Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Getting back to the challenge that largish modern warships take too long to be available for a wartime building "surge" would there be any options to build a modern day equivalent of armed merchant cruisers? It seems the sensors are some of the longest lead times so probably not?

I believe the issues tend to be more the electronics as a whole, due to the complexity of the various systems and the need to test all the systems prior to installation. Some of the more modern engine/power plant arrangements might also take a fair amount of time, again due to the complexity and testing. If systems equivalent to what was used in WWII were acceptable, then wartime production could probably be ramped up.

The unfortunate reality though, is that modern warfare is more about the overall battlesystem being used, and where individual platforms slot into the whole system. Having a vessel which might be able to carry cells of LACM or AShM, but lacking the appropriate sensors to detect potential targets, or even the comms, CMS and data link systems to receive targeting data from other sources, but drastically inhibit a vessel from being useful in a modern setting.

 

[ASSAIL]

Getting back to the challenge that largish modern warships take too long to be available for a wartime building "surge" would there be any options to build a modern day equivalent of armed merchant cruisers? It seems the sensors are some of the longest lead times so probably not?

We will be fighting with what we have.
The old maxim of ramping up production in times of conflict is becoming less relevant.
Modern warfare is deadly and lethal and sustained conflict with a peer rival will be unsustainable for more than a few months. Naturally there are many scenarios where less than all out conflict can last longer.
The point is that there will be no time to produce survivable combatants. Production runs such as the 60 x Bathurst Corvettes built in Australia during WW2 were simple platforms with no combat capability other than a manually trained gun, they can’t be compared with modern warships. The same can be said of the River and Bay classes of the same era.

 

[Redlands18]

We will be fighting with what we have.
The old maxim of ramping up production in times of conflict is becoming less relevant.
Modern warfare is deadly and lethal and sustained conflict with a peer rival will be unsustainable for more than a few months. Naturally there are many scenarios where less than all out conflict can last longer.
The point is that there will be no time to produce survivable combatants. Production runs such as the 60 x Bathurst Corvettes built in Australia during WW2 were simple platforms with no combat capability other than a manually trained gun, they can’t be compared with modern warships. The same can be said of the River and Bay classes of the same era.

Agree, i don’t think we can compare the next major war to WW2, in the 1940s you had the combination of large, mostly literate populations, able to build massive amounts of relatively simple Machines in huge numbers of well set up, easy to operate factories. Todays technology just doesn‘t lend itself to be able to ramp up in the same way

 

[aviation_enthus]

We will be fighting with what we have.
The old maxim of ramping up production in times of conflict is becoming less relevant.
Modern warfare is deadly and lethal and sustained conflict with a peer rival will be unsustainable for more than a few months. Naturally there are many scenarios where less than all out conflict can last longer.
The point is that there will be no time to produce survivable combatants. Production runs such as the 60 x Bathurst Corvettes built in Australia during WW2 were simple platforms with no combat capability other than a manually trained gun, they can’t be compared with modern warships. The same can be said of the River and Bay classes of the same era.

Even in WWII the major surface combatants took years to build anyway. Look at the timelines for production of battleships and carriers. They were the complex projects of the time and they still took a long time to build despite being simple by modern standards.


Japanese ship building
From:

Japanese Naval Shipbuilding

[Declassified] Confidential 4 June 1945 Japanese Naval Shipbuilding

www.history.navy.mil

“The building program for major warships from 1941 to 1944 shows an overwhelming emphasis on carrier construction. During this period the Jap Navy announced:

(1) Eight large carriers either built as carriers from the keel up or converted from warship hulls at an early stage.

(2) Two large carriers converted from luxury liners.

(3) One CVL converted from a submarine tender.

(4) Five CVEs converted from large passenger ships.

In addition, Ryuho, Chitose and Chiyoda are believed to have been converted to CVLs during this period, although no announcement of such conversion was issued.

No battleships were announced as building during this period. The Yamato had previously been announced on 25 July, 1940. The date of Musashi's announcement is not known.

Only one heavy cruiser, the Ibuki, appears in this list. There has been some indication that even this ship was finished as a CVL rather than a CA.”


