Redlands18
Well-Known Member
You even get an email alert each month when the next edition comes out, Defence Technology Review(DTR) is the same.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
This was back when the "canoe" comments were made by the then defmin, Johnston, one of the WA Mafia members I mentioned.
The thinking at the time was that an alliance with Japan was vital, an alliance underpinned by a submarine contract. To justify this the local capability had to be demonised with the ASC research arm being disbanded and the numerous overseas experts who had been recruited made redundant or redeployed, still got a stack of them on LinkedIn so know where they went.
Part of the justification was that ASC couldn't even manage a build to print project to build three frigates (now called destroyers). This in turn damaged the case for building the ANZACs replacements locally.
I referred to pork barrelling and WA Mafia, but this was much bigger. This was grand strategy developed over decades by senior beurocrats in dfat and defence. They adapted it to sell it to whoever was in government at the time, failed with Gillard but got in with Abbott and convinced the WA Mafia with promises of more work for Austal.
The plan was to acquire as much major gear as possible through FMS (the old DMOs preferred option because it meant contact managers instead of engineers and no real accountability on their part) subs from Japan and only simple stuff and maintainance locally. The pork barrelling was the sweetener to get political buy to a beurocratic plan.
The irony is the scheme wasn't killed by unions, Labor, the left etc. it was killed by a revolt of government ministers, some of whom had nothing to gain politically. When the wiser heads had a close look at the proposals and the industrial capability that would be sacrificed they forced a rethink and a proper evaluation of options, including actually asking the services what they needed.
The end result is a continuous shipbuilding program, a continuous submarine building program, as well as Civmec usurping Austal as the premier builder of minor warfare vessels.
On the topic of Australian naval spending and pork-barrelling, "The Weekend Australian" has an article on BAE Systems ripping off Defence. The quoted figure is $33 million over the life of the fast frigate upgrade program. The audit overseen by Navy Captain Jason Sears "reveals frustrations at BAE's inability or unwillingness to justify a string of expenses". So Kudos to Navy for keeping a watch on our contractors.
The article also cover a wrongful payment of $46 million to Thales and the $170 million blowout in the cost of keeping the Adalaide class frigates modernised.
"The Australian" is a subscriber paper so I cant post the article. However any Aussies interested should be able to get a hard-copy today or tomorrow.
The article also cover a wrongful payment of $46 million to Thales and the $170 million blowout in the cost of keeping the Adalaide class frigates modernised.
"The Australian" is a subscriber paper so I cant post the article. However any Aussies interested should be able to get a hard-copy today or tomorrow.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
FAST Frigate upgrade program? Wasn’t aware the Anzacs were particularly quick or does the Author think that FFH stands for for Fast Frigate Helicopter? wonder what he thinks DDG stands for? Dastardly Destroyer Guided.
I don't know how fast a friggit is but I assume the mentioned Adelaide class is faster than an ANZAC? Journos Joyce Moullars and Ben Butler co-wrote the piece. My naval experience was limited to running an army zodiac up the rear end of the Coral Snake.
I'll bow to your knowledge and ability to spot inaccuracies. All I know is if it floats its a boat and if it doesn't its a submarine.
Compared to your average journo you are an expert.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Speed is not a defining quality when talking about any Frigate, quoted top speeds for modern Frigates is anywhere from 26-30kt. To refer to any Frigate as “fast” shows a complete lack of any real knowledge of Naval matters by the so called Journalist. The main difference between the Adelaide Class and Anzac Class is Weapons and Sensor Fit out not speed. Most sources I have seen.give the Adelaide class top Speed at around 29kt and the Anzacs around 27kt. Bit like saying one car has a top speed of 140kph and another has a top speed of 150kph and then refer to the 2nd as Fast.
A small piece on the Navy website some may find of interest regarding HMAS Newcastle and her last main voyage while accompanying HMAS Canberra.
Newcastle always by Canberra’s side | Defence News
Reflecting on Newcastle's role in IPE19, the Newer Hobart Class will be very busy when ever our large Amphibs travel abroad.
Enjoy the Vid.
Regards S
Newcastle always by Canberra’s side | Defence News
Reflecting on Newcastle's role in IPE19, the Newer Hobart Class will be very busy when ever our large Amphibs travel abroad.
Enjoy the Vid.
Regards S
The attached link has a nice pic of HMAS Arunta post the Anzac AMCAP refit and clearly illustrates the profile of the new CEAFAR-L mast
Stability tested after Arunta AMCAP upgrade
Stability tested after Arunta AMCAP upgrade
Right .... the issue is not simple. There is static, operational and dynamic stability ..... and the last two are ‘condition dependent’. The inclining experiment confirms the static stability. The operational condition of the ship (slack tanks, wind heel, expenditure of stores, movement of stores..... movement of crew etc etc) will drive the vessels stability in an operational sense.
You could write a condition that allows a CIWS but it may cost range or seakeeping. BUT ...... don’t forget damage stability. The more you add to top weigh reduces the vessels range of stability in a damaged condition.
If you need a history lesson on this look at WWII ships built under the Washington treaty and the wartime challenges of dealing with weight increases.
