Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Oldbeagle]

While I appreciate that the focus of these discussions is the Australian Navy and politics are verboten, the Senate report is a political statement from an ALP led opposition dominated group. I for one was unimpressed by the number of times Marcus Hellyer and his arguments are quoted
While claiming that there remains a totally united focus on obtaining Nuclear powered submarines, this document makes the Labor party and certain Unions opposition to Nuclear power clear . Sadly though the criticism of the current achievements of the present Government and its shifting Naval vessel acquisition policies are thoroughly justified no alternative is offered.
Hopefully during the upcoming Federal Election both parties will provide clear and coherent plans for both Frigate and Submarine acquisitions and for filling shortfalls in capability till they come online .

 

[Redlands18]

While I appreciate that the focus of these discussions is the Australian Navy and politics are verboten, the Senate report is a political statement from an ALP led opposition dominated group. I for one was unimpressed by the number of times Marcus Hellyer and his arguments are quoted
While claiming that there remains a totally united focus on obtaining Nuclear powered submarines, this document makes the Labor party and certain Unions opposition to Nuclear power clear . Sadly though the criticism of the current achievements of the present Government and its shifting Naval vessel acquisition policies are thoroughly justified no alternative is offered.
Hopefully during the upcoming Federal Election both parties will provide clear and coherent plans for both Frigate and Submarine acquisitions and for filling shortfalls in capability till they come online .

I can see the Ukraine war and concerns about China putting Defence more front and centre in this election than it has been for decades.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

While I appreciate that the focus of these discussions is the Australian Navy and politics are verboten, the Senate report is a political statement from an ALP led opposition dominated group. I for one was unimpressed by the number of times Marcus Hellyer and his arguments are quoted
While claiming that there remains a totally united focus on obtaining Nuclear powered submarines, this document makes the Labor party and certain Unions opposition to Nuclear power clear . Sadly though the criticism of the current achievements of the present Government and its shifting Naval vessel acquisition policies are thoroughly justified no alternative is offered.
Hopefully during the upcoming Federal Election both parties will provide clear and coherent plans for both Frigate and Submarine acquisitions and for filling shortfalls in capability till they come online .

I wasn't meaning to make a political comment via the report. For me the important point was that the Committee majority (including Labor, independent and minor party members) all signed off on bipartisan support for AUKUS and the SSN purchase. I think that is significant.

 

[ddxx]

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.

I certainly didn't say delivery of Hull One in 2034? Delivery for Hull one is now expected to be in December 2031 with IOC expected to be December 2033. It appears the only sensationalisation on behalf of ASPI is calling December 2033, 2034 - which it practically is.

As per Hansard 15/09/2021:


Mr CONROY: So no change from Defence estimates. With the up to 18-month delay, what's the current date for delivery of the first frigate, please?

Mr Dalton: We're looking at a window for the delivery of the first frigate, noting that we're not in contract. The current contract we have with the prime contractor, BAE Systems Maritime Australia, is for the design and productionisation. The window for the first frigate delivery closes in December 2031.

Mr CONROY: I note the original delivery date talked about in Defence estimates was some time in 2029, so that's a two-year delay in delivery.

Mr Dalton: The original nominal delivery date was the end of 2029. That's the end of the window that we currently have with BAE Systems Australia, noting we're not on contract for the delivery of the first frigates yet.

Mr CONROY: Is IOC around December 2033 now?

Mr Dalton: That's probably a reasonable estimate.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

There is also the fact that although we don't have the number of platforms or personnel as the US etc. we do have a similar number of different capabilities. A lot of these senior uniform and civilian people are involved in capability acquisition and sustainment, there are overheads required whether you have 5 or 50 platforms in service.

It could actually be argued that we are too light on in regards to capability managers, systems engineers and contract managers.

