Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

I have always wondered about surface ship survival given the huge development of drone and missile technology. Layered defences within a CSG is one thing but a few surface combatants on their own….? Hopefully some of the exotic 40 mm ammo along with 40 mm guns addresses much of the threat along with laser advances. SSNs and long range strike jets, for Canada, a bridge too far, sadly.

My impression has been that one of the most significant advantages a CSG would have is the significantly larger ISR footprint which is possible by embarked AEW and/or MPA that can operate at significantly higher altitudes than radar systems mounted to a mast. Have enough ISR aircraft, each with sufficient loiter time, and one can provide 24/7 sensor coverage that can extend 100's of km's beyond a ship's own organic sensor coverage.

 

[Volkodav]

Volk I agree with you on so many levels but one.
The reality that long term plans inevitably change with the passage of time.
Sometimes a single build will stay the distance. 10 ANZACs (not 12) comes to mind.
But as you have often talked about re the history of the RAN and what we had planned for or better , had hoped for , for usually does not come to fruition.

ANZACS on their own are fine, but the intended fleet they were to sail with was altered substantially and therfore were forced to become something they were not designed for.

We await the Naval Review and I'd guess it will provide a road map for the RAN going forward and the type and numbers of vessels required to give government and Navy a maritime response to the challenges of the future.
Appropriate and all good stuff, if both the force mix is correct and equally important and this is the key point........... Implemented!
Take one item out of mx and the balance is lost with compromises having to be made.

It's almost like you have to plan your fantasy fleet around the fact that long term expectations will not be met.

All very negative on my behalf , but its an observation mirrored on the reality that we have today , versus the aspiration we aspired to over the decades.

It's why we talk about up gunning OPVs and bolting on bits to ANZACs when there's no weight margin left. Why we talk of more Hobart's and other options when what we should of done is ordered more in the first place.
Up gun the Cape class is met with comedy, buy if all had gone well the Evolved Cape series would not have been built and OPVs would be in service today doing their job.
Admirals tlold they were out of control wanting a third LHD, yet since the Canberra Class came into service what's the ADFs go to asset for some many activities etc etc.

Reluctantly fantasy fleets play a role due to expediancy.
I guess it's a form of reluctant adaptability.

I hope the Naval Review gets bipartisan support for decades to come.

Cheers S

The thing is it takes closer to two decades than one to get a from setting the requirement to the first ship entering service.

The requirements are set based on the GoD assessment of strategic needs with more than a little crystal ball gazing.

This is where talk of additional F-100s falls over, the F-100 was the "existing" option, as opposed to the preferred, "evolved" option for a 1990s requirement, kicked off in the early 2000s. They were already the older, safer less advanced option, 20 years ago.

Capes are evolutions of the cheap, commercial alternative to a proper patrol boat replacement that kicked off 25 years ago.

The Arafuras are the lowest common denominator that barely meets the needs established during border protection operations in the early 2000s that the PBs were found inadequate for.

With the lead times involved everything ordered should be determined on worst case scenarios with growth factored in. Anything else will result in capability gaps and greater costs as panic measures are implemented to address them.

 

[Meriv90]

Remember we got Gibuti next to Yemen, probably quite the amount of AEW and C4i in the area already. Still the situation is pretty drammatic

 

[SammyC]

If I pull out an old cliche (oldie but goldie), governments tend to do the right thing once all other options have been exhausted.

I will suggest we are now at that point, so there is a reasonable probability that at least some aspects of the fantasy fleet will come to fruition. We will get some combination of additional hulls, firepower and people, and there will be some new money on the table to make this happen. Time will be the one unmovable aspect, with I suspect the best options unviable as they will arrive too late.

 

[SammyC]

I have always wondered about surface ship survival given the huge development of drone and missile technology. Layered defences within a CSG is one thing but a few surface combatants on their own….? Hopefully some of the exotic 40 mm ammo along with 40 mm guns addresses much of the threat along with laser advances. SSNs and long range strike jets, for Canada, a bridge too far, sadly.

Hi John, I am thinking that the age of lone ships on deployment is perhaps a thing of the past as it is becomming too hazardous. I reflect back to the recent Toowoomba incident with the Chinese frigate that activated its sonar. Lone ships are very vulnerable when they break down, be that the loss of a weapon system or propulsion.

Had Toowoomba been with a second ship, then it would have been able to protect her and perhaps the Chinese ship could have been held more at bay.

While flag flying missions to friendly ports is probably fine for a single warship, I can't see a lone ANZAC or Hobart traversing for instance the Tiawan straight by itself again.

 

[Stampede]

IMHO what we should be talking right now is the Shield vs Sword situation we are having with the Houtis.

