Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[MickB]

Tier 2 is nothing but a meaningless, policy-driven word. It doesn't actually mean anything, which in turn means that anything can be Tier 2. No matter what, that guarantees success.

Take a possible Tier 2 definition from various points of view. A Tier 2 in terms of the:

1. RAN is a modernised ANZAC
2. Allies is a Hunter or Constellation
3. Regional is a Arafura
4. Threat is a Hunter

Now, if the DSR is meant to make a force designed to counter 'greatest strategic threat eva!" like it claims, then that sounds like more Hunter's sooner. After all, you build a force to address an identified threat - or you don't bother building at all.

For me, the greatest single problem faced by the RAN and national shipbuilding is a lack of long-term commitment to a single outcome. It delayed Perth-class replacement, it delayed Collins-class replacement, it delayed Anzac- and Adelaide-class replacements. If we just focused on delivering the plan instead of grasping for 'easy' or 'quick' solutions (of which there are none for a nation at peace) we probably would have 4 - 6 DDG and 2 - 4 modern FFG already.

I know how these documents are written and have helped draft similar ones in the past. I may (probably) would have been rolled, but 'Tier 2' has done nothing but sow discord and disruption. It has directly contributed to undermining such long-term commitment. It'll never be spoken of, but every single unsolicited proposal, every time someone writes to their MP, every time some 'great strategic thinker' writes to answer Tier 2 is time and effort taken from CN and his team trying to deliver real capability.

If there was actually a 'great strategic threat', I'd be getting an award from them if I caused as much disruption to the RAN as 'Tier 2' has.

While I admit the lack of definition of Tier 2 has caused much speculation and angst. The reality is a two tier navy is just maintaining the status quo.
I struggle to think of any blue water navy in history that did not not have at least two (or more) tiers.

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile in the real world not getting sucked into naval conference sales pitches, the fleet is getting shit done :
"HMAS Stalwart conducts a dual replenishment at sea as their ship’s embarked MH-60R helicopter ‘Boomerang’ conducts a Vertical Replenishment with HMA Ships Brisbane and Toowoomba during a transit as part of a regional presence deployment." Image Source : ADF Image Library

"HMAS Toowoomba conducts a vertical replenishment with HMAS Stalwart during a transit as part of a regional presence deployment." Image source : ADF Image Library

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Thanks Scott - the source of the Hunter cost increases is something that I have been struggling with quite a bit with. Do you have some insights as to what is causing the issues? Because the ANAO Report was extremely vague, with statements like:

13. Defence’s expenditure to date has not been effective in delivering on project milestones, and the cost of the head contract has increased. Lack of design maturity has resulted in an 18-month delay to the project and extension of the design and productionisation phase, at an additional cost to Defence of $422.8 million.7 At January 2023 the project was forecast to exceed the whole of project budget approved by government by a significant amount.

Ok cool I get that - but what’s driving the extra $10bn+ of costs? And is the nature of the costs fixed (ie upfront and/or sunk costs like design, infrastructure or workforce that we need to incur regardless of how many hulls we build) or variable in nature? Ie what economies of scale can we get by building more hulls of the same / similar type? My sense is that we will get the greatest capability for the lowest cost in time by building as many Hunter variant hulls as possible, but given the paucity of information on the reasons for the overruns it is hard to tell.

Is it clear BAE isn’t just taking the taxpayer for a ride?

Morgo
BAE have listed many (legitimate) reasons why Hunter costs have gone up. The Type 26 design was not final to start with, RAN modifications required were considerable, and they had the reported problem with stability with the heavy CEAFAR radar which required changes to the hull. Add to that delays from covid and much higher than forecast inflation in recent years following the Ukraine war, and any projecct cost would have incrased more than forecast. And it is behind schedule for similar reasons.

Beyond that I am only guessing. BAE have not declared a final cost forecast yet. There were pointed questions to the BAE CEO in the parliamentary sitting (you can watch it again on the APH website where recordings are kept) about whether RAN funds sent back to UK for Hunter design development were also used for the Type 26 project. The BAE CEO pointed out that many systems were common, but didn’t entirely give a clear answer to this one. Greens Senator Shoebridge (an ideological opponent of military spending generally) has called for an investigation into Hunter finances.

Nobody is suggesting any overspend by workers at ASC. It seems more than half the money so far has gone back to BAE UK, and questions are being asked about that. The Type 26 project in UK is itself late, over budget, subject to inquiries, and has already been cut back in numbers to six. The project PM has admitted difficulties in the new design were underestimated.

