I wasn’t really getting into any depth regarding sub warfare or ASW either in isolation or as part of a taskforce or formation. I made a point that a SSN could be up to 3 times faster than a conventionally sub and the speed could be sustained. That’s it. All your points are aknowledgEd and understood.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Scott you are correct that the absurdly long Defence recruiting is a major turnoff for those trying to enlist, but the current situation with Navy pulling warships out of the water is related to highly qualified and experienced technical personnel certified to sustain key systems like frigate propulsion or electrical generations. A large number of senior techs have left across the ADF, two I know citing the new school 'bullshit' that interupts every working day as a primary factor for their departure. Sometimes Anzac frigates cannot go to see for want of single suitably certified technical expert.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Realistically though, one has to go into depth with submarine warfare and ASW ops, otherwise one is simply talking about ASuW...
Yes, I could have resisted making the above comment, but I chose not to.
The issue I have (and likely others that know far more about subs and ASW ops) is that whilst a SSN might very well be able to get up to a might higher speed and sustain it for a longer period than a conventionally powered diesel-electric sub, that does not mean such a capability is actually useful as is.
In many respects I view the focus on a sub's max speed like how people would fixate on the kinematic performance of fighter aircraft. If one looks at a number of the 4th gen fighter aircraft a number of them have max speeds that are beyond Mach 2, but once one is looking at the max speed of 4.5+ gen fighters and later fighters their top speeds rarely exceed Mach 2 and in a number of cases, not even that. There are a variety of reasons why this has happened but the basic gist is that the advantages raw speed used to provide are much less important than other factors.
As I understand it for subs, charging off at a high submerged speed for anything other than perhaps a short sprint is not advantageous because of how much it would give away a sub's position and the resulting (and unhealthy) attention that would draw from a large area. If all the subs in a region are doing sprints of perhaps 18 kts and then drifting at 4kts to transit an area whilst attempting to minimize radiated noise and also listening for possible hostile sub contacts, then it does not really matter that a SSN might possibly be able get up to 30+ kts and stay there. To do so would likely generate so much noise as to effectively blind the sub and give away its position.
Hi Scott
I read that article in the Australian this morning, and it has been a common thread in this forum. I would view, similar to yourself, that it as a larger impediment to strengthening and preparing the navy than the procurement of new ships.
One thing I will however point out is that this problem is not just with defence. I work in the chemical manufacturing industry in Perth, which is high paying and technically challenging. Yet we still have difficulty recruiting and have shortfalls in people.
I am an engineer, and I know that the number of university graduates in engineering is insufficient to meet the market demand. This impacts defence as much as any other industry. Technical trades are similar.
While retainment bonuses and increased salaries go some way to resolving the recruitment shortfall, as does reducing recruitment red tape, if there are not enough people in the pool then the problem never goes away. I would suggest that the solution will need to include growing the pool (education, emigration etc), as well as increasing the pay and conditions.
I read that article in the Australian this morning, and it has been a common thread in this forum. I would view, similar to yourself, that it as a larger impediment to strengthening and preparing the navy than the procurement of new ships.
One thing I will however point out is that this problem is not just with defence. I work in the chemical manufacturing industry in Perth, which is high paying and technically challenging. Yet we still have difficulty recruiting and have shortfalls in people.
I am an engineer, and I know that the number of university graduates in engineering is insufficient to meet the market demand. This impacts defence as much as any other industry. Technical trades are similar.
While retainment bonuses and increased salaries go some way to resolving the recruitment shortfall, as does reducing recruitment red tape, if there are not enough people in the pool then the problem never goes away. I would suggest that the solution will need to include growing the pool (education, emigration etc), as well as increasing the pay and conditions.
Submarines don’t “chase” each other,
Just saying Bob.
Manpower is an issue and I guess you would need to question whether of not a life extended ANZAC with a crew requirement of around 180 is better value than a Hobart with 200 or a corvette/light frigate with maybe around a hundred. The article also mentions that upgrades on the ANZACs may be delayed. I expect we will get more clarification when they finally release the surface fleet review.
Hunter-class Frigate Procurement Flawed: Review - Naval News
A review into Australia’s procurement of the Hunter-class frigate has found serious issues with the procurement process...
www.navalnews.com
An interesting write up on the Hunter selection.
Basically the BAE option best met operational requirements, with the least technical risk, while the other options appear to possibly have had lower cost and schedule risk, although none of the three were compliant.
