Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

Here is the dumb thing, the so called Tier 2 everyone seems to be talking about is inferior to the proposed Tier 3 from the late 80s, that was still on the cards until the late 90s.

The Tier 2 from Dibbs much maligned paper was the ANZAC class patrol frigate that subsequent governments recast as a tier one GP frigate because it's size and versatility permitted it to be upgraded. Even as a PF it was vastly more capable than what is being proposed today.

The problem is we actually had a four tier navy, DDGs, FFGs, ASW FFs/DEs, and PBs.

Over time, cynical governments pretended the DDGs and FFGs were the same thing, and then gradually reduced numbers. Nine became six, which was reduced to four and finally three FFGs were built and we called them destroyers.

At the same time we started pretending our Patrol Frigates were FFGs as we upgraded them to GP frigates. Now eight may become six, but at least the Hunters will be full blown multi role warships. Unfortunately there are no actual second tier Patrol, GP or ASW frigates any more.

Corvettes only make sense if there is many more larger warships than we have or plan. Yes they will be better than the planned three Hobart's and eight Hunters plus twelve OPVs, but not if the hunters are cut to six, or new major vessels are not acquired.

 

[Stampede]

Here is the dumb thing, the so called Tier 2 everyone seems to be talking about is inferior to the proposed Tier 3 from the late 80s, that was still on the cards until the late 90s.

The Tier 2 from Dibbs much maligned paper was the ANZAC class patrol frigate that subsequent governments recast as a tier one GP frigate because it's size and versatility permitted it to be upgraded. Even as a PF it was vastly more capable than what is being proposed today.

The problem is we actually had a four tier navy, DDGs, FFGs, ASW FFs/DEs, and PBs.

Over time, cynical governments pretended the DDGs and FFGs were the same thing, and then gradually reduced numbers. Nine became six, which was reduced to four and finally three FFGs were built and we called them destroyers.

At the same time we started pretending our Patrol Frigates were FFGs as we upgraded them to GP frigates. Now eight may become six, but at least the Hunters will be full blown multi role warships. Unfortunately there are no actual second tier Patrol, GP or ASW frigates any more.

Corvettes only make sense if there is many more larger warships than we have or plan. Yes they will be better than the planned three Hobart's and eight Hunters plus twelve OPVs, but not if the hunters are cut to six, or new major vessels are not acquired.

Fair comment.
In some ways I feel your Tier 3 vessel is all you can reasonable expect to get in the water in a meaningful period of time.

Recognising that the Supply and Amphibious ships don't have much in the way of defensive systems but for close range items like Phalanx / Bushmaster and decoys for air and sea threats.
I pose the question, is there a place for a relatively lightly armed combat vessel in the 2000t range with the above defensive systems that has a true helicopter capability ( hangar, flight deck, weapons storage and refuelling capability ) and a medium calibre gun?

Like the supply and amphibious ships it will sail under the protection of the major warships yet be a inner circle contributor to the task group.

A robust constabulary vessel for most of the time with the ability to contribute to the broader fleet..............Maybe!

An asset or a liability?

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

Fair comment.
In some ways I feel your Tier 3 vessel is all you can reasonable expect to get in the water in a meaningful period of time.

Recognising that the Supply and Amphibious ships don't have much in the way of defensive systems but for close range items like Phalanx / Bushmaster and decoys for air and sea threats.
I pose the question, is there a place for a relatively lightly armed combat vessel in the 2000t range with the above defensive systems that has a true helicopter capability ( hangar, flight deck, weapons storage and refuelling capability ) and a medium calibre gun?

Like the supply and amphibious ships it will sail under the protection of the major warships yet be a inner circle contributor to the task group.

A robust constabulary vessel for most of the time with the ability to contribute to the broader fleet..............Maybe!

An asset or a liability?

Cheers S

Just my opinion, but they can only be justified if we have a minimum of a dozen high end platforms, i.e. bigger and more capable than current, or a minimum of twenty or so platforms equivalent to our current large and small/medium frigates.

 

[protoplasm]

Just my opinion, but they can only be justified if we have a minimum of a dozen high end platforms, i.e. bigger and more capable than current, or a minimum of twenty or so platforms equivalent to our current large and small/medium frigates.

