Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Joe Black]

In a nutshell, six years ago the CUF and most of the shipyard did not exist. First steel was cut only four years ago, last Saturday the first ship was floated out. This first ship is the first ship built at this yard, it is the first ship of its class, it is the most advanced and capable ship ever built in Australia or procured for the RAN and all we hear is bad news as if the project has failed when that is not the case at all. What has actually happened is cost and schedule was underestimated by over optimistic individuals who chose to ignore the professionals who told them point blanks that there was no way on the face of the planet an existing shipyard could deliver a design they had never built before to that schedule, let alone a new yard with an inexperienced workforce.

Totally understand and agree with what you have said here. We should be celebrating our country's achievement in building such a high tech piece of equipment rather than bashing the project and the workers. Yes there are rooms for improvements. We never seemed to have learnt from the Collins class sub project have we. Our media loves to have a dig at our defence projects.

On the note of further delay, i suspect the newly sustainment support package recently announced for the Aegis system could have contributed in part to the further delay. I suspect we might be upgrading the Aegis from baseline 7.1. Does anyone know?

 

[John Newman]

Everyone, please stop dividing the estimated project cost for the AWD by three to determine how much each ship cost, it is totally inaccurate and misleading.

The project included massive amounts of reusable infrastructure, not just in Adelaide, but also in Melbourne and Newcastle. Facilities built and personnel trained at BAE Williamstown also benefited the LHD project, meaning AWD subsidised LHD to some extent.

Each ship includes equipment procured from overseas that would be used on the ships, no matter where they were built, the AEGIS combat system, propulsion system, weapon systems, auxiliaries, etc. a very substantial fixed cost. What was done, ironically to save costs, was the majority of these systems were procured upfront all at once for all three ships, too bad they didn't factor in the costs of warehousing and in-store maintenance.

Then there is the costs of the materials the ships are constructed from, the costs of changes specified by the RAN, the costs of changes force by other factors, such as the cancelation of the Super Seasprite program, followed by the procurement of the Romeo which forced design and configuration changes to the AWDs.

In addition to all of this there are the labour costs, these are the most telling as this is where significant improvement has been achieved but is being ignored. As I understand it the breakdown is approximately 45%, 32% and 23% for ships 1, 2 and 3 respectively, a very impressive improvement. So based on this alone simply dividing the whole cost by three is totally wrong.

In a nutshell, six years ago the CUF and most of the shipyard did not exist. First steel was cut only four years ago, last Saturday the first ship was floated out. This first ship is the first ship built at this yard, it is the first ship of its class, it is the most advanced and capable ship ever built in Australia or procured for the RAN and all we hear is bad news as if the project has failed when that is not the case at all. What has actually happened is cost and schedule was underestimated by over optimistic individuals who chose to ignore the professionals who told them point blanks that there was no way on the face of the planet an existing shipyard could deliver a design they had never built before to that schedule, let alone a new yard with an inexperienced workforce.

V, I agree with the points you have made, ok?

I agree that you can't just do 'simple' maths and divide the eventual $9+Billion cost by three and end up with each AWD costing $3+Billion each, all true.

But equally true is the fact that this 'project' to deliver three AWD's is costing $9+Billion, ships, infrastructure and all the other costs associated with the project, the bottom line is that the 'spend' is still exactly the same, regardless how the dollars are sliced and diced and what cost is attributed to what part of the project.

And yes again, if the Government does proceed with building the eight Future Frigates at Techport, then no doubt that investment in infrastructure today will be a benefit to that future project, but that is still for the future, quiet a way into the future.

And that is exactly what my concern is, the significant cost blow outs (on top of what was a substantial amount of dollars originally allowed for this project in the first instance) are going to have to be borne by the Defence budget, probably most specially the Navy's part of the Defence budget, it will be borne 'today' and not spread out into the future over the total cost of the AWD's and Future Frigate programs.

