Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Presently due to be commissioned on 27 October. A good ship with a good ship's company!
~186 verse around ~300. Basically a 2/3rd the crewing.
The lost opportunity was not getting the 4th. While a Burke is a more capable ship in most respects, two Hobarts is better than 1 mini burke. If we had 4 Hobarts, then we could have likely deployed 2 most/much of the time required. 4 Hobarts less crew than 3 Burkes. You could nearly crew 5 Hobarts for 3 full Burkes.
Building 4 ships would probably lower the per ship price lower than a build of 3. You get a lot more flexibility with 4, to be honest I don't think SM-3 is on the table with 3 hulls.
Not building the 4th means the OPV is being built instead at S.A, that the experience gained on the AWD build isn't seamlessly handed over to the sea5000 build. The type 26 would have more time to mature as well, so there are still impacts from that decision today.
With the Hunter class, it isn't a huge loss, but running with 4 x hobart and 8 x anzac would be a lot nicer. Running with 4 x AWD while building up the hunters would see that carry on for a long period of time. In a world the way it is, the hindsight choice would have been to build the 4th (which I guess would be in fitout now) and possibly the 5th AWD (which would be well along in cutting steel and I would imagine be the fasted build of all).
We would also have a Anzac free and clear for NZ if they wanted it, right now. That may have impacted on their decision to upgrade in Canada. Maybe stopped them slipping away and forking development.
With 4 or 5 Aegis ships from the get go, it would change everything, 4 and 5 could have had double aviation capabilities as well. By Hunter hull 2 or 3 we become a majority aegis navy. Australia then really is a major Naval power in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. With the US struggling to meet its commitments, the UK type 46 having problems, Australia would then be the key western power across both regions (Indo-pacific). The Saudis, the Japanese, the US, India etc would probably take a different view of Australia in that case. If you needed a aegis net thrown up (gulf?) or in support of your fleet (Japan), Australia would be an obvious country to turn to.
Not all lost opportunities are just capability/economic.
But that is a big problem in Australia. Not seeing the bigger picture, being very reactionary. At least we seem to have moved on from being explicitly self destructive. Our big awaking happened in a very timely way.
US ships are mind blowingly manpower intensives. Multiply that by the life of the ship and it boggles the mind. If you really want to distort your Navy, ex-US gear (I'm talking ships) will do it as it is made for a very different type of nation. Where a 4th AWD would have been a very low cost reality, just moving some acquisition forward a bit (or rather, not delaying it). It might have even saved money in the medium term. Not building it ourselves, also undermines our hard and soft power, we are just seen as more of a client state of the US. There is a dimension that is little discussed about sovereignty and independence. Buying not just US systems and designs, but getting the US to make it really does start to send signals like you are completely dependant and just a mere extension of the US.
In terms of middle power military acquisitions, Australia leads the world. Countries like Brazil, Korea, Turkey would kill for the capability we have spec'd out. In a world crying out for a strong western aligned power to rise to fill some of the void created by an increasingly erratic and over committed US and seeming inward focused Europe, Australia stands apart.
The lost opportunity was not getting the 4th. While a Burke is a more capable ship in most respects, two Hobarts is better than 1 mini burke. If we had 4 Hobarts, then we could have likely deployed 2 most/much of the time required. 4 Hobarts less crew than 3 Burkes. You could nearly crew 5 Hobarts for 3 full Burkes.
Building 4 ships would probably lower the per ship price lower than a build of 3. You get a lot more flexibility with 4, to be honest I don't think SM-3 is on the table with 3 hulls.
Not building the 4th means the OPV is being built instead at S.A, that the experience gained on the AWD build isn't seamlessly handed over to the sea5000 build. The type 26 would have more time to mature as well, so there are still impacts from that decision today.
With the Hunter class, it isn't a huge loss, but running with 4 x hobart and 8 x anzac would be a lot nicer. Running with 4 x AWD while building up the hunters would see that carry on for a long period of time. In a world the way it is, the hindsight choice would have been to build the 4th (which I guess would be in fitout now) and possibly the 5th AWD (which would be well along in cutting steel and I would imagine be the fasted build of all).
We would also have a Anzac free and clear for NZ if they wanted it, right now. That may have impacted on their decision to upgrade in Canada. Maybe stopped them slipping away and forking development.
