Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[hauritz]

I agree, we don't need to have a fully evolved ship design before the first of the Hunter's enter service. We should remember that the ANZAC class started out as a simple patrol frigate and was significantly upgraded years after they were commissioned. The navy could make do with a large hull with plenty of growth margin and then if necessary make changes to future tranches.

I think the priority for the navy at the moment should be to get as many new hulls in the water ASAP. The way things are now the navy will be entering one of the most uncertain periods in Australia's history with the oldest fleet of ships and submarines to have ever seen service.

 

[hauritz]

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

What happens in Europe is crucial to Australia. We rely on the US to provide strong support for Australia but if its attention is diverted away to Europe then more responsibility falls on Australia. The same applies to the UK and other European nations that may no longer see Chinese expansionism as their biggest threat.

Remember what happened in WW2. They had a Europe first strategy.

 

[Volkodav]

Frigates are better than corvettes but corvettes may be a quicker option to get something more survivable than OPVs fairly quickly. Thinking a switch to a minimum change K130 for example, retaining the CIVMEC Lurssen relationship.

OPVs are pumped out as the switch is planned, training RAN on bigger than PB platforms, then as the Corvettes hit the water the OPVs are re-roled as MCMV, Hydro and BorderForce, maybe even some could fill an APD type role supporting special forces and 2 RAR etc.

 

[vonnoobie]

That IMO is a big maybe on getting them any quicker then a Light Frigate. Going on the German production dates still looking at a 4-5 year time for each ship from ordered to commissioning for a class that provides realistically nothing in AAW and ASW. It's an ideal class for Germany being able to this out ASM's and mine laying but considering the range we need to cover, sea conditions and threat environment would it be a worthwhile asset that we might acquire a year or two earlier then a light Frigate? Just seems to be a big choice for something that won't be any cheaper, won't get delivered much quicker for slightly less crew then a modern light Frigate but a lot less capable in the broader sense of things. We would be just as well off slapping an ASM battery on the Arufuras then switching whole design out

 

[Meriv]

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.

Trieste has been built at Castellammare di Stabia shipyard.
Cantiere navale di Castellammare di Stabia - Wikipedia

It is in Italian but you can see how they only produced civilian ships in the last decades, and how those ones slowed down.

Regardless Trieste construction went smooth and fast.

Like Castellammare Europe has tons of similar cases, civilian shipyards often part of a group that produces also military ships, or in the same industrial cluster of military ones.

Example

If you bring cash and not that much cash since an EPC/or other Corvette models costs you around 300mln, you would have tons of contracting power.

Fincantieri just saved a Greek shipyard with the promise of building there the next Greek frigates.

This is happening all around the continent.

Another example if I'm not wrong the British have an hole in their production sub line that need to filled.

Chances to produce abroad are there.

 

[Redlands18]

Trieste has been built at Castellammare di Stabia shipyard.
Cantiere navale di Castellammare di Stabia - Wikipedia

It is in Italian but you can see how they only produced civilian ships in the last decades, and how those ones slowed down.

Regardless Trieste construction went smooth and fast.

Like Castellammare Europe has tons of similar cases, civilian shipyards often part of a group that produces also military ships, or in the same industrial cluster of military ones.

Example

If you bring cash and not that much cash since an EPC/or other Corvette models costs you around 300mln, you would have tons of contracting power.

Fincantieri just saved a Greek shipyard with the promise of building there the next Greek frigates.

This is happening all around the continent.

Another example if I'm not wrong the British have an hole in their production sub line that need to filled.

Chances to produce abroad are there.

What hole in UK Submarine production? They still have 2 Astute's under construction and have started on the Dreadnought's and plan to start on the SSN(R) to follow the Dreadnought's in the mid 30s.

 

[Volkodav]

Some have mentioned the need to accelerate deliveries, acquire new capabilities etc. because of the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fact is its already too late for that, we have what we have and nothing more.

Its too late for a fourth, fifth or sixth Hobart, too late for a new gen SSG or even evolved Collins, basically we have three Hobarts, eight ANZACs and six Collins, that's it. The only ships were are currently building are Capes and Arafura's, so the only quick easy option is 57mm, anti ship missiles, maybe a CIWS or a short range, non penetrating active air defense missile on the OPVs. fitting anything to the Capes is pointless because the weight of any installation alone will break the pathetic things.

Its probably impossible to quickly acquire F-35Bs to give the LHDs a combat capability.

Basically if we are dragged into a shooting war now we are screwed because to the decisions made over the last 25 to 30 years.

