Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

John Fedup said:
Canada has the same media BS about our River class costing way more than the UK/Norway T26s. Both Hunter and River have modifications, different weapons, radars, and CMS leading to higher costs Like Australia, Canada had to invest in Irving Shipyards for domestic production. When all three versions are in operation, it will be interesting to see how each compares wrt stuff other than the prime mission, ASW.
Click to expand...
Well it’s not really BS. It’s a fact that making changes has lead to dramatically higher costs…in Australia’s cost if we take out the infrastructure costs and associated program costs…close to double the cost per hull.
 
Did anyone see the (60 minutes I think) program over the weekend showing a civilian drone launched from Wolloomooloo finger wharf and spending a lot of time unhindered over several RAN ships? It looked like it could have flown into the elevator space of, I think it was HMAS Sydney. This follows on from another drone and possibly more that landed on the deck of HMAS Canberra back in December. It was click bait but certainly highlights vulnerability of our bases from this aspect.Apparently they asked Defence minister Marles about it.
I Didn’t see the program ….only the ad but was wondering if anyone who saw it had comment? Interested in Marles response.
 
Bob53 said:
Well it’s not really BS. It’s a fact that making changes has lead to dramatically higher costs…in Australia’s cost if we take out the infrastructure costs and associated program costs…close to double the cost per hull.
Click to expand...

How much of the projected cost increase in the Hunter-class is actually due to the systems fitted vs. the costs in modifying the design?

Not sure about the Hunter-class but I seem to recall the Aegis systems purchased by Australia back in 2005-ish for the Hobart-class DDG's were something like USD$250 mil. per ship.

If one opts to have really high end systems fitted to a vessel, that is going to significantly raise the price tag. As a side note, that is also why a number of navies introduced OPV's for low end constab/patrol EEZ enforcement duties, because they typically do not have a complex sensor and CMS fitout which can often be a third (or more) of the initial cost for a major vessel.
 
Bob53 said:
Did anyone see the (60 minutes I think) program over the weekend showing a civilian drone launched from Wolloomooloo finger wharf and spending a lot of time unhindered over several RAN ships? It looked like it could have flown into the elevator space of, I think it was HMAS Sydney. This follows on from another drone and possibly more that landed on the deck of HMAS Canberra back in December. It was click bait but certainly highlights vulnerability of our bases from this aspect.Apparently they asked Defence minister Marles about it.
I Didn’t see the program ….only the ad but was wondering if anyone who saw it had comment? Interested in Marles response.
Click to expand...

There are a vast range of vulnerabilities to defence bases and assets we are not adequately addressing. The days of the lone Chubb Security guard, a chainwire fence and some CCTV being sufficient under our Safebase security threat alert system are long since passed, yet our base security and force protection measures remain woefully inadequate when compared to actual wartime necessity.

There are a range of issues not least of all current legislation and CASA rules with respect to counter-UAS systems being employed at defence installations but the parliament and bureaucracy have yet to consider how these will need to change in actual war time or war like situations.

Likewise fulltime base force protection platoons or organisations are similarly largely non-existant throughout defence, as is any form of actual base hardening, active protection systems and on and on it goes...

We are so far away from being in a position to be "ready" for actual defensive operations in our own country it would be laughable if it weren't so serious...
 
GregorZ said:
Long time lurker, first time poster. I’m quite impressed with the level of knowledge here and was hoping to bounce this idea off some of you, please be gentle!

I think that the Mogami may be a good fit for the RAN. A small stealth GP frigate that is pretty cheap with small crew comparable to other FFGs.

Could it be a solution to the corvette question that is being asked? Also may be a credible mine warfare ship as well?

The ship looks well armed for its size with a 5” gun, 8 ASM (maybe could fit up to 16 NSM?), torpedo tubes, 16 cell mk41 VLS, Searam (change to phalanx?) and helicopter.

I’m not to sure about how capable the systems and sensors are as configured for Japan. I would assume that the RAN would want 9LV, a variant of CEAFAR and CEC? Or could they operate as is?

The crew size looks great at only 90. This thing appears to be able to lay and also detect mines. It’s also able to operate unmanned vehicles through a rear ramp under the helicopter landing which sounds like a great capability.

A concern I have is that I have been unable to find any info on the range and endurance though and this is highly important for RAN use, so this may be a show stopper if it’s not very good.

Could any of our shipyards build this relatively soon? If we could build this cost effectively maybe the RNZN may be interested as an ANZAC replacement.
Click to expand...
I’m happy, got this and more, posted in Feb 2023!
 
Todjaeger said:
How much of the projected cost increase in the Hunter-class is actually due to the systems fitted vs. the costs in modifying the design?

Not sure about the Hunter-class but I seem to recall the Aegis systems purchased by Australia back in 2005-ish for the Hobart-class DDG's were something like USD$250 mil. per ship.

