Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

Large ships need large yards, which we don't have for building large ships. But most large ships (AOR etc) are mostly empty space and voids, so they amount of actual labor in steel fabrication is quite low. Compared to something like a submarine, which has huge amount of labor in welding, shaping, inspecting etc. Submarines are space shuttles, AOR's are shipping containers.

Destroyers have lot of compartments, compared to a OPV which tends to have less compartmentalization and bulkheads etc. OPV are so quick to fabricated because they are a lot simpler ship. Osborne is designed to build large complicated ships. OPV just aren't meaty enough.

If we are really keen to get a LHD, we could do as we did before. Get Spain to fab up the hull, fitout and island in Australia. BAE did it last time, they would just be doing it as Osborne. Probably ~60%+ of the money on labor would be spent here. The LHD's are certainly getting a work out, I think they have now spent more time at sea than just about anything the RAN currently operates, as flag for every indo-pacific mission we have conducted so far, and every major operation (rimpac and talisman). We can't afford even a minor issue with these ships, they are ADF center pieces.

Most of the LHD crew would come from de-crewing Choules to RFA levels or selling her, by the time another LHD is operational, she will be over 20 years old. Not tired, but also, not a spring chicken, will only be another few years before a big mid life refit. She would be the sort of ships that would find another home quickly, either in SEA or in South America. Crewed to 40-50, we could easily keep her operational until someone was interested.

I don't think cutting surface combatant fleet numbers is helpful. 12-14 is what we need and what we have always had. Cutting sub numbers threatens to derail the entire build program.

At this stage I just think we should be spitting our ships as fast as we can build them, even if they are going straight into reserve or low rotation use. Clearly things are not going well globally. China is getting worse. The US's problems are worse, the USN is openly having issues, the pandemic and economic issues it has created has further de-stabilised the situation.

Yep

However we indulge in the fantasy fleet conversation, the basic premise is we need a fleet with more and sharper teeth earlier than is accommodated in our current build program.
This may sound indulgent given the healthy state of naval construction but as you said," things are not going well globally"

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

@Massive How do you define Defence of Australia?

1. Is it just the physical aspect of the island continent of Australia?
2. If so where is the defined limit of the continent?
   1. The Mean Water Level?
   2. The 12 nm limit?
   3. The EEZ, or
   4. The edge of the continental crust?
3. What about the airspace above the continent. How high up do you declare sovereign Australian airspace?
4. What about essential supplies that you have to import. How are they protected outside of the DOA area?
5. How are you going to pay for all of this if your exports are in danger once they leave the DOA area and no ADF assets to protect them?

Australiamay be a continent, but it is still an island that is dependent upon the freedom of the seas for its economic survival. How can you possibly protect your SLOC if you pull up the drawer bridge? Last time I looked Australia SLOC didn't go from Brisbane to Perth via the Great Sandy Desert. They went from Australia to Asia, North America, Middle East, Europe and across the ditch. If you don't trade you don't collect any treasure and all you end up is with a bare treasury and grumpy populace.

Always an interesting exercise to jump on the Marine Traffic website.
Gives a good perspective of both the volume of ship movements and the clusters of corridors that these ships follow.
Interesting for Australia is the corridor just north of the PNG coast and of course the shear scale of traffic to be found all along the Chinese coast.
Yes we are a island

Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

Always an interesting exercise to jump on the Marine Traffic website.
Gives a good perspective of both the volume of ship movements and the clusters of corridors that these ships follow.
Interesting for Australia is the corridor just north of the PNG coast and of course the shear scale of traffic to be found all along the Chinese coast.
Yes we are a island

Regards S

A very big Island, a long way from anywhere with a relatively small population mostly jammed into the Corner furtherest from anywhere, relying very heavily on trade that is at the end of a very long supply line that has to pass through multiple choke points.

 

[Massive]

@Massive How can you possibly protect your SLOC if you pull up the drawer bridge?

Hi Ngati,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Three additional FFG will not materially change Australia's ability to protect its SLOC in a hot war with an opponent of any size.

