Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

.If you look at the crewing requirement for the current fleet it comes out to a little over 3700 to man the current fleet. That is a little over a quarter of the navy's available manpower.

It does make me wonder however if the navy is as efficient as it could be with the way it utilises its manpower. Now that the navy seems to have secured a lot of the hardware it requires it should now start to look at improving the efficiency of its workforce.

If the navy proceeds with the continuous shipbuilding plan with a new ship and submarine delivered every 2 years then there is an opportunity to increase the size of the fleet to 15 or 16 destroyer/frigates and a similar number of subs ... provided we could find the personnel to operate them.

A little over a quarter of the fleet is about right. The rule of threes applies and I think that the number you cite is generous because there are shore establishments that require personnel over and above what the rule of threes cover for sea going ships.

 

[ASSAIL]

When does sea 1448 phase 4B start? And which ship gets the update first?

Edit: I answered my own question, HMAS Arunta and it's happening now.

This Navy News item is from several months or so ago and shows a number of pics, the last two are of the new mast with CEAFAR-L and without SPS 49.
This may have been posted before but since you asked........

Arunta upgrade marks milestone for frigates

Let’s hope they find a solution to the funnel efflux (maybe paint the mast black as in days of yore steamships) which currently makes our Anzacs look like Bombay Bum Boats.

 

[Raven22]

A little over a quarter of the fleet is about right. The rule of threes applies and I think that the number you cite is generous because there are shore establishments that require personnel over and above what the rule of threes cover for sea going ships.

The rules of threes doesn’t apply to crew numbers for individual ships, it applies to the ships themselves. You can expect about a third of ships to be deplorable at any one time, but each ship only has one crew.

Otherwise you would have nested rules of threes (a third of crew and a third of ships), so each crew member would only expect to be deployable a ninth of the time. The navy have already worked out how to pay themselves sea going allowance without having to go to sea, but that might be a tough argument to win.

 

[Volkodav]

The rules of threes doesn’t apply to crew numbers for individual ships, it applies to the ships themselves. You can expect about a third of ships to be deplorable at any one time, but each ship only has one crew.

Otherwise you would have nested rules of threes (a third of crew and a third of ships), so each crew member would only expect to be deployable a ninth of the time. The navy have already worked out how to pay themselves sea going allowance without having to go to sea, but that might be a tough argument to win.

Probably more accurate to say there are set overheads for shore operation, irrespective of the number of ships in service. The RAN has for instance been making greater use of shore based technical sailors to support the Fleet Element Groups and where possible have them embedded in the various procurement and sustainment projects. Not sure they like being called deplorables though.

 

[spoz]

Plus there are more requirements for people in joint jobs or other priority ashore positions, including some operational ones in places like Bahrain, Afghanistan and South Sudan than there used to be. And some of it is the “overhead” of having a more self reliant strategic posture in a world which is more complex than in say the 80s. Whether this use of RAN personnel, particularly in jobs which might seem more appropriately filled by Army, is a good thing might be a moot point - but they need to be filled by somebody from the ADF and Army’s resources are also limited.

 

[ASSAIL]

Plus there are more requirements for people in joint jobs or other priority ashore positions, including some operational ones in places like Bahrain, Afghanistan and South Sudan than there used to be. And some of it is the “overhead” of having a more self reliant strategic posture in a world which is more complex than in say the 80s. Whether this use of RAN personnel, particularly in jobs which might seem more appropriately filled by Army, is a good thing might be a moot point - but they need to be filled by somebody from the ADF and Army’s resources are also limited.

Further, we often overlook the various shore establishments and the roles they play, eg there are 800 trainees at HMAS Cerberus at any one time, 6000 per year. Stirling, Waterhen, Penguin, Coonawarra and Cairns also soak up manpower.
I don’t know the situation in Defence today but I’ve checked the”Navy List” from 1980 and there were over 270 Naval Officers serving in Canberra, 10% of the total!
At that time we must also consider that contractors played a minuscule role in manning shore establishments. Uniformed personnel filled billets such as Fleet Maintenance, security, cooks, stewards, drivers, gardeners and a host of others and these billets were seen as a welcome relief from constant sea time.

