Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

Yes law, the pinical of the service industry mafia, those who believe an economy can live on paper shuffling alone with lip service to digging stuff up and growing other stuff. That said I did law as a BUG subject and considered doing a entire minor in commercial law before my studies ground to a halt when we had kids. I think it would actually be quite fun earning a living researching and arguing point with total disregard to common sense letalone right and wrong.:finger

...and let us not forget the easiest way to join the MP club is to be a lawyer (in Canada at least) where they can really disregard common sense. Then again it is not the worst thing, in Canada the PM of the day appoints senators who live off us taxpayers with no regard to right or wrong until they reach 75 or die.

 

[cdxbow]

...and let us not forget the easiest way to join the MP club is to be a lawyer (in Canada at least) where they can really disregard common sense. Then again it is not the worst thing, in Canada the PM of the day appoints senators who live off us taxpayers with no regard to right or wrong until they reach 75 or die.

The political class in Oz is also largely drawn from lawyers along with a few farmers when it's a conservative government, and union reps if its a labour. Not very representative groups really, and not very healthy. Lawyers, quoting Volkodav, are used to 'arguing point with total disregard to common sense let alone right and wrong', which probably explains a lot.

Regarding defence I get the impression that we are better off in Oz than Canada with our pollies, as there seems to be more broad agreement on defence issues across our 2 major parties, and while in opposition each side attempts to make political capital bagging the other, soon as they get in government, they usually do, more or less, the same thing. And while there have been a few stinkers, most projects have been successful, even if somewhat late and tad over budget.

 

[Joe Black]

It makes a lot of sense for Australia and Canada to get together to develop military capabilities together. Very similar in a lot of aspect with vast land and small population, the needs are similar albeit the environment might be somewhat the opposite, hot vs cold climate.

I would image both RAAF and RCAF would have similar needs in getting similar sort of fighter jets to patrol the vast land and sea. RAN and RCN also have similar needs in having long coasts to patrol, similar needs in long range SSKs.

I do think that perhaps RAN and RCN could jointly develop a new generation of conventional subs together to replace the current Collin class and Victoria class subs in the respective navies, and that could extend to future new frigates (ANZAC replacement) too.

 

[John Fedup]

It makes a lot of sense for Australia and Canada to get together to develop military capabilities together. Very similar in a lot of aspect with vast land and small population, the needs are similar albeit the environment might be somewhat the opposite, hot vs cold climate.

I would image both RAAF and RCAF would have similar needs in getting similar sort of fighter jets to patrol the vast land and sea. RAN and RCN also have similar needs in having long coasts to patrol, similar needs in long range SSKs.

I do think that perhaps RAN and RCN could jointly develop a new generation of conventional subs together to replace the current Collin class and Victoria class subs in the respective navies, and that could extend to future new frigates (ANZAC replacement) too.

If we had capable people to make decisions and a population that takes national defence seriously in Canada your idea has some merit but we do not for the most part and would be a drag on any joint project which is unfortunate.

 

[Volkodav]

Been a bit bored today and, following my bit on the Australian Army thread suggesting the MH-60S Knighthawk as a possible future replacement for the Blackhawks being cascaded to 173 Sqn to support SOF, have spent a bit of time on youtube, Wikipedia, as well as various defence and tech sites. End result I have come up with a bit of an idea / concept on a possible future direction for the RAN that I thought id put up for discussion.

Basically at for the last decade RAN procurement has been all about 5 hulls, the AWDs and the LHDs, with Choules coming in as a fortuitous emergency measure. Now, over the next two decades we are looking to procure, new frigates, patrol vessels (possibly also the current MCMVs and survey vessels), fleet tankers and landing ships (I hope the LHC replacement still gets up). Now is probably the time to look at synergies that can be incorporated in some or all of these new platforms to increase the over all effectiveness and capability of the ADF.

The first thing that comes to mind is that each of these platforms either has or at some point has had the requirement to embark or at least land and refuel helicopters and VTOL UAVs.

