Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

My argument is we have them so should use them for what we bought them to do but never pretend they are in any way survivable.

We would never send G-wagons into a war zone, and if the war zone became Australia, we would be building additional Hawkies and Bushmasters as quick as we could to avoid sending them.

Trained personnel are harder to replace than equipment, in fact, partially or even untrained people are harder to replace.

The Capes and even Arafura's are not as solidly built, well armed, equiped or versatile as the WWII Fairmile Ds or Bathusts, and those were supplemented and replaced as quickly as they could be later in the war.

The second a shooting war starts we should pull these vessels back and use them for training crews for actually survivable vessels. As a last ditch I would look at uncrewed conversions of them, by all means bomb them up with any available systems and use them for local defence and screening.

Volkodav said:

My argument is we have them so should use them for what we bought them to do but never pretend they are in any way survivable.

We would never send G-wagons into a war zone, and if the war zone became Australia, we would be building additional Hawkies and Bushmasters as quick as we could to avoid sending them.

Trained personnel are harder to replace than equipment, in fact, partially or even untrained people are harder to replace.

The Capes and even Arafura's are not as solidly built, well armed, equiped or versatile as the WWII Fairmile Ds or Bathusts, and those were supplemented and replaced as quickly as they could be later in the war.

The second a shooting war starts we should pull these vessels back and use them for training crews for actually survivable vessels. As a last ditch I would look at uncrewed conversions of them, by all means bomb them up with any available systems and use them for local defence and screening.

Click to expand...

No one wants to take a knife to a gun fight.
It’s about freeing up our limited number of majors to enable them to concentrate on the hi end stuff.
Do we really want them doing robust constabulary work?
Ten majors for the next decade until their numbers grow finally in the late 30s .
Concerning prospect and numbers !

If an up gunned Cape and OPV can handle a contingency that could not be handled by the same vessels without enhancements then I’d suggest up gunning is a prudent investment.

We all recognise the Capes and Arafura’s have limitations.
But we also recognise they have potential to offer a lot more and provide a lot more options than the status quo.

Navy having another eighteen vessels with some limited bite is not going to cost the earth ; but it may just be the answer on the day when the majors are thousands of km away from where they are actually needed at that contested time and place.

Cheers S

Stampede said:

No one wants to take a knife to a gun fight.
It’s about freeing up our limited number of majors to enable them to concentrate on the hi end stuff.
Do we really want them doing robust constabulary work?
Ten majors for the next decade until their numbers grow finally in the late 30s .
Concerning prospect and numbers !

If an up gunned Cape and OPV can handle a contingency that could not be handled by the same vessels without enhancements then I’d suggest up gunning is a prudent investment.

We all recognise the Capes and Arafura’s have limitations.
But we also recognise they have potential to offer a lot more and provide a lot more options than the status quo.

Navy having another eighteen vessels with some limited bite is not going to cost the earth ; but it may just be the answer on the day when the majors are thousands of km away from where they are actually needed at that contested time and place.

Cheers S

Click to expand...

At least give them a 40mm Bofors or 56mm with smart ammo. Short range SAM of some capability would at least give the crew a chance of survival if the **** hits the fan. We are sleepwalking into a disaster. We will have a hot war, it's not an "if". It's a matter of when. The statesmen in positions of political power are long gone. We have egotistical authoritarians bent on world domination. I want my 13yo daughter to grow up and have a life. I am truely worried for her future.

Im not disputing any self defence system for constabulary vessels but also wondered if existing superstructure framework could hold it in place that why I also suggested vessels to be assessed for carrying diversionary type equipment to be used against incoming threats

Is there any strategic need for the A.D.F for the government to complete a Cairns to Darwin rail link , any vessel that may be purchased to have as part of its role to transport heavy materials would come out of defence budget whilst a train line would not and get get a commercial return

Volkodav said:

The second a shooting war starts we should pull these vessels back and use them for training crews for actually survivable vessels. As a last ditch I would look at uncrewed conversions of them, by all means bomb them up with any available systems and use them for local defence and screening.

Click to expand...

Non combat ships are useful. WW2 you needed ships to check and inspect submarine nets, resupply coast watchers, and a whole bunch of non combat roles that are still essential to war time capabilities, but aren't in combat roles. They also go recover interesting things floating around, inspect suspicious things, etc.

The issue I have is that a commercial ship to do this can be procured for maybe 1/10th the price. It could even be built in australia from an existing supplier.

The NSW police bought an OPV. 27kts, 32m 104t. It doesn't take all the oxygen, planning, yard capacity, national dialog to make it. We built 540 t opv for phillpines with a helo deck. For $16.7m.

