well as how RAN personnel requirements are to be met, this is all just speculating about a type of capability which the ADF might find useful.

The Government has actually decided to increase sealift by bringing forward the Land 8710 LMV-H requirement for a LST up to 2000t, though current planning has it being operated by Army, but the RAN will need to be involved to some degree as this is a capability well above what the Army has operated in recent decades. The RAN will still have a fair degree of institutional knowledge of operating this kind of vessel from the days of operating the LCHs. Also current planning is for 2 JSS to replace the Choules.

 

[Stampede]

Th

The Government has actually decided to increase sealift by bringing forward the Land 8710 LMV-H requirement for a LST up to 2000t, though current planning has it being operated by Army, but the RAN will need to be involved to some degree as this is a capability well above what the Army has operated in recent decades. The RAN will still have a fair degree of institutional knowledge of operating this kind of vessel from the days of operating the LCHs. Also current planning is for 2 JSS to replace the Choules.

These projects may not have the wow factor of an SSN or Destroyer but they are still major contributors to the ADFs ability to operate.

I'll be very interested to see what developes with these projects.
Particularly the time table for the medium and heavy landing craft.

We wait!


Cheers S

 

[alexsa]

From what a friend of mine, and ex-USN Dolphin has said, submariners categorize everything in the water as either hostile subs or targets. The point of having a 'quiet' hull for an ASW vessel is to reduce the amount of noise radiating from the ASW vessel which can interfere with the vessel's efforts to listen for possible sub activities. A decent sub with a decent crew is going to be able to detect a surface vessel fairly easily.

Australian Oberon crews used to say exactly the same thing. On occasion they were proved quite wrong. Even in the 80's, a good ASW ship with a good helo and supporting systems can may the submarines life very difficult.

The T26 appears to be an order of magnitude better than that and could be a handful if it meets its planned capability. The quite hull and electric drive combined with a Multi Static ASW system (CEC for hunting submarines) allows multiple sensors on ships, MPA aircraft, organic ASW helos and ship launched USV with a tail to be combined into a single picture. Many of these sensors will be well away from the ship (a USV may be very useful in this regard hence the need for a multi mission bay on some ships).

The towed Active and passive systems used by the Hunter should mitigate issues with own noise but the electric drive and rafting of machinery is designed to make detection difficult. I think the T26 and, its derivatives, will be a very competent sub hunter.

 

[Bob53]

I can not understand why Defence cannot keep their numbers up.
We had a population of @ 15 million in the 80s and the ADF has not grown in size. Now we have a population of @25 million.
I really think that recruitment has gone backwards since it was privatised.
Then there is the "woke" qoutas. By that I mean, not hireing the best person for the job, hiring the best person from a certain demographic for the job.
One of my colleagues is ex Brit Infantry, and both his sons wanted to join the Australian Army. Both fit strapping young lads...both rejected because Army only wanted females for infantry at the time. That was Madness! Just fill the positions with the best applicants, be they male female or other, black,white or brindle.

Yes giving people an equal opportunity to succeed has somehow become we must now give every slice of society equal outcomes, at the expense of effort, merit and suitability. Not in recognition of the applicants accomplishments, hard work and contribution but in inverse proportion to whatever disadvantage that particular group is purported to have suffered. The result is a dumming down of humanity and delivering poorer results across the board.

 

[Volkodav]

Anyone who thinks defence is disadvantaging the majority to benefit any minority is very wrong. I can assure you defence continues to advance (usually) tall, white, hetrosexual Anglo blokes before anyone else.

After that one level of diversity it tolerated, and and those in such minorities are often paraded around to show how diverse they are pretending to be.

Every now and then an exceptional minority individual comes to the attention of higher ups and is cultivated and encouraged to stay, but they cop more crap than a white guy in the same position would.

 

[hauritz]

In some ways the Danish Absalon, could be seen as a modern day APD. As could the LCS.

WWII DEs were also completed as high speed mine sweepers. Post WWII the RAN repurposed River class Frigates as Hydrographic vessels, and corvettes I to multitude of roles.

One ship nobody ever mentions is the LCS. Probably because in the deepest recess of our mind we are aware that currently 9 of these ships, some barely even run in, are decommissioning from the USN.
They are by all accounts terrible ships, but they could be bought into RAN service relatively quickly.
Would it be concievable for Australia to buy a number of these retiring vessels as an interim measure until we could come up with something better?

 

[Todjaeger]

One ship nobody ever mentions is the LCS. Probably because in the deepest recess of our mind we are aware that currently 9 of these ships, some barely even run in, are decommissioning from the USN.
They are by all accounts terrible ships, but they could be bought into RAN service relatively quickly.
Would it be concievable for Australia to buy a number of these retiring vessels as an interim measure until we could come up with something better?

Not really from my POV. TBH I would consider them too expensive for the RAN to acquire, even if the US offered them for free and this is not hyperbole either. Essentially none of the systems the LCS uses are in Australian service though NSM should be entering RAN service sometime in the near future I believe.

So basically the RAN would end up with frigate-sized cigarette boats that are woefully under-armed for their size and cost, kitted out with systems not used elsewhere in the RAN which would then require all the support chains to be established as well as personnel trained to operate and maintain the essentially bespoke systems. This would then enable the RAN to operate vessels which do not function as the USN intended and would cost more to fix/replace the problematic systems so it does function properly than it does to decommission the vessels and build new vessels with the fixes built-in.

No thank you, I would rather keep the ANZAC-class frigates in service. IMO the RAN would be better off asking Singapore if they still had any decommissioned Fearless-class PV's.

 

[old faithful]

Anyone who thinks defence is disadvantaging the majority to benefit any minority is very wrong. I can assure you defence continues to advance (usually) tall, white, hetrosexual Anglo blokes before anyone else.

After that one level of diversity it tolerated, and and those in such minorities are often paraded around to show how diverse they are pretending to be.

Every now and then an exceptional minority individual comes to the attention of higher ups and is cultivated and encouraged to stay, but they cop more crap than a white guy in the same position would.

I'm not sure what you are actually saying here Volk.
Would two young fit , non Australian born males, being rejected on the basis of their gender mean that defence was disadvantaging the majority? Because that's exactly what happend. Recruiting were only signing female recruits for infantry at the time. Filling a quota. Both of the young fellas have moved on to different careers now, one in WA police, the other in WA Corrections.