Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

From how i read it SEA1180 the OCV will be pushed to the right so that money isn't necessarily available for the ACPB replacement. That would say to me there would be a new bucket of money for the ACPB replacement and a second much later bucket for the OCV project.

If there is talk of replacing the Armidales at the ten year mark, perhaps thats means the OCV would be considered for 2025 onwards.

Just adding to your list the requirement was also for them to be locally built on a proven design. So that means it has to be an existing vessel and likely can't include an MRV80 type vessel.

I'm not suggesting that SEA1180 has disappeared totally, whether that is to at least 2025, as you say, or well beyond and in what scope, who knows at this stage, it may disappear off the next DCP to be published and to be included again at a much later date.

But I think it's pretty clear that it has been moved so far to the right that any money associated will be reallocated and have to be reallocated, I don't think there are too many spare buckets of money lying around, I think it will just be reallocated.

And especially so that the 26 vessels of 4 difference classes that were supposed to be replaced by SEA 1180 are now all going to be either upgraded (Minehunters) or replaced (ACPB's and the Hydrographic vessels).

And that's what I've noticed has been missing out of the debate regarding replacing the ACPB's with more patrol boats, there has been no mention or discussion of the fact that this decision to defer SEA1180 also include the Minehunters and Hydrographic vessels too.

And that's why I suggesting that there will be three new projects to fund, and not to forget the money that will be needed for the replacement of both Success and Sirius, especially if they are built or partially built here too, I might be wrong, but I thought money allocated in the DCP was only for Success, now both are being replaced.

Anyway, all will probably be revealed, or made a bit clearer, when the new DCP is published.

Cheers.

 

[Volkodav]

Whilst I find the debate very interesting and informative regarding what types of ships the Navy should obtain to replace the ACPB's, I think the big picture question for me is, how much money is to be allocated for this project and what type of replacement will that buy?

The answer to how much (or how little) is allocated should be answered in the next DCP, which is due mid year.

What is known from the recent Defence budget announcement is:

* Early replacement of the Armidale Class patrol boats, acquisition of Hydrographic Survey Vessels, upgrades to Minehunter Coastal vessels and deferral of the Multi Role Offshore Combatant ship

* The replacement of replenishment ships HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius, and

* That Choules would continue in service after the introduction of the LHD's (which I'd read as meaning the proposed Sea Lift Ship project would be pushed a long way off into the distance).

The reason I have listed all of the above is to see how much had been allocated in the previous DCP for those various projects and what will or has changed, the amounts where:

* SEA 1180 - OCV's - $5b-$10b, middle of the band suggested.
* SEA 1654 - AOR's - $1b-$2b, middle of the band suggested.
* JP 2048 Ph 4C - Sea Lift Ship - $1b-2b, middle of the band suggested (this phase was in the 2011 DCP, but had disappeared out of the 2012 DCP).

Those three projects had a range of $7b-14b, the middle is around $10b, still sounds like a lot of money that has been projected to be allocated, so what's likely to happen?

The money allocated for SEA 1180 will probably now be split into three separate projects, upgrade the minehunters, new hydrograph ships (both classes?) and of course the ACPB replacement.

Replacing both Success and Sirius, if they are built or partially built here will probably consume more money that is currently allocated, so where does that extra money come from?

With JP2048 Ph4C disappearing from last year's DCP, that money may still be available to be added to Success and Sirius replacements, or it may have already been absorbed back into the overall budget after last year's cuts.

Or maybe some of the original SEA 1180 allocation may have to be used.

I know these fact and figures may seem a bit boring, but the Defence pie can only be sliced in so many ways and of course the other big announcement was the $3b to be spent on the 12 new Growlers, that has to be found somewhere too.

Getting back to where I started, the question I have, is how much of the original SEA1180 allocation will end up as the ACPB replacement allocation?

Will it be less than a Billion or up to a couple of Billion? That will no doubt be a big factor in what actually replaces the ACPB's.

A very well thought out post.

