Journalofthe



Download 1.5 Mb.
Page11/12
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size1.5 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12
Armidale under construction

40

Maintaining Flexibility: Multi Role Vessels & Mission Based Modular Payloads




boats, a USV, a helicopter, electronic warfare systems, an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a self defence fit (surface search radars, gun, obstacle avoidance sonar).26

The American vision, allowable by huge defence budgets and technical innovation through vast defence industry research and development, is worth highlighting in that, "The LCS is also about exploiting unmanned systems. From the first ships constructed, LCS will host a variety of unmanned vehicles. Imagine several LCS platforms deploying unmanned vehicles above, on, and below the surface, uncovering mines, detecting submarines, and even reaching ashore to image or strike a terrorist camp. And imagine these ships doing all of this for weeks or months at a time, providing the joint force commander much clearer insight into the murky littoral environment. Unmanned systems that will be integrated in the first LCS mission modules include the Remote Minehunting System (RMS), a vertical take-off unmanned air vehicle (VT-UAV) and an unmanned surface vehicle".27

The Venator study sought to develop solutions for the contrasting and difficult problems associated with providing platforms that could deliver a quality capability rather than presenting as a 'jack of all trades'. The concept is broadly based around the UK Ministry of Defence Sustained Surface Combatant Capability initiative, in which it hopes to define the requirements of the future Ocean Capable Patrol Vessel and is linked to the emerging unmanned technologies now being tested and brought into service throughout the world.28 The overarching Future Surface Combatant program aims to replace the Royal Navy's older Type 22 and Type 23 frigates, plus existing mine countermeasures (MCM) vessels and

survey ships. Following the Ministry's 2008 planning round (PR08),ithas now become an umbrella program for three tiers of ships known as the Force Anti­submarine Warfare Combatant (CI), the

Stabilisation Combatant (C2) and the Ocean Capable Patrol Vessel (C3). The designs focus on adaptability and an ability to be rapidly reconfigured for military and non-military roles and duties ranging from benign and constabulary to Task Group warfare functions. The Ocean Capable Patrol Vessel is envisaged to have low running costs and the ability to operate in shallow, coastal areas and be able to deploy worldwide to fulfill tasks including minehunting, survey work and patrol duties.29 Overall, the vessel will be a low cost platform that has great flexibility.

As discussed previously, much of the advantage of modularity and the multi role concept is derived from the technological driver that is brought by autonomous vehicles. Dr. Patrick Hew, in an Australian Defence Force Journal article, states that, "Technology, and its progress, is widely regarded as being a driver on the conduct of war".30 The move from a traditional, specialist functionality is not without risk, particularly, combining the disparate capabilities of patrol, hydrographic survey and MCM over the one common platform underpinned by modular based technology. Air Vice Marshall Tony Mason (RAF), cited in Seapower Ashore And In The Air, has warned against the military tendency

to favour all things technological, stating that, "the concentration of high technology should not lead to the disparagement of the simpler or even obsolescent weapons. The ultimate measure of a weapons effectiveness is its value as a political instrument, which may not equate to its operational impact".31 The skills to operate modern weapons and systems may also take a considerable period to develop. It is clear that possession of an inventory of technologically capable weapons systems does not directly equate to capability. Using the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s as an example, each side had an arsenal of technologically competent systems that did not realise their full potential due in some part to lack of training and proficiency.32

Dr. Hew rightly identifies that with all technology there are problems and challenges that he characterises as 'technology bottleneck issues'.33 In particular, he identifies the following challenges with respect to automated unmanned technology:

  • Communications and programmability;

  • Navigation within the physical environment;

  • Monitoring of physical status;

