Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Boagrius]

I don’t understand the logic of trying to plug the gap until the Hunters are ready by looking at any designs that would need modification / Australianisation. Which is probably all of them.

The Hunter design process seems to be drawing to a close and will soon be ready to cut steel. Prototyping finished next year.

I can’t see how any design would be ready to start construction ahead of that.

So if we have excess shipbuilding capacity (a big if) why would we do anything except accelerate the shipbuilding program and plan for a fleet of 10-12 Hunters instead of 8? Or plan to start the Hobart replacement sooner?

Having precisely zero relevant experience in this field, this occurred to me too. From my reading of this thread it seems that an increase in the number of MFUs seems reasonable (and possibly inevitable) given the strategic outlook, so speeding up the production run and simply increasing the size of it (to guard against the dreaded valley of death) strikes me as attractive.

That also made me wonder whether the class could be built in batches (of ~3 for example) with each batch featuring evolutionary changes, perhaps ranging from a simple increase in VLS cells (from the oft-cited 32 to... whatever else can be accommodated) to - eventually - more ambitious changes (hull plug for hypersonics? New sensors/EW gadgets ..? Total hypothetical here). This way the first batch could be held to a more expedient but less ambitious standard (hopefully getting hulls in the water sooner), with the more capable boats following that.

 

[aussienscale]

Can I just call out the elephant in the room, Long Lead Items ! How long ago do you thing we placed orders for the combat systems and integration ? Weapons systems ? Engineering anyone ? for the Hunter program !

You just can not plug a gap and think we can build more AWD's because we have done it before, long lead items like combat systems need to be ordered years in advance to be built and ready to be installed during construction ?

Where would all these long lead items come from to do such a thing ? just to do a re-pop of an AWD means restarting long lead production of even the most basic items that has not been produced for a very long time, more than likely items that we as a country only have one or 2 companies capable of certain items, and guess what ? They are already gearing up for the Hunters, put that behind and you may as well cancel the program altogether !!

Edit:

This will give a good heads up of how long ago some of these things were announced

Hunter Class Frigate | Department of Defence

CASG Project Hunter Class Frigate

www.defence.gov.au

.

 

[icelord]

Having precisely zero relevant experience in this field, this occurred to me too. From my reading of this thread it seems that an increase in the number of MFUs seems reasonable (and possibly inevitable) given the strategic outlook, so speeding up the production run and simply increasing the size of it (to guard against the dreaded valley of death) strikes me as attractive.

That also made me wonder whether the class could be built in batches (of ~3 for example) with each batch featuring evolutionary changes, perhaps ranging from a simple increase in VLS cells (from the oft-cited 32 to... whatever else can be accommodated) to - eventually - more ambitious changes (hull plug for hypersonics? New sensors/EW gadgets ..? Total hypothetical here). This way the first batch could be held to a more expedient but less ambitious standard (hopefully getting hulls in the water sooner), with the more capable boats following that.

The current Hunter plans have batches in mind.
IIRC its batch of 3.

Its been discussed here previously that a smarter move would have been GP hunters in batch 1 before slamming them full of ASW, Aegis and every gucci bit of kit possible. Seems ADF plan is to go hard or go home straight up.

 

[Boagrius]

The current Hunter plans have batches in mind.
IIRC its batch of 3.

Its been discussed here previously that a smarter move would have been GP hunters in batch 1 before slamming them full of ASW, Aegis and every gucci bit of kit possible. Seems ADF plan is to go hard or go home straight up.

Gotcha. It strikes me as a genuinely tricky problem. On one hand you have the urgent need to put hulls in the water ASAP, and on the other you have a threat environment that makes all the gold plating look absolutely necessary. When you consider that a weapon as exquisite and costly as the SM-6 looks set to provide the last line of defence against your neighbourhood ASBM/HGVs (and that you probably need equally exquisite sensors to cue it effectively) the challenge is considerable. No easy solutions to this one I fear...

 

[Joe Black]

Australian-built evolved Collins needed to bridge the gap to nuclear subs

Australian-built evolved Collins needed to bridge the gap to nuclear subs | The Strategist

I should start by affirming my support for Australia’s transition to nuclear-propelled attack submarines, or SSNs, as my detailed study, delivered to the Department of Defence in 2013, and my public advocacy implies. I think ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

A piece by Peter Briggs, in my mind, one of the most qualified ex RAN submariner to comment on RAN future SSN. I have always thought building sons of Collins is the best course of action as a stop gap until the SSN becomes available. Simply doing LOTE on the existing Collins class boats is just short-sighted, and a mistake. LOTE for the newest 3 boats, and build another 3 or 4 evolved Collins would not only maintain the sub building skills through to the start of building SSN, but at the same time, it will ensure RAN will not have a capability gap.