I would aim to:

1. Maintain a deterrent to interference in our SLOC with the submarines - our only truly strategic asset
2. Maintain the freedom to act in a relatively permissive environment in the region - with the ability to deploy and sustain a significant land element
3. Make a significant contribution to an international coalition

I would not spend the additional funds and resources on the three additional FFG - I believe that there are other capabilities (new and expanded existing) that should be prioritised first.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

the basic premise is we need a fleet with more and sharper teeth earlier than is accommodated in our current build program

I feel that the biggest concern here is submarines. The current plan does not see a significant improvement in fleet size of sharpness of teeth for a very long time.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ASSAIL]

I feel that the biggest concern here is submarines. The current plan does not see a significant improvement in fleet size of sharpness of teeth for a very long time.

Regards,

Massive

You seem to downplay the capability provided by the Collins boats. They already provide a more than adequate deterrent to potential hostiles and although those capabilities will be improved by the introduction of the Attacks, Collins will play an active deterrent role for decades.
The challenge for SUBFORCE is to maintain the currency and reliability of Collins until each is replaced.

 

[Takao]

Hi Ngati,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Three additional FFG will not materially change Australia's ability to protect its SLOC in a hot war with an opponent of any size.

I would aim to:

1. Maintain a deterrent to interference in our SLOC with the submarines - our only truly strategic asset
2. Maintain the freedom to act in a relatively permissive environment in the region - with the ability to deploy and sustain a significant land element
3. Make a significant contribution to an international coalition

I would not spend the additional funds and resources on the three additional FFG - I believe that there are other capabilities (new and expanded existing) that should be prioritised first.

Regards,

Massive

Again talking carefully....

The number of MFUs in the fleet was a major consideration point....recently. I think you can comfortably assume that a reduction in fleet numbers wasn't feasible (after all, cuts weren't announced in the DDG or FFG world). A larger fleet required compromises in workforce and dollars, a question that has probably not been definitively answered one way or another just yet. But it's likely that 'things' have occurred which would smooth the transition to a larger MFU fleet if such a decision was needed/made.

As a simple, less sensitive guide to some of the thinking, MFUs are used much more than detterence. The three additional FFGs give us additional units for peacetime activities, additional escorts for vessels (either high priority military or civilian ones) and (frankly) attrition vessels. The submarines are vital, but need to be not seen. The FFG gives a presence - either positive or negative. And finally, the FFG can eat a missile or torpedo if needed. While Australia remains without a land border, we need to import significant amounts of 'stuff' and the MFUs are vital to that. Even in wartime we'll be importing fuel, ammunition and spares. MFU are super valuable for instance, the DDGs have long been seen as a critical Army enabler by Army folk.

As it stands we've done the prioritisation of capabilities, and as the FSP shows, 9 FFGs are still a higher priority than many other things.

Just have to change their names....

 

[ngatimozart]

Hi Ngati,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Three additional FFG will not materially change Australia's ability to protect its SLOC in a hot war with an opponent of any size.

I would aim to:

1. Maintain a deterrent to interference in our SLOC with the submarines - our only truly strategic asset
2. Maintain the freedom to act in a relatively permissive environment in the region - with the ability to deploy and sustain a significant land element
3. Make a significant contribution to an international coalition

I would not spend the additional funds and resources on the three additional FFG - I believe that there are other capabilities (new and expanded existing) that should be prioritised first.

Regards,

Massive

Well you haven't answered my questions because you haven't defined the spatial or geographical area that you are going to defend.

Secondly, you haven't looked through history, especially within the last 100 years to determine a course of action. I strongly would suggest that you study the Fall of France in June of 1940 and not look at what the Wehrmacht did but at the French and British strategy from September 1939 through to the French surrender.

Thirdly, in the same vein look at US WAR PLAN ORANGE for war against the Imperial Japanese Empire and what actually happened in the Pacific War. The only real difference was the start of it with the attack on Pearl Harbour and the Japanese running amok for 6 months. Even Adm Yamamoto said that he would run amok for 6 months and then the Americans would start pushing back. Look how that war impacted upon Australia and where those threats came from. Where's the biggest threat to Australia going to come from today?

Fourthly, look at the Russian defeat of the Wehrmacht. How did they blunt the Nazi invasion? What did they trade for time? Forget about lives because the Russians put a different value on human life to that in the west and back to then it was the USSR and Stalin was in charge. They traded space, lots of space to gain time to build tanks, planes, guns and put new armies in the field. They did to Hitler what their forefathers did to Napoleon in 1812.