The issue with any suggestion of vessels in the vicinity of the suggested tonnage is range and endurance. There is no point in having a vessel which would act in an escort like capacity if it doesn’t have the range to actually escort in the Australian context. It’s very easy to end up with either a ship that can defend itself and others a bit (but can only do two thirds of the trip) OR a ship that does have the range, but not enough weapons and systems to be useful.

 

[Volkodav]

The issue with any suggestion of vessels in the vicinity of the suggested tonnage is range and endurance. There is no point in having a vessel which would act in an escort like capacity if it doesn’t have the range to actually escort in the Australian context. It’s very easy to end up with either a ship that can defend itself and others a bit (but can only do two thirds of the trip) OR a ship that does have the range, but not enough weapons and systems to be useful.

Very much agree.

Corvettes make sense in place or in addition to patrol boats and OPVs, so long as there are a sufficient number of high end ships to cover off our strategic needs.

Between the wars Australia desired a cruiser and sloop navy, i.e. long endurance, multi role large combatants, backed up by long range, multi role escorts, with adequate air defence, ASW capabilities as well as MCM.

Australia's pre WWI fleet unit, Henderson's enhanced plan, and Jelicos post WWI plan were all cruiser heavy.

Our planned pre WWII destroyer force was a flotilla (eight planned three completed) Tribal class destroyers, our post war destroyers were Battle and Daring Class, they were all large destroyers, what the USN called Destroyer Leaders. They were large multi role ships designed to serve as substitutes for cruisers, while still able to serve as destroyers.

Now we pretend frigates are destroyers and are trying to convince the populus that corvettes (worse, tarted up OPVs) are suitable substitutes for large frigates and a suitable replacement for the ANZACs.

 

[Stampede]

The issue with any suggestion of vessels in the vicinity of the suggested tonnage is range and endurance. There is no point in having a vessel which would act in an escort like capacity if it doesn’t have the range to actually escort in the Australian context. It’s very easy to end up with either a ship that can defend itself and others a bit (but can only do two thirds of the trip) OR a ship that does have the range, but not enough weapons and systems to be useful.

Agree
Absolutely needs to be able to go the distance.

Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Just my opinion, but they can only be justified if we have a minimum of a dozen high end platforms, i.e. bigger and more capable than current, or a minimum of twenty or so platforms equivalent to our current large and small/medium frigates.

Are we therefore back to the 2009 DWP of a suggested 12 majors and 20 Corvette class vessels?


Cheers S

 

[spoz]

As one of the authors (if a minor one) - we could do worse!

 

[Volkodav]

As one of the authors (if a minor one) - we could do worse!

Agreed, it was a pretty good plan, there have been better but the threat we see today is the one that plan was written in response to. Too bad we went away from that thinking.

 

[John Newman]

Are we therefore back to the 2009 DWP of a suggested 12 majors and 20 Corvette class vessels?

Cheers S

“12 majors and 20 Corvette class vessels”?

Rubbish, complete absolute rubbish, the reality doesn’t match the legend.

Let’s look at what the 2009 Rudd DWP “actually” said, and by the way, here’s a PDF of that document:

https://www.ssri-j.com/MediaReport/Document/AustraliaDefenceWhitePaper2009.pdf

The legend of the 2009 DWP doesn’t match the reality.

Firstly the “12 majors”

The 2009 DWP only confirmed the continuation of the 3 x AWDs ordered by the previous Howard Government.

It then went on to say it would “continue to monitor and assess” the need for the 4th AWD.

We all know what happened there, hey? During the time of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments that potential 4th AWD disappeared like a fart in the wind.

The 2009 DWP only proposed 8 x Future Frigates to replace the 8 x ANZACS.

Three plus eight is 11, not 12.

It wasn’t until the 2016 Abbott/Turnbull DWP that the number of Future Frigates were to be increased from 8 to 9 ships.


“20 Corvette class vessels”

Again rubbish, complete rubbish.

The 2009 Rudd DWP actually said “a single multirole class of ‘around’ 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels”, it then goes on to say “anticipated displacement of ‘up to 2000’ tonnes”.

The “around 20” is not a guarantee of 20, “around 20” could mean anything.

The “up to 2000 tonnes” is hardly an OCV (more like an OPV), certainly not a Corvette sized ship.