The Def Min did say the other day that the extra $1.2Billion required to complete this project (and of course it should be completed), is going to come at the expense of some other Defence capability or capabilities, and that is what I get upset about.

This project isn't just a project to deliver three AWD's to the Navy, it's also an infrastructure, industry and employment project all rolled into one, and in my opinion costs for the project that are not directly 'ship' related costs should be borne elsewhere.

If for example during the GFC when Rudd was throwing Billions of dollars around like confetti for employment and infrastructure projects, a good way of spending money during that time would have been to have paid 100% of the cost of the infrastructure required by the AWD project, that would have no doubt taken a lot of pressure of the Defence budget for this project, and the monies that were originally allocated would have 'allowed' for cost blow outs without having to rob Peter to pay Paul.

V, again, I'm not against Naval shipbuilding in this country, not at all, I just get frustrated that at the end of the day once these three ships are delivered, the Navy will have had to 'pay the price' in more ways than one for these three ships to be built locally.

Cheers,

 

[Volkodav]

V, I agree with the points you have made, ok?

I agree that you can't just do 'simple' maths and divide the eventual $9+Billion cost by three and end up with each AWD costing $3+Billion each, all true.

But equally true is the fact that this 'project' to deliver three AWD's is costing $9+Billion, ships, infrastructure and all the other costs associated with the project, the bottom line is that the 'spend' is still exactly the same, regardless how the dollars are sliced and diced and what cost is attributed to what part of the project.

And yes again, if the Government does proceed with building the eight Future Frigates at Techport, then no doubt that investment in infrastructure today will be a benefit to that future project, but that is still for the future, quiet a way into the future.

And that is exactly what my concern is, the significant cost blow outs (on top of what was a substantial amount of dollars originally allowed for this project in the first instance) are going to have to be borne by the Defence budget, probably most specially the Navy's part of the Defence budget, it will be borne 'today' and not spread out into the future over the total cost of the AWD's and Future Frigate programs.

The Def Min did say the other day that the extra $1.2Billion required to complete this project (and of course it should be completed), is going to come at the expense of some other Defence capability or capabilities, and that is what I get upset about.

This project isn't just a project to deliver three AWD's to the Navy, it's also an infrastructure, industry and employment project all rolled into one, and in my opinion costs for the project that are not directly 'ship' related costs should be borne elsewhere.

If for example during the GFC when Rudd was throwing Billions of dollars around like confetti for employment and infrastructure projects, a good way of spending money during that time would have been to have paid 100% of the cost of the infrastructure required by the AWD project, that would have no doubt taken a lot of pressure of the Defence budget for this project, and the monies that were originally allocated would have 'allowed' for cost blow outs without having to rob Peter to pay Paul.

V, again, I'm not against Naval shipbuilding in this country, not at all, I just get frustrated that at the end of the day once these three ships are delivered, the Navy will have had to 'pay the price' in more ways than one for these three ships to be built locally.

Cheers,

John, I actually made the point about the stimulus in an earlier post as I also made the point about building a new yard with a new work force and expecting them to perform as well as an established yard well into a rolling build.

The first delay and cost increase occurred prior to first steel being cut when NQEA were replaced by BAE as the keel block fabricator. This unanticipated change caused an initial schedule slip as well as a price increase when BAE offered to put on extra shifts to make up lost time. In fact BAE knew the Alliance was desperate and negotiated a very one sided contract that cut deeply into the projects management reserve. It may actually have been worth it if they had caught up the slip and delivered a quality product, what happened is history but the current government paying "shipbuilding experts" from BAE to get ASC back on track is bordering on the ridiculous.

The point I am trying to get across is ASC are being painted as incompetent fools who are entirely responsible for wreaking the project, when the truth is, in spite difficulties, mostly beyond their control, ASC has managed to overcome great difficulties to get to where they are today. I am personally sick of the politically inspired, hypocritical slagging of ASC. Yes, I used to work there but I have also worked for other companies on other, much less complex but more poorly run, projects and I don't stick up for them. I, like the vast majority of people who have worked for or closely with them, have a high opinion of ASCs capabilities and achievements, it is IMO very sad that so many, not so much concentrate on, but rather inflate the negative and completely overlook the positive achievements.

