Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

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.

Yeh I was reading the comments, names look familiar.

To me the priority shopping list looks linked to what industry may want to make and support rather than future needs and defence strategy.

I quote this:

Developing these concepts in conjunction with an updated Defence White Paper and expanded Integrated Investment Plan and Defence Industry Strategy to enhance the capabilities of Australia’s defence industry – splitting the focus on domestic demand and export-oriented industrialisation in a similar manner to the policy and doctrines that supported the development of South Korea.

It is interesting, it means defence needs to work more with industry to get them on the same page. You don't want the ADF and defence industries lobbying against each other. Also priorities need to be understood. Once we have a defense minister, I really hope this can all be clarified and articulated to all parties.

 

[Joe Black]

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.

I agree. The ship has sailed (punt intended). Defence will buy a 4th Hobart class let alone another 3.

In fact, I reckon 1 more Canberra class LHD with the deck hardened to land F-35Bs would probably make more sense.

 

[RDB]

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.

In terms of AAW there may not be a lot between the Hobarts and Hunters, though. Same combat system and missile load out, but the with the Hunters using 2010s technology radars rather than the 1960s tech SPY-1 used in the Hobarts.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

I would hope that if the new mast is lighter that the old arrangements, that some of the ballast required for the original mods can be removed.

 

[Stampede]

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.

When all said and done having to extend the life the Anzacs up to 10% is not a massive ask nor would it break the fleet. With the current build cycle, time lines etc it is the least risky option going forward rather then trying to rush in a 4th ship that could throw other programs out of balance not to mention cost. StingrayOz said it best, Get options fora couple extra ships. It will bring the costs down even further for us if taken up, Have reduced risk and even perhaps provide a small gap filler between the Hunter and future Hobart replacement should some future government fail to start the Hobart replacement program early enough.

Keep with the existing build program for the Hunter and Arafura class and ensure we have the correct number of support / Amphibious ships ships for the existing Hobart and ANZAC Class. Spend the money on ensuring the later combatants are as valid in systems and weaponry as their design permits and that should be for the Supply / Amphibious force as well.

Regards S

 

[weegee]

So I have just come across this on twitter. Is this the first published account of a RAN vessel carrying out a FONOP near the islands?

USS Preble and HMAS Melbourne conducted FONOP in the South China Sea

 

[hauritz]

In terms of AAW there may not be a lot between the Hobarts and Hunters, though. Same combat system and missile load out, but the with the Hunters using 2010s technology radars rather than the 1960s tech SPY-1 used in the Hobarts.

On the subject of missile loadouts I notice that BAE seems to have confirmed that the Hunter class will have 32 VLS in this brochure.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/download-en-aus/20170704045642/1434598311652.pdf
First time I have ever seen the planned number of VLS writing.

 

[thatsamguy]

On the subject of missile loadouts I notice that BAE seems to have confirmed that the Hunter class will have 32 VLS in this brochure.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/download-en-aus/20170704045642/1434598311652.pdf
First time I have ever seen the planned number of VLS writing.

Copyright on that document is 2017, so it looks like what was offered for SEA5000, not what has been confirmed.

"For SEA5000, BAE Systems will offer the GCS-A which will be enhanced to include Australian specified equipment."

 

[Systems Adict]

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.

Gotta stick my 2 cents in here, as a shipbuilder.

I, 110% agree with the sentiment of the comments above.

IF the production line was up & running, with x1 ship completed, x1 in fit out & x1 in initial construction, then adding a 4th would have made sense, even though it would have been the most expensive of the x4.

As it stands, the line is closed, the labour force reduced / laid off & to restart production now would take a minimum of 18 to 24 months, before you would be able to actually start construction of a ship, due to the contract renegotiation / ordering materials & actually getting the kit to the worksite. The costs for the 4th ship would be close to the price of x2 hulls, due to the limited manufacturing scope for the equipment suppliers (it's ALWAYS cheaper to order x3 or x4 of something, than it is to order just x1. the only way to circumvent this is if the equipment is being used on another project that you have access to & can break into their production run, blag a unit & get the manufacturer to just add another one on to the end of their run).

With the workload across the OPV's & the ramp up in the design of the Hunter class, mixed with the alleged lack of specific skills base with Australian shipbuilding, the 'current' planning & time frame for the future RAN fleet, along with the strain that it will put on in service hulls, is simply down to piss poor planning by the politicos.

That is the trade-off.