On the AOR side of things I believe a number of options are being considered Cantabria being the obvious with local, overseas and mixed build being possible. Berlin is also in the mix but likely too expensive no matter where built and BMTs AEGIR 18 being offered and an affordable alternative to Cantabria. The AEGIR is interesting as it is similar to but smaller than the MARS ships being built in South Korea for the RN with the proposal being for a total of three ships with two built in Korea and one in Australia.

I am concerned that replacing the PBs and survey ships combined with the upgrade of the MCMVs will cost more and deliver less capability than the OCV plan would have. Factor the overheads of three or four different platforms to design, sustain, and train crews for and the often shorter service lives of smaller hulls I can't help but think short term expediency has won out over long term capability.

 

[John Newman]

A very well thought out post.

On the AOR side of things I believe a number of options are being considered Cantabria being the obvious with local, overseas and mixed build being possible. Berlin is also in the mix but likely too expensive no matter where built and BMTs AEGIR 18 being offered and an affordable alternative to Cantabria. The AEGIR is interesting as it is similar to but smaller than the MARS ships being built in South Korea for the RN with the proposal being for a total of three ships with two built in Korea and one in Australia.

I am concerned that replacing the PBs and survey ships combined with the upgrade of the MCMVs will cost more and deliver less capability than the OCV plan would have. Factor the overheads of three or four different platforms to design, sustain, and train crews for and the often shorter service lives of smaller hulls I can't help but think short term expediency has won out over long term capability.

Volkodav,

Thanks for you comments, it's appreciated.

I tend to not stare at the dot on the wall, but stand back and look at the whole wall, which is why I have resisted the temptation to enter the debate about which type of vessel will replace the ACPB's because, from my point of view, it was pointless till we know how much money is actually allocated to this new project.

And like you, I think this is all a bit short sighted, pushing SEA1180 way off into the distance to solve the perceived problems with the ACPB's.

The whole reasoning behind SEA1180 was to replace 26 vessels of 4 difference classes with 20 OCV's with mission modules to suit the job required at that point in time.

I know that we are not supposed to get too political here, but I do wonder if all the 'cumulative' amount of problems the ACPB's are having is far more to do with them being worked to death because border protection is out of control, compared to the time when the previous Government ordered them, than it is to do with failings of the design at that time.

Anyway, not going to go too deep into that, don't want to get in trouble, but I think you know what I mean.

Only time will tell if it would have been better to just throw some more resources and money at fixing the ACPB's problems rather than shelving SEA1180 and all the problems that is going to create by continuing to operate 4 difference classes of ships in the medium term.

 

[Volkodav]

Volkodav,

Thanks for you comments, it's appreciated.

I tend to not stare at the dot on the wall, but stand back and look at the whole wall, which is why I have resisted the temptation to enter the debate about which type of vessel will replace the ACPB's because, from my point of view, it was pointless till we know how much money is actually allocated to this new project.

And like you, I think this is all a bit short sighted, pushing SEA1180 way off into the distance to solve the perceived problems with the ACPB's.

The whole reasoning behind SEA1180 was to replace 26 vessels of 4 difference classes with 20 OCV's with mission modules to suit the job required at that point in time.

I know that we are not supposed to get too political here, but I do wonder if all the 'cumulative' amount of problems the ACPB's are having is far more to do with them being worked to death because border protection is out of control, compared to the time when the previous Government ordered them, than it is to do with failings of the design at that time.

Anyway, not going to go too deep into that, don't want to get in trouble, but I think you know what I mean.

Only time will tell if it would have been better to just throw some more resources and money at fixing the ACPB's problems rather than shelving SEA1180 and all the problems that is going to create by continuing to operate 4 difference classes of ships in the medium term.

I suppose the issue is that there were no "boats" when the Transfield corvette was planned and then cancelled, because it wasn't needed, but we were being over run when the ACPBs were ordered in a panic. Now there is no excuse, we have the need and have been taught the lessons, just depends whether they have been learnt.

It is often the case that when you have a need you don't have time and when you have the time you don't have the need. This conspires against having what you need when you need it. We appear to have run out of time again which will likely force the adoption of what is available rather than, necessarily, what we need.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I suppose the issue is that there were no "boats" when the Transfield corvette was planned and then cancelled, because it wasn't needed, but we were being over run when the ACPBs were ordered in a panic. Now there is no excuse, we have the need and have been taught the lessons, just depends whether they have been learnt.

