Irrellevant, sorry.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I think we can see that the position that we are in has been caused by both sides. Both will blame the other.
However at the moment we can't off the peg any big ships to fill a production gap. The only realistic option to plug the valley of death is AWD hulled Frigates. An order of 3 would buy enough time that you could consider:
* expanding techport
* Building at least 1 AOR here
* Building a 3rd LHD here
But then you are expanding techport to build just two-three extra ships. Is it worth it? Is it sustainable. These builds wouldn't be ready in time to plug the valley of death as we are already in it.
I think its absolutely critical that the future subs are built here. Subs aren't like a normal vessel, you need the in-depth (no pun intended) knowledge to stay competitive, the kind of knowledge that you only get with being intimate with the building process. While a lot of money would need to be used to acquire systems etc from overseas, its the expert pool of development knowledge you invest in when you build locally.
I think partnering with the Japanese means our local build is of better quality, with better systems, better price, more timely and the pooling of Japanese and Australian R&D will mean we will both get significantly better boats. The Australian and Japanese submarines are in a class of their own, in size, in capability. By working together we can operate a fleet of submarines that would be significantly more capable than any other conventionally powered fleet, a generation ahead. Ending up with a sustainable industry that links Japan and Australia.
ASC being a run by the government is a big part of the problem. This is one case where it needs to be divested preferably to an international consortium. Mitsubishi would be an ideal partner. I would want the Aus government to fix ASC (since its entirely their mess).
I have issues with buying OTS japanese built submarines with no jointness about them. We lose the ability to develop solutions, we loose industry, but more importantly, strategically/politically we are then 100% tied to japan, and it would be a relationship where they would have all the control.
For China for example, a deal between Australia and Japan, to help sort out Australia's crazy many decade long sub program is one thing, some technology sharing, some improved management, privatizing the government owned yard. All very sensible stuff. Softly softly.
Where as simply spending $40 billion upfront to buy 12 OTS subs off japan ASAP, is a huge deal particularly for China (IMO). Pretty huge precedent for the region and for Japan (IMO). And it won't just be China that will be impacted (IMO). Im sure we can all come up with a list of countries that would like to ask several types of questions.
Throwing $40 billion in to a single defense foreign sale acquisition in the asia pacific region has significant consequences (IMO). This is big boy stuff. Its not just about "saving money" at this level.
However at the moment we can't off the peg any big ships to fill a production gap. The only realistic option to plug the valley of death is AWD hulled Frigates. An order of 3 would buy enough time that you could consider:
* expanding techport
* Building at least 1 AOR here
* Building a 3rd LHD here
But then you are expanding techport to build just two-three extra ships. Is it worth it? Is it sustainable. These builds wouldn't be ready in time to plug the valley of death as we are already in it.
I think its absolutely critical that the future subs are built here. Subs aren't like a normal vessel, you need the in-depth (no pun intended) knowledge to stay competitive, the kind of knowledge that you only get with being intimate with the building process. While a lot of money would need to be used to acquire systems etc from overseas, its the expert pool of development knowledge you invest in when you build locally.
I think partnering with the Japanese means our local build is of better quality, with better systems, better price, more timely and the pooling of Japanese and Australian R&D will mean we will both get significantly better boats. The Australian and Japanese submarines are in a class of their own, in size, in capability. By working together we can operate a fleet of submarines that would be significantly more capable than any other conventionally powered fleet, a generation ahead. Ending up with a sustainable industry that links Japan and Australia.
ASC being a run by the government is a big part of the problem. This is one case where it needs to be divested preferably to an international consortium. Mitsubishi would be an ideal partner. I would want the Aus government to fix ASC (since its entirely their mess).
I have issues with buying OTS japanese built submarines with no jointness about them. We lose the ability to develop solutions, we loose industry, but more importantly, strategically/politically we are then 100% tied to japan, and it would be a relationship where they would have all the control.
