Australian naval institute inc

»»•< M«l

^ournal

a ofJhe

<sub>n \ ustralian

aval</sub>

_nstitute

Volume 22 Number 1 lehniary/April 1996

AUSTRALIAN NAVAL INSTITUTE INC

The Australian Naval Institute was formed and incorporated in the Australian Capital Terri­tory in 1975. The main objects of the Institute are:

• 
  To encourage and promote the advancement of knowledge related to the Navy and the maritime profession.
  
• 
  to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas concerning subjects related to the Navy and the maritime profession, and
  
• 
  to publish a journal.
  

The Institute is self-supporting and non-profit-making. All publications of the Institute will stress that the authors express their own views and opinions are not necessarily those of the Department of Defence, the Chief of Naval Staff or the Institute. The aim is to encourage discussion, dissemination of information, comment and opinion and the advancement of pro­fessional knowledge concerning naval and maritime matters.

The membership of the Institute is open to:

• 
  Regular Members. Regular membership is open to members of the RAN. RANR. RNZN or RNZNVR and persons who having qualified for regular membership, subsequently leave the service.
  
• 
  Associate Members. Associate membership is open to all other persons not qualified to be Regular Members, who profess an interest in the aims of the Institute.
  
• 
  Honorary Members. Honorary membership is open to persons who have made a distin­guished contribution to the Navy or the maritime profession, or by past service to the institute.
  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Australian Naval Institute is grateful for the assistance provided by the corporations listed below. They are demonstrating their support for the aim of the Institute by being mem­bers of the "'Friends of the Australian Naval Institute" coterie.

AD I Ltd

Rlohm + Voss

CSC Australia

Jeumont Schneider Division

STN Atlas (Australia)

Ansetl Australia

Scientific Management Associates

Dawson Group

Rockwell Systems Australia Stanilite Electronics GEC Marconi Westinghouse Electric CelsiusTech Thomson Sinlra Pacific-Telstra

_{Journal of the Australian Naval Institute}

ISBN 0312 — 5807

Volume 22 Number 1 February/April 1996

^{SPECIAL FEATURE}

Theme Issue: Naval Operations in the Asia-Pacific.

Regulars

From the President 2

From the Editor 3

Illumination Rounds 4

^Features

eC The Chinese Su-27 production deal — " Malcolm Davis

Q Surface Operations in tomorrow*! ■^ Asia-Pacific — Chris Barrie

John Harvey

The RAN Contribution — David Ramsay

Trends in Submarine and Anti-subma­rine Warfare — Graeme Dunk

I -2 Maritime Air Operations: ^A*^ The RAAF Contribution

₂₁

s}^ The US Fleet in the 21st Cantury: *** ' Challenges and Opportunities — John Sigler

^\j\ The Synergy of 'Jointery' — Alan «^*" Hinge

4*J Sturdee Steams South — Ueoffery

■ * Rpu'Ipv

Bewley

₅₅

An outline History of Ireland's Navy — Graham Wilson



PearceACT

(IMMI Ml Mil INS

Phone Ob 286 7477 his 06 286 7275
Caver: Asia-Pat ific naval units in major exercise KAKADU

Layout A: typeset by

- ■ - i mis

JoUfnal of the Australian Naval Institute

February/April 1996

_{FROM THE PRESIDENT}

T

his issue ol the journal looks primarily at naval operations and includes some oh the proceedings oh last year's SEA POWER conference, of which the Institute was a major sponsor. ()ue of the highlightsof the conference was a presentation given by Norman Friedman on the implications of new tech­nologies on surface ship development. His thoughts were challenging, and I very much appreciate the help of the IS Naval Institute in making Norman available. I will recap on just a lew of the interesting points he made:

• 
  I here is likely to be an increased demand for SEA POWER in the decades ahead. More nav al presence operations will take place within the atnbigu-ilv between peace and war. Important l\, nav ies will continue to give governments the ability to better choose when and how far to go. through intervention in limited ways for limited liability.
  