They could throw money at it, but unless the political will is there to fleece the population, by raising taxes, to pay for the influx of foreign workers, at sub-contractors wages, the choppy waters ahead over the next 10 years are the price that will have to be paid.

SA

 

[spoz]

Plus, there would be a whole lot of obsolescence and statutory issues to be dealt with, including revised IMO requirements since the ships were laid down and the fact that some of the equipment suppliers are no longer in business. That's not at all unusual, over any shipbuilding program of any length such things have to be dealt with, but normally that does not have to be done from a cold start, the process of managing these issues occurs from initial contract award as daily business. But as the management of these issues is, in an acquisition sense, drawing to a close for the DDGs ordering another would require a start ab initio. And, of course, any suggestion to do so in ignoring the fact that the Government has no appetite for such a commitment.

 

[aussienscale]

I, 110% agree with the sentiment of the comments above.

Well put mate, yes the horse bolted a long long time ago for a 4th, and any consideration of it will put the OPV and Hunter's at risk of slippage having a bigger flow on effect on fleet numbers and the continuous build program.

The Hunter's are going to be a very capable ship, if the requirement is there, the program can have a hull or 2 added to the program to bolster numbers until the AWD replacement program becomes a reality.

Once the Hunter build is on and the line starts it mojo, I don't believe, over the life of the program, that it would be overly difficult to lift the cadence for an extra hull to fill any potential gap.

Cheers

 

[BPFP]

Would it not make more sense, assuming there was political will, to invest required funds to bring the Hunter project forward say a year or two, and, as aussienscale suggests, increase production cadence as appropriate? The lead time on this class seems very long, although I understand concerns about not wanting to get in front of the UK first of class.

 

[Redlands18]

Well put mate, yes the horse bolted a long long time ago for a 4th, and any consideration of it will put the OPV and Hunter's at risk of slippage having a bigger flow on effect on fleet numbers and the continuous build program.

The Hunter's are going to be a very capable ship, if the requirement is there, the program can have a hull or 2 added to the program to bolster numbers until the AWD replacement program becomes a reality.

Once the Hunter build is on and the line starts it mojo, I don't believe, over the life of the program, that it would be overly difficult to lift the cadence for an extra hull to fill any potential gap.

Cheers

The follow on DWP/IIP due mid 20s should include Sea 4000 dash 2(or whatever designation it’s given) to replace the Hobarts, with construction due to begin 2038 and current planning for a domestic design, you would think that design work would need to be under way by 2030 especially if they are going to design it from the Keel up.

 

[StingrayOZ]

On the subject of missile loadouts I notice that BAE seems to have confirmed that the Hunter class will have 32 VLS in this brochure.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/download-en-aus/20170704045642/1434598311652.pdf
First time I have ever seen the planned number of VLS writing.

I think 32 is the minimum, nice to see that officially offered. I got to say, I was reading something the other day and they were talking about 48 like it was a done deal. Wasn't official, but seemed informed. I think most people would hope for 32 VLS fitted, room for 48, even if its just 16 VLS additional self defense type cells, ideally in a 2nd location. To withstand damage from attack, or from miss fires.

I don't believe the Hunter program can be accelerated any more than it already is in terms of cutting steel. We pushed as far as we can with that realistically. We might be able to increase drum beats. But that will take time. I wonder if we could build frigates at the WA build site, or blocks of the hunters there to speed up production.

Really for a proper air defence ship based off the hunters, increasing the number of cells is probably the only key requirement. Radar, combat system, CEC, self defence etc is as good if not better than the DDG's.

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to the future Hobart replacement production should actually start before 2038. It will be around then when the last of the planned Hunterts are commissioned so if you base it off that time frame we would have started to cut back on the workforce. I would say steel cutting for the Hobart replacement without any increase in Hunter numbers beyond those already planned should be around 2035 so as that we actually retain the workforce. As to hen we should start looking at the replacement for them in regards to design I reckon no later then 2020 we should start truly discussing what we want and what our options are with design work starting no later then 2025. Yep its a long time from design to build but with politics and possibility that it could be a unique ship design the extra time is better to have and not need then need it and not have it.

In regards to increasing the drum beat well we very well could be launching one a year if we wanted to if we spread the build out and made sure that everything was getting done right at each location (Failed to do so with the Hobarts) but I dont think that would be in our best interest. With a dozen ships on an 18 month build cycle you get a life time of each ship around 18 years, Any less then that and it starts to cost you money to do so unless you can get the build cost down enough. Perhaps a small increase in fleet numbers and skipping a mid life upgrade common around the 15 year mark and we could do one ship annually but I personally don't know if we would have the extra bodies for an expanded fleet or if there is any negative side in skipping a mid life upgrade.

