Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ddxx]

I did some rough numbers, and it appears that switching from two quad Harpoon launchers to two quad NSM launchers will afford a weight saving of a bit over six tonnes (difference including launchers, canisters and missiles).

Which is pretty incredible really, given the NSM is both longer range and technically more advanced.

That weight saving should present some options for the Anzac in regards to weapons fit. E.g. Suddenly a RAM launcher with 21 missiles will only result in a net ‘on deck’ weight increase of around a tonne compared to today with Harpoon.

 

[Mikeymike]

I think Scott Morrison's answer is in line with what was announced the other day.

If you look at what was actually put out by the white house there are a few things that back up that they are definitely looking at whether it is possible to build in Australia. Particularly the parts about Australian Workforce, Nuclear powered submarine construction yard and that working groups have been visiting multiple sites in Australia, one of which is undoubtedly Osborne.

 

[aussienscale]

I did some rough numbers, and it appears that switching from two quad Harpoon launchers to two quad NSM launchers will afford a weight saving of a bit over six tonnes (difference including launchers, canisters and missiles).

Which is pretty incredible really, given the NSM is both longer range and technically more advanced.

That weight saving should present some options for the Anzac in regards to weapons fit. E.g. Suddenly a RAM launcher with 21 missiles will only result in a net ‘on deck’ weight increase of around a tonne compared to today with Harpoon.

The Anzac's already have top weight issues, they will take the savings and bank better stability every day of the week ! We have better things to spend money on than integrating RAM with the Anzac's and our combat systems !

For a ship on the way out, unless we intend to have RAM on the Hunters and add it to the Hobart, Canberra and Supply Class ships, a lot of effort for a short period of time wouldn't you think ?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I just think the Anzacs should age gracefully out. That is one maxed out platform, IMO you can feel how maxed out they are in that photo DDG38 posted. With the first one laid down in 1993. We have taken cheap and cheerful as far as it can go.

Spending half a billion to get the platform to do anything more IMO is grasping at straws. I wonder if NSM will even be fitted to them, as by the time delivery and integration was completed, they would be moving on out, honestly, an Anzac isn't going to be firing shipping missiles in a first strike situation. Hunters and Hobarts should get the new gear.

Even with seaRAM, the Anzacs are not going to shift the fighting equation enough. They should probably miss ESSM II.

 

[John Fedup]

deleted post

 

[Wombat000]

I agree with Stingray re the ANZAC camel/straw situation, however I’m guessing that if we are going to have trouble sourcing new hulls anyway, and Hunters are a long way off, then what choice do we have?

they’re still the most numerous of the combatants for some time yet.
they still need to be THE most effective we can make them whilst ever they fill that role.

 

[Stampede]

I just think the Anzacs should age gracefully out. That is one maxed out platform, IMO you can feel how maxed out they are in that photo DDG38 posted. With the first one laid down in 1993. We have taken cheap and cheerful as far as it can go.

Spending half a billion to get the platform to do anything more IMO is grasping at straws. I wonder if NSM will even be fitted to them, as by the time delivery and integration was completed, they would be moving on out, honestly, an Anzac isn't going to be firing shipping missiles in a first strike situation. Hunters and Hobarts should get the new gear.

Even with seaRAM, the Anzacs are not going to shift the fighting equation enough. They should probably miss ESSM II.

As it stands the Anzac Class are around for a while
( ANAO )



At the end of the day the ANZAC Class are our front line for at least the next decade.
The Hunter Class are still a unknown, but realistically it is difficult to believe they will be providing any meaningful numbers until the mid to late 30's.

I know this conversation is on loop.

Yes the RAN is a good mid sized professional navy
But we do have a problem with ship numbers and capability for the world we live in going forward.

So what will HMAS Perth look like in 2043?

Regards S

 

[BSKS]

As it stands the Anzac Class are around for a while
( ANAO )

View attachment 49091

At the end of the day the ANZAC Class are our front line for at least the next decade.
The Hunter Class are still a unknown, but realistically it is difficult to believe they will be providing any meaningful numbers until the mid to late 30's.

I know this conversation is on loop.

Yes the RAN is a good mid sized professional navy
But we do have a problem with ship numbers and capability for the world we live in going forward.

So what will HMAS Perth look like in 2043?

Regards S

Below is the third in a coherent series of articles describing Australia current strategic situation, problems with the ADF and suggested solutions, in particular focusing on Navy and Airforce. My apologies if this has been referenced earlier (!)

