Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Redlands18]

To bring things back to the Navy,

Here is some News...

Hunter to be fitted with Mk45 gun

SA

But it's a 10,000t Battlecruiser, it should have 10 of them

 

[Bob53]

First, consider what the likely condition of the LCS being decommissioned so early are. The first two LCS to be put into reserve and it has been estimated that it would have cost USD$2 bil. to get the first four LCS, two each of the Independence-class and Liberty-class LCS prepped for sea service.

Also consider the engine and transmission problems with the combining gear for some of the LCS. This part of why so many of the LCS have been getting either retired, or put forward by the USN to be retired. Fixes have been developed, but the time and cost to apply the fixes to already built vessels has in many cases deemed too expensive and not worthwhile, and from my understanding it would require essentially cutting apart the vessel to remove the faulty gearing design and install a functional one. As it stands now, the USN has decommissioned I believe five Freedom-class LCS, and two Independence-class LCS, with the longest serving having been commissioned for ~13 year whilst the shortest time in commission was ~five years.

Think about that, seriously, the USN decommissioned new warships which cost ~USD$360 mil. (not including the mission modules) within five years of their commissioning. That should be an enormous warning sign that there are issues with these specific vessels. These issues are potentially fixable, but the USN decided that the cost to do so was not worthwhile, which in turn strongly suggests to me that it would not be worthwhile for the RAN to attempt to 'fix' them.

This is particularly true in light of their overall systems which are not in use by the RAN and therefore RAN personnel would need to become familiar with operating and repairing completely new CMS, radars, machinery and weapons. Similarly, the RAN would need to establish maintenance capabilities including sources of parts and spares. Perhaps more importantly, the vessels as fitted out are not believed to be survivable without escort in hot contested areas with the main offensive and defensive systems consisting of a 57mm Mk 110 gun, and a 21-missile RAM launcher for missile-based CIWS.

Also due to the nature of the design and in order to achieve the speeds desired of ~45 kts, there is very little weight margin available to fit new/replacement systems, or have much extra embarked aboard.

The last thing to consider is where would the crew come from? Yes, they have relatively small crews, but the USN has also found that crews of this size are not able to keep up with the proper maintenance of the vessels and need additional support from personnel ashore when docked. Given a choice between getting a trio of LCS, or keeping an ANZAC-class frigate in commission, I would keep the frigate as IMO it is a more capable vessel overall.

Acknowledged. I did say if the condition of the available ships was good. I’m not into buying other peoples problems.

 

[Bob53]

Many of the very best I have worked with have been ex reg senior NCOs three of the worst were the same.

The three worst were also bigots who saw themselves as gate keepers, i.e. they honestly believed it was their role, over and above what they were actually employed to do, to ensure only people they deemed suitable, were employed or promoted.

I've got the job I want, I just don't get the pay or the level that should come with it because the field I work in still functions like defence of old. If you don't conform to arbitrary requirements that have nothing to do with the role, you are allowed to do the work, you just don't get the pay or recognition. Ironically, if they adopted the current payscales and personnel policies of the ADF, things would be much better.

That's what shits me about the attitude that being a certain gender and demographic automatically makes someone suitable for the ADF and being something else makes you unsuitable.

I've worked side by side with people who would never have gotten into the ADF, let alone the roles they are in, 20 or 30 years who are absolutely fantastic at what they do. I've also worked with some self entitled tools who honestly see themselves as God's gift, but leave much to be desired.

There have always been very good people in the ADF, just that, from my perspective, there are now very good, even exceptionally good, people who in the past would have been automatically excluded.

Edit: yes I am bitter, but not twisted. I vent but I am also fixing things from the inside by shining a light on unacceptable behaviour, stuffed, outdated attitudes, racism, sexism, etc. I'm seen as a trouble maker but it's better than being a passive bystander or worse, part of the problem.

That's what shits me about the attitude that being a certain gender and demographic automatically makes someone suitable for the ADF and being something else makes you unsuitable.


i Don’t think anyone here is suggesting that at all mate.

 

[Volkodav]

Acknowledged. I did say if the condition of the available ships was good. I’m not into buying other peoples problems.

I would say the concept of a high-speed Seaframe is inherently unsuitable for the RAN, we had enough problems with the Armidales and their design concept as high-speed (they weren't) lightweight ships, being too fragile for their operating environment.

On the other hand, modular, transferable, operational payloads is a different matter entirely.

