Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Richo99]

Bearing in mind we recently had 3 CFAdams destroyers, 6 OHPerry Frigates and 8 Anzac class frigates on the way. Now we are down to just the Anzacs and a few of the OHP's. .

The greatest number of escorts the RAN has had in service in recent times was 13 for a very brief period around 2005 when there were 5 FFG and 8 Anzacs in service, but over the past 25 years there has generally been only 11-12 escorts at any one time (and as low as 9 in 2000).

To get to your suggested fleet of 18 odd ships is going to require some serious political will and cash, at a time when neither are plentiful. I think the most that can realistically be hoped for is that the RAN retains 11-13 high end ships plus 10-12 OPVs. Even this may be hard to achieve if the 12 sub program continues, though I suspect the political will for this may diminish as the hard decisions approach.

Not saying I dont think an increase in the fleet is desirable or warranted, just that I think there is absolutely no possibility of it actually occurring.

 

[Volkodav]

The greatest number of escorts the RAN has had in service in recent times was 13 for a very brief period around 2005 when there were 5 FFG and 8 Anzacs in service, but over the past 25 years there has generally been only 11-12 escorts at any one time (and as low as 9 in 2000).

To get to your suggested fleet of 18 odd ships is going to require some serious political will and cash, at a time when neither are plentiful. I think the most that can realistically be hoped for is that the RAN retains 11-13 high end ships plus 10-12 OPVs. Even this may be hard to achieve if the 12 sub program continues, though I suspect the political will for this may diminish as the hard decisions approach.

Not saying I dont think an increase in the fleet is desirable or warranted, just that I think there is absolutely no possibility of it actually occurring.

What you need to factor in is the smaller crews of the new ships. The DDGs had 330+ while the DEs were 250 and the elephant in the room HMAS Melbourne had 1300, the 180-200 on the FFGs, the 163 on the ANZACS and 180-220 on the AWDs is much less in comparison. The issue is successive governments used the reduced manning requirements as a financial dividend instead of increasing hull numbers as had been strategically desirable for the preceding decades.

In the late sixties 23 destroyers and frigates supporting 3 carriers was seen as the minimum requirement by the early nineties eight tier 1, eight tier 2 and a dozen corvette sized tier 3 were the go. Now we have twelve majors and fourteen PBs with no carriers, a big come down by any standard.

 

[rand0m]

What you need to factor in is the smaller crews of the new ships. The DDGs had 330+ while the DEs were 250 and the elephant in the room HMAS Melbourne had 1300, the 180-200 on the FFGs, the 163 on the ANZACS and 180-220 on the AWDs is much less in comparison. The issue is successive governments used the reduced manning requirements as a financial dividend instead of increasing hull numbers as had been strategically desirable for the preceding decades.

In the late sixties 23 destroyers and frigates supporting 3 carriers was seen as the minimum requirement by the early nineties eight tier 1, eight tier 2 and a dozen corvette sized tier 3 were the go. Now we have twelve majors and fourteen PBs with no carriers, a big come down by any standard.

I'm really interested to see which way SEA1180 will go. One day we're heading towards more Armidale class like and the next we're heading towards corvettes (loosely based of course). Flip a coin already?

 

[Raven22]

What you need to factor in is the smaller crews of the new ships. The DDGs had 330+ while the DEs were 250 and the elephant in the room HMAS Melbourne had 1300, the 180-200 on the FFGs, the 163 on the ANZACS and 180-220 on the AWDs is much less in comparison. The issue is successive governments used the reduced manning requirements as a financial dividend instead of increasing hull numbers as had been strategically desirable for the preceding decades.

In the late sixties 23 destroyers and frigates supporting 3 carriers was seen as the minimum requirement by the early nineties eight tier 1, eight tier 2 and a dozen corvette sized tier 3 were the go. Now we have twelve majors and fourteen PBs with no carriers, a big come down by any standard.

Why the constant need to compare what we have now to what we had in the past or, as you have done here, what was PLANNED in the past?

