Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Fedup]

Unclear. Its a unsolicited proposal. But one gaining huge weight to bring up PM to PM direct, in Europe.

With attack not happening spending that should be happening is not happening currently. The Hobarts also have a large and expensive upgrade of ~$5 billion already budgeted. 3 new ships with new systems might even fit within that budget. Maybe decrease the hobart upgrade to just a combat system upgrade until after the new hobarts are finished.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/melissa-price/media-releases/critical-role-industry-51-billion-support-hobart-class

However, the new government has been pretty clear about how it sees defence.

Defence Minister urges closer Australia-US ties to avoid 'catastrophic failure of deterrence' in Indo-Pacific - ABC News
He warned the alliance between Australia and the US could not afford to "stand still", adding that it would be operating in a much more challenging strategic environment in the years ahead.

"It will need to contribute to a more effective balance of military power, aimed at avoiding a catastrophic failure of deterrence," he said.

Going to the US, to Washington, to a security forum, and chastising them, the US, for underspending in defence is going to seem pretty hollow unless he intends for Australia to increase it defence spending.

Remembering the USN has tremendous issues at the moment, basically all of its cruisers (22) are knackered, life extension cancelled, its 27 oldest Burkes are also aging out, life extension cancelled, the other Burkes have an upgrade program (and US Life extension and upgrade programs have had big issues recently) and the Constellations, which isn't a replacement for either of them, is still in the early build phase.

In 5 years USN is going to be a shadow of itself even if existing build plans are fully funded and go ahead. They will struggle to escort their own carrier groups. IMO. 3 more Hobarts would be super valuable by 2030.

A real shame frigates weren’t built instead of the next to useless LCSs. The USN would still be struggling to today but a little bit less so. Losing the RBH amphibious ship and a Seawolf SSN (albeit only for a few years) hasn’t helped either. It wasn’t only Canada, UK, Australia, et al that got fooled by the supposed peace dividend at the end of the Cold War.

 

[Systems Adict]

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.

While I appreciate the thoughts you've written down & can understand the sentiment behind them, based on the content in the link below. UK PLC has been stating since the documents release that Type 32 is a follow-on from Type 31, but with more tech / less manpower & not destined to be fully defined / built until AFTER 2030.

T31 is being offered as an affordable building block / stepping stone, as many navies are hitting that crux point of considering replacing the content of their fleets between now & 2040. T32 may therefore seem like a logical step for consideration also.

I don't believe that it will be something that the RAN will look at until AFTER the UK has a full definition available, although if it becomes part of the UK/AUS/US partnership discussions, it could be an ideal complement to HUNTER.

UK National Shipbuilding Update - March 2022

SA

 

[spoz]

Yes, got that and you’ve explained T32 and its dependency on future government decisions much better than I did. While it is the plan, before Government commitment in a contractual sense it is still only a plan and one which the Government of the day is free to alter. That’s the kind of thing that makes defence planners in all democracies nervous.

For the RN it makes perfect sense to develop one or other of their in production platforms (or both) for the future, particularly if the H,M & E and even some of the combat system is largely common. But for the RAN to introduce an entirely new design, which T32 would be, makes nor sense whatsoever. Again, however, in a democracy all things are possible, and equipment programs can be required to fit into wider Government objectives even if that results in options which would have previously been considered unlikely.

 

[StingrayOZ]

A real shame frigates weren’t built instead of the next to useless LCSs. The USN would still be struggling to today but a little bit less so. Losing the RBH amphibious ship and a Seawolf SSN (albeit only for a few years) hasn’t helped either. It wasn’t only Canada, UK, Australia, et al that got fooled by the supposed peace dividend at the end of the Cold War.

Block obsolesce can happen even to the big guys. It wasn't just the LCS, the Zumwalt also was another project that went nowhere really. Throw in a few accidents, upkeep issues, a few minor design flaws resulting in shortish, non-extendable lives.

Regionally the cruisers were very useful, even if they weren't seen as super important to the USN. Particularly when operating outside of a carrier group in allied operations. But the USN doesn't seem to focus on ships capable of doing that, always mounting radars quite low and with a low focus on antishipping capability on these platforms. The Ticos were a compromise being based off the Spruce. So its a cascade of limitations and cost savings.

It been 31 years now since the end of the cold war. So there will be a large number of platforms that were designed for 35 year design life coming up to expiry. Some of the stuff build after the cold war, is pretty "light" so even if it gets life extended, there are capability limitations (Anzac).