The Teresa Magbanua-class Phillipines acquired for $67m..
96m long
2,200t
24+kt speed
More than 4000NM range
Greater than 15 day endurance.
2 RHIB
Underwater ROV
30mm gun (on the original japanese design they mounted vulcan!)
Embarked helicopter
Hyperbaric chamber

We specifically wanted something that could OPV into blue water, yet, no gun, no hangar. The Hangar annoys me, because its not just for helicopters. Literally think how useful a shed space is. Crew, embarking drones, embarking underwater or surface drones, HDAR, remote base resupply, picking up survivors, moving troops or equipment, It adds a lot of functionality ot a multipurpose OPV.

We selected a gun that doesn't intergrate and can't be used and IMO, overkill in technology and cost and complexity.
We split the build into multiple yards and different companies, so no one got any scaling efficiency.

What a mess. I hope there is a proper review to see where things went wrong so we can learn from them.

There are drones now that can carry 100-250Kg many km. Imagine a ship turning up, and able to shift munitions/supplies to people in remote locations on strategic mountains on islands etc. Able to engage with our regional friends across the pacific and asia. Imagine our OPV able to embark 3 or 4 of these size drones. ABle to put sensors on these islands. Able to do search and rescue much more effectively. These drones are going to be able to be flown and coordinated from a single terminal. Not FPV style, but click and tag mapping. Ai processing feeds etc. UUV and USV will do the same tasks. but again a big, bigger than a shipping container space is generally required for these bigger drones.

seaspear said:

Is there any strategic need for the A.D.F for the government to complete a Cairns to Darwin rail link , any vessel that may be purchased to have as part of its role to transport heavy materials would come out of defence budget whilst a train line would not and get get a commercial return

Click to expand...

I can't see it ever getting a commercial return. Given the extraordinary costs of the current inland freight line between Melbourne and Brinbane (that has subsequently been trunkated at Parkes), I can't see this connection getting guernesy.

I think if we had a spare $30B (Google's cost estimation for such a rail line), there would be higher value investments for related defence infrastructure.

I'm thinking better investment in Cairns and Townsville to improve utilisation the LCH and LHDs ships would be preferable.

seaspear said:

Is there any strategic need for the A.D.F for the government to complete a Cairns to Darwin rail link , any vessel that may be purchased to have as part of its role to transport heavy materials would come out of defence budget whilst a train line would not and get get a commercial return

Click to expand...

Cairns to Darwin has, AFAIK, never been considered.

Pre-23 there was funding for improvements to the Adelaide - Darwin link, with dedicated spurs for RAAF Tindal, Robertson and RAAF Darwin. Additional scoping (but not funding) was there for upgrading and unifying the Melbourne - Adelaide - Brisbane network; a Townsville - Darwin link; and a Brisbane - Alice Springs link.

The primary focus was on transporting munitions north, as well as large land forces (so, 10 Bde or 3 Bde to Darwin, or 7 Bde to Townsville) to enable (a) better retention by having the permanent bulk of forces south, and (b) projection from Darwin and/or Townsville.

Noting what we would likely use rail for, including looking to the US and Europe, I'm not sure what a Cairns - Darwin link would give us.

A Cairns Darwin rail link could build onto existing Sydney to Brisbane links , The port of Darwin may use such rail shipments for exports , rather than use LHD,S from Sydney transfer by rail or the otherway round, this would at less risk to ships performing those tasks in a conflict allowing naval assests to be used elsewhere , a rail line lasts longer than ships carrying out similar tasks ,I would suggest the infrastructure of such a link would not only be defence but commercial the same as any roadway the A.D.F may use

StingrayOZ said:

Non combat ships are useful. WW2 you needed ships to check and inspect submarine nets, resupply coast watchers, and a whole bunch of non combat roles that are still essential to war time capabilities, but aren't in combat roles. They also go recover interesting things floating around, inspect suspicious things, etc.

The issue I have is that a commercial ship to do this can be procured for maybe 1/10th the price. It could even be built in australia from an existing supplier.

The NSW police bought an OPV. 27kts, 32m 104t. It doesn't take all the oxygen, planning, yard capacity, national dialog to make it. We built 540 t opv for phillpines with a helo deck. For $16.7m.

The Teresa Magbanua-class Phillipines acquired for $67m..
96m long
2,200t
24+kt speed
More than 4000NM range
Greater than 15 day endurance.
2 RHIB
Underwater ROV
30mm gun (on the original japanese design they mounted vulcan!)
Embarked helicopter
Hyperbaric chamber

We specifically wanted something that could OPV into blue water, yet, no gun, no hangar. The Hangar annoys me, because its not just for helicopters. Literally think how useful a shed space is. Crew, embarking drones, embarking underwater or surface drones, HDAR, remote base resupply, picking up survivors, moving troops or equipment, It adds a lot of functionality ot a multipurpose OPV.