• 
  Cost effective force projection capabilities are now more available to medium powers through advances such as cruise missile technology and cheap, vertical launch cells capable of supporting a wide range of weapons. However, the associated costs of weapons like Tomahawk are substantial because huge amounts of targeting information have lo be acquired and processed just for such missiles to miss things like trees. power lines, small buildings and other obstructions. It is unlikely that ships going intoaction would have the necessary targeting information at hand without adequate warning and responsive data gathering and process­ing resources.
  
• 
  Most nav ies will procure fewer, more complex ships which will need very efficient direction and informa­tion support to cover larger areas. Increased costs will result from higher percentages of higher paid crew mi each ship. Also, shore establishments will become more complex and expensive, therefore, the percentage of budget devoted to ships is likely to decline: however
  
• 
  The economics of w arslup design can be transformed, especially by CAD/CAM technologies and steamlined. modular production processes. This may mean that major equipment and spares could be quickly made lo order rather than stored in quantity.
  
• 
  Ship construction and life extension should emphasise a combination of durability, surv iv ability and amena­bility to modernisation. This involves modular systems, open architectures and larger ships that can change roles quickly and easily (eg. Danish Slunllex MH) Corvette). Getting bigger does not involve much more expense. Major emphasis will be on open software architecture in which each application, or each console, is sufficiently buffered from the others so that it is amenable to changes that do not affect the system as a whole. Therefore, configuration changes will not require rewiring on a massive scale.
  
• 
  Ship survivability I has wrongly) focussed almost exclusively on the ability to fight off missile attacks. Since the 1960s designers hav e built ships for short, sharp wars and concentrated on active defence systems against missiles He argued that because of the growing importance of the naval presence mission, ships should again he built bigger to "take hits', emphasising that modem missiles are ship disablers. not ship destroyers He also emphasised that modern ships have become masses of single point vulnerabilities and suggested there were cost effective advantages in building bigger ships using data busing, duplication and moving away horn conventional spidered' systems.
  
• 
  Similarly, he suggested that STEALTH technologies must not come to dominate naval thinking in the new century. Crews concentrating on remaining stealthy and avoiding being hit. by being overly focussed on staying undetected, can seriously compromise their own survival and their mission.
  
• 
  Military dominance over new technology has now largely gone. The issue lor today's navies is more how they can best exploit civilian technology, especially in terms of software engineering.
  

Dr Friedman's paper will be incorporated in the proceedings of the conference. For my part, his observations highlight the importance ol bringing experts to Australia, anil Fostering our own experts, who are able to challenge aspects of conventional naval wisdom, and put forward their views interestingly and informatively. Supporting these international visits has long been a priority for the Institute, from when the ANI brought Professor Michael Met in ire to support its first major conference in lv>7¹) lo last year when we sponsored Norman Friedman's vaxil. However, our professional obligation is now to understand the extent to which Friedman's conclusions can be practically applied to oar unique geostrategic circumstances. Therefore, I inv ite the members ol this Institute, the R \\ and othei maritime professions to comment on some of the above observations and contribute to the debate on the shape of the n.ws in the coming century. While we are at it. let's not neglect "human engineering' aspects ol tomorrow's navy, especially in light of the recent Glenn Review.

( nth Harrii

February/April 1996

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

_{FROM THE EDITOR}

I

n this issue we look at the cutting edge of modern naval operations and take a peek into operational challenges likely to arise in the new century. We have articles on developments in surface, air and under w ater operations as well as an article looking at the potential synergy of "jointers 'and the pros and eons of recent changes to M >l joint command and control arrangements, We are also fortunate to have a paper by Rear Admiral John F. Siglcr. ( INC'PACFLT's Deputy Chief of Stall for Operations. Plans and Communications, w here he neatly summarises the opportunities and challenges faced by the US Pacific Fleet as it enters the new century.

