Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[alexsa]

I think it's worth noting the RN's Type 31 / AH140 timeline:

Nov 2019 - Contract Awarded / Signed
Sep 2021 - First Steel Cut
2028 - All Five frigates planned to have been delivered.

Under nine years from contract award to delivery of all five frigates.
With all five planned to be fully commissioned by 2030.

Roughly speaking, utilising this timeline, if a hypothetical contract was awarded in late 2023 and steel cut in late 2025,
we'd have five frigates delivered by 2032 and fully commissioned by 2034.

That's the same year (2034) that the first Hunter Class Frigate is due to reach IOC.

Sorry where did you get the 2034 figure from. In the original naval ship building plan 2034 was the delivery date for the last of 9 frigates based on a 24month drum beat. The plan needs an update due to delays caused in setting the design and COVID19. The programme is currently 2 years behind the 'anticipated start date' set in 2017.

NavalShipbuildingPlan_1.pdf

The DoD page has acceptance of the first frigate in the 'late 2020s'. This will be post first of class trials. The DoD page (which has not been updated in 12 months) had prototyping to commence December 2020 which was achieved. This work is to 'key in' the digital shipyard. The finalisation of design is the current hold up.

Hunter Class Frigate | Department of Defence

The other thing is the yard does not build one vessel at a time but is structured as a production line. While the first vessel is undergoing trials and acceptance the the other vessels will be in build and I understand the drum beat and be reduced. This is important as the overall plan has the DDG replacement following the Hunter Class and that is based on when they were completed.

 

[oldsig127]

Roughly speaking, utilising this timeline, if a hypothetical contract was awarded in late 2023 and steel cut in late 2025,
we'd have five frigates delivered by 2032 and fully commissioned by 2034.

That's the same year (2034) that the first Hunter Class Frigate is due to reach IOC.

Two minor issues. Do we really believe the RN build contract is immune to slippages and i think you have the Hunter class timeline out by a long way. Prototyping was to start last year, it did. Aside from finalising the design it's on schedule.

oldsig

EDIT: Sorry Alexsa, you've been a lot more thorough. The fault of me taking 30 minutes to hunt and peck a reply while distracted and not seeing yours before sending.

 

[ddxx]

Sorry where did you get the 2034 figure from. In the original naval ship building plan 2034 was the delivery date for the last of 9 frigates based on a 24month drum beat. The plan needs an update due to delays caused in setting the design and COVID19. The programme is currently 2 years behind the 'anticipated start date' set in 2017.

NavalShipbuildingPlan_1.pdf

The DoD page has acceptance of the first frigate in the 'late 2020s'. This will be post first of class trials. The DoD page (which has not been updated in 12 months) had prototyping to commence December 2020 which was achieved. This work is to 'key in' the digital shipyard. The finalisation of design is the current hold up.

Hunter Class Frigate | Department of Defence

The other thing is the yard does not build one vessel at a time but is structured as a production line. While the first vessel is undergoing trials and acceptance the the other vessels will be in build and I understand the drum beat and be reduced. This is important as the overall plan has the DDG replacement following the Hunter Class and that is based on when they were completed.

Delivery for ship one is now planned for December 2031, with IOC in 2034. Here's a summary which draws from the various senate hearings and reports. Delivery was to be December 2029, but that is before the subsequent 24 month delay.

Further reading from the August Senate Hearings which confirm these delays and delivery times here.

Did you mean 2044? As that was the delivery date for the last of 9 frigates.

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile, in the working Navy, an LHD handover has occurred :
"HMAS Adelaide is followed by HMAS Canberra and HMAS Supply into Nuku‘alofa harbour, Tonga, as part of Operation Tonga Assist 2022."
Image source : ADF Image Library

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think it's worth noting the RN's Type 31 / AH140 timeline:

These are would be two very different builds in two very different countries/regions. The UK has more ship building know how talent pool and supply, and the Type 31 as currently spec'd are very different ships to a Hobart class. In terms of systems and capabilities they are very far apart.

Its noted, and will be keenly watched. It has taken years to setup Hobarts support/logistics chains.

Even to create a project where the A140 could be selected could likely take years. See the current submarine project. Then you need to create new support, training, etc.

