Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ngatimozart]

First of all this is a hypothetical discussion. A light patrol frigate does not need to be the same size as the Hunter class because it will not have the same capabilities. It won't have the same CONOPS. Like I said "... doesn't have to have all the bells and whistles of a Hunter class." It is to perform taskings such as convoy escort etc. That way it leaves the Hunters for their main requirements. Don't get fixated on platforms so much at the moment but first look at what it would be required to do. What were the ANZAC class originally built to do before their roles were changed and everything but the kitchen sink was added to them? That is what you should be looking at and @Volkodav will be able to enlighten people on this. Forget about the ASMD upgrade and all that. Look at the original design, specifications, role for the ships. Work from that. Today a ship of 4,000 tonnes would be applicable.

 

[vonnoobie]

I'm not sure we can realistically forget about the ASMD in regards to the Anzacs, at least not in its entirety. The threat environment of the day (when Anzac program first proposed) compared to today is chalk and cheese and by the time such ships may be commissioned it would only be a tougher street to stay relevant in.

That being said a 4,000+ ton ship gives a decent sized vessel to do the tasks and such a build should be tied in with the broader naval shipbuilding program with aim of a long term sustainability approach.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm not sure we can realistically forget about the ASMD in regards to the Anzacs, at least not in its entirety. The threat environment of the day (when Anzac program first proposed) compared to today is chalk and cheese and by the time such ships may be commissioned it would only be a tougher street to stay relevant in.

That being said a 4,000+ ton ship gives a decent sized vessel to do the tasks and such a build should be tied in with the broader naval shipbuilding program with aim of a long term sustainability approach.

The AMSD will be replaced by AEGIS in the Hunter Class so in the context of this conversation is not relevant.

WRT to what's happened today in the Ukraine with Putin letting loose dogs of war, the AU government should supercharge the drumbeat of the Hunter Class build. Any grace time is now gone. Whilst some people think that sanctions will have any effect upon people, he doesn't give a shit about sanctions. Unfortunately the only way to stop him will be cold hard steel and lots of blood. Ukrainian, EU blood and most likely NATO blood. Once the EU becomes involved, as it will, then NATO will be involved because Putin has threatened dire consequences on any country who interferes and supports the Ukraine. When that happens the US will become involved and once America is fully engaged, then both Australian and NZ better have to look north because that will give Xi a golden opportunity to attack Taiwan.

 

[Stuart M]

The AMSD will be replaced by AEGIS in the Hunter Class so in the context of this conversation is not relevant.

WRT to what's happened today in the Ukraine with Putin letting loose dogs of war, the AU government should supercharge the drumbeat of the Hunter Class build. Any grace time is now gone. Whilst some people think that sanctions will have any effect upon people, he doesn't give a shit about sanctions. Unfortunately the only way to stop him will be cold hard steel and lots of blood. Ukrainian, EU blood and most likely NATO blood. Once the EU becomes involved, as it will, then NATO will be involved because Putin has threatened dire consequences on any country who interferes and supports the Ukraine. When that happens the US will become involved and once America is fully engaged, then both Australian and NZ better have to look north because that will give Xi a golden opportunity to attack Taiwan.

If NATO jumps in those consequences may well be nukes, so no one's going there. After all NATO did not jump in to save either Hungary or Czechoslovakia during the cold war. Unfortunately, beyond Intel and some weapons resupply, Ukraine is on its own.
On the plus side Putin will go no further than the Ukraine, again, thanks to the wonderful nostrum of MAD.

 

[ngatimozart]

If NATO jumps in those consequences may well be nukes, so no one's going there. After all NATO did not jump in to save either Hungary or Czechoslovakia during the cold war. Unfortunately, beyond Intel and some weapons resupply, Ukraine is on its own.
On the plus side Putin will go no further than the Ukraine, again, thanks to the wonderful nostrum of MAD.

During the Cold War both Czechoslovakia and Hungary were part of the Warsaw Pact and for NATO to intervene in either case would have started WW3 because it would've have been, rightfully so, seen as an attack on Warsaw Pact member states by NATO.

 

[Stuart M]

During the Cold War both Czechoslovakia and Hungary were part of the Warsaw Pact and for NATO to intervene in either case would have started WW3 because it would've have been, rightfully so, seen as an attack on Warsaw Pact member states by NATO.

True, but as far as Putin seems to be concerned the Warsaw Pact is defacto still in effect with regard to Ukraine. Im sorry to say it, but no one's going to intervine to help Ukraine, there's just too much risk.

