John Fedup
The Bunker Group
….and there are few capable political leaders in the Northern hemisphere making the situation that much worse. Debt to GDP ratios are another worry.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
She is currently tied up alongside the AMC in Henderson WA having her superstructure removed for scrap. Once she has been leveled off to the main deck, I would imagine she may get towed to Whyalla where her hull will be pulled ashore & fully scrapped. Cheers.
I think the funding for X Hobart 2 would be from an increase in budget which has been mooted (but is not yet reality) . If they did 6 … 3 X would be in lieu of the upgrade and as mentioned earlier 3x 10-15year old Hobarts would have some 2nd hand currency that could be used to offset the buy.
Crewing would be from the additional 18k recruits over the next 10 years and this appears to be funded.
The note re the experience of the crew and retention from @DDG38 is the biggest issue in my view. However while it may not be ideal …. hanging a carrot of almost certain career advancement may assist with retention and other industries have come up with methods to fast track to senior roles. Every challenge is a matter of how much will power is there to over come the problem. Assume someone in defence thinking on this now.
On a side note interesting how the Hobart 2 gets reported as $6 billion but hunters $45B. Sure to leave some folks scratching their head.
Its possible IMO. Between the resources of Spain and Australia, that is nearly a dozen ship yards that could bit on block work and several yards that could be assembly points. But is it efficient? Does that meet the projects need beyond making it possible (local content, local industry, defence capability /oversight etc). The more complicated you make the project the greater the risk for costs, time, capability.
The biggest issues is this is all arse about. You don't get unsolicited proposals and then turn them into a project. Normally, even for unsolicited proposals, its for a project that already exists and is laid out. This is entirely unsolicited. It doesn't mean that the capability is perhaps not of interest, but it does make for a messy project with no clear pathway or target to aim for for implementation.
As things have arguably unravelled, cleaning up this mess is going to be a major effort.
If Boeing offers a C17 white tail or P8, then well a government could take up the offer and acquire it in a fairly straight forward way. The issues about ships like destroyers, is they are far more complicated than an aircraft and have larger crewing, industry support, development, etc.
Is it the best solution? Well is it an acceptable solution. The RAN had planning around a 4th AWD. There is arguably no time to go an select another parent design. Doing so would add 1-2 years easily, and push it into the 2030 and also a whole bunch of risk.
Not sure how we intend to retain anyone if there are no ships and everyone stagnates at a desk. The current plan has the Hobart's coming out of the water and being 90% rebuilt in a costly and time consuming upgrade, with no alternative or replacement. Any DDG sailor will effectively have no role in the ADF during this 5-10 year period. In addition, the Collins are coming out too, and the Anzacs will need to undergo a smaller upgrade.
RAN might be a hardstand navy for the rest of the 2020's.
Ultimately, retiring Anzacs will happen and is the ultimate answer to crewing shortages. But for the medium term future of the next 10 years, due to platforms undergoing LOTE/Upgrades, it will be a shortage of platforms, not so much a shortage of crews.
Also there were four FFG's, and were meant to be replaced by four AWD's. In the end that didn't happen, Sydney, Darwin, Melbourne, Newcastle were replaced with Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney. No doubt the fourth ship would have been called Melbourne and the RAN wouldn't have retired a major fleet unit name with no replacement.
So the first additional Hobart flight II requires no more crew than we had back in 2015 and was in the original manpower budget of the RAN. The three Balikpapan class ships were also paid off in 2014 without replacement, so we are still talking about working up to the RAN of 2014 crewing levels with the 2nd flight II. While bodies and positions get re-assigned, its time to reassign back to active postings. That may be difficult, but it needs to happen, and it is where these positions need to be. If that requires a generation change to happen, so be it.
Growing the RAN is going to be a requirement going forward. We can't just grow the submariner force without growth in the surface force, most submariners start off in surface, prove themselves, learn basic skills etc. Injecting completely green sailors onto submarines is toxic for submarine crews and bad for retention. Our navy needs extensive LOTE/upgrades. You aren't going to grow the RAN with no ships during this period. Arguably no Anzacs will be decommissioned and instead they will receive another upgrade with NSM/ESSMII and some other improvements, but this means these ships also come out of the water.
Given where the hunters are to likely to be, our existing plan for the Anzacs retirement can be used to crew the new Hobarts. The original plan for Sea5000 was to cut steel 2019/2020 and the first ship to be delivered 2024.. Now we aren't cutting steel until at least 2024 with delivery, more like 2028-2029 realistically, perhaps even longer than that for first of class.