Conceptionaly, they could be platform agnostic. So long as the correct interfaces are provided, platform performance, seaworthiness, durability and survivability are adequate, transferable modules could be a very effective way to go.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would say the concept of a high-speed Seaframe is inherently unsuitable for the RAN, we had enough problems with the Armidales and their design concept as high-speed (they weren't) lightweight ships, being too fragile for their operating environment.

On the other hand, modular, transferable, operational payloads is a different matter entirely.

Conceptionaly, they could be platform agnostic. So long as the correct interfaces are provided, platform performance, seaworthiness, durability and survivability are adequate, transferable modules could be a very effective way to go.

Modular systems/payloads, as implemented by the Danes, is something that I believe Australia should pursue. The US's take (or rather, poor attempt at "improving") on modular systems, not so much.

I do think it would be good for the ADF to have a number of high speed waterborne vessels, but not something which IMO was conceptually flawed to begin with like what the LCS ended up becoming. What I have in mind fast patrol boats like the Dvora-class, fast, short-ranged littoral craft for patrolling or even escort of landing craft, but small enough to be transported on/in a RAN sealift or amphib. In essence, a modern replacement for a USN PT boat, or RAN HDML.

 

[Morgo]

Modular systems/payloads, as implemented by the Danes, is something that I believe Australia should pursue. The US's take (or rather, poor attempt at "improving") on modular systems, not so much.

I do think it would be good for the ADF to have a number of high speed waterborne vessels, but not something which IMO was conceptually flawed to begin with like what the LCS ended up becoming. What I have in mind fast patrol boats like the Dvora-class, fast, short-ranged littoral craft for patrolling or even escort of landing craft, but small enough to be transported on/in a RAN sealift or amphib. In essence, a modern replacement for a USN PT boat, or RAN HDML.

I would question the wisdom of short ranged anything given the size of our EEZ…

 

[Volkodav]

There are some interesting papers coming out of Indo Pacific. I need to wait until I can find public domain copies but the stats on the performance of first of class and major upgrades across more than a dozen navies is an eye opener.

Cost and schedule blowouts, as well as risk issues make the projects we whinge about look good, very good.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would question the wisdom of short ranged anything given the size of our EEZ…

Different sized vessels are suitable in different areas and for different purposes. The Dvora-class family of vessels are under 100 tons and 30m in length, which put them into roughly the same size as the LCM-8. Having something of this size which could be brought into an area to provide a littoral patrol/security presence, particularly given the array of archipelagoes north of the continent could be useful. I have in mind situations where an armed response would be desired, but the waters are too shallow or constricted for a RAN blue water vessel (so no destroyers, frigates or even OPV's) but the level of response would want more than RHIB's would pintle-mounted HMG's or Mk-19's. Vessels like this, and/or CB90 patrol boats, could also be useful in supporting a modern equivalent of Z Force, should that become necessary.

Lastly, small armed patrol boats which are suitable for shallow water ops could also be used to provide a port security presence in areas of coastal Australia that are otherwise far from naval bases. IIRC a number of the communities north of Perth and west of Darwin are supplied by barge, particularly with fuel. In the event of an outbreak of hostilities, even a hostile fishing vessel that is armed could disrupt communities in the region as well as impact access to nat resource extraction in the area.

 

[Redlands18]

Different sized vessels are suitable in different areas and for different purposes. The Dvora-class family of vessels are under 100 tons and 30m in length, which put them into roughly the same size as the LCM-8. Having something of this size which could be brought into an area to provide a littoral patrol/security presence, particularly given the array of archipelagoes north of the continent could be useful. I have in mind situations where an armed response would be desired, but the waters are too shallow or constricted for a RAN blue water vessel (so no destroyers, frigates or even OPV's) but the level of response would want more than RHIB's would pintle-mounted HMG's or Mk-19's. Vessels like this, and/or CB90 patrol boats, could also be useful in supporting a modern equivalent of Z Force, should that become necessary.

Lastly, small armed patrol boats which are suitable for shallow water ops could also be used to provide a port security presence in areas of coastal Australia that are otherwise far from naval bases. IIRC a number of the communities north of Perth and west of Darwin are supplied by barge, particularly with fuel. In the event of an outbreak of hostilities, even a hostile fishing vessel that is armed could disrupt communities in the region as well as impact access to nat resource extraction in the area.