For China for example, a deal between Australia and Japan, to help sort out Australia's crazy many decade long sub program is one thing, some technology sharing, some improved management, privatizing the government owned yard. All very sensible stuff. Softly softly.
Where as simply spending $40 billion upfront to buy 12 OTS subs off japan ASAP, is a huge deal particularly for China (IMO). Pretty huge precedent for the region and for Japan (IMO). And it won't just be China that will be impacted (IMO). Im sure we can all come up with a list of countries that would like to ask several types of questions.
Throwing $40 billion in to a single defense foreign sale acquisition in the asia pacific region has significant consequences (IMO). This is big boy stuff. Its not just about "saving money" at this level.
You are right, expanding ASC isn't worth it to build two AORs. ASC was designed its size to build submarines and frigates/destroyers. A class of six or more cheaper ships and a class of at least three more expensive ships. The government crossed that line two decade ago. Nothing has changed since that time. While there are benefits of keeping manufacturing in Australia, there is a negative effect when that subsidy drags the economy down with high tariffs. You can't hide pour production. Australia has tried that route for decades with the automobile industry, and failed.
Having ANY sub designers when no subs are currently being designed is pretty impressive. Wouldn't most relevant people be "former sub designers"? Plus I doubt a lot of the jobs are sub specific - the country has plenty of engineers of exceptionally quality that are working in all sorts of industries, and in fact bringing in people from other industries is likely to help with innovation anyway.
How big would the core group of designers be that actually need experience with subs?
How big would the core group of designers be that actually need experience with subs?
Alternatively build 10 Navantia BAMS locally - 8 stand-off mine hunters and 2 Survey to replace the Leuwin and Huon classes and start to replace the Armidales.
For the mine hunters have three operate as minehunters to maintain training and have one available for deployment.
Use the other 5 for patrol replacing some of the Armidales.
Thoughts?
Massive
But we are not building the BAM at the moment and you still have to tool up. Not sure is the ship we want in any case if this is in liue of the ANZAC (noting we have to build or buy these in the next decade in any case). The big advantage of the F105 hull is that you continue the contruction process of hull blocks without pause.
If we were to look at LCH replacements or OPV these could be built at a number of yards. The AWD hull is really something that should be built at ASC.
Well the keel of the AWDs is from BAE and or Navantia, most of the hull blocks and some of the superstructure blocks are from Forgacs and the critical forward superstructure is ASC. Basically BAE and Forgacs would be able to pretty much just repeat their previous build but ASC would have to retool for their part.
It wont happen but what I would love to see is an order for three evolved AWDs (still with AEGIS) as replacements for the remaining FFGs while retaining the ANZACs until their original planned retirement dates. The only issue with this is if there is some unpublicised issue with the ANZACs that means they need to be replaced early. Ideally then the ANZACs could be replaced with a larger number of light frigates to further increase hull number and then what ever design is selected to replace the ACPBs could be replaced with a class of OPVs taking us through to the time to replace the AWDs.
My thinking is with six DDGs the frigates wont need a large VLS for land attack missiles etc. which would make it possible to accept a smaller cheaper design that still would out perform the ANZACs in every way. A medium calibre gun, a 16 cell Mk 41 VLS for ESSM, ASW torpedoes, canister launched harpoon replacement, a large hanger for two Romeos or a Romeo and a couple of Firescouts, evolved SAAB combat system, CEAFAR, hull mounted and towed array sonars. A well balanced GP frigate (possibly even a Type 26 derivative but likely smaller as no strike length VLS are required) that would hopefully only have a crew of about 100. Such a ship would also have a multi mission bay designed to embark and employ USN compatible mission modules.
t68
Well-Known Member
This is the most logical step. Flight II Hobarts. No need to bring Anzac replacement forward wait till the type 26 is finalised and then look at options, order long lead items now for when current AWD should finish building then continue on.
Joe Black
Active Member
That is just too logical and you know logical decisions are hardly or never taken up by any govt of the day, unless you are in Singapore.