It is often the case that when you have a need you don't have time and when you have the time you don't have the need. This conspires against having what you need when you need it. We appear to have run out of time again which will likely force the adoption of what is available rather than, necessarily, what we need.

This is what frustrates me about Defence. The Armidales are just an upgraded Bay class so instead of Defence working with industry to define and build a solution it keeps them at arms length then complains when something isn't to spec. OCDs and FPSs can only go so far. You have to build on an evolving cycle improving the design at each evolution. The idea that "we can't talk to the gun runners" has meant that a whole raft of important feedback from the most junior members upwards isn't passed onto industry so they can build it better next time.

Simply if you don't tell us, we can only guess at what we think you want.

 

[Volkodav]

I've heard a Commodore complain that they spend years developing and refining requirements to see them ignored in every Cabinet procurement decision.

 

[swerve]

As suggested by Volkodav, I'm moving a digression into discussing the ANZACs & what they might have been from the USN thread to here.

Perhaps the RAN shot itself in the foot by not accepting what Paul Dibb proposed in his 1980s report. If it hadn't fought successfully for the ANZACs to be proper war fighting ships, but had instead plumped for the sort of vessel Dibb wanted - maybe at the low end of what he suggested - it'd have kept the eight or nine higher-end destroyers/frigates in his force structure, instead of losing most of them because politicians saw the ANZACs as adequate, & would now have a force of larger warships in about the same numbers as the current fleet, supplemented by several OPVs/corvettes, perhaps along the lines of the Floreal class, but maybe smaller, ca 2000 tons.

From the Dibb report, page 19 -
"Build in Australia eight ocean patrol ships/light patrol frigates, to enter service
from the early-to-mid-1990s as the last three destroyer escorts (DEs) and first five
Fremantle class patrol boats pay off. Plan on a decision in 1987-88 for design
development. (Estimated cost of $2000 million is balanced by reductions in earlier
proposals for new surface combatants and new patrol boats. About 1000 personnel
for these new ships and their helicopters to become available from the five
Fremantles and three DEs.)
- Consider cancelling the modernisation of, and paying off, the third guided missile
destroyer (DDG) HMAS Hobart. (Save $32 million from capital equipment
program; reduce annual operating costs by $8 million; reallocate the crew of 330.)
Government may wish, however, to retain nine rather than eight capable destroyers
in the fleet."

Opinions?

 

[hauritz]

All I can say is that with the value of hindsight Dibb's plan would have worked out.

Of course predicting future events and requirements isn't an exact science.

Having said all that I think that the time has come to start considering what is exactly the right balance between the forces you need for warfighting and those you you need for peace keeping and domestic missions.

A class of lightly armed 2000 ton OPVs would be quite useful now and it is hard to imagine a time when they wouldn't be considered a valuable naval asset.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The problem with the Dibb plan is it would have left the sharp end of the fleet with six FFGs and that's it. On the other hand the Navy's plan would have been replacing the River class with six frigate/destroyers (in place of Anzac class, say the bigger F124 class or similar) and then replacing the Fremantles with 12 Navy designed OPCs designed for North Australia, SEA, SW Pac waters.

So the Navy would have ended up with 6 Adelaide FFGs, 6 1990s FFGs and 12 OPCs. Which IMHO is far better than 4 Adelaide FFGs, 8 MEKO 200 FFHs and 14 ACPBs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I've heard a Commodore complain that they spend years developing and refining requirements to see them ignored in every Cabinet procurement decision.

One doesn't have to go too far back to see platform selections that were in contradiction to the Service choice - and thats occurred across all 3 services.

It would be useful if companies playing in maritime space actually paid attention to what RADM Rowan Moffitt said re subs - because it also applies to skimmers

On another note, did anyone read Cameron Stuarts fluff piece on BAE-A.

Talk about swallowing the company line and ignoring a whole pile of facts that might diminish or discredit his tome.....

