Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

First Hunter is years off, Hunter six, is mid 2030s, Hunter 9 late 2030s.

It takes a decade to grow a competent, mid career technical sailor or engineering officer, similar for operator, ship drivers and others. Keep with the current

Nothing helps recruitment and retention more than shiny new gear and new capabilities that has a good reputation and good press.

The simple fact is we are building what we are building, stopping and changing to anything else will cause delays.

Cheap quick options will not be cheaper or quicker than staying with the current plan.

We have missed the window to order anything instead of Hunter or Arafura, any change in direction will mean we have fewer platforms to grow and retain the people we need.

This is why we need to follow the plan, grow the number of people, systems commonality makes this easier.

Realistically new capabilities, other than upgrades to in service platforms and tweeks to in production ones are not going to happen until the mid 2030s at the earliest. We need to determine what we need to supplement what is in service and what we are building, then build when we have the capacity to do so.

Then we need to determine what replaces what we already have. I.e. Choules, LHDs and Hobart's, followed by the Arafuras.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Anzac frigate design selected in 1989, first steel cut in 1993, first ship delivered in 1996. That is 7 years from selection to commission. All 10 ships were delivered by 2006 effectively at a rate of one a year. At the same time we were heavily involved in the construction of the Collins submarine.

Has our ship building industry become that much less efficient since then?

If the government were to come out at the end of next month and say that we are going to make it a national priority to start building Type 31s would it really be that unreasonable to expect the first ship to enter service before the end of the decade?

There is something you seem to be forgetting. The ANZAC-class frigates were built in the Williamstown Dockyards, which had just finished building a pair of Adelaide-class FFG's for the RAN. At present, the most recent, completed naval build (at ASC) in Australia was HMAS Sydney (D42) which was laid down 19 November 2015, launched 19 May 2018, and commissioned 18 May 2020.

The Hobart-class build, in addition to being at a different facility (ASC in Osborne SA) had the lead ship laid down ~six years after the last of the ANZAC-class frigates was commissioned.

These kinds of multi-year gaps between ordering ships/classes to be built, coupled with changing which facilities and locations are actually doing the building, lead to workforce skills atrophy. Had Australian yards been kept fed with work from gov't, then it would have been much more likely that the RAN could decide to order a new design which could have construction start fairly soon. I say fairly soon because at least part of the delay in getting new classes/designs started is the need to get orders for long-lead systems in. There is very little sense in cutting first steel for a hull which could be ready within 24 months, if major components like GT's, radar arrays and/or CMS will not be ready for 36, 48, or even 60 months or more.

 

[Volkodav]

The Hobarts/F-105 are designed to be in a 4-6 ship class. Norway built 4 mini-Hobart's. Spain planned for 6, built 5, they were meant to replace their FFG's. Australia planned 4, built 3. There is no point in building 6 as the ship is compromised for a navy with that number of those ships. It also makes no sense to build less than 4 as you will loose capability when you upgrade, deep maintenance the ships. Everyone involved with that project was hoping, expecting 4 ships, so cutting it down to 3 is a huge loss. You can build new Hobarts, yes, its a pain and expensive, and they won't be the same. Alvaro de Bazan was laid down in 1999. The last Crtiobal Colon, F-105 was 8 years later and is a very different ship to the first of class. It has different engines, a bow thruster, different small guns, different radar, different hangar, different flight deck, different ASW, different layouts in part of the ship, different contractors, slightly different fitout.

The F-100 was designed to replace the five Baleares Class FFGs and supplement the six Sainta Maria Class FFGs.

Baleares-class frigate - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The five Norwegian ships were one for one replacements for the five Oslo class frigates.

Oslo-class frigate - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[StingrayOZ]

Absolutely, the priority has to be ships in the water. The RAN is currently down to just 34 commissioned vessels and a sizeable number of those are about to age out of service.

Either age out of be out of the water for significant attempts at high risk life extensions or upgrades. So on top of having already few in number of ships, these type of serious LOTE/mid life/capability improvements have a huge affect on availability of capabilities of the fleet.

These kinds of multi-year gaps between ordering ships/classes to be built, coupled with changing which facilities and locations are actually doing the building, lead to workforce skills atrophy. Had Australian yards been kept fed with work from gov't, then it would have been much more likely that the RAN could decide to order a new design which could have construction start fairly soon. I say fairly soon because at least part of the delay in getting new classes/designs started is the need to get orders for long-lead systems in.

So destructive, we keep moving around where we are building them and order in such sporadic rates that arguably that is what has sent ~ 3-4 AU ship builders to Davey Jones in the last ~30 years.

