John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, we just don’t know….yet. The troubling reality is China is likely going to have a $hitload of missiles for swarm attacks. Perhaps this is necessary because of marginal performance, a risky assumption IMHO.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
There's an expression that says "quantity has a quality all it's own". From what I have read Houthi's have been able to fire approximately ~20 missiles (combination of ballistic and cruise) & drones within a several hour window at targets with enough accuracy to force nearby warships to intercept each one. The performance of the missiles / drones themselves isn't the significant aspect of this IMO; it's how they are being used - even if it's only reasonable effectiveness. Even a year ago most defense experts would have doubted a group like the Houthis would have been able to pull something like this off.
So I think part of what John is getting at is: If this is what Houthi fighters can pull off then what about other more advanced potential adversaries?
Hezbollah: They already caught Israeli warships by surprise once several years ago. No doubt their capabilities have increased significantly since. If I had to guess they could probably launch close to a 100 or more drones / missiles in a coordinated attack?
Iran: Several hundred per wave?
China: Mix of high end threats (with little publicly available info on as you indicate) but also has vast stockpiles of lesser quality ASCM with many different launch platforms. I have read open source estimates from defense experts who claimed they would be able to launch salvos of 500 or more missiles per wave. This is already a few years old and I'm sure they are also learning lessons in naval warfare from the Red Sea and Ukraine war.
Modern navies will need to rapidly adjust to a new era where the high proliferation of "reasonably effective" missiles (ballistic and cruise) and drones will be present in nearly all naval theatres. So I hope for RAN's sake the speculation of the up-armed Hunter's is true.
Last edited:
If there is to be a reduction in Hunter class fleet numbers, in my opinion it has less to do with missile load out and more to do with how expensive AUKUS will be for Australia. It's going to tough for Australia to budget for and manage that program so cuts will have to come from elsewhere.
I don’t wholly disagree with you but any budget problems we have are of our own making. The Stage 3 tax cuts will cost $20bn+ p.a. We could afford AUKUS and a couple of carrier strike groups thrown in for that.
We don't have to do this - if I were king for a day I’d be forcefully making the case that it’s irresponsible both from a macroeconomic and strategic perspective - but it’s what the electorate wants.
I clearly stated right off the bat that nothing is yet confirmed, although compared to the vagueness of most articles, it does seem oddly specific in the numbers of vessels from each batch to be procured and references the date scheduled for the official announcement (February 19th). Guess we'll find out in 10 days.
Just tying together two things being discussed in the thread. The quality of a naval missile (and the number of cells on the ship) is immaterial if the launching ship never deploys due to the threat of enemy submarines. AUKUS (and early acquisition of Virginias) in my view makes Hunter (and the rest of the ADF) much more viable in a major conflict. As you say, it is harder to afford the other things if you are buying and crewing SSNs but if your side has capable SSNs then you are more likely to be able to use those other assets effectively.
Something to consider re a larger RAN is balance.
When the Tier one / Two numbers are getting on to 15 plus you will need additional supply vessels , supporting in all probability additional amphibious/aviation support assets.
The later may be the new medium and heavy landing craft.
Or maybe something else?
As to at sea supply.
A dedicated vessel or two, or a hybrid of supply and amphibious capability?
Important questions to be answered with planning needed sooner rather than later.
HMAS Choules will retire in the 2030's and the new Supply class will have significant refits also in the 30s.
Numbers mater !
So a bigger RAN, or a modern version of the same size going forward?
I trust the review brings clarity not just to the destroyer force , but also the broad range of capabilities big and small entrusted to the RAN.
Cheers S
When the Tier one / Two numbers are getting on to 15 plus you will need additional supply vessels , supporting in all probability additional amphibious/aviation support assets.
The later may be the new medium and heavy landing craft.
Or maybe something else?
As to at sea supply.
A dedicated vessel or two, or a hybrid of supply and amphibious capability?
Important questions to be answered with planning needed sooner rather than later.
HMAS Choules will retire in the 2030's and the new Supply class will have significant refits also in the 30s.
Numbers mater !
So a bigger RAN, or a modern version of the same size going forward?
I trust the review brings clarity not just to the destroyer force , but also the broad range of capabilities big and small entrusted to the RAN.
Cheers S
So depending on whether you read The Age or Defence Connect we could be getting between 3 to 16 Hunters. Actually I think it is more likely that we will see the Hunter production line continue rather than having to start over again with a new design. A total of 16 Hunters may seem ambitious but the plan was always to build a new class of AWD destroyer after the Hunter production run. The suggestion would really seem to be that the Hunter Hull will be the reference design for any future class of AWD and that we might even see production of the ASW version curtailed. Around 16 ships delivered over 30 years would seem to be in line with current production plans.