It would be nice to have three Flight IIA Burkes, and six stretched ANZAC based FFGs, that could have really made use of the upgrades developed for the ANZACs. As well as having a dozen or more Transfield Corvettes with a scaled down ASMD fit, supporting the eight ANZACs, Collins 7 and 8 would have been nice too. While we are at it other options put forward that didn't happen, i.e. the Kidds instead of the FFG upgrade, or maybe a pair of Cavours instead of the JCIs. Nice, but even though all were serious options at one point or another, they didn't happen.

We have what we have and that's it. No rushed program is going to make one bit of difference to the number or types of platforms we have in service now or for the next several years. As such there is zero point panic building, zero point cancelling or replacing current projects, it simply wont make any difference in the near term and may well make things worse in the mid term. What we need in the 2030s is the Hunters or something similar, if we panic change now we will only just be getting the less capable panic option at about the same time the Hunters were due anyway. Nothing by the way is going to fix the submarine gap.

Forget about specific platforms and look at what we could have done that would have set us us better. The obvious thing is continuous ship building. This is not a new idea, this is what Williamstown was privatised and modernised for. It doesn't matter what is being built, so long as it has the required bits of a combatant so workforce, design and building skills can be developed and maintained over successive generations, same for submarines. Maybe the ships will need to be ordered and built at less than optimal intervals, but overall it provides more flexibility.

Again, this didn't happen. It was proposed, planned, initiated but not continued. No doubt we would currently be better off if continuous build was maintained , but it wasn't.

What we need to do now is realise the nothing we change now will speed up delivery of major combatants and continue the current plan while ensuring we introduce flexibility going forward. If anything it may be worth taking a step back and re-evaluating the configuration of the hunters in regards to the changed threat level, maybe bite the bullet and go for a larger hull. Maybe we need to look at something warier than the Arafuras, but not panic changes, do a proper analysis and plan to acquire what we need.

 

[Unric]

Agree that any major changing of direction at this stage would likely only slow things down. But I hope there is an opportunity to accelerate/adapt current projects. In my work it is always a trade-off between time Vs quality Vs cost. You can usually have two out of three the way you want it (obviously within reason) but never all three. Assuming defence acquisition is similar, it's time to throw as much money as reasonably possible at what's available and maybe even accept some quality compromises since an expensive, buggy warship in time is more useful than perfect blueprints. But I suspect (hope) the RAN is already onto this.

 

[alexsa]

Folks, there appears to be some spit balling of ideas and

Trieste has been built at Castellammare di Stabia shipyard.
Cantiere navale di Castellammare di Stabia - Wikipedia

It is in Italian but you can see how they only produced civilian ships in the last decades, and how those ones slowed down.

Regardless Trieste construction went smooth and fast.

Like Castellammare Europe has tons of similar cases, civilian shipyards often part of a group that produces also military ships, or in the same industrial cluster of military ones.

Example

If you bring cash and not that much cash since an EPC/or other Corvette models costs you around 300mln, you would have tons of contracting power.

Fincantieri just saved a Greek shipyard with the promise of building there the next Greek frigates.

This is happening all around the continent.

Another example if I'm not wrong the British have an hole in their production sub line that need to filled.

Chances to produce abroad are there.

You missed all the other related issues ..... how do you de-risk those. Many yards build complex passenger vessels it does not mean they can build a warship and would considerable resources applied to the yard(s) to bring them up to speed. The Greek deal would be a technology transfer to Greece by building the frigate in Greece. That technology transfer is being provided by a warship builder.

This is not the same as your somewhat unusual suggestion that Australia should go with an offshore build solution with a yard that has not build a warship and are in financial difficulty offer a lower risk and quicker build?

That was a rhetorical question! The fact is this would be a very risky option that provides no benefit to Australia.

 

[Bob53]

Noting the BAE Williamstown yard mentioned above …
I don’t think it’s in line for any of the current projects. What is the status of that yard… no current work force I understand but what would be required to bring it on line for a MFU project like adding to the Hunters drumbeat?

 

[ddxx]

Noting the BAE Williamstown yard mentioned above …
I don’t think it’s in ply for my of the current projects. What is the status of that yard… no current work force I understand but what would be required to bring it on line for a MFU project like adding to the Hunters drumbeat?

From my understanding, Osborne's facilities are designed to sustain a much higher drumbeat if required - i.e. there wouldn't be a need for another shipyard to come on line to speed up the HCFP.

Both Austal and Civmec's latest annual reports again highlight their keen interests in expanding to meet opportunities under the national shipbuilding plan.