Royal Navy's Type 26s delayed by a year at an extra cost of £233m

Ben Wallace told MPs in a statement that Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the Type 26s will now be reached in October 2028.

www.forces.net

There may be perfectly reasonable explanations for all the problems, but I’m just saying that at a time of high debt and borrowing costs post covid, I think the odds of an over budget Hunter project being extended are low. That makes no judgement on the capability of Hunters. It is simply observing financial reality. In my own field (infrastructure) many projects are being cut right now.

 

[Going Boeing]

I agree with you Scott but a slight clarification, I understand that the CEAFAR radar system total weight is not heavier than similar radar options but the electronics is directly attached to the arrays which means that a higher percentage of the weight is in an elevated position, thus causing the stability issues.

The Type 26/Hunter drivetrain is reported to be significantly more expensive (due to noise suppression design features) than other power plants. This is why the RN decided to limit the Type 26 to 8 units with 5 cheaper Type 31’s to make up the required number of units. The Type 31’s will be noisier and thus less effective in the ASW role. The Hunter drive train costs were known so that doesn’t explain the blowout in project costs.

 

[Going Boeing]

It was reported yesterday that Marles & Malinaukas signed a land swap deal which means Federal ownership of the land proposed for the ASC North expansion for construction on the future AUKUS SSN’s. As I am briefly in Adelaide, I took the opportunity to drive out to the Osborne site and it’s a very large tract of land which gives adequate room to build a truly modern and capable submarine construction facility.

South Australia reaches land-swap deal with federal government

Whilst there, I was impressed with the sheer size of the assembly hall built for the Hunter class construction.

 

[Reptilia]

It was reported yesterday that Marles & Malinaukas signed a land swap deal which means Federal ownership of the land proposed for the ASC North expansion for construction on the future AUKUS SSN’s. As I am briefly in Adelaide, I took the opportunity to drive out to the Osborne site and it’s a very large tract of land which gives adequate room to construct a truly modern and capable submarine construction facility.

South Australia reaches land-swap deal with federal government

Whilst there, I was impressed with the sheer size of the assembly hall built for the Hunter class construction.

View attachment 50917
View attachment 50918

Almost 190m long x 90m wide x 50m high. Probably should have been a little bit longer for future proofing. Had the ground to go to atleast 200m. 180m cruisers probably won’t fit and they put the overpass directly behind the building where units enter.

 

[hauritz]

Morgo
BAE have listed many (legitimate) reasons why Hunter costs have gone up. The Type 26 design was not final to start with, RAN modifications required were considerable, and they had the reported problem with stability with the heavy CEAFAR radar which required changes to the hull. Add to that delays from covid and much higher than forecast inflation in recent years following the Ukraine war, and any projecct cost would have incrased more than forecast. And it is behind schedule for similar reasons.

Beyond that I am only guessing. BAE have not declared a final cost forecast yet. There were pointed questions to the BAE CEO in the parliamentary sitting (you can watch it again on the APH website where recordings are kept) about whether RAN funds sent back to UK for Hunter design development were also used for the Type 26 project. The BAE CEO pointed out that many systems were common, but didn’t entirely give a clear answer to this one. Greens Senator Shoebridge (an ideological opponent of military spending generally) has called for an investigation into Hunter finances.

Nobody is suggesting any overspend by workers at ASC. It seems more than half the money so far has gone back to BAE UK, and questions are being asked about that. The Type 26 project in UK is itself late, over budget, subject to inquiries, and has already been cut back in numbers to six. The project PM has admitted difficulties in the new design were underestimated.

Royal Navy's Type 26s delayed by a year at an extra cost of £233m

Ben Wallace told MPs in a statement that Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the Type 26s will now be reached in October 2028.

www.forces.net

There may be perfectly reasonable explanations for all the problems, but I’m just saying that at a time of high debt and borrowing costs post covid, I think the odds of an over budget Hunter project being extended are low. That makes no judgement on the capability of Hunters. It is simply observing financial reality. In my own field (infrastructure) many projects are being cut right now.

In my opinion this is yet another reason we should start designing our own warships. Not only would we be specifically designing ships that would more precisely match the requirements of our navy but there would also be greater transparency if you were directly dealing with local industry.

We already do this to some extent with smaller vessels. The Bay class was essentially the reference vessel for the Armidale and Cape classes and like them or loath them they do demonstrate that we can design and evolve our own naval vessels.