 

[Mikeymike]

I don't think Son of Collins is possible. By the time you get a design done, long lead items built, workforce, builder knowledge built back up and get the first boat delivered you are probably looking at same date as a SSN.

If you wanted to build another class, they should've just kept going on Attack and built the first batch of 4 of those. There would be less work on that than building another 4 Collins.

 

[Morgo]

I’m skeptical. I get that the workforce (both submariners and support) is a limiting factor, but 18 years beyond first commissioning date for 6 boats seems a bit much. It doesn’t take 25-30 years all up to train up the workforce. People have entire careers in that span of time.

I think the real point is that we should be, right now:

- recruiting nuclear engineering professors now and setting up faculties at major universities
- recruiting the PhDs we do have and giving them jobs for life at ANSTO
- cross deploying submarine crews with the USN and RN
- drastically increasing the intake of submariners into the RAN and improving their pay.

Presumably all of this was put in motion last year.

If we do this I don’t see why we couldn’t have crews and appropriate infrastructure in place within a decade.

EDIT: For a typo

 

[TScott]

Can I just call out the elephant in the room, Long Lead Items ! How long ago do you thing we placed orders for the combat systems and integration ? Weapons systems ? Engineering anyone ? for the Hunter program !

You just can not plug a gap and think we can build more AWD's because we have done it before, long lead items like combat systems need to be ordered years in advance to be built and ready to be installed during construction ?

Where would all these long lead items come from to do such a thing ? just to do a re-pop of an AWD means restarting long lead production of even the most basic items that has not been produced for a very long time, more than likely items that we as a country only have one or 2 companies capable of certain items, and guess what ? They are already gearing up for the Hunters, put that behind and you may as well cancel the program altogether !!

Edit:

This will give a good heads up of how long ago some of these things were announced

Hunter Class Frigate | Department of Defence

CASG Project Hunter Class Frigate

www.defence.gov.au

.

It's not just procurement times on weapon systems, it's bulk materials for absolutely everything.

Steel, aluminium, componentry. Everything is under the crunch atm.

 

[StingrayOZ]

You just can not plug a gap and think we can build more AWD's because we have done it before, long lead items like combat systems need to be ordered years in advance to be built and ready to be installed during construction ?

Actually replacement combat system, consoles, radar have already been ordered. As part of Sea4000 Phase 6.

Lockheed Martin Australia wins $33 million Aegis design deal for Hobart Class destroyers - APDR

Lockheed Martin Australia was awarded a A$33 million design contract to support the upgrade of the Aegis Combat System on the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) fleet of three Hobart-class Destroyers.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

The intention is to pull the hobarts out and basically completely re-radar/combat/power/Engine/cooling them. ~70% the cost of new ships. Basically we are saving money on the hull, which given the price of steel doesn't seem like much of a saving, given we make that part here. Spending 30% more to get 3 new destroyers IMO seems like good value to me. Perhaps a less ambitious upgrade of the hobarts could happen, after the new ships were operational.

You are right in that many items would need to be made from scratch. To make items, you need suppliers to schedule and tool up. Contracts need to be issued etc. Any new AWD's would be a flight II design, a significant change and evolution of the existing Hobarts. With specifying a lot of newer systems etc. Some of this could be retro fitted to the existing Hobarts. Lets not kid our selves and think that new AWD would not be a major undertaking.

Every day that ticks passed our most precious of resources, time, flicks by.

Same for subs. If we aren't building son of Collins, then what are we using to keep the sub arm operational and with a future? Simulators?
I don't believe anyone serving in the RAN submarines today will ever serve on a RAN SSN. Career attrition is high for submariners, knowing your job on one sub doesn't mean, particularly on a sub, that you can transfer easily onto a new platform, an entire new class. We are talking about operating the SSN from a different base than the Collins.

Again the Collins LOTE is extensive, it is probably going to be more like 80% the cost of new subs. But it must occur on the existing platforms, but I guess could be expanded to creation of new subs. To make it worthwhile it would likely have to be ~ 4 new subs and that would likely result in conventional and nuclear sub builds overlapping. Messy.