 

[Takao]

Agree that any major changing of direction at this stage would likely only slow things down. But I hope there is an opportunity to accelerate/adapt current projects. In my work it is always a trade-off between time Vs quality Vs cost. You can usually have two out of three the way you want it (obviously within reason) but never all three. Assuming defence acquisition is similar, it's time to throw as much money as reasonably possible at what's available and maybe even accept some quality compromises since an expensive, buggy warship in time is more useful than perfect blueprints. But I suspect (hope) the RAN is already onto this.

Two things.

1 - there are practical limits. If I had a trillion dollars in cash sitting in front of me, I can only build so many facilities in Australia. Why? Because there are only so many plumbers, electricians etc and only so much concrete, PVC pipes etc. The maximum $$ you can spend in a single year building infrastructure is a relatively tiny number, smaller than many ADF projects actually. Now, it's 'easy' doing infrastructure, electricians and plumbers are 'common'. Ship building now? That's harder. Especially these ships. Naval ships are full of electrics, built to different standards and can have different security overheads (so your outstanding welder may not be able to be used because they can't get a security classification). Furthermore, all the money in the world won't buy you crews. The RAN has already started training the CPO / WO required for HMAS Hunter...

2 - where do the resources come from? Throwing money at a problem is fine - where are you taking it from? And where are the crews coming from? If 6 brand spanking new DDG or FFG rock up outside Garden Island tomorrow morning to add to the fleet, who crew's them?

 

[Stampede]

Noting the BAE Williamstown yard mentioned above …
I don’t think it’s in ply for my of the current projects. What is the status of that yard… no current work force I understand but what would be required to bring it on line for a MFU project like adding to the Hunters drumbeat?

Williamstown's ship building days have probably passed.
But here is a thought.
The City of Melbourne has a population greater than the combined populations of WA and SA.
It is also a major manufacturing hub for the nation and is well recognized for tertiary Education.
Lets not forget that 10 of our 16 MFU's had some form of constructed work completed at Williamstown.

But yes, Williamstown's ship building days have probably passed.

The ship building baton went west some years ago

Cheers S

 

[Boagrius]

Two things.

1 - there are practical limits. If I had a trillion dollars in cash sitting in front of me, I can only build so many facilities in Australia. Why? Because there are only so many plumbers, electricians etc and only so much concrete, PVC pipes etc. The maximum $$ you can spend in a single year building infrastructure is a relatively tiny number, smaller than many ADF projects actually. Now, it's 'easy' doing infrastructure, electricians and plumbers are 'common'. Ship building now? That's harder. Especially these ships. Naval ships are full of electrics, built to different standards and can have different security overheads (so your outstanding welder may not be able to be used because they can't get a security classification). Furthermore, all the money in the world won't buy you crews. The RAN has already started training the CPO / WO required for HMAS Hunter...

2 - where do the resources come from? Throwing money at a problem is fine - where are you taking it from? And where are the crews coming from? If 6 brand spanking new DDG or FFG rock up outside Garden Island tomorrow morning to add to the fleet, who crew's them?

So it seems we may be staring at a bottleneck in our capacity to meaningfully grow the RAN fleet for a good 15yrs? Perhaps it comes to back, yet again, to matching the desired effects to the projected threat.

~15 years (my number - may be off) is an uncomfortably long time, but it is finite. If there is in fact a shortfall in the effects that the RAN can provide in that time period, perhaps it can be mitigated by the other branches until that gap is filled. While I will leave it there in the interests if staying on-topic, we are ultimately cultivating a joint force after all.

 

[Unric]

Two things.

1 - there are practical limits. If I had a trillion dollars in cash sitting in front of me, I can only build so many facilities in Australia. Why? Because there are only so many plumbers, electricians etc and only so much concrete, PVC pipes etc. The maximum $$ you can spend in a single year building infrastructure is a relatively tiny number, smaller than many ADF projects actually. Now, it's 'easy' doing infrastructure, electricians and plumbers are 'common'. Ship building now? That's harder. Especially these ships. Naval ships are full of electrics, built to different standards and can have different security overheads (so your outstanding welder may not be able to be used because they can't get a security classification). Furthermore, all the money in the world won't buy you crews. The RAN has already started training the CPO / WO required for HMAS Hunter...

2 - where do the resources come from? Throwing money at a problem is fine - where are you taking it from? And where are the crews coming from? If 6 brand spanking new DDG or FFG rock up outside Garden Island tomorrow morning to add to the fleet, who crew's them?