We are seeing that even Burkes are failing, with missiles slipping through.

Australia is like Italy, we are sea countries, imagine if after Yemen the result will be that at this moment, thanks to technology, the Sword is way too strong than the Shield. If the only way to stop the Houtis is going to be boots on the ground it will mean that Sea Denial strategies are way too efficient and even the most modern fleets will have problems controlling the seas.

If the sword is that strong forget frigates and destroyers, the solution would be SSN (congratz on AUKUS) and B21...

It's a good question.
Are we on the cusp of a revolution in military resolve?
Don't have the answer other than we need to find solutions to current military challenges.

Cheers S

 

[Jason_DBF]

If you are that convinced, I would suggest consulting your unit security officer to clarify.

I have spoken with my USO and they agreed with me. I have submitted the appropriate reporting form and I strongly suggest people be careful with what they post online.

Agree this is the correct approach ... but it should not have been dealt with in the public domain. It simply highlights a potential issue.

Alexsa

 

[SammyC]

Text deleted

Read the rules. Please post on the appropriate thread.

Alexsa

 

[Redlands18]

Folks

LCS to Greece

To change the subject, this article caught my eye. Aparently the US may have a willing buyer for some of the Freedom Class LCS ships. Each to their own. If you thought we were struggling with old ships, Greece has some very very old girls with their Elli Class

Greece to upgrade its MEKOs

Also, as an added bonus, we are not alone with working through difficult life extensions on MEKOs.

Links are going to the wrong article.

Greece closer than ever to procure LCS from the U.S. - Naval News
Greece is in a major Naval modernisation right now, have also ordered 3+1 Belharra Frigates from France. As a NATO Ally the US may give Greece very generous terms on a LCS transfer. Probably not a bad pickup for Greece, with its coastline and islands, speed is probably more important than endurance when compared to Australia.

 

[SammyC]

Woops. Thanks Redlands. My copy and past skills aren't working too well today.

 

[koxinga]

Greece is in a major Naval modernisation right now, have also ordered 3+1 Belharra Frigates from France. As a NATO Ally the US may give Greece very generous terms on a LCS transfer. Probably not a bad pickup for Greece, with its coastline and islands, speed is probably more important than endurance when compared to Australia.

Other than having newer hulls, the LCS isn't exactly "better" than the old Elli / Kortenaer-class, from a reliability or a capability standpoint, since those are proper frigates.

 

[Redlands18]

Other than having newer hulls, the LCS isn't exactly "better" than the old Elli / Kortenaer-class, from a reliability or a capability standpoint, since those are proper frigates.

List of active Hellenic Navy ships - Wikipedia
No one is saying the LCS would be a better Frigate than the Kortenar's but three Belharra's, four 2nd hand LCS and a refit of the MEKO 200s is all Greece can afford right now. They also have a project going for 4 large Corvettes in the 2500t class. They also have a large fleet of ageing FACs and PBs.
As you say the Kortenar's are very old, they could very well be totally worn out.
This discussion needs to be moved to the Hellenic Navy thread before we upset the mods.

 

[spoz]

Guys, there is a forum section devoted to the Hellenic Navy, would you like to take your discussion there? There is no prospect of the Australian Navy, the subject of this part of the forum, ever acquiring LCS!

 

[Redlands18]

Guys, there is a forum section devoted to the Hellenic Navy, would you like to take your discussion there? There is no prospect of the Australian Navy, the subject of this part of the forum, ever acquiring LCS!

My apologies, the discussion is now on the Hellenic thread so please take any reply's there.

 

[hauritz]

The thing is it takes closer to two decades than one to get a from setting the requirement to the first ship entering service.

The requirements are set based on the GoD assessment of strategic needs with more than a little crystal ball gazing.

This is where talk of additional F-100s falls over, the F-100 was the "existing" option, as opposed to the preferred, "evolved" option for a 1990s requirement, kicked off in the early 2000s. They were already the older, safer less advanced option, 20 years ago.

Capes are evolutions of the cheap, commercial alternative to a proper patrol boat replacement that kicked off 25 years ago.

The Arafuras are the lowest common denominator that barely meets the needs established during border protection operations in the early 2000s that the PBs were found inadequate for.

With the lead times involved everything ordered should be determined on worst case scenarios with growth factored in. Anything else will result in capability gaps and greater costs as panic measures are implemented to address them.

I think one of the differences between Australia and China is that they are creating the threat while we are simply responding to that threat. At least that was the case until Australia decided to acquire SSNs. To an extent this has put the boot on the other foot and China will now have to consider the best way of countering this new threat from Australia. To a lesser extent Australia acquiring land based anti-ship missiles will also make them have to rethink and retool in order to respond.