Things like certain sub specific plumbing, periscopes, scada systems from the 1980's, aren't made anymore, pretty much anywhere.

 

[Going Boeing]

Can I just call out the elephant in the room, Long Lead Items ! How long ago do you thing we placed orders for the combat systems and integration ? Weapons systems ? Engineering anyone ? for the Hunter program !

You just can not plug a gap and think we can build more AWD's because we have done it before, long lead items like combat systems need to be ordered years in advance to be built and ready to be installed during construction ?

Where would all these long lead items come from to do such a thing ? just to do a re-pop of an AWD means restarting long lead production of even the most basic items that has not been produced for a very long time, more than likely items that we as a country only have one or 2 companies capable of certain items, and guess what ? They are already gearing up for the Hunters, put that behind and you may as well cancel the program altogether !!.

I understand that 6 of the latest upgrade AEGIS systems have been ordered for the 3 AWD’s and the first 3 Hunter class FFG’s - if a snap decision was made to build additional AWD’s, it would be possible to use the systems originally planned for the Hunters and place additional orders for the rest of the build.

As others have said, if there is a conflict within the next 10 years, it will have to be fought with the current equipment and we need to be building additional capability as quickly as possible.

For those who are intimate with the Anzac class, I understand that they can be fitted with 8 more VLS - is this a relatively plug-n-play modification or does if require major system modifications?

Also, as they would be mounted in a fairly elevated position, would the additional VLS cause unacceptable stability issues considering the changes with the recent upgrade involving a heavy radar mast structure?

 

[ddxx]

The intention is to pull the hobarts out and basically completely re-radar/combat/power/Engine/cooling them. ~70% the cost of new ships. Basically we are saving money on the hull, which given the price of steel doesn't seem like much of a saving, given we make that part here. Spending 30% more to get 3 new destroyers IMO seems like good value to me. Perhaps a less ambitious upgrade of the hobarts could happen, after the new ships were operational.

Do you know why such extensive (and expensive) upgrades are required on relatively new ships which were already quite expensive to begin with?

The combined cost (original program + upgrades) seems bizarrely excessive on a per unit basis? Even more so when you consider each DDG only fields 48 cells.

 

[Redlands18]

I understand that 6 of the latest upgrade AEGIS systems have been ordered for the 3 AWD’s and the first 3 Hunter class FFG’s - if a snap decision was made to build additional AWD’s, it would be possible to use the systems originally planned for the Hunters and place additional orders for the rest of the build.

As others have said, if there is a conflict within the next 10 years, it will have to be fought with the current equipment and we need to be building additional capability as quickly as possible.

For those who are intimate with the Anzac class, I understand that they can be fitted with 8 more VLS - is this a relatively plug-n-play modification or does if require major system modifications?

Also, as they would be mounted in a fairly elevated position, would the additional VLS cause unacceptable stability issues considering the changes with the recent upgrade involving a heavy radar mast structure?

Welcome to the Forum, can I make a suggestion? Read back through the original RAN thread, topics like building extra Hobarts and further arming of the Anzacs have been covered time and time again and the issues covered as to the difficulties with either of those choices.
One thing people need to remember when suggesting building more Hobarts is, the organisation that built them, the AWD Alliance no longer exists.

 

[alexsa]

Actually replacement combat system, consoles, radar have already been ordered. As part of Sea4000 Phase 6.

Lockheed Martin Australia wins $33 million Aegis design deal for Hobart Class destroyers - APDR

Lockheed Martin Australia was awarded a A$33 million design contract to support the upgrade of the Aegis Combat System on the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) fleet of three Hobart-class Destroyers.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

LV

The intention is to pull the hobarts out and basically completely re-radar/combat/power/Engine/cooling them. ~70% the cost of new ships. Basically we are saving money on the hull, which given the price of steel doesn't seem like much of a saving, given we make that part here. Spending 30% more to get 3 new destroyers IMO seems like good value to me. Perhaps a less ambitious upgrade of the hobarts could happen, after the new ships were operational.

You are right in that many items would need to be made from scratch. To make items, you need suppliers to schedule and tool up. Contracts need to be issued etc. Any new AWD's would be a flight II design, a significant change and evolution of the existing Hobarts. With specifying a lot of newer systems etc. Some of this could be retro fitted to the existing Hobarts. Lets not kid our selves and think that new AWD would not be a major undertaking.

Every day that ticks passed our most precious of resources, time, flicks by.