Many countries considerably smaller than Australia design their own warships. I have to wonder where we would be now had we persevered with the light destroyer program back in the 70s.

 

[Morgo]

Morgo
BAE have listed many (legitimate) reasons why Hunter costs have gone up. The Type 26 design was not final to start with, RAN modifications required were considerable, and they had the reported problem with stability with the heavy CEAFAR radar which required changes to the hull. Add to that delays from covid and much higher than forecast inflation in recent years following the Ukraine war, and any projecct cost would have incrased more than forecast. And it is behind schedule for similar reasons.

Beyond that I am only guessing. BAE have not declared a final cost forecast yet. There were pointed questions to the BAE CEO in the parliamentary sitting (you can watch it again on the APH website where recordings are kept) about whether RAN funds sent back to UK for Hunter design development were also used for the Type 26 project. The BAE CEO pointed out that many systems were common, but didn’t entirely give a clear answer to this one. Greens Senator Shoebridge (an ideological opponent of military spending generally) has called for an investigation into Hunter finances.

Nobody is suggesting any overspend by workers at ASC. It seems more than half the money so far has gone back to BAE UK, and questions are being asked about that. The Type 26 project in UK is itself late, over budget, subject to inquiries, and has already been cut back in numbers to six. The project PM has admitted difficulties in the new design were underestimated.

Royal Navy's Type 26s delayed by a year at an extra cost of £233m

Ben Wallace told MPs in a statement that Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the Type 26s will now be reached in October 2028.

www.forces.net

There may be perfectly reasonable explanations for all the problems, but I’m just saying that at a time of high debt and borrowing costs post covid, I think the odds of an over budget Hunter project being extended are low. That makes no judgement on the capability of Hunters. It is simply observing financial reality. In my own field (infrastructure) many projects are being cut right now.

Got it.

All of the above sound like they are mostly fixed costs, and some (like integrating CEAFAR and inflation) would’ve impacted pretty much any design we’d chosen.

Which to me means we should be looking at buying more Hunters / Hunter variants so we can reap the benefits of scale. Not less.

The real questions which I haven’t heard a good answer to are 1) what happens to the average unit cost of going from 9 Hunters to 6; and 2) what is the marginal cost of going from 9 to 10? I suspect that the answer to #1 is horrendous, and the answer to #2 would compare very favorably to the average cost of 6 “Tier 2” ships, and that the case (at least in up front cost terms) for Tier 2 ships is not as compelling as some might think.

Perhaps this maths will be neatly laid out in the public version of the Surface Review. But somehow I doubt it.

 

[SiVisPacemParaBellum]

I don't think that Hunters would be capable DDGs - pls don't forget that those Ships would enter Service in the 30s (as a DDG based on a 2010s ASW frigate).
That doesn't Sound good to me.
I'd cut the order back to six vessels.
All six should be delivered in the original ASW configuration.
I'd asses a DDG acquisition in the meantime.
Possible DDG Designs would be Navantia's Flight III Destroyer, DDG(X), Type-83 or sth Japanese/Korean.
You should then Start to build 3 of them to replace Hunter 7-9.
You should then procede to replace the 3 Hobarts with 3 additional DDGs.
This would get you 6 Tier 1 ASW Combatants (Hunter) and 6 Tier 1 AAW Combatants (DDG) by the 2050s.
This fleet would be supported by some Kind of Tier 2 Combatant which would enter Service in the 30s.
You should preferably order at least 6 Tier 2 Combatants - maybe even 9.
This could be supported (from a financial/manning point of view) by cutting Arafuras after the 6th hull.
What should a Tier 2 Combatant be:
I don't like the idea of Corvettes tbh - they don't make any sense in an australian Warfighting scenario.
You should go for a GP Frigate imho - I'd say that a downsized Constellation, AH120 or a MEKO-A210 is the best fit in this regard.