The US also has been not exactly funding rapid developments in surface ships, hence the lack of IEP, efficient cruising diesel options. Hence smaller navies are doing experiments (UK, Japan, Spain, Italy, SK) with various levels of success.

 

[John Fedup]

The Zumwalt class has a lot to like it except for the AGS and it’s original purpose (naval gun support for amphibious landings. Big, IEP, and minimal crewing for a vessel of its size reconfigured with more missiles after removal of at least one AGS should allow it to become a useful ship (especially with hypersonic missiles).

 

[Bob53]

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

Interesting range of opinions and view points on this subject. If extra Hobarts were built in Spain I can’t see how any Australian ship yard loses out on anything. If they were to proceed, these are in my view, much needed additional ships at this point.

I don’t really see how any threat assessment could say we don’t need additional hulls and capability as soon as possible. Who is going to say that with the delays (to
and unfortunate timing of the Hobart upgrades coinciding with delays with the subs we can take the chance? Any suggestion that the Hunter program can be caught up and accelerated is highly speculative at this stage. If the threat recedes then we have the option to reduce or slow the drumbeat on the Hunters.

Back to the costings of new Hobarts … how many times are we told the initial cost is only a fraction of the over all life time cost with sustainment, upgrades and crew being the lions share of the Total Lifetime project costs…. So $6Billion spent on getting a capability delivered early/ier sounds like good insurance to me.

 

[Bob53]

I need to add not opposed to Australian made if we could meet or get close to the schedule and it works in with the other schedules.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Zumwalt class has a lot to like it except for the AGS and it’s original purpose (naval gun support for amphibious landings. Big, IEP, and minimal crewing for a vessel of its size reconfigured with more missiles after removal of at least one AGS should allow it to become a useful ship (especially with hypersonic missiles).

I agree, it's got the makings of a good ship but they stuffed a couple of things up. In a way it could be a good CG replacement with modifications to the armament. It has 20 MK-57 VLS four pack cells fitted to it and I wonder how many more could be fitted. Remove the AGS in the B Gun position and you could place maybe 24 Mk-41 VLS there. Maybe space down aft for another Mk-41 VLS system of similar size. Even if you managed to fit another four Mk-57 four pack cells fitted, that's 16 cells giving 96 Mk-57 cells plus 32 Mk-41 cells, giving a total of 128 VLS cells. If some Mk-41 cells were able to be shoehorned in down aft then that's a potential of 144 or 152 VLS cells. The real test would be it having enough buoyancy for such modifications.

 

[Volkodav]

I agree, it's got the makings of a good ship but they stuffed a couple of things up. In a way it could be a good CG replacement with modifications to the armament. It has 20 MK-57 VLS four pack cells fitted to it and I wonder how many more could be fitted. Remove the AGS in the B Gun position and you could place maybe 24 Mk-41 VLS there. Maybe space down aft for another Mk-41 VLS system of similar size. Even if you managed to fit another four Mk-57 four pack cells fitted, that's 16 cells giving 96 Mk-57 cells plus 32 Mk-41 cells, giving a total of 128 VLS cells. If some Mk-41 cells were able to be shoehorned in down aft then that's a potential of 144 or 152 VLS cells. The real test would be it having enough buoyancy for such modifications.

Proposed upgrades include replacing the AGS with VPMs ( Virginia Payload Modules) filled with hypersonic missiles. This will give the Zummwalts a critical mission and fast track hypersonics into service.

 

[alexsa]

So do you think we could domestically build three additional Hobarts in a similar timeframe and at a similar cost to what Navantia has reportedly offered? Obviously that would be the best outcome for the Labor government.

We are ignoring the elephant in the room on the additional Hobarts .... size and logistics. If the 'new vessel' is to run AEGIS then it would have to be baseline 9. The current DDG is maxed out on baseline 7 and adding the SAAB 9LV tactical interface will pose the same issues as upgrading the Hobart class. More power is required and space is at a premium. The Hobart is 7000 tonnes maxium and at 147.2 m long and 18.6 wide with a shallower draft it is quite a bit smaller in volume than the 10000 tonne 149.9m/20.8m Hunter.

It should be noted that the Hobart Class are heavier than the F101 parent design (5800 tonnes) and this has resulted in a deeper draft and no real growth margin. If you are going to start 'growing' the hull you are in the same situation as the Hunter. The redesign will take time.

If you simply build the DDG it without the 9LV then you miss some important capability. This combination is being used for good reason. You still have a lead time on delivery of the SPY array ..... and lets face it SPY 1 is on the way out. SPY6 or other derivatives will require some rework of the design.

