Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

V, all through the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years the plan was always for ‘eight Future Frigates’, during both the 2009 DWP and 2013 DWP time period.

And during that time the fourth AWD option lapsed too.


The change from eight to nine Future Frigates happened when the Abbott/Turnbull 2016 DWP was released.

You could argue the ninth Frigate made up for the loss of the fourth AWD, and it also made the continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan workable too.

I'm still grumpy at Robert Ray convincing Keating to life extend and upgrade the first four FFGs instead of just upgrading the last pair, so the could defer replacing them and the DDGs.

Yes the idea was to give breathing space to build corvettes to replace the Fremantle's in the 2000s, and then build a homogenous class of FFGs to replace the FFGs and DDGs in the 2010s, but it's the bright idea that led to our current situation. No corvettes, and three DDGs, replacing nine DDGs and FFGs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I am seriously wondering if a Flight III Burke could be a possibility to increase fleet size and cover the upgrade cycles of the Hobarts and ANZACs in the short term?

380 is a lot of crew, the crew of two hobarts would just about do it. Good luck trying to get a flight III off the USN, they really want those. While it would give our sailors something to do, perhaps helping to stop the mass collapse of the RAN as it will other wise turn into a desk navy, not sure how effective it would be.

Maybe we can lease the FFG's back off Chile? During the upgrades? Or lease the Spanish navy? While we are allergic to cutting new steel, and obsessed with questionable refits and reanimating the dead, perhaps we can buy and refit HNoMS Helge Ingstad? We could call it the Launceston class, because its smaller than a hobart?

You could argue the ninth Frigate made up for the loss of the fourth AWD, and it also made the continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan workable too.

A hypothetical ship being built in 2040 isn't exactly making up for a loss of a ship that was to be commissioned in 2020. In many navies, that would be that ships replacement after a long and storied career. We could have built the 4th hobart, and still had 9 hunters, they weren't mutually exclusive.

We are increasingly cactus. Some bad decisions, some short sighted decisions, some ambitious timeframes are coming back to bite Australia.

 

[Volkodav]

We are heading back exactly where we were in the 2000s. The entire fleet being pushed through upgrades, including virtually brand-new ships, while the only actual new construction underway is patrol vessels.

No ships at sea, no need for crews, loss of expertise etc. The few ships actually available are run into the ground.

A reality check on how stupid this is. Williamstown could have easily built three or four stretched ANZACs, or the similar Type 123 or even 124 from Germany, for less money than the cost of the FFGUP and ANZAC ASMD. We could have fitted them with ASMD systems, they would have replaced the either the DDGs, to increase numbers, or first four FFGs to maintain numbers.

Same here, we could have ordered a second batch of Hobart's in the early 2010s. Nope, too hard, just coast down hill, not giving it a thought until you suddenly realise your current gear isn't good enough, you don't have enough of it, and it's going to rust away to nothing before you can replace it.

 

[John Fedup]

Australia, the UK, and to a certain extent even the US have C-F naval renewal for all sorts of stupidity. Could be worse, Canadian defence procurement geniuses might have immigrated to your country.

 

[Redlands18]

We are heading back exactly where we were in the 2000s. The entire fleet being pushed through upgrades, including virtually brand-new ships, while the only actual new construction underway is patrol vessels.

No ships at sea, no need for crews, loss of expertise etc. The few ships actually available are run into the ground.

A reality check on how stupid this is. Williamstown could have easily built three or four stretched ANZACs, or the similar Type 123 or even 124 from Germany, for less money than the cost of the FFGUP and ANZAC ASMD. We could have fitted them with ASMD systems, they would have replaced the either the DDGs, to increase numbers, or first four FFGs to maintain numbers.

Same here, we could have ordered a second batch of Hobart's in the early 2010s. Nope, too hard, just coast down hill, not giving it a thought until you suddenly realise your current gear isn't good enough, you don't have enough of it, and it's going to rust away to nothing before you can replace it.

How about 5-7 Type 23 Brandenburg's to replace the DEs, followed by 3-5 F-124 Sachsen's to replace the FFG/DDGs, same Baseline design, same Machinery(F-124 about 5m longer), better balanced Fleet, more Crew req but a lot more redundancy in Trg Streams and logistics.