We selected a gun that doesn't intergrate and can't be used and IMO, overkill in technology and cost and complexity.
We split the build into multiple yards and different companies, so no one got any scaling efficiency.

What a mess. I hope there is a proper review to see where things went wrong so we can learn from them.

There are drones now that can carry 100-250Kg many km. Imagine a ship turning up, and able to shift munitions/supplies to people in remote locations on strategic mountains on islands etc. Able to engage with our regional friends across the pacific and asia. Imagine our OPV able to embark 3 or 4 of these size drones. ABle to put sensors on these islands. Able to do search and rescue much more effectively. These drones are going to be able to be flown and coordinated from a single terminal. Not FPV style, but click and tag mapping. Ai processing feeds etc. UUV and USV will do the same tasks. but again a big, bigger than a shipping container space is generally required for these bigger drones.

Click to expand...

I share your "close but no cigar" view of the Arafuras. They could have been a lot more useful and a lot cheaper. Nevertheless we have six of them. I am in the camp that thinks we could have used 12 of them and that in due course they will prove useful. I live in hope that one day they might get something like a collapsable hangar.

I don't think weapons and sensor fitout is a big deal. Essential items such as RWS can be fitted very quickly, and in five years time offboard drones will bring much of this capability (every year this is an order of magnitude improved). I have the same view that Hunters, Hobarts and Mogamis don't need additional missile capacity for the same reason.

I also share your view that there is a lot of non frontline work these vessels can do, even in times of conflict. I will point out that the LCM, LCH and LHD classes are all as vulnerable from a stand alone defence point of view, but we all understand these assets are never intended to operate in unprotected waters.

I could see these operating up in around a moving litoral force, perhaps to your point coordinating a large array of drones of all types, for all kinds of reasons. I like your image of supplying by drone, perhaps critical parts/materials to peripheral units where the LCMs are not going to. They could recharge/refuel an array of drones as well, which will be a frequent, important, but boring task, for a mothership.

All under the protection of nearby major combatants and shore batteries, which will be required as part of the litoral force regardless.

What sort of case is there to be made for the Leidos Sea Archer in the Australian context? With its advertised range of 1500km the only place it could reach and return looks to be the Island of Timor. A 1 ton payload is useful for a small force resupply but it looks a bit short of range to be useful in the more northern islands. Are there any other likely areas of operation that a vessel of this range/size could find a use case? I like it in theory, but it seems to be in no mans land as far as range goes.

SammyC said:

I share your "close but no cigar" view of the Arafuras. They could have been a lot more useful and a lot cheaper. Nevertheless we have six of them. I am in the camp that thinks we could have used 12 of them and that in due course they will prove useful. I live in hope that one day they might get something like a collapsable hangar.

I don't think weapons and sensor fitout is a big deal. Essential items such as RWS can be fitted very quickly, and in five years time offboard drones will bring much of this capability (every year this is an order of magnitude improved). I have the same view that Hunters, Hobarts and Mogamis don't need additional missile capacity for the same reason.

I also share your view that there is a lot of non frontline work these vessels can do, even in times of conflict. I will point out that the LCM, LCH and LHD classes are all as vulnerable from a stand alone defence point of view, but we all understand these assets are never intended to operate in unprotected waters.

I could see these operating up in around a moving litoral force, perhaps to your point coordinating a large array of drones of all types, for all kinds of reasons. I like your image of supplying by drone, perhaps critical parts/materials to peripheral units where the LCMs are not going to. They could recharge/refuel an array of drones as well, which will be a frequent, important, but boring task, for a mothership.

All under the protection of nearby major combatants and shore batteries, which will be required as part of the litoral force regardless.

Click to expand...

Yes we work with what we have, but the unmanned space offers a tremendous amount of opportunity across the many roles and taskings employed by the RAN.
The Arafura’s in particular are well placed with its flight deck for the “flying stuff”

Would really like two to three more of these ships.
The last ship Carpentaria has been laid down and all going well should enter service in 2029.
Ideally we get the order book out now with a hot production line.

Cheers S

Further to my earlier post re railine a railine could be built from Katherine to Mt Isa just 400 hundred kilometres using much of existing rail network in Queensland and Northern Territoryhttps://au.images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=Awr4_wmbkK9qLgIAi5Q36At.;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?hspart=af&hsimp=yhs-primecinema_chr_sb&type=st2mxvug&p=australian+railines+north+queensland&q=australian+railines+north+queensland&fr=yhs-af-prim

Um, you do realise that QLD uses a 3 foot 6 inch gauge north of Brisbane while the rest of Australia now uses 4 foot 8 1/2 inches? There would be ar least two breaks of gauge with all the associated issues - and the cost of conversion, even if you could convince the banana benders to do it, would be horrendous. Not to mention the cost of building the line from Mt Isa to Tennant Creek or wherever. There is already a perfectly good rail link to Darwin via Port Augusta (probably shorter from Sydney than via FNQ) why duplicate it?

spoz said:

Um, you do realise that QLD uses a 3 foot 6 inch gauge north of Brisbane while the rest of Australia now uses 4 foot 8 1/2 inches? There would be ar least two breaks of gauge with all the associated issues - and the cost of conversion, even if you could convince the banana benders to do it, would be horrendous. Not to mention the cost of building the line from Mt Isa to Tennant Creek or wherever. There is already a perfectly good rail link to Darwin via Port Augusta (probably shorter from Sydney than via FNQ) why duplicate it?