The F-100 was designed to replace the five Baleares Class FFGs and supplement the six Sainta Maria Class FFGs.

The five Norwegian ships were one for one replacements for the five Oslo class frigates.

Im going to fire my editor and my fact checker. And see my doctor about my frequent strokes and onset into early dementia. And my IT guy.

Yes you are completely correct. It should be noted I defer to Volk on all facts and statistics. Always.

Yes, Spain has Five ships, and Norway has five ships. Which is a good number to have if you want any sort of reliable capability and surge capacity. With five ships you can pull out one for upgrades, and still have a deployable capability. Or like Norway found out, sometimes you lose a ship. You can base an industry around supporting that number of ships. Imagine if we had just 3 C17's, or 3 E7's, or 3 KC-30? It would be bonkers.

If a RAN destroyer was to be hit by a commercial ship, or hit a rock. Our Destroyer and AEGIS capability would be toast. With only two ships remaining our support contracts and SMEs would fall apart as well creating a hole Australia won't be able to pull itself out of.
Who do these SME's employ, a lot of ex-RAN, thats who. If they go to the wall, that experience, doesn't go back to the RAN a whole bunch of 40-60 year old ex-navy ex-adf folk who have been out of uniform for 10-30+ years don't just go and re-enlist. They head of out marine and defence industry entirely. Same with their civilian coworkers. They can get redundancy payouts and often go into semi retirement. There is no industry for them to be employed in.

China doesn't even have to sink our ships. If they applied merely completely legal patrols in our area, our government would be obliged to match, and our capability would fall apart simply by use. Either crew, or mechanical/at sea wear, or accident.

So it could be until the 2040's before we have robust 3-4 Hunters operational with full performance and integration, even then its not the same. Until then we limp along. Waiting until something breaks which we can't put back together. 2040 is very far into the future. So far, the world won't look the same by the time some of us live to see it.

The SME's were rioting back in 2018 and 2019 about the attack class. Literally CEO's throwing chairs and getting dragged out of industry engagement sessions with scuffles with security. It is there money that is often exploited in these random government mind changes. Now its and out and out statement. If selections are made without local involvement they will fold, all of them.

There are many swords. But the key thing about being an effective knight goes beyond the design of the sword. Its training, fitness, your horse, your armor, your other weapons, the support network behind you, your estate, your wealth, your motivation to fight. Chasing unicorn designs but throwing everything out of the window is incredibly destructive for the ADF. Its not a RAN issue alone, look at the damage we are doing potentially with Army. Same issue.

 

[Meriv90]

There is something you seem to be forgetting. The ANZAC-class frigates were built in the Williamstown Dockyards, which had just finished building a pair of Adelaide-class FFG's for the RAN. At present, the most recent, completed naval build (at ASC) in Australia was HMAS Sydney (D42) which was laid down 19 November 2015, launched 19 May 2018, and commissioned 18 May 2020.

The Hobart-class build, in addition to being at a different facility (ASC in Osborne SA) had the lead ship laid down ~six years after the last of the ANZAC-class frigates was commissioned.

These kinds of multi-year gaps between ordering ships/classes to be built, coupled with changing which facilities and locations are actually doing the building, lead to workforce skills atrophy. Had Australian yards been kept fed with work from gov't, then it would have been much more likely that the RAN could decide to order a new design which could have construction start fairly soon. I say fairly soon because at least part of the delay in getting new classes/designs started is the need to get orders for long-lead systems in. There is very little sense in cutting first steel for a hull which could be ready within 24 months, if major components like GT's, radar arrays and/or CMS will not be ready for 36, 48, or even 60 months or more.

For that reason Fincantieri's offer to move work from the 30bln backlog on cruisers to Australia was an amazing offer allowing you to close the gap during those years.

And before you think it isn't a complex work remember that the same Mitsubishi that builds the Mogami failed really really badly in the cruise sector with 2 year delay and billions(2.3) lost on the project.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Appreciating this discussion and out of interest, I checked what other navies in the Asia-Pacific have at sea - and under construction - and it really does put us to shame. India and South Korea have at least three times the surface combatants we do; Japan more than four times. The former has carriers too, and all three are developing that capability further. It really makes it laughable that we had Penny Wong being asked on the ABC this morning if Australia was in an arms race with China. Nope, we're not in the same league. It does show to me that we cannot compete in terms of numbers of warships - and likely not even their capability. That does, however, reinforce the case for nuclear-powered submarines. This capability alone will give us credibility on matters of regional security. In terms of enhancing our surface forces, I only offer that realistically whatever we do we'll still be a long way behind.