Not to be outdone by the 2009 Rudd DWP, is the 2013 Gillard DWP, that DWP actually put those “up to 20 Rudd OCVs” on the back burner and instead proposed the replacement of the ACPBs with yet another class of PBs!

In fact the 2013 Gillard DWP doesn’t refer to OCV, it refers to them as OPV!

A PDF of the 2013 DWP:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2013/australia-wp-2013.pdf

Roll on to the 2016 Abbott/Turnbull DWP, which reversed the decision by Gillard (and Def Min Smith) and deletes the PBs and instead confirms 12 x OPVs to replace the ACPBs.

Further, by the time of the 2020 ScoMo DSU, the plan for 12 x OPV is increased to 20 x OPV.


I wish people would just stop with the bullshit, complete bullshit, that the 2009 DWP was something it wasn’t.

Rant over!!!

 

[Stampede]

“12 majors and 20 Corvette class vessels”?

Rubbish, complete absolute rubbish, the reality doesn’t match the legend.

Let’s look at what the 2009 Rudd DWP “actually” said, and by the way, here’s a PDF of that document:

https://www.ssri-j.com/MediaReport/Document/AustraliaDefenceWhitePaper2009.pdf

The legend of the 2009 DWP doesn’t match the reality.

Firstly the “12 majors”

The 2009 DWP only confirmed the continuation of the 3 x AWDs ordered by the previous Howard Government.

It then went on to say it would “continue to monitor and assess” the need for the 4th AWD.

We all know what happened there, hey? During the time of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments that potential 4th AWD disappeared like a fart in the wind.

The 2009 DWP only proposed 8 x Future Frigates to replace the 8 x ANZACS.

Three plus eight is 11, not 12.

It wasn’t until the 2016 Abbott/Turnbull DWP that the number of Future Frigates were to be increased from 8 to 9 ships.


“20 Corvette class vessels”

Again rubbish, complete rubbish.

The 2009 Rudd DWP actually said “a single multirole class of ‘around’ 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels”, it then goes on to say “anticipated displacement of ‘up to 2000’ tonnes”.

The “around 20” is not a guarantee of 20, “around 20” could mean anything.

The “up to 2000 tonnes” is hardly an OCV (more like an OPV), certainly not a Corvette sized ship.


Not to be outdone by the 2009 Rudd DWP, is the 2013 Gillard DWP, that DWP actually put those “up to 20 Rudd OCVs” on the back burner and instead proposed the replacement of the ACPBs with yet another class of PBs!

In fact the 2013 Gillard DWP doesn’t refer to OCV, it refers to them as OPV!

A PDF of the 2013 DWP:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2013/australia-wp-2013.pdf

Roll on to the 2016 Abbott/Turnbull DWP, which reversed the decision by Gillard (and Def Min Smith) and deletes the PBs and instead confirms 12 x OPVs to replace the ACPBs.

Further, by the time of the 2020 ScoMo DSU, the plan for 12 x OPV is increased to 20 x OPV.


I wish people would just stop with the bullshit, complete bullshit, that the 2009 DWP was something it wasn’t.

Rant over!!!

Thanks John for your usual positivity and point scoring!

We both know what was in those documents.

We both know like many a document they are aspirational, yet at the same still time point in a general direction going forward.
Like many a DWP they are not always achieved.

Stand by my comment and bullshit to yourself.

Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

“12 majors and 20 Corvette class vessels”?

Rubbish, complete absolute rubbish, the reality doesn’t match the legend.

Let’s look at what the 2009 Rudd DWP “actually” said, and by the way, here’s a PDF of that document:

https://www.ssri-j.com/MediaReport/Document/AustraliaDefenceWhitePaper2009.pdf

The legend of the 2009 DWP doesn’t match the reality.

Firstly the “12 majors”

The 2009 DWP only confirmed the continuation of the 3 x AWDs ordered by the previous Howard Government.

It then went on to say it would “continue to monitor and assess” the need for the 4th AWD.

We all know what happened there, hey? During the time of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments that potential 4th AWD disappeared like a fart in the wind.

The 2009 DWP only proposed 8 x Future Frigates to replace the 8 x ANZACS.

Three plus eight is 11, not 12.

It wasn’t until the 2016 Abbott/Turnbull DWP that the number of Future Frigates were to be increased from 8 to 9 ships.