 

[alexsa]

As suggested by Volkodav, I'm moving a digression into discussing the ANZACs & what they might have been from the USN thread to here.

Perhaps the RAN shot itself in the foot by not accepting what Paul Dibb proposed in his 1980s report. If it hadn't fought successfully for the ANZACs to be proper war fighting ships, but had instead plumped for the sort of vessel Dibb wanted - maybe at the low end of what he suggested - it'd have kept the eight or nine higher-end destroyers/frigates in his force structure, instead of losing most of them because politicians saw the ANZACs as adequate, & would now have a force of larger warships in about the same numbers as the current fleet, supplemented by several OPVs/corvettes, perhaps along the lines of the Floreal class, but maybe smaller, ca 2000 tons.

From the Dibb report, page 19 -
"Build in Australia eight ocean patrol ships/light patrol frigates, to enter service
from the early-to-mid-1990s as the last three destroyer escorts (DEs) and first five
Fremantle class patrol boats pay off. Plan on a decision in 1987-88 for design
development. (Estimated cost of $2000 million is balanced by reductions in earlier
proposals for new surface combatants and new patrol boats. About 1000 personnel
for these new ships and their helicopters to become available from the five
Fremantles and three DEs.)
- Consider cancelling the modernisation of, and paying off, the third guided missile
destroyer (DDG) HMAS Hobart. (Save $32 million from capital equipment
program; reduce annual operating costs by $8 million; reallocate the crew of 330.)
Government may wish, however, to retain nine rather than eight capable destroyers
in the fleet."

Opinions?

The MEKO had a serious contender in the M Class Frigate which was a nice piece of kit, however, it was to be built in Newcastle there was some suggestion that the jobs in Williamstown were a tad more important.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The MEKO had a serious contender in the M Class Frigate which was a nice piece of kit, however, it was to be built in Newcastle there was some suggestion that the jobs in Williamstown were a tad more important.

The govt. had just spent a cool billion turning Williamstown into a functional yard so they did want some return on investment regardless of the frigate offers. But the New Surface Combatant project (which was what the Anzac class was called before the idea to name the leadership Anzac) looked at a range of ship types and numbers. From the 5,000-6,000 tonne guided missile frigate the Navy actually needed through to varied patrol options from 'Tier II' frigate to larger numbers of corvettes.

Of course you step back another decision and chose Navy over govt. and you don't have the Australian Frigate project progressing (HMA Ships Melbourne and Newcastle) and in thier place have the new aircraft carrier. So Williamstown would have closed in the mid 1980s as a national disgrace. So the NSC (DE replacement) project could be built by a nice greenfields yard like the one planned by AWS for Newscatle. Which could then go on and build the DDG/FFG replacement then new amphib and support ships for the RAN and eventually a 1980s carrier replacement.

 

[alexsa]

The govt. had just spent a cool billion turning Williamstown into a functional yard so they did want some return on investment regardless of the frigate offers. But the New Surface Combatant project (which was what the Anzac class was called before the idea to name the leadership Anzac) looked at a range of ship types and numbers. From the 5,000-6,000 tonne guided missile frigate the Navy actually needed through to varied patrol options from 'Tier II' frigate to larger numbers of corvettes.

Of course you step back another decision and chose Navy over govt. and you don't have the Australian Frigate project progressing (HMA Ships Melbourne and Newcastle) and in thier place have the new aircraft carrier. So Williamstown would have closed in the mid 1980s as a national disgrace. So the NSC (DE replacement) project could be built by a nice greenfields yard like the one planned by AWS for Newscatle. Which could then go on and build the DDG/FFG replacement then new amphib and support ships for the RAN and eventually a 1980s carrier replacement.

We had a chap working with us who worked at Williamstown and then was on the M Class bid. In the end they saw it as a two horse race. We have a GA of the ANZAC with two CIWS, Harpoon behind the funnel and two FC system. .......... quite amusing given the subsequent top weight issue.


There was also a suggestion to follow the M Class propulsion system for the MEKO (two Speys) but that did not survive.