Each of the platform designs should have large mission bays capable embarking and operating a variety of RHIBs, Fast Interceptor Craft, something similar to the CB90 combat boats and possibly also small personnel and vehicle landing craft.

They should be able to embark, transport and as required operate modular (containerised) systems, in particular USN spec Mission Modules.

I believe each should have:
-Flight deck large enough to operate refuel, load/unload, Chinook sized helicopters and Osprey sized tiltrotors
-Hangerage and maintenance facilities for two or more MHR90 helicopteters
-Facilities to operate and maintain VTOL UAVs
-Large mission decks
-Ability to embark and operate USN LCS Mission Modules for all mission sets (ASW, anti surface, SOF support, assault, MCMV) including associated aviation and surface craft assets.

Basically each of these platforms should be large and flexible enough, if designed for the outset, to not only conduct their primary roles, but with the addition of appropriate modules also the majority of missions identified for the USNs LSC fleet through using FMS sourced mission modules. They should be able to mutually support each other and possibly be able to transport and transfer modules and capabilities between each other and allied ships as required.

 

[Jezza]

Australia should look at our own backyard to build. Especially Patrol boats
Protector-class offshore patrol vessel

Protector-class inshore patrol vessel

Kiwis got it right. Offshore are ice strengthened and have the Ability to patrol in sea state 6 and survive in sea state 9.
Even modify to Aus specs.
Keep the jobs here and skill-set required for development into submarines

 

[Volkodav]

Australia should look at our own backyard to build. Especially Patrol boats
Protector-class offshore patrol vessel

Protector-class inshore patrol vessel

Kiwis got it right. Offshore are ice strengthened and have the Ability to patrol in sea state 6 and survive in sea state 9.
Even modify to Aus specs.
Keep the jobs here and skill-set required for development into submarines

Or you could look back to what the RAN was in line for be for they got life extended Fremantles and new build Armidales instead.

RAN Transfield OPV in The Commonwealth Navies Forum

Its been posted before in this thread with a fair bit of comment and is probably worth me linking again for context. Basically these are the vessels the Sea Sprites were ordered to operate from, the project for the corvettes was cancelled in the late 90s but the helos were ordered anyway.

Things have moved on and while the extended range inshore PBs in the shape of the ACPBs were out of their depth before they were even ordered and the helicopter equipped corvettes quite clearly would have been up to the job currently at hand things have moved on even further. This is what led to the OCV concept to replace the PBs, MCMVs and survey vessels with a common hull vessel using swappable or at least alternate outfit and mission options.

In this day and age we have the USN ordering a minimum of 32 LCS platforms and developing and deploying their associated mission modules. Common sense suggests we take the opportunity to buy into this project and at least ensure that we can use the US modules. They have done the hard work so why not make use of it through FMS. We don't need the LCS platform, we just need to ensure our tailored future platforms can use the USN mission modules to supplement and support the core functions of our new fleet units.

Imagine patrol combatants able to contribute to SOF and assault operating, MCM and ASW, landing and logistics (LCH replacement) able to serve in survey and MCM, fleet or combat tankers able to contribute to ASW, MCM. Not to mention the impact having our future frigates being able to serve as MC mother ships, SOF assault platforms in addition to their primary ASW and strike roles.

The ability to mix and match a wide variety of capabilities would provide the ADF in general with much greater depth of capability. We would be able select the appropriate platform depending on the prevailing threat level to complete the required mission. A permissive environment you could send a small landing ship into conduct survey and mine clearance operations but in a higher threat environment you would deploy those same mission modules and specialist personnel on a future frigate that formed part of a task force.

You have a hostage situation off East Africa, prates have taken an Australian flagged ship. One of out future fleet tankers is near by we fly the specialist personnel and modules into a friendly port, load them on the ship intercept, job done.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You have a hostage situation off East Africa, prates have taken an Australian flagged ship. One of out future fleet tankers is near by we fly the specialist personnel and modules into a friendly port, load them on the ship intercept, job done.

or we do what we've done in the past - cover and shadow to maintain persistent coverage for legal reasons and then get a partner to do the final kinetic VBSS (eg we have used Sth African military and French military as kinetic partners prev) - as the targets are invariably in someone elses national waters and we then rely on them and their co-operation

if they are in international waters we can do an insert and recovery etc....