“20 Corvette class vessels”

Again rubbish, complete rubbish.

The 2009 Rudd DWP actually said “a single multirole class of ‘around’ 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels”, it then goes on to say “anticipated displacement of ‘up to 2000’ tonnes”.

The “around 20” is not a guarantee of 20, “around 20” could mean anything.

The “up to 2000 tonnes” is hardly an OCV (more like an OPV), certainly not a Corvette sized ship.


Not to be outdone by the 2009 Rudd DWP, is the 2013 Gillard DWP, that DWP actually put those “up to 20 Rudd OCVs” on the back burner and instead proposed the replacement of the ACPBs with yet another class of PBs!

In fact the 2013 Gillard DWP doesn’t refer to OCV, it refers to them as OPV!

A PDF of the 2013 DWP:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2013/australia-wp-2013.pdf

Roll on to the 2016 Abbott/Turnbull DWP, which reversed the decision by Gillard (and Def Min Smith) and deletes the PBs and instead confirms 12 x OPVs to replace the ACPBs.

Further, by the time of the 2020 ScoMo DSU, the plan for 12 x OPV is increased to 20 x OPV.


I wish people would just stop with the bullshit, complete bullshit, that the 2009 DWP was something it wasn’t.

Rant over!!!

You are ranting at one of the authors and someone who was in industry and seeing the proposed future projects. Rudd had many failings but recognising the threat possed by China's rise and growing belligerence wasn't one of them.

Many don't realise how big a change occured when Gillard took over. For one, the shipbuilding workforce set up to build the DDGs was hollowed out by redundancies and work was slowed after Rudd was removed. The 20 OCVs were deferred indefinitely under Smith and a supplemental PB proposed, again after Rudd. Collins replacement was parked.

We were hoping it would be reversed under Abbott, it wasn't.

Reality check the BS here is the deluded fiction that everything under the one side is roses and under the other is excrement.

The major Australian political parties are much closer on many things than is the case in other countries and the sad fact is, unless there is a clear and present threat neither side gives a shit. The reason for this is simple, most voters don't give a shit.

Politically I was very glad to see the back of Keating, Howard, Gillard and Morrison, the rest had ups and downs but will be remembered favorably by history, especially when the cabinate papers come out. Biggest shame, the likes of Beazley, Hewson, Costello and possibly Nelson didn't get a gig as PM.

 

[John Newman]

Thanks John for your usual positivity and point scoring!

We both know what was in those documents.

We both know like many a document they are aspirational, yet at the same still time point in a general direction going forward.
Like many a DWP they are not always achieved.

Stand by my comment and bullshit to yourself.

Regards S

We both know what was in those documents?

Clearly one of us doesn’t.

Please read the PDFs and show me where the information I’ve referred to and quoted is wrong?

 

[John Newman]

You are ranting at one of the authors and someone who was in industry and seeing the proposed future projects. Rudd had many failings but recognising the threat possed by China's rise and growing belligerence wasn't one of them.

Many don't realise how big a change occured when Gillard took over. For one, the shipbuilding workforce set up to build the DDGs was hollowed out by redundancies and work was slowed after Rudd was removed. The 20 OCVs were deferred indefinitely under Smith and a supplemental PB proposed, again after Rudd. Collins replacement was parked.

We were hoping it would be reversed under Abbott, it wasn't.

Reality check the BS here is the deluded fiction that everything under the one side is roses and under the other is excrement.

The major Australian political parties are much closer on many things than is the case in other countries and the sad fact is, unless there is a clear and present threat neither side gives a shit. The reason for this is simple, most voters don't give a shit.

Politically I was very glad to see the back of Keating, Howard, Gillard and Morrison, the rest had ups and downs but will be remembered favorably by history, especially when the cabinate papers come out. Biggest shame, the likes of Beazley, Hewson, Costello and possibly Nelson didn't get a gig as PM.

Read the PDFs and tell me exactly where I’ve misquoted the facts and figures from both the 2009 and 2013 DWPs.

 

[Stuart M]

As one of the authors (if a minor one) - we could do worse!

I call conflict of interest, you'll have to recuse yourself from the discussion now.. ;-)

 

[Volkodav]

We both know what was in those documents?

Clearly one of us doesn’t.