There are so many things different between the situation in 1950/60/70/80/90 to now, that such a basic comparison is worthless. You might as well say 'we had no submarines in service in 1960 so why do we need 6+ now?'

Why not just work out what we need now and in the future, and go from there? If that happens to be less than what we had in the past that's great, that's more money that can be spent in more useful places in our society. Like subsidising the cost of pet psychiatrists. Because they exist.

 

[Volkodav]

Why the constant need to compare what we have now to what we had in the past or, as you have done here, what was PLANNED in the past?

There are so many things different between the situation in 1950/60/70/80/90 to now, that such a basic comparison is worthless. You might as well say 'we had no submarines in service in 1960 so why do we need 6+ now?'

Why not just work out what we need now and in the future, and go from there? If that happens to be less than what we had in the past that's great, that's more money that can be spent in more useful places in our society. Like subsidising the cost of pet psychiatrists. Because they exist.

I was referring to the numbers desired / planned to illustrate how consistent they are across decades and different colors of government. Each time these numbers come up is following a strategic review of what is actually required to protect our interests within the geography of our region. The 23 destroyers and frigates was under Gorton, post Suhartos accession to power and under Hawke / Keating as the cold war drew to a close. In both cases it was as a result of a strategic review into our national requirements once the obvious external threat had been removed.

Basically there are x number of strategic points that require y number of hulls of z capability to control them. As the threat profile changes the so does the quality of the platform required and to a lesser degree the number and type of platforms, but not the number of points to be controlled As technology improves individual capability goes up and for instance some screening combatants can be replaced by helicopters for instance. At the end of the day if there is a requirement to control x number of points you will still need a minimum number of hulls to do it and we always seem to have fewer than any, non-budget driven review has indicated.

Even Rudds white paper that left major surface combatant numbers at 11-12 doubled the number of submarines to 12 which would in actual fact cost significantly more than building 8 instead of 3 AWDs. This brings us back to the same sort of numbers that have been discussed for decades. The logic behind the subs is that they would be more survivable than the skimmers in the more exposed geographical points.

While one of my dogs is a little neurotic and I suspect one of my parrots is a psychopath I would rather see the money invested in meeting identified (over and over again) capability requirements than to increasing access to pet shrinks.

 

[SouthernSky]

It would appear that nuship Adelaide is on her way home. Will we see two LHD's moored at Williamstown? Going to be tight for room if that's the case.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I'm really interested to see which way SEA1180 will go. One day we're heading towards more Armidale class like and the next we're heading towards corvettes (loosely based of course). Flip a coin already?

My understanding that SEA1180 was pushed to the right by 15 years meaning that if the concept is still viable it will replace whatever replaces the Armidales under SEA1179 in the next couple of years.

 

[alexsa]

My understanding that SEA1180 was pushed to the right by 15 years meaning that if the concept is still viable it will replace whatever replaces the Armidales under SEA1179 in the next couple of years.

Not quite 15 years given the IOC is projected for FY21/22 to 23/24. I will not put an credence in anything until the White paper is done.

As for replacing the ACPB there are some very good commercial designs with a 30 year hull life (minimum) that would provide great capabiltiy to the RAN in lieu of the Cape Class but I am not holding my breath.

 

[t68]

Not quite 15 years given the IOC is projected for FY21/22 to 23/24. I will not put an credence in anything until the White paper is done.

As for replacing the ACPB there are some very good commercial designs with a 30 year hull life (minimum) that would provide great capabiltiy to the RAN in lieu of the Cape Class but I am not holding my breath.

To keep industry ticking along long term is it better to build the Cape class/ACPB(22 boats) every 20 years with a major going over every 5 than have boats over 30 that’s if they are cheap enough or is it far too long to be in service for 20 years?

If it’s not viable what do you suggest?

 

[justsomeaussie]

To keep industry ticking along long term is it better to build the Cape class/ACPB(22 boats) every 20 years with a major going over every 5 than have boats over 30 that’s if they are cheap enough or is it far too long to be in service for 20 years?