 

[Volkodav]

or we do what we've done in the past - cover and shadow to maintain persistent coverage for legal reasons and then get a partner to do the final kinetic VBSS (eg we have used Sth African military and French military as kinetic partners prev) - as the targets are invariably in someone elses national waters and we then rely on them and their co-operation

if they are in international waters we can do an insert and recovery etc....

True.

What I am looking to is a sort of a more holistic outlook for ship outfits for special missions, an expansion on what the Danes do but ideally using USN stuff acquired and supported through FMS.

IMO that apart from very specifically roled one off vessels in which it is not economical to do so, any class of ship, over a certain size, the RAN acquires from now on should have a minimum set of requirements ref embarkation and employment of mission modules.

You don't need 40kts+ for many of the missions, you just need the space, weight (stability) and interfaces. Design this into the new vessels and its easy, try and retrofit some of the features later its hard. Get on board with the LCS mission modules and we can get the sort of support the US has been providing us for decades. Spiral developments to counter new threats that the US works into their LCS fleet will become available to any of out platforms that we design to embark the same modules.

For many of these missions it doesn't matter if the platform carrying out the mission is a Frigate, OPV/corvette/ MCMV/survey vessel/attack transport, LSL/LCH (think BMT Caiman of similar), fleet/combat tanker. All they will need is the interfaces on top of the space and weight they should already have.

This isn't new, other navies have done it and or are looking into it. I am just suggesting that we take an existing system being developed and deployed by a close friend an look at incorporating it into as many of our up and coming new platforms as we can.

By using mission modules we increase the flexibility of or modest fleet and can make it easier and potentially cheaper to build and maintain niche capabilities that in the past have been over looked, without having to necessarily tie up expensive assets, in demand elsewhere to do so. Do you MCM out of the LCH replacement and then when we deploy to support a UN mandate ship the modules in an OPV/corvette or if high threat look at a frigate as the mother ship as part of a task force.

We should be looking at disconnecting the missions from being platform specific and rather ensuring that were can get the and actually use the capability required where and when it is needed.

Mission modules, mission decks, flight decks, hangers, interfaces, accommodation and sufficient power generation. Not hard, not that expensive to provide ad design and build.

 

[gf0012-aust]

We should be looking at disconnecting the missions from being platform specific and rather ensuring that were can get the and actually use the capability required where and when it is needed.

exactly

hence my ongoing frustration with platform centric analysis such as JSF and A10

it's about the capability req - and what platforms in the force can help achieve that...

 

[Volkodav]

exactly

hence my ongoing frustration with platform centric analysis such as JSF and A10

it's about the capability req - and what platforms in the force can help achieve that...

I believe the LCS mission modules give us the building blocks to start doing this. With 32 hulls ,minimum, coming on line with the USN this would be a very smart way to get into this for the RAN. I just hope someone is taking a high level look at this now.

Write it in the requirements and make sure it happens before it is too late.

The RAN is too small to continually repeat the mistakes and the limitations those mistake cause, that we have seen through narrow sighted procurement.

No more ACPBs, Sirius, rarely used MCMs. Time to be smart and flexible.

 

[t68]

Wonder if it’s worth the Government to look into using the soon to be decommission Supply-class ships of the MSC USNS Bridge (T-AOE-10)& USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) as an interim measure till new build ships can be put into service.

Yes I know Defence is not keen on second hand shipping from the US but it’s not like the Kanimbla class where they were heavily modified these ships would only need the a more compatible communication fit out to RAN standards . Would it be more cost effective than using these to replace existing Auxiliary ships, but I think the Canadians have a more pressing need for these ships than we do at the moment.