 

[John Newman]

A hypothetical ship being built in 2040 isn't exactly making up for a loss of a ship that was to be commissioned in 2020. In many navies, that would be that ships replacement after a long and storied career. We could have built the 4th hobart, and still had 9 hunters, they weren't mutually exclusive.

You’ve got it back to front.

The hypothetical ship was the 4th Hobart, it was an option put in place by the LNP and not proceeded with by the ALP.

The 9th Hunter is not an option.

 

[Volkodav]

How about 5-7 Type 23 Brandenburg's to replace the DEs, followed by 3-5 F-124 Sachsen's to replace the FFG/DDGs, same Baseline design, same Machinery(F-124 about 5m longer), better balanced Fleet, more Crew req but a lot more redundancy in Trg Streams and logistics.

Basically usually when we have had a change of government the incoming mob have looked at all the shiny new gear either in service or entering service and assume they can sit on their backsides for a term or two before doing anything.

• As time goes by they are finally made to realise that the world has moved on and the gear we have is insufficient.
• They then decide to upgrade existing gear to give themselves some breathing space to decide what to do long term.
• Government may change at this point but their hands are tied.
• What they decide to do takes longer than planned so more upgrades are required.
• Government may change at this point but their hands are tied.
• Finally the new gear starts to arrive , usually after the old gear has fallen apart.
• A new or the old government is comfortable with all the new shiny gear so sits back and does nothing.
• Cycle starts again.

Its bad enough when the new gear is a trio of DDGs, but when its patrol frigates or patrol boats we are in real trouble, because the new stuff isn't as good as the older stuff that has yet to be replaced.

Many here realise, but some wont, that the FFGs were actually patrol frigates, designed as replacements for the convoy escorting DEs in USN service. Although equipped with the same Standard SM-1 and Mk-13 launcher as the DDGs, there were not DDGs, lacking the 3D radar, command and control systems and additional fire control channels of the destroyers. There were more capable than the in service River Class DEs because they were newer with more modern systems but in truth the DEs were the pinnacle of early post war ASW escort design, its just that they were built for too long and then upgraded and retained well beyond their usefulness. The replacement for the Type 12 Frigates (that the DEs were based on) in the RN were the Leanders, the Type 22 Broadswords and then the still in service Type 23s, we replaced ours with ANZACs.

So basically the RN went Type 12, Type 12M (Leander), Type 22 (the Type 21 Amazons were in there as well as an interim acquisition), Type 23 and now Type 26. We went Type 12, ANZAC, Type 26 over the same time frame, relying on expensive, inefficient upgrades and life extensions to stretch the capability and to skip generations.

Not as bad as pretending the FFGs are area air defence ships, we still acquired an AEGIS frigate and called it a destroyer when what the RAn needed was either a larger more capable design, or more hulls of the good enough Hobarts.

 

[Volkodav]

You’ve got it back to front.

The hypothetical ship was the 4th Hobart, it was an option put in place by the LNP and not proceeded with by the ALP.

The 9th Hunter is not an option.

The same could be argued in reference to the seventh and eighth Collins, the corvettes, the six upgraded FFGs, the USN offer of the Kidd Class DDGs to the RAN in the late 90s. Both sides of politics have done a lot of damage to defence and the industries required to support capability. The lack of planning and follow through has been endemic, with there being far more people in government and government service who prefer to justify why they can't do things, rather than trying to improve things.

It is often the case of debilitating conservatism (as in the actual definition of the word rather than the political connotations) inhibiting planning, development and improvement. Many would rather upgrade and keep old than replace it with new. My dad would spend more on keeping an old unsafe car on the road than I would on leasing a new car every three years, it that sort of thinking that is doing so much damage. Things change, things improve, things move on, when we choose to ignore this we get left behind.

 

[Boagrius]

The same could be argued in reference to the seventh and eighth Collins, the corvettes, the six upgraded FFGs, the USN offer of the Kidd Class DDGs to the RAN in the late 90s. Both sides of politics have done a lot of damage to defence and the industries required to support capability. The lack of planning and follow through has been endemic, with there being far more people in government and government service who prefer to justify why they can't do things, rather than trying to improve things.

