Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

Kevin deferred it arguably money was hollowed out, but it wasn't dead as an option. Naughty Kevin particularly as he is so pro deterrence, pro capability.

It was Julia Gillard and Stephen Smith that wilfully cancelled it. This was in line with the new white paper where they thought China = friend, and several military projects were canned. Nearly 3 years after canning Kevin. They really had no interest in it, they may have cancelled it even if Kevin had approved it and found money for it. Idologically they opposed it.

The also cancelled or delayed F-35, SPG, OCV, Triton. etc.

While all of those cancelled projects basically came back. The 4th AWD didn't because its not a MOTS acquisition, it was an essential part of Australia's workforce, sovereign capability. All hollowed out.

Now I just worry that we aren't seeing that kind of capability join the fleet for another 10 years. Because neither the Hunter nor Mogami, are true AWD, And they are certainly different in design from the Hobarts with minimal commonality and operations.

No, it was Rudd and Faulkner. The option for the fourth, without a renegotiation, expired in October 2008, on the 5th IIRC. I drafted one of the ministerials which tried to exercise it. A fourth could of course have been ordered later, probably up to about 2011 so as to preserve commonality and avoid major equipment unavailability, but we would have then needed to negotiate with Navantia for a licence and ASC/Raytheon for the build. However, after Oct 2008 it was very obvious that the GotD wasn’t interested.

 

[Sandson41]

HMAS Melbourne needs a ship
Hunter Class
Mogami Class

Something else

Cheers S

I'm personally convinced the next HMAS Melbourne will be one of the 'SSN-AUKUS' class, as we will take the American's lead on that tradition. That was settled in my mind as soon as HMAS 'Hunter' was announced.

We shall see...

As long as we're talking about things that annoy us - in no particular order:

• No Collins 7 & 8. Understandable, maybe, given the issues finding crews and possibly money, but regrettable. Beazley was right about them, if only because we'd now have more hulls to stretch out to 2045... Heck, we could have maybe finished number 8 just in time to start a Japanese submarine program from the same yard...

• No ANZACs 11 and 12. I know these were never planned, except for the potential NZ follow on order, but they should have been relatively cheap to add once that arrangement fell through. Another 2 ANZACs would be pretty useful about now. Also, why go to the expense of massive upgrades to our ANZAC 'patrol frigates' instead of a 2.0 batch with improvements from the start? I mean, Perth was completed only a relatively short time before the first radar upgrades, right? Couldn't we have gone for new built ships instead, and had a two-tier ANZAC fleet (GP Patrol and missile escort combatant)? I believe there may be a timing issue there, but maybe we could have kept all those workers in the shipbuilding industry...

• No OPV/OPCs after Malaysia pulled out. Why not? Did the need for a small, long range patrol combatant go away? After decades of trying to procure one? We were MORE worried about regional instability in the '90s.

• Also, why order the helicopters before the ships themselves? Do Seasprites take that long to refurbish? (turns out they do, lol)

• No 4th Hobart. Why go to the expense of setting up that operation for only 3 ships? Heck, why not just order them from Spain if there's only 3? We order other stuff from foreign yards - nothing to be embarrassed about. Heck, that's how we got the Perths! Anyway, what was the point? Are those AWD workers still in the shipbuilding industry?

• The entire Adelaide Class WIP thing was always weird to me. Why? To replace the Perths? How? And why so late? It should have been done in the nineties, if at all, surely? Why not order new hulls? The ANZAC program was over and AWD was still being planned, so there should have been capacity...

• Why not replace the Perths in the nineties, as they each hit 30? With more Adelaides, why not! Or an improved Adelaide, which is apparently what the Hobarts are... sort off... Come to think of it, why only build 2 Adelaides locally? That can't have been efficient.

• Why have a white paper in '08 or '09 calling for '8 large anti-submarine destroyers' and then do nothing about it for over a decade? And that's both parties in government, BTW. At the same time you have yards shutting down?

Oh, and while I'm at it - why upgrade the Darings but with no modern weapons? What was the point? The best radar-equipped pure gun-destroyer of the (missile age) '70s! To be fair, they looked fantastic...

 

[old faithful]

Something about politicians, they don't understand the "Rule Of Three"!

Rule of 3 is a total mystery for them.
Its abiut $ saving of course.
The same reason they didnt replace the T10R's (reserve parachute) pilot chute. It was just like a spring loaded umbrella, but reseve chutes never used any way, so we will not replace the pilot chute, and we will change the reserve drill....I kid you not, until someone died....then they had to buy pilot chutes again...Keating govt, where money was taken from the defence budget and syphoned to other areas......we wont have a war anyway, and ifvwe do, we will have 10 years warning....rigghhhhtttttt.

