Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

There are options for a hybrid model that would still have agreeable competition dates. The level of local activity would be proportional to how busy they are, if BAE/ASC is busy building hunters/SSNs then no need for them to participate. If they have room, then they might. I would imagine CIVMEC might want to aggressively bid on any work coming up as a yard with something to prove. Can the RAN crew these ships in time for their commissioning, I suspect so, but it would require and equally active effort on their behalf.

Timely given the existing Hobart's are going to have to come out of the water and Australia is looking at least temporarily loosing sustainable Hobart capabilities as all three ships go into a significant and high risk upgrade. Its not just about the Hunter program, it also goes back to the 4th AWD not being ordered and the Hobarts being ordered with older combat systems and configuration.

Spain has thrown down a price, a build program and probably more importantly a believable (if aggressive) timeline.
I guess there are questions we need to ask:

• How much of an immediate threat are we facing?
• How important is Hobart capability to the RAN, can we deal with a capability gap?
• Is 3 additional Hobarts the right force mix going into the future?

Then pick and choose the right cost, time and risk arrangement for that to make it happen.

A 6 hobarts + 9 hunters seems like a doable fleet. It would seem to be better than the current plan.

 

[Stampede]

There are options for a hybrid model that would still have agreeable competition dates. The level of local activity would be proportional to how busy they are, if BAE/ASC is busy building hunters/SSNs then no need for them to participate. If they have room, then they might. I would imagine CIVMEC might want to aggressively bid on any work coming up as a yard with something to prove. Can the RAN crew these ships in time for their commissioning, I suspect so, but it would require and equally active effort on their behalf.

Timely given the existing Hobart's are going to have to come out of the water and Australia is looking at least temporarily loosing sustainable Hobart capabilities as all three ships go into a significant and high risk upgrade. Its not just about the Hunter program, it also goes back to the 4th AWD not being ordered and the Hobarts being ordered with older combat systems and configuration.

Spain has thrown down a price, a build program and probably more importantly a believable (if aggressive) timeline.
I guess there are questions we need to ask:

• How much of an immediate threat are we facing?
• How important is Hobart capability to the RAN, can we deal with a capability gap?
• Is 3 additional Hobarts the right force mix going into the future?

Then pick and choose the right cost, time and risk arrangement for that to make it happen.

A 6 hobarts + 9 hunters seems like a doable fleet. It would seem to be better than the current plan.

Yep

Threat assessment versus time to build.

What does our RAN need today, next year and each year after that?

We will get the Hunter Class, but its the old question of how we transition to that destiny.

If anything, I'd like our frigate / destroyer numbers actually increased to 12 ASAP, rather than wait for some time in the late 2030's.

Maybe some merit then in a one off overseas purchase of an upgraded Hobart Class to mirror the other three in the class.

Anyway at this stage its just a sale pitch from Navantia that does have a timely appeal to the situation we find ourselves in today

Mind you, as StingrayOZ does suggests - 6 x Hobarts plus 9 x Hunters seems like a doable fleet.

If I recall from days gone bye, 14 major ships were about the correct number for the RAN.

So what will our new government do under their watch?

We wait to see



Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

Not entirely new news but Navantia offering the new Federal Government three new Hobart Class Vessels for a cost of $2 Billion Australian each. $6 Billion Total.
First delivered in 2027. Last delivered in 2029.
Price is cheap and delivery is way before any Hunter Class would enter service.
The catch is for that price and that delivery schedule they would be made in Spain.
If the government was to agree to the offer, work in Spain would start within months.
Also offering a combined Spain/Adelaide build but price goes up and delivery would be later.
Price obviously deeply attractive but imagine the "Not made in Australia" would make the Government very hesitant to accept.
Offer has been raised at a Prime Minister to Prime Minister level by Pedro Sanchez the Spanish PM.

Spanish pitch to supply Australia with three warships by end of 2030

Spanish defence giant has told federal officials it can supply three guided-missile warships by the end of this decade.

www.theage.com.au

Building in Spain for $6B would actually be false economy and would probably end up actually costing more then an Adelaide build. Nearly all of that $6B goes into the Spanish economy, profits to Navantia and their suppliers, Taxes to the Spanish Government, Jobs to Spanish workers, wages to Spanish Businesses. Build them in Adelaide and that means a large % of that money comes into the Australian economy, Navantia pays Company Taxes to the Australian Government, wages to Australians who pay income tax and GST to the Australian Government.