With 4 or 5 Aegis ships from the get go, it would change everything, 4 and 5 could have had double aviation capabilities as well. By Hunter hull 2 or 3 we become a majority aegis navy. Australia then really is a major Naval power in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. With the US struggling to meet its commitments, the UK type 46 having problems, Australia would then be the key western power across both regions (Indo-pacific). The Saudis, the Japanese, the US, India etc would probably take a different view of Australia in that case. If you needed a aegis net thrown up (gulf?) or in support of your fleet (Japan), Australia would be an obvious country to turn to.
Not all lost opportunities are just capability/economic.
But that is a big problem in Australia. Not seeing the bigger picture, being very reactionary. At least we seem to have moved on from being explicitly self destructive. Our big awaking happened in a very timely way.
US ships are mind blowingly manpower intensives. Multiply that by the life of the ship and it boggles the mind. If you really want to distort your Navy, ex-US gear (I'm talking ships) will do it as it is made for a very different type of nation. Where a 4th AWD would have been a very low cost reality, just moving some acquisition forward a bit (or rather, not delaying it). It might have even saved money in the medium term. Not building it ourselves, also undermines our hard and soft power, we are just seen as more of a client state of the US. There is a dimension that is little discussed about sovereignty and independence. Buying not just US systems and designs, but getting the US to make it really does start to send signals like you are completely dependant and just a mere extension of the US.
In terms of middle power military acquisitions, Australia leads the world. Countries like Brazil, Korea, Turkey would kill for the capability we have spec'd out. In a world crying out for a strong western aligned power to rise to fill some of the void created by an increasingly erratic and over committed US and seeming inward focused Europe, Australia stands apart.
t68
Well-Known Member
Agree on the manning issue but not the cost, some items could have been reduced or not incorporated, but the future growth margins were higher than what we have now
Yet the media and our political classes continue to state that Australians don't know how to build ships. Personally I believe the problem is politicians don't know how to write or manage contracts and keep sacking the people who do for "efficiency" reasons.
Excellent post.
I well remember PM Gillard not proceeding with the 4th AWD, about the same time as not going with the Korean SPGs. At the time, the reporting suggested the navy advice to her was actually against getting the extra ship, primarily for manpower reasons, if I recall correctly. Regrettably, no public discussion of these type of longer-term strategic corollaries.
Last edited:
My dad was on her in the late 50s in her training ship days and I am fairly sure GF said his dad was on her during her Korean operations.
Joe Black
Active Member
Another great piece of news - The new OPV will be getting Safran Vigy Engage EO.
Safran VIGY ENGAGE Selected for Australia’s SEA 1180 OPVs
Vigy Engage selected for Project SEA 1180 OPVs | Jane's 360
Now the Sensor suite is complete with:
1. Saab Situation Awareness System (mini 9LV CMS)
2. Terma Scantar 6002 Air-Surface search radar
3. Saab’s EOS 500 electro-optical fire control director
Now, awaiting to see which 40mm gun (BAE or Leonardo) will be selected and if a Mk38 will also be included.
Safran VIGY ENGAGE Selected for Australia’s SEA 1180 OPVs
Vigy Engage selected for Project SEA 1180 OPVs | Jane's 360
Now the Sensor suite is complete with:
1. Saab Situation Awareness System (mini 9LV CMS)
2. Terma Scantar 6002 Air-Surface search radar
3. Saab’s EOS 500 electro-optical fire control director
Now, awaiting to see which 40mm gun (BAE or Leonardo) will be selected and if a Mk38 will also be included.
Good morning all long time listener almost never post, I found a link to some nice photos of HMAS Canberra
by a Hobart photographer
HMAS Canberra
I know its not much of a post, but the photos are too nice not to share
by a Hobart photographer
HMAS Canberra
I know its not much of a post, but the photos are too nice not to share
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Black
Active Member
It was indeed a missed opportunity and a serious error of judgement on the part of the labor defMin. I wonder if a change of govt in the future back to labor would see a repeat of history in defence related decisions.
Anyway, lets look forward to see what capabilities they are bringing to the Hunter class. I hope we will seriously put the "valley of death" situation truly behind us and will see a continuous build program from now on. For me, a 24months drumbeat is still a little too slow, I much prefer a 18months drumbeat though.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think when you talk about Crew size difference re USN v RAN the one that stands out for me is the Canberra class v the Wasp class. Canberra 300 odd Navy + Army & RAAF attachments Wasp 1000 odd Navy + Marine attachments. on ships of 27,000t v 42,000t.
Don't know if i would include South Korea along side Brazil & Turkey, they have a pretty good Blue Water Navy now and a Marine Corps as big as the Australian Army.
