Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

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.

The propulsion diesels are non compliant as well, while the electrical generation capacity was known to be insufficient when the first three were built.

Basically no one expected the AF100 to be selected, it only was able to occur because the Kinnaird procurement process, designed for things like trucks, support equipment etc. was bastardised into a major equipment procurement tool.

Under a proper, requirements driven procurement the capability definition would have driven either three, significantly larger, more capable ships, or a larger number of Hobart sized ships, able to complement each other, to provide the same, minimum capability.

Navantia even offered to redesign their ship to incorporate the volume the required systems needed, i.e. the second helicopter, sixteen or more additional VLS cells, greater power generation and cooling capacities. The government said no. The artificial rules said the existing design could only be a minimum change to the existing baseline.

The Hobart's were built with designed in obsolescence and capacity issues. Now we are spending over $5 billion, less than a third through the first ships life, to attempt to bring it up to where it should have been to start with.

 

[Milne Bay]

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.

Is there any merit in not upgrading the existing Hobarts, but allowing them to continue in their current configuration, and use the ordered upgrade kits to build three new ships to the older base design?
If the upgraded kit was going to fit in the existing Hobarts, surely it will fit into new ships of the same design.
Upgrade the current three Hobarts after the three new ones are completed if necessary
MB

 

[Stampede]

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.

Still perplexed re the sale of HMAS Melbourne and Newcastle.
The decision was made only a few years ago with the alarm bells were already ringing pretty loud as to how we would meet the challenges of the next decade.
Sure the ships had some limitations, but they also had their attributes.
Certainly would of been a welcome addition to the fleet for this decade.
A large hangar for two ASW helicopters and the ability to fire SM2.
13 Frigates versus 11 would of given some useful options both for active deployment and the current conversation re what to build,when and where.

What did we get paid for those two ships?

Still perplexed S

 

[StingrayOZ]

s there any merit in not upgrading the existing Hobarts, but allowing them to continue in their current configuration, and use the ordered upgrade kits to build three new ships to the older base design?
If the upgraded kit was going to fit in the existing Hobarts, surely it will fit into new ships of the same design.
Upgrade the current three Hobarts after the three new ones are completed if necessary

It would seem to be an area exploring, and most likely where the new government is looking.

I guess this is a complicated issue, because its not just creating a new project, its changing a bunch of existing programs that are already underway and inter-related.

What did we get paid for those two ships?

Retired Australian warships handed to Chilean Navy in secretive multi-million dollar deal

Chile's Navy is preparing to sail two recently retired Australian warships out of Sydney after purchasing them in a deal believed to be worth more than $100 million.

www.abc.net.au

$45 m per ship

 

[Stampede]

It would seem to be an area exploring, and most likely where the new government is looking.

I guess this is a complicated issue, because its not just creating a new project, its changing a bunch of existing programs that are already underway and inter-related.

Retired Australian warships handed to Chilean Navy in secretive multi-million dollar deal

Chile's Navy is preparing to sail two recently retired Australian warships out of Sydney after purchasing them in a deal believed to be worth more than $100 million.

www.abc.net.au

$45 m per ship

Thanks for that

Trust they provide good service for the new owners.


Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

Thanks for that

Trust they provide good service for the new owners.


Cheers S

The original plan was to upgrade and retain Melbourne and Newcastle, while replacing the first four, US built FFGs, immediately after the DDGs with ships of the same design. This potentially would be a stretched ANZAC, although I had seen an evolved German Type 123 mentioned in the late 90s.

Just imagine the various ANZAC upgrades incorporated on a stretched ANZAC or an F123.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Trust they provide good service for the new owners.

Well we spent a lot of money upgrading them
Sea1390 $1.4+ billion and that finished what 2009.

I guess I worry about the Sea4000 Phase 6 being very much like Sea1390. Running years late and over budget, then when completed 10 years service before we dispose of them. High risk upgrades on growth limited platforms tend to be risky, expensive in terms of money and time. s400p6 is 5 times bigger than s1390 and with less ships to manage the transition and disruption and much great spend per ship.