 

[Stampede]

True, but as far as Putin seems to be concerned the Warsaw Pact is defacto still in effect with regard to Ukraine. Im sorry to say it, but no one's going to intervine to help Ukraine, there's just too much risk.

Yep, militarily Ukraine is on it's own.

As this is the RAN thread , I think the events in Eastern Europe will lead to many nations reflecting on their own defence capabilities as of today and for or the immediate future.
We probably want the planned RAN of 20 years time, right now.

Australia will certainly take an interest in whats happening in Europe; but realistically it's Asia that will be our focus.

So how do we get the RAN we actually want and need in as short a period as possible.

Regards S

 

[Boagrius]

So how do we get the RAN we actually want and need in as short a period as possible.

Regards S

...by waiting 15 years? ;-)

In all seriousness though part of me wonders whether there are unavoidable time constraints inherent to our desire to build ships domestically, with no relevant/hot production line to speak of. Until we actually have a production line pumping out warships (not just OPVs) it all seems a bit academic.

The only alternative I can see would be plugging into an overseas production line, eg. the Constellation Class build, but that would have its drawbacks too. No perfect solution I fear.

 

[spoz]

Check out the FFG-62 timeline. First ship delivery 2026, IOC 2029. Then, the US building capability is effectively maxed out for their own requirements.

 

[John Newman]

This discussion of kill the OPV, or build better armed corvettes or build patrol frigates, and do it all ASAP, is fantasy.

Would we all like to see more MFUs in the RAN sooner than later? Of course, but it’s not that simple.

How long will it take to create a budget, change the Force Structure Plan, produce an RFI, then a shortlist of contenders, then an RFT, maybe cull the short list, finally pick a design, negotiate a contract, etc, etc? We should be well into the Hunter build by then, and other building projects too.

And if that wasn’t enough, there is the not so small matter of shipbuilding manpower (or lack of) and some infrastructure requirements.

Current Osborne projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/ShipbuildingSAFactsheet.pdf

* Collins class - current workforce perform FCD and shortly start LOTE
* SSN - workforce doesn’t yet exist, has to be built and grown
* Hunter class - workforce being built (block prototyping, etc) but will need to grow substantially for real production, which is not that far away
* OPV - production will start to wind down soon
* DDG upgrade - starts shortly after OPV project ends, I would imagine the OPV workforce will either move/split across the DDG and Hunter build.

Osborne infrastructure:
* ASC maintenance hall - was used to build the boats, now FCD and upcoming LOTE
* SSN build halls, were started for Attack class, will probably need adjustment, still to be completed
* BAE - will use the new build halls (built and owned by ANI) for Hunter class program
* ASC Shipbuilding build halls - originally used for DDG construction, now used for OPV, will likely be used for DDG upgrade
* Shiplift x 2 - one for Collins, one for ships, submarine shiplift may require enlargement for SSNs?

Not much excess capacity, especially manpower, to start a Patrol Frigate project ASAP.


Current Henderson projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/ShipbuildingWAFactsheet.pdf

* Patrol Boats - Austal currently building two PB classes, Austal also has commercial projects, PB projects come to an end shortly
* Collins class - ASC perform MCD and other sustainment
* Anzac class - BAE workforce, AMCAP comes to an end shortly, sustainment continues, maybe further upgrades?
* OPV x 10 - Civmec workforce employed up to approx 2030

Projects to start between now and 2030:
* Mine warfare/Hydrographic ships x 8 - based on OPV, likely to be built by Civmec, or in their build hall alongside OPV fleet
* Joint Support Ships x 2 - one to replace Choules, one additional
* Ocean Protector replacement
* Undersea Surveillance Support ships - size and number unknown?
* Forward Support vessel - size/configuration unknown?
* Replacement LHD (LCM-1E) landing craft
* Army watercraft - LCM8, Large Landing Craft (LCH replacements), Riverine Patrol craft

Some of the infrastructure upgrades required are:
* Dry Dock - future maintenance, but also likely to be required for the 2 x JSS and Ocean Protector build projects
* Transfer systems for larger ships and ship maintenance
* Possibly new halls required for JSS block work, etc

So ......

I struggle to see where, or how, a whole new Frigate project can be slotted in quickly amongst the other projects, infrastructure, and find the manpower to do so, apart from completely trashing the NSP and starting again (can’t see that happening).

If, and it’s a very big ‘if’, the Government decided tomorrow the RAN required a new fleet of Frigates ASAP, overseas build appears to be the only option.

Builders in Japan, South Korea, Italy and Spain are some of the obvious locations that could happen.

But that would be political suicide for any Government to send that work overseas.

Anyway, no simple solution, and just my opinion of course.