Comparing the ratio of sea/shore billets has to be carefully qualified, its a bit like comparing aircrew to RAAF total numbers.

 

[StingrayOZ]

RAN still get more sea time than other navies don't they. I recall chatting to a Royal Navy convert, complaining that the RAN makes you do more at sea and for longer.

 

[ngatimozart]

RAN still get more sea time than other navies don't they. I recall chatting to a Royal Navy convert, complaining that the RAN makes you do more at sea and for longer.

The old navy adage applies: if you can't take a joke you shouldn't joined.

 

[t68]

RAN still get more sea time than other navies don't they. I recall chatting to a Royal Navy convert, complaining that the RAN makes you do more at sea and for longer.

That’s interesting, wonder if he is referring to deployment time or actual at sea time between port visits.

 

[alexsa]

Further, we often overlook the various shore establishments and the roles they play, eg there are 800 trainees at HMAS Cerberus at any one time, 6000 per year. Stirling, Waterhen, Penguin, Coonawarra and Cairns also soak up manpower.
I don’t know the situation in Defence today but I’ve checked the”Navy List” from 1980 and there were over 270 Naval Officers serving in Canberra, 10% of the total!
At that time we must also consider that contractors played a minuscule role in manning shore establishments. Uniformed personnel filled billets such as Fleet Maintenance, security, cooks, stewards, drivers, gardeners and a host of others and these billets were seen as a welcome relief from constant sea time.

Comparing the ratio of sea/shore billets has to be carefully qualified, its a bit like comparing aircrew to RAAF total numbers.

It is interesting to note that in the 70's the manning level for the PNF of RAN was about 16000 (see table 3 on page and that was at a time where the crews were larger and the shore complements buch greater (we still policed the gates of GI with dockyard police as an example) as indicated by Assail. In 1976 we ahd 11 destroyers and on aircraft carrier but also had manpower intensive vessels such as the Stalwart. We also has six oberons that were crewed up to 60 and military crew drove all watercraft and lighters.

http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/wpaper1976.pdf

 

[StingrayOZ]

He wasn't too bitter about it, it was just one of those things they didn't really communicate when he was swapping over from the RN to the RAN. He was very happy with the RAN, the move was very good for him, his on the DDG's now. His kids are a bit old which I think helps.

I also recall some of the RAN ex-RN submariners also whining about it, but then again they had just driven from FBW to Sydney with some newer recruits trying to earn dolphins, so were a bit tired.

Because of the recent overseas recruiting drives, the RAN sailors seemed to know pretty much everything about the RCN, RN, USN, Dutch navy, French navy, RNZ navy, South African navy, the Indian navy etc. It seemed like the RAN paid better but worked them more, at least from the impression I got. Because of some certain shortages some said they could basically live at sea if they wanted, some complained they were always under pressure to go to sea, think of those more middle specialist management ranks.

It's all heresay and what not, but I don't think the RAN these days is as shore focused as some rumors might imply. Not for everyone. There have been lots of deployments and recent activities and likely to have more in the future. The US seems to have hit a wall with their naval deployment rotations and scheduling..

 

[MickB]

If the surface fleet is to be expanded to 12 or more escorts the easiest way to do it would be to extend the service lives of the Anzacs.

In addition you would need to increase the construction tempo of the Hobarts. One ship every 2 years gives continuous build of a 12 ship fleet.
For a 15 ship fleet you need one ship every 1.6 years (approx).

With concerns over the costs of crewing and maintaining the Anzacs for an additional period, steps could be taken to reduce both.
What comes to mind is the example of the USN in the 1960s converting obsolescent destroyers into DDEs and then then using them as dedicated escorts in CVS hunter/killer groups.

