Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Musashi_kenshin]

The contracted cost for the first 3 Hunters is $27B, so $9B each is the cost of the three we are currently building.

That's largely because of the cost of a domestic build. If Australia wants locally-built ships it's going to have to pay a premium for them. Growing the Australian naval industry means it can support ships itself, rather than send them halfway around the world for refit. EDIT: They do not cost 9 billion AUZ each. You're either confusing life-time costs with build costs or using false data.

MEKO A200 is in service with the Egyptian and Algerian Navy's. Are you thinking of MEKO A210? If you are I agree this is only a paper design but bottom line is its not proposed here by TKMS for SEA3000.

Supposedly the A210 was what was offered to Australia by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. If in reality TKMS is offering the A200, that's a god-awful design which was only suitable for second-rate navies in low-intensity conflicts. Not what Australia needs. The "second tier" title is a bit of a deception game trying to make the Australian public think they're affordable. In reality they'd be suitable for general warfare, just supporting bigger ships. The A200 would struggle with that role.

Key for the proposal is that it leads to more ships delivered sooner for lower cost.

Which is why Australia should buy the New-FFM. Japan is building them now, and I have no doubt that Australia could negotiate to slip into the production schedule. TKMS doesn't even have the long-lead items ordered, let alone ships under construction that can be sold to Australia.

I agree I am skipping over changes to Hunter to transform it from ASW to AWD and this could indeed be problematic.

"Problematic" is an understatement. It's much too late to change the Hunter-class if Australia wants new ships within the next decade.

Upgraded Mogami may not be as good as Hunter (do we really even know that?), but it has many advantages nonetheless such as in crew size, overall cost and delivery schedule. The Japanese seem to think it is adequate for the ASW role.

Australia has signed contracts with BAE that will be watertight - see the penalty clauses for the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, which were so severe David Cameron couldn't cancel them because the savings would have been negligible. Trying to wriggle out of the frigate contract would mean paying BAE what it will get for delivering new ships. If Australia wants to pay BAE tens of billions for nothing, it could do so. But it would be the worse defence scandal to hit the country in modern times.

Although Upgraded Mogami has many good points as as ASW platform, I think MEKO A200 is the better tier 2 vessel for the RAN because it will be much easier to introduce into service and operate because it will carry common AusCMS and similarities with the ANZAC's.

The A200 has a worse weapons fit, a larger radar cross section, is slower, requires more crew (at a time when the RAN has a recruitment problem) and generally is less sophisticated than either the Mogami or new FFM. As for command and control hardware, it would be up to Australia if it wanted that installed on Japanese-built frigates or not. The Japanese aren't going to sabotage their own export deal by insisting the original CMS be used.

In my view, people supporting MEKO because it's familiar aren't being serious. The Anzac class has been completely overhauled from its original design. Did the RAN go "waaah, different, me no like, want switches, dials and speaking tubes"? Of course not, they embraced change.

TKMS is also a lower risk option to establish the local build if that proceeds.

The whole point of the new frigate deal is that it progresses quickly and that local manufacture be a lower priority. The Australian government has said the first three frigates will be built overseas. Don't be surprised if that increases due to lack of capacity at Australian shipyards.

As for Japan not having experience of helping a country build ships, that's a daft argument suggesting that the Japanese are too dumb to teach and the Australians too dumb to learn. When was the last time BAE UK helped a foreign nation build a large warship? Did that stop it exporting the Type 26 design?

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the responses on this. Here are some additional comments:

The contracted cost for the first 3 Hunters is $27B, so $9B each is the cost of the three we are currently building.

I would suggest double checking on those numbers, and seeing what it includes, as neither the total or calculated per ship cost match the numbers available from other sources. From a Budget Statements 2023-2024 doc here, the acquisition cost for the first three Hunter-class frigates is expected to be ~AUD$6.2 bil. From other sources here, the cost estimates for the nine frigate SEA 5000 build was originally expected to be AUD$45.6 bil. back in 2020, and if memory serves this AUD$45 bil. project cost would include not just the costs per ship, but also for establishing capabilities needed to support the build and support the ships once they are in service, as well as costings for the ships once in service. There is a very large difference between the 'sail away' cost for a ship, and the cost of acquiring and then operating a ship for 30 years.