  • Location of other entities in the physical environment; and

  • Target modelling

Austal Independence ship under build

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

Issue 131

41


The Project Venator study recognises that while modularity will be the way of the future the nature of reconfiguring capability and its technology enablers is not fully understood and will require further analysis. Put simply there is still the dilemma of, when we get it, how are we going to use it?.34 Of note, is that unmanned technology (particularly underwater units) is developing exponentially, driven largely by commercial offshore resource exploitation and increasingly, demands from the military establishment. Modular mission payloads and the feasibility of multi role vessels in support of this concept are being assessed by other Navies and by the time the ADF is in a position to fully embrace this notion, lessons learned from others could be incorporated to lessen risk. This will also add some weight to acquiring capability without a need to reinvent the wheel, noting that it is already in service further afield. There is also the need to better understand the modular concept and its effect on future vessel design. For example, in order to support the number and size of vessels required, plus their storage and manoeuvrability of embarked payloads, future platforms would require a reasonably large deck area and suitable material handling equipment.35

Apart from design requirements, modular needs of the future multi-role vessel may see more efficient reconfiguration, modernisation and maintenance, contributing to greater operational flexibility and availability.36 Future multi role vessels could achieve these efficiencies, not only through the use of mission based modular payloads, but also through a commonality of platform design, common permanent fitted systems and even common training and manning aspects.

The concept invests heavily in the

offboard systems, with the view of leaning towards simpler and more affordable platforms. In the MCM role, autonomous vehicles will identify and prosecute threats at a distance from the host platform. Unmanned or semi-autonomous technologies are now being developed by a myriad of maritime equipment suppliers and many examples of this technology are now in service or entering service with Navies around the world and are expected to reach a fuller maturity in the next five to ten years. Since 2001, the Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN) has experimented with AUVs in a number of different military roles around Europe. A dedicated military AUV system was delivered in January 2004 operating from a RNoN mine hunter and has been deployed in the NATO Immediate Reaction Force MCMFORNORTH since October 2004. Various missions have been performed, ranging from route surveys to covert mine reconnaissance and Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) tasks. The equipment has the advantage of being modular in itself, allowing different systems to be fitted as required and in its MCM/ REA role high quality, high resolution imagery and bathymetry with reliable position accuracy can be provided. This long association with AUV technology has seen lessons learned during the course of operational military use incorporated into the current generation of vehicles with the latest variant, delivered in 2008, now undergoing evaluation. The systems are used on a regular basis by the Navy and operated from the Oksoy class MCMVs, as well as from other vessels using a ramp or containerised launch and recovery system. USVs and sweep systems are likely to follow this level of development soon with research programs already underway in several countries (certainly the US and UK).

Efficiencies can also be realised by the ability to add to and update new generation technologies as they develop, quickly, without long integration problems and without the need to find a space within an already crowded interior. Here the Venator concept diverges from the LCS approach, in that, there is no operational requirement for rapid re-role of platforms in theatre. The premise identifies the ability to reconfigure payloads to maximise a platforms overall utility and at the same time provides flexibility in the platforms capability mix over the vessels life time. Configuration will be task oriented or dependant on the predominant threat at the time. Using the current Australian situation, more platforms could be used for border protection operation but with a future change in threat, platform tasking could be slewed towards MCM, without having to procure new hulls. Flexibility is provided and in addition affordability of the platform is maximized.

It is also necessary to consider the requirements for global deployability particularly, as a member of a larger Task Force or Advance Force. Seakeeping ability, endurance, self protection measures and speed have been limitations marked by all classes of minor vessels in the current inventory. On a cautionary note, any advantages provided by a future larger hull must be tempered by the realisation that the larger the hull, the lesser numbers will be likely acquired due to affordability issues. Project Venator has identified that the optimum design length is around 110 meters (to afford global deployability and payload embarkation and manoeuvrability) and the LCS design settles on 127 metres.37 In terms of hull design, like the Venator solution, the LCS will balance mission

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

42

Maintaining Flexibility: Multi Role Vessels & Mission Based Modular Payloaus










Equipment

MCM

Reconnaissance AUVs

Sweep equipped USVs

Shallow Water AUVs

One Shot Mine Disposal Systems

Self Defence Fit

Hydrographic / REA

Survey AUVs

Survey Motor Boats

Self Defence Fit

Patrol / Surveillance/ Border Protection

Reconnaissance / Surveillance UAVs

Surveillance USVs

RHIBs

Helicopter

Self Defence Fit

Training

As Required




Table i: Potential Mission Payloads1

1 A. Kimber, W. Giles and T. Dinham-Peren, 'The Globally Deployable Minor Warship -A Conceptualisation of Future Solutions', Paper presented at INEC 2008, Hamburg, Germany,2008, p.3.
payload capacity, manoeuvrability, stealth, and survivability and be able to economically loiter or conduct high­speed sprints up to 50 knots.38 This combination will provide the flexibility to transit in advance of other forces or quickly respond to operational requirements once in theatre.