The idea of a patrol frigate is fine provide there is the combat capability above that. Never a fan of fitted for but not with and ANZAC was not fitted with much ...... including tubes on the first of class.

 

[Volkodav]

The govt. had just spent a cool billion turning Williamstown into a functional yard so they did want some return on investment regardless of the frigate offers. But the New Surface Combatant project (which was what the Anzac class was called before the idea to name the leadership Anzac) looked at a range of ship types and numbers. From the 5,000-6,000 tonne guided missile frigate the Navy actually needed through to varied patrol options from 'Tier II' frigate to larger numbers of corvettes.

Of course you step back another decision and chose Navy over govt. and you don't have the Australian Frigate project progressing (HMA Ships Melbourne and Newcastle) and in thier place have the new aircraft carrier. So Williamstown would have closed in the mid 1980s as a national disgrace. So the NSC (DE replacement) project could be built by a nice greenfields yard like the one planned by AWS for Newscatle. Which could then go on and build the DDG/FFG replacement then new amphib and support ships for the RAN and eventually a 1980s carrier replacement.

I remember reading a series of articles many years back that indicated that the total cost of the additional pair of FFGs, buying the Seahawks instead of Lynx (to make up for the Seakings no longer being able to go to sea) and modifying the first three FFGs to operate Seahawks was more expensive than replacing Melbourne. Interesting if the numbers actually workout, I imagine sustainment cost would be higher for the carrier than the extra frigates but what would the overall picture look like.

 

[htbrst]

The problem with the Dibb plan is it would have left the sharp end of the fleet with six FFGs and that's it. On the other hand the Navy's plan would have been replacing the River class with six frigate/destroyers (in place of Anzac class, say the bigger F124 class or similar) and then replacing the Fremantles with 12 Navy designed OPCs designed for North Australia, SEA, SW Pac waters.

So the Navy would have ended up with 6 Adelaide FFGs, 6 1990s FFGs and 12 OPCs. Which IMHO is far better than 4 Adelaide FFGs, 8 MEKO 200 FFHs and 14 ACPBs.

Does any potential contribution by NZ factor into the politicians thoughts here as Australias decision would also have affected NZ's choices in the same time period?

If the OPC was available, that may sway NZ to the cheaper OPC option vs replacing the Leander class frigates, chopping (at least) two frigates available for any combined battle group.

Thus if you count NZ - Is 6 Adelaide FFGs, 6 1990s FFGs and 14-16 OPCs still better than 4 Adelaide FFGs, 10-12 MEKO 200 FFHs and 14 ACPBs ?

Or does Australia strong-arm NZ into two 1990's FFG vs their (planned) 4 Anzacs?

 

[swerve]

The problem with the Dibb plan is it would have left the sharp end of the fleet with six FFGs and that's it. On the other hand the Navy's plan would have been replacing the River class with six frigate/destroyers (in place of Anzac class, say the bigger F124 class or similar) and then replacing the Fremantles with 12 Navy designed OPCs designed for North Australia, SEA, SW Pac waters.

So the Navy would have ended up with 6 Adelaide FFGs, 6 1990s FFGs and 12 OPCs. Which IMHO is far better than 4 Adelaide FFGs, 8 MEKO 200 FFHs and 14 ACPBs.

I think the argument is that the RAN was never going to get what it wanted, so comparing that with either the Dibb plan or current reality is pointless. The debate is about what the best policy for the RAN was, accepting that it couldn't get all it wanted. Could it have done better by downgrading, rather than upgrading, the ANZACs, to try to preserve the numbers & capability of the high-end ships?

The extract I posted was a direct quote from the report, & specifically mentioned eight - or if the government preferred, nine - high-end ships, not six. Could the RAN have kept all those, & got them replaced one for one with bigger & better ships than the ANZACs, if it had turned the ANZACs into oceanic patrol vessels rather than light frigates with too much crammed in for their size?


I don't see that M-class vs MEKO 200 would have made much difference. About the same size.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

We had a chap working with us who worked at Williamstown and then was on the M Class bid. In the end they saw it as a two horse race. We have a GA of the ANZAC with two CIWS, Harpoon behind the funnel and two FC system. .......... quite amusing given the subsequent top weight issue.