Germany was similar:

From:

Plan Z - Nazi Shipbuilding Plans

www.globalsecurity.org

“In January 1939 Hitler approved the Z-Plan building program and subsequently abrogated the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, with the understanding that he would take all the necessary diplomatic actions to prevent war prior to 1944. The invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, made Hitler's intentions for immediate war crystal clear and the Z-Plan was no longer a viable option. The naval building plan shifted focus to the rapid completion of the two battleships and cruiser already under construction. The submarine building program was accelerated to produce twenty to thirty U-boats per month.”


Modern ‘Total War’ would be a far more deadly proposition than WWII, but unless one side could gain a decisive victory in those few opening months, I doubt it would all over that quick.

The opening stages of WWII in the Pacific was decided by what remained of the US fleet after Pearl Harbour. The quick repair of the Yorktown and the outcome of the Battle of the Coral Sea stopped the continuous advance of the Japanese. From that point it became a ‘war of production’.

I think any future conflict would have similar outcomes. A rapid advance or series of battles until the aggressors supply lines are stretched far enough to give the defending forces an advantage. Then a slow grind from there (to either side). If you are talking about small local conflicts (invasion of Taiwan would be included in this) then yes, what exists at the start would decide the outcome. I can’t see the US/Allies staging an invasion to retake Taiwan if China held the island, so in this case future production would be irrelevant.

 

[Wombat000]

I agree with all the comments re complexity and construction issues of modern systems.

Since WW2, we’ve seen even the larger naval interventions constrained to involvements in local proxy-war type activities and Cold War cat/mouse activities.
As I understand it, we’ve had the luxury of unchallenged supply chains, manufacture of even complex systems and munitions has been manageable.
Naval units have had freedom of action to leave AOs for restoration without overtly extending ammunition, fuel or crewing imperatives.
Should complex ammunition manufacturing & supply become constrained, it does make one wonder how much reliance there would ever be on what is now considered old fashioned second tier systems?

 

[Redlands18]

Even in WWII the major surface combatants took years to build anyway. Look at the timelines for production of battleships and carriers. They were the complex projects of the time and they still took a long time to build despite being simple by modern standards.


Japanese ship building
From:

Japanese Naval Shipbuilding

[Declassified] Confidential 4 June 1945 Japanese Naval Shipbuilding

www.history.navy.mil

“The building program for major warships from 1941 to 1944 shows an overwhelming emphasis on carrier construction. During this period the Jap Navy announced:

(1) Eight large carriers either built as carriers from the keel up or converted from warship hulls at an early stage.

(2) Two large carriers converted from luxury liners.

(3) One CVL converted from a submarine tender.

(4) Five CVEs converted from large passenger ships.

In addition, Ryuho, Chitose and Chiyoda are believed to have been converted to CVLs during this period, although no announcement of such conversion was issued.

No battleships were announced as building during this period. The Yamato had previously been announced on 25 July, 1940. The date of Musashi's announcement is not known.

Only one heavy cruiser, the Ibuki, appears in this list. There has been some indication that even this ship was finished as a CVL rather than a CA.”


Germany was similar:

From:

Plan Z - Nazi Shipbuilding Plans

www.globalsecurity.org

“In January 1939 Hitler approved the Z-Plan building program and subsequently abrogated the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, with the understanding that he would take all the necessary diplomatic actions to prevent war prior to 1944. The invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, made Hitler's intentions for immediate war crystal clear and the Z-Plan was no longer a viable option. The naval building plan shifted focus to the rapid completion of the two battleships and cruiser already under construction. The submarine building program was accelerated to produce twenty to thirty U-boats per month.”


Modern ‘Total War’ would be a far more deadly proposition than WWII, but unless one side could gain a decisive victory in those few opening months, I doubt it would all over that quick.

The opening stages of WWII in the Pacific was decided by what remained of the US fleet after Pearl Harbour. The quick repair of the Yorktown and the outcome of the Battle of the Coral Sea stopped the continuous advance of the Japanese. From that point it became a ‘war of production’.