As alluded to previously, the multi role mission based approach in some ways challenges traditional conventions. Again, using the MCM role as an example, the Flyvefisken Class MRV is of a fibreglass build and utilises fixtures, fittings and equipment constructed of non-magnetic materials (similar to the Australian MHC) to maximise the advantages provided by the low magnetic signature to operate in or around minefields. Future MCM platforms, relying on technological advances, will in all likelihood be totally different. A common platform may invariably move away from the fibreglass build using familiar building materials (steel, aluminium) to maximise cost savings, use readily available construction techniques and ensure commonality in fitted systems. Obviously with this move away from the traditional MCM platform, the modular mission based approach would have to be fully embraced. With the increasing use of unmanned technologies to conduct autonomous or semi autonomous MCM or REA tasks in other Navies, this method is slowly being proved. Negating the need for highly specialised platforms, it will allow the removal of the manned MCM platform from the high risk area and lead to a relaxation of the stringent

39

signature requirements.

Plan Blue recognises the need for multi-mission platforms comprising adaptable, flexible, multi mission systems and as always identifies that there is a need to lessen costs through reduction in crew numbers, increased automation and system and platform

commonality. The current

minor warship fleet could

lend itself to this concept

without assuming the

'jack of all trades' mantle.

Think of operations in

the recent past and today

where Hydrographic

Survey Force platforms and

MHCs have been involved

in border protection

operations under the

auspices of Operations

Relex and Resolute. These

units have contributed

enormously to the desired

outcomes, arguably in

platforms not best suited

to this role. Conversely,

envisage the multi role platform with

its mission based modular payload.

When identified to deploy to a border

protection operation the Multi Role

Ship (Survey) would crane its survey

related modules onto the wharf,

embark two large high speed RHIBs

and a module containing boarding

party equipment. The Multi Role

Ship (Patrol) would then deploy

for its border protection duties

after conducting a short readiness

evaluation. Table 1 details some

payloads that may be used in the

reconfiguration process.

Force 2020 is a visionary document that looks to the future. It highlights the need to maintain an idea of flexibility, adaptability and resourcefulness and importantly not be bound by dogma. Conventional forms of military power obviously have their limitations, showing a need for diversification and flexibility in future. This adaptability and flexibility allows involvement across the spectrum of operations.41 Continued urbanisation will see the littoral environment increasingly accessed by more and more people and will take on growing importance in future maritime operations. In

recognition of

this, all ADF

documentation

espouses the

need for a flexible

force to deal with

this challenging environment. Other

risks exist in the form of budgetary

constraints and expensive acquisitions

to meet identified threats. All of these

issues will see traditional concepts of

operation challenged not only in the

future but now.

The multi role vessel carrying its mission based payload challenges these traditional concepts and provides exciting options for the makeup of our future force. In the next decade all the RANs 26 minor fleet units could arguably be replaced by a multi role vessel, similar in all likelihood to platforms already in service around the globe, conducting their operations via a mission based payload. However the Future Navy develops, getting the balance between strategy and technology right will continue to be one of the most important determinants of twenty-first century seapower. iW

*L

Flyvefisken class MRV

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

Issue 131

43


Commander Stewart Dunne joined the RAH in 1990, and served in HMAS Geehng and HMAS Success. In 1999 he completed the Hydrographic Officers Basic Course at Penguin, which led to further sea postings. HehascommandedHMAS Benalla and HUNTER TWO and is now Deputy Director Patrol and Hydrographic in Maritime Development Branch. Heis currently studying towards a Masters of International Relations from Deakin University.