It is often the case of debilitating conservatism (as in the actual definition of the word rather than the political connotations) inhibiting planning, development and improvement. Many would rather upgrade and keep old than replace it with new. My dad would spend more on keeping an old unsafe car on the road than I would on leasing a new car every three years, it that sort of thinking that is doing so much damage. Things change, things improve, things move on, when we choose to ignore this we get left behind.

So what should we do about it? I am increasingly thinking that Jim Molan was on to something when he suggested we pursue an all-encompassing national security/strategy review (larger in scope, perhaps, than your "normal" DWP) that encompasses all of the threats we now face, even things like domestic unity/stability in the face of COVID and the rise of the sort of political polarisation we are seeing in the US if not elsewhere...

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Labor is also spruiking Defence policy today, promising to increase spending, retain the 2+% GDP budget commitment, and also expand the ADF.

There are some specific naval promises, including continuing with SSN purchase, Tomahawks for the Collins Class, and a possible solution to the submarine "capability gap".

On the frigates:
"A Labor government would “explore whether our naval power could be bolstered through upgraded weapons on the Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels or through additional Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers”

Albanese to pledge increased defence spending as Morrison promises more personnel

Labor and Coalition will make dueling announcements on Thursday as national security increasingly becomes a focal point for federal election

www.theguardian.com

This is the first election I can remember where both sides are promising to increase defence spending.

 

[John Newman]

The same could be argued in reference to the seventh and eighth Collins, the corvettes, the six upgraded FFGs, the USN offer of the Kidd Class DDGs to the RAN in the late 90s. Both sides of politics have done a lot of damage to defence and the industries required to support capability. The lack of planning and follow through has been endemic, with there being far more people in government and government service who prefer to justify why they can't do things, rather than trying to improve things.

It is often the case of debilitating conservatism (as in the actual definition of the word rather than the political connotations) inhibiting planning, development and improvement. Many would rather upgrade and keep old than replace it with new. My dad would spend more on keeping an old unsafe car on the road than I would on leasing a new car every three years, it that sort of thinking that is doing so much damage. Things change, things improve, things move on, when we choose to ignore this we get left behind.

The problem is we are the victim of our own political system, eg, three year term of Government.

Get elected, spend first year settling in, second year start implementing policy, third year plan to get re-elected again, repeat endlessly.

As much as it pains me to say it (especially when a party I don’t support is in Government), we need more stable Government by having longer terms in charge.

A friend said this to me many decades ago:

“What we need is a ‘benevolent’ dictator, put them in charge and give them a 10 year plan to complete, at the end of 10 years, take them out the back, shoot them, and put in the next one with the following 10 year plan”.

Extreme? Maybe, maybe not, think about it.

 

[seaspear]

The problem is we are the victim of our own political system, eg, three year term of Government.

Get elected, spend first year settling in, second year start implementing policy, third year plan to get re-elected again, repeat endlessly.

As much as it pains me to say it (especially when a party I don’t support is in Government), we need more stable Government by having longer terms in charge.

A friend said this to me many decades ago:

“What we need is a ‘benevolent’ dictator, put them in charge and give them a 10 year plan to complete, at the end of 10 years, take them out the back, shoot them, and put in the next one with the following 10 year plan”.

Extreme? Maybe, maybe not, think about it.

Are you applying for this position ? lol

 

[John Newman]

Are you applying for this position ? lol

No, but I’d happily pull the trigger at the end of each 10 year term.

 

[Stuart M]

snip

On the frigates:
"A Labor government would “explore whether our naval power could be bolstered through upgraded weapons on the Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels or through additional Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers”

Albanese to pledge increased defence spending as Morrison promises more personnel

Labor and Coalition will make dueling announcements on Thursday as national security increasingly becomes a focal point for federal election

www.theguardian.com

snip

I think this indicates they are unsure of their ground on defence, and have trolled through others opinions to put out a PR item to differentiate them from the government.

I would be surprised if either of these would be either economic, practically possible or even desirable.