While building more Hobart's would be a new project, many aspects/detail have already been completed or would utilise existing work/expense, and most importantly, existing money and existing time and existing efforts and existing hulls. Its the devil we we built, know and operate

A A140 build has no money attached to it, building them would mean we would still need to upgrade the Hobart's and spend that money anyway. The A140 isn't as capable as a Hobart and cannot replace them. The Type31 doesn't have aegis, doesn't have 48 cells, doesn't have a radar in the same class, etc. There is no yard space for the A140 build, at all, as the Hobart upgrade would still have to go ahead during this time period. You aren't adding to the fleet for a long time, because the Hobarts are still going off line for a long upgrade.

No project.
No money.
No time.
No yard.
No existing familiarity, no support, no builder.
No trained crews.

Sure, we could do it, but it has all those aspects going against it compared to building three more Hobart's. The A140 could be the most amazing ship that has ever been created, it wouldn't change the advantages of building more Hobart's.

Where building 3 new Hobart's to put 3 new systems in, also results in the billions spent building and putting systems into 3 existing Hobart's, isn't just deep sixed (well put into endless storage) when we need them. How much do we want of the ADF budget spent on redundant spending sitting in warehouses in 10 years? 5 billion?

The Hobarts have many flaws, but they exist and we operate them. I struggle to see how in the current situation the current plan to upgrade them is sensible, as we will loose our destroyer capability for years during this upgrade, and waste the previous investment in them verse building more ships to replace the aging and limited Anzac class. It doesn't even interfer with the Hunter build either in number or in scope or resources.

 

[Bob53]

These are would be two very different builds in two very different countries/regions. The UK has more ship building know how talent pool and supply, and the Type 31 as currently spec'd are very different ships to a Hobart class. In terms of systems and capabilities they are very far apart.

Its noted, and will be keenly watched. It has taken years to setup Hobarts support/logistics chains.

Even to create a project where the A140 could be selected could likely take years. See the current submarine project. Then you need to create new support, training, etc.

While building more Hobart's would be a new project, many aspects/detail have already been completed or would utilise existing work/expense, and most importantly, existing money and existing time and existing efforts and existing hulls. Its the devil we we built, know and operate

A A140 build has no money attached to it, building them would mean we would still need to upgrade the Hobart's and spend that money anyway. The A140 isn't as capable as a Hobart and cannot replace them. The Type31 doesn't have aegis, doesn't have 48 cells, doesn't have a radar in the same class, etc. There is no yard space for the A140 build, at all, as the Hobart upgrade would still have to go ahead during this time period. You aren't adding to the fleet for a long time, because the Hobarts are still going off line for a long upgrade.

No project.
No money.
No time.
No yard.
No existing familiarity, no support, no builder.
No trained crews.

Sure, we could do it, but it has all those aspects going against it compared to building three more Hobart's. The A140 could be the most amazing ship that has ever been created, it wouldn't change the advantages of building more Hobart's.

Where building 3 new Hobart's to put 3 new systems in, also results in the billions spent building and putting systems into 3 existing Hobart's, isn't just deep sixed (well put into endless storage) when we need them. How much do we want of the ADF budget spent on redundant spending sitting in warehouses in 10 years? 5 billion?

The Hobarts have many flaws, but they exist and we operate them. I struggle to see how in the current situation the current plan to upgrade them is sensible, as we will loose our destroyer capability for years during this upgrade, and waste the previous investment in them verse building more ships to replace the aging and limited Anzac class. It doesn't even interfer with the Hunter build either in number or in scope or resources.

There have been previous comments on the thread that the thought of building more Hobart is pie in the sky. But the recent comments by by Stingray and Voldakov about keeping the current boats in the water and building another 3 even its on availability and the upgrade vs build costs starts to make sense. Which probably means its pie in the sky.....

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I just noticed that the report of the Senate committee looking at Naval shipbuilding posted its first post-Aukus update in late February (last week). Pity floods, Ukraine etc kept it out of the public gaze. It is not flattering of delays in Sea 1000 or Sea 5000.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/024850/toc_pdf/Australia%e2%80%99ssovereignnavalshipbuildingcapability-FutureSubmarineAcquisitionAshambles-wedon'tthink,weknow..pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Sorry the first link was broken and I have edited this post. The link above should now work. THis reprot makes some significant findigns for both the Sea 1000 and Sea 5000 projects.