Bibliography

ADDP-D.3 — Joint Operations For The 21st Century, Department of Defence, Defence Publishing Service, Canberra, May 2007.

AMI International Website, http://www. amiinter.com/samples/denmarlc/DA1703. html, viewed 8 December 2008.

Australian Maritime Doctrine, RAN Doctrine 12000, Commonwealth of Australia, Defence Publishing Service, Canberra, 2000.

Force 2020, Department of Defence, Defence Publishing Service, Canberra, 2002.

Future Maritime Operating Concept

- 2025, Department of Defence, Defence
Publishing Service, Canberra, 2007.


Hew, P, "Autonomous Situation Awareness - Implications for Future Warfighting", Australian Defence Force Journal, Issue No. 174, Department of Defence, Canberra, 2007.

Janes Defence Website, http://www.janes. com/events/exhibitions/dsei2007/sections/ daily/day 1/vt-unveils-new-fsc-concep.shtml, viewed 4 December 2008.

Kimber, A, Giles, W and Dinham-Peren, T, "The Globally Deployable Minor Warship

- A Conceptualisation of Future Solutions;
Paper presented at INEC 2008, Hamburg,
Germany, 2008.


Kimber, A and Giles, W, 'Minor Warship Roles - How Technology Is Leading To A New Vessel Type', Paper presented at Pacific 2008, Sydney, Australia, 2008.

Leschen, P, "The Nature of Future Conflict and its Impact on Australia's Defence Policy and Force Structure", Australian Defence College Monograph Series, No. 6.

Naval Team Denmark Website, http:// www.navalteam.dlc/ships/std_flex_concept. aspx, viewed 4 December 2008.

Naval Technology Website, Fryvefislcen Class (SF 300) Multi-Role Vessels, http:// www.naval-technology.com/projects/fly, viewed 4 December 2008.

Mustin, H.C, and Katz, D.J, "All Ahead Flank"', The Naval Institute Proceedings Website February 2003, http://www military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_ LCS_0203,00.html, viewed 3 December 2008.

O'Neill, M, "Should the ADF Pursue State of the Art Capabilities in Order to Maintain a Capability Edge?", Australian Defence Force Journal, No. 157, November/ December 2002.

Plan Blue 2006, Department of Defence, Defence Publishing Service, Canberra, November 2006.

Royal Institution of Naval Architects, "Venator Provides Framework For A Reconfigurable Warship", Warship Technology Journal January 2008, http://www.rina.org.ulc/iqs/ sid.08121940336240581905010/wthtml, viewed 4 December 2008.

Saunders, S (ed.), Jane's Fighting Ships 2008-2009, Janes Information Group, Surrey, UK, 2008.

Scott, R, "BMTExamines UK Reconfigurable Warship", Janes International Defence Review, December 2007.

Speller, I. Naval Warfare in Jordan, D., Kiras, J., Lonsdale, D., Speller, I., Tuck, C. and Walton, C, in Understanding Modern Warfare, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.

Stevens, D. and Reeve, J. (eds.), Seapower Ashore and in the Air, Halstead Press, Sydney, 2007.

Till, G, Seapower: A Guide For The Twenty-First Century, Frank Cass, London, 2004.

Ulrich, H.G and Edwards, M.J, 'The Next Revolution at Seal The Naval Institute Proceedings Website October

2003, http://www.military.com/Content/
MoreContentl?file=NI_Revol_1003, viewed
4 December 2008.


Australian Maritime Doctrine, RAN Doctrine 12000, Commonwealth of Australia, Defence Publishing Service, Canberra, 2000, p. 123

  1. Ibid, p. 124.

  2. Future Maritime Operating Concept

- 2025, Department of Defence, Defence
Publishing Service, Canberra, 2007,


p.7.

4 Future Maritime Operating Concept

- 2025, Department of Defence, Defence
Publishing Service, Canberra, 2007, p.8.


5 G. Till, Seapower: A Guide For The
Twenty-First Century,
Frank Cass, London,

2004, p.375.