 

[John Newman]

Building in Spain for $6B would actually be false economy and would probably end up actually costing more then an Adelaide build. Nearly all of that $6B goes into the Spanish economy, profits to Navantia and their suppliers, Taxes to the Spanish Government, Jobs to Spanish workers, wages to Spanish Businesses. Build them in Adelaide and that means a large % of that money comes into the Australian economy, Navantia pays Company Taxes to the Australian Government, wages to Australians who pay income tax and GST to the Australian Government.

I’m going to upset some people with my comment, but who cares...

Why is Naval Shipbuilding in Australia treated as some sort of ‘sacred cow’? Why?

Let’s assume for a minute that the Government, and RAN, agreed/decided to take the Spanish up on their offer, 3 x DDG delivered before 2030 for the relatively cheap figure of $6b, why would it be the end of the world?

When it comes to aviation assets for the ADF no one blinks an eye when we spend many tens of billion of dollars on aircraft that are built overseas, primarily in the US.

For example: F-35A, F/A-18F, EA-18G, P-8A, C-130J, C-27J, C-17A, MH-60R, AH-64E, CH-47F, MQ-4C, MC-55A, PC-21, etc, etc, etc. I could make an even longer list...

Why is that ok? But spending a relatively small amount of dollars on a few ships built overseas is wrong?

I’m more than happy for Australian industry to be supported, but if we found it necessary for the RAN to receive a capability quicker by building overseas, then just bloody do it (as was done with the 2 x AOR).


It’s never going to happen anyway, the ALP Government would never be allowed to do it by their Union bosses.
Mod: Can we leave the political comments out. Point awarded.
Anyway, I’m not saying that three more DDG is right or wrong, just that arguing over where they are built, or not, is stupid.

 

[Stampede]

Building in Spain for $6B would actually be false economy and would probably end up actually costing more then an Adelaide build. Nearly all of that $6B goes into the Spanish economy, profits to Navantia and their suppliers, Taxes to the Spanish Government, Jobs to Spanish workers, wages to Spanish Businesses. Build them in Adelaide and that means a large % of that money comes into the Australian economy, Navantia pays Company Taxes to the Australian Government, wages to Australians who pay income tax and GST to the Australian Government.

Certainly pluses in building locally.

At the end of the day its about having stuff at the pointy end.
A manufacturing base contributes to that end but it is not the teeth that bite.

We need increased capability that realistically does not fit into our scheduled domestic build cycle.

Its a problem


Cheers S

 

[ddxx]

Spain has thrown down a price, a build program and probably more importantly a believable (if aggressive) timeline.
I guess there are questions we need to ask:

• How much of an immediate threat are we facing?
• How important is Hobart capability to the RAN, can we deal with a capability gap?
• Is 3 additional Hobarts the right force mix going into the future?

Then pick and choose the right cost, time and risk arrangement for that to make it happen.

A 6 hobarts + 9 hunters seems like a doable fleet. It would seem to be better than the current plan.

I imagine one of the reasons behind nine Hunters was to allow for six MFUs on each coast? FBE - 3x Hobart, 3x Hunter / FBW - 6x Hunter? Would this potentially negate the need for the 9th Hunter?

If fast and cost-effective fleet growth is the goal, I have to wonder whether the focus should rather be on a lower cost, mid-tier, multi-mission platform with a lower crew requirement. Something which is also highly suitable for deploying autonomous systems for MCM and undersea surveillance. Just like what the Japanese are doing with Mogami, the British with Arrowhead, and the US with LSC.

Like our much larger partners, this could then allow some existing funds (and personnel) to be utilised through reducing the size of the planned dedicated MCM and undersea surveillance support fleets (I.e. the (8) Arafura MCM and (4) undersea surveillance support ships).

I think the Brits have got the balance right going for (10) low-cost multi-mission GP frigates (type 31/32) to compliment their high-end Type 26 (8) and Type 45 (6). Delivering them a much larger fleet than would have been possible to fund and crew with a purely high-end fleet mix.

 

[Stampede]

I’m going to upset some people with my comment, but who cares...

Why is Naval Shipbuilding in Australia treated as some sort of ‘sacred cow’? Why?

Let’s assume for a minute that the Government, and RAN, agreed/decided to take the Spanish up on their offer, 3 x DDG delivered before 2030 for the relatively cheap figure of $6b, why would it be the end of the world?