Admiral Prune: Defending Australia Part 3 of 4: What sort of ADF do we need? - Pearls and Irritations

Commentators suggest that the Morrison Government is attempting to frame a “khaki election”. It would be far better were it a “blue election” - sea and sky blue.

johnmenadue.com

In summary, the coming potential conflict is described as largely "missile on missile" highlighting VLS capacity for combatants and linking RAN shortcomings in that regard. Suggested changes to the shipbuilding roadmap are:

Commence a local build of US Arleigh-Burke III's to assume the AWD role. (Leverage AUKUS relationship)
Commence building additional Hobarts (local or Spain) to allow the Anzac's to retire earlier. (? take up Navantia's recent offer)
Commence a local build for additional Collins class to reach 12 boats. (Would become the local industry design focus)

Target fleet size is 16 surface combatants.

Funding:
Partially offset by dropping the Hunter Class ($45b) which are viewed as unsuitable due to 32 VLS limitation and risks associated with the redesign required.

Hobart and ABIII are both in-service designs and require little work in that respect, reducing costs and allowing faster delivery. The local design effort would be free to focus on evolving the Collins and completing LOTE in conjunction with SAAB.

I hope this is viewed as more of a strategic pivot/opportunity discussion rather than fantasy fleet naval gazing.

Regards

 

[Redlands18]

Below is the third in a coherent series of articles describing Australia current strategic situation, problems with the ADF and suggested solutions, in particular focusing on Navy and Airforce. My apologies if this has been referenced earlier (!)

Admiral Prune: Defending Australia Part 3 of 4: What sort of ADF do we need? - Pearls and Irritations

Commentators suggest that the Morrison Government is attempting to frame a “khaki election”. It would be far better were it a “blue election” - sea and sky blue.

johnmenadue.com

In summary, the coming potential conflict is described as largely "missile on missile" highlighting VLS capacity for combatants and linking RAN shortcomings in that regard. Suggested changes to the shipbuilding roadmap are:

Commence a local build of US Arleigh-Burke III's to assume the AWD role. (Leverage AUKUS relationship)
Commence building additional Hobarts (local or Spain) to allow the Anzac's to retire earlier. (? take up Navantia's recent offer)
Commence a local build for additional Collins class to reach 12 boats. (Would become the local industry design focus)

Target fleet size is 16 surface combatants.

Funding:
Partially offset by dropping the Hunter Class ($45b) which are viewed as unsuitable due to 32 VLS limitation and risks associated with the redesign required.

Hobart and ABIII are both in-service designs and require little work in that respect, reducing costs and allowing faster delivery. The local design effort would be free to focus on evolving the Collins and completing LOTE in conjunction with SAAB.

I hope this is viewed as more of a strategic pivot/opportunity discussion rather than fantasy fleet naval gazing.

Regards

About John Menadue – Pearls and Irritations

During his lifetime, John Menadue has had a distinguished senior professional career in the media, public service and the corporate sector.

johnmenadue.com

How does this make him an expert in Naval Warfare in 2022? Every point he has made has been destroyed on DT several times over by the DEFPROs. The 16 Surface Combatants he proposes would require a up to 100% increase in Crew numbers. Would do very little to increase our ASW capabilities over what we have now and would be far inferior to what 9 Hunters can provide.
We would not need to leverage AUKUS to build Burke's here in Australia, the US would be quite happy to help us do that but manning them with a crew 120 more then the Hobarts and twice that of the Anzacs would be a major problem. And TBH about it if you were going to follow more Hobarts with a DDG in the Burke size and class in the 2030s, there will be better options then a design that will be approaching 50yo by then.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Commence a local build of US Arleigh-Burke III's to assume the AWD role. (Leverage AUKUS relationship)
Commence building additional Hobarts (local or Spain) to allow the Anzac's to retire earlier. (? take up Navantia's recent offer)
Commence a local build for additional Collins class to reach 12 boats. (Would become the local industry design focus)

Target fleet size is 16 surface combatants.

Funding:
Partially offset by dropping the Hunter Class ($45b) which are viewed as unsuitable due to 32 VLS limitation and risks associated with the redesign required.

There are issues with this plan.