  1. Ibid,p.9.

  2. Ibid,p.236.

  3. Plan Blue 2006, Department of Defence, Defence Publishing Service, Canberra, November 2006, Para 48.

  4. I. Speller, Naval Warfare in D. Jordan, J. Kiras, D. Lonsdale, I. Speller, C. Tuck and C. Walton, in Understanding Modern Warfare, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, p. 171.

10 H.G. Ulrich and M.J. Edwards, 'The
Next Revolution at Sea',
The Naval Institute
Proceedings Website, October 2003, http://


www.military.com/Content/MoreContentl?file=NI_Revol_1003, viewed 4 December 2008.

  1. Ulrich, op. cit.

  2. Ulrich, op. cit.

  3. H.C. Mustin and D.J. Katz "All Ahead Flank", The Naval Institute Proceedings Website February 2003, http://www.military. com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_LCS_0203,00.html, viewed 3 December 2008.

  4. Ibid.

  5. AMI International Website, http://www.amiinter.com/ samples/denmarl

  6. Naval Team Denmark Website, http://www.navalteam.dlc/ ships/stdflexconceptaspx, viewed 4 December 2008.

  7. AMI International Website, http://www.amiinter.com/ samples/denmarl




  1. Naval Technology Website, Flyvefislcen Class (SF 300) Multi-Role Vessels, http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fly, viewed 4 December 2008.

  2. Naval Team Denmark Website, http://www.navalteam.dlc/ ships/stdflexconceptaspx, viewed 4 December 2008.

  3. S. Saunders (ed.), Jane's Hghting Ships 2008-2009, Janes Information Group, Surrey, UK, 2008, p.185.

  4. Plan Blue 2006, Para 36.

  5. Ibid, Para 47.

  6. Ibid, Para 64.

  7. Ulrich, op. cit.

  8. R. Scott, "BMT Examines UK Reconfigurable Warship", Janes International Defence Review, December 2007

  9. Warship Technology, p.33.

  10. Ulrich, op. cit.

  11. Scott, op. cit.

  12. Janes Defence Website, http://www.janes.com/events/ exhibitions/dsei2007/sections/daily/dayl/vt-unveils-new-fsc-concep.shtml, viewed 4 December 2008.

  13. P. Hew, "Autonomous Situation Awareness - Implications for Future Warfighting", Australian Defence Force Journal, Issue No. 174, Department of Defence, Canberra, 2007, p.71.

  14. D. Stevens and J. Reeve (eds.), Seapower Ashore and in the Air, Halstead Press, Sydney, 2007, p. 375.

  15. M. O'Neill, "Should the ADF Pursue State of the Art Capabilities in Order to Maintain a Capability Edge?', Australian Defence Force Journal, No. 157, November/December 2002, p.32.

  16. Hew, op. cit p.79.

  17. Royal Institution of Naval Architects, "Venator Provides Framework For A Reconfigurable Warship", Warship Technology Journal, January 2008, http://www.rina.org.ulc/iqs/ sid.08121940336240581905010/wt.html, viewed 4 December 2008

  18. A. Kimber, W Giles and T. Dinham-Peren, 'The Globally Deployable Minor Warship -A Conceptualisation of Future Solutions', Paper presented at INEC 2008, Hamburg, Germany,2008, p.3.

  19. Ulrich, op. cit.

  20. A, Kimber and W, Giles, Minor Warship Roles - How Technology Is Leading To A New Vessel Type', Paper presented at Pacific 2008, Sydney, Australia, 2008, p. 10.

  21. H.C. Mustin and D.J. Katz "All Ahead Flank', The Naval Institute Proceedings Website February 2003, http://www.military. com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_LCS_0203,00.html, viewed 3 December 2008.

  22. A. Kimber, W Giles and T. Dinham-Peren, 'The Globally Deployable Minor Warship -A Conceptualisation of Future Solutions', Paper presented at INEC 2008, Hamburg, Germany,2008, p.2.