 

[swerve]

Australia: 26 million population & nominal GDP 2022 US$1700 billion (PPP $1600 bn)

India 1417 million & $3400 billion (PPP $11900 bn)
Japan and 125 million &$4200 billion (PPP $5700 bn)
South Korea 51.6 million & $1700 billion (PPP $2600 bn)

Why should Australia be on a par with any of them?

BTW, how do you get that S. Korea has at least three times as many surface combatants? You must be counting the tiny (1200 ton full load) Pohang class. And for India, you're counting 1400 ton corvettes.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Australia: 26 million population & nominal GDP 2022 US$1700 billion (PPP $1600 bn)

India 1417 million & $3400 billion (PPP $11900 bn)
Japan and 125 million &$4200 billion (PPP $5700 bn)
South Korea 51.6 million & $1700 billion (PPP $2600 bn)

Why should Australia be on a par with any of them?

BTW, how do you get that S. Korea has at least three times as many surface combatants? You must be counting the tiny (1200 ton full load) Pohang class. And for India, you're counting 1400 ton corvettes.

I'm not saying we should be par with them; just saying it puts things in context. These are all countries too that we're aligned with against China. Sometimes the concern language makes it sound like it's us all alone.

And yeah counting all surface combatants. You can make more specific comparisons based on the types of ships, of course.

 

[John Fedup]

The key is how stable are alliances and are the naval capabilities of allies keeping pace with China. The former seems to be on track, the latter may need some extra effort, especially wrt missile inventories.

 

[Redlands18]

Australia: 26 million population & nominal GDP 2022 US$1700 billion (PPP $1600 bn)

India 1417 million & $3400 billion (PPP $11900 bn)
Japan and 125 million &$4200 billion (PPP $5700 bn)
South Korea 51.6 million & $1700 billion (PPP $2600 bn)

Why should Australia be on a par with any of them?

BTW, how do you get that S. Korea has at least three times as many surface combatants? You must be counting the tiny (1200 ton full load) Pohang class. And for India, you're counting 1400 ton corvettes.

Also totally different strategic circumstances, ROK is technically still at war with N Korea which has a huge fleet of very small Subs, so a large fleet of small ASW Corvettes makes a lot of sense, India is in a Cold War with Pakistan and shares a coastal border so again a fleet of Corvettes makes sense. When you start comparing Population and GDP, the JMSDF is actually smaller then the RAN on a per capita basis.

 

[Meriv90]

Sorry but of that short list 3 allies:
-Would you trust India leadership? To deliver an efficient answer to China? Not of the single soldier because we all known how good were Indian colonial troops to the point the UK still uses the Gurkhas.

-On South Korea, after having studied in Seoul I feel like their capital is in a geographic hostage situation, they could totally manage a conflict with their northern brothers but with China? Seoul is too big to get evacuated using the infrastructure they have(at least the one I saw during my roadtrips) considering the city is 25mln strong in inhabitants. Plus I didn't breath the same "martial feeling" of the possibility of a "city under siege" as when I used to work in Singapore (but it is mere perception and ten years have passed).

You can only rely on Japan and the US. The UK promised ships in the Pacific but I don't know if they have delivered and I doubt they will do

 

[StingrayOZ]

200 Tomahawk missiles. What are we putting them on? Hobarts? but they are coming out of the water for ~$5b upgrades.

We are not Japan. We are not even South Korea. But we aren't New Zealand either. 18 surface combatants is possible.

We are the major power in our region. If China comes to start pushing others around, the region will look to Australia. Singapore is too small, Malaysia is nearly a failed state, Indonesia is flat out trying to remain a single unified entity. They can support Australia with smaller ships, but any high end war fighting capability, the lead will need to be from Australia. I would add that neither Skorea nor Japan, Nor India has the moral or social support for far off deployments into far south east Asia/Indo/Pacific of their high end warfare capability.

No the expectation is Australia would deploy its capabilities, and that would be enough to get the Americans to commit to at least as strong as what we do. Everyone would fall in behind a AU-US lead coalition. No matter how chaotic the US gets, Australia could always get the Americans to match our commitment. If the Americans go, Skorea and Japan would feel morally obliged to send something as part of that.

We do not have to fight China by ourselves. That will never happen. But we need enough capability that the Americans will match. If we send in two destroyers, the US could be relied on to send at least two destroyers. If Australia has no destroyers, we have no leverage with the Americans, then we go to the bottom of the priority list.

