Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,470
    Likes Received:
    138
    Location:
    Australia
    Don’t forget there will be the cost for the undercover build process that is now being built. This will add to the cost but needs to be seen as a long term benefit to the continuous build cycle
     
  2. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    279
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Is the cost of the new production buildings being allocated to the SEA 5000 programme or has ASC infrastructure got an unrelated budget for them? The same goes for the new facility for SEA 1000 ?
     
  3. spoz

    spoz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Osborne, SA
    The Osborne south facilities are now owned by Australian Naval Infrastructure Pty, and are totally separate from ASC. The intent, as I understand it, is that they will in effect be leased to whoever is building something although I have no idea how the “lease” will be set up or what conditions might be expected.

    I think, but am not sure, that the same applies to the s/m facilities, current and future.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
  4. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,470
    Likes Received:
    138
    Location:
    Australia
    I think the infrastructure costs will be spread acrsoss the continuous build plan and owned by a government entity, but the Osborne extension be used for SE5000 in the first instance. Know how policians and the press do there figures it is quite possibe some wil combine the costs.

    There will need to be a new set to work programme in the new factility by the eventual operator of the facility and you can bet that this will be applied to SEA5000 noting ASC are building the two new OPVs suggesting this will be done in the current facility.

    The new submarine construction will also be at a new facility and this will also be covered in the Australian Naval Infrstruture build as well as far as I can tell from the governments utterances on this.

    The only facility that may sit outside this is the CIVMEC/Forjacs new facility at Henderson. This appears to be a commercial (i.e not owned by Australian Naval Infrastructure
     
  5. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    18
    An article to call for a larger RAN

    A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy
    A ‘clever’ Australia needs a larger, more potent navy | The Strategist

    I always think RAN is a little on the lean side considering the vast Indian and Pacific Ocean plus a very congested and contested South China Sea RAN would see itself get involved in. Perhaps an increase in number of surface combatants might be warranted in the future. I think RAN might want to consider how automation and even AI could be applied in future ships to reduce manning crew per ship too if that will help alleviate some of the restricted manpower issues.
     
  6. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    18
    Another great article. This time about UAV/UAS platforms onboard on RAN ships, especially how the ISR capability within RAN would grow with these platforms.

    FIRST CONTACT – The Royal Australian Navy has taken its first tentative steps into unmanned aerial system operations.

    I'm extremely excited and proud that we Aussies have been able to innovate and improve the ScanEagle's capability with the introduction of ViDAR technology.
     
  7. PeterM

    PeterM Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    403
    Likes Received:
    8
    A larger navy is good in principle. However, there are the factors needed to procure, operate and support any increase in capability, all of what will have considerable cost impacts, let alone the amount of time needed grow capability.

    Realistically with the current plans, the RAN has been growing significantly in capability in recent years.

    I appreciate the intent of the article, but I am curious as to what the author believes is the 'right' size for the RAN and how it is proposed to be funded?
     
  8. Geddy

    Geddy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have thought that a more doable option would be to increase the offensive and defensive capabilities of a given platform rather than more vessels. CRAM and Tommahawk are just two example of what could be done.
    A stronger long range offensive anti-ship capacity in the air would a cheaper way this same goals could be achieved.

    Having seen 9 major ships of the fleet at Garden Island, on a rare visit to Sydney this week, I was impressed. Would like to see their crews given the best in equipment.
     
  9. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    32
    Location:
    NSW

    Agree, but unfortunately that's also defined by the limited funding for capability, we saw that with the AWD build program Gibbs &Cox was the preferred vessel not only in more capability per vessel but more future growth, with the trade off being the less capability per ship but with a hoped option of a forth hull, 3 Baby Burkes would have given us the same VLS capability as 4 current Hobarts. Its only speculation now if it would have been cheaper or not
     
  10. hauritz

    hauritz Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    32
    In Australia's case it could be manpower costs that would stop it from significantly expanding the size of its navy so I agree that we might end up having to squeeze every bit of capability we can out of the hulls we will have.

    The final design for Australia's new frigates haven't been determined yet and the government has already started to add on extra capabilities such as AEGIS and Ballistic Missile defences. Land attack missiles may soon follow.

    Australia may yet regret not going for a larger hull design such as the Baby Burke.
     
  11. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,470
    Likes Received:
    138
    Location:
    Australia
    I understand the man power issue is be exacerbated but a large number of ineffectives (due to medical, physical or mental health issues). I admin this is third hand from someone who has just left the RAN and was involved in manpower. I don’t have any reason to believe he would embellish this. If you look at the number of uniform members in the navy offer the last 30 years and the crew sizes relative to the ships we should be able to man up all current vessels effectively.

    If this situation is true then we have a significant HR issue that is directly impacting effectiveness.

    PS: it can be a bit hard to get definite figures on the aDF numbers. The ADF took a bit hit in the mid 80s from around 72K personal (ful time) but stabilised at about 58K by about 1996.