 

[Volkodav]

While I appreciate that the focus of these discussions is the Australian Navy and politics are verboten, the Senate report is a political statement from an ALP led opposition dominated group. I for one was unimpressed by the number of times Marcus Hellyer and his arguments are quoted
While claiming that there remains a totally united focus on obtaining Nuclear powered submarines, this document makes the Labor party and certain Unions opposition to Nuclear power clear . Sadly though the criticism of the current achievements of the present Government and its shifting Naval vessel acquisition policies are thoroughly justified no alternative is offered.
Hopefully during the upcoming Federal Election both parties will provide clear and coherent plans for both Frigate and Submarine acquisitions and for filling shortfalls in capability till they come online .

I fear we haven't had a coherent plan since 2010, and prior to that about 1991. I think you may need to go back to 1968 and then 1945/46 to find earlier plans actually basing structure on strategic need. A common outcome was none proceeded as intended, being cut, bastardised or even cancelled outright.

 

[alexsa]

I certainly didn't say delivery of Hull One in 2034? Delivery for Hull one is now expected to be in December 2031 with IOC expected to be December 2033. It appears the only sensationalisation on behalf of ASPI is calling December 2033, 2034 - which it practically is.

As per Hansard 15/09/2021:


Mr CONROY: So no change from Defence estimates. With the up to 18-month delay, what's the current date for delivery of the first frigate, please?

Mr Dalton: We're looking at a window for the delivery of the first frigate, noting that we're not in contract. The current contract we have with the prime contractor, BAE Systems Maritime Australia, is for the design and productionisation. The window for the first frigate delivery closes in December 2031.

Mr CONROY: I note the original delivery date talked about in Defence estimates was some time in 2029, so that's a two-year delay in delivery.

Mr Dalton: The original nominal delivery date was the end of 2029. That's the end of the window that we currently have with BAE Systems Australia, noting we're not on contract for the delivery of the first frigates yet.

Mr CONROY: Is IOC around December 2033 now?

Mr Dalton: That's probably a reasonable estimate.

IOC is not delivery of the hull 1. It is the delivery of sufficient hulls to have a capability.

IOC for the F35 meant a squadron was ready to go to war. IOC for the Hobart Class was 2018 with provisional acceptance of Hobart in 2017 and IOC granted in December 2018 after Brisbane was provisionally accepted in July 2018. FOC was only being granted when Sydney was delivered, accepted and in operation.

IOC for the Hunters is likely to be when two or three hulls have been accepted as operational. So I again point out that your suggestion the first hull will be in the water by 2034 is incorrect.

 

[Morgo]

I wasn't meaning to make a political comment via the report. For me the important point was that the Committee majority (including Labor, independent and minor party members) all signed off on bipartisan support for AUKUS and the SSN purchase. I think that is significant.

Agreed.

Penny Wong was on Insiders last Sunday making very supportive noises about AUKUS and Defence spending more broadly, and in fact it sounded like the ALP thinks we aren't spending nearly enough. In particular she was having a go at the Government for allowing a potential capability gap between Collins and the SSNs to develop. It sounded like they're going to make Defence a key part of their election campaign, as both sides should.

There is a bit of surface noise from both parties but (comfortingly) I think there remains strong bipartisan support for the investments committed and underway, and if anything both sides seem to be looking for ways to get more capability sooner. No surpises there given recent events. There doesn't seem to be a significant risk of a race to the bottom on Defence spending, as long as the Greens don't end up with the balance of power.

Will be a very interesting election indeed from a Defence perspective.

 

[Volkodav]

Agreed.

Penny Wong was on Insiders last Sunday making very supportive noises about AUKUS and Defence spending more broadly, and in fact it sounded like the ALP thinks we aren't spending nearly enough. In particular she was having a go at the Government for allowing a potential capability gap between Collins and the SSNs to develop. It sounded like they're going to make Defence a key part of their election campaign, as both sides should.

There is a bit of surface noise from both parties but (comfortingly) I think there remains strong bipartisan support for the investments committed and underway, and if anything both sides seem to be looking for ways to get more capability sooner. No surpises there given recent events. There doesn't seem to be a significant risk of a race to the bottom on Defence spending, as long as the Greens don't end up with the balance of power.