If it’s not viable what do you suggest?

The idea is more like Collins mk2, to have a continuous 22 vessel build and towards the end of the build start looking at updating the hull to mk4 (Bay>Armidale>Cape>Mk4)

That's if someone does some decent analysis for a change a determines if aluminium hulls are feasible. So far for offshore patrols, the jury is still out.

 

[Volkodav]

The trouble is the capes have many of the same design issues as the Armidales, they will not last the scheduled life of type, simple as that.

 

[justsomeaussie]

The trouble is the capes have many of the same design issues as the Armidales, they will not last the scheduled life of type, simple as that.

CAPE ST.GEORGE - Patrol vessel: current position and details | IMO 9665774, MMSI 503750000, Callsign VHIL | Registered in Australia - AIS Marine Traffic

At the moment lucky to last sea trials.

 

[Volkodav]

CAPE ST.GEORGE - Patrol vessel: current position and details | IMO 9665774, MMSI 503750000, Callsign VHIL | Registered in Australia - AIS Marine Traffic

At the moment lucky to last sea trials.

Don't get me wrong, they look fantastic, have every feature you could possibly want and are comparatively cheap to buy in comparison to a steel or composite hulled PB let alone a proper OPV or corvette. Then again pretty much the same thing could be said of a Great Wall utility or SUV in comparison to their competition!

 

[rand0m]

Not quite 15 years given the IOC is projected for FY21/22 to 23/24. I will not put an credence in anything until the White paper is done.

As for replacing the ACPB there are some very good commercial designs with a 30 year hull life (minimum) that would provide great capabiltiy to the RAN in lieu of the Cape Class but I am not holding my breath.

Just cut a deal with the Spaniards already with their Buque de Acción Marítima/Meteoro OPV's. Somewhat of a proven design, a credible builder, they could surely follow the same rollout as the LHD's & AWD's - Semi built in Spain & here thus keeping people in jobs (with a political spin on it!). A little larger than outlined and slower than the ACPB but surely 'overcomeable'.

 

[alexsa]

To keep industry ticking along long term is it better to build the Cape class/ACPB(22 boats) every 20 years with a major going over every 5 than have boats over 30 that’s if they are cheap enough or is it far too long to be in service for 20 years?

If it’s not viable what do you suggest?

Different yards and build systems really. Austals main market is HSC with a side defence industry (noting LCS is built in the US not in the Australian yard). Austal cannot build majors so keeping the yard in operation with patrol boats simply maintains that capability. This is a capability which other yards have.

The Cape class is not cheap with a project cost (in 2010 figures it think) of 350m for just 8 boats. The follow on proposed for the RAN will not be cheaper and if the hull life is just 15 years you have to question this as 'affordable' given the operating limitations............... no southern ocean work for that vessel.

There are 90m OPV designs available overseas for about 50m a copy in todays figures and I suspect this would be comparable to what the Naval Cape would cost. the difference is capabiltiy (Helo capable with the same weapons fit and significantly greater range and seakeeping ........... as well as a mission deck) but with a 3 to 5 knot speed disadvantage depending on design. To be honest 20 to 22 knots with a helo capable OPV is sufficient.

To build in Australia would cost more but would support yards such as BAE and the ASC, this ensures skills are maintained and helps with the "valley of Death" issue. Add more capabilty to the ship (76 or 57 mm ........ which they are designed to take) and full size hanger and the cost would go up. This being said you could build a vessel that provides a true enforcement, response and patrol capability in much more severe conditions - greater persistance. The cost would that the same funds would probably only build 6 to 7 hulls for the same price as 10 of the modified Cape assuming greater project cost in Australia.

 

[alexsa]

Don't get me wrong, they look fantastic, have every feature you could possibly want and are comparatively cheap to buy in comparison to a steel or composite hulled PB let alone a proper OPV or corvette. Then again pretty much the same thing could be said of a Great Wall utility or SUV in comparison to their competition!

Actually compared to overseas 'larger' steel hulled OPV's they are not that cheap for similar capability.