Maybe they can catch up later in 2030, but they are Frigates, not Destroyers. And realistically mid/late 2030's is when FOC of hunter capability will be realised. Possibly 5-10 years after the peak period of likely conflict.
While recruitment for the RAN is hard now, it is not going to get easier. Difficultly in recruitment isn't a reason to continue to underfund and underbuild the ADF. Unemployment is shrinking, there is a labour shortage. Our allies are facing the same problems or worse (Japan, Korea, UK, US)
But the likely hood of high intensity global conflict is now very high. Higher than during the Vietnam war. Highest since probably the Korean war or in the late 1930s.
Our scrap iron flotilla doesn't even have 5 destroyers currently...
Last edited:
The whole discussion of where the money and manpower are coming from probably warrants an entire thread to itself. I must admit that as a former small businessman I cringe when I see the way the military spends its money. If it weren't for the fact it was being funded by the public purse it would have went broke ages ago.
Let’s have a look at just one project, Australia's interminable search for a replacement for the Collins class submarines. Years of non-decision, followed by years of poor decisions and now decisions that are really being made out of desperation have led to copious amounts of money being pissed up against a wall with very little to show for it. What we have now is a LOTE program and some vague notion of maybe some new submarines by the 2040s. As was pointed out it costs almost as much to extend the life of the Collins by 10 years as it would to buy a new submarine. I would even question whether what we got at the end of it would be something I would be willing to send to war.
To me new surface ships are a far more straight forward decision. The design is proven and you have a supplier desperate for your business. What you will end up with is a ship that will be far more capable than the Anzacs and would be something you would be willing to send into harms way.
Let’s have a look at just one project, Australia's interminable search for a replacement for the Collins class submarines. Years of non-decision, followed by years of poor decisions and now decisions that are really being made out of desperation have led to copious amounts of money being pissed up against a wall with very little to show for it. What we have now is a LOTE program and some vague notion of maybe some new submarines by the 2040s. As was pointed out it costs almost as much to extend the life of the Collins by 10 years as it would to buy a new submarine. I would even question whether what we got at the end of it would be something I would be willing to send to war.
To me new surface ships are a far more straight forward decision. The design is proven and you have a supplier desperate for your business. What you will end up with is a ship that will be far more capable than the Anzacs and would be something you would be willing to send into harms way.
Flexson
Active Member
She won't be leaving Henderson. Intention was for 50% reduction in lightship weight while in the water and then utilising a heavy lift ship to bring the remaining hull onto the hardstand since the floating dock is not large enough. The exact specifics of how this will be achieved I am not privy to.
Flexson
Active Member
2x 4 tube launcher STBD gun deck, 2x 4 tube launcher super structure, 2x 4 tube launcher quarter deck (one each side). 24 tubes total.
I waited until I had seen photos in the public domain showing this before I replied to your question.
The ANZAC FFG crews will most likely transfer across to the Hunter Class FFG ships as each ship comes online so all of their crews are accounted for.
Some folks should read the many posts about why it is folly comparing two programs without any notion of what is or is not included in that figure.
Without looking, I'm sure there are whole "Read this" threads pinned for newcomers.
oldsig
Post #431 in this thread touches on the dilemma.
Sorry about the "Read this first", I'm probably thinking of the thread in the aviation forums.
By ~2050. If there are no delays, upgrades, losses, etc.
But to get there we will need to LOTE Anzac ffg. The ANAO already flagged that they think its unlikely the Anzac class will make it, even given their mid life capability upgrade. That the RAN has no plan for that to happen.
Can the Anzac figates remain relevant? | The Australian Naval Institute
navalinstitute.com.au
That is just floating in the water. How useful to the RAN will an Anzac be to the RAN in ~2045 is another question.
In 2045 we should probably be replacing Hobarts, not Anzacs. 2045 it will be 30 years since the launch of HMAS Hobart. We aren't even retiring them "early" at that stage. That is a full and complete life. Cut holes in them and turn them into reefs.
The Anzacs should start decommissioning from 2026 (HMAS Anzac will be 30 by then). They should all be decommissioned by 2036 (30 years for HMAS Perth). Neither the RAN, AusGov, ASC, Thales has any plan of how to get the Anzacs to last past 2036, and there is an ANAO statement saying they likely won't. Political words doesn't make an engineering solution to rust, wear, hull cracks and breakage. BAE certainly isn't making and commissioning 9 hunter ships in 6 years. Even if it did, it still doesn't fix Australia's destroyer woes.