Chile must be very happy about the current purchase and future ships coming their way. Again if we stick to our current plan, Chile will in some aspects have a better navy than the RAN. They will have 6 surface combatants larger than 4000t.

Spain still has her FFG's, 5 x Aegis frigates + 6 santa maria FFG's. In terms of missile load out, Spain is far, far ahead of the RAN.
5x48 + 6x40 = 480
3x48 + 8x8 =208

Maybe we can buy some of Spains old FFG or older Aegis frigates? Then spend $5 billion upgrading them. Then sell them onto Chile?

We spend a lot of money, but we don't tend to reap the benefit of that spending. We prefer upgrades to building new ships, because the perception is new ships are risky, while "renovations" are seem as low risk, where in fact the opposite is true.

The original plan was to upgrade and retain Melbourne and Newcastle, while replacing the first four, US built FFGs, immediately after the DDGs with ships of the same design. This potentially would be a stretched ANZAC, although I had seen an evolved German Type 123 mentioned in the late 90s.

Just imagine the various ANZAC upgrades incorporated on a stretched ANZAC or an F123.

Which could have grown into something like the F124. Something around 5000-6,000t, room for upto 32 cell vls, 2 helicopters. That would be handy to have.

I guess I look at South Korea, I look at Japan, I look at other nations and what they can do.

The Hobarts is where we are. The only surface combatant we can start production on is a Hobart. We have already built 3 and are committing over $5 billion at least, at least to upgrade just those 3. We should have never stopped building hobart hulls. A 4th Hobart at <$2b and subsequent hobarts at less than that sound pretty attractive.

I have my own concerns about these massive mega CEAFARs going onto hobarts. Look at the issues Hunters having. I also have concerns regarding ABM systems and integration into the rest of the US systems. If we ever wanted to get into SM-3 demonstrating that with an all CEAFAR fleet, through common aegis libraries, I guess I am just skeptical as an outside observer. I think they will be fantastic for the hunters, I am less convinced of a high end air defence platform in a high threat peer environment.

*RANT ON*
If Spain really wants to help out, and have workshare, how about Spain agrees to upgrade their Frigates to the same configuraturation (at least the radar and subsystems). Nothing like having the key stake holder in the boat with you with their own upgrade program. Why don't they de-risk our upgrade. I am sure the EU in their current defence situation will supply funds to help Spain, and Australia as a customer of Europe, Europe wouldn't burn their customers selling platforms with no proven upgrade paths due to EU underspending, and over reliance on American capabilities, manipulating the Americans to cover their underspending arses, while applying unfair trade tariffs against Australia and drawing out forever the AU-EU FTA, burning the small "anglo" who plays an essential part of global order, and is the key ally of the west in multiple regions, being the heavy lift partner of NATO, helping rebuild the euro colonial broken empires and deal with old enemies. Im sure the EU nations would love to fund Spains aegis upgrade as part of their huge defence spend to "catchup". After all if they want American help, they will need ships that can actually integrate into American fleets, with current aegis, not just be non-homogeneous plum pudding fleet participation, with each individual ship throwing up its own un-networked, not even amongst themselves, uncoordinated, non sensor fused mess across the EM spectrum, but relying on the Americans to do all the heavy lifting and just be a pea sitting within an American shell of protection. With the same concept applied to the airforce and armies as well, americans out front, Europeans, far back. With their learned helplessness. I look forward to seeing how effectively Germany spends their $100 b euro to make the world a safer place.
*RANT OFF*

I can see the Hobarts limitations, but we seem to be running out of options and these things are coming to slap Australia in the face anyway. We already have the limitations of the hobart and they will be part of the fleet for the next 20-30 years.

Even if the hunter project suddenly jumped ahead of schedule, it doesn't address all the other issues, such as the hobart upgrade risk. Dreaming about evolved Hunters IMO is a long way off, particularly the struggles the program has now with Australian ambitions. I also feel that many feel that Australia's ambitions derail our military projects. Our dreaming of upgrading fairly ordinary euro stuff into Ubermench weapons spirals our programs out of control.