It is like an extremely slow game of chess where each move and countermove takes decades.

This is one of the reasons I am against corvettes or even a new batch of Hobarts. It is merely countering a present day problem and by the time they are delivered they won’t even be able to do that job.

If you want to disrupt Chinas plans you need disruptive technology. AI drones, advanced sea mines, hypersonic weapons and so on will all frustrate Chinese plans and force them to divert resources to counter those threats. Just look at how effective the Ukrainians and even the Houthis are in causing all sorts of headaches for modern naval forces with a mix of cheap drones and missiles.

 

[Redlands18]

This is one of the reasons I am against corvettes or even a new batch of Hobarts. It is merely countering a present day problem and by the time they are delivered they won’t even be able to do that job.

Very true, you don't buy warships to fight any particular war, you get the best ships you can afford and then work out how best to operate those vessels in the current war you are fighting. The Hunters will be very capable in any type of war you can name, whether it is providing support to troops on the ground a-la Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, or as part of a Task Force a-la Falklands, hunting Subs a-la North Atlantic WW2, or supporting amphibious operations a-la PTO in WW2.

Even in WW2 there was very few major warship designs conceived, designed and built after 1940 that actually saw service in any real numbers in WW2, the vessels that were being designed around war experience are the ones that ended up at the forefront of the Cold War and generally so obsolete by the mid 50s that major rebuild programs had to be introduced such as the USN FRAM, GUPPY and the SCB Essex rebuilds.

 

[alexsa]

Here, here. We used to dread “weekly running” as it was known - out on Monday morning, all week in the JB exercise area, and back on Friday. With the occasional weekend at anchor in JB before a minefield transit thrown in. We knew it was leading to a deployment up top, or to Pearl, or even around the SW Pacific, so while we hated it, we knew there was a worthwhile outcome at the end. But to do it endlessly, with nothing else on the horizon? What a horrible thought! And it would certainly have led to people pulling the pin.

Of course, the other thing is we didn’t steam around in Defence Watches all the time; on passage we were in cruising watches (stand fast submarines). We only went to Defence Watches when we had to; major exercises, workups, that sort of thing. Again, I would have hated to spend my life in two watches; people become tired, and not enough work gets done to maintain the ship, particularly in the ship husbandry sense, in what is, after all, peace (although we were in the midst of the a Cold War). And to say we were any less ready is nonsense - we got two fully worked up combat and NBC ready ships to the Gulf from a standing start in 1990 in three weeks, including passage time.

Noting I am an old codger .... The Oberons really only ran a two watch system when dived/Surfaced including when playing with surface vessels. Transits were nornally surfaced (because this is faster) or dived when it was rough (because they roll on wet grass). Mind you when it was too rough and the induction mast was being swamped it was back to the surface .... which was really unpleasant for they OOW and lookout on the 'bridge' ..... I use that term with mirth.

The Oberons that went on 'patrol' were in two watches for the entire time of that patrol. Because extra bodies were carried the vessel also 'hot bunked'. This was hard work. On the plus side .... where a Submarine went to any port (and when not at anchor in Coffs Harbour or some other spot) the crew were accomodated ashore .... this was considered to be a fantastic perk.

 

[alexsa]

Reposted in respect to recent discussions

Good day folks.

Information in the public domain should not present a security risk. If any party considers a post contravenes any legal requirement, then they must advise relevant authorities and advise the Mods. This discussion should not take place in open forum.

However, if a poster can point to relevant publically available information then this can be posted. If there are concerns about this information, then this needs to be directed to the appropriate authorities and those considering it a breach should report it. It should not become a bun fight on this platform. I would hope that information published by the government should not be in breach of relevant legislation.

Alexsa

 

[Jason_DBF]

Noting I am an old codger .... The Oberons really only ran a two watch system when dived/Surfaced including when playing with surface vessels. Transits were nornally surfaced (because this is faster) or dived when it was rough (because they roll on wet grass). Mind you when it was too rough and the induction mast was being swamped it was back to the surface .... which was really unpleasant for they OOW and lookout on the 'bridge' ..... I use that term with mirth.

The Oberons that went on 'patrol' were in two watches for the entire time of that patrol. Because extra bodies were carried the vessel also 'hot bunked'. This was hard work. On the plus side .... where a Submarine went to any port (and when not at anchor in Coffs Harbour or some other spot) the crew were accomodated ashore .... this was considered to be a fantastic perk.

O boats were hard work but I loved my time on them.

 

[Armchair]

I think one of the differences between Australia and China is that they are creating the threat while we are simply responding to that threat.

I agree SSNs in numbers completely change the situation but that framing does not capture the strategic posture in my view.
By “the threat” here are you referring to tactical offensive capabilities?