 

[Going Boeing]

After the 6 Hunters are built, the general thinking is that a class of AWD’s based on the Hunter hull will follow as Hobart replacements - I think that Melbourne would be a suitable name for the first of those.

Capital names for capital ships.

 

[OldTex]

Why not build 6 AAW versions of the Hunter class, suitably stretched and with additional VLS (it does not need the multiple mission bays as it is not a GP vessel). 3 to replace the AWDs at the end of their life and an additional 3 to expand the fleet. Simple.

 

[John Fedup]

Why not build 6 AAW versions of the Hunter class, suitably stretched and with additional VLS (it does not need the multiple mission bays as it is not a GP vessel). 3 to replace the AWDs at the end of their life and an additional 3 to expand the fleet. Simple.

A likely Type 83 concept that the RN should have pursued instead of the risky unmanned solution they are intent on.

 

[Takao]

HMAS Melbourne needs a ship
Hunter Class
Mogami Class

Something else

Cheers S

Yeah - as the lead ship of the SEA 5000 class of frigates. Followed by Darwin, Newcastle, then the Anzacs as they retire.

Then use V's, Q's, and N's for SEA 3000.

Screw off the stupid name Hunter and the other two. Remember, Tasman (by the standards of his day, as well as ours) is a horrific name for a Navy ship designed to inspire the crew.

 

[iambuzzard]

Why not build 6 AAW versions of the Hunter class, suitably stretched and with additional VLS (it does not need the multiple mission bays as it is not a GP vessel). 3 to replace the AWDs at the end of their life and an additional 3 to expand the fleet. Simple.

But Tex, that requires common sense, a quality lacking in Canberra at the moment. What you are suggesting is the best way to go. You have minimal changes to the quiet hull and a trained workforce on site. We just need someone in Canberra to think outside the box. Personally, I would like to see 1 or 2 extra ships based on the Hobart ordered direct from Navantia to fill the valley of death as the Anzacs retire. It will be a decade before Mogamis and Hunters start to plug that gap. We could be at war before then.

 

[Going Boeing]

Why not build 6 AAW versions of the Hunter class, suitably stretched and with additional VLS (it does not need the multiple mission bays as it is not a GP vessel). 3 to replace the AWDs at the end of their life and an additional 3 to expand the fleet. Simple.

Yes, 6 large AWD’s would provide balance to the fleet. The naming sequence could be, Melbourne, Perth, Darwin, Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney (assuming that the current AWD’s are retired to permit recycling of their names). The other two capital names, Adelaide & Canberra, are in use on the two LHD’s and I don’t know what the plans are for their service life.

 

[StevoJH]

Honestly it might not even need to be stretched depending on whether or not you need the mission bay.

Fit strike length VLS into the area where the mission bay is currently as long as there is enough height and weight margins in the design.

Depending on how CEAFAR compares to the most modern SPY radar in 10-15 years time it might not even need a different sensor fitout.

 

[iambuzzard]

Honestly it might not even need to be stretched depending on whether or not you need the mission bay.

Fit strike length VLS into the area where the mission bay is currently as long as there is enough height and weight margins in the design.

Depending on how CEAFAR compares to the most modern SPY radar in 10-15 years time it might not even need a different sensor fitout.

64 Strike length VLS cells amidships plus 16 NSM canisters above them would make it into a destroyer with that much firepower. Retain the 127mm gun up front. It will certainly stop the valley of death in construction. I won't be around to see it. I really think two or more of the F110 Flight II would certainly give us a quicker increase to our firepower in dangerous times.
I think 96 cells plus RAM, SeaRAM or Phalanx is more than enough. Add a couple of 30mm guns, Nulka, a high powered laser and torpedo decoys and we're loaded for bear as the Americans like to say. We don't need Trump Battleships.

 

[MickB]

In light of the transfer of retired Japanese DEs to the Phillapines could some of the currently retiring Asagin class DDs be transfered to the RAN as a stopgap that will help extend the life of the Anzacs.
Not the most modern of front line vessels but neither are the Anzacs.
If only 3 hulls were put service the current stock of spares no longer needed by the JMSDF and the stripping of the unused hulls should provide most of parts needed to keep them in service for a decade.
L know there is a translation and training problem, but any form of stopgap will come with some of these issues.
This would require an increase in crew numbers, but all 3 ships would not come on line instantly and the the need is there to increase crew numbers for the Hunters anyway.