If your redesign the vessel to have the same fit as the Hunter ......... this is a significant redesign and will take time and will draw systems away from the Hunter. In any case I don't see this vessel being laid down before the Hunter noting the issues above.

Finally .... where do you build it? Manpower is at a premium at the moment and both our yards are working up to deliver significant projects over the next decades. If we build overseas then we compromise the continious build programme and the DDG replacement (menat to follow the Hunter) will effectively have been delivered. If we are looking at an increase in hull numbers there needs to be budget. It think numbers will increase but this will take time and budget.

 

[Todjaeger]

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

Given some of the fairly recent commentary in this thread, a few things occurred to me about the unsolicited offer which I wished to bring up with posters here. One of the first is that I think a dose of reality needs to be injected into the proposal.

Per the article, it is claimed that the first ship could be delivered in 2027 and the third in 2029. TBH I consider that claim rather dubious at best, and have similar sentiments about the claimed per vessel cost of AUD$2 bil.

For starters, there is a reason why the RAN's Hobart-class DDG's need to either be upgraded in the near future, or get replaced with newer vessels. Some of the kit currently in use is no longer available. This means that if Navantia were to build Hobart-like vessels, they would be different from current RAN vessels, and have to be designed. There is no build to print option. Secondly, Navantia does not have any recent experience building F-100 class vessels, since F-105 Cristobal Colon was commissioned into the Spanish Armada nearly a decade ago, having been laid down five years before that.

So, any proposed Navantia ship build for the RAN would in fact be a whole new class of vessel which would require detailed design work and everything that entails.

There is also the reality that long-lead items would also need to be specified, contracted for and ordered. Some of these long-lead items would have to be imported either by Spain or Australia (think Aegis CMS and SPY arrays) which can take several years between contract signed/order placed and delivery for installation. IIRC for the Hobart-class build it was something like three years between the signing of the contract with LockMart and the delivery of the first unit to install on the lead ship. Depending on what is going on with orders and production in the US, delivery could be a little faster if all subcomponents are readily available and there are no preceding orders, OTOH if LockMart's order book is largely full, then any orders intended for RAN vessels would get put into the queue and potentially delay deliveries past 2027.

One of the next issues is that if Australia were to order three new destroyers from Spain (or anywhere really) that is going to have some significant flow on impacts across the entire RAN force structure. This could potentially be managed, and I do believe that the RAN should be looking at increasing the number of major warships in the fleet as a mid to long-term objective, but could have very negative impacts if not properly planned for and managed. One impact would that for a period of time, the RAN would have four different classes of major surface warship in service, each with different layouts and potentially different onboard systems which need to be maintained.

IMO Australia would likely be better off bringing forward a programme to replace the Hobart-class DDG's rather than ordering three new destroyers which are intended to be similar to whatever the post-upgrade Hobart-class destroyers are like.

Yes, the above is unlikely to be able to take place before 2030, but I personally doubt that Spain could redesign, build and then deliver newer versions of the RAN DDG's before 2030 either.

 

[Redlands18]

One thing the Spanish Government may be doing in an attempt to get this order is use equipment currently on order for the Spanish Navies F-110 Frigates. Such as the Mk 45 127mm, Mk 41 VLS, LM2500 Gas Turbines, that would of course put there own program back but $6B+ in foreign investment may be seen as worth it.

 

[Volkodav]

I hate to say it but our current situation shows exactly why we should have bought the Kidd's instead of upgrading the FFGs as DDG substitutes, why we should have built the Transfield corvettes instead of the Armidales, evolved Capes and now the Arafuras, and why the FFGs, should have been replaced, one for one with either F100s or similar, before the Kidd's were replaced by an evolved Burke or similar.

It's not like anything that is happening today is new or surprising. There were papers on the Spratly islands and south China Sea in the 90s. Prediction of China, and or India, flexing their muscles as their economies modernised and their rivalry increased. Labors defence policy under Rudd was built on China's rise.

 

[Todjaeger]

One thing the Spanish Government may be doing in an attempt to get this order is use equipment currently on order for the Spanish Navies F-110 Frigates. Such as the Mk 45 127mm, Mk 41 VLS, LM2500 Gas Turbines, that would of course put there own program back but $6B+ in foreign investment may be seen as worth it.

