Is Australia's Navy Adequate?

[Markus40]

Good to see that someone understands sea warfare.

I totally agree with both statements. Aircraft are designed to and built to withstand the elements. The current STOL carriers in the RN can be utilised for the F35b if needed and can overlap the CVF replacement till they are ready to come on line.

According to the latest Warship mag. and from what i am reading about the statements from the Sea Lord in London that the RN will retain its Naval assets till such time they are replaced. Thats underway now. What is uncertain is the retention of the personell that serve on them. Thats the question. However Labour has begun to address some issues already by providing bonuses to the crew that are on duty to foreign deployments. This at least should go some way in addressing these issues for RN personell. I don not think for one moment the government is ever going to let the RN stoop to the levels and numbers of assets as such within the RAN. Although the RAN will be increasing its size substantially.

I think the RN is stretched on deployment issues such as the N Korean arms embargo naval support, and being able to find enough naval assets to cover the deployment.

I disagree. Although it may have a lot of ships to replace, the destroyers are now being replaced, and that's the most crucial project on at the moment (apart from CVF). The frigates can keep going for many years yet and plans are being made to replace them.



They aren't "stealth aircraft" - they have some features of the sort. No one would be using a plane on an aircraft carrier that lost its capabilities from being exposed to the elements!

As to the numbers of planes being carried, it will depend on what the mix of F-35s to helicopters will be. But either way it will be more than enough for the RN's needs.

 

[Markus40]

They are also of a descent size as well. Means they can be multi optimized for other systems as well suited to the South American environment.

I agree that they are ships that are available currently can be picked up and taken away. They dont need substantial maintenance at this point in time. Thats whats making them attractive. The weapons on board are up to date and sensors are working currently within to days standards.

I wasnt aware that there was four available for sale but certainly knew there was 2 Destroyers for sale. One of them the HMS London (type 22 frigate) which was sold to Romania recently.

As far as I can understand it, it's because they're fairly cheap yet have decent capabilities. Although there are some very nice things you can buy these days, they're expensive for middle-income countries - there aren't so many good second-class ships that come on to the market.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I wasnt aware that there was four available for sale but certainly knew there was 2 Destroyers for sale. One of them the HMS London (type 22 frigate) which was sold to Romania recently.

As far as I know, no more ships have been offered for sale. There are, however, four Type-22 frigates that are potential candidates. That doesn't mean the RN will want to get rid of them just yet.

 

[Markus40]

Correct and if you have a look at the current frigate inventory for the RN you can see that there are abundant numbers available. Im going to put my neck out and say that the Type 23 Frigate has the capability of a destroyer in any case with sensors and weapons such as the Seawolf/Seasparrow and Harpoon or similar. So they are the role of a destroyer these days as well. As Tech. gets better frigates will have the capability of a destroyer in many ways. And its this with the reduced size of the personell on each ship that can help man the warships on foreign deployments.

I believe there are teething problems with the new "Astute" Class Subs, about to replace the older attack subs in the Navy. But i believe that these issues are currently beig thrashed out.

I know the RN are trialing an experiment which i think is not new but is brilliant and that is on far reach deployments like the North Korean Arms Embargo and the Falklands patrol, that the crews are flown to their ship and take over the crew that were manning it, and the old crew flown home. I know the Russian seaman do this on a regular basis.

As far as I know, no more ships have been offered for sale. There are, however, four Type-22 frigates that are potential candidates. That doesn't mean the RN will want to get rid of them just yet.

 

[AegisFC]

I know the RN are trialing an experiment which i think is not new but is brilliant and that is on far reach deployments like the North Korean Arms Embargo and the Falklands patrol, that the crews are flown to their ship and take over the crew that were manning it, and the old crew flown home. I know the Russian seaman do this on a regular basis.