Cheers,

 

[ADMk2]

Is it just me, but do the OPV’s now seem to be a li’l bit less intimidating with their constabulary weapons and systems fit out?

A few coffee stained shirts at HQJOC this week.

Will SOPs now require our LHDs to deploy with an escort?

What? You mean like ALL the time? RAN will have a blue fit if it’s asked to have an MFU ‘always’ ready to sail at a moments notice!

Long slow work-ups with plenty of lead-up training time. That’s how you set up a ‘defence force’ my boy!

 

[Stampede]

...by waiting 15 years? ;-)

In all seriousness though part of me wonders whether there are unavoidable time constraints inherent to our desire to build ships domestically, with no relevant/hot production line to speak of. Until we actually have a production line pumping out warships (not just OPVs) it all seems a bit academic.

The only alternative I can see would be plugging into an overseas production line, eg. the Constellation Class build, but that would have its drawbacks too. No perfect solution I fear.

Tragically maybe yes.
Creatively maybe no.

It will force us to think differently.

Look at what warships looked like at the start of WW11 and what they looked like at the end.
In a nutshell they bolted on additional guns left right and center on everything grey that floats.
In the modern context it will be the same.
Now it will be guns and missiles and the systems to make them work...........................space and weight permitting.

Maybe some opportunity on the fleet we currently have.

Regards S

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Like others I was saddened but not surprised by the Russian invasion of Ukraine today. As others have said it highlights the need to increase RAN capability much more quickly. In my view the best way to do that is to expedite current programs rather than invent new ones. I am not sure there is much hope of faster builds in overseas shipyards; their order books are full too.

Regarding the SSNs, obviously today will end most debate about whether it should happen. As for which sub, in the past I have expressed a strong preference for an Astute or Batch 2 Astute/early SSNR build. However today I have modified my position. If both a Virginia or an Astute or Batch 2 Astute/early SSNR build would take the same time, I would prefer the latter. However if one could be completed several years faster, that should be our preference. Debating small differences in capability should end. The question is how do we deliver capability reliably and swiftly?

 

[Meriv90]

I think in Europe we have more than enough shipyards with experience but that are getting closed for industry restructuring/rationalization.

Not first line shipyards (IDK how to write it) but ones that can be converted easily and incorporated in the production chain easily.

Edit: I know it will sound like promotion but it isnt. I would take a peek on the EPC, because the French version that is projected towards patrolling could be good for your needs. But specially since it will adopted all over Europe creating an "Australian" third version would allow to offer Australian/US tech on a wide spread European model. (Imagine when the french will try to export in the ASEAN region)

 

[Stuart M]

Yep, militarily Ukraine is on it's own.

As this is the RAN thread , I think the events in Eastern Europe will lead to many nations reflecting on their own defence capabilities as of today and for or the immediate future.
We probably want the planned RAN of 20 years time, right now.

Australia will certainly take an interest in whats happening in Europe; but realistically it's Asia that will be our focus.

So how do we get the RAN we actually want and need in as short a period as possible.

Regards S

Indeed, If Putin is able to do this there should be no doubt that China will watch and learn.
Imo, as an Island nation, Australia really needs to review how it goes about shipbuilding and it's overall acquisition processes. The Hunter build is far to slow, and while the SSNs are the right call, there's been too little thought as to capacity before they come into service.
I don't believe there's the time for delay.

At the risk of delving into the political, there is far to much tendency to use defence, and other nations dictators, as a political prop for the domestic audience rather than doing the actual job.

 

[spoz]

What? You mean like ALL the time? RAN will have a blue fit if it’s asked to have an MFU ‘always’ ready to sail at a moments notice!

Long slow work-ups with plenty of lead-up training time. That’s how you set up a ‘defence force’ my boy!

I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or not, but the RAN always has an MFU on each coast at a maximum of 8 hours notice for sea or better. You may have seen that play out over the years with the various sudden requirements that tend to appear around Christmas.

 

[CJR]

I struggle to see where, or how, a whole new Frigate project can be slotted in quickly amongst the other projects, infrastructure, and find the manpower to do so, apart from completely trashing the NSP and starting again (can’t see that happening).

Physical infrastructure is probably the least significant problem, Civmec's new build hall is supposed to be able to accommodate two DDG sized vessels (so, with fairly low rate assembly of OPVs you've got space to do something else at the same time) and BAE's WIlliamstown shipyard is materially speaking still extant (workforce.. not so much...). If really desperate Civmec also has the old Tomago Shipyard in NSW (though mostly repurposed as a general heavy engineering site) or the govt could appropriate space from one of the Superyacht builders based in WA (Echo Marine and Silveryachts).