    The Challenge of Military Service: Defence Personnel Conditions in a Changing Social Context – Parliament of Australia

    Current manning for the ADF is just over 58K
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
    PeterM likes this.
  12. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,920
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Sydney
    I wonder how the RAN will function when the UK and Canada come on line with new ships and it will become harder to steal/poach/attract sailors from the RN and the Canadian Navy. But this affects the RAN no matter what its size as does ineffectiveness issues.

    IMO its not an impossible dream to go to 14 surface combatants it may even be desirable in terms of hull management for upgrades, and fleet life. I think if you wanted more than that you would be looking at corvettes or something with a lot less man power and trading in larger hulls for more smaller hulls.

    I don't think a baby burke was ever a realistic hull for the entire surface combatants like the F-105 hull might be. Crewing size (220) and over all cost would have ruled it out.
     
  13. Takao

    Takao New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Canberra
    I think you are on to something here alexsa, there are HR issues that need to be addressed first. A couple of RAN officers and I tried to chase this topic in 2016 and couldn't get a definite answer. But, broadly speaking, the RAN of the early 1960s had similar numbers of ships and personnel that they do today. Despite that, our FAA has been cut and our ships require less crew (look at the engineering department of the two HMAS Brisbane's!). So where is the 'gap' in personnel?

    The best we could come up with was a combination of Joint requirements (especially at the operational level) and the greater corporate governance requirements. Not sure what is more important, Fleet or Canberra. Nonetheless, I'd be concerned that the current RAN does not have the depth to fight a major war, especially if taking losses (but then again, that's an ADF issue).
     
  14. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,974
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto

    Given Canada's performance in military procurement, the sailor movement will continue from RCN to RAN as the RCN fleet diminishes. The RN has new ships coming on line but limited funds to crew them so unless the UK government starts funding the RN properly their sailors may drift to warmer waters too.
     
  15. hairyman

    hairyman Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    4
    Given the various calls for increases to our defence force and defence spending, from Jim Molan and others, how many surface combatant ships should the RAN have? It is obvious that twelve will not be sufficient. I would personally like to see three further AWD's built, but bigger and more powerful. And there might be a case for a number of smaller frigates than those planned for as Future Frigates, take a leaf out of Japans book, who are building 3000 ton frigates as well as their larger ones. If we went along that path, I would re-visit Meko, their 200 AN looks like it would be a good fit for the RAN. Slightly smaller than the Anzac class.
     
  16. hairyman

    hairyman Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    4
    Another thought, would it not be practical for the RAN to purchase a number of Lynx Wildcat helicopters for use from our smaller vessels? The Wildcat can be used in all the roles that the M60R can do, and it is only half the size?
     
  17. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    279
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    It may be half the size but what will it be there for?
    System integration, weapon commonality and data links are all complex issues which need to be considered.
    The helo is not there as just a helo, it's there as an extension of the Fleet/ship capability and must integrate seamlessly across all the platforms.
    So no, it wouldn't be practical, it would be possible with a huge effort in time and money and we'd end up with twice the expense and half the capability.
     
    PeterM, aussienscale and Takao like this.
  18. hairyman

    hairyman Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    4
    ASSAIL, what do you say regarding my previous post in relation to the size of the Australian surface combatant fleet? Do you think 12 ships is enough? Or how many would you like to see in our future fleet?
    I value your opinion.
     
  19. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,369
    Likes Received:
    247
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    If memory serves, the in-service helicopter with a size issue is the NH90, which is a bit too large to fit aboard in the hangar of the ANZAC-class FFH's. The S-70B-2 Seahawks and presumably the MH-60R 'Romeo' which is based off the Seahawk did not/does not have that issue.

    With the SEA 1180 OPV design at present lacking a hangar, I do not see any particular need or advantage to getting another, smaller sized helicopter. This is before any considerations would come into play about supporting yet another helicopter type, or the need to achieve integration with the comms and weapon systems etc.
     
  20. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    279
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    In answering this question I'm constrained by the 2016 DWP and IIP. The most important guidance in these documents comes in the IIP Forward and is worth reading every time a suggestion on force structure is made.
    The IIP was developed through a comprehensive force structure review which assessed defence capability needs to meet the challenges of our regions operating environment through the 2030s.
    It ensured an alignment between national defence strategy, capability and resources and the result was a BALANCED, AFFORDABLE AND CAPABLE force.
    The Australian government decides both Strategic Fefence Interests and Strategic Defence Objectives.
    These Objectives are threefold; to defer,, deny and defeat attacks on Australia and our northern approaches, to effectively contribute to operations in maritime SEAsia and support the governments of PNG, Timor L'Este and the Pacific Islands and lastly to contribute military capabilities to coalition operations supporting our strategic objectives. We should refer to these Objectives often.

    All the above is a long winded way of saying that I believe our force structure is currently adequate (including the surface Fleet) within the constraints of balance and affordability. The question you should ask is " if the surface force is increased, what capability and from which service will a sacrifice be made to pay for and man it"?
     
    oldsig127 and stoney like this.