Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

Actually to crew three AWDs and 6 light frigates they may well have to pay off the entire ANZAC fleet. I am not entirely sure where this leaves the Hunter class. There is no chance of it being cancelled but if this were to go ahead I could see the program being slowed down.

This is why I see three AWDs as being unlikely since their introduction could delay the Hunter program even more.

We had four FFG that underwent the upgrade.

Sydney decom in 2015 Hobart active in 2017
Darwin decom in 2017 Brisbane com in 2018
Melbourne decom 2019 Sydney com 20201
Newcastle decom 2019 --- No replacement 4th AWD never stupidly built

So there is a crew for a whole AWD just wasted because of a lack of replacement

Adelaide and Canberra were decom in 2005 and 2008. The last Anzac was 2006, so in theory we also lost at least one whole surface combatant crew there as well. So we have been running down the fleet for the last 20+ years. We were doing it right into 2019 and 2020. 2020 saw some return during covid.

Really we should have replaced the 6 ffg's with 6 hobarts.
Corvettes will require less crew than Anzacs. Probably by half. So 6 corvettes may require the same crew as 3 anzacs.

Yes, the RAN should start recruiting at all levels frantically.

 

[Reptilia]

Is it possible to delay the last 6 Arafura class opvs until later on and begin production of another few hobarts asap?
a simultaneous build of 3 hobarts at henderson and 3 in Spain seems like a better option than building 3 hobarts in Spain + 6 alpha 3000 or k130 corvettes, a new class with little commonality to the rest of the fleet.

(9 total hobarts in the fleet by 2032 - cost roughly 13 billiion for 6hobarts vs 6 total hobarts, 6 corvettes by 2032 - cost roughly 10-11 billiion for 3hobarts and 6corvettes)

 

[Redlands18]

Speaking as an engineer in the Medical/Scientific industry. Most labs I visit have turned to automation. The patient sample arrives and its booked in by collection. It then travels by conveyor belt to various instruments to be tested. It even puts in the fridge and removes it when the sample expires. No human intervention after the collection staff handle it. Senior scientists look screens to evaluate the results. Junior scientists fill the machines with consumables.

When I started in the industry in 1990 every test had a specialist bench it went to. Each bench had one scientist to do that test. Since then the laboratory staff numbers have dropped 50 to 60%. Private pathology is control by three major companies. They are Sonic, Healius, and Australian Clinical Laboratories (Gribbles). The have limited their regional activities and ship everything to the major metropolitan labs. If the small competition lab gets successful they buy them out. If you are a scientist it is impossible to open your own lab. Government regulatory bodies and fees will price you out. For example one of my clients was a country doctor. Being a community doctor, he decided to do his own pathology on a limited number of tests. The fees alone were $20,000 in the 2000s.

Public pathology have been slower on automation. Most have adapted it.

With a university degree, your employment prospects are bleak. Unlike a doctor or pathologist you can't aspire to run your own business. There is no incentive to become a medical scientist.

This is an example of one profession, I'm sure other industries have similar problems.

Regards
DD

And then we had that tragic case in Adelaide recently where a Surgeon needlessly removed part of a patients Lung based on a faulty Lab result.

 

[ddxx]

If the DSR does go down the light frigate / corvette path I do hope they at least run a basic accelerated tender process.

Spain's reported offer of the ALFA 3000 Light Frigate design just doesn't make a lot of sense to me when compared to economical GP Frigate designs like Babcock's Arrowhead 140, or even a modern MEKO-200 as mentioned here before.

It's also worth noting that Navantia's quotes are very unlikely to include weapon systems, sensors etc. which would all require additional GFE $.

By any measure the Arrowhead or similar would arguably be a far better fit in the role of persistent Indo-Pacifc presence, with significantly more through-life flexibility and capacity to operate independently for long periods at great distances.

The ALFA design also lacks the ability to embark TEUs for HADR, something that you'd imagine would be a critical function of a ship performing persistent regional presence. It further lacks the space to embark autonomous systems such as UXVs for MCM or Undersea Surveillance to protect and monitor critical seabed infrastructure - another role you'd want such a vessel to be able to perform whilst out and about.

All that even before we consider the range and cruising speed:

ALFA 3000: 5,000 nmi at 15 knots
Arrowhead 140: 9,000 nmi at 16 knots
MEKO-200: 7,200 nmi at 16 knots

Full Design Specs:

• ALFA 3000
• Arrowhead 140
• MEKO-200

 

[76mmGuns]

If the DSR does go down the light frigate / corvette path I do hope they at least run a basic accelerated tender process.