While the Flight III Burkes are powerful ships, they require a crew of over 300. To crew two burkes you would need more than the crew of three ships (Anzacs/Hobarts). The crew larger crew ships is more demanding. The Hobarts have radars mounted higher and have greater range. Two ships only gives sometimes capability, you need three to give all time capability. So for four burkes, that would require the ran to shrink by 2 whole surface combatants. Who will run this project? ASC? Gibbs & Cox? BAE? How big is their footprint in Australia. How quickly could such a program get up and rolling. Then we have another class of ship to operate.

The Hunter class is progressing, IMO it is too late to stop this project, we are already prototyping steel. While numbers could be reduced, this is the most modern ship that could be built and beyond being a VLS platform, ships have other functions that the Hunter will be superior in. They are going to be very strong in anti-submarine warfare. We are already paying possibly $5b for leaving the attack program, how much to not build the hunters. BTW the UK type 26 program and the Canadian Surface combatant program are also using the type 26 hull, and where are those programs?

The Hobart has limited growth potential. Know that building more means that such ships may find it difficult to take new radars, systems, munitions etc. Building new Burkes & Hobarts would be a huge effort. At least with the Hobart's, there is familiarity with the design, older production, current sustainment contract, and existing pool of sailors, and Navantia has a footprint in Australia and an overseas yard to support any build. With Sea4000 Phase 6, the hobarts are already being redesigned, contracts issued, and 5 billion in budget for the project. They are already a burden so to speak.

Basically we can't do over just because we think a selection made previously isn't what we now want. We already did that with the attacks and we are in all sorts of issues with that program.

Ditching hunters to build Hobarts IMO is silly, you are gaining at most 16 VLS and building an older smaller more limited platform. At least replacing Anzacs with Hobarts, you are gaining something. Even Navantia knows trying to sell the idea of more F-100 based ships at the cost of the hunter program is madness.

 

[Morgo]

Below is the third in a coherent series of articles describing Australia current strategic situation, problems with the ADF and suggested solutions, in particular focusing on Navy and Airforce. My apologies if this has been referenced earlier (!)

Admiral Prune: Defending Australia Part 3 of 4: What sort of ADF do we need? - Pearls and Irritations

Commentators suggest that the Morrison Government is attempting to frame a “khaki election”. It would be far better were it a “blue election” - sea and sky blue.

johnmenadue.com

In summary, the coming potential conflict is described as largely "missile on missile" highlighting VLS capacity for combatants and linking RAN shortcomings in that regard. Suggested changes to the shipbuilding roadmap are:

Commence a local build of US Arleigh-Burke III's to assume the AWD role. (Leverage AUKUS relationship)
Commence building additional Hobarts (local or Spain) to allow the Anzac's to retire earlier. (? take up Navantia's recent offer)
Commence a local build for additional Collins class to reach 12 boats. (Would become the local industry design focus)

Target fleet size is 16 surface combatants.

Funding:
Partially offset by dropping the Hunter Class ($45b) which are viewed as unsuitable due to 32 VLS limitation and risks associated with the redesign required.

Hobart and ABIII are both in-service designs and require little work in that respect, reducing costs and allowing faster delivery. The local design effort would be free to focus on evolving the Collins and completing LOTE in conjunction with SAAB.

I hope this is viewed as more of a strategic pivot/opportunity discussion rather than fantasy fleet naval gazing.

Regards

Amongst other things, I would not make a decision to cancel the Hunters based on a need to get more VLS to sea before we actually know how many VLS the Hunters will have.

It would not surprise me if some of the apparent significant displacement increases of Hunter vs Type 26 would be due to putting in more VLS. It may end up having as many as the Hobarts - or more - plus all of it's other capabilities. Time will tell.

 

[Redlands18]

There are issues with this plan.

While the Flight III Burkes are powerful ships, they require a crew of over 300. To crew two burkes you would need more than the crew of three ships (Anzacs/Hobarts). The crew larger crew ships is more demanding. The Hobarts have radars mounted higher and have greater range. Two ships only gives sometimes capability, you need three to give all time capability. So for four burkes, that would require the ran to shrink by 2 whole surface combatants. Who will run this project? ASC? Gibbs & Cox? BAE? How big is their footprint in Australia. How quickly could such a program get up and rolling. Then we have another class of ship to operate.

The Hunter class is progressing, IMO it is too late to stop this project, we are already prototyping steel. While numbers could be reduced, this is the most modern ship that could be built and beyond being a VLS platform, ships have other functions that the Hunter will be superior in. They are going to be very strong in anti-submarine warfare. We are already paying possibly $5b for leaving the attack program, how much to not build the hunters. BTW the UK type 26 program and the Canadian Surface combatant program are also using the type 26 hull, and where are those programs?