 

[Bonza]

You did live in SA?



Most believe in this country that the decision making does not solely start and end at the ministerial level. There is more than one person that is responsible for the decisions of the defence of the nation. You are one of the most parochial on here regarding state vs state. Subsidizing shipyards anywhere is what annoys the country as a whole.



Historically the federal grants scheme was created to compensate those states that did not benefit from national tariffs.....eg manufacturing in the south east. That is compensation not subsidization!

Seeing that you are an expert on the matter of subsidization or wealth distribution from the commonwealth government can you please calculate all the other federal subsidies......

How many federal public servants in each state per capita? Currently and historically.....and what are/were the benefits of each public servant to the regional/state economy?

How many defence personnel in each state per capita currently and historically? Military bases.....where were they located? Also the economic benefits.

Commonwealth funded industries.......where was each ship built for the navy since federation.......how many were involved in building each ship.......how many shipyards were subsidized.........and what were the benefits to that regional/state economy? Submarines? APC's?

Car industry......how many billions were wasted on that since the 50's.....what states benefited from those subsidies? Where was Telstra personnel located before it was privatised. Subsidies for the banking/financial sector......what states benefited the most since 1901? CSIRO? Road funding? etc etc

All these different subsidies/grants/payments/policies are all the same thing no matter what name you give them.

To this day I do not think that anyone has created a thorough analysis of the wealth distribution from the commonwealth government since federation. I suspect that some states are very disinterested in knowing the results of a thorough analysis.

Until you have calculated all of those subsidies please dont parrot the jingoism of state governments.

If it wasnt for the west and Qld this country would of been in recession/depression like the rest of the world since 2009. I wonder how this upcoming white paper would of looked like if we had of been in recession since 09.

With the nation tightening its belt I wonder if the country can stomach more over the top subsidization of ship building to the detriment of the ADF as a whole and to the detriment of 23 million Australians.

This is a thread for discussion of the RAN, not the politics of Australia and her states. Please bear this in mind and take the arguments, if you must have them, elsewhere.

 

[Stock]

Umm, I don't actually live in SA and if you had read more of my previous posts you would see I have criticised the decision to build the AWDs in a new yard in Adelaide instead of awarding the work to the proven team at Tenix at Williamstown, I have also previously criticised shutting down Cockatoo Island in favour of redeveloping Williamstown. Basically, due to politicing, we have rebuilt our naval shipbuilding capability almost from scratch twice (three times if you count building Success after almost no work at Codoc for several years) following completely unnecessary black holes. To me the ideal would be all major combatants and support ships should be built at Codoc, maybe light frigates, corvettes or OPVs at Williamstown, while I am agnostic as to where submarines should be built as it was a completely new capability. IMO this would have saved an incredible amount of money over the years and produced a sustainable industry as well as a larger, better equipped RAN, if not ADF as a whole.

My issue with WA is they are now doing what SA did (and IMO should not have done) in the early 2000s, parochial senior members of the government of the day, undermining an expensive capability existent in another state, to benefit their home state, ripping off the country as a whole. The same has happened with ADF helicopters, patrol boats etc. and will probably also happen with LAND 400. Parochialism annoys me as it hurts the ADF, the economy and the tax payer (i.e. me).

Oh, historically the more populous East, has subsidised the rest of the nation, the tables are partially turned for a decade and the West kicks screams and carries on as if they are carrying the rest of the nation. The sad thing is much of extra revenue from the mining construction boom has been wasted and multinationals have been permitted to offshore profits. Perhaps most damaging, many of the industries that would have been expected to step up once the effects of the boom (and the GFC on a more global perspective) tapered off, have been left to wither and die, leaving a big hole in the economy now the dollar is dropping.