If one opts to have really high end systems fitted to a vessel, that is going to significantly raise the price tag. As a side note, that is also why a number of navies introduced OPV's for low end constab/patrol EEZ enforcement duties, because they typically do not have a complex sensor and CMS fitout which can often be a third (or more) of the initial cost for a major vessel.
Click to expand...
yes 100%. I get that but the fact of the matter is our ships are very expensive in comparison to the ship they were based off … Rolls Royce’s seemingly fitted with the best of everything ….when I may be wrong we were getting a mature design with a few changes to keep the cost down so we could afford a decent sized fleet on continual build and help speed up delivery…... the opposite at almost every stage, of what we ended up with. Our needs didn’t change on the requirement of 9 Ships to 6. They put lipstick on that pig up under the guise of a naval review but a monkey can see it was a budget decision to drop the build to 6. The waters Australia needs to patrol for Anti Submarine didn’t suddenly shrink by a third. And as has been stated her in the thousands…a fleet of 9 will have 3 available at anyone time..with another 3 almost available while 3 are unavailable due to maintenance cycles.
 
Bob53 said:
yes 100%. I get that but the fact of the matter is our ships are very expensive in comparison to the ship they were based off … Rolls Royce’s seemingly fitted with the best of everything ….when I may be wrong we were getting a mature design with a few changes to keep the cost down so we could afford a decent sized fleet on continual build and help speed up delivery…... the opposite at almost every stage, of what we ended up with. Our needs didn’t change on the requirement of 9 Ships to 6. They put lipstick on that pig up under the guise of a naval review but a monkey can see it was a budget decision to drop the build to 6. The waters Australia needs to patrol for Anti Submarine didn’t suddenly shrink by a third. And as has been stated her in the thousands…a fleet of 9 will have 3 available at anyone time..with another 3 almost available while 3 are unavailable due to maintenance cycles.
Click to expand...

The base Type 26 for the RN are, like those for the RAN, designed to be advanced and very capable ASW platforms with all that entails in terms of costs and complexity. However, the Hunter-class frigates for the RAN are also to have a more capable sensor and CMS fitout for air warfare installed.

Yes, the RAN could have opted for the same sensor and CMS fitout as the RN, but then the vessels would be much less capable in terms of monitoring aerial threats. In point of fact, it is possible that the Type 997 Artisan radar for use aboard the RN Type 26's might not provide as much/rapid radar coverage as the CEAFAR arrays currently installed aboard RAN ANZAC-class frigates with the CEAFAR2 arrays to be installed aboard the RAN Hunter-class frigates. In some respects, it is possible that a RN radar/CMS Type 26 fitout might have been a step backwards for the RAN. As it stands now, it seems that RAN's versions are to a bit more like the Type 45 in terms of air defence sensor coverage and awareness.

Since the RAN currently only has the three Hobart-class DDG's for area air defence, paying the extra coin to have high end sensors and a CMS to match does seem prudent, albeit expensive.
 
Bob53 said:
yes 100%. I get that but the fact of the matter is our ships are very expensive in comparison to the ship they were based off … Rolls Royce’s seemingly fitted with the best of everything ….when I may be wrong we were getting a mature design with a few changes to keep the cost down so we could afford a decent sized fleet on continual build and help speed up delivery…... the opposite at almost every stage, of what we ended up with. Our needs didn’t change on the requirement of 9 Ships to 6. They put lipstick on that pig up under the guise of a naval review but a monkey can see it was a budget decision to drop the build to 6. The waters Australia needs to patrol for Anti Submarine didn’t suddenly shrink by a third. And as has been stated her in the thousands…a fleet of 9 will have 3 available at anyone time..with another 3 almost available while 3 are unavailable due to maintenance cycles.
Click to expand...
But our projected capabilities to patrol that area have increased dramatically since then. The SSN is a huge ASW increase add to that 11 GP FFGs and I say the ASW gap left by 3 less Hunters is far more than amply filled.
 
ADMk2 said:
There are a vast range of vulnerabilities to defence bases and assets we are not adequately addressing. The days of the lone Chubb Security guard, a chainwire fence and some CCTV being sufficient under our Safebase security threat alert system are long since passed, yet our base security and force protection measures remain woefully inadequate when compared to actual wartime necessity.

There are a range of issues not least of all current legislation and CASA rules with respect to counter-UAS systems being employed at defence installations but the parliament and bureaucracy have yet to consider how these will need to change in actual war time or war like situations.

Likewise fulltime base force protection platoons or organisations are similarly largely non-existant throughout defence, as is any form of actual base hardening, active protection systems and on and on it goes...

We are so far away from being in a position to be "ready" for actual defensive operations in our own country it would be laughable if it weren't so serious...
Click to expand...