Yet again you display your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of pretty much everything but in particular the facts of Australian manufacturing.
Automotive manufacturing in Australia was profitable up until the GFC when a number of distorting factors occurred.
1. most obviously the global economy stalled and business got harder for everyone
2. the overseas own parent companies of Australias automotive manufacturers had financial difficulties of their own which limited the money they could afford to invest in Australia, some were actually divesting themselves of overseas operations to cut cost just to survive.
3. the strength of the Australian economy saw the Australian dollar rise to record levels and stay there making imports cheaper and exports (which our industry relied on) more expensive.
4. the mining boom distorted the economy draining resources and investment from the rest of the economy.
5. all efforts to rebalance the economy failed due to the power of the mining lobby successfully preventing any policy that would have seen a redistribution of wealth or resources.
6. Australia's tariff barriers were reduced to 5%, significantly lower than those of our competitors, including the US.
7. a number of free trade agreements signed by the Australian government achieved good results for the farming sector but were damaging to manufacturing as they permitted barrier free importation of motor vehicles to Australia while failing to secure Australian access to their markets, i.e. US and Thailand where Australian vehicles are subjected to tariffs and excessive sales taxes.
8. the Australian government, while already providing far less support for the industry than is the case in any other automotive manufacturing country reduced that funding even further.
9. when the new government was elected they refused to guarantee even the reduced funding levels.
At the end of the day we will be worse off as a result of this as the global economy recovers the Australian dollar will drop driving up the costs of imported vehicles but there will be no locally built vehicles left to compensate or to take advantage of new export opportunities. This is what happens when you fail to protect industries from temporary distortions, the fail and then you have nothing left to take advantage when the distortion end.
Please Toby, for the sake of humanity, stop commenting on things which you have no knowledge, training in, understanding or concept of.
If we ran defence procurement and defence force structure reviews the way Singapore does:
- we would already have 6 Collins and 6 Collins II in service and be looking to increase the fleet to 18
- Our DDGs and FFGs would have been replaced by a local build of eight Super Burke AEGIS cruisers from the early 2000s
- The Fremantle class PBs would have been replaced with missile corvettes equipped with CEAFAR, ESSM and a Seahawk helicopter
- The ANZAC replacement would be shaping up as a Japanese style ASW destroyer
- The LHDs would be three locally built modified Wasp class, each supported by a LPD17 and two new generation LST / LSV to replace the LCHs.
- We would be looking into the construction of a class of two or three light or medium STOVL carriers.
- the RAN reserve would have corvettes as training vessels
- Our single tank regiment would have been expanded to six and three Infantry battalions would have been converted to armoured infantry to provide three armoured brigades
- the remaining Infantry battalions would have been converted to airmobile and marine roles
- we would have replaced our Blackhawks with a mix of new Blackhawks and Merlins and we would have ordered Apaches instead of Tigers
- There would be a full squadron of Chinooks
- the army reserve would never have lost their armour and artillery
- The RAAF would increase the number of fighter/strike squadrons to 10 and be flying Eagles and Strike Eagles
- There would be a flying reserve with F-20 Tigersharks and Gripens
- There would be fiver Orion squadrons being re-equipped one for one with P-8As
- There would be a full 12 aircraft tanker transport squadron
- There would be a full 12 aircraft C-17 squadron
- There would be two squadrons of C-130Js to be replaced with A-400s
- There would be three squadrons of C-27Js
Fantasy I know but look where Singapore came from to where they are now and where they are heading. Anyone who says it can't be done is only right because of our lack of political will and bipartisanship, not to mention our attitude that the US will always come to our aid if we are in trouble.
Its not too late to put some fixes in place.
* Build 3 more AWD hulls with Ageis 9.0
* Build 6 more AWD hulls with Ceafar/Saab
* Build new submarines based off the Japanese design, refit Collins I with Japanese propulsion systems. Work up to a total of 10-12 subs.