Agree with both of your posts here. While others build sustainable industry we let ours wither on the vine to eventually fall. An awful waste.

 

[Volkodav]

This is a thread for discussion of the RAN, not the politics of Australia and her states. Please bear this in mind and take the arguments, if you must have them, elsewhere.

Oh god no, he might start pm'ing me. I have very little time for anti manufacturing, anti engineering, anti science and technology types so I prefer them to show their true colours in open forums so when they get too OTT in their rants they can effectively prove my points for me. I do love the digs at the automotive industry as it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of it's achievements and it's contribution to our economy. For instance it is only vehicle assembly that is shutting down while the profitable, global standard, engineering and design capabilities are being maintained or (in the case of Ford) expanded.

I don't really give a stuff about the lazy bogan stoners being dumped from the production lines but I am concerned about the many technical people who cut their teeth on manufacturing projects, design, installation, commissioning, maintenance etc. as well as all the associated industries, small businesses in particular, that rely on the large number of factory workers with their comparatively high disposable incomes to keep them in business.

End of the day if there is insufficient 'super' profitable work out there it is IMO still better to subsidise industries that make and export things, while training trades, para-professionals and professionals, and pay people a decent wage, than to pay people welfare, not just unemployment, but benefits because their pay is too low to live off. Far better to subsidise strategically valuable capabilities than to spend even more on social security. That is why most other countries have pride in there industrial capabilities and go above and beyond to protect them.

 

[cdxbow]

End of the day if there is insufficient 'super' profitable work out there it is IMO still better to subsidise industries that make and export things, while training trades, para-professionals and professionals, and pay people a decent wage, than to pay people welfare, not just unemployment, but benefits because their pay is too low to live off. Far better to subsidise strategically valuable capabilities than to spend even more on social security. That is why most other countries have pride in there industrial capabilities and go above and beyond to protect them.

Agree entirely. Much better to subsidise jobs in useful industries than pay welfare. Naval ship building pulls together a lot of technologies & trades, while at the same time keeping strategic capability and a significant industrial base. The last issue is more important for Oz than ever with the loss of the car manufacturing.

 

[rockitten]

Agree entirely. Much better to subsidise jobs in useful industries than pay welfare. Naval ship building pulls together a lot of technologies & trades, while at the same time keeping strategic capability and a significant industrial base. The last issue is more important for Oz than ever with the loss of the car manufacturing.

Sure, but seems what he really mean is that, is naval shipbuilding the best option for stimulus package?

Just imagine, if we are K Rudd during the GFC and we have $90bn for stimulus package, will you spend it on ASC/Willimstown upgrade, or some other infrastructure projects such as East coast high speed rail, Port Hedland upgrade and a new water scheme for our agricultural areas?

I am totally agree with most of V's point of view about why naval shipbuilding worth to invest, I just wonder how high it will be on the "wish list" in Canberra.

 

[Joe Black]

A nice short article on Collins class availability

Collins submarine availability—on track but under wraps

 

[Volkodav]

Sure, but seems what he really mean is that, is naval shipbuilding the best option for stimulus package?

Just imagine, if we are K Rudd during the GFC and we have $90bn for stimulus package, will you spend it on ASC/Willimstown upgrade, or some other infrastructure projects such as East coast high speed rail, Port Hedland upgrade and a new water scheme for our agricultural areas?

I am totally agree with most of V's point of view about why naval shipbuilding worth to invest, I just wonder how high it will be on the "wish list" in Canberra.

Look at the size of the stimulus and as far as I can tell not one part of it was spent on defence, or the defence industry, I believe they were actually covertly cut, and not one bit of it spent shoring up manufacturing or infrastructure. I could be wrong and fully expect to get slapped down for it if I am (actually I fully expect to get slapped down if my recollections are correct as well).