Will be a very interesting election indeed from a Defence perspective.

The all military is bad and the defence money should be invested in tax cuts/business support brigades are definitely in the minority at the moment, (more platoons and sections than brigades). The argument is how the money should be spent. Traditionally Labor seems more about grand plans that are never realised and the Coalition more about reactionary buying sprees, but there does seem to be more common ground than there has been for a long time.

 

[Todjaeger]

The all military is bad and the defence money should be invested in tax cuts/business support brigades are definitely in the minority at the moment, (more platoons and sections than brigades). The argument is how the money should be spent. Traditionally Labor seems more about grand plans that are never realised and the Coalition more about reactionary buying sprees, but there does seem to be more common ground than there has been for a long time.

I admit that I am in favour of if not a grand plan, then at least an overall ambitious plan that is then actually consistently worked towards.

With that in mind, I do think that Australia and the ADF should start planning now, for some sort of 2nd tier combatant and patrol vessel (~frigate sized, more or less IMO) which would follow-on the construction of the Arafura-class OPV's. My reasoning why this should start now (or should have already gotten under way...) is partially due to the amount of time it can take for a design to be settled on, and partially due to the potential for the international and regional security enviros to degrade further. Yes, a class which is not planned to be started until ~2030 might seem to be a long way off, but if significant design work is already finished in say, 2026, and things have gotten even worse, esp. in the SCS, then it might be possible to accelerate the Arafura-class build and bring construction of a patrol frigate-type vessel forward. It could also given the RAN time to recruit and train personnel so that there would be sufficient crews for more than just a dozen MFU's.

A key point though is the even before steel can be cut, kit ordered, or personnel trained, the idea has to be raised, thought out, and then planned for. That is something which could at least get started now.

 

[spoz]

Now, that is a reasonable suggestion which approaches achievability - if of course the government and its advisers are minded to go that way. Although there are plans for the Arafura variant as Hydro/MW ships; but that could probably done by Civmec in parallel to the standard version once they hit their stride, and not have to wait to follow on.

 

[Massive]

overall ambitious plan that is then actually consistently worked towards.

Could not agree more strongly.

That said, I do feel that the current plan is quite ambitious, but that it now lags the changing strategic situation.

Reading the various comments above my sense is that an emerging case is being made for increasing the drumbeat and the total order for the Hunter class (by, say, 4) while building a complementary class of high automation general purpose frigates in the 4-5000 tonne class (say 8).

Then the big question being asked is is it possible to get whatever extended surface fleet is targeted (the above being 24 missile-armed MFUs) in a reasonable timeframe that matches the strategic need - both in terms of ability to build the ships, to man them and to pay for it.

Not to mention you would probably need to add 2 AORs and increase the number of available shipflights to fully exploit the extended capability.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ddxx]

Not to mention you would probably need to add 2 AORs and increase the number of available shipflights to fully exploit the extended capability.

There's also the Joint Support Ships to be built in Henderson from ~2026 for between $5.1 and $7.7b.

Seems to be a rather high figure for two(?) large auxiliary vessels. Considering the two Supply Class AORs were acquired for a total of $642m.

I wonder if it would make for a better use of resources to build the JSS's overseas at lower cost - freeing up industrial capacity for surface combatants, which also have export potential. A deal with a South Korean shipbuilder such as HHI would also be particularly favourable from a diplomatic perspective.

 

[John Fedup]

There's also the Joint Support Ships to be built in Henderson from ~2026 for between $5.1 and $7.7b.

Seems to be a rather high figure for two(?) large auxiliary vessels. Considering the two Supply Class AORs were acquired for a total of $642m.

I wonder if it would make for a better use of resources to build the JSS's overseas at lower cost - freeing up industrial capacity for surface combatants, which also have export potential. A deal with a South Korean shipbuilder such as HHI would also be particularly favourable from a diplomatic perspective.