Not much of a post? You jest. Those are stunning photos and well found. Welcome to the forum and that is an excellent post to start with.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I look at the crewing of USN OHP-class frigates and compare them with the crew size of RAN Adelaide-class frigates and the USN crew is ~16 greater (not including personnel for the helicopters) or about 11.5% for ships of basically the same class. As I understand it, a key part of the difference in number is that USN crews have dedicated teams where their shipboard role of function is specifically damage control while in other navies damage control might be a secondary or as needed role for certain crew members who might ordinarily be filling a different role as a primary function.
OTOH, it does (or at least did) seem like the USN looked at changing the crewing and automation philosophy to a degree with the LCS programme, albeit IMO going too far in the other direction resulting in the normal embarked crew being too small to keep up with the regular maintenance the LCS required and needing more assistance from land-based personnel when in dock than had been usual for a US warship.
The Japanese and the Koreans have crew level the same or higher than the USN on their Burke variants. The Koreans have up to 400 on their Sejong the great class. It's not just crewing either. While I am sure some efficiencies can be made, I doubt it would match the level of the Hobarts without a significant redesign. Four turbines, doesn't exactly make low speed cruising very efficient or cheap. There are other differences, command space, radar horizon, etc.
With the 4th AWD, it was always going to be difficult, as it was an option, not a core part of the plan. It probably should have been an integrated part of the entire program. I don't think the RAN was against it, but was pointing out that going a 4th would put a need of ~20 crew above a ANZAC, it would also have an impact on orders for weapons and systems.
I mention South Korea, because they are in a similar position to Australia. Their adoption of Wedgetail, and other acquisitions are very similar to Australia, however their focus is on their immediate location, which is quite small. Turkey is building the same LHD as the Canberra class, and Brazil was meant to be building Barracuda submarines.
If we want countries in our orbit and share our views about regional security, we need to prioritize that. It is quite probably we will be called on to continuously deploy a ship to the Persian gulf, possibly two to the South China Sea and then what ever we need for escorting and patrolling duties in other areas.
With the 4th AWD, it was always going to be difficult, as it was an option, not a core part of the plan. It probably should have been an integrated part of the entire program. I don't think the RAN was against it, but was pointing out that going a 4th would put a need of ~20 crew above a ANZAC, it would also have an impact on orders for weapons and systems.
I mention South Korea, because they are in a similar position to Australia. Their adoption of Wedgetail, and other acquisitions are very similar to Australia, however their focus is on their immediate location, which is quite small. Turkey is building the same LHD as the Canberra class, and Brazil was meant to be building Barracuda submarines.
If we want countries in our orbit and share our views about regional security, we need to prioritize that. It is quite probably we will be called on to continuously deploy a ship to the Persian gulf, possibly two to the South China Sea and then what ever we need for escorting and patrolling duties in other areas.
The Koreans and Japanese do have ships as capable or probably even more capable than the AB but they don't possess these ships in great numbers.
The Japanese have half a dozen Aegis destroyers and the Koreans have 3. The US operate around 90 cruisers and destroyers but they spend 30 times more on defence as we do.
If Australia were to operate the AB we would have to either cut back on the number of escorts we operate of opt for a hi-lo mix Destroyers and light frigates.
I am not sure I like either of those options.
The Japanese have half a dozen Aegis destroyers and the Koreans have 3. The US operate around 90 cruisers and destroyers but they spend 30 times more on defence as we do.
If Australia were to operate the AB we would have to either cut back on the number of escorts we operate of opt for a hi-lo mix Destroyers and light frigates.
I am not sure I like either of those options.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think we have got it right, a good AAW DDG that is a capable ASW/ASuW Platform, that only gives serious ground to the Burke's, Atago's and Sejong's on Missile load out and we are getting arguably the best ASW Frigate in the world that will be a very capable AAW/ASuW platform
We are getting a very good ASW frigate but is it the best in the world.?
The Brits have a long history of determining that all their equipment is “the best in the world” (just like T45 ) and it really is hyperbole.
Whilst on exchange with the RN I have experienced “the best in the world” but believe me it wasn’t and I would have thought that the FI campaign would have dampened that hype.
Let’s just stick with “it’s a very capable frigate and rates highly (we hope, it hasn’t been to sea yet) against the competition.
Please excuse the bile but that term is very annoying.
Joe Black
Active Member
Just out of curiosity, doesn't RAN have 8 sets of old Sea Giraffe radars from the ANZAC class that were replaced by CEAFAR? Aren't there any thoughts why they not just reused or repurposed for the OPVs? The old Sea Giraffe would give the OPVs a good air-surface search capability.
- Status