We will be where the US is with the Tico's... The US senate can refuse all they want, but broken ships don't reassemble themselves no matter how much you yell at them. No funding, no life extension, exceeding design life length = sinking ships.
Labors other argument is that Collins LOTE and the new subs is the creation of a capability gap. Presumably they had a plan, which may include cycling submariners through surface ships during this period. While we can't easily build more Collins, we could build more Hobarts. While a destroyer doesn't equal a sub, it is something. Perhaps with P8/Romeos, but you won't be turning submariners into RAAF pilots, but they could cycle onto a Hobart.
I guess it is up to the government to lay out how they are going to do this. I am just pointing at existing statements.
But it would seem:
- The money is mostly there (~$5-6b in Sea4000 p6)
- The yard capacity is there (Spain and Navantia said they can make it work, even a mix AU/Spain build or all AU, but no public details)
- The need is there, with sea4000 p6 we loose deployable destroyer capability for a generation. Also the Collins LOTE shortage (labor).
- The crew is mostly there (as outlined, from 4th awd, Anzac and during the LOTE/upgrades).
Either we go with that (or similar), or accept the collapse of the ADF. I am talking about RAN failing to attend activities like RIMPAC (first time in 50 years?), failing to deploy for indo-pacific activities, failure to participate in Quad or other activities, and lose all global credibility. We have a real crisis approaching, and its all our own creation.
What a clusterfuck...
How feasible is it for one of the batches of the Hunter class build (3 ships) to be instead built as Hobart replacements and just extending the build cycle of the Hunter class to build later those frigates or even speed up production , this is not immediate and should give time for planning on what is needed .
With a crew requirement of over 190, it would be very difficult to argue that the Anzacs are an effective use of personnel for the capability they deliver. Comparable modern GP frigates require crews of just over half that amount to deliver equal (or in some cases greater) capability. E.g. The minimum personnel required for one Anzac could roughly crew two Mogami FFMs or two AH140s.
On another note, can anyone explain why such substantial upgrades are required for the Hobart's so early in their service lives? It honestly rather outrageous given it's near the cost of just buying additional platforms? Is this a case of Defence's obsession with gold-plating?
On another note, can anyone explain why such substantial upgrades are required for the Hobart's so early in their service lives? It honestly rather outrageous given it's near the cost of just buying additional platforms? Is this a case of Defence's obsession with gold-plating?
Last edited:
Its possible, but what timeframe and what capabilities. Currently that is what is scheduled at the end of the 9 ship build, but in theory at least, its entirely possible to happen earlier, the whole concept of the Hunters is they develop into better ships over time, so built in batches.
However, very unlikely to speed up production. Hunters are not a destroyer, but a capable frigate. They aren't designed to integrate as tightly with the USN and be lockstep with them like the Hobarts are.
They have an out of date Aegis system and connected peripherals. They are baseline 7 and Spy 1D(V) is a 20 year old radar.
So if we want to fire anything, like SM-6, SM-3, LRASM, NSM, advanced integration with newer US ships (ie flight III's) then we need the new combat system. Spy 6 is also designed for the new weapons and the new combat system, or use any of the new advanced features then they need a new combat system and radar.
In these ships the combat system and radar are significant, the whole ship is built around those systems and the weapons they carry. In addition these ships are very tight in terms of growth margins and space, volume, power, cooling etc. The Spanish basically shrink wrapped a ship around these systems. Not a whole lot of consideration for upgrades and serviceability. That was the compromise going with this design.
Imagine going in for surgery, and replacing your heart, brain, eyes, and lymphatic system. It would be easier to just get a new person that trying to Frankenstein something else.
Honestly given our time, budget, crew constraints. I would only go with a combat system upgrade on the existing Hobart's, build 3 new Hobart's (who will be significantly different to the existing ships, akin to how different F-101 and F-105 are for the Spanish, they aren't the same either). This will mean all 6 will be able to fire Sm-6/ESSMII, able to dual mode ballistic missile defence and air defence etc. But only the latest 3 will have the super duper radar (at least at this stage). Its seems viable such a compromise may see the RAN field all 6 DDG by 2028. It would fit into the budget and use the already aging aegis systems ordered for the now much delayed(or now later delivered) hunters, so we don't have to commission a hunter, then pull it out 2 years later and spend $5 billion upgrading it like the Hobarts. I'm not aware of what is happening in aegis system land, but computers move fast, and the US has a frantic pace for Aegis updates, mostly around BMD, EW/ISR and sensor fusion etc.