 

[Volkodav]

I recall a conversation I had in a professional setting pre AF100 selection where I questioned why we were choosing between a Euro frigate and a Baby Burke, when South Korea and Japan were both building enhanced Burke's. The answer was cost.

Now over a decade later we a spending enough to buy another two ships, upgrading ships we knew would need to be, and would be difficult and expensive to upgrade.

I recall a senior sir lamenting that we had spent so much time and effort developing requirements only to completely ignore them. Others lamenting that we had spent so long building robust local supply chains only to choose Navantias underperforming, withered supply chain instead.

I recall highly experienced engineers, technical officers and designers pulling their hair out trying to cram the limited improvements we had selected into an already too tight design, and clearly stating that future upgrades would be very expensive and very compromised. I recall an associate professor advising the project stating that a minimum of four ships would be required, if not more, as regular maintenance and needed upgrades would often see a fleet of three unable to deploy even a single ship.

All of this occured before the first blocks were completed, all was well known and understood, then ignored. Even before China was the glaring, in our faces threat it is today, it was known we needed a minimum of four, preferably five or more, larger, more capable ships than the Hobart's.

The saddest thing is if you read Shackleton's Phd thesis, it shows we have simply repeated the errors of the past. We went for the cheapest option that met the minimum of our requirements then had to spend decades and billions of achieving a compromised version of what we could have had at the start if we had been smarter and spent more upfront.

This wasn't just selecting a DLG instead of a DDG, not just acquiring more hulls, it was also choosing a more capable carrier that could safely operate more advanced aircraft and many other examples.

We spend huge sums on defence for very little return. We select too small, too limited options that hamstring top end capability for decades because they are seen as cheaper than the options prefered by professionals. Then we spend billions more than the better option would have cost trying to close the gap.

On the other hand often second tier capability, that is seen as not as critical, with multiple suitable off the shelf options, well supported multinational programs, economically sensible local content options, and we go the gold plated Gucci option that ultimately fails, delivers nothing, or performs so badly it needs to be replaced early.

The riskier and more difficult the project, the better we do, even factoring political interference and artificial limitations. The simpler the project, often the worse the stuff up because of pork barreling, egos, and a lack of rigueur.

 

[spoz]

Sea 4000 Ph 6 doesn't replace SPY-1D with CEAFAR; it's an Aegis update and replacing the Raytheon (read Konsberg) Austalian Tactical Interface with ta SAAB system.

The ANZAC WIP, which was the upgrade program proposed in the 90s, was assessed as technical very high risk.

 

[Flexson]

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.

That was little more than a CGI advertisement. None of the design would have actually been fleshed out. The significant time we are taking and the delays we are seeing doing the detailed design for the BAE future frigate (Hunter) would apply to that design just the same. Would probably take even longer because they would be starting with a smaller even more constrained hull.

 

[Takao]

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.

...

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.

...

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.

In addition to these excellent points, note two things.

1 - the electronics shortages are already putting crimps on major things. A particularly successful, important and widely used system related to comms will not be made in 2023 or 24, despite ~eight figures of orders from the ADF alone, let alone European orders. Why? Not enough xenon to make the 'brain box'. Any orders placed now may be delivered in 2025. I have ~5 - 6 major primes I deal with - internationally renowned and excellent in the areas I work with them - who are battling supply shortages for various things. 3 month orders are now 18. 6 month orders 24 - 30. If you can tell me with a straight face there are no issues in the acquisition of new radars, comms, weapons systems, electronics or the like for a major surface vessel, I'm going to laugh and call you either ignorant or a liar.

2 - where do the crew come from? Decommissioned Anzac's? Ok, but you aren't fixing the hull numbers problem. And if the build/supply/obsolescence/power issues mentioned by @Todjaeger and @alexsa come true, then you've prematurely decommissioned an Anzac (you have to decommission the Anzac before commissioning the new Hobart). There's an element of risk there...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Where do the crews of the hobart go while their ships are being upgraded between 2024-2030.

