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.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
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.
I Didn’t see the program ….only the ad but was wondering if anyone who saw it had comment? Interested in Marles response.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
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.
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...
I’m happy, got this and more, posted in Feb 2023!
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.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
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.
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.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
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.
Antipode
Member
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.
An approx €2.000 million MLU is already in motion and imminent, so I believe that window closed for sure.
€2000 million MLU for the five F100s, i.e. €400 million each?
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:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
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.
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.
I wonder if we will ever know how many of these things are eventually acquired. A potentually huge capability.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
But at least they're extra capabilities in quantity quickly that we need.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Wonder will they have an anti-surface ship capability?
Could they fire Mk-54 or MU-90 torpedos against surface vessels?
Could they fire Mk-54 or MU-90 torpedos against surface vessels?