 

[SammyC]

Valid point on the cost of the Hunters. From my reading of the various media releases:

• $7.2B Design and productionisation (shipyard prep)
• $11.1B Contract to ASC for the first three hulls (exc combat and weapon systems)
• $19.87B Further funding to Defence for support of the first three hulls (code for combat and weapons systems) plus other support (code for shore systems including spares) that will benefit the full fleet of six hulls.
• Total: $38.7B

Let me know if I have missed any others.

The $11.7 is strictly for the first 3, so $3.7B per hull
The $19.87 is mixed so hard to determine the allocation to the first three, so lets say half. So that's another $3.3B.
Total construction cost per hull (exc design, productionisation and other non build stuff) is $7B give or take a bit.

So more than my original $4B (I stand corrected), but likely somewhere less than $9B. Overall still expensive, but this is the modern age, post significant inflation, and even my weekly grocery bill seems to be approaching thes figures these days.

 

[seaspear]

Wont much of the work and expense that has gone into the Hunter class produce savings for subsequent built destroyers?

 

[Morgo]

Valid point on the cost of the Hunters. From my reading of the various media releases:

• $7.2B Design and productionisation (shipyard prep)
• $11.1B Contract to ASC for the first three hulls (exc combat and weapon systems)
• $19.87B Further funding to Defence for support of the first three hulls (code for combat and weapons systems) plus other support (code for shore systems including spares) that will benefit the full fleet of six hulls.
• Total: $38.7B

Let me know if I have missed any others.

The $11.7 is strictly for the first 3, so $3.7B per hull
The $19.87 is mixed so hard to determine the allocation to the first three, so lets say half. So that's another $3.3B.
Total construction cost per hull (exc design, productionisation and other non build stuff) is $7B give or take a bit.

So more than my original $4B (I stand corrected), but likely somewhere less than $9B. Overall still expensive, but this is the modern age, post significant inflation, and even my weekly grocery bill seems to be approaching thes figures these days.

But this is also - as you say - for the first three. Once we get a hot line rolling I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that we will start to get down towards the “sail away” cost for an Arleigh Burke (AUD3-4bn) which honestly feels like quite good value if we get to a point where we are launching a ship every 18 months (so run rate spend of AUD2-3bn p.a. in today’s dollars) for the capital cost of a fleet of, say, 9 FFGs and 9 DDGs built in alternating batches of three and a 27 year service life.

Coincidentally this is roughly the same cost as the fuel tax rebates the mining industry receives, so how about we scrap those and they can have the SLOCs they want to export on kept nice and safe?

 

[Volkodav]

But this is also - as you say - for the first three. Once we get a hot line rolling I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that we will start to get down towards the “sail away” cost for an Arleigh Burke (AUD3-4bn) which honestly feels like quite good value if we get to a point where we are launching a ship every 18 months (so run rate spend of AUD2-3bn p.a. in today’s dollars) for the capital cost of a fleet of, say, 9 FFGs and 9 DDGs built in alternating batches of three and a 27 year service life.

Coincidentally this is roughly the same cost as the fuel tax rebates the mining industry receives, so how about we scrap those and they can have the SLOCs they want to export on kept nice and safe?

Gina says we should spend more on defence to protect her investments, I'm sure she will be happy to contribute.

Investing in the infrastructure and skills we need to build capability will actually help the economy and improve productivity, it is the sort of thing that justifies borrowing and increasing taxes, especially for those who have benefited the most from the boom times.

 

[swerve]

Well this is the thing. What does Spain need a carrier for?
Canary Islands, Ceuta Melilla, Balearic Islands. It needs to be able to secure these island possessions that are immediate off or even apart of another nation's coast, mostly Morocco. ...

Spain's a member of NATO. A carrier can support NATO operations. It's not limited to Spain's territories.

 

[hauritz]

Gina says we should spend more on defence to protect her investments, I'm sure she will be happy to contribute.

Investing in the infrastructure and skills we need to build capability will actually help the economy and improve productivity, it is the sort of thing that justifies borrowing and increasing taxes, especially for those who have benefited the most from the boom times.

Incredibly difficult to quantify defence spending and compare defence expenditure between different countries. For example the US spends 3.4% of its GDP on defence but the vast bulk of that is spent domestically. Even though the US defence industry has a reputation of being tax dodgers they, and their employees, still pay a big hunk of tax back into the US treasury.

That makes it a bit rich when they ask countries like Australia to boost spending to 3.5% given that a largish proportion of that money goes to buying overseas sourced equipment. Even domestic projects such as the Hunter Frigate (BAE), Ghost Bat (Boeing), Ghost Shark (Andural) and many others see profits heading offshore.

