Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

Speculation about cuts to the Hunter program have been around for a while. Won’t free up any short term funding for tier two warships of course. Actually I could play the role of devil’s advocate and point out that so much has changed since these ships were ordered.

To start with the best ASW vessels in the fleet will probably be the new SSNs. We obviously still need ASW frigates but really we also need to get a better balance between ASW and AWD warships.

If we swap out three of the Hunters for extra AWDs that would probably be a good thing.

Of course this is me being optimistic.

We will know what the plan for the surface fleet in a few weeks and to be honest I am bracing myself for more bad news. When you think about it governments from both sides have made one bad decision after another in regards to the selection of combatants for the navy.

The ANZACs were too small, the regionally superior conventional submarine was cancelled with out a boat being delivered, they decided against building additional Hobarts, the Arafuras are simply the wrong ship and now the Hunter seems to have joined that list.

At this stage we have seen billions of dollars wasted and not a single vessel ordered by the Turnbull government back in 2016 is in service. In the meantime the size of the navy has dropped to just 34 commissioned vessels and most of those are on borrowed time.

The management of the navy over the last few decades has been nothing short of disastrous.

The current government claims to want to fix this but so far I am not hearing anything that fills me with any confidence. The narrative that what we really need are more smaller ships concerns me greatly.

I guess we will know more in the next few weeks.

Yes, lots of speculation.

I trust the outcome of the naval review is actually released later this month and not delayed.

Answers are needed ASAP.

I also hope it is not a wash with vague concepts, but actually states in some detail what we are to get.

Appreciate some secrecy re negotiating with clients for XY and Z, but still if choosing a class of vessel there is realistically not too many choices.

It needs clarity and commitment.

It's not just the tier two mystery.
A lot if floating things for both Army and Navy big and small that need clarity and prompt commitment.


Cheers S

 

[Arclighy]

Navy appears to be the proverbial dogs breakfast. Tier one, tier two? Has any of our esteemed defence correspondents actually ever asked the minister or anyone else connected with defence to clarify what they mean by Tier two? Have they asked about the notion that navies are moving to more smaller vessels as asserted in the DSR? Angus Houston believes tier two vessels are those like the Arafura class. He clearly says it in this interview on Youtube at about 34.40. Does that make the ANZAC class Tier one? Although I wouldn't have thought this to be the case before listening to this, it would seem that they are. Never mind, both our Tier one and Tier two ships aren't lethal enough anyway. I guess this is what happens when Government's of all persuasions make decisions that are politically expedient not what are needed and necessary.

 

[spoz]

Please do not quote Angus in a Navy context.

 

[Volkodav]

Please do not quote Angus in a Navy context.

Many forget Angus was one of the chiefs who decided on the F-100 instead of the G&C evolved design.

Choosing a warship design is in many ways more critical than any aircraft or vehicle decision, there are always FMS and other rapid acquisition possibilities if we screw it up, ships on the other hand, you are stuck with for decades and no quick options when reality intervenes.

 

[Brissy1982]

As I have indicated in previous posts, all I can hope is that former RADM Hilarides confirms in the surface fleet review that the RAN needs genuine Tier 1 surface combatants that can at least give the PLA-N pause for thought. In this regard, I am fully aware that there are submariners on this thread who think that there are two types of ships - submarines and targets (I talked to one such SM dude earlier this evening - was at ADFA with him - he's a total dickhead, except he's right). And of course he is right - a submarine is a terrible threat to a surface vessel. Hobarts and Hunters can't get that job done without MH-60R and SSN support - the surface ships, helos and SSNs will need to work together. I really hope what comes out of the review is that the RAN needs at least six (preferably 9-12) Hunters, plus at least 9-12 Tier 1 surface combatants with at least Flight IIA Burke VLS capacity (96 VLS minimum), not counting MR-60R helos, torpedo tubes and Phalanx CIWS and/or CIWS-RAM. Am I dreaming? I fear I am! Just bracing myself now for the ridicule that is to come ...

 

[Bob53]

My concern is we will have a truncated build on the Hunters because they are costing $45 billion and will end up with a lower number and it will still cost $45 billion.

I can’t help but think the people that review the numbers and then exclaim blow out must have enjoyed worked from home the last 4 years and not gone outside at all. can they see what’s going on globally at all?

If to believed the head of BAE said since COVID and when to contract was announced, Global quality steel price is up 70%, demand for chips and other high tech items is still running 24-36 months behinds , demand for skilled workers has rocketed while at the same time the 55+ age group (most experienced workers and high level management demographic) are leaving the workforce in record numbers. We have premier twits at the same time trying to build multiple tunnels, freeways and other infrastructure projects ..eg Victoria 3 tunnel, multiple freeways and rail projects just soaking up trades capacity and putting state debt at $266 billion….