The cost and schedule issues are not actually and industry problem, rather evidence of a well known government problem where parliament seems to believe you can get to or three times the amount of value you plan to budget for, if you halve what you actually invest.
d-ron84
Member
I would much rather serve on a platform that meets or exceeds operational requirements then one that saves the treasurer some red inkHunter-class Frigate Procurement Flawed: Review - Naval News
A review into Australia’s procurement of the Hunter-class frigate has found serious issues with the procurement process...
An interesting write up on the Hunter selection.
Basically the BAE option best met operational requirements, with the least technical risk, while the other options appear to possibly have had lower cost and schedule risk, although none of the three were compliant.
The cost and schedule issues are not actually and industry problem, rather evidence of a well known government problem where parliament seems to believe you can get to or three times the amount of value you plan to budget for, if you halve what you actually invest.
The other thought that strikes me is if we are only able to crew eight to ten majors, then they should be as new and capable as they can possibly be.
Same applies to our minor combatants, one of our greatest constraints is suitably qualified and experienced personnel, those we have should be employed on the newest, most capable platforms we can afford.
I'm keen to know what that means exactly, could you expand and explain what they mean by that ? I'm interested to know if it's a structural or cultural issue.
If the remaining ANZACs don't recieve a life extension they will probably age out of service by the early to mid 2030s. All going well we might see two or maybe even three Hunters in service by then. If we can establish a production line of light frigates as well we could see a few of those entering service by that time as well. In terms of ship numbers we would probably no worse than we are now but vastly more capable.
Unfortunately that would mean that until then the navy would be in its worst state since before WW2
Or they could take Navantia/Civmec/Austal up on the offer of a quick build of 6 Tasman class corvettes.
The Saudi Arabian order of 5 Al Jubail class corvettes will be completed soon (5 Ordered in mid 2018, built and delivered from early 2019-Feb 2024) by Navantia, Spain. This lengthened avante design is now known as the Alpha 3000 and is the basis of the Tasman class they are offering the RAN. Last year Navantia said an Australian corvette would cost $800 million each if built in Australia or $600 million each if built in Spain. (No discussion of a split build). Also offered a build of 3 new Hobart class destroyers for $6 billion. (3 Destroyers and 6 corvettes for $10 billion).
We don’t really know what is happening with Arafura 7-12 apart from the annual civmec report that states construction of Arafura 7 is set to begin in early 2024.
The Corvette proposal is probably the quickest path to having some capabilty before the next decade, solving some of the crewing shortages and setting some of the Anzacs aside. The Arafura switch to C90 was another quick option offered by Luerssen, they offered an in service C90 by 2028 with follow ons every 10 months.
Its not a bad ship, it is the most capable ship offered. I think the key weakness was design maturity. FREMM seemed much better as a ASW platform than Navantia, and frankly that is no surprise. Navantia F-100 isn't really new and isn't a focused ASW platform for key technical reasons. FREMM was, but as the US has found, it still took significant modification to fit the systems and weapons, and they went for a 57mm gun and a much smaller radar and still had to add ~10m plug. And they are delayed as well.
First Constellation Frigate Delayed At Least a Year, Schedule Assessment ‘Ongoing’ - USNI News
This post has been updated with a statement from the Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro. ARLINGTON, Va. – The first Constellation-class guided-missile frigate will deliver at least a year late due in large part to workforce shortfalls at the Wisconsin yard where it’s built, USNI News has...
news.usni.org
Really it is damming of the process, not really of the ships themselves.
This.. Blind freddy could see RAN capabilities were going to be ambitious for the Sea5000 and that there would be no ready to go design that was going to meet the timeframes. Again, cursing the black hole and false economy of not building the 4th (and probably 5th AWD). Our planning and selection process needs to be better and be better scheduled themselves and not dictated to by government political timescales. Clearly too much politics over the top of these big projects. Lots of bad out comes. Even the companies involved hate it, because when shit blows up, they get blamed for clear political decisions (from within RAN or from within Government), but can't go around burning governments or navies.
I think this is an option, but not a certainty. There are options. Build 3 new "Hobart" type ships, but we don't even know what that means. Build "Tasmans" which we kinda know what that could look like. There are other options, but not as much industry support. CV90 seems to have no backers other than Mr Lurrsen himself, even NVL didn't poney up the few bucks to recreate their Bulgarian CV90 model for indopac23. I suspect a review of the Sea1180 selection would probably also find problems, but we would waste more money and time finding answers we to problems we already know.
We are trying to solve multiple problems:
Ships for the RAN that are
- More capable
- Newer and more reliable with greater growth potential
- More crew efficient
Again, the DSR Naval is the key document to unlocking all of this. Which is going to have to be some kind of magical wonder document.