We do need to boost expenditure but we must also be mindful about where those funds are going. It is perfectly understandable why the government wants to encourage local industry where possible but it will take years or even decades before we get to the point where we can claim complete sovereign capability. It still amazes me that we couldn't even design and build relatively simple vessels such as the Arafura class without having to go overseas.

The one thing the Defence Strategic Review got right was that it would require a whole-of-nation approach. That means input from local industries that have never built military equipment before. This will be a massive undertaking.

 

[old faithful]

We do need to boost expenditure but we must also be mindful about where those funds are going.

Absoultley.
Those funds need to be going into areas of need that have been neglected for years, regardless if its an Australian owned company or not.
We signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty, with the understanding that the US would back us if we came under attack or other threats.
As a result, successive Australian Governments have had the luxury of diverting $ that should have gone into defence, into other areas, such as education, medicare and welfare, which did truly make us a lucky country.

Also, in the fine print, we need to support them either politically, or militarily, when called upon.

Now that we have entered a very unstable point in history, we are being told by our major all ally, that we need to increase defence spending.
So what do we do?
We either pay up and shut up, throw the NNPT out the door, and develop our own nuke deterrence (like we probably should have when we had the chance), or risk our alliances.
Personally, I think we need to pay up and stop complaining. its time we were realistic about defence.
Right, so what capability should we spend on???? that's the $40 billion question.

 

[Reptilia]

Mogami-class frigate docks in Darwin as Japan pushes for $10bn contract

The Mogami-class frigate's arrival in Darwin comes as Japan competes with Germany to secure a $10 billion Australian defence contract.

www.abc.net.au

Another Mogami has docked in Australia, this time JS Yahagi in Darwin.

 

[Going Boeing]

One thing that surprised me is that the Defence Strategic Review didn’t include the Type31/AH140 design in the list of suitable Tier 2 designs for the RAN - maybe they were aware of the limitations with the design, especially the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class. I hope that the British have integrated the Type 31 systems so that they are effective in the modern naval environment.

Danish Chief of Defence recommends abandoning frigate upgrade - Naval News

 

[Todjaeger]

One thing that surprised me is that the Defence Strategic Review didn’t include the Type31/AH140 design in the list of suitable Tier 2 designs for the RAN - maybe they were aware of the limitations with the design, especially the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class. I hope that the British have integrated the Type 31 systems so that they are effective in the modern naval environment.

Danish Chief of Defence recommends abandoning frigate upgrade - Naval News

One needs to remember one of the requirements for SEA 3000, and that was that a foreign yard could build some of the lead vessels whilst a domestic yard was getting set to build the rest in Australia. Right now the Type 31's and variant classes all have examples under construction, but not have been completed never mind been commissioned into service. With the lead RN ship not yet completed (expected in 2026 or 2027 IIRC) and with three vessels still not yet laid down, two of which have yet to have first steel cut, it then would be questionable whether or not any order placed by Australia would be able to get fulfilled by the notional 2030 timeline for delivery of lead Australian ship.

Given what I suspect the timeframes are for the construction and delivery of the Type 31 order to the RN, I would not be surprised if any Type 31's ordered for Australia could not actually get laid down until around 2030, with delivery likely taking another two years beyond that.

 

[Bob53]

Australia is in a bit of a different space with its needs to the UK. We don't have something like the Falkland's, a large unprotected, but inhabited island, far away from friendly or home land bases, with a contestable non peer power with an airforce nearby. Spain, UK are more in that space than we are.

Mate… you sure about this? Christmas and Cocos Keeling….

 

[Bob53]

That's largely because of the cost of a domestic build. If Australia wants locally-built ships it's going to have to pay a premium for them. Growing the Australian naval industry means it can support ships itself, rather than send them halfway around the world for refit. EDIT: They do not cost 9 billion AUZ each. You're either confusing life-time costs with build costs or using false data.



Supposedly the A210 was what was offered to Australia by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. If in reality TKMS is offering the A200, that's a god-awful design which was only suitable for second-rate navies in low-intensity conflicts. Not what Australia needs. The "second tier" title is a bit of a deception game trying to make the Australian public think they're affordable. In reality they'd be suitable for general warfare, just supporting bigger ships. The A200 would struggle with that role.



Which is why Australia should buy the New-FFM. Japan is building them now, and I have no doubt that Australia could negotiate to slip into the production schedule. TKMS doesn't even have the long-lead items ordered, let alone ships under construction that can be sold to Australia.



