Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Thanks, this makes sense. Given the (agreed) inadequate number of destroyers in the RAN, I can understand the desire to build a frigate with both ASW and AA capability. The trouble is this has come at a very high cost per ship and therefore total cost for the Hunter class. The price also damages the credibility of Australian shipbuilding, fairly or unfairly. I am also still nervous that the Hunters’ extra size and weight without larger engines will also compromise range and speed, which was originally one of the advantages of the Type 126 (range 7000 nm).
I have to wonder why we do not take Navantia up on their attractively priced offer of three more “Batch 2” Hobart AWDs? These could be fitted from day one with the intended AWD upgrades such as Baseline 9 AEGIS etc. Six AWDs would then take pressure off AA expectations for the Hunter Class. Adelaide could then revert to efficiently building nine hulls of a more standard ASW Type 26 configuration (or Navantia F110 or USN Constellation, the Fincanterri design) at a more realistic price. The combined total of 15 hulls with range that could defend themselves might eliminate the need for six(?) Corvettes that lack those attributes.
Last edited:
So much for MOTS! Just doesn’t seem to exist on anything above an Aircraft for the ADF and even then we have had a few go‘s at those as well….
That's because we have such limited numbers of high end capabilities that they all have to be multirole instead of specialised. You can go a few very big, capable multi role, or a greater number of more specialised but smaller. What we try and do is add capability to the specialised but smaller.
Are you referring to three more Hobart class AWD,s by Navantia
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Sorry yes my error. I meant Hobart AWDs. I will correct my post.
Because maybe finding an extra 700 odd sailors, senior sailors and officers to man them is extraordinarily difficult in this current recruitment environment ? The senior warfare officers and SS you would have to have recruited about 10 years ago for them to be ready to man these extra 3 AWDs, provided of course you can get them built in a semi-rapid fashion. And they have to work out how they're going to man the Hunters yet. Ask anyone who works in RAN work force planning, it's a huge issue they're working hard on but there's no easy fix even if you have extra money to throw at it. So can we please temper this fantasy fleet discussion (I know this is an impossibility for this thread) against the harsh reality of finding warm bodies to fulfil existing fleet demands ?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I fear it is just a matter of time before junior or the next elected PM decides on a review for the CSC program resulting in a delay or cancellation (even bigger delay). That should provide some RCN bodies for the RAN (assuming the RN doesn’t grab them first but OZ has a huge climate advantage
).
And because they wouldn’t be the same ships - different engines, generators, stabilisers, rudders, sewerage plant, and much else outside the combat system; and there you would have at a minimum a different HMS. Which in turn would mean you’d need to modify the ATI. So there would be a very significant, and different training burden. And you’d need to set up new supply chains, again in penny packet numbers.
This is the other reason why reducing hull numbers was a self defeating travesty. The fewer ships the fewer billets to enable senior sailors and mid career officers to qualify.
There are serious bottlenecks relating to the inability to qualify personnel currently in uniform.
This is also where ADVs, PBs etc are such a waste, they do nothing to qualify the MEOs, WEOs and PWOs we need going forward. Yes we get lots of charge qualified CPOs who need extensive retraining and requalification to be any use on a major, as well as senior sailors who drive PBs but can't do the same on a major.
It takes less time and effort to qualify a civilian engineer as a MEO than it does to grow a senior technical sailor and then qualify them as an engineering officer. I've worked with brilliant people from both backgrounds, as well as those who have been through ADFA, all great, there just aren't enough of them, and not enough opportunities to grow more.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
DTR JUL 2023 (partica.online)
This magazine requires a subscription to view.
DTR are reporting that Sea 129 Phase 4, project to supply S-100 UAVs to the RAN, mainly to operate from the Arafura class, was cancelled in mid June.
This magazine requires a subscription to view.
DTR are reporting that Sea 129 Phase 4, project to supply S-100 UAVs to the RAN, mainly to operate from the Arafura class, was cancelled in mid June.
Last edited:
Free for ADF members and defence employees. Ian lurks on here sometimes.
100% Agreed - I'm certainly not attempting to downplay the very clear incompetence displayed by the department.
IMO its looks much colder on anything from Navantia front. If we were interested in additional urgent build "destroyers" there would be something other there about it. There is no public acquisition project, no close study of the F-110, no public release of the RAND assessment of the project and its viability. If we were close to war, and the Hunter project was in Chaos, we would have still taken a Navantia offer, even if it cost a bomb, and basically broke our support chain. See Ukraine. See Destroyers-for-bases deal.
I suspect Navantia was being used to apply pressure to the Hunter project and to BAE. In the void of a real plan B, making some noises about Navantia supplying ships may have been a way to get some leverage or project control, or something behind the scenes, a bit of a shake up, which appears to have happened. If it had not then Plan B may have well swung into action.