Same for subs. If we aren't building son of Collins, then what are we using to keep the sub arm operational and with a future? Simulators?
I don't believe anyone serving in the RAN submarines today will ever serve on a RAN SSN. Career attrition is high for submariners, knowing your job on one sub doesn't mean, particularly on a sub, that you can transfer easily onto a new platform, an entire new class. We are talking about operating the SSN from a different base than the Collins.

Again the Collins LOTE is extensive, it is probably going to be more like 80% the cost of new subs. But it must occur on the existing platforms, but I guess could be expanded to creation of new subs. To make it worthwhile it would likely have to be ~ 4 new subs and that would likely result in conventional and nuclear sub builds overlapping. Messy.

Things like certain sub specific plumbing, periscopes, scada systems from the 1980's, aren't made anymore, pretty much anywhere.

And this comes from poor selections at the outset were baseline 7 was selected very early in the piece. Baseline 9 was in place before we started fitting baseline 7 to the DDG. The Hobart class DDG are a little tight for space which may explain the massive redesign.

This may be why the Hunter is being design with growth and gold plating from the outset. I still think the first three with SAAB 9LV and the CEA Suite would have been a good idea allowing time for batch 2 to be more capable.

I do see a point in the LOTE of the four youngest Collins class as the sensor and combat system will be the same as that fitted to the SSN. This allows systems integration to be sorted before the SSN's come on line. Some of the upgrade work has already been done on the Collins but the SONAR upgrade is a big change. This SONAR Suite/combat systems was that intended for the Attack Class and integration work should have commenced.

Thales Australia to deliver enhanced sonars for Collins Class Submarines | Thales Group
2020-21 Major Projects Report | Collins Class Communications and Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (anao.gov.au)

Upgrades to equipment and machinery appear to have been on the cards for a bit given the delays in the Naval group offering.

Getting at least four upgraded (or all of them) allows for a better transition that the one that occurred between the Oberons and the Collins. I will be a lot simpler than building an evolved Collins or a new design as you have the hulls and some systems will be retained (not necessarily as cost effective but more timely).

Lets hope the government of the day in the future keeps the continuous build programme in place as this allow for evolution of designs and can build in capability in different batches getting rid of the need to LOTE ships and subs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Do you know why such extensive (and expensive) upgrades are required on relatively new ships which were already quite expensive to begin with?

Volk covered this on the AWD builds. By avoiding risk, it aged specs.

They were strong against any risk, so even the F-105 design was too risky, so F-104 with some low risk F-105 modifications was the original baseline for the AWD, Aegis was one of the first things ordered, the systems fitted were quite dated when they were fitted, and even more dated when launched and commissioned. This was identified before the AWD project even completed. Also it was just unlucky that Aegis was undergoing significant advancements in regards to BMD modes, and the Spy radar technology was going to go a generational leap.

While the gear is of an older design (and basically brand new in its age) its still quite capable.

A bit of the story can be covered here:

Air Warfare Destroyers to be upgraded to ‘Aegis’ Baseline 9

The end of the construction phase of Australia’s AWD program is in sight. Air Warfare Destroyers are to be upgraded to ‘Aegis’ Baseline 9.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

The combined cost (original program + upgrades) seems bizarrely excessive on a per unit basis? Even more so when you consider each DDG only fields 48 cells.

There is a wide range of reasons for the cost blow out. Some were deliberate decisions to slow build rates, which increased costs. There were build issues at BAE Williamstown. Blocks built in Spain needed rework. There were a cascade off issues, many were one off.

The Audit office looked in detail of the program.

Air Warfare Destroyer Program | Australian National Audit Office

www.anao.gov.au

While the hobart has limitations, it is at least in service with the RAN. IMO we should not think about keeping these ships for 40 years, we should look at shorter lives and handing still useful ships off to smaller navies, and building newer, better ships. We know the Hobarts are growth limited in terms of weight growth, power growth etc.

Most countries don't build a ship, then in less than 5 years, pull it out and refit 70% of it. I understand why, IMO lets just spend more money given the current situation.

Its not just the money thing either. The ships will be out of action as a unit for quite some time, perhaps more than a year each, with only 3, 2 won't be able to deploy anything meaningfully, consistently. Careers will end at a desk on shore. Getting sea time on them will be difficult. We are at risk of losing our destroyer crews. Plus they will tie up facilities during the upgrade.

The US is going to have similar problems with the collapsing number of destroyers and cruisers, combined with refits for the existing fleet.