* Build 16 corrvettes/OPV's
* Build 6 Landing ships
* Build 4 AOR
* Build 1 more LHD (replacing the LPD build)
Thing is there are or have been plans to do exactly that either in the whitepaper or a JP DMO project that is either still in the air, on hold or cancelled. We can (or should be able) afford all of this. The Valley of death was completely government created because of all the above programs were put on hold and both sides are to blame (labor for not starting, libs for not starting, both side for not pushing the other side).
IMO we are better off with our LHD than a Wasp. Steam boilers, huge crewing, older design. Makin Island uses ~1/3rd the fuel of a Wasp moving about. But even with Makin Island, the crewing (and running costs) would kill us. You can crew 3 LHD's for 1 Makin Island.
Two Canberra class approximate 1 Wasp in terms of capabilities (very loosely). So for a smaller navy the JC1 is a better design. The money and crew we save could then be put to use in some other area.
* Build 3 more AWD hulls with Ageis 9.0
* Build 6 more AWD hulls with Ceafar/Saab
* Build new submarines based off the Japanese design, refit Collins I with Japanese propulsion systems. Work up to a total of 10-12 subs.
* Build 16 corrvettes/OPV's
* Build 6 Landing ships
* Build 4 AOR
* Build 1 more LHD (replacing the LPD build)
Thing is there are or have been plans to do exactly that either in the whitepaper or a JP DMO project that is either still in the air, on hold or cancelled. We can (or should be able) afford all of this. The Valley of death was completely government created because of all the above programs were put on hold and both sides are to blame (labor for not starting, libs for not starting, both side for not pushing the other side).
IMO we are better off with our LHD than a Wasp. Steam boilers, huge crewing, older design. Makin Island uses ~1/3rd the fuel of a Wasp moving about. But even with Makin Island, the crewing (and running costs) would kill us. You can crew 3 LHD's for 1 Makin Island.
Two Canberra class approximate 1 Wasp in terms of capabilities (very loosely). So for a smaller navy the JC1 is a better design. The money and crew we save could then be put to use in some other area.
Agree most of this would be the ideal solution..
However re-fitting Collins with new propulsion would be very costly, you would have to weigh up conversion cost v's new build.
Is there a lot of complexity to changing propulsion on Collins?
I was just checking something completely unrelated when I came across a photo of the VLS of a German Type 123 frigate, I hadn't realised that they had space and weight for an extra 16 cells to bring the total to 32. Factor in quad packing and you could have up to 144 ESSM, add ExLS and you can also quad pack Nulka, CAAM and in future other types of missiles.
The reason I am posting this here is I recall a mid 90s article in APDR that suggested either the Australian government or the RAN fancied the design as a perfectly adequate replacement for the DDG / FFG. It was seen as suitable due to its commonality with the ANZACs and less risky that stretching the ANZAC into a DDG/FFG, i.e. a very good follow on for the ANZACs at Williamstown. I remember the article because at the time I was horrified at the suggestion believing the design was limited to only 16 cells and it was no where near as big and sexy as the Kidds (on offer to the RAN at the time) or the DDG 51.
Now with years of naval ship building behind me and seeing what has become of the RAN surface fleet and shipbuilding industry I can't help but wonder if it would indeed have been a viable option and whether it would have been feasible to have fitted 32 strike length cells. Imagine eight on these following the ANZACs out of Williamstown instead of upgrading the FFGs and building the AWDs. Initially fitted with a combat system based on the USN NTU as the Korean KDXII DDGs have but with later ships receiving CEAFAR and other ASMD updates instead of them being fitted to the smaller more weight limited ANZACs, earlier ships being upgraded progressively at scheduled refits.