But yeah, skilled manpower and politics are what makes any large-scale local construction of a patrol frigate class difficult. Might be able to somewhat circumvent both by doing something like the LHDs, build the hull overseas while building the superstructure and doing fit-out locally.

 

[OldNavy63]

I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or not, but the RAN always has an MFU on each coast at a maximum of 8 hours notice for sea or better. You may have seen that play out over the years with the various sudden requirements that tend to appear around Christmas.

Yep, just ask the international yachties who come adrift In the Southern Ocean just as the duty unit’s crew are sitting down to their New Years barbecue.

 

[alexsa]

Good day folks.

My humble opinion on some of the commentary.
1. Using WWII as an example of surge does not really relate to the current environment. There was incredible growth in technology but it did not have the demands of a modern integrated combat system and the reach of current sensors and weapons. The gun was still pretty useful and there were lots of old hulls to play compared to today. Even there you saw hull size growth saw older vessels max out on capacity and stability became an issue as addition weapons and systems were plugged into the hulls.
2. Size matters .... for weapons and combat systems. Having an ASW escort with a basic self defence system means and a basic combat system means it may need to be escorted to undertake the ASW function (paired with a capable AAW ship as an example). Where an asset needs another asset to make it effective (i.e: the F-111 requiring an escort at the end of its life) then you actually need more assets to undertake the mission. This is fine close to a task group but modern torpedoes mean ASW ships tend to operate well ahead of the task group, or in choke points, to look for the submarine before the task group (or convoy) is in range of the Submarine weapons (SSN's can also undertake this function ... very well). A basic ASW ship out by itself is going to be a bit of a sitting duck (a bit like the Radar pickets of the 50s and 60s). These assets will need to be integrated into the air defence envelope of the group and have a self defence capability equal to the ASMD ANZAC.
3. Size matters .... for range. A small ship has to compromise as weight is an issue. Again the ANZAC is a good example. This vessel was built for range which limited the weapons it can carry. It was compromised from a stability aspect and it took a great deal of effort to get ASMD to stick. Towed array is being added but the cost of this is likely to be another drop in speed as the ship sits deeper. A 2000 tonne vessel is going to find itself in an even more difficult compromise and range often suffers. A 4000nm range (noting that is the OPV range as fitted) is not going to cut it.
4. Size matters .... for power generation - power generation is a vital element in modern weapons systems. A basic fit will moderate some of these demands .............. but even if the bench mark was set at equal capability to the ASMD ANZAC (noting it would be smart to have some growth marching) you are going to need a bigger hull and more machinery.
5. Having a large shed does not mean you can build a large ship - The Cairnscross dock was very large but it does not mean it could build a DDG or FFG as the yard simply did not have the infrastructure, systems and skills to do it. Osbourne is a modern dockyard designed around ongoing block construction with supporting capability to integrate and commission the systems that make the vessel work (it is a very large facility design around a production line). It is a digital shipyard which means once a design is settled it should be able to turn anything out (provided the logistics chain for systems and machinery is in place). Considerable effort has gone into the yard, the test and support infrastructure and building skills.
6. Going overseas will not give us more sooner (and who is going to pay for it) - Taking work away from Australian production would will (back to the valley of death we go). It is relevant that the mantra sovereign capability. The intent is that Australia is as self reliant as possible. Given the very uncertain situation in which we are now living this is a wise approach.

I have already express my opinion on options and the quickest would be to build the first batch of Hunters to a more basic configuration (as originally intended) and retain the ANZACs longer. This may not be practical given how the project has progressed.

 

[alexsa]

I think in Europe we have more than enough shipyards with experience but that are getting closed for industry restructuring/rationalization.

Not first line shipyards (IDK how to write it) but ones that can be converted easily and incorporated in the production chain easily.

Edit: I know it will sound like promotion but it isnt. I would take a peek on the EPC, because the French version that is projected towards patrolling could be good for your needs. But specially since it will adopted all over Europe creating an "Australian" third version would allow to offer Australian/US tech on a wide spread European model. (Imagine when the french will try to export in the ASEAN region)

How can they easily be incorporated into the production chain? ..... and what production chain are you talking about? If the yards have not built a warship and/or is on the cusp of restructure I suggest it will take time to get up to speed. Added to that is the yards will be building someone else design and this comes with complications (issue with the DDG are a case in point). Finally there is the security issue (Australia's IP). Setting up the contract and guarantees will take quite some time.

In a practical sense building modules overseas in yards on the cusp of administration that may be a security risk sounds like an extremely high risk approach.