Does anyone have a comparison between the weight/height differences between the old SPS49 and the new mast?
I suspect there won’t be a huge difference the stability data.
Defence Connect has an article on what the coalition means for defence as well as a wish list for future discussion including additional Hobart AWDs.
Defence Connect
"Defence Connect has put together a brief wish list and is encouraging conversation about capabilities for the Coalition’s defence ministers to consider establishing in this next term of government.
1. Acquire an additional three Hobart Class guided-missile destroyers
Serving as the basis of Australia’s maritime-based area-air and missile defence capabilities, the Hobart Class is a critical capability for both Navy and the broader “joint force” ADF capability. Despite procurement and construction problems, Australia’s Hobart Class destroyers will provide a quantum leap in the capability of the Navy’s surface fleet, serving as a task force air defence screen, secondary command and control hub and invaluable surface and subsurface warfare asset.
HMAS Hobart and her two sister ships, HMAS Brisbane and Sydney, are Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers based on the Spanish F-100 frigates. The Hobart Class Combat System is built around the Aegis Weapon System, incorporating the state-of-the-art phased array radar, AN/SPY 1D(V), will provide an advanced air defence system capable of engaging enemy aircraft and missiles at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres.
Acquiring an additional three Hobart Class vessels serves to enhance the nation’s naval shipbuilding capabilities – maintaining the critical skills in both Adelaide and/or Henderson shipyards until the major construction Hunter and Attack class programs commence – while providing additional redundancy for the Navy in the face of increasingly advanced anti-ship ballistic and cruise missile systems and enhancing the protective layers around other major Navy assets, namely the Canberra class amphibious warfare ships.
Accordingly, the Coalition needs to lay down a Block 2 variant of the Hobart Class guided-missile destroyers with enhanced area-air and missile defence capabilities and enhanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities – specifically noise reduction characteristics – also need to begin upgrades of the existing fleet. "
I know this isn't on the radar afaik , but assuming there was political will (perhaps through a 2020 whitepaper) and sufficient funding was available, how practical/viable would a second tranche of Hobarts be? From a defence industry perspective, what would be the specific challenges and opportunities?
Defence Connect
"Defence Connect has put together a brief wish list and is encouraging conversation about capabilities for the Coalition’s defence ministers to consider establishing in this next term of government.
1. Acquire an additional three Hobart Class guided-missile destroyers
Serving as the basis of Australia’s maritime-based area-air and missile defence capabilities, the Hobart Class is a critical capability for both Navy and the broader “joint force” ADF capability. Despite procurement and construction problems, Australia’s Hobart Class destroyers will provide a quantum leap in the capability of the Navy’s surface fleet, serving as a task force air defence screen, secondary command and control hub and invaluable surface and subsurface warfare asset.
HMAS Hobart and her two sister ships, HMAS Brisbane and Sydney, are Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers based on the Spanish F-100 frigates. The Hobart Class Combat System is built around the Aegis Weapon System, incorporating the state-of-the-art phased array radar, AN/SPY 1D(V), will provide an advanced air defence system capable of engaging enemy aircraft and missiles at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres.
Acquiring an additional three Hobart Class vessels serves to enhance the nation’s naval shipbuilding capabilities – maintaining the critical skills in both Adelaide and/or Henderson shipyards until the major construction Hunter and Attack class programs commence – while providing additional redundancy for the Navy in the face of increasingly advanced anti-ship ballistic and cruise missile systems and enhancing the protective layers around other major Navy assets, namely the Canberra class amphibious warfare ships.
Accordingly, the Coalition needs to lay down a Block 2 variant of the Hobart Class guided-missile destroyers with enhanced area-air and missile defence capabilities and enhanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities – specifically noise reduction characteristics – also need to begin upgrades of the existing fleet. "
I know this isn't on the radar afaik , but assuming there was political will (perhaps through a 2020 whitepaper) and sufficient funding was available, how practical/viable would a second tranche of Hobarts be? From a defence industry perspective, what would be the specific challenges and opportunities?
Yeh, I don't know if I agree with this. Short of using Bill and Teds most excellent phone box, it doesn't cohesively fit together as a plan.
1. Acquire an additional three Hobart Class guided-missile destroyers
If we were going to build more Hobarts, we should have started on 4 and 5 by now. That ship has literally sailed. The last of the Hobarts was launched last year. We are now closer to the Hunters than we are to the Hobarts. Essentially all the Hobart upgrades from now on, are flowing down from the Hunters (combat systems, radars etc). Why do I have a feeling someone wants to built new Hobarts in WA?
But why Hobarts? Surely the larger Hunters are the newer, fresher more modern platform.Cheaper to operate, less manning, bigger and more flexible, quieter.. They were benchmarked against each other.
Now, if the argument is the first 3 Hunters should have a stronger Air Defence Capability, sign me up. Increasing VLS to 48 from the get go (with space for more) should be the way to go. Ticking SM-6 and SM-3, NSM, LRASM on the weapons list, are straight forward upgrades. If we are talking about increasing the total surface combat fleet from 12 to 14, that is also doable we are talking decade(s) into the future, but very doable. At this stage, I would be happy if its just an option of ships 13 and 14, to put the idea out there and plan around that as a possibility. So bases, manpower, missions could be at least looked at and space and resources reserved for that possibility.