Navy to Decommission Two Oilers in Cost Saving Scheme | USNI News

 

[weegee]

I see Canberra's last position was off Lakes entrance at 7 something last night doing a respectable 14.4 knots.
I am doing a day trip on the tall ship James Craig from Sydney on Sat, i really hope Canberra will be in Sydney by then I would love to get some photos of her whilst sailing past. I'll have to wait and see.

 

[Bonza]

Quick question, can anyone tell me whether or not the RAN still has any AGM-119 Penguins in inventory? The reason I ask is that, as far as I know, the MH-60R (in USN service anyway) is capable of employing the missile, and I'd like to see the RAN Romeos operating with a heavier/longer ranged anti-surface weapon than the Hellfires I've seen thus far.

I know the missile itself is getting a little older and I assume it will be out of service for many users once weapons like the Kongsberg NSM and FASGW-H reach operational use, but I'm just curious if the RAN is looking to employ an anti-ship missile capability on its rotary platforms.

 

[Todjaeger]

Quick question, can anyone tell me whether or not the RAN still has any AGM-119 Penguins in inventory? The reason I ask is that, as far as I know, the MH-60R (in USN service anyway) is capable of employing the missile, and I'd like to see the RAN Romeos operating with a heavier/longer ranged anti-surface weapon than the Hellfires I've seen thus far.

I know the missile itself is getting a little older and I assume it will be out of service for many users once weapons like the Kongsberg NSM and FASGW-H reach operational use, but I'm just curious if the RAN is looking to employ an anti-ship missile capability on its rotary platforms.

I believe the RAN either sold them, or put them up for sale. IIRC the S-70B Seahawks were never configured for their use, since they were to be fitted to the Sea Sprites. For some reason I seem to recall that they were offered as part of the package deal the NZDF bought the SH-2G(I) Sea Sprites to replace their current ones.

-Cheers

 

[Bonza]

I'd heard something about them possibly being included in the Sea Sprite deal, but I didn't think New Zealand had purchased them as they were already operating the Maverick missile in the AShM role with their own Sea Sprite fleet. Given the historical reluctance of NZ governments to "up-gun" assets without a clear need* I thought they would have passed on the Penguin.

* I don't mean any offence to our NZ members, I was just thinking of examples like passing on the ANZAC upgrades, etc... if my assumptions are in error I would be happy to stand corrected.

In any case thanks for the answer Tod, if they did get sold off that's a real shame, as I think a helo-based ASUW capability is a significant upgrade to the reach, sensor picture, and hitting power of a surface unit. I hope in future the RAN can get back into the game with something more modern.

 

[rjtjrt]

Re RNZN Penguin
This is from links in Wiki article on Penguin.

Royal New Zealand Navy selects KONGSBERGs Penguin anti-ship missile for Seasprite helicopters

New Zealand selects Norwegian made anti-ship missile

 

[King Wally]

I'd heard something about them possibly being included in the Sea Sprite deal, but I didn't think New Zealand had purchased them as they were already operating the Maverick missile in the AShM role with their own Sea Sprite fleet. Given the historical reluctance of NZ governments to "up-gun" assets without a clear need* I thought they would have passed on the Penguin.

* I don't mean any offence to our NZ members, I was just thinking of examples like passing on the ANZAC upgrades, etc... if my assumptions are in error I would be happy to stand corrected.

In any case thanks for the answer Tod, if they did get sold off that's a real shame, as I think a helo-based ASUW capability is a significant upgrade to the reach, sensor picture, and hitting power of a surface unit. I hope in future the RAN can get back into the game with something more modern.

I do recall reading an article regarding a NZ move to acquire "some" of the Penguin's Australia no longer wanted. It was definitely not all. As to what move was made regarding the remainder (or even if NZ signed off on the partial buy) I don't know.

EDIT*
rjtjrt - Beat me to it, seams NZ definitely signed off on a limited number "The contract is for a limited number of missiles, however it is considered an important upgrade of New Zealand’s navy,” says Pål Bratlie, EVP Kongsberg Defence Systems." I'm guessing Australia's other unwanted Penguins are in a Kongsberg storeroom waiting for a new home?