Given no magic money announcements or a bunch of tenders, I also believe the Corvette thing may be dead too. If anything else was to gain timely traction, things would need to be moving. Not even Navantia is talking about it.
I suspect that government has found acceptable options from both BAE and NVL. In that they may be varying existing projects with existing build partners rather than starting afresh elsewhere.
As far as what an acceptable option may be, it may be something like batch II of Hunter meeting new threats, perhaps featuring additional 8-16 self defence missiles. As for a smaller second tier combatant, for a corvette, OPV90 style ship from NVL, ie an OPV that can/could fit various weapons. There are bunch of job ads that have gone up recently, so either they have lost a lot of staff, or they are looking for additional staff.
Navantia also has some staff ads, ~like 8, which is sort of inline with their role involved in upgrading and maintaining the Hobarts. NVL has like 30 new positions. BAE has about 13 positions, and an unknown bunch of "Project Change Officers" and BAE already has a huge footprint here. I have no idea of course what is actually going on, but it may help to temper expectations. I would expect the Naval Review to perhaps not be as dynamite as people first thought.
Or they could just be waiting for the review to come out.
Who wants to put money on an AUKUS CGN Strike Cruiser?
Is it fair to suggest that with The R.N, U.S.N Italian navy contemplating or building larger AWD,s The Australian government would need to have some serious study on its requirements are for an air warfare destroyer before any such build was commenced and like it or not the members here wont be involved in such a decision lol
Italy - DDX 10,000-ton (globalsecurity.org)
Navy unveils latest concept for future destroyer, DDG(X) - Breaking Defense
U.S. Navy Officially Building Next-Gen Destroyer: DDG(X) Program (popularmechanics.com)
IF11679 (congress.gov)
New Uk Warship Design Speaks To Indo-Pacific Ambitions | MENAFN.COM
Italy - DDX 10,000-ton (globalsecurity.org)
Navy unveils latest concept for future destroyer, DDG(X) - Breaking Defense
U.S. Navy Officially Building Next-Gen Destroyer: DDG(X) Program (popularmechanics.com)
IF11679 (congress.gov)
New Uk Warship Design Speaks To Indo-Pacific Ambitions | MENAFN.COM
Any info on why this decision was made?
I feel like it could potentially tie into Stingray's last comment if NVL is indeed changing up the plan for what they're building.
No official word. Only speculation that Government is “concerned” enough about S-100 variants being operated by Russia, China and used by Myanmar, to discontinue use, except perhaps for on-going UAS trials.
Also no word whether the project itself is cancelled or merely the previously successful tenderer and some other solution will be pursued.
Perhaps because Government and Raytheon are still working out the ramifications of taking the exit ramp on this project… Or perhaps it’s the developing situation that unfavourable information seems to have to be pried out of defence by court order, contempt of Senate proceedings or RTI processes and subsequent appeals, these days…
An interesting one
Current Navy Web site which also contains a link to 822X Sqn
S-100 Camcopter
The S-100 system has over 30,000 flight hours of experience around the world from land bases and many different classes of ship. The S-100 uncrewed aerial system (UAS) consists of one or more remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) and a ground control station (GCS) with associated antennae and...
www.navy.gov.au
On hold?
Looking at an alternative platform of similar size?
Don't see the relevance?
Run out of money?
Something else?
Confused somewhat.
Is it linked to the mysterious Tier two ship.
Cheers S.
PS - maybe we are getting NZ's retired Sea Sprites!!!!!!
We’re still getting the extra Romeos so RAN’s aircraft fleet is still expanding, but given this cancellations news and considering Project SEA 129 Phase 5 Maritime TUAV was one of the projects listed as “rescoped” in the DSR “offsets” document provided to media (but not the general public) back in April, it seems as if the overall project future is somewhat bleak…An interesting one
Current Navy Web site which also contains a link to 822X Sqn
S-100 Camcopter
The S-100 system has over 30,000 flight hours of experience around the world from land bases and many different classes of ship. The S-100 uncrewed aerial system (UAS) consists of one or more remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) and a ground control station (GCS) with associated antennae and...
On hold?
Looking at an alternative platform of similar size?
Don't see the relevance?
Run out of money?
Something else?
Confused somewhat.
Is it linked to the mysterious Tier two ship.
Cheers S.
PS - maybe we are getting NZ's retired Sea Sprites!!!!!!
Which is an interesting choice, especially coming on the back of the Sky Guardian MALE UAV cancellation in 2022. With 50% of ADF’s long ranged UAV projects already having been cancelled and Triton on shaky ground to say the least (given the US Navy hesitation on their own fleet) one wonders what the new plan is for the necessary long ranged targeting capability (required for all these missiles we are buying) is supposed to look like?