Spain's reported offer of the ALFA 3000 Light Frigate design just doesn't make a lot of sense to me when compared to economical GP Frigate designs like Babcock's Arrowhead 140, or even a modern MEKO-200 as mentioned here before.

It's also worth noting that Navantia's quotes are very unlikely to include weapon systems, sensors etc. which would all require additional GFE $.

By any measure the Arrowhead or similar would arguably be a far better fit in the role of persistent Indo-Pacifc presence, with significantly more through-life flexibility and capacity to operate independently for long periods at great distances.

The ALFA design also lacks the ability to embark TEUs for HADR, something that you'd imagine would be a critical function of a ship performing persistent regional presence. It further lacks the space to embark autonomous systems such as UXVs for MCM or Undersea Surveillance to protect and monitor critical seabed infrastructure - another role you'd want such a vessel to be able to perform whilst out and about.

All that even before we consider the range and cruising speed:

ALFA 3000: 5,000 nmi at 15 knots
Arrowhead 140: 9,000 nmi at 16 knots
MEKO-200: 7,200 nmi at 16 knots

Full Design Specs:

• ALFA 3000
• Arrowhead 140
• MEKO-200

The Arrowhead would also have the advantage of allowing the RAN to buy more 40mm guns, which, if they sort out the compatibility issues, would make logistics easier with all Arafuras and Arrowheads mounted with them.

I'd love the see the Hunter with x2 40mm guns rather than 2 x 30mm, but that's just my wish list talking

 

[ddxx]

The Arrowhead would also have the advantage of allowing the RAN to buy more 40mm guns, which, if they sort out the compatibility issues, would make logistics easier with all Arafuras and Arrowheads mounted with them.

I'd love the see the Hunter with x2 40mm guns rather than 2 x 30mm, but that's just my wish list talking

Even more amazing when according to Navy Lookout on Twitter Arrowhead's £250 million unit price even includes the 1x 57mm, 2x 40mm, Thales Radar and CMS (as Thales are part of the consortium). That's roughly $440 million AUD per frigate before other GFE (e.g. NSM / MK 41).

For us, we'd likely swap out the Thales CMS for SAAB 9LV with the Australian Interface, along with a variant of CEAFAR in place of the Thales radar.

 

[seaspear]

I understood the paper from the government was for 6 Corvettes, not frigates unfortunately ,just what capability and role is being considered for these corvettes is the big question .

 

[ddxx]

I understood the paper from the government was for 6 Corvettes, not frigates unfortunately ,just what capability and role is being considered for these corvettes is the big question .

Whilst the paper called them ‘corvettes’ because they’re lazy, the model quoted in the article, the ALFA 3000, is categorised as a Light Frigate by Navantia.

As per the name, it’s a ~3,000 tonne design.

 

[Stampede]

The Arrowhead would also have the advantage of allowing the RAN to buy more 40mm guns, which, if they sort out the compatibility issues, would make logistics easier with all Arafuras and Arrowheads mounted with them.

I'd love the see the Hunter with x2 40mm guns rather than 2 x 30mm, but that's just my wish list talking

I don't really see a place for 25 / 30 mm going forward other than the convenience of them being in current service.
Land environment maybe but not at sea.
If space and weight of all the fleets typhoon mounts could accommodate an alternative 40mm system ,it would be a prudent investment.
A smart move for the Arrowhead.

Cheers S

 

[Joe Black]

For us, we'd likely swap out the Thales CMS for SAAB 9LV with the Australian Interface, along with a variant of CEAFAR in place of the Thales radar.

No necessary, it could just be Saab Sea Giraffe AMB radar in place of the Thales radar.

 

[Volkodav]

There needs to be an analysis of the CEAFAR verses more traditional radars.

Not just performance but durability, supportability, RAM etc. My gut feeling is the CEA products will offer significant through life sustainability advantages over and above any other plusses. This needs to be quantified though careful analysis.

The other advantage of CEA is being an Australian company there are multiple inputs into the local economy that simply are not present using an overseas option.

 

[ddxx]

No necessary, it could just be Saab Sea Giraffe AMB radar in place of the Thales radar.