 

[Paddy54]

HMAS Collins

AMBITIOUS plans to slash the time the Collins class submarines spend out of the water for full cycle maintenance from three years to two are getting underway at ASC in Osborne.

Work has started on two key focuses - using the first submarine built in Australia, HMAS Collins, as an "enabler" for its stable mates and to build a dramatically different work station for maintenance teams.

ASC general manager submarines Stuart Whiley is so confident the ASC plan will work he thinks it could shave the time for full cycle docking right down to 18 months.

"I'm absolutely convinced we can do this (meet the two year reduction)," he said.

ASC devised the plan after the Coles Review of submarine maintenance in 2012 pinpointed cutting maintenance times as the key to "benchmark availability" of the six subs.

It was signed off by the former Federal Defence Minister earlier this year and when HMAS Collins arrived at ASC in Osborne several months ago, work started on stripping parts.

These would be refurbished to be used in HMAS Farncomb, the second submarine built in Australia, when it arrives for its scheduled maintenance in May next year.

Mr Whiley said to reduce docking time so dramatically "we needed something fundamentally different and using Collins as an enabler was it".

Collins would also have the hull cut away from one end so the diesel engines and generators would be removed and refurbished for Farncomb.

Once Farncomb went back into the water after its two-year cycle, Collins would then be refurbished and sent back into action in 2018.

Mr Whiley said the plan was backed by all those overseeing the subs.

"In the last two to three years the alignment of navy, the Defence Materiel Organisation and ASC with the Collins has been the single most productive thing to drive Collins out of the spiral down in terms of performance," Mr Whiley said.

Currently, the subs are in the water for eight years before a three-year maintenance period, the new regime will see them in the water for 10 years before the two-year upgrade.

The plan was for Collins to also be used to test and validate new initiatives such as new blast and paint technologies.

There are 14 other business changes listed among ASC's new program, including building a new three-storey work area above ground level in ASC North, the maintenance hangar at Osborne.

Collins would soon be rolled out of its shed so ASC can build what it is calling the new maintenance support tower that will hang from the periphery of the building.

The new 13 meter-high tower, made up of offices, workshops and stores, will be built at the same height as the top of the submarines so workers can walk directly on and off the subs.

They can also store parts and have meetings close by in a bid to reduce down time.

ASC chief executive officer Steve Ludlam said the new work would be a "key enabler in achieving a shorter duration for major submarine maintenance, or full cycle dockings".

Wonder if they plan to replace the troublesome diesels with another manufacturers?

 

[Bonza]

Re RNZN Penguin
This is from links in Wiki article on Penguin.

Royal New Zealand Navy selects KONGSBERGs Penguin anti-ship missile for Seasprite helicopters

New Zealand selects Norwegian made anti-ship missile

I do recall reading an article regarding a NZ move to acquire "some" of the Penguin's Australia no longer wanted. It was definitely not all. As to what move was made regarding the remainder (or even if NZ signed off on the partial buy) I don't know.

EDIT*
rjtjrt - Beat me to it, seams NZ definitely signed off on a limited number "The contract is for a limited number of missiles, however it is considered an important upgrade of New Zealand’s navy,” says Pål Bratlie, EVP Kongsberg Defence Systems." I'm guessing Australia's other unwanted Penguins are in a Kongsberg storeroom waiting for a new home?

Thanks to both of you for the information, it appears my assumptions regarding NZ procurement were incorrect. It does say a "limited number" of missiles, but this may have been meant by the manufacturer in a global sense, so it very well could have included Australia's entire inventory. If Australia has any left then yes, I assume they're in storage somewhere.

As I said I do hope the RAN's helo-based anti-ship capability gets a boost sometime soon. Penguin would have been perfect for the Romeos, but maybe we'll see a newer missile at some point. Wouldn't hold my breath though...