 

[John Fedup]

I just noticed that the report of the Senate committee looking at Naval shipbuilding posted its first post-Aukus update in late February (last week). Pity floods, Ukraine etc kept it out of the public gaze. It is not flattering of delays in Sea 1000 or Sea 5000.
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportsen/024850/toc_pdf/Australia%E2%80%99ssovereignnavalshipbuildingcapability-FutureSubmarineAcquisitionAshambles-wedon'tthink,weknow..pdf%3BfileType=application/pdf

A message appeared on the site saying the pdf couldn’t be found.

 

[Mikeymike]

The idea is to expand the allied defence industry, not cut it down and split it up across members. From the US perspective they don't see why Australia wouldn't invest fully in domestic industry and local production. They don't understand why when we have the money, we can support the industry, we choose not to do that.

Thanks for the detailed response, I understand the reasoning, was mainly trying to think of ways that would allow Australia to sustain a submarine yard on only 8 subs. Otherwise if the Australian orders aren't enough for continuous build of submarines then we end up with another valley of death situation.

With submarine building being quite a specialist discipline only other way for continuous sub-building is to either choose an inefficient delivery rate or build more subs.

In another topic entirely but would the Navy ever be interested in something like the TB3 drone turkey is producing to go on their version of the LHDs?

Seems that the TB2 style drones have showed their usefulness over the years even in semi-contested airspace and can see how a small complement of a similar type on a LHD would be useful. I know the RAAF is getting reapers in this space and I find it extremely unlikely Australia would ever purchase a Turkish drone due to both political and integration issues. Not sure if the US/UK have anything similar that can operate of an LHD?

 

[John Fedup]

Thanks for the detailed response, I understand the reasoning, was mainly trying to think of ways that would allow Australia to sustain a submarine yard on only 8 subs. Otherwise if the Australian orders aren't enough for continuous build of submarines then we end up with another valley of death situation.

With submarine building being quite a specialist discipline only other way for continuous sub-building is to either choose an inefficient delivery rate or build more subs.

In another topic entirely but would the Navy ever be interested in something like the TB3 drone turkey is producing to go on their version of the LHDs?

Seems that the TB2 style drones have showed their usefulness over the years even in semi-contested airspace and can see how a small complement of a similar type on a LHD would be useful. I know the RAAF is getting reapers in this space and I find it extremely unlikely Australia would ever purchase a Turkish drone due to both political and integration issues. Not sure if the US/UK have anything similar that can operate of an LHD?

Drone performance in the much more challenging Ukraine airspace will add some insight as to how effective these drones really are (assuming Russian anti air assets are effectively utilized).

 

[swerve]

... The A140 isn't as capable as a Hobart and cannot replace them. The Type31 doesn't have aegis, doesn't have 48 cells, doesn't have a radar in the same class, etc. ...

But the Iver Huitfeldt class has APAR, SMART-L, & 32 Mk 41 . . . . The hull is a little shorter & slightly fatter than the Hobarts. I'm not suggesting that Arrowhead 140s reconfigured for Aegis should be bought by the RAN, but it's feasible. It's big enough, & being offered for sale in various configurations: basically, whatever the customer wants. The one sale so far will not be fitted out like a Type 31.

 

[StingrayOZ]

But the Iver Huitfeldt class has APAR, SMART-L, & 32 Mk 41 . . . . The hull is a little shorter & slightly fatter than the Hobarts. I'm not suggesting that Arrowhead 140s reconfigured for Aegis should be bought by the RAN, but it's feasible. It's big enough, & being offered for sale in various configurations: basically, whatever the customer wants. The one sale so far will not be fitted out like a Type 31.

With time, money and resources a lot can be done. But the Iver Huitfeldt isn't the Type 31, exactly, there are significant differences in the configurations. As with any modification and localisation, it becomes a project of its own. As we are seeing with the Type 26 to Hunter conversion. Which despite being a large ship, with modern levels of power and generous proportions and specifications is still an extensive and time consuming project.

This can be expected to take years. The A140 design would need to be selected through a project, somehow. Then the basic work detailing our, bringing suppliers on board etc could start to happen.