 

[Redlands18]

In regards to the future Hobart replacement production should actually start before 2038. It will be around then when the last of the planned Hunterts are commissioned so if you base it off that time frame we would have started to cut back on the workforce. I would say steel cutting for the Hobart replacement without any increase in Hunter numbers beyond those already planned should be around 2035 so as that we actually retain the workforce. As to hen we should start looking at the replacement for them in regards to design I reckon no later then 2020 we should start truly discussing what we want and what our options are with design work starting no later then 2025. Yep its a long time from design to build but with politics and possibility that it could be a unique ship design the extra time is better to have and not need then need it and not have it.

In regards to increasing the drum beat well we very well could be launching one a year if we wanted to if we spread the build out and made sure that everything was getting done right at each location (Failed to do so with the Hobarts) but I dont think that would be in our best interest. With a dozen ships on an 18 month build cycle you get a life time of each ship around 18 years, Any less then that and it starts to cost you money to do so unless you can get the build cost down enough. Perhaps a small increase in fleet numbers and skipping a mid life upgrade common around the 15 year mark and we could do one ship annually but I personally don't know if we would have the extra bodies for an expanded fleet or if there is any negative side in skipping a mid life upgrade.

Under the Shipbuilding plan the last Hunter is due in 2042 and the first Hobart replacement 2044. The plan is for a smooth transition from the Hunters to the new Class. Workers will finish working on the Hunters one work day and start work/Trg/prep on the new class the next work day.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I actually think designs will evolve during the build process. I think it's highly likely the intention is for BAE to build the DDG replacements, based on the continuously evolving Type 26 hull. More in line with the Japanese style build rather than traditional Aussie builds where we go with a clean sheet every build type. This risk with traditional procurement is too great and too disruptive and too expensive.

There is actually some of this info I had pasted into the RN thread. The diagram (uncredited) seemed to indicate BAE would still control ASC until after the DDG replacements are built, indicating the replacements would be of a BAE evolved design. https://defense.info/partners-corner/2018/06/bae-type-26-selected-for-sea-5000/

The type 26 is a decent modern design, incremental developments would keep it highly relevant going forward. With 3 quite large build programs, we won't be evolving it by ourselves either. Developments could be sold on to other partner projects, and we can pick and choose their upgrades. We can benchmark other ships and builds and adjust to their levels. But with 30+ ships being built and the newest design and the biggest design, I imagine the Type 26 will be hard to beat.

 

[Redlands18]

I actually think designs will evolve during the build process. I think it's highly likely the intention is for BAE to build the DDG replacements, based on the continuously evolving Type 26 hull. More in line with the Japanese style build rather than traditional Aussie builds where we go with a clean sheet every build type. This risk with traditional procurement is too great and too disruptive and too expensive.

There is actually some of this info I had pasted into the RN thread. The diagram (uncredited) seemed to indicate BAE would still control ASC until after the DDG replacements are built, indicating the replacements would be of a BAE evolved design. https://defense.info/partners-corner/2018/06/bae-type-26-selected-for-sea-5000/

The type 26 is a decent modern design, incremental developments would keep it highly relevant going forward. With 3 quite large build programs, we won't be evolving it by ourselves either. Developments could be sold on to other partner projects, and we can pick and choose their upgrades. We can benchmark other ships and builds and adjust to their levels. But with 30+ ships being built and the newest design and the biggest design, I imagine the Type 26 will be hard to beat.

Yea my feeling is something evolved from the Type 26 would be a strong chance. But I can see it being somewhat larger. I think the RAN will want another 16-24 VLS Cells at least compared to the Hobarts, with the possibility of LACMs and VLS SSMs entering the picture for the RAN, 48 Cells may not cut it.

 

[hairyman]

Why not start off building the ships earlier as suggested, build an additional three ships, make them better armed and heavier, and call them destroyers? Problem solved.

 

[ngatimozart]

Why not start off building the ships earlier as suggested, build an additional three ships, make them better armed and heavier, and call them destroyers? Problem solved.

Funding, politics, pollies, build location, design, build capacity, detrimental impacts upon the Hunter FFG and Attack SSK builds and drumbeats, what capabilities would you delete from the ADF in order to afford this?