In the case of the Arafura Class, they are a 'built' design to a purpose, and adding additional capability would likely add vary little capability relative to the cost and may detract from the design purpose.
As for additional Hobarts, pretty sure there isn't industrial capacity for this, and building more means a cold start with a new workforce and all the inefficiencies and costs that implies. Moreover I would have thought that events had past that design by, if an anti-air design is whats needed a much bigger design, with significantly more VLS tubes and energy generation is required.

 

[hauritz]

Labor is also spruiking Defence policy today, promising to increase spending, retain the 2+% GDP budget commitment, and also expand the ADF.

There are some specific naval promises, including continuing with SSN purchase, Tomahawks for the Collins Class, and a possible solution to the submarine "capability gap".

On the frigates:
"A Labor government would “explore whether our naval power could be bolstered through upgraded weapons on the Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels or through additional Hobart-class Air Warfare Destroyers”

Albanese to pledge increased defence spending as Morrison promises more personnel

Labor and Coalition will make dueling announcements on Thursday as national security increasingly becomes a focal point for federal election

www.theguardian.com

This is the first election I can remember where both sides are promising to increase defence spending.

Additional Hobarts might not bode well for the Hunter program.

Realistically I don't think either side of politics can avoid increasing defence spending whether they wanted to or not. Big projects that have already been committed to by both sides of politics are yet to enter the big spending phase of their procurement. When the new frigate and submarine programs finally enter the construction phase the defence budget will need to be boosted.

 

[Volkodav]

So what should we do about it? I am increasingly thinking that Jim Molan was on to something when he suggested we pursue an all-encompassing national security/strategy review (larger in scope, perhaps, than your "normal" DWP) that encompasses all of the threats we now face, even things like domestic unity/stability in the face of COVID and the rise of the sort of political polarisation we are seeing in the US if not elsewhere...

The last time we had one of those was either the late 80s or early 90s, it was actually quite relevant for today as it encompassed our geography and the physical number required to simply have the required presence. Threats dictate the required capability and size of your force elements, but geography dictates the number of force elements.

When talking constabulary and HADR OPV and leased commercial vessels my do, but we still need to determine where, when, how fast etc.

In the 90s, with the post cold war "New World Order" the threat was seen to be rogue states, i.e. the occasional small boat or missile boat attack, maybe the occasional air attack, think the tanker war in the Persian Gulf, so the assumed upper threat level could be handled by an upgraded FFG or new gen FFG with NTU equivalent combat system and Standard MR, NATO Sea Sparrow and CIWS, to defend themselves and near by commercial vessels. This is where the thinking of eight or nine FFGs came from, one deployed in each of up to three areas where such attacks were likely.

The next level was the ANZACs able to provide regional presence and able to defend themselves from unexpected attack.

Below that were the corvettes protecting local waters, year round and able to protect themselves.

With the exception of the Hobarts, this is a larger and more capable force than we currently have, despite the fact the world is only a much more dangerous place than it was but also despite the fact that what is happening now has been predicted for well over a decade. Love or hate him, Rudd was telling us about China back in 2008/9, the need for small survivable combatants to replace the useless Armidales, the need for a much larger fleet of submarines, a need for a larger, more capable ANZAC replacement. It wasn't a change of government that derailed things, it was a global financial crisis and a party room coup.

The thing is we have had nothing but indecision and changing direction since, no coherent plan that we have just stuck to. In many ways that worse than building a capability that's not quite right, because at least them you would have something to build on, instead we are upgrading and life extending platforms that were ordered before the last comprehensive review.

 

[Boagrius]

The last time we had one of those was either the late 80s or early 90s, it was actually quite relevant for today as it encompassed our geography and the physical number required to simply have the required presence. Threats dictate the required capability and size of your force elements, but geography dictates the number of force elements.

When talking constabulary and HADR OPV and leased commercial vessels my do, but we still need to determine where, when, how fast etc.

In the 90s, with the post cold war "New World Order" the threat was seen to be rogue states, i.e. the occasional small boat or missile boat attack, maybe the occasional air attack, think the tanker war in the Persian Gulf, so the assumed upper threat level could be handled by an upgraded FFG or new gen FFG with NTU equivalent combat system and Standard MR, NATO Sea Sparrow and CIWS, to defend themselves and near by commercial vessels. This is where the thinking of eight or nine FFGs came from, one deployed in each of up to three areas where such attacks were likely.