Again, its not to be little or criticise the A140 of the Iver parent design. Its a great design, it probably does have export potential. It may even have local production potential. Just not in replacing the Hobart upgrade.

But the RAN/ASC has already select/spec/build/IOC/FOC 3 hobart ships, and the government is already committed to spending 60-70% of the money (the existing time and suppliers) to upgrade those specific 3 ships. For the Hobarts, this has already happened/started back in 2007. Back when we should have been replacing the FFG's 1 for 1 with the AWD's, which as Volk mentioned, seemed like a reasonable idea.

Which probably means its pie in the sky.....

Well again, there is no project for this, everyday we go further down the road of performing the upgrade as planned and contracts etc are drawn up, money spent and the point of no return passes etc. Shifting course late in the game requires ever more drastic measures and greater risks.

IMO what is likely is that we are forced to abandon the planned upgrade, but still have to pay, and have wasted our time, money, again. Or we go through with it, and yet another event occurs where our navy it literally in dry dock and cannot respond (Kanimbla in ET).

I have submitted several pieces to ASPI, we will see if anything gets published. Probably not.
The general feeling there is to terminate Hunter class, some will not be salivated until BAE and the Hunters are dead. I am not of that opinion.

A message appeared on the site saying the pdf couldn’t be found.

Try

Australia’s sovereign naval shipbuilding capability - Future Submarine Acquisition: a shambles - we don't think, we know

This report examines the AUKUS announcement and the cancellation of the agreement with Naval Group to build the Attack-class boats, in addition to providing an update on the Department of Defence's accountability and transparency.

apo.org.au

There is a clusterfuck of many things brewing and coming our way. It isn't good news. We can't assume that someone will come in like superman and save us either neither the UK nor the US will (can?) just build us a turn key no matter how much of a mess we make ourselves. If you try talking to pretty much any expert in the Australian sub sphere how this is going to work, you get some pretty blank stares.

 

[John Fedup]

With time, money and resources a lot can be done. But the Iver Huitfeldt isn't the Type 31, exactly, there are significant differences in the configurations. As with any modification and localisation, it becomes a project of its own. As we are seeing with the Type 26 to Hunter conversion. Which despite being a large ship, with modern levels of power and generous proportions and specifications is still an extensive and time consuming project.

This can be expected to take years. The A140 design would need to be selected through a project, somehow. Then the basic work detailing our, bringing suppliers on board etc could start to happen.

Again, its not to be little or criticise the A140 of the Iver parent design. Its a great design, it probably does have export potential. It may even have local production potential. Just not in replacing the Hobart upgrade.

But the RAN/ASC has already select/spec/build/IOC/FOC 3 hobart ships, and the government is already committed to spending 60-70% of the money (the existing time and suppliers) to upgrade those specific 3 ships. For the Hobarts, this has already happened/started back in 2007. Back when we should have been replacing the FFG's 1 for 1 with the AWD's, which as Volk mentioned, seemed like a reasonable idea.


Well again, there is no project for this, everyday we go further down the road of performing the upgrade as planned and contracts etc are drawn up, money spent and the point of no return passes etc. Shifting course late in the game requires ever more drastic measures and greater risks.

IMO what is likely is that we are forced to abandon the planned upgrade, but still have to pay, and have wasted our time, money, again. Or we go through with it, and yet another event occurs where our navy it literally in dry dock and cannot respond (Kanimbla in ET).

I have submitted several pieces to ASPI, we will see if anything gets published. Probably not.
The general feeling there is to terminate Hunter class, some will not be salivated until BAE and the Hunters are dead. I am not of that opinion.


Try

Australia’s sovereign naval shipbuilding capability - Future Submarine Acquisition: a shambles - we don't think, we know

This report examines the AUKUS announcement and the cancellation of the agreement with Naval Group to build the Attack-class boats, in addition to providing an update on the Department of Defence's accountability and transparency.

apo.org.au

There is a clusterfuck of many things brewing and coming our way. It isn't good news. We can't assume that someone will come in like superman and save us either neither the UK nor the US will (can?) just build us a turn key no matter how much of a mess we make ourselves. If you try talking to pretty much any expert in the Australian sub sphere how this is going to work, you get some pretty blank stares.

Thanks, that link worked.