I’m pretty sure an MMPV90 model was on display along with the Arafura OPV. Quite a few models from around the globe were on display that didn’t make the media or forums. The FCX30 in the Italian booth I thought should have got more attention. 4 are in service with Qatar known as the Doha class.Its not a bad ship, it is the most capable ship offered. I think the key weakness was design maturity. FREMM seemed much better as a ASW platform than Navantia, and frankly that is no surprise. Navantia F-100 isn't really new and isn't a focused ASW platform for key technical reasons. FREMM was, but as the US has found, it still took significant modification to fit the systems and weapons, and they went for a 57mm gun and a much smaller radar and still had to add ~10m plug. And they are delayed as well.
First Constellation Frigate Delayed At Least a Year, Schedule Assessment ‘Ongoing’ - USNI News
This post has been updated with a statement from the Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro. ARLINGTON, Va. – The first Constellation-class guided-missile frigate will deliver at least a year late due in large part to workforce shortfalls at the Wisconsin yard where it’s built, USNI News has...
Really it is damming of the process, not really of the ships themselves.
This.. Blind freddy could see RAN capabilities were going to be ambitious for the Sea5000 and that there would be no ready to go design that was going to meet the timeframes. Again, cursing the black hole and false economy of not building the 4th (and probably 5th AWD). Our planning and selection process needs to be better and be better scheduled themselves and not dictated to by government political timescales. Clearly too much politics over the top of these big projects. Lots of bad out comes. Even the companies involved hate it, because when shit blows up, they get blamed for clear political decisions (from within RAN or from within Government), but can't go around burning governments or navies.
I think this is an option, but not a certainty. There are options. Build 3 new "Hobart" type ships, but we don't even know what that means. Build "Tasmans" which we kinda know what that could look like. There are other options, but not as much industry support. CV90 seems to have no backers other than Mr Lurrsen himself, even NVL didn't poney up the few bucks to recreate their Bulgarian CV90 model for indopac23. I suspect a review of the Sea1180 selection would probably also find problems, but we would waste more money and time finding answers we to problems we already know.
We are trying to solve multiple problems:
Ships for the RAN that are
But also balance industry workload and efficiency, for multiple yards. Preferably in some sort of sustainable model. And probably do it on a tight budget the size of refitting Anzacs or similar. In a time frame where ships are delivered before 2030.
- More capable
- Newer and more reliable with greater growth potential
- More crew efficient
Again, the DSR Naval is the key document to unlocking all of this. Which is going to have to be some kind of magical wonder document.
You can see it 35 seconds in on this Naval News video from Indo pacific 2023. Probably one of only a handful of models without CEA radar.
Here’s the info on the fcx series from the Fincantieri Website.
Austal also seem to have added Corvette and Light Frigate along with the new ‘Manta‘ Catamaran to list of ships that can be built.
From LinkedIn, the last photo.
Austal on LinkedIn: #team #austal #manta #indopacific2023
What's new on the Austal stand at Indo Pacific International Maritime Exposition 2023? Check out the MANTA - Multi-Mission Autonomous Networked Transporter…
www.linkedin.com
The Oracle Program USV was also very interesting with one to be tested this year.
Oracle Program – MARITIME SECURITY, POWER PROJECTION & SEA CONTROL
oracleprogram.ai
Last edited:
Reptilia, I like those Wiskey boats shown in the Indo Pacific video. I can really see myself out fishing on one of those.
Given we are talking about upcoming new ship choices, and staffing shortages, I think it is worth considering the impact new ships have on shore support requirements. While it is difficult to retain uniformed personnel, defence civilians also face shortages.
Each class of vessel requires a large number of civilian shore based people to manage the logistics and maintenance (system program offices in my time). The more classes of ships we have the larger the shore based support facilities, and the more defence civilians are required. 10 ships of a single class is more efficient to support than two classes of five ships.
The lowest shore staffing requirement would naturally be obtained by having the fewest different types of ships. Like it or not our future shore support is configured for Hobarts, Hunters, LHDs, Arafuras and Capes. It makes logistical sense for new ships to align with derivatives of these classes.
Consolidated classes also simplifies training, crew rotations, parts and the like, so it benefits the uniformed people as well.
Following this logic, then more Hobarts, Hunters and C90 style Arafuras seems reasonable. Something like the Navantia Tasman offer also could work under this concept if its equipment (engines, weapons, auxiliaries etc) are similar to the Hobarts and could be supported through the same SPO. Conversely, options such as the Mogamis, Arrowheads or the various FREMMs have no existing support structure and would require new stand alone support teams. As such I think they would struggle to be competitive in a personnel constrained environment.