It is the sort of announcement that governments love to make. They seem to be announcing plans for additional ships but really they are just confirming plans that were already in place. Whether we actually see all these ships in service at the same time is a future governments problem.
Not seen any rumours in regards to the Arafura class but it wouldn't surprise me if they just continued building them. Maybe slightly upgun them and start referring to them as corvettes.
It is the sort of announcement that governments love to make. They seem to be announcing plans for additional ships but really they are just confirming plans that were already in place. Whether we actually see all these ships in service at the same time is a future governments problem.
Not seen any rumours in regards to the Arafura class but it wouldn't surprise me if they just continued building them. Maybe slightly upgun them and start referring to them as corvettes.
Last edited:
Sea2200 is waiting for Henderson, WA to complete construction of a dedicated dry dock for 2 Joint Supply Ship. This has gone quiet since Indo Pacific 2022, where Navantia, Damen and BMT were submitting offers. Fleet review will hopefully update this progress also.
New Details Emerge on Australia's Future Joint Support Ship - Naval News
I find archive.is useful for retrieving older articles and articles that are blocked by paywalls.
knightrider4
Active Member
Mmmmm where is the money coming from for all this I wonder? Certainly cannot afford 16 hunters and SSN's with the current GDP on defence. Something has to give but its already running on fumes. You all may have to temper your expectations rather dramatically.
Last edited:
Over what period of time? Also sustainment costs are a very big part of it, and often though initial procurement costs may be higher, if the capability is more reliable, and part of a major spiral development program, a larger, more capable platform may not be as expensive to sustain.
Over life of type, a fleet of hunters and hunter derivatives may be more economical and better value for money that a mixed fleet.
Arleigh Burke DDG-51, has been in service for thirty years and they have just started commissioning Flight 3 evolutions of the design. It is conceivable we could still be building Hunters at the rate of one every two years in 2050.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
HMAS Voyager survivors commemorate maritime disaster's 60th anniversary off Jervis Bay (msn.com)
Today 10 Feb is the 60th anniversary of the Voyager disaster that cost the lives of 82 RAN personnel and 1 civilian contractor, when she collided with the Carrier HMAS Melbourne east of Sydney.
RIP
Today 10 Feb is the 60th anniversary of the Voyager disaster that cost the lives of 82 RAN personnel and 1 civilian contractor, when she collided with the Carrier HMAS Melbourne east of Sydney.
RIP
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I do like that you mentioned the very poster child of high sustainment costs in your posts.
While the DDG-51 derivatives are very capable over a multiple domain. I can just imagine the wince of pain from accountants and HR people at the thought of sustaining and crewing one.
It just seems crazy that the USN are building ships with the crewing requirements of the Burke on one hand, and (for example) the LCS on the other, complete opposite ends of the spectrum. But, the RAN, RN, MN etc can learn from the US's investment and find that safe middle ground.
The hunter, even in its FFG variant, is the middle ground.
Back when we had the Perth Class DDGs we likely could have stretched to three or four Burke's, so long as economies were found elsewhere.
Post the "efficiency drives of the late 90s and the hits from the mining construction boom, such large crews likes were unsustainable.
The potential to consolidate all MFU platforms around the Hunter hull makes sound logistical sense. A single base design means consolidated spare parts, common training and the like, and importantly better flexibility with crews. Its a great long term plan that reduces long term operational costs through simplification.
If more Hunters are made to the same cadence however, it does nothing for the short term, just extends the build program. This would have no impact until the late 40s, early 50s. For today's government, such a statement on its own would be little more than a sound bite, with no funding required for decades and no capability change for the foreseeable future.
So I would hope there is something for the short term, perhaps an increased build tempo or second production line of Hunters. I doubt both of these. As such I'm thinking there might still be a place for a rapid overseas order such as for some extra Hobarts.
There is interestingly no leaks on the future of the Arafuras or WA shipbuilding, except a line from Marle's recent interview stating a commitment to both Osborne (SA) and Henderson (WA) sustainable shipbuilding. So it appears WA will get some long term build of something, which indicates something more than just the Arafuras.
I hope the announcement includes the plan for WA and the type of ship to be built here, plus more certainty on infrastructure like the proposed large drydock.
If more Hunters are made to the same cadence however, it does nothing for the short term, just extends the build program. This would have no impact until the late 40s, early 50s. For today's government, such a statement on its own would be little more than a sound bite, with no funding required for decades and no capability change for the foreseeable future.
So I would hope there is something for the short term, perhaps an increased build tempo or second production line of Hunters. I doubt both of these. As such I'm thinking there might still be a place for a rapid overseas order such as for some extra Hobarts.
There is interestingly no leaks on the future of the Arafuras or WA shipbuilding, except a line from Marle's recent interview stating a commitment to both Osborne (SA) and Henderson (WA) sustainable shipbuilding. So it appears WA will get some long term build of something, which indicates something more than just the Arafuras.