The Hobart has limited growth potential. Know that building more means that such ships may find it difficult to take new radars, systems, munitions etc. Building new Burkes & Hobarts would be a huge effort. At least with the Hobart's, there is familiarity with the design, older production, current sustainment contract, and existing pool of sailors, and Navantia has a footprint in Australia and an overseas yard to support any build. With Sea4000 Phase 6, the hobarts are already being redesigned, contracts issued, and 5 billion in budget for the project. They are already a burden so to speak.

Basically we can't do over just because we think a selection made previously isn't what we now want. We already did that with the attacks and we are in all sorts of issues with that program.

Ditching hunters to build Hobarts IMO is silly, you are gaining at most 16 VLS and building an older smaller more limited platform. At least replacing Anzacs with Hobarts, you are gaining something. Even Navantia knows trying to sell the idea of more F-100 based ships at the cost of the hunter program is madness.

One of the points people tend to forget about the F-100 is it is in many ways a progression of the Perry Class. Spain commissioned the last of their 6 Perry class in 1995 and they used that experience to design and build the F-100s, which then put them in position to successfully bid for 2 Export orders to Norway and Australia. Unfortunately for Spain the 2008 financial crisis hit and the plans to design and build a larger more capable Ship for the Spanish Navy did not eventuate and Spain has now had to settle on the smaller less capable F-110 design.

 

[alexsa]

I just think the Anzacs should age gracefully out. That is one maxed out platform, IMO you can feel how maxed out they are in that photo DDG38 posted. With the first one laid down in 1993. We have taken cheap and cheerful as far as it can go.

Spending half a billion to get the platform to do anything more IMO is grasping at straws. I wonder if NSM will even be fitted to them, as by the time delivery and integration was completed, they would be moving on out, honestly, an Anzac isn't going to be firing shipping missiles in a first strike situation. Hunters and Hobarts should get the new gear.

Even with seaRAM, the Anzacs are not going to shift the fighting equation enough. They should probably miss ESSM II.

Why would you miss ESSM Block. The combat system can use that weapon (as far as I am aware .... noting this capability ports across to the Hunter and DDG ..eventually... as well). It provides an added AAW and ASMD capability of a missile with semi active and active guidance which will be important when dealing with multiple targets. The ANZAC is going to with us for sometime (irrespective of where the replacements come from) and while I do not see RAM or SeaRAM being fitted it will get ASW upgrades as already announced.

SeaRAM may have a place on the Hunter, LHD and AOR's (and perhaps the DDG) noting the planned installation of Phalax on the LHD did not go ahead. Perhaps an alternative will be put in place. (Just IMHO)/

 

[Bob53]

About John Menadue – Pearls and Irritations

During his lifetime, John Menadue has had a distinguished senior professional career in the media, public service and the corporate sector.

johnmenadue.com

How does this make him an expert in Naval Warfare in 2022? Every point he has made has been destroyed on DT several times over by the DEFPROs. The 16 Surface Combatants he proposes would require a up to 100% increase in Crew numbers. Would do very little to increase our ASW capabilities over what we have now and would be far inferior to what 9 Hunters can provide.
We would not need to leverage AUKUS to build Burke's here in Australia, the US would be quite happy to help us do that but manning them with a crew 120 more then the Hobarts and twice that of the Anzacs would be a major problem. And TBH about it if you were going to follow more Hobarts with a DDG in the Burke size and class in the 2030s, there will be better options then a design that will be approaching 50yo by then.

I'm not agreeing with his proposals in any way shape or form but you raise a good point?

What is a Defence Expert?

An Admiral, A General, a Navy Engineer, an Army Welder, a Ships cook, a Army Truck driver, a procurement clerk? I could of been in the army 10 years and have 10 years experience or could of been in the army and repeated 1 years experience 10 times over. Expertise is a very hard label to put a measure on.

 

[InterestedParty]

Way back in 2018 Todjaeger posted this but I cant find any other posts


I am trying to understand the reason why USN ships seems to have significantly larger crews than The RAN and other navies
There were recent comments in this thread about 2 AB having the crew of 3 Hobarts
Can an expert here please make comment on the organisational/operational reasons why this is the case. I understand that USN has dedicate damage control members

 

[StingrayOZ]

Why would you miss ESSM Block.