A writer making his 'maiden voyage' in this issue is Malcolm Davis, who has provided us with valuable and timely comment on the Su-27 production license agreement recently made between Russia and China: a move thai exacer­bates an already, unstable situation in a region ol great interest to Australia. In our next issue Malcolm will look at key developments in North Hast Asia and focus cm the strategic implications of tensions between the PRC and Taiwan. We certainly look forward to further contributions from Malcolm.

"lite operations theme of this issue is well balanced with some very interesting historical analysis, and the acid test of the quality and reputation of any professional journal is the calibre of writer it attracts. Two ol Australia's very best historical writers and analysts make regular and very popttlat contributions to this journal. I am impressed with the thought Geoffrey Bew Icy puts into his articles, and in this issue he rev isils Slurdee's campaign against v on Spec in the South Atlantic during World War I where he suggests that Sturdee may not have been as 'stodgy' as he is so often portrayed. Bcwlcy's selection of good stories, ability to successfully challenge conventional wisdom ami application of sound common sense to historical analysis always results in a good read.

Graham Wilson is another historian with the ability to write interesting, insightful stories well out ol the mainstream of current historical activity. In this issue he gives a well rounded description and assessment of the Irish Navy In fact, our next issue will feature a kaleidoscope of Graham's historical and analytical works - strange vessels, muti­nies, disasters and even a story about bluejackets fighting "injuns'I If you want to write interesting, readable history m fact, if you want to write at all - look at the style of Bevvley and Wilson and learn.

As we settle into another year we look forward to lots of stories covering the wide spectrum of interests out there' among the steadily growing AM membership And lalking of membership, please make sure you are current and read the gentle reminder below. Note that membership fees are extremely reasonable and have not changed lor the best part of a decade - How many organisations 'out there' can make thai boast?

Alan Hinge

ARE \Ol' UP TO DATE WITH MEMBERSHIP?

If not this could be your last journal and you will miss out on some fascinating reading in 1996! find out if you are 'paid up' by checking your address tab on the hack of this journal. The two digit figure at the top. left hand side is the yeaf up to which your membership is paid. II it is '95' you will need to renew now by sending a member ship application I included w ith this issue I crossed 'RENEWAL' to the address provided. Unpaid members will be deleted in June. Note that provision of back issues to members renewing after 1st July I Wo cannot be guaranteed due to expanding membership and the effects of cost containment initiatives. So. why not save yourself some lime and trouble ami take up the three year special rate subscription for Sh? '.'

ILLUMINATION ROUNDS!

with ODDBALL

FITNESS TESTING AND THE RAN

I read with interest an article in the May/June issue of the journal in which LEI IT Cox brought up a number of points which 1 thought warranted a reply.

I am a strong advocate lor higher lev els of fitness, but I strongly disagree with the methodology and ap­proach adopted by LEUT Cox. firstly, the notion of a

policy that w ill not allow unfit' members to serve81 sea while we can barely crew the ships now is not a good use of manpower. Secondly, the issue of just what fitness to serve at sea really means was not ad­dressed, frev louslv. I was able to maintain a reason­ably high fitness" level until posted to a ship where H rapidly declined as a result of increased workload and operational demand. The proposal to be able to do "X' pushups. Y' silups and run a given distance in a set lime really does not address the Unique problems experienced at sea. Why nol make it a practical lest by identify ing a number of basic tasks that are under taken regularly by ship borne personnel: loi exam­ple, lifting 5" shells during ammunitioning or maybe

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

February/April 1996

those Frozen meal boxes rated at 30odd kilograms, or bags of potatoes...The list is endless.

Lastly. H hy should Illness tests he gender related'.' Do men vxork harder at sea'.' Of course not. In this day and age ol equality, surely a Illness test should not discriminate. An example ol this is the US Marines Illness lest policy Which has just been revised. Previ­ously females only ran I.5 miles while their counter­parts ran 3 miles. All marines mm run the three miles w ithin a lime frame adjusted to allow for age.

POKTW D.I. Nelson ll\l