I hope the announcement includes the plan for WA and the type of ship to be built here, plus more certainty on infrastructure like the proposed large drydock.
Last edited:
If Anzacs are being laid up for lack of critical crew members, what is the point of an accelerated acquisition of ships that will inferior to the Hunters and, potentially, no better than the ANZACs?
If the constraint of suitably qualified and experienced personnel, any solution needs to include a pathway to build that side as well.
I would view Hobarts as a better platform than ANZACs, but agree not as good as Hunters. Perhaps there is an option to retire some of the first batch of ANZACs, cancelling their life extension, for some quickly made Hobarts built in Spain.
I would suggest the ANZACs have been laid up for a combination of staff shortages and bad condition, not just staff shortages.
I agree the recruitment side must be resolved and done so in the near term. I don't have any solutions here. I'm looking forward to what the announcement says about this.
I would suggest the ANZACs have been laid up for a combination of staff shortages and bad condition, not just staff shortages.
I agree the recruitment side must be resolved and done so in the near term. I don't have any solutions here. I'm looking forward to what the announcement says about this.
Is it not possible to see Arrowheads enter service by 2029 if they cut steel next year? Less crew, more capable…
Type 31 cut steel 23rd September 2021 for entry into service 2025. 1 year drumbeat after FOC.
@Reptilia
We have had this discussion before and this is bordering on fantasy fleet as it does not realistically represent reality. Look at the period between contract and commencement of build and factor in where such a vessel would be built. Add to this is the fact that the capabitiy is not currently in budget .... so that is another issue.
Being hopeful is not a substitute for what reality will dictate.
Alexsa
Last edited by a moderator:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH from my POV the personnel issue/shortage is of greater concern than the need for an expanded Defence budget, if some of the proposed increases in warship builds were to actually happen. As significant and expensive as it might be to increase the budget by a few (or even several) tenths of a percentage of GDP, that can likely be done much faster and easier than increasing the number of needed specialists qualified to serve in key posts aboard a deployed warship
It would likely be faster to accelerate the build of the Hunter-class frigates and have the first vessels brought into service earlier to replace ANZAC-class frigates than to have a yard start building "Hobart"-like vessels. It is no longer possible to have new/more Hobart-class destroyers built as the three already in RAN service were. Systems and kit fitted aboard the current RAN destroyers are in some instances out of production. It might be possible to have new units built in a configuration similar to what the RAN destroyers will be like, post upgrade, but that will still take a number of years. In fact, even if a contract were signed for this tomorrow, it would likely be a year or IMO more likely two before the detailed design work would be finished so that first steel could be cut. There is also the issue of how long any new build would need in order to be fitted with Aegis, and/or SPY arrays. I have previously discussed some of the timelines involved and do not wish to re-hash all of that in this post, but we are talking about years needed to get the first vessel built and into service. IIRC first steel of the lead Hunter-class frigate was cut last year, and construction is expected to be finished by 2029 followed by ~two years of testing and workups prior to commissioning in ~2031. First steel for prototype blocks was cut back in 2021 to test and validate construction methods. Also the first three frigates were ordered back in ~2018, which gave time for long lead items time to be ordered so that they can be fitted aboard the vessels whilst under construction.
If Australia were to make a request to purchase Aegis systems and SPY radar arrays from the US, it could easily be a year before the approval were to be granted which would then be followed by contracts getting signed before the systems could start getting constructed. I have mentioned this before, but it could easily be five or more years between decision to acquire a vessel using Aegis and the delivery of the Aegis components so that they could be fitted to a vessel under construction. I am aware of Spain having previously claimed to be able to deliver vessels to Australia by certain times, but I consider such times claimed to be dubious at best. IMO it is more likely that the times claimed would only be valid for minimally fitted out vessels, not some vessels which would be useful to the RAN.
IMO unlikely, as I understand it the in service date for RN Type 31 frigates is now more like 2027 or 2028. One is looking at an in-service date some eight or nine years after they were ordered (15 Nov 2019) which had also been undergoing design work for a couple of years prior to the design getting selected and units ordered. If the RAN were to order some vessels to the Arrowhead 140 base design, there would still need to be some detailed design work done to fit the base design with systems the RAN wants or needs. If the RAN were to decide to pursue some development from the Arrowhead 140, then Australia would be starting a new design programme which would likely still need at least a year of work before things would be settled enough for contracts to get signed and orders placed, or if making a more direction comparison to the RN's Type 31 programme, Australia would likely be in a position similar to what the UK was in when the competitive design phase was launched back in 2018, ahead of the design getting selected, contracts signed and orders placed in 2019.
Again, as much as people might want or think that this can be rushed, certain things just take time to do.