The British have good intentions, but they are very far away, and have other issues and have limited size fleet. But they aren't powerful enough, reliable enough to build a coalition behind on their own. A Type 45 isn't enough to make China baulk, even if it got all the way out here.

We don't need megadeath star destroyer ships. That is the Americans and we will never ever compete with that. What Australia needs is ships that has fighting capability so we can lead, from the front. Australia is seen as an Ultra reliable ally. One that asks very little, and one that has tremendous influence with both the US and with China.

Hobarts have command and control capability. That is worth more than 64 extra VLS. Why? Because Command and Control means we can lead other allied ships. Ships with greater firepower. Two American destroyers and a Hobart gets enough fire power that China would need a decent chuck of its fleet to even match that. Throw in half a dozen other ships, one from each partner nation, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Uk etc and you have a task force. Firing on that would take serious commitment to global war.

Australia wild card, is balls deep commitment. If we deploy and say things, those things happen. Even if its against huge odds. Even if its facing annihilation, in the largest battles, Australia doesn't run and flee and can and does commit the bulk of its force showing maximum resolve. Australia has a tiny population and mini budget. But we are strong in mission clarity and strategy. The Americans worry about strategy and purpose a lot.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

200 Tomahawk missiles. What are we putting them on? Hobarts? but they are coming out of the water for ~$5b upgrades.

Good post. On this, it was strange that only the Hobarts were mentioned with respect to the Tomahawks. Even if you put 16 on each ship, a third of their respective VLS capacity (seems like a little much?), that's still only just a quarter. I would imagine the plan is for them to go on the Hunters too.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Good post. On this, it was strange that only the Hobarts were mentioned with respect to the Tomahawks. Even if you put 16 on each ship, a third of their respective VLS capacity (seems like a little much?), that's still only just a quarter. I would imagine the plan is for them to go on the Hunters too.

I love how now we can buy $1.7b in Tomahawks, but back in the early 2010's a billion for another Hobart was too much. 200 is a round number, but at a time where so many other projects have questions over funding, it makes me wonder.

Its a lot of reloads and the hunters won't be joining in numbers until these missiles are obsolete. It begs the question in light of the Naval DSR. This and the SME complaining about overseas builds seem to indicate the AusGov is really seriously looking at additional platforms perhaps from overseas. Flight II Hobarts, or maybe something more capable. Burkes? Is that even possible? Perhaps a joint Navantia/Civmec/Bath Iron works? 200 TLAM is a lot of paperweights.

Which is perhaps why even if it makes not strategic sense to the RAN, having C90's armed with ESSM gives proper "warship" experience to Civmec henderson.

But this and the recent clear fighting at the labor conference should give people an idea of how bad the strategic situation is, that the leader of the left faction of the labor party, and the leader of the right are prepared to yell at caucus that we need nuclear submarines.

Cats and dogs living together is a further sign of the apocalypse coming.

Pre-run did an excellent video on NATO defence spending and on how hard it is to suddenly spend more even if your next door neighbour is invaded. Ship building is some of the more complex and most time consuming military funding and development. The idea that we can spec, fund, tender, execute, build, and FOC new ship capability in < 7 years is a huge challenge. Even if PNG was invaded literally by a power that then directly threatened Australia. The recent trouble with Naval Group and Romania on ship building is a great example on how even under immense pressure its hard to get shit done.

 

[MickB]

Minor Warfare Vessels

Even look at very small auxillary helicopter and UAV carriers to work in this area along side the minor warfare vessels.

This is a variation on the tried and true practice used often in WW1 and WW2.
To get the best out of minor warfare vessels team several of them with a larger flotilla leader.
Be it a large Destroyer or a light Criuser apart from their superior armament these vessels brought better radar(in later years), communications, and space for dedicated command crews. All of which greatly increased the utility of the minor vessels.

In more recent RAN history there was the cold war teaming of HMAS Melbourne and several Destroyers into a dedicated ASW hunter/killer group.

The teaming of an small aux helo carrier with ASW frigates and maybe an AOR is a great way to control choke points or escort vital convoys.

 

[hauritz]

One thing I noticed when reading the DSR was the empasis that Australia will no longer have a balanced force. Rather we will be looking at a focused force capable of what it calls Impactful Projection. Also the emphasis is moving away from Army, Navy and Airforce operating as seperate entities but rather concentrating on an intergrated ADF all sharing the responsibility of operating in the five domains, those being maritime, land, air, space and cyber. It seems that the navy and airforce will be the primary focus for this new approach. The airforce is doing fine, but the navy to be honest looks like a mess.