I am being perhaps cynical and grumpy. Trying to put a Phalanx or Searam onto an Anzac imo is not worth it. In that context I just think the focus needs to move on from the Anzacs. We need to commit to seeing the end of them, not giving them more life.

I guess the question is which ships should receive ESSM II first and how quick will the delivery and FOC be?
The Hobarts?
The Hunters?
Then the Anzacs?
Same again for the NSM. Which ships are the priority? We integrated it, its engineered, its installed. Money and time spent. Perhaps the best platform for NSM is the helicopters (if and when that gets intergrated, have the indians even committed to it?).

Block II would be a decent improvement for the Anzacs. But IMO the priority is other platforms first. If that is not an issue, we can upgrade existing stocks very quickly, then sure stick them in ASAP. Sometimes I think we have over prioritized the Anzacs, simply because we built them and they make up most of our fleet.

IMO see the hobarts as the replacement for the FFG's (6 for 6) and the Hunters as replacement of the Anzacs (9 for 8). Yes, we decom Canberra before Perth was commissioned but structure wise would this be weird?

SeaRAM IMO is a better fit for a AOR/LHD as these ships are essentially layer less and need all encompassing systems (although the LHD would sit in the middle of escorts normally). Then these ships would be able to travel say under air escort in our EEZ.

I am less convinced of SeaRAM on a ship already fitted with ESSM, surely the best chance of interception is ESSM, if that fails, fire more ESSM. On large ships, sure, have multiple options if you wish. I can see some value in CAMM, and the Canadians seem to value CAMM over SeaRAM. The Americans with a Burke, well yeh, fine, but a Burke has more than 8VLS, its not compromising itself by offering seaRAM.

 

[BSKS]

Yes

About John Menadue – Pearls and Irritations

During his lifetime, John Menadue has had a distinguished senior professional career in the media, public service and the corporate sector.

johnmenadue.com

How does this make him an expert in Naval Warfare in 2022? Every point he has made has been destroyed on DT several times over by the DEFPROs. The 16 Surface Combatants he proposes would require a up to 100% increase in Crew numbers. Would do very little to increase our ASW capabilities over what we have now and would be far inferior to what 9 Hunters can provide.
We would not need to leverage AUKUS to build Burke's here in Australia, the US would be quite happy to help us do that but manning them with a crew 120 more then the Hobarts and twice that of the Anzacs would be a major problem. And TBH about it if you were going to follow more Hobarts with a DDG in the Burke size and class in the 2030s, there will be better options then a design that will be approaching 50yo by then.

You are right the authors credentials are hidden under the nom de plume Admiral Prune with the stated reason to escape ADF censure as a current ranking RAN officer. In any case, it is not the credentials of the author so much as the coherency of the arguments. The key characteristics of the coming threat are identified as are ADF shortcomings in meeting those. These are not my ideas and probably are not even original, but the recent announcement from Navantia and the continued cloud over Hunter might warrant reassessment.

Admiral Prune: Defending Australia Part 3 of 4: What sort of ADF do we need? - Pearls and Irritations

Commentators suggest that the Morrison Government is attempting to frame a “khaki election”. It would be far better were it a “blue election” - sea and sky blue.

johnmenadue.com

In essence, the US assessment is the coming naval surface battle with the CCP in the Indo-Pacific will be a "missile on missile" confrontation where numbers of VLS cells is a deciding factor. ASW will be a secondary consideration. As most readers here know, RAN surface combatants don't compare well with CCP vessels on VLS cell numbers and future RAN combatants such as the Hunter class don't address this either.

The solution proposed is attractive because it not only addresses capability requirements to meet the threat but delivers outcomes faster with potentially better cost control.

The solution is to commence building US Arleigh-Burke flight III destroyers in Adelaide ASAP to replace the existing Hobart's and retasking the Hobarts (while also building more of them) to replace the Anzac frigates. The Hunter class would be abandoned.

This would have these effects:

1. New vessels would be delivered to the RAN more quickly.
* Navantia's offer for three additional Hobarts by 2030 could be taken up.
* ABII construction in Adelaide is likely to be faster than Hunter with the latter still in design phase until at least 2024. If Hobarts are constructed in Spain, this would not impact on the ABIII build and we might see at least one of these by 2030 as well) A Spanish Hobart build would not involve sovereignty effects because of the previous in country Hobart build.
2. Resulting force structure would better suited to the forecast "missile on missile" confrontation with the CCP.
The ABIII's 96 VLS cells doubles Hobart's 48, which in turn is 6 times Anzac's 8.
3. Costs may be more predictable.
Although difficult to compare, Hunter class costs are a bigger risk.