Oh no... Sea Swap...
The USN is playing with this idea for DDG's and the OHP FF's and they have been doing it for years with a couple of Mine Sweepers based out of Bahrain and it works great for small ships.
But then they tried it with a couple of San Diego and Norfolk based DDG's (the ones out of Norfolk were the USS Stout, Gonzolez and Laboon), they deployed the Gonzolez and left Laboon and Stout in Norfolk and just rotated the crews through after the other crews got done with the normal 6 month deployment.
The idea sounded good to the higher ups (save gas money, save wear and tear on 2 ships and save transit times) but the crews hated the idea, for one the turn over of the Gonzolez was essentially "we had it, you got it now... bye" with only a couple days to figure out where everything was, what they had to work with and any equipment quirks and problems, any maintainance that could be put off onto the next crew was, also no pride was taken in the ships (after all it isn't "your" ship why bother keeping it looking good?) and since the Gonzo was always in BFE parts deliveries were rare.
Then they had to deal with the differences between the 3 DDG's, even though they were all Flight IA DDG-51's they all had (seemingly) minor differences on paper but in real life lead to some trouble. For instance, Stout and Laboon had different consoles than the Gonzo but our display techs never got the training to fix the newer consoles. Stout and Gonzo had a new supply system while Laboon still had SNAP II for some reason. Gonzo had some strange boyancy issues due to her being grounded during her sea trails that also had to be learned by each crew. Also Gonzo and Stout had a different Tomahawk missile system than the Laboon so the crews had to certify on both, I remember reading a couple page document on the differences but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
The Laboon and Stout also suffered during the Sea Swap program, after all these ships were not deploying any time soon so why spend as much money on them? I know the Stouts sonar sytem was messed up and the much needed dry dock period to fix it and do other work kept getting cancelled and moved to a later date. Plus once you finished your deployment and flew back to Norfolk you did not go to your original ship, you went to take over an empty DDG that the other crew vacated.
I'm not sure what the USN's official ruling on the experiment was (it only recently ended for the Norfolk ships) but most of the supposed benifits were out weighed by low crew morale among all 3 crews, the high cost of flying the crews out to the swap location, putting them in hotels for the turn over then flying the other crew home and the abuse of 18 months constant flogging with no time to fix problems and properly paint and maintain the ship.

 

[Tasman]

Oh no... Sea Swap...
The USN is playing with this idea for DDG's and the OHP FF's and they have been doing it for years with a couple of Mine Sweepers based out of Bahrain and it works great for small ships.
But then they tried it with a couple of San Diego and Norfolk based DDG's (the ones out of Norfolk were the USS Stout, Gonzolez and Laboon), they deployed the Gonzolez and left Laboon and Stout in Norfolk and just rotated the crews through after the other crews got done with the normal 6 month deployment.
The idea sounded good to the higher ups (save gas money, save wear and tear on 2 ships and save transit times) but the crews hated the idea, for one the turn over of the Gonzolez was essentially "we had it, you got it now... bye" with only a couple days to figure out where everything was, what they had to work with and any equipment quirks and problems, any maintainance that could be put off onto the next crew was, also no pride was taken in the ships (after all it isn't "your" ship why bother keeping it looking good?) and since the Gonzo was always in BFE parts deliveries were rare.
Then they had to deal with the differences between the 3 DDG's, even though they were all Flight IA DDG-51's they all had (seemingly) minor differences on paper but in real life lead to some trouble. For instance, Stout and Laboon had different consoles than the Gonzo but our display techs never got the training to fix the newer consoles. Stout and Gonzo had a new supply system while Laboon still had SNAP II for some reason. Gonzo had some strange boyancy issues due to her being grounded during her sea trails that also had to be learned by each crew. Also Gonzo and Stout had a different Tomahawk missile system than the Laboon so the crews had to certify on both, I remember reading a couple page document on the differences but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
The Laboon and Stout also suffered during the Sea Swap program, after all these ships were not deploying any time soon so why spend as much money on them? I know the Stouts sonar sytem was messed up and the much needed dry dock period to fix it and do other work kept getting cancelled and moved to a later date. Plus once you finished your deployment and flew back to Norfolk you did not go to your original ship, you went to take over an empty DDG that the other crew vacated.
I'm not sure what the USN's official ruling on the experiment was (it only recently ended for the Norfolk ships) but most of the supposed benifits were out weighed by low crew morale among all 3 crews, the high cost of flying the crews out to the swap location, putting them in hotels for the turn over then flying the other crew home and the abuse of 18 months constant flogging with no time to fix problems and properly paint and maintain the ship.

Wow! I found that an interesting post AegisFC. I seem to remember hearing that the idea of additional crews for the Armidale class patrol boats, to enable them to increase the frequency of their patrols, was being considered by the RAN. With the current personnel shortages in the force, however, I don't know if anything has come of the idea. From what you have said such ideas should be restricted to small vessels, although IIRC, USN SSBNs had two crews assigned to each boat during the cold war. However, I presume they changed 'shifts' in their home ports and I expect that would also have been the intention with the Armidales.

In the RAN's case I think that probably the biggest problem it faces is recruiting and then retaining enough skilled personnel to properly man the present and projected fleet. Does anyone know if consideration has been given to manning one or two of the patrol boats or minehunters with reservists on a rotational basis?