"Problematic" is an understatement. It's much too late to change the Hunter-class if Australia wants new ships within the next decade.



Australia has signed contracts with BAE that will be watertight - see the penalty clauses for the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, which were so severe David Cameron couldn't cancel them because the savings would have been negligible. Trying to wriggle out of the frigate contract would mean paying BAE what it will get for delivering new ships. If Australia wants to pay BAE tens of billions for nothing, it could do so. But it would be the worse defence scandal to hit the country in modern times.



The A200 has a worse weapons fit, a larger radar cross section, is slower, requires more crew (at a time when the RAN has a recruitment problem) and generally is less sophisticated than either the Mogami or new FFM. As for command and control hardware, it would be up to Australia if it wanted that installed on Japanese-built frigates or not. The Japanese aren't going to sabotage their own export deal by insisting the original CMS be used.

In my view, people supporting MEKO because it's familiar aren't being serious. The Anzac class has been completely overhauled from its original design. Did the RAN go "waaah, different, me no like, want switches, dials and speaking tubes"? Of course not, they embraced change.



The whole point of the new frigate deal is that it progresses quickly and that local manufacture be a lower priority. The Australian government has said the first three frigates will be built overseas. Don't be surprised if that increases due to lack of capacity at Australian shipyards.

As for Japan not having experience of helping a country build ships, that's a daft argument suggesting that the Japanese are too dumb to teach and the Australians too dumb to learn. When was the last time BAE UK helped a foreign nation build a large warship? Did that stop it exporting the Type 26 design?

There is no way you would cancel any contract now. It would be insane. If you don’t want the ships build them and put them up for sale and given the global ship building backlog I imagine there would be ready buyers at full price or a slight discount.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Mogami-class frigate docks in Darwin as Japan pushes for $10bn contract

The Mogami-class frigate's arrival in Darwin comes as Japan competes with Germany to secure a $10 billion Australian defence contract.

www.abc.net.au

Another Mogami has docked in Australia, this time JS Yahagi in Darwin.

Free advertising. They can show that the (baseline) ship is in service and looks good. I'm sure RAN and ADF officials have been around Mogamis and seen how modern they are. It's also useful for reassuring the Australian public they're getting something that exists.

 

[old faithful]

Mate… you sure about this? Christmas and Cocos Keeling….

1986, elements of 3RAR parachuted onto the Cocos Islands as a show of force. Apparently one our neighbours was waving a sabre about it belonging to them.
Speaking of ownership.....Cluniess Ross family have some vested interests there and historical as well.

 

[swerve]

One thing that surprised me is that the Defence Strategic Review didn’t include the Type31/AH140 design in the list of suitable Tier 2 designs for the RAN - maybe they were aware of the limitations with the design, especially the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class. I hope that the British have integrated the Type 31 systems so that they are effective in the modern naval environment.

Danish Chief of Defence recommends abandoning frigate upgrade - Naval News

Type 31 & the Polish variant of AH140 have the Thales Netherlands Tacticos CMS, which is very widely used. The Iver Huitfeldt has the Danish Terma C-Flex CMS. The Patrol version seems to work OK, but if the Iver Huitfeldt problems are to do with the CMS, which seems likely, they could be in the additional modules for systems specific to that class. That doesn't look like a reason not to buy Type 31/AH140, just a reason not to buy it with the Danish CMS.

Seems odd to suggest abandoning the upgrade completely. Stepping back & taking a fresh look at it, & maybe thinking of a different CMS, as the Chileans have done with their frigate upgrades, maybe. Giving up & trying to buy completely new ships seems a recipe for a long delay. Note that the Chileans have installed a new CMS on much older ships, e.g. CMS 330 on Type 23. There are several ships in service with the same radars & missiles which have Tacticos, so that could be a relatively straightforward option.

 

[Bob53]

1986, elements of 3RAR parachuted onto the Cocos Islands as a show of force. Apparently one our neighbours was waving a sabre about it belonging to them.
Speaking of ownership.....Cluniess Ross family have some vested interests there and historical as well.

Time flies. 99% of The blokes that did that are all well into their 60s.

 

[old faithful]

Time flies. 99% of The blokes that did that are all well into their 60s.

Time does fly! I was posted to 3 RAR not long after, a few months.....58yo now.

 

[hauritz]

Mate… you sure about this? Christmas and Cocos Keeling….

Australia has 8222 islands under its domain 17 of which are inhabited.