When you finally have a grand strategy sorted out maybe then you can start drilling down into specifics, but remember today it's not platform centric like it was even 10 years ago; its about capabilities operating across multiple platforms simultaneously so it's a system of systems force structure now that's operating across not just the RAN, but across the whole ADF. Therefore I would suggest that you go away and have a really good think.

 

[Volkodav]

The point many seem to miss when discussing numbers of high end destroyers and frigates is the bleeding obvious need to escort three large amphibious ships that could potentially transporting a large chunk of our land force plus precious army aviation elements, at any given time. This is a mission that did not exist when the never achieved total of sixteen or seventeen majors, supported by a dozen missile corvettes was proposed in the early 90s. The surface fleet not only needs to cover off the missions it has traditionally undertaken since the end of the cold war, it now needs to protect vital maritime assets we didn't used to have.

There's also the small matter of Chinas actions, not just in the South China Sea, but potentially extending into the Indian Ocean and Pacific, if we don't have sufficient platforms to maintain a presence on both the east and west coast, as well as our northern waters you can expect sabre rattling and deliberate efforts to embarrass us. Imagine PLAN ships seizing a commercial vessel off our coast because they know we can't stop them, just to show who's boss.

 

[hairyman]

I see nothing wrong with reducing the number of new frigates to six, providing the lost three are still built, but as destroyers, either GP or AWD. Three additional destroyers appropriately armed would be of much more value than the three frigates. They coud still do anti submarine work, as well as Air Warfare. I imagine they would have 64 VLS or more.

 

[oldsig127]

I see nothing wrong with reducing the number of new frigates to six, providing the lost three are still built, but as destroyers, either GP or AWD. Three additional destroyers appropriately armed would be of much more value than the three frigates. They coud still do anti submarine work, as well as Air Warfare. I imagine they would have 64 VLS or more.

Give away the superior ASW performance at a time when most of the world's submarines are in our hemisphere? That feels wrong to me.

oldsig

 

[spoz]

Our very recently introduced class of destroyers have 48 VLS cells. The Hunters will have 32. There is zero chance of being able to convince Government that a third class is required, with what they would see as, and really is, marginally different armament, so soon after they have received the considered advice of all departments involved, not just Defence, leading to a decision that the capabilities required are those of the Hunters.

I’m afraid that, even if we wanted to, we could not now build more Hobarts - to coin a phrase, that ship has sailed.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think most people really care if you call the hunters frigates or destroyers, as long as they are capable.

It seems like they will be. I am curious why there are these leaks about them becoming oversized, or delayed. If they go over 10,000t, won't this exceed the lift capacity of the shiplift at Osborne?

Can't we just start building uk spec type 26's, worst case? That would make more sense that some new design, or trying to build more hobarts.

 

[oldsig127]

Can't we just start building uk spec type 26's, worst case? That would make more sense that some new design, or trying to build more hobarts.

Different armaments, different radars, different CMS from anything else we use? No thanks.

I 'm pretty sanguine about the weight and delay reports. Can't at the moment think of any project that doesn't start with them, especially in Defence high tech, yet somehow they usually produce the goods even without the approval of the 4th estate

oldsig

 

[hairyman]

Everyone seems happy to accept the T26 which is a bigger ship than the Hobart class, but with only two thirds of the VLS. What is taking up the extra space in the T26 if not weaponry?

 

[Redlands18]

Everyone seems happy to accept the T26 which is a bigger ship than the Hobart class, but with only two thirds of the VLS. What is taking up the extra space in the T26 if not weaponry?

I would say the large Mission Bay and a Flight Deck big enough to land a Chinook* at a guess. Their ability to carry both UAVs and UUVs are going to be a big part of their ASW capabilities.
*that is part of the original Type 26 capability, whether the Hunter class will retain this capability I can’t be sure, but have heard nothing about a smaller Flight Deck.

 

[alexsa]

I would say the large Mission Bay and a Flight Deck big enough to land a Chinook* at a guess. Their ability to carry both UAVs and UUVs are going to be a big part of their ASW capabilities.
*that is part of the original Type 26 capability, whether the Hunter class will retain this capability I can’t be sure, but have heard nothing about a smaller Flight Deck.

My understanding a lot of space is also taken up with systems. It was quite a wrangling act to fit AEGIS and SPY1 into the Hobart class from both a system and power supply perspective. The extra space and extra power will make this easier and give the vessel more growth potential.