The older Anzacs would be retired as is but to a slightly delayed timetable.
The youngest 3 or 4 Anzacs could be converted to perform a similar role to the DDEs as escorts for the LHDs etc.


The first step would be remove the gas turbine. The additional speed is not needed to maintain pace with the LHDs.
As I understand it this older model has only partial commonality with the Hobarts and none at all with the Hunters.
This would take one more complex peice of machinery from the supply chain.

Remove the Harpoons as not required by an escort. Use them on the Hunters until replaced at a future date.

Keep or even upgrade the ASW suite and Helo. This is a prime requirement for an escort.

Remove the 5 inch gun and magazine as unlikley to be used by an escort. Replace them with an additional 8 VLS cells.
This would double the ESSM loadout from 32 to 64. A very useful addition in any contested space.

With the modified Anzacs acting as close escorts this frees the Hobarts to manoeuvre to deal with targets as required.

While not a perfect soloution it make use makes use of equipment already in service.

 

[spoz]

The Hobarts are theoretically at (approximately) 18 month centres; in fact Brisbane was delivered 13 months after Hobart; and Sydney is contractually due for delivery about 16 months after Brisbane. Even on the original schedule they were at about the same intervals. But that is not as part of a continuous shipbuilding program of course; there will now be a break of some years before the next MFU is delivered.

 

[alexsa]

In addition you would need to increase the construction tempo of the Hobarts. One ship every 2 years gives continuous build of a 12 ship fleet.
For a 15 ship fleet you need one ship every 1.6 years (approx).

With concerns over the costs of crewing and maintaining the Anzacs for an additional period, steps could be taken to reduce both.
What comes to mind is the example of the USN in the 1960s converting obsolescent destroyers into DDEs and then then using them as dedicated escorts in CVS hunter/killer groups.

The older Anzacs would be retired as is but to a slightly delayed timetable.
The youngest 3 or 4 Anzacs could be converted to perform a similar role to the DDEs as escorts for the LHDs etc.


The first step would be remove the gas turbine. The additional speed is not needed to maintain pace with the LHDs.
As I understand it this older model has only partial commonality with the Hobarts and none at all with the Hunters.
This would take one more complex peice of machinery from the supply chain.

Remove the Harpoons as not required by an escort. Use them on the Hunters until replaced at a future date.

Keep or even upgrade the ASW suite and Helo. This is a prime requirement for an escort.

Remove the 5 inch gun and magazine as unlikley to be used by an escort. Replace them with an additional 8 VLS cells.
This would double the ESSM loadout from 32 to 64. A very useful addition in any contested space.

With the modified Anzacs acting as close escorts this frees the Hobarts to manoeuvre to deal with targets as required.

While not a perfect soloution it make use makes use of equipment already in service.

Hmm .... you are going to play merry hell with the stability with the GT and the 5" magazine being removed. Cutting large holes in decks to put in another VLS (which would have to sourced) is goind to be expensive as you are going ot mess with a lot of structure. I know the gun is supposed to be modular but that does not cover the deck penetration of the VLS nor compensate for the lost weight down low. You would be better off leaving the gun and the GT there as the cost of emasculating the vessels would outweigh the benefit. To be honest I am not sure what the benefit of this proposal would be.

A reduction in Harpoon load out would make sense (from both a cost and stability perspective) but I would leave some onboard given the vessels combat system is capable of firing the missile.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Hobarts are theoretically at (approximately) 18 month centres; in fact Brisbane was delivered 13 months after Hobart; and Sydney is contractually due for delivery about 16 months after Brisbane. Even on the original schedule they were at about the same intervals. But that is not as part of a continuous shipbuilding program of course; there will now be a break of some years before the next MFU is delivered.

The sustainable ship building program I think will have reasonable pacing, once the first few are out, build rates could be increased, if required. Probably not for a peace time RAN, but for allies, or losses, it is probably quite doable.