  23. Ibid, p.3.

  24. Force 2020, Department of Defence, Defence Publishing Service, Canberra, 2002, p.6.

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute







Issue 131



?f








O
ne of the RANs more unusual vessels was the antarctic exploration vessel ELMAS Wyatt Earp. Built as Eanefiord in 1919 for the Norwegian herring fishing trade, she was acquired in 1933 by an American millionaire, renamed Wyatt Earp and used for several runs to the Antarctic. In 1939 she was purchased by the Australian government for Antarctic exploration, but the with the outbreak of war was employed as an examination vessel using the name HMAS Wongala. Paid off in 1944, she was then used as a training ship for sea cadets. Interest in Antarctic exploration reignited with the end of the war, and in November 1947 she

was recommissioned as Wyatt Earp under the command of Commander Karl Oom, RAN. After various delays caused by mechanical troubles she sailed for Antarctica on 8 February 1948. Her objectives included evaluating the prospects of establishing an Australian base in Commonwealth Bay. She survived a severe buffetting from heavy seas and gale-force winds, but dense pack ice frustrated attempts to reach her objective. She instead turned east and carried out a running survey of the Balleny Islands. On the return voyage she called in at Macquarie Island, where she met up with LST 3501 (later named HMASLabuan), which had sailed

from Melbourne on 28 February, and assisted with the setting up of a scientific station. Wyatt Earp returned to Melbourne on 1 April, but her exploration days were over and she paid off on 30 June. On occasion Wyatt Earp used sails to augment her diesel engine and was thus one of the few sizeable ships of the RAN to ever use sail power. iW

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

46

Book Reviews









IHI AND HATlCE HI)

ENEATH

^DARDANELLES

THE AUSTRALIAN SUBMARINE Al GALL'PDLI

Captain Hec Waller

A Memorial Book


Beneath the Dardanelles: The Australian Submarine atGalllpoll

by VecihiandHaticeHurmuz

Basarin,

Allen &Unwin 2006,

211 pages, soft cover, illustrated

ISBN 978-1-74175-595-4.

This book provides a fascinating look into one of the little known or talked about actions of the Gallipoli campaign: the first-time transit of a submerged submarine, the Australian AE-2, through the Dardanelles on April 25, 1915. In essence the book is in two parts, with the first and most substantial portion describing the transit of the Straits, the chase and the loss of the AE-2from the perspective of both captains, while the second looks at the modern search for, and triumphant re­entry into, the AE-2in its resting place in September 2007, following its re­discovery in 1998.

The book uses the diarised recollections of AE-2's captain, Lieutenant Commander Henry Stoker, as well as a first-time English translation of the memoirs of the captain of AE-2's nemesis Sultanhisar, Captain Ali Rizar, along with editorial additions and

comment to provide an enthralling view of both sides of the almost personal battle that developed between these two men and their vessels. I found this narrative engrossing reading that gave an interesting and balanced perspective on the action. As I read this part of the book and contemplated Stoker's achievements, I wondered what additional impact there might have been across the Peninsula if Stoker's luck and torpedoes had been a little better.

As Australians we have a natural pride in the actions of Stoker and his crew and in the way they performed in this pathfinding operation. But we have rarely if ever given thought to the elation that must have been felt by the Turkish people, and in particular the crew of Sultanhisar, after their victory over the Australian submarine. This delight comes through in Ali Rizar's description of the battle and the reaction of local authorities when he reached port. We are left with little doubt that Ali Rizar was extremely conscious of the significance of his victory.

The latter section of Beneath the Dardanelles is devoted to the story of the expedition in late 2007 to visit, search and catalogue the condition of the AE-2. It appears that the years have been kind to the AE-2and salvage is an option that might be feasible should there be a desire to pursue it, while protection and preservation of the wreck in place is yet another path. The book leaves us with the thought that the rapidly approaching 100th anniversary of the Dardanelles campaign might present both Australia and Turkey with an opportunity to establish a long-term future for AE-2.

I found Beneath the Dardanelles to be a compelling and interesting read, and recommend it.