The next level was the ANZACs able to provide regional presence and able to defend themselves from unexpected attack.

Below that were the corvettes protecting local waters, year round and able to protect themselves.

With the exception of the Hobarts, this is a larger and more capable force than we currently have, despite the fact the world is only a much more dangerous place than it was but also despite the fact that what is happening now has been predicted for well over a decade. Love or hate him, Rudd was telling us about China back in 2008/9, the need for small survivable combatants to replace the useless Armidales, the need for a much larger fleet of submarines, a need for a larger, more capable ANZAC replacement. It wasn't a change of government that derailed things, it was a global financial crisis and a party room coup.

The thing is we have had nothing but indecision and changing direction since, no coherent plan that we have just stuck to. In many ways that worse than building a capability that's not quite right, because at least them you would have something to build on, instead we are upgrading and life extending platforms that were ordered before the last comprehensive review.

Right, so suffice it to say a comprehensive, nationwide review is probably warranted? I can live with the mistakes we've made over the last 30 years if we manage to learn from them in the next 30. I suspect it's going to be pretty important.

 

[CJR]

Additional Hobarts might not bode well for the Hunter program.

Realistically I don't think either side of politics can avoid increasing defence spending whether they wanted to or not. Big projects that have already been committed to by both sides of politics are yet to enter the big spending phase of their procurement. When the new frigate and submarine programs finally enter the construction phase the defence budget will need to be boosted.

TBH isn't more Hobarts kinda dead on arrival? I mean, the production lines both here and in Spain are half a decade cold.

What might be doable reasonably quickly (well, quicker than current plans...) is a Hunter-minus... Take the base Type-26 hull and basically just shove the current ANZAC AMCAP upgrade radar and combat system aboard. Not as capable as a full CEAFAR2+AEGIS-9LV-hybrid setup intended for the Hunters but considerably lighter weight meaning no need for major hull redesigns that (per the marginally coherent noise in the media) seems to be one of the big hold-ups on the Hunters.

 

[ADMk2]

TBH isn't more Hobarts kinda dead on arrival? I mean, the production lines both here and in Spain are half a decade cold.

What might be doable reasonably quickly (well, quicker than current plans...) is a Hunter-minus... Take the base Type-26 hull and basically just shove the current ANZAC AMCAP upgrade radar and combat system aboard. Not as capable as a full CEAFAR2+AEGIS-9LV-hybrid setup intended for the Hunters but considerably lighter weight meaning no need for major hull redesigns that (per the marginally coherent noise in the media) seems to be one of the big hold-ups on the Hunters.

Navantia proposed an evolved variant for SEA-5000 so they are clearly fairly confident something akin to a Hobart could be provided. It wouldn’t be the same no, but neither are the ANZAC’s and Hunters we will be running simultaneously alongside the Hobarts for varying periods…

Depending on what was decided, it may well be possible to time matters so that RAN never needed to run more than 3 MFU types at one time, with only limited overlap...

 

[Volkodav]

TBH isn't more Hobarts kinda dead on arrival? I mean, the production lines both here and in Spain are half a decade cold.

What might be doable reasonably quickly (well, quicker than current plans...) is a Hunter-minus... Take the base Type-26 hull and basically just shove the current ANZAC AMCAP upgrade radar and combat system aboard. Not as capable as a full CEAFAR2+AEGIS-9LV-hybrid setup intended for the Hunters but considerably lighter weight meaning no need for major hull redesigns that (per the marginally coherent noise in the media) seems to be one of the big hold-ups on the Hunters.

What you end up with then is a less capable, less survivable ship than the Hobarts for greater cost and probably no sooner.

We actually need to get out of solution space and into definition space, i.e. what is the actual problem. We need to measure what is going on, analyse the data we have and then implement a solution. Many of the worst outcomes in history have come from putting the solution in before you know what the problem is, i.e. making decisions on gut feeling and making things worse.