The Spanish F-110's are to be fitted with a 127 mm/64 cal naval gun from Leonardo, not the Mk 45 127 mm gun and the Mk 41 VLS launchers are to be 16 cells each. I have not been able to confirm what machinery is to be fitted to the F-110's. In short, some of the kit planned for the Spanish Armada could not be used for any new variants of the Australian DDG's with significantly reducing some of the vessel's capabilities, whilst other could be potentially used, but would introduce an entirely new weapon system which would then require training, logistics and support streams.

I also noticed that Navantia is currently in the process of constructing the F-110 class vessels, with production expected to continue past when the proposal claimed to be able to deliver the third ship to the RAN. This really does make me wonder whether or not Navantia actually has the capability of handling concurrent builds, or whether the proposal was being made because Spain wants to/needs to delay their F-110 build programme.

Or alternately, does Spain need to upskill their shipyard workforce since it looks like it might have been some time since Navantia build a frigate or destroyer-sized warship? If that is the case I would rather not have Australia pay to get another nation's work force back up to speed.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We are ignoring the elephant in the room on the additional Hobarts .... size and logistics.

There are the real key questions. Creating more hobarts exactly the same at the ones we have now, that then need $5.1 billion upgrades does seem to move the RAN forward. The Spanish proposal doesn't seem to indicate what exactly they will be building.

Some of these long-lead items would have to be imported either by Spain or Australia (think Aegis CMS and SPY arrays) which can take several years between contract signed/order placed and delivery for installation.

I guess the good news is there are already replacement CMS that were ordered years ago for the Hobart upgrades and the Hunters. As well as CEAFAR units. This project was designed to cut steel on the hobarts in 2024.
The order for AEGIS equipment was put in all the way back in 2018.

Australia cleared to buy $185 million in Aegis equipment

Australia wants to buy the technical guts needed to hook up its radars with the Aegis weapon system.

www.defensenews.com

RAN Hobart-class Destroyers Set for Aegis Combat System Upgrade - Naval News

The Royal Australian Navy’s three Hobart-class destroyers are set to undergo an Aegis combat system upgrade which will increase the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) air and missile defence capability.

www.navalnews.com

Australia Starts Tender to Upgrade Hobart-class Destroyers Combat Management System - Naval News

The Australian Department of Defence started the tender process to upgrade the combat management system aboard the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)'s Hobart-class air warfare destroyers.

www.navalnews.com

I presume the Spanish proposal would use these ordered bits of kit, as they don't have any spare units themselves. That would mean 9LV consoles, Aegis 9, and I presume the big one, CEAFAR. I wouldn't be surprised *if* we took the Spanish up on their offer, all of these would be expensive variations to cost extra.

Tenders for the hobart upgrades have already occurred and been selected.

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

Navantia Australia has already been appointed the Hobart System design agent for the upgrade

The role of the Designer in DDG Aegis Baseline 9 Combat System upgrade - Navantia Australia

The importance of platform integration. Whilst a Combat system upgrade, it is also important that the platform integration aspects are also addressed as part of the overall upgrade program. Fundamental to the effective support of this type of major system upgrade is a thorough understanding of...

navantia.com.au

Even if we don't build new Hobart's, the current plan is to pull the existing Hobart's out of the water, cut them up, replace Radar, combat system, power, cooling, etc with the project costing $5.1 billion. We then throw the Spy radar and aegis 8 into the southern ocean.

This project is expected to go from 2024-2030 ish, so as soon as we pull the first Hobart out, we loose deployable sustainable DDG capability, the problem with only 3 ships. With only two ships for the next ~10 years, going on a Hobart is a career limiting move, with limited sea time. Its highly likely we will have at many times two Hobart's unavailable (as ships need their normal program of things during this period and do we wait until a ship is fully recommissioned back into the RAN before sending the next one off), resulting in a single ship to operate. That is if everything goes to plan and schedule and cost. As has been pointed out, Hobarts are already growth limited platforms, expensive, sizable upgrades will contain tremendous risk for cost and time. Even when the first ship returns, you then have a fractured fleet with two different combat systems, radar, subsystems etc.

So the RAN is basically only an ANZAC force for the foreseeable future. But these will also be undergoing upgrades. These are already elderly, cramped, platforms, limited by size and space. As they age, old ships become less reliable (how many times have we seen this in the RAN?).

At the same time, Collins goes in for LOTE. So that elderly platform starts to shrink. There will be pressure to get that program out of the way before SSN construction starts, its likely multiple boats will be out of the water at the same time. Our fragile sub capability then evaporates. At a time we are meant to be growing the active RAN personnel, in these specific areas.