 

[iambuzzard]

In light of the transfer of retired Japanese DEs to the Phillapines could some of the currently retiring Asagin class DDs be transfered to the RAN as a stopgap that will help extend the life of the Anzacs.
Not the most modern of front line vessels but neither are the Anzacs.
If only 3 hulls were put service the current stock of spares no longer needed by the JMSDF and the stripping of the unused hulls should provide most of parts needed to keep them in service for a decade.
L know there is a translation and training problem, but any form of stopgap will come with some of these issues.
This would require an increase in crew numbers, but all 3 ships would not come on line instantly and the the need is there to increase crew numbers for the Hunters anyway.

Interesting idea but what is the accommodation like on them? Japanese are generally shorter than us (no disrespect). What do the rest of the crew on here think? The AAM armament is somewhat dated.

 

[spoz]

It would take as long, or longer, to get an F110, than getting a couple of Mogamis.

The Asagiris are older than the Anzacs, have an entirely Japanese combat suite which is not the same as Mogami and about their only common weapon system is Phalanx. So, what would they offer us, apart from pain? The Mogamis are their replacements.

 

[StevoJH]

It would take as long, or longer, to get an F110, than getting a couple of Mogamis.

The Asagiris are older than the Anzacs, have an entirely Japanese combat suite and about their only common weapon system is Phalanx. So, what would they offer us, apart from pain? The Mogamis are their replacements.

They would be a nightmare to bring into service and probably wouldn't have much much life left.

I'd hate to think how long it would take the translate the combat system, they would need a whole new suite of weapons purchased, they run a licence build version of the RR-Spey.

If something was needed in a hurry you would almost be better to purchase an of the shelf offshore support vessel, bolt a 40mm up the front, attach Sea RAM, add a containerised CAPTAS off the back and call it a day.

It wouldn't be survivable if it took a hit, but could be converted to a LUSV at a future date and would be fine for patrol tasks.

 

[iambuzzard]

It would take as long, or longer, to get an F110, than getting a couple of Mogamis.

The Asagiris are older than the Anzacs, have an entirely Japanese combat suite which is not the same as Mogami and about their only common weapon system is Phalanx. So, what would they offer us, apart from pain? The Mogamis are their replacements.

That's why I asked your thoughts. At a pinch, Stevo's suggestion might work.

 

[Volkodav]

Blame Kevin Rudd. Both Navy and Defence wanted four, we had a costed option for a fourth (about 1.7 billion in then (2008) dollars IIRC) and even a provisional name (Melbourne) but it was allowed, by Treasury and the Government, to expire. Possibly because the initial source selection was done by the Howard Government. Am I still bitter? - you bet I am.

And, despite what people with agendas might have said over the past 20 or so years, of the about 13 shipbuilding programs I have had involvement with the AWD Alliance structure was by far the best contracting model. Under what was called a “best for project” model it allowed us to get on with business without interminable arguments of how every little problem would be solved and who would pay. Sure, there some arguments between the parties, but only if there was a major issue (and I only remember 2 significant ones). That is in stark contrast to previous situations (and at least one since) where every minor issue was fought over.

The thing that really annoys me is there were apparently discusions in the mid 90s about a direct, one for one replacement of the Perths, possibly the Kidds, possibly three US built Flight IIA Burkes. This was meant to be in addition to, either, a stretched batch 2 ANZAC to replace the first four FFGs, life extending the Australian built pair, or building OCVs/corvettes to replace the Fremantles, with new frigates to follow them.

Politicians of both major parties annoy me, most know, and care nothing about defence or industry except how it fits their personal biases.

 

[MickB]

They would be a nightmare to bring into service and probably wouldn't have much much life left.

I'd hate to think how long it would take the translate the combat system, they would need a whole new suite of weapons purchased, they run a licence build version of the RR-Spey.

If the Philippines can do this I see no reason the RAN can't, the question is would it be worth it.
Any additional weapons fit could be then transfered to later build Hunters, Mogamis or LUSVs.
The Spey parts and training could be supplied by Japan.

If something was needed in a hurry you would almost be better to purchase an of the shelf offshore support vessel, bolt a 40mm up the front, attach Sea RAM, add a containerised CAPTAS off the back and call it a day.

When doing this to the Arafura is suggested everyone dismisses it as it is not a true warship with limited damage control.
So I will take this as an exaggeration to prove a point not a real suggestion.

It wouldn't be survivable if it took a hit, but could be converted to a LUSV at a future date and would be fine for patrol tasks.

Why would it be any less survivable than an Anzac?
It is built to warship standards.


For most of its existance the various classes of warship in the RAN have had different radars, combat systems and engines while in service together.
It has been done before it can be done again, the question once again is would it be worth it?