Completely agree that there are practical limits. I just hope RAN is at them. Where does the money come from? That's for the govt to work out but I don't think increasing defence budget is a hard sell at the moment. As for training / manpower- well that's another piece of puzzle - if need be start ramping it up asap. I'm not asking for miracles, just saying it's looking like 1938 again and the foot should be firmly on the floor by now (and hopefully is).

 

[ddxx]

Can I be so bold as to say, I think fleet size and presence is too often *only* considered through the lens of Defence alone.

Australia’s foreign policies and ambitions within our near and greater region, arguably, require constant, capable and highly visible presence. And in a region like ours, that responsibility primarily falls to surface ships.

To our north, to our north-west, and particularly throughout our east - throughout the Pacific Island region

It’s by no-means reactionary to call for a fleet capable of maintaining that presence - the need for which has been obvious for many, many years.

At least, it’s inspiring to see near-complete agreement here that we need a rethink of the surface fleet to meet our nation’s policy objectives, and in turn work to assure both our own and our region’s security and prosperity.

 

[Stampede]

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.

Thanks Alexsa
A good post.

For the immediate future
The starting point is looking at any shortfall in capability of our existing 16 MFU's.

At a minimum ALL should have a defensive suite of
Soft kill systems - Nulka, Torpedo decoy ,chaff.
At least a pair of medium Cal weapons standardized in caliber across the fleet.( 30 to 40 mm )
A new tier of short range SAM's..................One missile choice only , it's either Sea RAM or RAM from a MK 49 launcher.

Many ships have some of the above and acknowledge the ANZAC's may be challenged for weight for RAM.

I don't buy the argument of supply ships and amphibs not having the above.
Our fleet is small.
10 or 11 in the water at any time spread between two bases thousands of KM's apart.

We need to work with allies, but most importantly we need a sovereign capability and be self sufficient.
On our own we probably at best we can muster around half a dozen ships for a task force.
While each vessel has a role within the larger group, in that last few KM's each vessel regardless of role will need a range of defence options.

The introduction of a short range SAM should be a priority purchase for the RAN.
Most modern professional navy's have such a system.

Cheers S

 

[ngatimozart]

People have forgotten what I said in my post yesterday:

"... Don't get fixated on platforms so much at the moment but first look at what it would be required to do. ... Work from that. Today a ship of 4,000 tonnes would be applicable."​

You are reverting to bad habits. Once it's been determined what its required to do, then you can start looking at specifics. But you must realise that you have to include the crewing as well. That includes where you will find them and having the right mix of qualified personnel. So you can't press gang a bunch of civvies in a local pub and turn them into sailors in a short time. For some strange reason the average civvy gets real upset at being press ganged. Can't understand why myself. Given the current shipbuilding capabilities in Australia you also have to be creative in how you will undertake such a build program. Then you have to find the funding and it cannot be at the expense of existing ADF programs. So how do you approach that? It's far more than just saying lets build some more ships and that's what I am trying to get you to think about and consider. You have to take all of these factors into account when you suggest something like this.

So next post you write on this topic consider as a proposal that you are putting before the Minister. It has to be like a business case. Thorough and well thought out so that the rest of us know that you have given your case very careful consideration and that you believe it sound.

 

[Stampede]

Frigates are better than corvettes but corvettes may be a quicker option to get something more survivable than OPVs fairly quickly. Thinking a switch to a minimum change K130 for example, retaining the CIVMEC Lurssen relationship.

OPVs are pumped out as the switch is planned, training RAN on bigger than PB platforms, then as the Corvettes hit the water the OPVs are re-roled as MCMV, Hydro and BorderForce, maybe even some could fill an APD type role supporting special forces and 2 RAR etc.

Agree with your later post, we have what we have.

The reality and opportunity is whats in production today.

The old taboo of the Arafura Class now becomes a realistic what if.
It's reason d'etre is now the Opportunity Patrol Vessel
The events of this week and China's reaction have reinforced what many have suspected; we live in an uncertain would.

So yes Volk, divide the build into two classes.
One as is to re role later and build the most capable vessel possible working within the time constraint of this decade.

It will be a bastard that we probably never wanted, but it will be a better bastard than the alternative which is 20 x OPV's with a pop gun.

It's all about maximizing capability with little time.

Of course continue with the Hunter and Submarine programs



Regards S

PS - Still regret the sale of the two FFG's and Sirius.

 

[ddxx]

Today a ship of 4,000 tonnes would be applicable.

Just to clarify what you’re saying for both myself and everyone else:

Do you mean 4,000 tonnes light or full load displacement?

I’d assume you mean light displacement? Correct me if wrong.