Having your entire navy up on hard stands doesn't just present a problem for the industry and yards. Its going to have a very significant effect on the Navy itself. High-end platforms like subs and destroyers are at the very heart of the RAN. We are going to waste tremendous money reskilling to get back to where we are instead of trying to preserve what we already have.

We are quickly heading into loads of planned and scheduling problems, that are all going to occur simultaneously.
The longer we stay on this path the harder it is to address and the more bad situations multiply.

The bigger problem is the RAN isn't alone in this situation. The US and UK are having similar issues across destroyer and submarine fleets.

 

[Todjaeger]

There are the real key questions. Creating more hobarts exactly the same at the ones we have now, that then need $5.1 billion upgrades does seem to move the RAN forward. The Spanish proposal doesn't seem to indicate what exactly they will be building.

I guess the good news is there are already replacement CMS that were ordered years ago for the Hobart upgrades and the Hunters. As well as CEAFAR units. This project was designed to cut steel on the hobarts in 2024.
The order for AEGIS equipment was put in all the way back in 2018.

Australia cleared to buy $185 million in Aegis equipment

Australia wants to buy the technical guts needed to hook up its radars with the Aegis weapon system.

www.defensenews.com

RAN Hobart-class Destroyers Set for Aegis Combat System Upgrade - Naval News

The Royal Australian Navy’s three Hobart-class destroyers are set to undergo an Aegis combat system upgrade which will increase the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) air and missile defence capability.

www.navalnews.com

Australia Starts Tender to Upgrade Hobart-class Destroyers Combat Management System - Naval News

The Australian Department of Defence started the tender process to upgrade the combat management system aboard the Royal Australian Navy (RAN)'s Hobart-class air warfare destroyers.

www.navalnews.com

I presume the Spanish proposal would use these ordered bits of kit, as they don't have any spare units themselves. That would mean 9LV consoles, Aegis 9, and I presume the big one, CEAFAR. I wouldn't be surprised *if* we took the Spanish up on their offer, all of these would be expensive variations to cost extra.

Tenders for the hobart upgrades have already occurred and been selected.

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

Navantia Australia has already been appointed the Hobart System design agent for the upgrade

The role of the Designer in DDG Aegis Baseline 9 Combat System upgrade - Navantia Australia

The importance of platform integration. Whilst a Combat system upgrade, it is also important that the platform integration aspects are also addressed as part of the overall upgrade program. Fundamental to the effective support of this type of major system upgrade is a thorough understanding of...

navantia.com.au

Even if we don't build new Hobart's, the current plan is to pull the existing Hobart's out of the water, cut them up, replace Radar, combat system, power, cooling, etc with the project costing $5.1 billion. We then throw the Spy radar and aegis 8 into the southern ocean.

This project is expected to go from 2024-2030 ish, so as soon as we pull the first Hobart out, we loose deployable sustainable DDG capability, the problem with only 3 ships. With only two ships for the next ~10 years, going on a Hobart is a career limiting move, with limited sea time. Its highly likely we will have at many times two Hobart's unavailable (as ships need their normal program of things during this period and do we wait until a ship is fully recommissioned back into the RAN before sending the next one off), resulting in a single ship to operate. That is if everything goes to plan and schedule and cost. As has been pointed out, Hobarts are already growth limited platforms, expensive, sizable upgrades will contain tremendous risk for cost and time. Even when the first ship returns, you then have a fractured fleet with two different combat systems, radar, subsystems etc.

So the RAN is basically only an ANZAC force for the foreseeable future. But these will also be undergoing upgrades. These are already elderly, cramped, platforms, limited by size and space. As they age, old ships become less reliable (how many times have we seen this in the RAN?).

At the same time, Collins goes in for LOTE. So that elderly platform starts to shrink. There will be pressure to get that program out of the way before SSN construction starts, its likely multiple boats will be out of the water at the same time. Our fragile sub capability then evaporates. At a time we are meant to be growing the active RAN personnel, in these specific areas.

Having your entire navy up on hard stands doesn't just present a problem for the industry and yards. Its going to have a very significant effect on the Navy itself. High-end platforms like subs and destroyers are at the very heart of the RAN. We are going to waste tremendous money reskilling to get back to where we are instead of trying to preserve what we already have.

We are quickly heading into loads of planned and scheduling problems, that are all going to occur simultaneously.
The longer we stay on this path the harder it is to address and the more bad situations multiply.

The bigger problem is the RAN isn't alone in this situation. The US and UK are having similar issues across destroyer and submarine fleets.