M class (Karel Doorman) clearly had advantages in top weight. Like using Mk 48 VLS which loaded with 32 ESSM is a lot less weight lower in the hull than Mk 41 VLS with 32 ESSM. But MEKO 200 looked better on paper. Being more “modular” even though if you built a M Class as the Dutch did it would be entirely to spec.

I remember reading a series of articles many years back that indicated that the total cost of the additional pair of FFGs, buying the Seahawks instead of Lynx (to make up for the Seakings no longer being able to go to sea) and modifying the first three FFGs to operate Seahawks was more expensive than replacing Melbourne. Interesting if the numbers actually workout, I imagine sustainment cost would be higher for the carrier than the extra frigates but what would the overall picture look like.

That was us here in this thread and the RAN carrier thread.

I think the argument is that the RAN was never going to get what it wanted, so comparing that with either the Dibb plan or current reality is pointless.

What the RAN wanted actually costed less than what they got. So I doubt it’s a pointless issue from Govt’s perspective if you could cure them from micromanaging weapon systems.

The extract I posted was a direct quote from the report, & specifically mentioned eight - or if the government preferred, nine - high-end ships, not six. Could the RAN have kept all those, & got them replaced one for one with bigger & better ships than the ANZACs, if it had turned the ANZACs into oceanic patrol vessels rather than light frigates with too much crammed in for their size?

NSC had wide scope but from the budget approved would equate to six high end ships compared to eight Anzac class.

 

[swerve]

NSC had wide scope but from the budget approved would equate to six high end ships compared to eight Anzac class.

I think you're missing the point here.
Assume that the ANZACs are at the bottom end of what Dibb proposed. Less money to buy, fewer crew, lower operating cost,.
Within the same overall budget, that leaves more money for high end ships, & a capability gap if only six Adelaides (already entering service when Dibb wrote his report) are bought & the Perth class scrapped without replacement.. Would the government really go through with that? Or would it replace the Perths?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think you're missing the point here.
Assume that the ANZACs are at the bottom end of what Dibb proposed. Less money to buy, fewer crew, lower operating cost,.
Within the same overall budget, that leaves more money for high end ships, & a capability gap if only six Adelaides (already entering service when Dibb wrote his report) are bought & the Perth class scrapped without replacement.. Would the government really go through with that? Or would it replace the Perths?

The Dibb Report recommended a light patrol frigate of 2,000 tonnes and cost capped at $2 billon compared to $3.5 billion for the Anzac class as ordered so therefore a far less capable vessel. They would be more like MEKO 140s than 200s. The Navy’s plan was to build six new frigates of a global standard to replace the DDGs and DEs costed at $4 billion (let’s call them DDGs). Minus the funds for the LPF this would mean only three new DDGs could be built under the Dibb plan. In order to man the LPFs Dibb recommended paying off the patrol boat fleet down to 10 (and also the DDG’s down to two but let’s forget that). The LPF would have a gun and an air defence system and the capability to embark Seahawks. There was no money for more Seahawks so they would never see them as they would be on the DDGs/FFGs. He also wanted a towed array but no money for these.

So in effect the fleet proposals were at the end of this build program were both 27 ships:

Dibb: 3 DDG, 6 FFG, 8 LPF, 10 PB
RAN: 6 DDG, 6 FFG, 15 PB

The Dibb force was designed to be better for wartime coastal patrol. A situation which decidedly hasn’t happened in Australian waters the past 25 years. The Navy’s fleet would be much better for expeditionary warfare which is something the Navy has done around 5-10 times since. Since the PB replacement in the 2000s could be the corvette (OPC) the advantage of the LPF force would be quickly eroded.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes Abe, I remember discussing it on here but I also remember reading something hardcopy that included cost figures in separate articles for the final pair of FFGs, another on the cost difference between Seahawk and Lynx, another on the cost of modifying the early FFGs to operate Seahawk and another on the cost of Invincible, the lease of Hermes and building a new carrier.
I can't remember the publication, the figures or the year given for the figures.