Although I can hear many of you pointing out that the Hunter's are focused on ASW, the more pressing capability in the Indo Pacific theatre is missile and air defence which may not be so for European navies. Both ABIII and Hobart possess good ASW capabilities anyway and capability in this area would still be improved with this initiative.

 

[spoz]

I don’t know who “Admiral Prune” is, of course, but no senior Naval Officer, so far as I know, would share the views in that article. The suggestion about Collins is silly; and those who are actually running the Navy understand the people situation only too well. Reads a bit like a “young Turk” view of the world - long on ideas, short on reality

Oh, and what makes a DefPro? Well, in this case years in both capability development for the RAN and ADF and in shipbuilding. Some not recent of course; but principles don’t change.

 

[Morgo]

Yes

You are right the authors credentials are hidden under the nom de plume Admiral Prune with the stated reason to escape ADF censure as a current ranking RAN officer. In any case, it is not the credentials of the author so much as the coherency of the arguments. The key characteristics of the coming threat are identified as are ADF shortcomings in meeting those. These are not my ideas and probably are not even original, but the recent announcement from Navantia and the continued cloud over Hunter might warrant reassessment.

Admiral Prune: Defending Australia Part 3 of 4: What sort of ADF do we need? - Pearls and Irritations

Commentators suggest that the Morrison Government is attempting to frame a “khaki election”. It would be far better were it a “blue election” - sea and sky blue.

johnmenadue.com

In essence, the US assessment is the coming naval surface battle with the CCP in the Indo-Pacific will be a "missile on missile" confrontation where numbers of VLS cells is a deciding factor. ASW will be a secondary consideration. As most readers here know, RAN surface combatants don't compare well with CCP vessels on VLS cell numbers and future RAN combatants such as the Hunter class don't address this either.

The solution proposed is attractive because it not only addresses capability requirements to meet the threat but delivers outcomes faster with potentially better cost control.

The solution is to commence building US Arleigh-Burke flight III destroyers in Adelaide ASAP to replace the existing Hobart's and retasking the Hobarts (while also building more of them) to replace the Anzac frigates. The Hunter class would be abandoned.

This would have these effects:

1. New vessels would be delivered to the RAN more quickly.
* Navantia's offer for three additional Hobarts by 2030 could be taken up.
* ABII construction in Adelaide is likely to be faster than Hunter with the latter still in design phase until at least 2024. If Hobarts are constructed in Spain, this would not impact on the ABIII build and we might see at least one of these by 2030 as well) A Spanish Hobart build would not involve sovereignty effects because of the previous in country Hobart build.
2. Resulting force structure would better suited to the forecast "missile on missile" confrontation with the CCP.
The ABIII's 96 VLS cells doubles Hobart's 48, which in turn is 6 times Anzac's 8.
3. Costs may be more predictable.
Although difficult to compare, Hunter class costs are a bigger risk.

Although I can hear many of you pointing out that the Hunter's are focused on ASW, the more pressing capability in the Indo Pacific theatre is missile and air defence which may not be so for European navies. Both ABIII and Hobart possess good ASW capabilities anyway and capability in this area would still be improved with this initiative.

If you could additional hulls (relatively) quickly, without distracting from the Hunter build, and you could find the crew for them..... maybe it's a good idea.

I would take the AB idea off the table due to crewing and sidetracking of the Hunter build in Adelaide. If Navantia can deliver 3x upgraded Hobarts before 2030 that is definitely worth looking at. But can we crew them?

@Morgo You are banned from replying in this thread for two days because you ignored the Moderators red ink instruction not continue the discussion regarding the recent Navantia DDG offer, acquiring DDG-51s, Klingon death stars etc., so don't do it again.

Ngatimozart.

 

[BSKS]

No senior Naval Officer, so far as I know, would share the views in that article. The suggestion about Collins is silly; and those who are actually running the Navy understand the people situation only too well. Reads a bit like a “young Turk” view of the world - long on ideas, short on reality

Oh, and what makes a DefPro? Well, in this case years in both capability development for the RAN and ADF and in shipbuilding. Some not recent of course; but principles don’t change.

Yes I didn't mention the Collin's part - "All other options have been examined and dismissed." being a bit thin. Although Rear Admiral Briggs from the submarine institute also recently called for the a new Collins build as well.