I think any future conflict would have similar outcomes. A rapid advance or series of battles until the aggressors supply lines are stretched far enough to give the defending forces an advantage. Then a slow grind from there (to either side). If you are talking about small local conflicts (invasion of Taiwan would be included in this) then yes, what exists at the start would decide the outcome. I can’t see the US/Allies staging an invasion to retake Taiwan if China held the island, so in this case future production would be irrelevant.

There was actually 4 Yamatos laid down, the 3rd was the Shinano which was converted to an Aircraft Carrier mid build and bigger than the Midways but sunk by the Submarine USS Archerfish while still undergoing Sea Trials and a 4th was cancelled before launching.
The biggest issue for the Japanese was not replacing their Carriers lost at Midway but replacing the experienced Aircrews lost in the Coral Sea and Midway, which they were never able to do and the inexperienced crews were slaughtered at the Battle of the Phillipine Sea, also known as the Great Marianas Turkey shoot, losses were 15-1 i believe.

 

[Redlands18]

I agree with all the comments re complexity and construction issues of modern systems.

Since WW2, we’ve seen even the larger naval interventions constrained to involvements in local proxy-war type activities and Cold War cat/mouse activities.
As I understand it, we’ve had the luxury of unchallenged supply chains, manufacture of even complex systems and munitions has been manageable.
Naval units have had freedom of action to leave AOs for restoration without overtly extending ammunition, fuel or crewing imperatives.
Should complex ammunition manufacturing & supply become constrained, it does make one wonder how much reliance there would ever be on what is now considered old fashioned second tier systems?

Realistically the only real sustained Naval Battle we have had since WW2 is the Falklands and the British certainly learnt some very hard lessons.

 

[Unric]

Thanks for the feedback. I wonder though that if the conflict dragged on whether the attrition of the initial high quality units would mean that the overall standard or at least complexity of units on both sides would drop. Although this would require fairly even attrition which is probably an unlikely scenario?

 

[aviation_enthus]

I agree with your last bit; but not your first.

The number of people I am aware that are looking at this can be counted on two hands. Certainly in Australia. The short victorious war syndrome is a key element of Defence planning and we don't like talking about what happens if we don't win in 100 hours or so. There are some trying to make some effort, and you hopefully will see the seeds of that soon, but how we fight at D+6 months will be drastically different to D-Day and we need to consider it.

If we aren't considering it internally, than externally is the only way. This forum has more say than many realise, and if we aren't doing it internally than this may be one of the only ways.....

How much of the project researched previous war history? A subject I love (history) has a lot of answers, maybe not direct but certainly enough parallels to make a reasonable judgment.

This lack of production in Australia is another reason we need some sort of high quality/tech manufacturing. This can subsequently be re-tooled to build other items in wartime. Yes it takes time to re-tool, but it’s a hell of a lot quicker than building an industry from scratch without the relevant trained staff.

What about components for some of these weapons? Could we have a stockpile of processors, chips, etc that are the bottleneck in any production? What I mean is, surely building the basic rocket body, fins, fuel source etc is the easy part. Building the high tech guidance system is the hard part.

 

[OldTex]

I agree with your last bit; but not your first.

The number of people I am aware that are looking at this can be counted on two hands. Certainly in Australia. The short victorious war syndrome is a key element of Defence planning and we don't like talking about what happens if we don't win in 100 hours or so. There are some trying to make some effort, and you hopefully will see the seeds of that soon, but how we fight at D+6 months will be drastically different to D-Day and we need to consider it.

If we aren't considering it internally, than externally is the only way. This forum has more say than many realise, and if we aren't doing it internally than this may be one of the only ways.....

The expectation of a lightning quick war which becomes a long drawn out grind has many historical precedents (Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour) but also more recent conflicts (including Yom Kippur, Iraq and Afghanistan). While the recent conflicts have been less than global warfare they show that a protracted conflict can bleed an economy almost dry. It goes from being smart weapons to smart (and tough) people, with a very big dose of good fortune.

 

[hairyman]

We seem to be doing alright in keeping the Navy up to date with Australian built ships, but it is the aerospace side of things that worries me. How long is it since we have turned out military aircraft in Australia? Mirage is the last I can think of.