4. Focus on delivering two Attack Class submarines annually
Ok this is even weirder. AFAIK the drum beat for the subs was going to be around 18 months at peak speed. Which is still very fast and plenty ambitious for a sub project. So delivering two a year is a crazy level increase. Unless we intend to operate 24+ (48?) submarines, we are turfing out the sustainable build option. Rushing subs is a dumb idea. Not sure Australia wants to pay for two or more production lines, at least not as a sustained thing. Even then this would conflict with the increase in surface fleet described in point 1.
Sure, I like the idea of SPH, Land 400. But how does that fit into our amphibious capability? Whats happening with Sealift? Choules replacement? The Pacific hospital/aid ship? Beyond the mine replacement ships? UAVs? Antarctica? Future bases, including in PNG.
Not sure we are getting a balanced picture here.
1. Acquire an additional three Hobart Class guided-missile destroyers
If we were going to build more Hobarts, we should have started on 4 and 5 by now. That ship has literally sailed. The last of the Hobarts was launched last year. We are now closer to the Hunters than we are to the Hobarts. Essentially all the Hobart upgrades from now on, are flowing down from the Hunters (combat systems, radars etc). Why do I have a feeling someone wants to built new Hobarts in WA?
But why Hobarts? Surely the larger Hunters are the newer, fresher more modern platform.Cheaper to operate, less manning, bigger and more flexible, quieter.. They were benchmarked against each other.
Now, if the argument is the first 3 Hunters should have a stronger Air Defence Capability, sign me up. Increasing VLS to 48 from the get go (with space for more) should be the way to go. Ticking SM-6 and SM-3, NSM, LRASM on the weapons list, are straight forward upgrades. If we are talking about increasing the total surface combat fleet from 12 to 14, that is also doable we are talking decade(s) into the future, but very doable. At this stage, I would be happy if its just an option of ships 13 and 14, to put the idea out there and plan around that as a possibility. So bases, manpower, missions could be at least looked at and space and resources reserved for that possibility.
4. Focus on delivering two Attack Class submarines annually
Ok this is even weirder. AFAIK the drum beat for the subs was going to be around 18 months at peak speed. Which is still very fast and plenty ambitious for a sub project. So delivering two a year is a crazy level increase. Unless we intend to operate 24+ (48?) submarines, we are turfing out the sustainable build option. Rushing subs is a dumb idea. Not sure Australia wants to pay for two or more production lines, at least not as a sustained thing. Even then this would conflict with the increase in surface fleet described in point 1.
Sure, I like the idea of SPH, Land 400. But how does that fit into our amphibious capability? Whats happening with Sealift? Choules replacement? The Pacific hospital/aid ship? Beyond the mine replacement ships? UAVs? Antarctica? Future bases, including in PNG.
Not sure we are getting a balanced picture here.
I am usually not into wish lists but it looks like HMAS Hunter won't be commissioning until near 2030, pushing the service lives of the Anzacs out to over 35 years. However I am not sure that you would need three. Maybe just pick up the option for a fourth Hobart to allow us to start replacing the Anzacs a couple of years earlier than currently planned.
At this point and time a 4th Hobart would do more harm then good. We would effectively have to have a second team to build a stand alone ship which then becomes redundant at the end of the build or the workforce from the Hunter would have to be used as well which would slow the build on both the Hunters and the 4th Hobart causing the supposed age issue with the Anzac's to grow.
I say supposed becomes I do believe the age argument is over stated. The drumbeat for the Hunters as I understand it is meant to be around 18 months like the Attack's. With first one around 2027 going on a one for one replacement HMAS Perth would be replaced by the 8th Hunter on or around 2037/38. Sure she will be around 32 years old by then but that is hardly a massive increase for ships that likely would have been used for upto 30 years anyway. Even less of an impact when you consider not all of the fleet is in use at the moment with one ship still on the hard stand finished for the last year because of lack of crews.
Other issues to consider around a 4th Hobart are things such as
- Increased cost due to it being a singular production run of a highly capable and expensive asset.
- Being more crew intensive it could actually make it harder to crew the Anzac ships.
- Future upgrades. By the time you build it the Hobart class could very well be getting close to a midlife upgrade cycle which means having to choose to fit those upgrades straight away delaying commission longer or to nix them and have a stand alone asset becoming a training and logistics drain.
I think one of the comments on that site nailed it - it’s a shopping list completely divorced from any sort of strategy. It’s where the vast majority of discussion on the internet falls down. It’s also why looking backwards for solutions (like the constant benchmarking against the F111) is usually pointless, and why criticising decisions made 15 years ago against today’s strategic environment is flawed.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
If the ADF decides in the future that we need more AAW Ships then there is likely to be 2 choices. Either a version of the Hunter or they bring forward the Hobart replacement project increasing the numbers, with the last 3 replacing the 3 Hobarts. But I can’t see us building more Hobarts.
- Status