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Wow! I found that an interesting post AegisFC. I seem to remember hearing that the idea of additional crews for the Armidale class patrol boats, to enable them to increase the frequency of their patrols, was being considered by the RAN. With the current personnel shortages in the force, however, I don't know if anything has come of the idea. From what you have said such ideas should be restricted to small vessels, although IIRC, USN SSBNs had two crews assigned to each boat during the cold war. However, I presume they changed 'shifts' in their home ports and I expect that would also have been the intention with the Armidales.

In the RAN's case I think that probably the biggest problem it faces is recruiting and then retaining enough skilled personnel to properly man the present and projected fleet. Does anyone know if consideration has been given to manning one or two of the patrol boats or minehunters with reservists on a rotational basis?

Cheers

Yep the Armidales have commenced the "multi-crewing" concept, with 3x crews to man 2x vessels, with a constant rotation of crews.

With a small but absolutely brand new vessel, I imagine there would not be too many difficulties with this idea. An older vessel and the "quirks" that come with aging of machinery, I can well imagine the plan is less than effective in reality...

 

[Rich]

F-35 is in a diffrent beast. With a carrier steaming through choppy seas at 20+ kts, with a 20 kt headwind theres a great deal of spray. There just isn't the space nor the man power to continously perform stealth repairs and keep sea salt off the surface while flying ops.

Your going to be able to "make stealth repairs" on the F-35 with a paint roller. That is if your even going to have to. The stealth coatings on the F-35 are far different beasts then the F-117, or even the B-2 which is undergoing an upgrade to new gen coatings. What used to take a day and 1/2 with the B-2 will now take minutes. Only dings will result in a need to "coat up" again, and even then the air craft is going to be optimized to perform well in "less then 100% stealth". Most such issues will easily be able to wait until the LHD enters a R&R cycle.

Don't get me wrong, hangar space is always great. But the Lightening is going to be a very easy to maintain aircraft. You will easily be able to stealth it up again on a LHD deck. Were going to have F-35s on the decks of our carriers all the time.

I agree that 2 LHDs, with F-35b components, would be a powerful force multiplier.

 

[AegisFC]

Wow! I found that an interesting post AegisFC. I seem to remember hearing that the idea of additional crews for the Armidale class patrol boats, to enable them to increase the frequency of their patrols, was being considered by the RAN. With the current personnel shortages in the force, however, I don't know if anything has come of the idea. From what you have said such ideas should be restricted to small vessels, although IIRC, USN SSBNs had two crews assigned to each boat during the cold war. However, I presume they changed 'shifts' in their home ports and I expect that would also have been the intention with the Armidales.

From what I have read about the SSBN force is that the Blue and Gold crews are perminantly assigned to that sub and they are gone for a certian amount of time, in port for a few weeks to do a detailed turn over with the other crew whom they know and then go back out again with the other crew. That is a lot different than just throwing 2 DDG crews on another DDG with little to no turn over and who does not know all the equipment and all the quirks.
I think the concept does have merit but the idea has to be more well thought out than what we did, perhaps start with multiple crews from the the time the ship is commissioned or somthing besides just throwing crews from other ships at it. Personally I think that the USN might want to look at foward deploying a real warship or 2 in Bahrain or somewhere else in the region along with the facilities to keep that ship in good working orderif they want to have a ship on station in the gulf for very long periods of time.

 

[Markus40]

The RN want to extend the duration of time on the warships for their crews. But i think that isnt a good look for the moral of the crew either. And may have some significant drawbacks to the on going maintenance of the warship.

I do think a well managed rotation of crew is good on the frigates and Destroyers and Subs. And by doing this i cant see why on a 6 monthly basis the new crew is flown out. However as mentioned what that does to the maintenance issue to the ship would need to be addressed, for example the port facilities in Japan are made available to the warships taking part in the embargo in North Korea. Not to mention with every warship deployed there needs to be 2 support ships with it. So thats not an easy exercise.

From what I have read about the SSBN force is that the Blue and Gold crews are perminantly assigned to that sub and they are gone for a certian amount of time, in port for a few weeks to do a detailed turn over with the other crew whom they know and then go back out again with the other crew. That is a lot different than just throwing 2 DDG crews on another DDG with little to no turn over and who does not know all the equipment and all the quirks.
I think the concept does have merit but the idea has to be more well thought out than what we did, perhaps start with multiple crews from the the time the ship is commissioned or somthing besides just throwing crews from other ships at it. Personally I think that the USN might want to look at foward deploying a real warship or 2 in Bahrain or somewhere else in the region along with the facilities to keep that ship in good working orderif they want to have a ship on station in the gulf for very long periods of time.