Click to expand...

If the money is going to be spent on rail, it should be on a full dual track standard gauge railway line extending from Melbourne to Townsville via Sydney and Brisbane.

This railway should be capable of carrying double stacked containers as per the plans for the inland railway.

StevoJH said:

If the money is going to be spent on rail, it should be on a full dual track standard gauge railway line extending from Melbourne to Townsville via Sydney and Brisbane.

This railway should be capable of carrying double stacked containers as per the plans for the inland railway.

Click to expand...

Are we railway gunzels now? Lol

iambuzzard said:

Are we railway gunzels now? Lol

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a good railway.....

For long distance inter state hub to hub transport its just so much more efficient than road transport, especially if you electrify the lines.

If you can move (for example) 150 40 foot containers via rail from Sydney to Brisbane with a crew of 2, compared to using 75 trucks each of which needs a driver.

Plus even using diesel-electric prime movers it will be much more fuel efficient than using trucks even with the M1 going to triples.

I'm sure the numbers would be different for shorter distances when the extra load-unload cycle is taken into account and also for lower density regional routes.

spoz said:

Um, you do realise that QLD uses a 3 foot 6 inch gauge north of Brisbane while the rest of Australia now uses 4 foot 8 1/2 inches? There would be ar least two breaks of gauge with all the associated issues - and the cost of conversion, even if you could convince the banana benders to do it, would be horrendous. Not to mention the cost of building the line from Mt Isa to Tennant Creek or wherever. There is already a perfectly good rail link to Darwin via Port Augusta (probably shorter from Sydney than via FNQ) why duplicate it?

Click to expand...

StevoJH said:

If the money is going to be spent on rail, it should be on a full dual track standard gauge railway line extending from Melbourne to Townsville via Sydney and Brisbane.

This railway should be capable of carrying double stacked containers as per the plans for the inland railway.

Click to expand...

I know we prefer not to use Wiki but when it sources a military comment on having a national standard more than 100 hundred years ago and its advantages I believe provides some context I also note that the Port of Townsville is having a significant upgrade ,having an inland rail line connecting it to Port of Darwin may be useful for the A.D.F , if funding for this can be assessed for commercial reasons by the government and does not come out of the A.D.F budget it can be a win win Rail gauge in Australia - Wikipedia

seaspear said:

I know we prefer not to use Wiki but when it sources a military comment on having a national standard more than 100 hundred years ago and its advantages I believe provides some context I also note that the Port of Townsville is having a significant upgrade ,having an inland rail line connecting it to Port of Darwin may be useful for the A.D.F , if funding for this can be assessed for commercial reasons by the government and does not come out of the A.D.F budget it can be a win win Rail gauge in Australia - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Relying on just the one source for information can be problematic ,but for general facts and figures I find Wiki is pretty good.
Perfect no, but most of the time it mirrors correctly the basic stuff I have an understanding of very well.
As for political commentary or in depth coverage of events past and present,yes go for multiple sources.

Cheers S

This is a video of the UK equivalent to the ghost shark carrying and firing a Mk48 torpedo. I'm posting here because I would think the ghost shark could do something similar right now and it shows where this drone capability is up to.

I'd be interested to understand how the firing loop works for this. Unlike the ghost bat, you can't have a wedgetail and a FA18 in full communications and control for a submerged drone. For the undersea firing, the ghost bat would need to be able to manage the torpedo homing itself and have a lot more autonomy on firing control.

I will note the mk48 in the video was underslung and naked for the test, so not suitable for extended storage. Given the payload bay for these UUVs are all flooded, I wonder what is available to encapsulate and protect a stowed torpedo in such an environment. I'm thinking a similar encapsulation that the hammerhead mine uses on its mk46 torpedo might be suitable. I think they quote 700 days submerged for the hammerhead, so more than suitable for an undersea drone on combat patrol.

The theme of a mk48 armed ghost bat on extended patrol should not be that far away from reality. I would view that our ability to enforce sea denial becomes a lot more effective once this capability becomes standard on a fleet of several dozen ghost bats anywhere from the coast to 1000kms offshore. Real capability real quick.