 

[Redlands18]

I don't think that Hunters would be capable DDGs - pls don't forget that those Ships would enter Service in the 30s (as a DDG based on a 2010s ASW frigate).
That doesn't Sound good to me.
I'd cut the order back to six vessels.
All six should be delivered in the original ASW configuration.
I'd asses a DDG acquisition in the meantime.
Possible DDG Designs would be Navantia's Flight III Destroyer, DDG(X), Type-83 or sth Japanese/Korean.
You should then Start to build 3 of them to replace Hunter 7-9.
You should then procede to replace the 3 Hobarts with 3 additional DDGs.
This would get you 6 Tier 1 ASW Combatants (Hunter) and 6 Tier 1 AAW Combatants (DDG) by the 2050s.
This fleet would be supported by some Kind of Tier 2 Combatant which would enter Service in the 30s.
You should preferably order at least 6 Tier 2 Combatants - maybe even 9.
This could be supported (from a financial/manning point of view) by cutting Arafuras after the 6th hull.
What should a Tier 2 Combatant be:
I don't like the idea of Corvettes tbh - they don't make any sense in an australian Warfighting scenario.
You should go for a GP Frigate imho - I'd say that a downsized Constellation, AH120 or a MEKO-A210 is the best fit in this regard.

Gibbs and Cox unveil Australian Light Frigate - Naval News
G&C have already offered Australia what is basically a downsized Constellation.

 

[Morgo]

I don't think that Hunters would be capable DDGs

Why not?

 

[Reptilia]

Destroyer/Cruiser options…

The DDGX(HII) post tier 2 gibbs & cox build - u.s alignment
The Type 83(BAE) post Tier 1 Hunter build - u.k alignment
The Flight III(Navantia post Tier 2 Tasman build - cheaper, likely less capable
Hanwha Ocean open up shop somewhere in Aus.

 

[Going Boeing]

I don't think that Hunters would be capable DDGs - pls don't forget that those Ships would enter Service in the 30s (as a DDG based on a 2010s ASW frigate).

It’s a bit of a stretch to call the Type 26/Hunter a 2010’s design when the first one has only recently entered the water and will be fitting out for a while yet. The propulsion system is state of the art with very low noise levels and a lot of the other features are still being designed as construction progesses.

I think that an AAW version based on this hull would be a true Tier 1 warship that would be difficult for foreign submarines to detect and target. The maintenance & logistics savings by having both AAW & ASW versions based on the same hull, power train, radar, combat system, etc would be very significant and definitely makes it a suitable option for the RAN.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't think that Hunters would be capable DDGs - pls don't forget that those Ships would enter Service in the 30s (as a DDG based on a 2010s ASW frigate).
That doesn't Sound good to me.
I'd cut the order back to six vessels.
All six should be delivered in the original ASW configuration.
I'd asses a DDG acquisition in the meantime.
Possible DDG Designs would be Navantia's Flight III Destroyer, DDG(X), Type-83 or sth Japanese/Korean.
You should then Start to build 3 of them to replace Hunter 7-9.
You should then procede to replace the 3 Hobarts with 3 additional DDGs.
This would get you 6 Tier 1 ASW Combatants (Hunter) and 6 Tier 1 AAW Combatants (DDG) by the 2050s.
This fleet would be supported by some Kind of Tier 2 Combatant which would enter Service in the 30s.
You should preferably order at least 6 Tier 2 Combatants - maybe even 9.
This could be supported (from a financial/manning point of view) by cutting Arafuras after the 6th hull.
What should a Tier 2 Combatant be:
I don't like the idea of Corvettes tbh - they don't make any sense in an australian Warfighting scenario.
You should go for a GP Frigate imho - I'd say that a downsized Constellation, AH120 or a MEKO-A210 is the best fit in this regard.

It appears that the suggested fleet would be getting up towards 18 MFU's between Tier 1 AAW & ASW vessels, plus the Tier 2, starting some time in the 2030's. Aside from questions about what the fitout would consist of, and if/when Australia could actually get Tier 2 vessels into service, where would the additional crew come from? A roughly 50% increase in the number of warships in the RAN is going to require more personnel and more specifically, more trained/experienced technical personnel to operate and maintain the systems in use.

Personally, I would like to see the size of the RAN grow, largely because I believe that Australia as been skating by for decades with too few warships in service. That can work out in peace time, but if (when) something major happens, it can be very hard for a nation to catch up. Given the complexity of modern warships, weapons and warfighting systems, I believe crash build programmes like were managed in WWII with Bathurst-class corvette/minesweepers in Australia, the Flower-class corvette in the UK & Canada, or in particular the US Liberty ships, albeit the last were cargo vessels, not warships.

However, I also recognize that there would need to be a strong commitment by Australia to actually fund the ADF and RAN specifically so that both the number of warships can be increased, but also everything else that would need to expand in order for a larger number of warships to actually be in service. This would require bi-partisan commitment which would need to survive for many years and likely across a number of changes in gov't.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Maybe we just turn cape class into battleships? image from Naval News. Indicating possibly excessive 3d printing of NSM box launchers is going on. ASPI must be excited, that the ship will set fire to its flag every launch. Look how neatly those box launchers don't obstruct any access at the rear of the ship.