Basically, as I see it, the stimulus was all about the small to medium end of the construction industry and pumping money into the economy to boost retail sales, i.e. keeping laborers and shop assistants working and off the dole, where, in my opinion some of it, could or should have been used to repair some of the damage done to manufacturing by the high Australian dollar and the GFC / stimulus driven dumping of imported goods on Australia. Order an extra AWD, fast track the AOR and OCV projects, allowing ASC, BAE and Forgacs to hire extra workers, triple or quadruple the number of apprentices and trainees, invest in new facilities, etc. Skew the automotive retail assistance (cheap vehicles for businesses) to Australian manufactured vehicles over imported, restrict government departments to buying Australian where possible etc. All simple, commonsense stuff that would only have used a small fraction of the stimulus.

 

[ASSAIL]

I read ASPI's Andrew Davies piece in the Defence Supplement to the Weekend Australian this am. As he is one of the "Expert Panel" for the 2015 DWP it would not surprise me if his views on splitting the surface fleet into 2 x tiers of capability were heeded.
I can't link the article but here's a quote; ...."all suggests that a "one-size-fits-all" frigate solution we've relied on probably won't cut it in the future. The AWD will be capable of plugging into US Task Groups but there will only be three of them and however capable any future frigate, it can only be at one place at a time.
While the navy could be expected to resist the idea, splitting the future combatant force into two tiers could be the answer, with 6,000 + tonne destroyers and super frigates in one group and something more corvette sized (1,500 to 2,000 tonnes) in the other. That would give us the chance of having the capability required at the top end and the numbers required to do everything else".

In my view this points to either a reduction of frigate numbers or a repudiation of the OPV/OCV concept with the latter being replaced with "corvettes".

This article combined with Dennis Richardson's comments to Navy to scale back their frigate aspirations leads to some interesting possibilities when the DWP is released where nothing can be assumed for the surface fleet.

Having stated the above, I have no idea how influential Davies is within the expert panel.

 

[StingrayOZ]

While the navy could be expected to resist the idea, splitting the future combatant force into two tiers could be the answer, with 6,000 + tonne destroyers and super frigates in one group and something more corvette sized (1,500 to 2,000 tonnes) in the other. That would give us the chance of having the capability required at the top end and the numbers required to do everything else

Sure 8 x 7,000t Frigates based off the F-105 hull and 20 x OPV off the same family in the 1000-2000t range.

Reducing frigate numbers and replacing them with corvettes is stupid. We would be going backwards from where we are now and corvettes are not survivable or useful in modern warfare as they can't feature the radars or weapon systems modern ships require. Particularly in our region, this is not the Mediterranean. A small ship loaded with systems (like a corvette) will sink in the pacific or Indian ocean. No one, operates ships like that in our oceans.

Of course we build what 3 large frigates only. Then we build 3 corvettes, then realise this isn't enough so we build 3 medium Meko frigates to get back exactly where we were. Of course cutting and shifting designs means that all projects run over budget, each has be tooled up then shut down wasting billions and billions. Then we have to maintain all these various types and versions which have zero commonality.

Or build a batch of 8 F-105 hulled frigates. Towards the end of the project the build cost per ships would most likely be less than even a new overseas build of a corvette. We already have the 5", we already have ESSM, we already have a stock of SM-2. Should we now dump these and find smaller weapons for our corvettes to save money?

Obviously one size fits all fighter doesn't work either. Perhaps we should acquire some euro fighters, some B1's, a B2, some F-15's, some Rafales, some migs. Because that is the secret to a robust force. Lots of different types in tiny numbers.

 

[Goknub]

Hopefully he doesn't have too much influence. A corvette would be of little use for the ADF.

Local tasks are mostly fisheries and immigration duties with the odd rescue of sunk yachtsmen. The roles that require the heavy weaponry have been global and usually involve small numbers. This means any combat ship needs long legs and the ability counter all threats to an adequate degree if it gets caught on its own.

There are some, I believe Hugh White is one, who are frequently arguing for smaller, less capable assets. It is the same opinion that argues the LHDs are too big.