The baseline 7 was design around COTS, normal data centre style racks and servers, networking etc, and easier to upgrade for future versions, so at least replacing the aegis in the Hobarts seems, somewhat straight forward, ~<$1 billion. But the radar, that is probably plasma cut the entire ship in half, and the mast and bridge off and redo everything, and while your doing that you might as well add in more powerful everything and new everything else. $6 billion.
That is my view.
Oldsig I was referring in news the public domain. Not with the erudite members of this forum who would in the main be across the differences .
I can understand that any new program for a new Destroyer may take years of design and consultation ,so there is no reason not to start that process sooner than later, even confirming that the present facilities at Osborne would not require modifications or if needed that is a startIts possible, but what timeframe and what capabilities. Currently that is what is scheduled at the end of the 9 ship build, but in theory at least, its entirely possible to happen earlier, the whole concept of the Hunters is they develop into better ships over time, so built in batches.
However, very unlikely to speed up production. Hunters are not a destroyer, but a capable frigate. They aren't designed to integrate as tightly with the USN and be lockstep with them like the Hobarts are.
They have an out of date Aegis system and connected peripherals. They are baseline 7 and Spy 1D(V) is a 20 year old radar.
So if we want to fire anything, like SM-6, SM-3, LRASM, NSM, advanced integration with newer US ships (ie flight III's) then we need the new combat system. Spy 6 is also designed for the new weapons and the new combat system, or use any of the new advanced features then they need a new combat system and radar.
In these ships the combat system and radar are significant, the whole ship is built around those systems and the weapons they carry. In addition these ships are very tight in terms of growth margins and space, volume, power, cooling etc. The Spanish basically shrink wrapped a ship around these systems. Not a whole lot of consideration for upgrades and serviceability. That was the compromise going with this design.
Imagine going in for surgery, and replacing your heart, brain, eyes, and lymphatic system. It would be easier to just get a new person that trying to Frankenstein something else.
Honestly given our time, budget, crew constraints. I would only go with a combat system upgrade on the existing Hobart's, build 3 new Hobart's (who will be significantly different to the existing ships, akin to how different F-101 and F-105 are for the Spanish, they aren't the same either). This will mean all 6 will be able to fire Sm-6/ESSMII, able to dual mode ballistic missile defence and air defence etc. But only the latest 3 will have the super duper radar (at least at this stage). Its seems viable such a compromise may see the RAN field all 6 DDG by 2028. It would fit into the budget and use the already aging aegis systems ordered for the now much delayed(or now later delivered) hunters, so we don't have to commission a hunter, then pull it out 2 years later and spend $5 billion upgrading it like the Hobarts. I'm not aware of what is happening in aegis system land, but computers move fast, and the US has a frantic pace for Aegis updates, mostly around BMD, EW/ISR and sensor fusion etc.
The baseline 7 was design around COTS, normal data centre style racks and servers, networking etc, and easier to upgrade for future versions, so at least replacing the aegis in the Hobarts seems, somewhat straight forward, ~<$1 billion. But the radar, that is probably plasma cut the entire ship in half, and the mast and bridge off and redo everything, and while your doing that you might as well add in more powerful everything and new everything else. $6 billion.
That is my view.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Without going into details, you can't assume that there are 3x additional crews in that 18k. All three Services, as well as the other parts of the ADO, have hollowness problems - those positions are already allocated. Doesn't mean you can't reallocate them, but again it will be at the expense of something - what is that something?
We are running out of carrots. My senior most engineer earns 1/2 the starting wage of an engineer at IBM, APS payrates got screwed in the last DECA and have not come close to matching civil industry (esp for anything technical), the in-barracks tempo is getting silly again and some trades are so critical (even despite bonuses and the like) that the trade has eaten itself. Retention is going to be bloody hard to maintain....
I don't know, but two guesses. 1 is that's what we were quoted for (literally) three hulls. No GFE, no spares, no electronics. Just 3x hulls. Or 2, they are stealing the figure from DWP16 or FSP20 (I remember SEA 4000 being $6b), in which case that is old and only acquisition while Hunter is 2020 dollars and everything