 

[Todjaeger]

We seem to be doing alright in keeping the Navy up to date with Australian built ships, but it is the aerospace side of things that worries me. How long is it since we have turned out military aircraft in Australia? Mirage is the last I can think of.

The F/A-18A/B Hornets were IIRC built from kits. Realistically I just cannot see Australia being able to efficiently produce aircraft domestically with the possible exception for smaller utility aircraft. Even that IMO is questionable.

Now that I think about it, going from memory (which could be wrong) I believe some of the MRH-90 Taipans were also built in Australia.

The issue really remains though, because the production runs themselves are really too small to sustain continuous production, never mind support a domestic design capability able to develop a complex combat aircraft.

 

[Redlands18]

The F/A-18A/B Hornets were IIRC built from kits. Realistically I just cannot see Australia being able to efficiently produce aircraft domestically with the possible exception for smaller utility aircraft. Even that IMO is questionable.

Now that I think about it, going from memory (which could be wrong) I believe some of the MRH-90 Taipans were also built in Australia.

The issue really remains though, because the production runs themselves are really too small to sustain continuous production, never mind support a domestic design capability able to develop a complex combat aircraft.

Most of the MRH-90s and Tigers were assembled at the Australian Aerospace(Eurocopter/Airbus subsidiary) in Brisbane, 45 out of 47 and 18 out of 22 i think.
sorry link not working
The Gippsland GA8 has been reasonably Successful with 240 delivered as of 2017, probably the pinacle of Australian Aircraft building at present.

 

[Milne Bay]

We seem to be doing alright in keeping the Navy up to date with Australian built ships, but it is the aerospace side of things that worries me. How long is it since we have turned out military aircraft in Australia? Mirage is the last I can think of.

About two weeks actually.
Boeing Australia has developed the "Loyal Wingman"
Looks like a winner to me:

Boeing rolls out Australia’s first ‘Loyal Wingman’ combat drone

The company is cruising toward a first flight later this year

www.defensenews.com

 

[SteveR]

Duplicate of next - deleted

 

[Redlands18]

Australian Defence Magazine - Australian Defence Magazine

www.australiandefence.com.au

According to ADM Sydney(V) has been commissioned, but there is nothing on either the Navy site or Defence site.
Of course a full on ceremonial commissioning would have been out of the question, so would have been something low key.

 

[Redlands18]

Australian Defence Magazine - Australian Defence Magazine

www.australiandefence.com.au

According to ADM Sydney(V) has been commissioned, but there is nothing on either the Navy site or Defence site.
Of course a full on ceremonial commissioning would have been out of the question, so would have been something low key.

Edit to above post

Navy Daily

Navy Daily provides the online delivery of news stories about Royal Australian Navy's daily activities.

news.navy.gov.au

Navy Daily has confirmed that Sydney was commissioned at Sea off the coast of NSW, with the CN and Commander Australian Fleet on board. Only the 2nd ever occasion of this happening the other being HMAS Matafele in 1943

 

[Pusser01]

Edit to above post

Navy Daily

Navy Daily provides the online delivery of news stories about Royal Australian Navy's daily activities.

news.navy.gov.au

Navy Daily has confirmed that Sydney was commissioned at Sea off the coast of NSW, with the CN and Commander Australian Fleet on board. Only the 2nd ever occasion of this happening the other being HMAS Matafele in 1943

Unfortunately the HMAS Matafele is the only RAN ship still considered lost at sea with no trace since AE1 was found. 37 crew went down with her in June 1944.

 

[Pusser01]

Noting the possible purchase of JSM for our F-35's & maybe NSM for the surface fleet later on, would there be a benefit in fitting the RAN's MH-60's with the NSM? I think it would give them a better ASM capability compared to the Hellfires they currently carry. It looks as though India are going to have their MH-60's fitted with the NSM. Cheers. 21 MH-60R Seahawk Maritime Helicopters on Order for the Indian Navy - Naval News

 

[spoz]

Yes, it had been planned to do it that way for some time. Not sure of the facts about she being only the second ship to commission at sea; at least two of the DEs (Derwent and Stuart) hoisted the White Ensign while at sea after completion of trials and acceptance of the ships from the builders; mind you, things were done rather differently back then.