I think it may be helpful to graphically show why I think the Spanish plan to build 3 more Hobarts and continue to build hunters is better than Macus's plan to just build Hobarts. Also the current problem facing the RAN.
I just used an arbitrary metric. VLS. Ships with fewer VLS are typically less capable as combat ships, ships with more VLS are more capable. I think this is a stupid metric. It doesn't account for ASW capability at all. But it is one that ASPI seems to collectively seem focused on. We can do tonnage or other metrics if we wish. I think purely because Marcus doesn't like Hunters, and the Hobart has (slightly) more VLS he pushes that. But even by that metric, its madness and stupid.
Currently our plan is this. Sort of, we will need to take the Anzacs out of service and perform a life extension on them for those going out past ~2035. So even less ships available and less VLS than shown here. The Hunter in-service date is not clear. I stole this from Marcus and his work on building a better Navy faster.. The premier Australian defence thinktank in AU and US.
But even if the hunter first of class moves up 1 or 2 years its doesn't really solve the problem. The RAN dips to ~160 VLS. Hobarts leave service for their extensive upgrade and really we don't recover till the early 2030s. Maybe this work can be done faster. Historical experience with FFGUP indicates its may go even slower. Putting more capability into an already tight existing platform is risky, expensive and time consuming. Have we learned nothing.
The Spanish proposal has more ships in service sooner and significantly boosts the RAN VLS capability in total. This also includes the current project to upgrade the existing hunters from 2024-2030. The Spanish believe this is possible. You have the resources of two significant middle powers, Spain has 5 existing ships if they fail to deliver they could back their deal, not with money, but with Ships. Crew generation, recruitment, the Spanish can help there as well.
Marcus's madness. Abandon hunters, down tools, roll the existing blocks into the sea.. This is unlikely to speed up any build, as the team building the hunters well basically breaking all contracts, all existing work and then trying to wrap people around another design. No one seems to indicate this will result in a ship earlier than the existing Hunter build, all for a measly additional 16 VLS, which in the grand scheme of things is nothing. We still have the RAN dipping to 160 VLS for most of the 2020's. The Anzacs are still serving until 2045 or longer. They will need a life extension, which still isn't accounted for in these graphs. We get weaker anti-submarine capability. We get weaker Frigate capability. It would be crazy expensive because we would have to break our existing contracts, we would be paying people to not build things, again.
But most of all, it doesn't provide the RAN with any extra VLS over the Spanish proposal and only ~120 VLS over the current plan. Hardly a dramatic increase in surface capability, and nothing earlier.
We could break this down into more detail.. Say look at continuously deployable capability. So when we go to two Hobarts, that isn't enough to raise train sustain properly. So things fall apart. We become a sometimes navy. We can look at available hulls, or available tonnage of ships. Again loosing the 3rd AWD is huge in terms of the RAN surface capability. Tonnage is probably a better measure.. Two Anzacs have significant patrol capability, but less combat power than a Hobart, but probably more patrol capability. At least tonnage would give a better idea of what is actually available for the RAN.
Given the big conflict or global break down is expected 2027-2030 that period should probably be the main focus. Absolutely anything after that really falls into long term planning. If there is a China and the US as we currently know it. If the global economy survives. If covid, monkey pox and climate change, demographic collapse, social collapse doesn't do us all in earlier. It doesn't match the Spanish 2028 capability until 2038. Far too late.
I just used an arbitrary metric. VLS. Ships with fewer VLS are typically less capable as combat ships, ships with more VLS are more capable. I think this is a stupid metric. It doesn't account for ASW capability at all. But it is one that ASPI seems to collectively seem focused on. We can do tonnage or other metrics if we wish. I think purely because Marcus doesn't like Hunters, and the Hobart has (slightly) more VLS he pushes that. But even by that metric, its madness and stupid.
Currently our plan is this. Sort of, we will need to take the Anzacs out of service and perform a life extension on them for those going out past ~2035. So even less ships available and less VLS than shown here. The Hunter in-service date is not clear. I stole this from Marcus and his work on building a better Navy faster.. The premier Australian defence thinktank in AU and US.
But even if the hunter first of class moves up 1 or 2 years its doesn't really solve the problem. The RAN dips to ~160 VLS. Hobarts leave service for their extensive upgrade and really we don't recover till the early 2030s. Maybe this work can be done faster. Historical experience with FFGUP indicates its may go even slower. Putting more capability into an already tight existing platform is risky, expensive and time consuming. Have we learned nothing.
The Spanish proposal has more ships in service sooner and significantly boosts the RAN VLS capability in total. This also includes the current project to upgrade the existing hunters from 2024-2030. The Spanish believe this is possible. You have the resources of two significant middle powers, Spain has 5 existing ships if they fail to deliver they could back their deal, not with money, but with Ships. Crew generation, recruitment, the Spanish can help there as well.
Marcus's madness. Abandon hunters, down tools, roll the existing blocks into the sea.. This is unlikely to speed up any build, as the team building the hunters well basically breaking all contracts, all existing work and then trying to wrap people around another design. No one seems to indicate this will result in a ship earlier than the existing Hunter build, all for a measly additional 16 VLS, which in the grand scheme of things is nothing. We still have the RAN dipping to 160 VLS for most of the 2020's. The Anzacs are still serving until 2045 or longer. They will need a life extension, which still isn't accounted for in these graphs. We get weaker anti-submarine capability. We get weaker Frigate capability. It would be crazy expensive because we would have to break our existing contracts, we would be paying people to not build things, again.
But most of all, it doesn't provide the RAN with any extra VLS over the Spanish proposal and only ~120 VLS over the current plan. Hardly a dramatic increase in surface capability, and nothing earlier.
We could break this down into more detail.. Say look at continuously deployable capability. So when we go to two Hobarts, that isn't enough to raise train sustain properly. So things fall apart. We become a sometimes navy. We can look at available hulls, or available tonnage of ships. Again loosing the 3rd AWD is huge in terms of the RAN surface capability. Tonnage is probably a better measure.. Two Anzacs have significant patrol capability, but less combat power than a Hobart, but probably more patrol capability. At least tonnage would give a better idea of what is actually available for the RAN.
Given the big conflict or global break down is expected 2027-2030 that period should probably be the main focus. Absolutely anything after that really falls into long term planning. If there is a China and the US as we currently know it. If the global economy survives. If covid, monkey pox and climate change, demographic collapse, social collapse doesn't do us all in earlier. It doesn't match the Spanish 2028 capability until 2038. Far too late.