It wouldn’t necessarily be any cheaper to go with a foreign design as CEAFAR is a scalable system.

The wider economic value of those $ going to an Australian majority owned company and furthering sovereign defence tech capacity makes a strong case for CEA.

We’ve also already invested in the integration between 9LV & CEAFAR - so one of the expensive, challenging bits is already done.

 

[Tbone]

I was thinking the RAN would be better off looking at the Damen Crossover 130 combatant light frigate.
it has all the advantages of a war fighting frigate with a light amphibious role with its multi mission bay and adapting nature.
Very low crewing levels for a vessel if it’s size. Vls could be 24 cells, 57inch gun, ciws and towed array with Romeo.
Lost cost to build by Damen in Australia.
It would be a great ship to have to island hope during conflict

 

[StingrayOZ]

If so, I’m not really sure this helps us very much. A few extra ESSM’s would be nice, but hardly ‘game-changing’ enough to spend $4.8b on and kill off potentially 2 classes in the process, not to mention fewer hulls in the water to do our normal maritime patrol tasks which won’t go away no matter how dire things get with China…

Trading an Anzac for a Hobart class type ship I get. You get way more firepower and capability for slightly more crew. We have only 3 hobarts, we need more than 3 hobarts. 48+ VLS, Aegis, 5" blah blah, it make sense. It aint perfect, but it has a clear niche to fill.

Trading an Anzac for a Corvette I don't get.
Modern Corvette/small frigate has a crew of about 100.
Anzac has a crew about 160.

So for two Anzacs you get three Corvettes in terms of crewing.

• But the corvette is smaller
• But the corvette has less range
• But the corvette has an inferior and smaller radar and a lower radar mast
• But the corvette has less than half the helo capability
• The the corvette has a smaller gun
• The corvette has worse sea keeping capability.
• The corvette ties up a naval yard and costs ~500-1b...
• Corvettes typically don't have a layered defence.

Not sure this is the trade off we are looking for. The Anzac are old, but they sport the very latest radars, ESSM, soon NSM, and two helos.
Can't help but look at 4000-6000t class, where you could get similar manning and a whole lot more capability. Unless the corvette is super fast to build....

 

[Volkodav]

We had four FFG that underwent the upgrade.

Sydney decom in 2015 Hobart active in 2017
Darwin decom in 2017 Brisbane com in 2018
Melbourne decom 2019 Sydney com 20201
Newcastle decom 2019 --- No replacement 4th AWD never stupidly built

So there is a crew for a whole AWD just wasted because of a lack of replacement

Adelaide and Canberra were decom in 2005 and 2008. The last Anzac was 2006, so in theory we also lost at least one whole surface combatant crew there as well. So we have been running down the fleet for the last 20+ years. We were doing it right into 2019 and 2020. 2020 saw some return during covid.

Really we should have replaced the 6 ffg's with 6 hobarts.
Corvettes will require less crew than Anzacs. Probably by half. So 6 corvettes may require the same crew as 3 anzacs.

Yes, the RAN should start recruiting at all levels frantically.

Factor in the crew sizes of the Perth Class DDGs, 330 and the River Class DEs 250 verses the new ships and its even worse. Melbournes crew was 1300.

The fleet size was meant to increase after the carrier was retired and helicopters were meant to equip all combatants, even the tier 3 corvettes, in part to compensate for the loss of the carrier.

Read from page 10

The-Navy-Vol_58_Part2-1996.pdf (navyleague.org.au)

 

[Takao]

We had four FFG that underwent the upgrade.

Sydney decom in 2015 Hobart active in 2017
Darwin decom in 2017 Brisbane com in 2018
Melbourne decom 2019 Sydney com 20201
Newcastle decom 2019 --- No replacement 4th AWD never stupidly built

So there is a crew for a whole AWD just wasted because of a lack of replacement

Adelaide and Canberra were decom in 2005 and 2008. The last Anzac was 2006, so in theory we also lost at least one whole surface combatant crew there as well. So we have been running down the fleet for the last 20+ years. We were doing it right into 2019 and 2020. 2020 saw some return during covid.

Really we should have replaced the 6 ffg's with 6 hobarts.
Corvettes will require less crew than Anzacs. Probably by half. So 6 corvettes may require the same crew as 3 anzacs.

Yes, the RAN should start recruiting at all levels frantically.