 

[Volkodav]

I'm personally convinced the next HMAS Melbourne will be one of the 'SSN-AUKUS' class, as we will take the American's lead on that tradition. That was settled in my mind as soon as HMAS 'Hunter' was announced.

We shall see...

As long as we're talking about things that annoy us - in no particular order:

• No Collins 7 & 8. Understandable, maybe, given the issues finding crews and possibly money, but regrettable. Beazley was right about them, if only because we'd now have more hulls to stretch out to 2045... Heck, we could have maybe finished number 8 just in time to start a Japanese submarine program from the same yard...

• No ANZACs 11 and 12. I know these were never planned, except for the potential NZ follow on order, but they should have been relatively cheap to add once that arrangement fell through. Another 2 ANZACs would be pretty useful about now. Also, why go to the expense of massive upgrades to our ANZAC 'patrol frigates' instead of a 2.0 batch with improvements from the start? I mean, Perth was completed only a relatively short time before the first radar upgrades, right? Couldn't we have gone for new built ships instead, and had a two-tier ANZAC fleet (GP Patrol and missile escort combatant)? I believe there may be a timing issue there, but maybe we could have kept all those workers in the shipbuilding industry...

• No OPV/OPCs after Malaysia pulled out. Why not? Did the need for a small, long range patrol combatant go away? After decades of trying to procure one? We were MORE worried about regional instability in the '90s.

• Also, why order the helicopters before the ships themselves? Do Seasprites take that long to refurbish? (turns out they do, lol)

• No 4th Hobart. Why go to the expense of setting up that operation for only 3 ships? Heck, why not just order them from Spain if there's only 3? We order other stuff from foreign yards - nothing to be embarrassed about. Heck, that's how we got the Perths! Anyway, what was the point? Are those AWD workers still in the shipbuilding industry?

• The entire Adelaide Class WIP thing was always weird to me. Why? To replace the Perths? How? And why so late? It should have been done in the nineties, if at all, surely? Why not order new hulls? The ANZAC program was over and AWD was still being planned, so there should have been capacity...

• Why not replace the Perths in the nineties, as they each hit 30? With more Adelaides, why not! Or an improved Adelaide, which is apparently what the Hobarts are... sort off... Come to think of it, why only build 2 Adelaides locally? That can't have been efficient.

• Why have a white paper in '08 or '09 calling for '8 large anti-submarine destroyers' and then do nothing about it for over a decade? And that's both parties in government, BTW. At the same time you have yards shutting down?

Oh, and while I'm at it - why upgrade the Darings but with no modern weapons? What was the point? The best radar-equipped pure gun-destroyer of the (missile age) '70s! To be fair, they looked fantastic...

100%

The further you go back the more stupid decisions you encounter, but are remakably consistant in the particular type of short sighted stupidity,

What makes it worse is it doesn't take much digging to discover the advice successive governments chose to ignore.

Some interesting tid bits.

Hermes was offered to Australia as an interim until a new Invincible class could be built or for outright sale, including refit. The cost of the sale plus refit to India, was reportedly less than it cost to upgrade Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney to operate Seahawk. This alone would have allowed the FAA to continue using SeaKing in the ASW role which in turn would have seen Ikara remain viable.

The UK offered a barter deal for Australia to build two additional LSH (Tobruks) for the RN/RFA in exchange for the UK building a new Invincible for Australia.

A repeat Ocean or SanGiorgio likely would likely have been cheaper than the Bill and Ben fiasco. These ships would have been smaller and cheaper than the later LHD acquisition, perfectly good enough, potentially in service before Bill and Ben were upgraded, and been viable to build in Australia. A second could have been ordered to replace Tobruk and maybe a third for aviation training and HDAR. Whichever yard did this work could have built new AORs instead of the Westralia and Sirius purchases, then built a Success replacement.

It's ironic how many times a perfectly good enough option was rejected because of the fear it would result in a delay or downgrading of another project, only for the feared outcome to occur anyway, without the mitigation of the perfectly good enough solution. One of the reasons given for not buying the Kidds was to pay for it two of the FFGs would have dropped from FFGUP .

Another concern is acquiring the Kidds would allow a future government to dodge building a proper one for one, more capable replacement for the Perths znd reduce tier 1 hull numbers from nine.

 

[Morgo]

HMAS Melbourne needs a ship
Hunter Class
Mogami Class

Something else

Cheers S

Given the current state of Victoria maybe one of the bluebottles would be appropriate? Or a Cape class at best.

Or does albo have a dinghy he takes out on Lake Burley Griffin?

Edit: for clarity, absolutely no disrespect intended for the previous Melbourne’s and their crews.

All disrespect to my southern neighbours however