 

[aussienscale]

Actually replacement combat system, consoles, radar have already been ordered. As part of Sea4000 Phase 6.

Lockheed Martin Australia wins $33 million Aegis design deal for Hobart Class destroyers - APDR

Lockheed Martin Australia was awarded a A$33 million design contract to support the upgrade of the Aegis Combat System on the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) fleet of three Hobart-class Destroyers.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

The intention is to pull the hobarts out and basically completely re-radar/combat/power/Engine/cooling them. ~70% the cost of new ships. Basically we are saving money on the hull, which given the price of steel doesn't seem like much of a saving, given we make that part here. Spending 30% more to get 3 new destroyers IMO seems like good value to me. Perhaps a less ambitious upgrade of the hobarts could happen, after the new ships were operational.

You are right in that many items would need to be made from scratch. To make items, you need suppliers to schedule and tool up. Contracts need to be issued etc. Any new AWD's would be a flight II design, a significant change and evolution of the existing Hobarts. With specifying a lot of newer systems etc. Some of this could be retro fitted to the existing Hobarts. Lets not kid our selves and think that new AWD would not be a major undertaking.

Every day that ticks passed our most precious of resources, time, flicks by.

Same for subs. If we aren't building son of Collins, then what are we using to keep the sub arm operational and with a future? Simulators?
I don't believe anyone serving in the RAN submarines today will ever serve on a RAN SSN. Career attrition is high for submariners, knowing your job on one sub doesn't mean, particularly on a sub, that you can transfer easily onto a new platform, an entire new class. We are talking about operating the SSN from a different base than the Collins.

Again the Collins LOTE is extensive, it is probably going to be more like 80% the cost of new subs. But it must occur on the existing platforms, but I guess could be expanded to creation of new subs. To make it worthwhile it would likely have to be ~ 4 new subs and that would likely result in conventional and nuclear sub builds overlapping. Messy.

Things like certain sub specific plumbing, periscopes, scada systems from the 1980's, aren't made anymore, pretty much anywhere.

Sweet, and we end up with the same number of ships, but basically based on a 20 year + Design for a few extra cells and scuttle the Hunter program or at best put it back another decade or so ? You then have to re order the systems for the Hunters that we have taken for the restart of the AWD's, we have a limited industrial base for other long lead items and qualified and certified companies to do so, also putting on hold what is happening with Hunters to build more AWD's, still not real increase in capability or numbers to be frank, so not sure what the point would be ?

At the end of the day, yeah could do any number of these things, but the capability does not increase, a lot of hassle for no return !!

 

[ddxx]

Sweet, and we end up with the same number of ships, but basically based on a 20 year + Design for a few extra cells and scuttle the Hunter program or at best put it back another decade or so ? You then have to re order the systems for the Hunters that we have taken for the restart of the AWD's, we have a limited industrial base for other long lead items and qualified and certified companies to do so, also putting on hold what is happening with Hunters to build more AWD's, still not real increase in capability or numbers to be frank, so not sure what the point would be ?

At the end of the day, yeah could do any number of these things, but the capability does not increase, a lot of hassle for no return !!

I think bolstering fleet numbers is a very legitimate discussion.

Existing public plans won’t see a single net addition to the surface combatant fleet until the mid 2040s. Well over two decades from now.

A rethink is crucial, and therefore discussion is crucial.

It’s impossible to legitimately write off an idea in this regard unless the reasons are verifiable beyond an individual’s personal perspective and understanding.

 

[aussienscale]

I think bolstering fleet numbers is a very legitimate discussion.

Existing public plans won’t see a single net addition to the surface combatant fleet until the mid 2040s. Well over two decades from now.

A rethink is crucial, and therefore discussion is crucial.

It’s impossible to legitimately write off an idea in this regard unless the reasons are verifiable beyond an individual’s personal perspective and understanding.

Yep it is, do not have any issue with bolstering numbers, only problem is all that is being put forward will not get any ships quicker, just in a different way, again you end up with the same net gain, nothing of what has been discussed actually increases numbers !

 

[Boagrius]

Yep it is, do not have any issue with bolstering numbers, only problem is all that is being put forward will not get any ships quicker, just in a different way, again you end up with the same net gain, nothing of what has been discussed actually increases numbers !

What of the acceleration of the Hunter Class drumbeat coupled to a larger production run (avoiding a valley of death)? I would have thought you might get a net gain in MFU numbers mid way through next decade that way...