Not quite - a mate received a significant award for looking after two FFGs with only something like 80 crew because there just wasn't enough crew. ! posting, 2 ships, 80 people.... The fleet's workforce (versus Navy's) has some pretty big issues.

Same mate and I asked HNC in 2016 why the RAN of 1962 had roughly the same number of people but more units (surface/sub/aviation) than 2016, despite each platform being more workforce intensive (Charles F Adams engine room v Hobart for instance). HNC didn't answer; our own research indicated that it's likely because of the increase in Joint postings. Things like JOC, ADFHQ, ADFA, JHC and JLC all need RAN people but did not exist in 1962. It's actually a pretty vicious problem - the joint postings are essential, but the Services didn't really grow to allow them. When you have technical services like the RAN and RAAF (where giving up a pilot, engineer, PWO or stoker is much harder than an infanteer or armoured crew), Army has often been faced with the demand to fix it - which has simultaneously annoyed the other services, bloated the Army hierarchy, and undermined our base role.

The workforce problem of the RAN is old and very complex. I know that the RAN have been very good at developing a plan to (a) come up to strength and (b) increase in strength. Admittedly I last saw it pre-COVID, but the effort that senior RAN had put into trying to understand the issues and fix it was genuinely impressive - it is disappointing the people who developed it probably won't be recognised. But - the other Services aren't there yet and the ADF is hurting. I'm not convinced we have seen the worst of our recruitment/retention problems yet.

 

[ddxx]

Can't help but look at 4000-6000t class, where you could get similar manning and a whole lot more capability. Unless the corvette is super fast to build....

Let’s hope that gov and defence won’t be suckered into some one trick pony ‘corvette’ deal without a proper competitive tender …

 

[ADMk2]

Trading an Anzac for a Hobart class type ship I get. You get way more firepower and capability for slightly more crew. We have only 3 hobarts, we need more than 3 hobarts. 48+ VLS, Aegis, 5" blah blah, it make sense. It aint perfect, but it has a clear niche to fill.

Trading an Anzac for a Corvette I don't get.
Modern Corvette/small frigate has a crew of about 100.
Anzac has a crew about 160.

So for two Anzacs you get three Corvettes in terms of crewing.

• But the corvette is smaller
• But the corvette has less range
• But the corvette has an inferior and smaller radar and a lower radar mast
• But the corvette has less than half the helo capability
• The the corvette has a smaller gun
• The corvette has worse sea keeping capability.
• The corvette ties up a naval yard and costs ~500-1b...
• Corvettes typically don't have a layered defence.

Not sure this is the trade off we are looking for. The Anzac are old, but they sport the very latest radars, ESSM, soon NSM, and two helos.
Can't help but look at 4000-6000t class, where you could get similar manning and a whole lot more capability. Unless the corvette is super fast to build....

As we have discussed previously, what’s in a name?

A 3000t, 104m long, 14m wide vessel is a corvette, a 109m, 14m wide 3600t vessel is a frigate and a 10,000t, 149m long, 21m wide vessel is apparently a frigate…

The above depends entirely upon what is chosen. A3000 as proposed by Navantia is extremely similar to the ANZAC class in it’s early guise in most aspects.

I suspect the more reasonable position is comparing how these proposals would compare to the RAN’s intended ”plan”

RAN -

3x AWD.
8x ANZAC transitioning to 9x Hunter Class frigates.
12x OPV’s.

23x hulls, 11 combat capable moving to 12.

Navantia’s reported proposal -

6x AWD
8x ANZAC’s (so far as is publicly known) transitioning to 9x Hunter
6x A3000 light frigates.

20x hulls moving to 21, ALL of them combat capable.

As for the 76mm gun issue, it wasn’t so long ago that RAN’s most capable MFU’s were equipped with a 76mm gun and they remain popular among naval forces around the world... Depending on the variant chosen, they even offer capabilities that the brand new Mk.45 Mod 4’s intended for the Hunters presently can not (Strales / DART, Vulcano etc)...

 

[Reptilia]

As we have discussed previously, what’s in a name?

A 3000t, 104m long, 14m wide vessel is a corvette, a 109m, 14m wide 3600t vessel is a frigate and a 10,000t, 149m long, 21m wide vessel is apparently a frigate…

The above depends entirely upon what is chosen. A3000 as proposed by Navantia is extremely similar to the ANZAC class in it’s early guise in most aspects.