When it comes to aviation assets for the ADF no one blinks an eye when we spend many tens of billion of dollars on aircraft that are built overseas, primarily in the US.

For example: F-35A, F/A-18F, EA-18G, P-8A, C-130J, C-27J, C-17A, MH-60R, AH-64E, CH-47F, MQ-4C, MC-55A, PC-21, etc, etc, etc. I could make an even longer list...

Why is that ok? But spending a relatively small amount of dollars on a few ships built overseas is wrong?

I’m more than happy for Australian industry to be supported, but if we found it necessary for the RAN to receive a capability quicker by building overseas, then just bloody do it (as was done with the 2 x AOR).


It’s never going to happen anyway, the ALP Government would never be allowed to do it by their Union bosses.

Anyway, I’m not saying that three more DDG is right or wrong, just that arguing over where they are built, or not, is stupid.

Yep agree.

If there was that hypothetical Q store where you could buy what you want,what would defence ask for and what would government provide funds for today?

"Yes Sir what do you want?"

Do you have some Hunter Class destroyers?
No Sir- not produced yet, but we have some Hobart Class in Aisle 7
Good thanks where is that.
Well go past the LHD's in Aisle 5, turn left near the Multi Role Support Ships on the end display and select how many you want with the attendant.

Bye the way we have submarines on special in the basement.
Good which sort.

All flavours, conventional and nuclear, just not the French!

Thanks I'll go shopping.

Just look out for grumpy moderators in Aisle 8

Good advise, I'll make my way!

If we had a good crystal ball to the future we could make more informed decisions regarding to buy off shore or build at home.

Not sure of the balancing act but Johns comment needs to be aired.

A lot has happened in two years


Cheers S

 

[spoz]

The type 32 is presently nothing more than a paper program; the Brit plan of record is 8 type 26 and 5 type 31. There is certainly no agreement about what the type 32 would look like, and was only a proposal from the Johnson government that what it might look like be investigated.

The US LCS program is not something I would like to see us emulate; and the Connies are much closer to a T26 than a T31.

The Mogami is a great ship for Japan, but for us? Unique (Japanese) systems both operational and support which it has never been contemplated would be used by non-Japanese speakers? Getting that sorted would probably mean we might see them actually in use after the T26. And the Japanese range requirement is a little bit less than ours…..

 

[Volkodav]

Building the ships overseas doesn't really make sense unless we decide we are going to build nothing locally ever again. Fifteen majors is a good number, a sustainable number, a number that could easily be supported by a continuous build and a thirty year life span.

Build three overseas and we are back to boom bust inefficiencies again, having to rebuild from scratch every decade or so.

Slip the Hunters if we have to, but build as much as possible locally. This will introduce economies of scale, develop skills, grow SMEs, help our industries become more competitive. Then there's the tax side, money spent locally on the projects but also spent by the workers, on decent wages, that wouldn't be otherwise.

 

[WaveWalker]

I’m going to upset some people with my comment, but who cares...



It’s never going to happen anyway, the ALP Government would never be allowed to do it by their Union bosses.

Perhaps we could keep politics out of the discussion.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The real wild card is when are we build SSNs. Can Osborne build ssns (8-10), upgrade collins LOTE (6), upgrade Hobarts (3), do Hunter builds(9)? All at the same time?

If it can't happen at Osborne, then where and whom runs it?

Should have really ordered that 4th Awd.

 

[Wombat000]

When I first read abt this offer from Spain, I immediately thought it was a positive development.
Firstly, essentially, I believe we need escorts and deployable magazines.
The offer does seem to satisfy that.

*However, I think that’s on the understanding that the purpose & roll out of the current continuous Aust build program is unaffected.*
My own understanding is that the building capacity in Aust is being ramped up to that ‘structured rolling continuous build program’, and hence capacity at this stage is already maxed out.

Opportunistic, timely and perhaps serendipitous opportunities to supplement the fleet should be explored, even if perhaps some local fit-out solution can be pursued?

 

[Volkodav]

When I first read abt this offer from Spain, I immediately thought it was a positive development.
Firstly, essentially, I believe we need escorts and deployable magazines.
The offer does seem to satisfy that.

*However, I think that’s on the understanding that the purpose & roll out of the current continuous Aust build program is unaffected.*
My own understanding is that the building capacity in Aust is being ramped up to that ‘structured rolling continuous build program’, and hence capacity at this stage is already maxed out.