I imagine if we go to war, NZ (and other allies, Singapore, Indonesia etc) might get a cheap deal on some recently retired ships and then we would increase the rate of production. Same with the subs. That is the great advantage of having continuous production. If things heat up, you can just increase the drum beat, lengthen service and more extensive refit older ships. Given 2-3 years notice, it could have a difference, This is what Japan just did with its submarine program.

Also you can ramp up all those other lead items. With the Subs, there is a production line in France that could assist, the Type 26 has a open production line in the UK that could assist. If things are really hairy, then you could convert one line to something bigger.

IMO having 12 major surface combatants units is fine, for now. Particularly given the improvement in Subs and OPV's capability. At least those 12 will be well fitted and well armed.

 

[aussienscale]

Hmm .... you are going to play merry hell with the stability with the GT and the 5" magazine being removed. Cutting large holes in decks to put in another VLS (which would have to sourced) is goind to be expensive as you are going ot mess with a lot of structure. I know the gun is supposed to be modular but that does not cover the deck penetration of the VLS nor compensate for the lost weight down low. You would be better off leaving the gun and the GT there as the cost of emasculating the vessels would outweigh the benefit. To be honest I am not sure what the benefit of this proposal would be.

A reduction in Harpoon load out would make sense (from both a cost and stability perspective) but I would leave some onboard given the vessels combat system is capable of firing the missile.

Agree mate, along with the top weight issues our Anzac's already suffer from, such a proposal would be extremely high risk and not something the Navy or Gov would be willing to do

Cheers

 

[Stampede]

Agree mate, along with the top weight issues our Anzac's already suffer from, such a proposal would be extremely high risk and not something the Navy or Gov would be willing to do

Cheers

I'm no naval Architect so I'll ask this for advice, so please be kind.

The subject of adding and changing existing ships often comes up in conversation.
It's understandable that we either want to keep relevance with our vessels over their service life or to add what was left out from the start;IE ( Fitted for but not with).
With the later I assume their were aspirations not met by finances, yet the vessel was sufficiently future proofed in it's inherent design to by upgraded at a later stage.
The challenge is you can only do so much with existing space and weight.
The ANZAC class often comes up as both the RAN and RNZN have modified their respective ships.
For the RAN;Harpoon and Nulka has been added as has much work to accommodate ESSM and CEAFAR radars and other electronic systems.

My question therefore is: if the existing hull form is maxed out and we don't want to add extra ballast to compensate for top weight, is there an option to extend the ship????
I'm not suggesting chopping it in half but rather "bolting on bit's" at either end.
The bow could have a bulbous bow added which may be of benefit for both longitudinal stability and economy at certain speeds. Their may even be some buoyancy gained.
Also is there scope to add some metres to the stern. I've no doubt that the fixed position of rudder and propellers may preclude the ships performance if too great an extension was added but with a 15 m beam even an extra four metres would surely add some top weight capacity.
If their was a weight carrying benefit with either extension,then providing it was not to detrimental to the ships performance, then we may appreciate some extra tonnes of weapon capacity of whatever flavour for these ships which will be asked to do there duty into the late 2020's and 30's.

Should not break the bank or take to long to build and install.
In fact I think theirs a couple of ANZAC's out of the water as we speak.

Thoughts and regards S

 

[John Fedup]

I think the best solution would have been a tank tested hull plug extension as a block 2 ANZAC. Too late for that now. The modifications you suggest may not be worth the effort. Perhaps others here may know if something similar to what you propose has been tried.

 

[spoz]

I think the best solution would have been a tank tested hull plug extension as a block 2 ANZAC. Too late for that now. The modifications you suggest may not be worth the effort. Perhaps others here may know if something similar to what you propose has been tried.

We looked at that in the late 90s - it wasn’t a practical proposition for a raft of reasons.

 

[Hazdog]

We looked at that in the late 90s - it wasn’t a practical proposition for a raft of reasons.

Could you please elaborate?

Those reasons would be a great addition to this conversation.

Cheers,