Please read the PDFs and show me where the information I’ve referred to and quoted is wrong?

When the Osborne shipyard was opened by KRudd in 2010 we were expecting the announcement of the fourth ship. It didn't happen, next thing he was gone and we had this condescending lawyer come politician, back flipping on every major policy the government had a mandate for.

Four plus eight is twelve.

20 OCVs were meant to be LCS type vessels procured to a more sane requirements set, i.e. about 30 kt or at least better than 25kt.

Also submarines were heading to a new local design, with an evolved Collins as back up.

This is the reality and was perfectly achievable and affordable before the place was taken over by career politicians (on both sides) who cared more about securing their place in their own party than any sort of vision for the country, let alone defence.

 

[John Newman]

Year after year the legend of the 2009 Rudd DWP grows bigger and bigger.

It’s like the fisherman’s story of the ‘one that got away’, each year the fight to land that fish gets tougher and tougher, and the fish just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

If people want to believe the legend, then go for your life, sometimes fantasy is easier to swallow instead of facts.

Here we are 14 years later and the legend, the fantasy, continues to grow.

As for me, I’ve made the exact same observations and comments regarding the 2009 DWP, be it in the original RAN thread or the RAN 2.0 thread.

I’ve continued to deal in facts, ‘facts’ written in that DWP.

If people want to slag me for being consistent and dealing in facts over the 12+ years I’ve been here on DT, I really don’t care one little bit.

Go for your life.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Peter Lursson CEO of Lursson shipbuilding is travelling to Australia for discussions with the Australian Government .
Obviously spruiking their Corvette.
One interesting aspect of their offer is that they would move one of their large floating Drydocks to western Australia.
Dock number 11 from Hamburg.
This would rapidly fulfill the Government's desire to have a very large dry dock facility on the West coast.

Luerssen pitches ‘consolidated, capable shipbuilder’ at Henderson

Multi-billion dollar German shipbuilder, Luerssen Australia has announced imminent travel plans to meet with Australian political and Royal Australian Navy leadership. The German shipbuilder operate

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[MARKMILES77]

Capabilities of Hamburg Dock 11:

Blohm + Voss | Hamburg | Germany - SeaDock Marine

Yard Area 451,000 m2 Waterfront 2,100 m2 Covered Build Facilities 92,000 m2 SlipWay 330 m x 52 m Length Over All (m) 351.2 Breadth (m): 59.2 Docking Draft

seadockmarine.com

 

[Volkodav]

Yes

Year after year the legend of the 2009 Rudd DWP grows bigger and bigger.

It’s like the fisherman’s story of the ‘one that got away’, each year the fight to land that fish gets tougher and tougher, and the fish just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

If people want to believe the legend, then go for your life, sometimes fantasy is easier to swallow instead of facts.

Here we are 14 years later and the legend, the fantasy, continues to grow.

As for me, I’ve made the exact same observations and comments regarding the 2009 DWP, be it in the original RAN thread or the RAN 2.0 thread.

I’ve continued to deal in facts, ‘facts’ written in that DWP.

If people want to slag me for being consistent and dealing in facts over the 12+ years I’ve been here on DT, I really don’t care one little bit.

Go for your life.

John, we know, Rudd/Labor and therefore any plan, policy or legislation under them = bad, Liberal = good and when it doesn't it's Labor's fault anyway.

My grandfather was the same, as is one of my uncles and some of my friends, personally I find it impossible to fix my mind like that. If it's shit, it's shit, irrespective of which side it's from, if it's good, it's usually because the GOTD listened to the experts.

In fact there is a pattern, there are similar plans that keep coming up over and over again. This occurs when the minister, listens to and supports their department. The 2009 DWP had many thing in it that were raised in the 90s, but also the 60s.

Before you start harping on about SSNs, they were proposed in 59, early, mid and late 60s and again in the 70s. Hell in the mid 60s the RAAF was even supporting them over a replacement aircraft carrier.

Politicians in general know nothing about defence. To my knowledge, there has been one ex senior sir, Molan, most of the rest haven't been near a staff college or post grad studies which, almost every O5 and above and most EL and above APS have. The good papers aren't written by the pollies, they are written by Uniform, APS and accedemics. The bad papers are written by consultants and back room people to an agenda.