The reason I am posting this here is I recall a mid 90s article in APDR that suggested either the Australian government or the RAN fancied the design as a perfectly adequate replacement for the DDG / FFG. It was seen as suitable due to its commonality with the ANZACs and less risky that stretching the ANZAC into a DDG/FFG, i.e. a very good follow on for the ANZACs at Williamstown. I remember the article because at the time I was horrified at the suggestion believing the design was limited to only 16 cells and it was no where near as big and sexy as the Kidds (on offer to the RAN at the time) or the DDG 51.
Now with years of naval ship building behind me and seeing what has become of the RAN surface fleet and shipbuilding industry I can't help but wonder if it would indeed have been a viable option and whether it would have been feasible to have fitted 32 strike length cells. Imagine eight on these following the ANZACs out of Williamstown instead of upgrading the FFGs and building the AWDs. Initially fitted with a combat system based on the USN NTU as the Korean KDXII DDGs have but with later ships receiving CEAFAR and other ASMD updates instead of them being fitted to the smaller more weight limited ANZACs, earlier ships being upgraded progressively at scheduled refits.
It would probably be easier and cheaper than maintaining the Hedemoras through to end of life of type. Collins currently has the hull removed from the top of the Main Generator Room to provide access to the diesel generators this is all that would be required to slot in a replacement generator set up. One thing that ASC is very good at is welding with the problems with the class relating to various non ASC and usually imported systems.
The best thing to do with the class is to build up and test replacement systems of new improved design and then cut the hull, rip the old out and slot the new in. If we had done this from the start the class would have had nowhere near the issues it has had, instead government / public service like timid / conservative management has prevented this sort of common sense approach.
Not only 16 Sea Sparrow with room for more - or a lot of ESSM - but two 21-round RAM launchers.
PS. 32 x 4 = 128. Still a lot, though, & I doubt they'll bother. Might even reduce from 16 Sea Sparrow cells to 8 (32 missiles) for ESSM.
Noting the suggestion that even the an ANZAC based on the AWD needs less cells, from a purely self defence point of view I agree, yet I think having a large number of cells (32) on ANZAC II has a lot to recommend it particularly if you use the AWD as a starting point given 32 strike length are already designed in (and catered for in the CoG calculations). If we look at it from a task force POV then the additional cells can be used to take some of the load off the AWD with respect to
- Land attack (which is in scope for ANZAC II)
- ASW weapons (maybe ASROC) noting the ASW capability is in scope for ANZAC II
- SM6 as an additional platform (CEAFAR, CEC (if we get it) and Link will enable this)
- And the load out of ESSM and other self defence rounds that can go in an Mk41 cell,
A handy additional capacity within a task group that means the AWD and be loaded entirely for it main role.
Just a thought
The US import tariff for automobiles is half of Australia's at 2.5 percent. Been that way for over a decade. Yes, there are state sales taxes, but that also includes American made cars. Currently there are calls to eliminate the import car tariff completely, we will see. While Americans aren't totally up to speed about Australian customs and tariffs, please don't misrepresent ours.
Thanks V.
This is a really interesting post which gives rise to the idea as to what would participants in this forum consider the right size of the RAN.
My view would be something like:
Submarines:
16-20 Submarines (3000t)
Major fleet units:
16 Destroyers (4 AWD, 12 GCF 6-10,000t) - 4 escort squadrons (2 squadrons available)
Patrol:
8 Frigates (approx 3000t) - 4 available
5 BAMS Stand-off Minesweepers (peace time tasking) - 2-3 available
Supply:
4 AOR (2 available)
Aviation:
32 Romeo (16 ship flights) - 8 for escort squadrons/AOR, 4 for Frigates, 2 for BAMS, 2 LHD,
?? Fire scout providing (ship flights)
Amphibious:
3 LHD (25-30,000t) - 1-2 available
4 LCH (4000t) - 2 available
4 LCH (1000t) - 2 available
MCM:
3 BAMS Stand-off Minesweepers (peace time training) - 1 available
Survey:
2 BAMS
4 Motor launch
On supporting aviation, I would see a much larger P-8 force for the RAAF.
No carriers though.
Thoughts?
Massive
- Status