The DDGX(HII) post tier 2 gibbs & cox build - u.s alignment
The Type 83(BAE) post Tier 1 Hunter build - u.k alignment
The Flight III(Navantia post Tier 2 Tasman build - cheaper, likely less capable
Hanwha Ocean open up shop somewhere in Aus.

I'm not sure aligning to non-existent ships is a robust idea.
Im not sure the pretty fictional Flight III is less capable than a fictional Type 83. 128 Vls, 2 x CIWS, directed energy weapons, etc. I mean its sub orbital, but unless the T83 is super orbital, I don't think it makes much difference.

I guess the issue is we have two ship yards now. It would make sense to make two different types of ships at both ship yards. Hunter is a pretty large ship. Something like a corvette/Frigate is a small ship. Crewing the both is the problem. Funding is the other problem. But funding is less of a problem than crewing.

We are going to have to spend a huge amount of money to life extend the very small Anzacs. I know people say small ships are a waste of money, but spending ~$4 billion to life extend ships for 5-10 years that are less capable than new build $4b with a ~20 year life and twice the fire power and less than half the crew may not be the waste of money people think it is.

Much like the F-111/F-35/superhornets, we need to cover a gap and the risk.

I am thinking we should build Jupiter class Battlestars, or a Space Yamoto or a Starship Enterprise. I would stay a star destroyer from the Empire in Starwars, but I feel that it is a bit legacy and underspec for the indo-pacific and crew intensive. A lot of the empires ships lack modern WHS and naval regulation compliance, lack of railings, fire exits, fire fighting etc. Also Kuat Drive yards also has very little footprint on earth, and in Australia generally.

 

[Todjaeger]

It’s a bit of a stretch to call the Type 26/Hunter a 2010’s design when the first one has only recently entered the water and will be fitting out for a while yet. The propulsion system is state of the art with very low noise levels and a lot of the other features are still being designed as construction progesses.

I think that an AAW version based on this hull would be a true Tier 1 warship that would be difficult for foreign submarines to detect and target. The maintenance & logistics savings by having both AAW & ASW versions based on the same hull, power train, radar, combat system, etc would be very significant and definitely makes it a suitable option for the RAN.

From what a friend of mine, and ex-USN Dolphin has said, submariners categorize everything in the water as either hostile subs or targets. The point of having a 'quiet' hull for an ASW vessel is to reduce the amount of noise radiating from the ASW vessel which can interfere with the vessel's efforts to listen for possible sub activities. A decent sub with a decent crew is going to be able to detect a surface vessel fairly easily.

 

[Todjaeger]

I am thinking we should build Jupiter class Battlestars, or a Space Yamoto or a Starship Enterprise. I would stay a star destroyer from the Empire in Starwars, but I feel that it is a bit legacy and underspec for the indo-pacific and crew intensive. A lot of the empires ships lack modern WHS and naval regulation compliance, lack of railings, fire exits, fire fighting etc. Also Kuat Drive yards also has very little footprint on earth, and in Australia generally.

Why go for KDY, I am sure that Alderaanian Royal Engineers would like a chance to setup a satellite facility, just in case.


Granted their War Frigate is not exactly what I would call a thing of beauty, in part due to its resemblance to a flying space brick, it is fast, can take a hit, and with proper automation can operate with a very small crew.

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic: The Royal Australian Navy...

 

[Going Boeing]

From what a friend of mine, and ex-USN Dolphin has said, submariners categorize everything in the water as either hostile subs or targets. The point of having a 'quiet' hull for an ASW vessel is to reduce the amount of noise radiating from the ASW vessel which can interfere with the vessel's efforts to listen for possible sub activities. A decent sub with a decent crew is going to be able to detect a surface vessel fairly easily.

You have a point but there have been a few instances of submarines surfacing in front of warships that they haven’t detected.

 

[SiVisPacemParaBellum]

Gibbs and Cox unveil Australian Light Frigate - Naval News
G&C have already offered Australia what is basically a downsized Constellation.

I was refering to this exact Design - but it still misses a name, doesn't it?

 

[Todjaeger]

I was refering to this exact Design - but it still misses a name, doesn't it?

Perhaps name it the Crux-class in reference to the Southern Cross constellation.