I agree that the RAN is heading towards potentially troubled waters with regards to available warships and then the cascading problems associated with insufficient hulls to maintain crewing numbers and skills.

What I am much less certain of, is whether or not the Navantia proposal could address any of the issues that are at present just over the horizon, and if it could address some/all of the issues, could it do so in a viable manner. Given the very compressed timeframes that certain things would need to happen and in specific orders, I suspect the claimed timeframe from Navantia is more of a "best case" scenario if not entirely unrealistic.

There would also be the very real future question about what would happen with or to the future RAN force structure. The replacement programme for the Hobart-class DDG's is likely to start construction some time in the early to mid-2040's. This would be around or just before the midlife of any "Hobart II" DDG's should they actually get ordered, which would raise the question of whether or not the RAN would replace just the initial batch of DDG's, or replace all of them including ones only at their midlife?

 

[Volkodav]

The Spanish F-110's are to be fitted with a 127 mm/64 cal naval gun from Leonardo, not the Mk 45 127 mm gun and the Mk 41 VLS launchers are to be 16 cells each. I have not been able to confirm what machinery is to be fitted to the F-110's. In short, some of the kit planned for the Spanish Armada could not be used for any new variants of the Australian DDG's with significantly reducing some of the vessel's capabilities, whilst other could be potentially used, but would introduce an entirely new weapon system which would then require training, logistics and support streams.

I also noticed that Navantia is currently in the process of constructing the F-110 class vessels, with production expected to continue past when the proposal claimed to be able to deliver the third ship to the RAN. This really does make me wonder whether or not Navantia actually has the capability of handling concurrent builds, or whether the proposal was being made because Spain wants to/needs to delay their F-110 build programme.

Or alternately, does Spain need to upskill their shipyard workforce since it looks like it might have been some time since Navantia build a frigate or destroyer-sized warship? If that is the case I would rather not have Australia pay to get another nation's work force back up to speed.

Valid points, Navantia did suffer a degradation of skills between F104 and F105, encountering issues they had not experienced on the first four. To be honest, their most experienced people cut their teeth on the Hobarts, just like our most experienced people did.

 

[Volkodav]

Basically we had a shipbuilding black hole in the middle of the largest economic boom in decades. We replaced nine ships with three, and shrunk the navy to fit the new reality of four FFGs and eight ANZACs, instead of eight to nine DDG/FFG, eight patrol frigates, and about a dozen corvettes with Mk 41 with ESSM, Harpoon, Super SeaSprite and Penguin.

This reduced the size of the navy in terms of ships, personnel and capability, killed three yards that had successfully built ships for decades (Williamstown, Carrington's, NQEA), and saw thousands of skilled workers move to other industries. In the same time frame we cut back and slowly killed our automotive industry.

Now, in the most dangerous strategic times we have seen in decades, probably in my lifetime, we still have people saying we should repeat the mistakes of the past.

Something many don't think about, what happened to the US built FFGs? Dive wrecks / artificial reefs, all four of them. Where are the two Australian built FFGs, serving in Chile. Ah huh, the Australian built ships, that are knocked for being too expensive, and taking too long to build, are so much better built, they literally are capable of a decade or more longer service.

In the US you can tell a Bath built ship from an Ingles because of the quality of the Bath ships. Nothing wrong with the Ingles ships, just Baths are better. The BIW staff at Adelaide had nothing but praise work the quality of work they saw there, no surprise, many people came from Williamstown, while others came from Collins, the UK Daring project, and even from Navantia.

 

[spoz]

Fitting CEAFAR to the Hobart hull would require a major redesign of virtually the whole forward section of the ship; and might not even be possible without enlarging the hull. Doing that would lose you all the putative time advantages of a second flight that Navantia has been pushing. I suspect their unsolicited offer was for as near a carbon copy as you could now do, replacing only those thing, such as the sewerage system which are either no longer available or don’t meet current IMO standards.

 

[TheRealist]

Fitting CEAFAR to the Hobart hull would require a major redesign of virtually the whole forward section of the ship; and might not even be possible without enlarging the hull. Doing that would lose you all the putative time advantages of a second flight that Navantia has been pushing. I suspect their unsolicited offer was for as near a carbon copy as you could now do, replacing only those thing, such as the sewerage system which are either no longer available or don’t meet current IMO standards.

Didn't Navantia have a design for the future Frigate that utilized CEAFAR? From memory it was very similar to the Hobart design. Perhaps that could be used.