Phase 3 of Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel program rescoped - Australian Defence Magazine
There is a project in the works for an armed boat in the CB90 class, but with a range of 440km @20kt, they are going to have to be sea lifted into the operations area. To be self-deployable any vessel is going to need a range of at minimum 2500ks, so we are basically talking about Inshore Patrol Boat size. This project hasn't kicked off yet but I suspect that anything chosen is going to have to be transportable by an LMV-H minimum.

 

[Todjaeger]

Phase 3 of Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel program rescoped - Australian Defence Magazine
There is a project in the works for an armed boat in the CB90 class, but with a range of 440km @20kt, they are going to have to be sea lifted into the operations area. To be self-deployable any vessel is going to need a range of at minimum 2500ks, so we are basically talking about Inshore Patrol Boat size. This project hasn't kicked off yet but I suspect that anything chosen is going to have to be transportable by an LMV-H minimum.

That sounds at least somewhat like what I have in mind, though the direct fire capabilities are not mentioned. The other difference to my mind would be who should be operating these. I would think the RAN might be better for what I have specifically in mind, though a degree of joint ops would certainly make sense, particularly if these vessels might be used to infiltrate or exfiltrate personnel.

 

[Reptilia]

I thought it was going to be the Whiskey project for phase 3.

 

[Redlands18]

That sounds at least somewhat like what I have in mind, though the direct fire capabilities are not mentioned. The other difference to my mind would be who should be operating these. I would think the RAN might be better for what I have specifically in mind, though a degree of joint ops would certainly make sense, particularly if these vessels might be used to infiltrate or exfiltrate personnel.

There are 4 projects which comes under Land 8710, thus Army projects.
LMV-M is the LCM-8 replacement. It will be larger with improved range, endurance, crew facilities and sea keeping the priorities.
Land 8710 phase 1A is a LARC-V replacement.
Both of these are currently shortlisted, and winners are due to be announced in the next few months.

LMV-P is the Riverine patrol vessel.
LMV-H is a LST type vessel up to 2000t.
Neither project has commenced beyond planning but as part of the DSR the Albanese Government has announced it plans to accelerate and expand Land 8710.

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile in fleet ops :
"HMAS Toowoomba’s embarked MH-60R Helicopter call sign “Valkyrie” conducts night flying operation during Operation Argos while conducting a regional presence deployment." Image Source : ADF Image Library

"HMAS Brisbane sails alongside HMAS Stalwart during a Replenishment at Sea in the East Philippine Sea during ANNUALEX 2023."
Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[ngatimozart]

If you read what I wrote, I was positing that an interim frigate (or large corvette, nomenclature isn't so important) would make sense if it were to help retire the Anzacs earlier than if they are to be decommissioned one on one as the Hunters enter service. My take on it all is that the problem we are grappling with now is because we've left it way too late to replace the Anzacs.

What I was suggesting would mean that the manpower requirements might actually fall somewhat through to the end of the '30s if the new class had a smaller crew, which it seems likely it would. Only when, say, the fifth Hunter enters service would you need more crew than we have now, on current plans that would seem to be in 2040.

I absolutely agree, and said as much, that attracting, training and retaining personnel is the greatest challenge facing our military.

On the discussion of the whole tier 2 narrative, I suggest we should allow for the political influence here. How would a government sell the acquisition - particularly if built, wholly or to any extent offshore - of a new class in addition to the Hunters? (How would defence sell it to the government, for that matter?) Would they admit there was a failure of planning and decision-making by past governments (Coalition and Labor)? Unlikely. Differentiating the new class might help with the political sell, which will come up against opposition. I expect they already very much had an idea of what the thinking is when they threw the term out there.

I read what you wrote.

Let's apply some logic. What would an interim frigate achieve? Nothing because it will take as long as any new design to build and introduce. People need to get real. There is a limited amount of facilities, funding, people and time. Secondly any interim frigate maybe be seen as pollies as a long term solution and you get similar problems to what the RAN have with the current Anzac Class frigate fleet. Something that no longer is what it was intended to be and Guccied up to look big and dangerous. It is still a small sized patrol frigate that has met its weight and displacement limits. Any talk of an interim frigate is crap. You can't afford interim frigates. They are just a distraction.