 

[Volkodav]

The back room sections of defence are so undersized and under resourced that they can't effectively spend the money they are given to buy the things defence needs. The problem isn't inefficiency, it lack of capacity. Until this is address the problems will continue.

The problem isn't industry, it's the actual defence department is too lean to do its job properly.

 

[vonnoobie]

The back room sections of defence are so undersized and under resourced that they can't effectively spend the money they are given to but the things defence needs. The problem isn't inefficiency, it lack of capacity. Until this is address the problems will continue.

The problem isn't industry, it's the actual defence department is too lean to do its job properly.

Typical management issue with oh so many organisations and companies, it's either over staffed making it unwieldy or understaffed causing those in the job to be tripping over stretched too far.

 

[ddxx]

The back room sections of defence are so undersized and under resourced that they can't effectively spend the money they are given to but the things defence needs. The problem isn't inefficiency, it lack of capacity. Until this is address the problems will continue.

The problem isn't industry, it's the actual defence department is too lean to do its job properly.

Here's an interesting Article by a visiting fellow at the ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre:

Russia may be paranoid, but we are complacent

"Australia’s defence wages bill is inflated by the large number of highly-paid non-combatant senior military and civilian personnel. We have more than 10 times as many senior military and civilian defence officers as the US does for a comparable number of combat personnel."

 

[SMC]

"Australia’s defence wages bill is inflated by the large number of highly-paid non-combatant senior military and civilian personnel. We have more than 10 times as many senior military and civilian defence officers as the US does for a comparable number of combat personnel."

It is a lot easier to flesh out the lower ranks in an emergency that it is to find competent senior officers at short notice. So I for one am reasonably comfortable with the services being top heavy.

 

[vonnoobie]

It is a lot easier to flesh out the lower ranks in an emergency that it is to find competent senior officers at short notice. So I for one am reasonably comfortable with the services being top heavy.

Not exactly at least not what I am thinking. Easy enough to say we have X amount of officers so if SHTF we can recruit more soldiers to flesh out the lower ranks but A. Do we have the training facilities to expand that much that quickly and B. Even if some magical way it was done with what equipment will we outfit them? Being top heavy isn't always a good thing.

 

[alexsa]

Delivery for ship one is now planned for December 2031, with IOC in 2034. Here's a summary which draws from the various senate hearings and reports. Delivery was to be December 2029, but that is before the subsequent 24 month delay.

Further reading from the August Senate Hearings which confirm these delays and delivery times here.

Did you mean 2044? As that was the delivery date for the last of 9 frigates.

The summary is in an ASPI's paper on progress which suggests that the build and commissioning is well behind (two years to construction start and then 10 years to build and deliver ship 1). Sorry, but ASPI have their own axe to grind and are an advocate of overseas build.

The Senate hearing you linked has Dr White who is not an advocate of the Hunter either noting it conflicts with his own view on defence. In your link

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/5c0f5583-eec9-4b44-a35e-bed19a52acaf/toc_pdf/Economics%20References%20Committee_2021_08_06_9013_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/5c0f5583-eec9-4b44-a35e-bed19a52acaf/0002%22

Ms Lutz (First Assistant Secretary, Ships, Department of Defence) notes on page 23 that the additional

...... 18-month delay means that we are maturing the design such that it is of sufficient maturity so that, when we commence production, we are expected to have minimal rework during that, so the build is as efficient and optimised as possible and we can actually build in the design strategy build in accordance with the type 26 Hunter class

and

As I said, we are working with BAE Systems Maritime Australia, to make sure that we've recovered that schedule and we're back on the original planned drumbeat by the delivery of ship 4. So the first batch of three frigates will be slightly later than we had anticipated, but they're not in contract, and we never had contracted dates for them. We will recover to our anticipated schedule by the delivery of ship 4

This ties in with the fact the drum beat can be increased. I don't see this as confirming the 2034 delivery of hull 1. The DoD statement does not support your reading of the material.

 

[Redlands18]

It is a lot easier to flesh out the lower ranks in an emergency that it is to find competent senior officers at short notice. So I for one am reasonably comfortable with the services being top heavy.

Yes it takes 20+ years to produce a Flag Officer or a Warrant Officer 1st Class, only around 12 months(can be longer in some Streams) to produce a competent Private/Sailor/Air Person.