I believe it comes down to a view of Australia's place in the world. If we are to be a Regional Power, then smaller vessels, corvettes etc are fine as we only need to operate in our neighbourhood. Alternatively, if we are to be a Medium Power then we need assets that can operate on a global scale.

An example would be the evacuation of Australian citizens from Lebanon in 2006. That's too far and too big for a covette and smaller scale LPDs. That needs bigger ships.

 

[Volkodav]

Look at it this way, if instead of 11 or 12 high end frigates, which is what the AWDs really are, numbers are dropped to 8 high end ships and the money saved invested in a class of perfectly good enough frigates or corvettes.

The number 8, by my reckoning, would provide the RAN with 3 ships deployed, 3 available / in port, 2 in refit or extended availability, where 11 (or 10 for that matter), providing 4, 4, 3 deployed, available / in port, refit etc. This is a difference of one deployed and one available major combatant but as I understand it currently one frigate is nearly always assigned to border protection, another to sea training and often another to alongside training, all tasks that could be easily conducted by an OPV, let alone a patrol or light frigate.

Using this logic a reduction in high end numbers will have no detrimental effect on high end capability, so long as they are supplemented by a suitable low end type.

 

[hairyman]

I would prefer the RAN to have the larger ships. I believe the main advantage a corvette would have over an OPV would be it could assist in escorting, well they were used that way in the Second World War anyway. Ideally I would prefer for the RAN to get three more destroyers but in a GP configuration, then its 8 frigates, and maybe 6 -8 corvettes, or at least a decently armed OPV.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I can see purpose in an armed OPV. Something that would be able to conduct anti piracy missions or similar by itself and not requiring a frigate to protect it.

But I wouldn't be hazarding it to go out into the deep Indian or Pacific ocean or into a high threat environment like the south china seas, or an emergency like Timor or the Gulf for joint operations. Particularly as this would be at the cost of an actual frigate.

Future forces will be linked and networked. so the ability to put units with significant capability in numbers will be more important than ever.

IMO we don't have enough ships to produce a decent bubble around the LHD's when they are operating together. We definitely don't have enough to escort them separately or provide protection en route or to any allied forces. We definitely don't have enough to offer SM-3 or other BMD capability. 8 high end frigates, sure cut back on weapon loads, cut back on other areas to save money if that is what has to be done. These can quickly and easily be put in later or moved ship to ship.

 

[Delta204]

Substituting corvettes for frigates is always an enticing idea for naval "experts". In Canada there have been some who have advocated the same. On paper corvettes look good compared to high end frigates; carry many of the similar weapon loads for a fraction of the cost... but as Stingray and others have pointed out there is a reason most modern / Western navies who have an interest in projecting naval power abroad do not carry corvettes in their fleets. Last spring the Canadian govt. re-deployed one of it's frigates from an anti-piracy mission in the Arabian sea to join a NATO fleet in response to the Russian / Ukraine crisis; a task that would have been difficult for a corvette to manage with its lack of range, lower crew levels and other capabilities. Although there have been many things mismanaged with current Canadian Naval procurement; at least there has never been any serious consideration to replacing frigates with corvettes. I think RAN would be best served to follow the same strategy; purchase OPV's for the constabulary duties and then buy as many high end frigates/destroys as you can afford.

 

[Volkodav]

Substituting corvettes for frigates is always an enticing idea for naval "experts". In Canada there have been some who have advocated the same. On paper corvettes look good compared to high end frigates; carry many of the similar weapon loads for a fraction of the cost... but as Stingray and others have pointed out there is a reason most modern / Western navies who have an interest in projecting naval power abroad do not carry corvettes in their fleets. Last spring the Canadian govt. re-deployed one of it's frigates from an anti-piracy mission in the Arabian sea to join a NATO fleet in response to the Russian / Ukraine crisis; a task that would have been difficult for a corvette to manage with its lack of range, lower crew levels and other capabilities. Although there have been many things mismanaged with current Canadian Naval procurement; at least there has never been any serious consideration to replacing frigates with corvettes. I think RAN would be best served to follow the same strategy; purchase OPV's for the constabulary duties and then buy as many high end frigates/destroys as you can afford.