Reviewed by Captain Peter J. Murray, RAN

Captain Hec Waller -a Memorial Book

Hec Waller is perhaps Australia's most famous fighting naval leader. Much has been written about him, but it is scattered across many books. A submarine has been named after him.

The book under review was written by Dr Tom Lewis and two family members, as a memorial book to Hec and his beloved wife, Nancy. In addition to describing Hec's naval life, his family life forms an important part of the book. Hec's ancestors and descendents are included, as are the activities of Nancy and the part she played as a surrogate mother to many returned POWs. Samples of Hec's letters home, many of them adorned by his sketches and poems, are prominent.

Hec entered the Royal Australian Naval College in 1914, the second year of its existence. He generally performed well in the period between the World Wars, although with occasional negative reports. In late 1939 he took command of HMAS Stuart I and was leader of the 10th Destroyer Flotilla, whose members comprised the five RAN ships of the Scrap-iron Flotilla together with various RN destroyers, operating in the Mediterranean.

There under the greatest British admiral since Nelson, Admiral Andrew Cunningham, Hec and his destroyers performed with great credit. Cunningham referred to Hec as "one of the greatest captains who ever sailed the seas".

On returning to Australia in September 1941, Hec took command of HMAS Perth I. The attack on Pearl Harbor took place in December, and the Japanese forces swept all before them through the first half of 1942. This included the assaults on the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) with the intention of capturing the rich oil fields therein.

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

Issue 131

47


Hec was part of the ill-fated ABDA (American, British, Dutch, Australian) naval force that attempted to oppose the Japanese advances in the south­east Asia region. Nearly all the ABDA ships were lost in the Java Sea and the Japanese invasions were delayed only a few hours.

The cruisers Perth and USS Houston survived the Java Sea battle but were trapped and sunk in Sunda Strait attempting to escape to the Indian Ocean. Hec and Captain Albert H. Rooks USN were both killed in the early hours of 1 March 1942. The sinking marked the beginning of the

RAN's shift from dependence on the RN to looking out for itself.

At the time of his death Hec had already been awarded two DSOs and was mentioned in dispatches twice. Many have thought it scandalous that all he was awarded for the last battle was a posthumous mention in dispatches. The book addresses this issue.

The book also covers naval technology, especially where it affected Hec and the operations he took part in. The issue of radar, with Hec a direct witness of its efficacy in the Mediterranean, is described. Perth

was supposed to have received radar before sailing for the Java Sea, but none arrived in Sydney. The profound advantage of Japanese air superiority in the Java Sea is another crucial issue mentioned, as is the marked superiority of Japanese torpedoes.

Reviewed by"Snoz"

Available from DrawquickPrinting, PO box 4201, Morayong, NSW 2148;phone96268984.



The crew of the HMAS Parramatta were honoured today when they were visited by The Prime Minister of A ustmlia, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP and Chief of the Defence Force, AirChiefMarshal Angus Houston, AC, AFC, whocameabwrdtheshiptoperswallythankthesailorsforthdr^ Christmas holidays.

Journal of the Australian Naval Institute

48

Thinking of Making a Contribution? Style Notes for Headmark

In general, please present your work

with the minimum of formatting.

Paragraphs:

Don't indent, and leave left justified.

Separate paragraphs by one line. Single

spacing only. Use one space only after

stops and colons.

Conventions:

Use numbers for 10 and above, words

below. Ship names use italics in title

case; prefixes such as HMAS in capitals

and italics. Book and Journal titles use

italics.

Use single quotation marks for quotations. Do not use hyphens for any rank except Sub-Lieutenant. Citations:

Endnotes rather than footnotes. Use footnotes to explain any points you want the reader to notice immediately Book titles follow Author surname, first name, title if any. Title. Place of publication: publisher, year of that edition.

So:

Adkin, Mark. Goose Green. London: Leo Cooper, 1992.

Adler, Bill (Ed.) Letters from Vietnam. New York: EP Dutton and Co., 1967. Articles use quotation marks around their title, which is not in italics.

If citing web sites please use the convention:

Australian Associated Press. "Army admits mistakes in SAS investigation'! 17 February, 2004.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page