Opportunistic, timely and perhaps serendipitous opportunities to supplement the fleet should be explored, even if perhaps some local fit-out solution can be pursued?

There will be no building occuring at Adelaide once the second opv is done other than prototype blocks for the Hunters. Three more Hobart's allows the yard to get back up to speed on a known product while the Hunter is de-risked and spec'd for our changing needs, i.e. hull stretch, propulsion changes, to support the required capability upgrades.

We need to be smart about this for once, we need to build on established capability rather than letting it whither and die, only to be rebuilt a decade later.

 

[spoz]

The real wild card is when are we build SSNs. Can Osborne build ssns (8-10), upgrade collins LOTE (6), upgrade Hobarts (3), do Hunter builds(9)? All at the same time?

If it can't happen at Osborne, then where and whom runs it?

Should have really ordered that 4th Awd.

a. Probably, it was supposed to build 12 Attacks which aren’t that much smaller, particularly if the reactor compartment is shipped in as a hull section)
b. Yes
c. Yes
d. Yes

(that is already the plan, and what Osborne is being sized for. SMs are not built in the same yard as surface vessels)

DDG 4 Yes!

 

[ddxx]

The type 32 is presently nothing more than a paper program; the Brit plan of record is 8 type 26 and 5 type 31. There is certainly no agreement about what the type 32 would look like, and was only a proposal from the Johnson government that what it might look like be investigated.

The US LCS program is not something I would like to see us emulate; and the Connies are much closer to a T26 than a T31.

The Mogami is a great ship for Japan, but for us? Unique (Japanese) systems both operational and support which it has never been contemplated would be used by non-Japanese speakers? Getting that sorted would probably mean we might see them actually in use after the T26. And the Japanese range requirement is a little bit less than ours…..

I wasn’t talking as much about the specific platforms but rather the underlying logic and fleet mixes.

All three example countries see the need for a mid-tier combatant, and all three are moving away from dedicated fleets for MCM - by virtue of autonomous systems which can be deployed from any suitably designed platform.

This means they can direct their respective finite resources, personnel, and industrial capacity towards flexible platforms with utility in a broader range of scenarios and environments - whilst also bolstering their combatant fleet numbers.

My point is that it would be prudent for us to consider the same underlying logic - especially when we all agree that Arafura’s or similar aren’t suitable for anything other than the lowest threat environments.

 

[Milne Bay]

There will be no building occuring at Adelaide once the second opv is done other than prototype blocks for the Hunters. Three more Hobart's allows the yard to get back up to speed on a known product while the Hunter is de-risked and spec'd for our changing needs, i.e. hull stretch, propulsion changes, to support the required capability upgrades.

We need to be smart about this for once, we need to build on established capability rather than letting it whither and die, only to be rebuilt a decade later.

I was under the impression that the Hunters would all be built in Adelaide, and that first steel would be cut towards the end of this year following prototyping.
Fitting in the extra three Hobarts there could be a tad tricky
MB

 

[old faithful]

John Newman said

"It’s never going to happen anyway, the ALP Government would never be allowed to do it by their Union bosses."

I agree, however, if the ALP did agree, it would suggest that there is a real threat, and probably imminent!

 

[Stampede]

John Newman said

"It’s never going to happen anyway, the ALP Government would never be allowed to do it by their Union bosses."

I agree, however, if the ALP did agree, it would suggest that there is a real threat, and probably imminent!

It is the golden question - What is the level of threat?

Cheers S

 

[ddxx]

Sorry, but what’s with all this partisan political nonsense? There’s either a rule or there isn’t. And if there is, it needs to be a blanket rule.

 

[Volkodav]

I was under the impression that the Hunters would all be built in Adelaide, and that first steel would be cut towards the end of this year following prototyping.
Fitting in the extra three Hobarts there could be a tad tricky
MB

The Osborne yard was built to build three Hobart's concurrently, it is much bigger now. The original schedule was slipped and the size of the workforce cut instead of grown back in 2010/11. We need a larger workforce going forward, building it up around additional Hobart's is a no brainer.

Trade and engineering skills can be grown on a new Hobart build faster than any other way. Experienced people can come back and train the new generation on this build, who can then go onto Hunters and SSNs.

LOTE will likely not require a large amount of structural work, the Attack build is gone, SSNs will have a lower local content so Hobart's will actually use surplus fabrication and systems skills preventing their further degradation prior to the other builds.

Like I said, slip the Hunters if necessary.