The finger pointing has started and pretty Sure this is going to be labelled as LNP mismanagement.

from where I am standing this is looking like a massive supply and demand issue more than anything else but is being politicised.

 

[Volkodav]

This is pure speculation with a tinge of fantasy fleet, but is based on fact, and potential optimisation of existing systems and capabilities.

The Zumwalt class destroyer is significantly larger than a Burke or Ticonderoga, let alone a Hobart or Hunter, but has a smaller crew and higher performance. This demonstrates that existing technology can deliver a platform design that offers vastly improved performance, than anything in our current fleet, while still having a smaller crew than an ANZAC.

I am not saying we should base a design on the Zumwalt, but rather, we should develop a new, large, highly automated platform to follow the Hunters.

It should have an integrated electric propulsion system, larger VLS or payload modules for hypersonic missiles and tomahawks. A large number of VLS for other missile types, a high end air defence system and ASW capability.

Basically instead of going too small then trying to cram capability in, at great expense and poor value for money, we should go large and ensure everything we need fits and therefore achieve value for money.

 

[John Fedup]

This is pure speculation with a tinge of fantasy fleet, but is based on fact, and potential optimisation of existing systems and capabilities.

The Zumwalt class destroyer is significantly larger than a Burke or Ticonderoga, let alone a Hobart or Hunter, but has a smaller crew and higher performance. This demonstrates that existing technology can deliver a platform design that offers vastly improved performance, than anything in our current fleet, while still having a smaller crew than an ANZAC.

I am not saying we should base a design on the Zumwalt, but rather, we should develop a new, large, highly automated platform to follow the Hunters.

It should have an integrated electric propulsion system, larger VLS or payload modules for hypersonic missiles and tomahawks. A large number of VLS for other missile types, a high end air defence system and ASW capability.

Basically instead of going too small then trying to cram capability in, at great expense and poor value for money, we should go large and ensure everything we need fits and therefore achieve value for money.

A good idea that would be useful for the RAN, RN, and RCN if they could all be more or less on the same page wrt the design.

 

[hauritz]

This is pure speculation with a tinge of fantasy fleet, but is based on fact, and potential optimisation of existing systems and capabilities.

The Zumwalt class destroyer is significantly larger than a Burke or Ticonderoga, let alone a Hobart or Hunter, but has a smaller crew and higher performance. This demonstrates that existing technology can deliver a platform design that offers vastly improved performance, than anything in our current fleet, while still having a smaller crew than an ANZAC.

I am not saying we should base a design on the Zumwalt, but rather, we should develop a new, large, highly automated platform to follow the Hunters.

It should have an integrated electric propulsion system, larger VLS or payload modules for hypersonic missiles and tomahawks. A large number of VLS for other missile types, a high end air defence system and ASW capability.

Basically instead of going too small then trying to cram capability in, at great expense and poor value for money, we should go large and ensure everything we need fits and therefore achieve value for money.

Actually I wonder if the Americans could be persuaded to part with the Zumwalts. They don't really seem to know exactly what to do with them. The guns are useless and they are basically orphans. Who knows, they might be glad to be rid of them.

 

[John Fedup]

Actually I wonder if the Americans could be persuaded to part with the Zumwalts. They don't really seem to know exactly what to do with them. The guns are useless and they are basically orphans. Who knows, they might be glad to be rid of them.

No way that will happen (maybe if you bought the 30+ useless LCSs as well). The Zumwalt is undergoing modifications to remove the AGS which will be replaced with a hypersonic VLM package. This should make for a useful strike tool for the USN.

 

[Redlands18]

No way that will happen (maybe if you bought the 30+ useless LCSs as well). The Zumwalt is undergoing modifications to remove the AGS which will be replaced with a hypersonic VLM package. This should make for a useful strike tool for the USN.

Navy Unveils Next-Generation DDG(X) Warship Concept with Hypersonic Missiles, Lasers - USNI News
The forthcoming DDG(X) will have a fair bit commonality with the Zumwalt's including the Propulsion system, new VLS, some similarity's in the superstructure. I could see the US using the Zumwalt's as test platforms for future systems to be fitted to the DDG(X).

 

[John Fedup]

Navy Unveils Next-Generation DDG(X) Warship Concept with Hypersonic Missiles, Lasers - USNI News
The forthcoming DDG(X) will have a fair bit commonality with the Zumwalt's including the Propulsion system, new VLS, some similarity's in the superstructure. I could see the US using the Zumwalt's as test platforms for future systems to be fitted to the DDG(X).

Agree, there will be significant Zumwalt DNA in the DDG(X). The IEP seems to be working well and with 78 MW it will be good for laser weapons. Hopefully something really useful results from using the Zumwalts for development of the DDG(X)s. Having 3-4 LCS for development of the concept prior to building 30 plus of them would (I would like to think so) prevented the LCS debacle.