You are missing the point entirely. The RAN currently has four (soon to be three) FFGs and eight FFH, to be replaced by three AWDs (AEGIS Frigates) currently building and eight new frigates currently planned. The RAN wants the new frigates to be as, or more capable than the AWDs but have been told by the defence department that that is not going to happen suggesting that if not smaller, they will be less capable than the AWDs. This means smaller than 48 cell VLS, while 64 is desired, and almost definitely a less capable combat system and sensor suite and maybe no second helicopter, i.e. no more capability than the corvettes and GP frigates already in service with a number of nations. At the same time we have frigates carrying out tasks better suited to OPVs for the simple reason that the current patrol boats are not capable of conducting these missions, as well as often another used for sea training and another along side training.

Basically either numbers are (further) reduced or individual capability will be less than required so you need to ask if it is worth while cutting three ships from the ANZAC replacement to increase the capability of the required vessels to what is required, as well as freeing up sufficient money to build a class of perfectly good enough frigates, corvettes or OCVs. There are twelve ship sets of eight cell Mk-41 VLS, eight ASMD enhanced combat systems, radar masts, IRSTs etc. eight Mk-45 5" guns, four 3" guns (I don't know what happened to the guns from Adelaide and Canberra, if they are still available or not), Nulka, Mk-32 torpedo tubes etc possibly also the GTs and diesels. These systems can be refurbished and pulled through to a new class of ship effectively making an OPV into an OCV or even a missile corvette, a patrol frigate into a guided missile frigate.

Looking at this logically for the price of three 3500-5000 tonne ANZAC replacements the remaining five vessels could probably be bumped up to the 7000t multirole area air defence vessels the RAN really wants, maybe with enough money left to increase the size and capability of the proposed Armidale replacements. This is where is gets very interesting, if the new hulls are large enough, i.e. 2000t or greater, they could be fitted with the ASMD systems from the upgraded ANZACs and / or the FFGUP systems from the FFGs, i.e. a GT for boost, CEAFAR, Vampir, 8 cell Mk-41, 5" or 3" gun, Nulka, maybe the hull sonar, and of course helicopter facilities. For the same money as eight (smaller) high end frigates and several OPVs the RAN could possibly acquire another five AWDs equivalents and eight light frigates, or corvettes, every bit as capable as the current ANZACs, in addition to a number of OPVs as well.

IMO bumping high end numbers up to eight is better value than slavishly building eight less capable ANZAC replacements, especially if a new class of light frigate or corvette (using pulled through ANZAC systems) is introduced into the mix. This, without doubt, would be a substantial increase in capability as the five additional high end ships would be much more capable than the department preferred frigates, while the light frigates would be every bit as capable as the ASMD ANZACs meaning an overall increase in numbers.

Another thought that comes to mind is instead of an ANZAC replacement the RAN simply acquires a second batch of three AWDs to an improved design as well as a class of three DDH (Hyuga or Izumo type) down the track as well as six frigates using ASMD systems and six corvettes using some FFGs systems and a number of OPVs as well.

Time to look outside the square and determine what we can actually get with the money we have.

 

[hairyman]

Agreed. I think it is imperative that the RAN gets more hulls onto the water. With a fleet of eleven, when was the last time the RAN had such a small number of warships?

 

[ASSAIL]

Time to look outside the square and determine what we can actually get with the money we have.

Agreed and I hope this process is well under way if, and its a big if, the Anzac replacement numbers/capability are being degraded from the F105/T26 baseline.

Naturally one hopes that is not the case and that a full outfit of 20 x OCV/OPV is revived in the 2015 DWP.

If the Defence budget steadily grows to 2% GDP by 2020/24 a larger and more capable surface fleet is possible within that constraint as defence spending will be close to $40b a real increase of about 6% pa.