I agree the look significantly better than the ACPB and some of the issues appear to have been addressed, however, they are still a light weight design and that has significant implications where the ships are run hard.

The other big issue for aluminium is your structural fire protection will never be as good as steel and to get close cost a heap. To achieve A-60 on bulkheads is very difficult, expensive and adds weight.

 

[Volkodav]

Different yards and build systems really. Austals main market is HSC with a side defence industry (noting LCS is built in the US not in the Australian yard). Austal cannot build majors so keeping the yard in operation with patrol boats simply maintains that capability. This is a capability which other yards have.

The Cape class is not cheap with a project cost (in 2010 figures it think) of 350m for just 8 boats. The follow on proposed for the RAN will not be cheaper and if the hull life is just 15 years you have to question this as 'affordable' given the operating limitations............... no southern ocean work for that vessel.

There are 90m OPV designs available overseas for about 50m a copy in todays figures and I suspect this would be comparable to what the Naval Cape would cost. the difference is capabiltiy (Helo capable with the same weapons fit and significantly greater range and seakeeping ........... as well as a mission deck) but with a 3 to 5 knot speed disadvantage depending on design. To be honest 20 to 22 knots with a helo capable OPV is sufficient.

To build in Australia would cost more but would support yards such as BAE and the ASC, this ensures skills are maintained and helps with the "valley of Death" issue. Add more capabilty to the ship (76 or 57 mm ........ which they are designed to take) and full size hanger and the cost would go up. This being said you could build a vessel that provides a true enforcement, response and patrol capability in much more severe conditions - greater persistance. The cost would that the same funds would probably only build 6 to 7 hulls for the same price as 10 of the modified Cape assuming greater project cost in Australia.

If you gave an OPV a stern launching ramp and a fast interceptor craft in addition to a RHIB (as the USCG run now) and the lack of speed problem is solved. Embark a light VTOL UAV to operate from the heli deck and you have the surveillance side covered off as well.

As for the guns, fit most with Typhoons from the ACPBs and some with the MK 75 (Oto Melara) 76mm mounts from the FFGs and see how they go. The amount of repair work that has to be done on the tinnies the RAN is running at the moment is ridiculous, older RAN from Freos and Mine Hunters are asking why we didn't go steel or composite instead of aluminium.

 

[alexsa]

If you gave an OPV a stern launching ramp and a fast interceptor craft in addition to a RHIB (as the USCG run now) and the lack of speed problem is solved. Embark a light VTOL UAV to operate from the heli deck and you have the surveillance side covered off as well.

As for the guns, fit most with Typhoons from the ACPBs and some with the MK 75 (Oto Melara) 76mm mounts from the FFGs and see how they go. The amount of repair work that has to be done on the tinnies the RAN is running at the moment is ridiculous, older RAN from Freos and Mine Hunters are asking why we didn't go steel or composite instead of aluminium.

The Damen OPV series have stern doors as an option and are rated for the 76mm. Provided you do not select the 100m top of the line and go for the 98m (or smaller) OSV based option these come within the 50-60m cost per unit depending on fit out.

The rider on that cost is that it is as build in an Asian yard. I would expect building here would cost more but at least that provides sustained building and a domestic benefit.

However, I suspect this is a pipe dream

 

[justsomeaussie]

The Damen OPV series have stern doors as an option and are rated for the 76mm. Provided you do not select the 100m top of the line and go for the 98m (or smaller) OSV based option these come within the 50-60m cost per unit depending on fit out.

The rider on that cost is that it is as build in an Asian yard. I would expect building here would cost more but at least that provides sustained building and a domestic benefit.

However, I suspect this is a pipe dream

This is already highly political and with another Western Australian Minister for Defence the chances of it not going to Austal I would say are slim to none.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is already highly political and with another Western Australian Minister for Defence the chances of it not going to Austal I would say are slim to none.

and the jury is still out as to whether he will exercise caution and listen to operators rather than bend to an industry or political "mafia"