Now if you are talking about a light patrol frigate / corvette that fills the Teir 2 function then yes you are talking sense. These are what are needed long term, by not just the RAN, but many other navies including the USN & RNZN. Look at what the Japanese and South Koreans are building. Bear in mind that what they call frigates, we call light patrol frigates / corvettes and what they call destroyers we generally call frigates. The nomenclature between the navies is different.

I think this little pile on in response to hauritz's comment is over the top. I don't believe he was saying we should throw away continuous naval shipbuilding, but was commenting in the context that Australia needs a new warship in the water sooner.

No, he was speaking rubbish and most of those that piled in, as you put it, know what they are talking about.

So if we cannot build an interim class - tier 2 or whatever we want to call it - in our own shipyards then must we go overseas? Or just accept that we're going to have some very old Anzacs serving deep into the '30s and even '40s, and possibly some of those decommissioning earlier than we might like and the fleet retracting further to fewer than 11 hulls for quite some time? It doesn't sound like a good solution to me; I'm hoping instead we can build an additional class of warships to enter service alongside the Hunters to get those Anzacs out of the water soon.

No reason why you can't go overseas for the first iteration. Maybe you can build the following iterations in your own yards later when you have your own yards workflows etc., sorted and what not. The thing about say a SK, Singa, or Japanese build is that it's also defence diplomacy and most likely works out cheaper than building in your own yards. It's great building in your own yards but capacity and economics don't always make for an ideal solution. Do you know why I am really against any RNZN frigates etc., being built in Australia? It's purely because of cost. I say the same for North American and Western European yards. But Australia is just far to expensive for us.

 

[ngatimozart]

Is the now $45 billion life time cost or just the construction costs as both methods have been quoted for equipment here ( eg AUKIS Subs $360 Billion). If the is 9 ships…$5 billion each over the20+ year life time seems reasonable.

Jeez are you paying for them? No wonder I want our ships built elsewhere. That's the problem and I think that your $5 billion is optimistic. However what figures are you citing and how are they calculated? I cannot do a decent comparison of defence acquisitions costs between Australia and NZ because both governments do their cost calculations differently.

I'd say more likely customers would be the ASEAN countries. Particularly those with aging fleets in need of replacing or that are looking to expand their fleets such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam.

Why would they? Aussie shipbuilds are some of the most expensive in the world. Indonesia and Vietnam have their own yards so why would they want to build in Australia. Philippines doesn't have the money and I will @OPSSG to comment about Malaysia.

Indonesia is building some of it's own but definitely not designing it at this stage.

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.

So how are you going to get people to join? It's not like WW2 where you could enlist civilians willy nilly and turn them into half competent sailors who required some seasoning at sea. Today's navy is very technical and requires people to be rigorously trained over quite a bit of time and it also takes a lot of time for them to gain experience.

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

He is correct. FYI he's also a RAN veteran of many years and knows what he is talking about. Which some posters on here do not.

In those 18 you count active or operational ships that can be immediately fielded?

Because to be able to immediately field 18 units, means you need way more ships than those 18. I forgot the progression but if i remember correctly at low numbers it is an operational ship every 3 of the class, the more you increase the ratio 1:3 decreases slowly but still to have 18 operational ships you need to at least double that number in built and crewed ships.

And on the reserves: what's the cost of having reserves?

Which country outside the US can sustain an attrition war?have reserves or shipyards fast enough?

Even Russia had to ask for North Korea munition, its only attrition capabilities are human waves.

China have personnel problems like the rest of us.

Report: PLA Navy Runs Into Crewing Difficulties for Growing Fleet

This without touching the matter that they don't have a sea war-faring tradition, thus we aren't event mentioning the quality of those crews (not as human capital but as institution capabilities).

I'm not saying "misery loves company", but i would discern from problems that only Australia has and thus can be solved versus problems that afflict all players and that unless Australia is an Unicorn wont be able to solve.

Ah the cost of the bribes to get must be going up. To get into any branch of the PLA you have to buy your way in paying ahem, "fees", to everyone from the recruitment office onwards. Since the PRC economy isn't exactly robust, people don't have the required income anymore. Political reliability is no longer the requirement for getting in, but the ability to pay is.

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

Don't discount such an idea. Having some ships spare to replace losses due to action or maintenance is not a stupid idea. You just cycle your ships through, transferring the crew from the mechanically unsound vessel to one waiting in the pool. Over time you build up the pool ratings that are experienced and qualified in their branches. Not every crew member requires to be fully trained and have 10 years experience. By having a crew with an experienced / inexperienced balance is how you bring new people through.