Advice given to me in my last job was that the fist batch would be pretty much the same as the UK T26 except for the combat systems and VLS. At that stage there was not much appetite for changes to batch 1, however, rumour is that this may have changed and more capacity may be incorporated at the get go.

I will stress this is not an official position and I may now be off track. It does provide food for thought.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Different armaments, different radars, different CMS from anything else we use? No thanks.

I 'm pretty sanguine about the weight and delay reports. Can't at the moment think of any project that doesn't start with them, especially in Defence high tech, yet somehow they usually produce the goods even without the approval of the 4th estate

oldsig

I should elaborate. RAN systems, weapons, RN hull.

CMS isn't really a structural change, and wouldn't hold up welding a ship together.Even if we had to go with 9lv. I can see the radar mast perhaps being an issue, perhaps as an interim measure build 1 or 2 with the smaller/lighter cheaper still good and modern, Anzac class CEA1 radar setups. This might help mitigate risk across the future builds, help with quicker FOC of future hulls. We would want to see torpedo tubes fitted, but it isn't miles and miles apart. They wouldn't have to be exactly the same fitout, just feature the hull structurally the same.

I could imagine such a combination might be attractive to other nations. Even if we had to live with it, seems like a small compromise if it means costs stay in budget and ships are operational soon.

Everyone seems happy to accept the T26 which is a bigger ship than the Hobart class, but with only two thirds of the VLS. What is taking up the extra space in the T26 if not weaponry?

Bigger flight deck - Chinook (or MV-22 possibly)
Mission bay - I think it can fit up to 3 helicopters, or 2 large helicopters like the merlins and a UAV, shipping containers, UAV's etc.
Able to embark a small amount of forces on board
Growth margin -More spacious and modern design, by all accounts the Hobarts are going to be troublesome to upgrade, because they are already tight on weight, volume, energy, mech services, crew etc.

While only 24 VLS, the UK design as CAMM launchers, with room for 48 missiles. So the design has capabilities. I don't think we are limited to 32 VLS by the design, I think that is the level the RAN was happy to have them armed to.

With VLS, there is no magic number. One missile can destroy a ship. You are better off having fewer, but better longer range more capable missiles, than a hoard of older less capable short range ones. Quality is important, not just quantity.

Ships don't just exchange munitions until there are none left. How many ships ever got to deplete their magazines off all shells before they were taken to the bottom?

Coming from the Anzacs, the VLS on the hunters at 32 is going to feel positively limitless. And with two Phalanx.

 

[oldsig127]

I should elaborate. RAN systems, weapons, RN hull.

CMS isn't really a structural change, and wouldn't hold up welding a ship together.Even if we had to go with 9lv. I can see the radar mast perhaps being an issue, perhaps as an interim measure build 1 or 2 with the smaller/lighter cheaper still good and modern, Anzac class CEA1 radar setups. This might help mitigate risk across the future builds, help with quicker FOC of future hulls. We would want to see torpedo tubes fitted, but it isn't miles and miles apart. They wouldn't have to be exactly the same fitout, just feature the hull structurally the same.

I see it as increasing risk and slowing the whole production line down. Designing the interim, half UK, half Oz will still take time and effort and will almost certainly add to the overall cost - and may not seed things along at all. Even if you do, we have a subset of ships which are a separate batch because of panic, rather than evolution, which would likely need to be MLU'ed to get anything like commonality of equipment.

Delays in "Australianising" will include changing from UK made equipment to Australian made equipment. Build them with UK made (example only! sewage pumps) instead of the Australian sourced version will leave us at the wrong end of a long supply chain for stuff we are trying hard to build an industry to produce.

Summary....in my personal opinion it's a daft idea. But that's me.

(Edit....PS - I agree entirely with your reasoning vis a vis the purchase of the larger T26 and the benefits that accrue)
oldsig

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well orphan platforms are always painful. I just don't get these reports that its going to be crazy delayed, and years late and larger than the shiplift can carry. I would assume before it ever came to that, the design could be pushed along a spectrum to meet what we need by when we need it.

AFAIK the plan was to still be in the design phase at the point and to be merely prototyping steel and blocks etc. So I don't think its a huge issue right now. I like the type 26 design, I am very curious how these ship look like when they hit the water. Still curious what sort of asroc system the poms are going to use rather than torpedo tubes.