I suspect the more reasonable position is comparing how these proposals would compare to the RAN’s intended ”plan”

RAN -

3x AWD.
8x ANZAC transitioning to 9x Hunter Class frigates.
12x OPV’s.

23x hulls, 11 combat capable moving to 12.

Navantia’s reported proposal -

6x AWD
8x ANZAC’s (so far as is publicly known) transitioning to 9x Hunter
6x A3000 light frigates.

20x hulls moving to 21, ALL of them combat capable.

As for the 76mm gun issue, it wasn’t so long ago that RAN’s most capable MFU’s were equipped with a 76mm gun and they remain popular among naval forces around the world... Depending on the variant chosen, they even offer capabilities that the brand new Mk.45 Mod 4’s intended for the Hunters presently can not (Strales / DART, Vulcano etc)...

RAN which choice is is better?

9 Hobarts
8 Anzacs transitioning to 9 Hunter
12 Arafura
29 hulls, 17 combat capable moving to 18

vs

6 Hobarts
8 Anzacs transitioning to 9 Hunter
6 ? Corvettes
12 Arafura
32 hulls, 20 combat capable moving to 21



Extra 6 hobart (3 built Spain/3 built Henderson or 3 built Osborne) by 2032, 1200+ crew, 288 cells across 6 ships, 13 billion est
pro- commonality of equipment, familiarity with maintenance and all sytems, capability over corvettes, particularly asw. con- cost, less hulls, procurement timeframe.

vs

proposed
Extra 3 Hobart by 2032 (3 built Spain or Henderson or Osborne), 6 Corvettes by 2029 (6 built Spain or Henderson), 1200+ crew, 288 cells across 9 ships 10-11 billion est
Pro/con reverse of the above

 

[Volkodav]

Not quite - a mate received a significant award for looking after two FFGs with only something like 80 crew because there just wasn't enough crew. ! posting, 2 ships, 80 people.... The fleet's workforce (versus Navy's) has some pretty big issues.

Same mate and I asked HNC in 2016 why the RAN of 1962 had roughly the same number of people but more units (surface/sub/aviation) than 2016, despite each platform being more workforce intensive (Charles F Adams engine room v Hobart for instance). HNC didn't answer; our own research indicated that it's likely because of the increase in Joint postings. Things like JOC, ADFHQ, ADFA, JHC and JLC all need RAN people but did not exist in 1962. It's actually a pretty vicious problem - the joint postings are essential, but the Services didn't really grow to allow them. When you have technical services like the RAN and RAAF (where giving up a pilot, engineer, PWO or stoker is much harder than an infanteer or armoured crew), Army has often been faced with the demand to fix it - which has simultaneously annoyed the other services, bloated the Army hierarchy, and undermined our base role.

The workforce problem of the RAN is old and very complex. I know that the RAN have been very good at developing a plan to (a) come up to strength and (b) increase in strength. Admittedly I last saw it pre-COVID, but the effort that senior RAN had put into trying to understand the issues and fix it was genuinely impressive - it is disappointing the people who developed it probably won't be recognised. But - the other Services aren't there yet and the ADF is hurting. I'm not convinced we have seen the worst of our recruitment/retention problems yet.

Another factor is the government's inability to attract and retain engineers and technical specialists within the APS, resulting in uniform members, even reservists having to back fill.

No beating around the bush, an APS 5 engineer on the top increment gets $83k a year, an O3 engineer gets significantly more, industry pays a lot more again, then you have the above the line contractors who get about twice what the APS 5 gets for filling the exact same role.

The ADF has to post uniform members into civilian roles because the APS is so ridiculously underpaid.

Perhaps worse, to get above APS 5 as an engineer you usually need to have least started your masters and be working towards chartered status, to get past APS 6 you need to be chartered and have your masters.

To be employed in quality, CM, contract management, administration, project management, ILS, you don't need a degree, not even to be appointed to APS6 or EL1 level. In fact they will give you the job then pay you to get a degree or masters. I know some really good operators in those areas but I have also come across chain smoking slobs with below average intelligence who get appointed as APS 6 product managers because they worked as a storeman somewhere.

The government treats their engineers like shit, and treats their technical people worse. End result, no matter how commited, many, if not most, eventually spit the dummy and move to industry or become contractors. When this happens often the only way to keep critical projects and functions operating at all is to bring in competent technical and engineering people from the services.