 

[hauritz]

No way that will happen (maybe if you bought the 30+ useless LCSs as well). The Zumwalt is undergoing modifications to remove the AGS which will be replaced with a hypersonic VLM package. This should make for a useful strike tool for the USN.

Don't even joke about the LCSs. I wouldn't be surprised if Austal was already in the defence minister's ear about those things.

 

[John Fedup]

Don't even joke about the LCSs. I wouldn't be surprised if Austal was already in the defence minister's ear about those things.

Maybe it will be a deal for aluminium scrap for new beer cans.

 

[Stampede]

Navy appears to be the proverbial dogs breakfast. Tier one, tier two? Has any of our esteemed defence correspondents actually ever asked the minister or anyone else connected with defence to clarify what they mean by Tier two? Have they asked about the notion that navies are moving to more smaller vessels as asserted in the DSR? Angus Houston believes tier two vessels are those like the Arafura class. He clearly says it in this interview on Youtube at about 34.40. Does that make the ANZAC class Tier one? Although I wouldn't have thought this to be the case before listening to this, it would seem that they are. Never mind, both our Tier one and Tier two ships aren't lethal enough anyway. I guess this is what happens when Government's of all persuasions make decisions that are politically expedient not what are needed and necessary.

Interesting Youtube clip.

Thanks for the post

The language from Houston certainly suggests doing more with the existing OPV's.
What that looks like time will tell.
It did seem to suggest in the context to what he was talking about that this is our tier two option!

Interesting later in the clip re funding for the DSR.

Dollars needed to match the rhetoric, re level or threat.

Still don't understand if there is money in the bank going forward for defence capital acquisition or not.

A lot or mystery.

Cheers S

 

[DDG38]

Big and small. HMAS Warramunga outboard of HMAS Brisbane at FBE. Photo by me.

 

[ngatimozart]

I am fully aware that there are submariners on this thread who think that there are two types of ships - submarines and targets (I talked to one such SM dude earlier this evening - was at ADFA with him - he's a total dickhead, except he's right). And of course he is right - a submarine is a terrible threat to a surface vessel.

Please do not insult submariners like that. They are like fighter pilots; very fragile egos.

 

[hauritz]

Interesting Youtube clip.

Thanks for the post

The language from Houston certainly suggests doing more with the existing OPV's.
What that looks like time will tell.
It did seem to suggest in the context to what he was talking about that this is our tier two option!

Interesting later in the clip re funding for the DSR.

Dollars needed to match the rhetoric, re level or threat.

Still don't understand if there is money in the bank going forward for defence capital acquisition or not.

A lot or mystery.

Cheers S

It surprised me that they didn’t include a navy guy as part of the DSR team. They made some pretty big calls on the navy. I think we might get a slightly different interpretation of a tier two ship from a former USN admiral when the surface fleet review is released.

To some extent Houston is right however in that there aren’t a lot of options for increasing the navy’s capabilities before 2030. The only ship we have in production is the Arafura.

Unless there is some radical plan afoot for rushing some other ship into service before the end of the decade then that is the only short term option we have.

My own guess is that an upgunned version of the Arafura (C90?) will just be an intermediate solution until we get something better in the 2030s.

@hauritz You have earned yourself a one week reply ban to the RAN thread because you have posted about upgunning of the Arafura class. You full well know that the Moderators have banned such discussion. Ban takes effect 14/9/23.

Ngatimozart

 

[76mmGuns]

A good idea that would be useful for the RAN, RN, and RCN if they could all be more or less on the same page wrt the design.

Would be, though difficult to imagine how this would happen given each country wants to promote their own industries, and works in different locations, let alone different budgets

 

[Todjaeger]

It surprised me that they didn’t include a navy guy as part of the DSR team. They made some pretty big calls on the navy. I think we might get a slightly different interpretation of a tier two ship from a former USN admiral when the surface fleet review is released.

To some extent Houston is right however in that there aren’t a lot of options for increasing the navy’s capabilities before 2030. The only ship we have in production is the Arafura.

Unless there is some radical plan afoot for rushing some other ship into service before the end of the decade then that is the only short term option we have.

My own guess is that an upgunned version of the Arafura (C90?) will just be an intermediate solution until we get something better in the 2030s.

One problem (only one I am mentioning, there are others problems) with trying to 'up-gun' the OPV, or some similar type vessel from the designer albeit slightly larger, is that it could easily be 2030 or later before one of these "improved" Arafura-class vessels might enter service. Further, the greater or more comprehensive the improvement, the later the date for first delivery or acceptance into service.

IMO it is unreasonable to believe that a new, yet to be initiated design & build programme for an improved version of a vessel could deliver a new, GP design able to operate in potentially threatened areas independently, and have deliveries start before 2030.