Homeland security vulnerability for military assets in the the US has become a concern for the the US as well. I am sure the CAF have advised Canadian pollies about this as well. This is one area where Europe may be ahead, mainly due to their close proximity to the Ukraine/Russia war.
 
Acquisition of the F-100/105 by Australia could have made plenty sense, but previously to the F-110 program defined as it is. If Spain would have decided for a dozen, more armed F-110 and worked the customisation on F-100/105 at the same time as the MLU.

An approx €2.000 million MLU is already in motion and imminent, so I believe that window closed for sure.
 
Antipode said:
Acquisition of the F-100/105 by Australia could have made plenty sense, but previously to the F-110 program defined as it is. If Spain would have decided for a dozen, more armed F-110 and worked the customisation on F-100/105 at the same time as the MLU.

An approx €2.000 million MLU is already in motion and imminent, so I believe that window closed for sure.
Click to expand...
€2000 million MLU for the five F100s, i.e. €400 million each?
 
Todjaeger said:
The base Type 26 for the RN are, like those for the RAN, designed to be advanced and very capable ASW platforms with all that entails in terms of costs and complexity. However, the Hunter-class frigates for the RAN are also to have a more capable sensor and CMS fitout for air warfare installed.

Yes, the RAN could have opted for the same sensor and CMS fitout as the RN, but then the vessels would be much less capable in terms of monitoring aerial threats. In point of fact, it is possible that the Type 997 Artisan radar for use aboard the RN Type 26's might not provide as much/rapid radar coverage as the CEAFAR arrays currently installed aboard RAN ANZAC-class frigates with the CEAFAR2 arrays to be installed aboard the RAN Hunter-class frigates. In some respects, it is possible that a RN radar/CMS Type 26 fitout might have been a step backwards for the RAN. As it stands now, it seems that RAN's versions are to a bit more like the Type 45 in terms of air defence sensor coverage and awareness.

Since the RAN currently only has the three Hobart-class DDG's for area air defence, paying the extra coin to have high end sensors and a CMS to match does seem prudent, albeit expensive.
Click to expand...
It would seem that in any high threat enviorment the Type 26 would require a Type 45 as an escort.
Tying up a valuable escort that could have been used somewhere else.
Where the Hunter can provide its own basic area AA coverage.

When talking cost which is more expensive, using one ship or being forced to construct, provide crew for and deploy two ships to do the same job?
 
Last edited:
MickB said:
It would seem that in any high threat enviorment the Type 26 would require a Type 45 as an escort.
Tying up a valuable escort that could have been used somewhere else.
Where the Hunter can provide its own basic area AA coverage.

When talking cost which is more expensive, using one ship or being forced to construct and deploy two ships to do the same job?
Click to expand...

The normal operating area for the RN is going to be a bit different from that of the RAN, between that and the differences in force structure between the RN and RAN, I would be hesitant on how the RN plans to operate their Type 26's without getting more information. I could very easily see the RN planning on having Type 26's and a Type 45 (or even two) all operating together as part of an escort screen, especially for high value assets like the CV's.

It might also be the case that RN vessels might operate within the reach of British or allied AEW assets and/or air cover.

With the RAN OTOH, there are only three destroyers in service so at most, including surge capability, the RAN might be able to have a pair deployed. This means much less ability to provide area air defence and therefore having frigates which can at least provide some area air defence capability could be beneficial.
 
MickB said:
It would seem that in any high threat enviorment the Type 26 would require a Type 45 as an escort.
Tying up a valuable escort that could have been used somewhere else.
Where the Hunter can provide its own basic area AA coverage.

When talking cost which is more expensive, using one ship or being forced to construct, provide crew for and deploy two ships to do the same job?
Click to expand...

Whatever a T26 (an RN not RAN platform) might need I don’t believe a Hunter would necessarily need escort although one does not send single assets into high threat areas alone by choice.

However, Hunter will be perfectly competent to defend itself. With 32 VLS cells potentially containing at least 64 ESSM and 16 SM-2/SM-6, and with highly competent radar and other systems, it of itself has a formidable AAW capability.

If the Mk 41 load out in T26 is AAW focussed (and there is no reason it shouldn’t be, provided the RN invests in that capability) then it will also have significant AAW abilities, depending on how good its systems are. I don’t know that; and anybody on this forum who does won’t be talking about them.
 
This will significantly increase our anti submarine capabilities in a very short time. Time is in VERY short supply now with a potential hot war around the corner. Surface assets can't be acquired fast enough but these will certainly help.
 
iambuzzard said:
This will significantly increase our anti submarine capabilities in a very short time. Time is in VERY short supply now with a potential hot war around the corner. Surface assets can't be acquired fast enough but these will certainly help.
Click to expand...

Full rate production for both Ghost Shark and Ghost Bat is ‘dozens’ per year in the period 2025-2030, years away from 100s coming off the production line, likely waiting for export orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top