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.

Yes, you have systems like the SH Cube system that is platform agnostic. Actually, having the capability of rolling mines off the stern of the Hunter Class etc., is not a silly idea. They could, whilst on patrol etc., surreptitiously leave nasty surprises in areas where an enemy may not be expecting them. This can also be a deterrence factor.

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?

Have you been on the magic mushrooms again? Why do you think the USN is decommissioning LCS ships before they have been commissioned? They are absolute rubbish; whores to be precise and I should really insult honest hard-working street girls, by associating them with the LCS. You would be better off buying the cruiser HMS Belfast

I don't know how to react to that, even though it was not directed at me.
Both young men I mentioned specifically applied for RAINF positions s, and both were rejected, and told, also I believe in writing, that at the time RAINF were ONLY accepting Female applicants. I don't know how I can prove it, but neither wanted to join other corps.
One is now a SERT member in WA Corrections, the other is a Cop.

Further to that, when I re enlisted in 1989, 2nd time in, I wanted to return to 3 RAR, who were very undermanned at the time. There were 120 applicants , and 3 of us were recuited, 2 ex ARA and 1 ex RAN who were accepted. None of us got to go to the Corp we wanted to. I ended up as a para rigger for 18 months before my Corp transfer back to infantry was accepted. Don't know where the other 2 ended up. I read all of your posts Volk, some are really very educational for me, particularly Navy posts, but some I find make you look like a very bitter and twisted man who can't get the engineering job you want because of incompetent people who got there in front of you, old crusty ex serving warrant officers and incompetent ex officers.....

Read the read red text no Maranoa's post above. I can make the same requirement for you if you push this any further. Also play the ball not the man and no need for you to make disparaging remarks about another member.

 

[Redlands18]

Jeez are you paying for them? No wonder I want our ships built elsewhere. That's the problem and I think that your $5 billion is optimistic. However what figures are you citing and how are they calculated? I cannot do a decent comparison of defence acquisitions costs between Australia and NZ because both governments do their cost calculations differently.

Why would they? Aussie shipbuilds are some of the most expensive in the world. Indonesia and Vietnam have their own yards so why would they want to build in Australia. Philippines doesn't have the money and I will @OPSSG to comment about Malaysia.




Read the read red text no Maranoa's post above. I can make the same requirement for you if you push this any further. Also play the ball not the man and no need for you to make disparaging remarks about another member.

There are some good reasons for NZ to be talking to the Poms about Type 31s built in the UK. Its a design that I can see fitting the RNZN, it has phenomenal range, room for a decent weapons and sensor fit, smallish crew but plenty of room for extras. Currently has an active production line, would have the full support of the UK Government, close historic ties to the RN.

 

[ngatimozart]

There are some good reasons for NZ to be talking to the Poms about Type 31s built in the UK. Its a design that I can see fitting the RNZN, it has phenomenal range, room for a decent weapons and sensor fit, smallish crew but plenty of room for extras. Currently has an active production line, would have the full support of the UK Government, close historic ties to the RN.

I wouldn't touch a RN Type 31 with a barge pole, and I definitely wouldn't want it built in Pomland. To costly and the RN modifications will be expensive and unnecessarily complicated. If there's a hard way to do something, the Poms will find it and make it SOP.

 

[aussienscale]

I wouldn't touch a RN Type 31 with a barge pole, and I definitely wouldn't want it built in Pomland. To costly and the RN modifications will be expensive and unnecessarily complicated. If there's a hard way to do something, the Poms will find it and make it SOP.

I would think NZ would be wise to continue to chat with South Korea

 

[ngatimozart]

I would think NZ would be wise to continue to chat with South Korea

Yes and I would suggest a conversation with Indonesia because they are building the AH140. It would be a good diplomatic move.

 

[Bob53]

@ngatimozart

Jeez are you paying for them? No wonder I want our ships built elsewhere. That's the problem and I think that your $5 billion is optimistic. However what figures are you citing and how are they calculated? I cannot do a decent comparison of defence acquisitions costs between Australia and NZ because both governments do their cost calculations differently.

Indirectly via tax yes! But the reason I made that point was the Subs are publicly quoted as $360 billion project which takes in lifetime costs. However the Hunters are stated as $45 billion project in the media. Trying to understand if that’s the on the road … Sail away cost or lifetime costs. Sail away seems high. Life time seems low.