My $10 bet is on the Naval review recommending additional Hobarts (updated ones) and C90 style corvettes. Hopefully it leaves the Hunters alone (maybe some extra missiles).
Given we are talking about upcoming new ship choices, and staffing shortages, I think it is worth considering the impact new ships have on shore support requirements. While it is difficult to retain uniformed personnel, defence civilians also face shortages.
Each class of vessel requires a large number of civilian shore based people to manage the logistics and maintenance (system program offices in my time). The more classes of ships we have the larger the shore based support facilities, and the more defence civilians are required. 10 ships of a single class is more efficient to support than two classes of five ships.
The lowest shore staffing requirement would naturally be obtained by having the fewest different types of ships. Like it or not our future shore support is configured for Hobarts, Hunters, LHDs, Arafuras and Capes. It makes logistical sense for new ships to align with derivatives of these classes.
Consolidated classes also simplifies training, crew rotations, parts and the like, so it benefits the uniformed people as well.
Following this logic, then more Hobarts, Hunters and C90 style Arafuras seems reasonable. Something like the Navantia Tasman offer also could work under this concept if its equipment (engines, weapons, auxiliaries etc) are similar to the Hobarts and could be supported through the same SPO. Conversely, options such as the Mogamis, Arrowheads or the various FREMMs have no existing support structure and would require new stand alone support teams. As such I think they would struggle to be competitive in a personnel constrained environment.
My $10 bet is on the Naval review recommending additional Hobarts (updated ones) and C90 style corvettes. Hopefully it leaves the Hunters alone (maybe some extra missiles).
Last edited:
I can speak to this personally as someone who is halfway through their two year wait period before I'm allowed to re-apply. Got rejected last time for seeing a psych during high school and having been on ADHD medication. Spent last year off medication and getting myself a Cert II in electrotechnology to hopefully set myself up better for being a greenie since they're in high demand and it should hopefully line me up for a commission later down the road.
Ever since seeing the 2013 IFR as a kid I've wanted to be in the RAN. But if I get rejected again I'll really have to ask myself whether I'm willing to wait another two years to try again, and I'm afraid that the answer by that point might not be yes.
Last edited:
I don’t think we will see any big builds done in Henderson for some time, maybe corvettes but not Large frigates, Destroyers or Joint Support ships.
Quite alot going on…
Osborne South > Hunter class
Osborne North > SSN AUKUS Submarine yard construction
Henderson/LURSSEN/CIVMEC > Arafura class
Henderson/AUSTAL > Cape class, Landing craft medium, Landing craft heavy(maybe)
Henderson upgrades current > Naval offices building, Wharf extensions, Wharf fill ins, New Finger Wharf planned, Hall under construction at CUF North.
You could sort of see what Henderson might become back in 2021 in the government document below and the new artist impressions have not changed in a recent document from December. 2023. With AUKUS though, who knows how much the plans have changed.
You can see in the artists impression -the upgrades to the wharf, the wharf extensions and fill ins, the new finger wharf, a larger approx 150m floating dock(could be 2 connected), a new duel hall infront of civmec fab building, a new very large duel hall next to ASC and also a little bit of the dry dock on the far right. Alot of the wharf upgrades have been happening over the last year, they just finished filling in wharf 2. If all these plans come true, its going to take quite a bit of time.
Wharf upgrades
Proven Project Management, Perth WA - Project Managers
Welcome to Proven, an innovative project management company with a track record of exceeding client expectations.
provenpm.com.au
AMC2 Deck Infill and Maritime Bollards - Proven
The AMC2 project was a follow on from the initial Wharf Extension project. It commenced in February 2023 and is now completed as of December 2023. The project involved filling a section of the wharf to allow a far larger service area adjacent to berthed vessels. The construction involved...
provenpm.com.au
Significant Development Applications
View Part 11B and Part 17 significant development applications listed by local government area.
www.wa.gov.au
Last edited:
Hi devo, I wish you the best on your next application. Regardless the outcome, the cert II is a strong technical foundation, which other employers would be interested in.
Well this is why media isn't perhaps that helpful in this. I would have expected more interest in the CV90 design, explaining it, as its the one with the most commonality with the existing OPV80 Lurssen design we are already building. It should at least be the baseline in comparisons, because its the lowest risk, with existing contracts with the supplier in place. It doesn't mean we should select it, but bench mark other designs against it.
Yeah I chipped in on a question about that. Probably should of just kept schtum.