Seems to me to be a better number than our two JSS/AOR ships being built based on Germany’s Berlin class ship by SeaSpan in BC.

 

[vonnoobie]

There's also the Joint Support Ships to be built in Henderson from ~2026 for between $5.1 and $7.7b.

Seems to be a rather high figure for two(?) large auxiliary vessels. Considering the two Supply Class AORs were acquired for a total of $642m.

I wonder if it would make for a better use of resources to build the JSS's overseas at lower cost - freeing up industrial capacity for surface combatants, which also have export potential. A deal with a South Korean shipbuilder such as HHI would also be particularly favourable from a diplomatic perspective.

All depends what is included in the price and what exactly the ships are envisioned of being capable of doing. There have been a few JSS type ships over last few years but overall it is a very broad term so I would hazard just yet any saying if something is expensive or not till GoA releases what they want in them.

 

[Flexson]

There's also the Joint Support Ships to be built in Henderson from ~2026 for between $5.1 and $7.7b.

Seems to be a rather high figure for two(?) large auxiliary vessels. Considering the two Supply Class AORs were acquired for a total of $642m.

I wonder if it would make for a better use of resources to build the JSS's overseas at lower cost - freeing up industrial capacity for surface combatants, which also have export potential. A deal with a South Korean shipbuilder such as HHI would also be particularly favourable from a diplomatic perspective.

JSS at $5.1 and $7.7b is the estimated TOTAL project cost. AORs $642m is the price of the construction contract for the bare ships alone, the total project cost is significantly higher. You're comparing Apples and Oranges.

 

[Massive]

There's also the Joint Support Ships to be built in Henderson from ~2026 for between $5.1 and $7.7b.

Forgot about the JSS.

If we end up with 2 JSS I would see 2 AOR and 2 JSS as sufficient.

You would still need the additional ship flights though.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Volkodav]

There's also the Joint Support Ships to be built in Henderson from ~2026 for between $5.1 and $7.7b.

Seems to be a rather high figure for two(?) large auxiliary vessels. Considering the two Supply Class AORs were acquired for a total of $642m.

I wonder if it would make for a better use of resources to build the JSS's overseas at lower cost - freeing up industrial capacity for surface combatants, which also have export potential. A deal with a South Korean shipbuilder such as HHI would also be particularly favourable from a diplomatic perspective.

You get what you pay for. If the ships have hospitals, command and coms enhancements, perhaps enhanced aviation facilities, amphibious warfare capability, there's a lot of your extra cost to start with.

It's not so much the cost of the hull, it's what you put in the hull that costs the most.

 

[icelord]

Choules was meant to be medium term replacement while LHD was being built after LPA's were parked on North Head

Tonga assist 2022 is a good example of the type of work JSS can provide If we pick the right ship.

At the moment HMAS Supply and Adelaide are deployed. With JSS, only 1 ship would need to be there on station with LHD (When working) able to be a ferry for resources or even next gen LCH. JSS would be command ship, provide Water to the community and racks for troops on ground cleaning up.

Pacific support ship would be better if rolled into 3 JSS. At any one time, JSS ship would be "Pacific ship" and allow for rotations where the ship would spend most of its time in the region operating out of Townsville for resupply and rotate with other JSS over a time period.

Crew experience and training would be regular, interactions with Pacific region would grow and if any situation evolved like Volcanos or Tsunamis, your ship is already force assigned.

 

[Flexson]

Pacific support ship would be better if rolled into 3 JSS. At any one time, JSS ship would be "Pacific ship" and allow for rotations where the ship would spend most of its time in the region operating out of Townsville for resupply and rotate with other JSS over a time period.

Crew experience and training would be regular, interactions with Pacific region would grow and if any situation evolved like Volcanos or Tsunamis, your ship is already force assigned.

You're going to be disappointed when the ship is revealed. You could still argue for this to happen in the future... but that's not what it's going to be initially.