 

[aussienscale]

What of the acceleration of the Hunter Class drumbeat coupled to a larger production run (avoiding a valley of death)? I would have thought you might get a net gain in MFU numbers mid way through next decade that way...

Yep possible, again depends on critical long lead items, are the suppliers capable of increasing their drumbeat and build cycles to provide when required and on time for our increased drumbeat ? Only takes one supply chain, one sector to either not have the capability or capacity and to fall behind that you hold up the entire build waiting for critical components.

But the whole thing can be held up on even the most simple things, or a supplier drops their quality control pushing to meet deadlines and something does not pass or meet spec ! Happens all the time, let alone pushing timelines !! There are so many complexities and moving parts, it is just not as simple as people make it out to be.

I still can't believe that some, and the media and their so called special guest experts actually seem to think that MOTS means you just place an order and they build it in record time, or they have all this stuff just sitting on a shelf like a supermarket or warehouse and you just shop and say, hey we will take 6 of that, a dozen of those ones, oh and yeah send me 4 thousand of those long range missile thingy's while you are at it, they come with the launch platforms too yeah ?

Look I know I am showing a little bit of sarcasm, just a little, but to even increase the drumbeat of a warship construction build, or weapons and combat systems, or tanks, or missiles etc takes years to put everything in the background into place to even start thinking about it ! It is so seriously complex, so many moving parts, I really don't get how people think it is so simple, add Covid and the international strains on supply chains around the world and you have increased the issues substantially.

And yet you have muppets like Greg Sheridan going on Sky news and thinking you can just build a missile factory in a year or so, or just invite the parent company to do so and you are churning out hundreds of missiles in a year or two, it is just so ignorant and to be frank unintelligent at best, disingenuous and deliberately misleading at worst !!

 

[ADMk2]

Yep possible, again depends on critical long lead items, are the suppliers capable of increasing their drumbeat and build cycles to provide when required and on time for our increased drumbeat ? Only takes one supply chain, one sector to either not have the capability or capacity and to fall behind that you hold up the entire build waiting for critical components.

But the whole thing can be held up on even the most simple things, or a supplier drops their quality control pushing to meet deadlines and something does not pass or meet spec ! Happens all the time, let alone pushing timelines !! There are so many complexities and moving parts, it is just not as simple as people make it out to be.

I still can't believe that some, and the media and their so called special guest experts actually seem to think that MOTS means you just place an order and they build it in record time, or they have all this stuff just sitting on a shelf like a supermarket or warehouse and you just shop and say, hey we will take 6 of that, a dozen of those ones, oh and yeah send me 4 thousand of those long range missile thingy's while you are at it, they come with the launch platforms too yeah ?

Look I know I am showing a little bit of sarcasm, just a little, but to even increase the drumbeat of a warship construction build, or weapons and combat systems, or tanks, or missiles etc takes years to put everything in the background into place to even start thinking about it ! It is so seriously complex, so many moving parts, I really don't get how people think it is so simple, add Covid and the international strains on supply chains around the world and you have increased the issues substantially.

And yet you have muppets like Greg Sheridan going on Sky news and thinking you can just build a missile factory in a year or so, or just invite the parent company to do so and you are churning out hundreds of missiles in a year or two, it is just so ignorant and to be frank unintelligent at best, disingenuous and deliberately misleading at worst !!

Quite, to which I would add the speed (or lack thereof) of our decision making processes which (admittedly) may not always entirely be defence’s fault, although they certainly have capability investment priority committees which decide which capability proposals are put to Government and when…

Case in point being the issue we currently face with our air-launched strike (and to a degree maritime strike) capabilities.

Defence convinced Government to replace our long-ranged strike capability resident in the F-111 with a legacy Hornet / AGM-158A JASSM combo supported by air to air refuellers. Long way back of course and thoroughly discussed, but at least it WAS a plan…

This was then run through until December 2021, until the very last Legacy Hornet flew for the last time. But of course, despite knowing the looming end of this capability, it was only months beforehand that the approval to integrate JASSM and JASSM-ER onto the Super Hornet to replace the legacy Hornet / JASSM was given and it will be years before we see any capability result from that decision, let alone such capabilities on JSF…

Yet ADF and Govt were well and truly aware of the looming retirement of legacy Hornet and by extension JASSM. Why in this deteriorating strategic environment of ours, was such a truly strategic capability allow to atrophy into zero capability?

A distinct lack of urgency is the only real conclusion that I can make...

So it seems again with our naval forces…