The DSR does contain a checklist of what is expected from the maritime domain. We will have SSNs that have been tasked with denial, long range strike and ASW. There is also what they refer to as an enhanced lethality surface combatant fleet to complement the submarine fleet. This fleet will contain both tier one and two surface combatants appropriate to the levels of threat we now face. The aim is to boost the fleet size with a larger number of smaller vessels that will enhance the long range strike capability and air defence capabilities. The sort of Tier two ship they are talking of is clearly more capable than a tarted up OPV.

The DSR also fairly clearly outline the purpose of the Naval review. It is to analyse the the fleet's combat capabilities and make recommendations as to how the future surface fleet could complement the SSN fleet. The review will need to address the cost, schedule, risk and continuous ship building potential of each option. The SSNs will clearly be the centrepiece of the future navy.

Reading into this, perhaps more than I should, I am not seeing any recommendation for a corvette sized vessel either long term or short term. Realistically a small, short legged, lightly armed corvette couldn't be regarded as a lethal vessel capable of striking deep into hostile waters. I suspect that the review will make a recommendation that a new tier two warship be aquired but this will be a long term plan and will no doubt include a lengthy analysis of what sort of capabilities will be required before settling on a final design. I think that the construction of the Arafura class might simply continue as planned. A C90 version of the Arafura would really not meet any of requirements set out in the DSR. The Arafuras will likely serve their originally intended roles as constabulary vessels.

The Hunters will continue in production as usual but a threat of final numbers might actually be a good thing as it will keep BAE honest

 

[ADMk2]

There is a lengthy article in the Australian today that contains some significant details of what Greg Sheridan thinks might be recommended in the Defence Review and AUKUS.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/defence-review-australia-must-increase-military-power-and-fast/news-story/12286d1757ee4229616d12b3baee94be?amp

Key points are:
- RAN will get 3 more AWDs
– RAN will get 6 missile corvettes by switching OPV contract (Lurssen design?)
– RAN will get 6 not 9 Hunter frigates
– east coast SSNs will be based in Port Kembla
– Sheridan still argues for Virginia subs, admits we can’t crew them, then says we won’t start building to 2030 (I ignore this as a political defence of Dutton’s recent statement)
– tank purchase canned and Land 400 shrunk from 450 to 300 IFVs
– extra squadron of F35s

This is in addition to the previously announced emphasis on LR missiles, mines, drones and hardening northern bases.

This aged well didn’t It? A thought for the Greg Sheridan’s of the world…

- RAN will get 3 more AWDs - nope.
– RAN will get 6 missile corvettes by switching OPV contract (Lurssen design?) - nope.
– RAN will get 6 not 9 Hunter frigates - nope.
– east coast SSNs will be based in Port Kembla - nope.
– Sheridan still argues for Virginia subs, admits we can’t crew them, then says we won’t start building to 2030 (I ignore this as a political defence of Dutton’s recent statement) - nope.
– tank purchase canned and Land 400 shrunk from 450 to 300 IFVs - nope.
– extra squadron of F35s - nope.

 

[H_K]

Is the towed sonar upgrade for the Anzacs still in the cards? (Sea 1408 Phase whatever) I can’t find anything since the RFI notice 2 years ago…

… asking because the answer to this question might be relevant to the current discussion. I would think the case for a short-term Tier 2 option « better than an upgunned OPV » increases if there is going to be a 10-15 year ASW gap that isn’t going to by closed by Anzac upgrades (pending delivery of sufficient Hunters which won’t happen until sometime after 2035).

Though I realize the defence review didn’t seem to focus particularly on ASW or basic sea control escort missions, as it highlighted offensive lethality as the main justification for Tier 2 (which is mystifying in my opinion).

 

[Going Boeing]

I haven’t seen anything about the Anzac’s towed array but the Hobart AWD upgrade is progressing.

Navantia Australia secures DDG platform systems design contract

The costing for the recent missile purchases seems excessive and deserves scrutiny - Kym Bergman is questioning the HIMARS acquisition costs.

New HIMARS purchase numbers don’t add up - APDR

 

[old faithful]

Seems Mr Bergman has not done any research has he.
He quotes the number missiles bought at 190.
However, each pod has 6 missiles, some quick maths shows that the total number of missiles is closer to 800, or around 780.

GMLRS: Precision Rocket Artillery

Supporting ranges of 70 KM and beyond, GMLRS is the go-to guided missile for precision strikes and assured mission success.

www.lockheedmartin.com