Sea 4000 Ph 6 doesn't replace SPY-1D with CEAFAR; it's an Aegis update and replacing the Raytheon (read Konsberg) Austalian Tactical Interface with ta SAAB system.

I may have conflated things said earlier around sea5000 and the F-5000 project onto the Sea4000 phase 6. My bad, but my argument is things are quite opaque what we are getting for $5.1 billion. It would appear the radars are being changed, but where as Pyne was basically saying the Sea5000 fitout would be backported onto the Hobarts, that may have changed. Marcus also didn't make thing clearer with his Hobart Block II stuff.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/delivering-stronger-navy-faster

Installing the CEAFAR radar on the Hobart Block II would provide commonality with the Hunter class but would require design work. Fortunately, some of that has been done already for the competitive evaluation process for the future frigate.

South Australia confirmed for Collins & Hobart class upgrades | ADBR

The Commonwealth has confirmed that the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins class submarine Life-of-Type Extension (LTE) and Hobart class destroyer upgrade will be conducted at the Osborne yard in Adelaide. The…

adbr.com.au

While details on the upgrade of the destroyers are scarce, it is believed to include an upgrade to the ships’ Aegis combat system to at least a Baseline 9 or possibly Baseline 10 (BL9/BL10) configuration, and possibly the replacement of the SPY-1D(V) primary sensors with more modern Raytheon SPY-6(V)1 or (V)4 radars being developed for the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke class Flight III and Flight IIA destroyers respectively.

But I am not sure where Andrew got that information from (2021).

If we wanted to fire SM-3 or be involved in SM-3 fires I would imagine that is the way to go. In that region, 3 ships isn't enough for SM-3 capability anyway, as we are talking about a single ship being deployable, and BMD requires more than a single ship. Moving forward to a network force, highlight this limitation in the RAN. 3 hobarts isn't enough. Its not enough for and upgrade without creating a capability gap, which is why 3 of anything isn't a real capability. With naval weapon systems of the future requiring more than one ship to perform activities, we have failed to invest enough into high end naval platforms. Its not about (just) VLS. Its about platforms and systems.

Either way, it Spy 1DV are likely to be deep sixed, and new radar mast welded into place with power, cooling, data, access etc issues to be addressed. But it would appear there is enough key long lead equipment for a new build (Combat system, radar, etc. Hunter systems etc are being ordered as well but may end up in storage etc. If we are spending $5b without a radar upgrade, then I question the value of the upgrade, to allow capabilities we will never use with 3 ships and an older generation radar not suitable for newer weapon and high end applications.

IMO building new Hobart's, with the new systems, then upgrading the existing Hobart's would give no capability gap and Spy 1dv while a bit dated is quite usable, and with CEC a fleet mix of old and new could still be intergraded into a singular networked force.

 

[Milne Bay]

Where do the crews of the hobart go while their ships are being upgraded between 2024-2030.



I may have conflated things said earlier around sea5000 and the F-5000 project onto the Sea4000 phase 6. My bad, but my argument is things are quite opaque what we are getting for $5.1 billion. It would appear the radars are being changed, but where as Pyne was basically saying the Sea5000 fitout would be backported onto the Hobarts, that may have changed. Marcus also didn't make thing clearer with his Hobart Block II stuff.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/delivering-stronger-navy-faster

Installing the CEAFAR radar on the Hobart Block II would provide commonality with the Hunter class but would require design work. Fortunately, some of that has been done already for the competitive evaluation process for the future frigate.

South Australia confirmed for Collins & Hobart class upgrades | ADBR

The Commonwealth has confirmed that the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins class submarine Life-of-Type Extension (LTE) and Hobart class destroyer upgrade will be conducted at the Osborne yard in Adelaide. The…

adbr.com.au

While details on the upgrade of the destroyers are scarce, it is believed to include an upgrade to the ships’ Aegis combat system to at least a Baseline 9 or possibly Baseline 10 (BL9/BL10) configuration, and possibly the replacement of the SPY-1D(V) primary sensors with more modern Raytheon SPY-6(V)1 or (V)4 radars being developed for the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke class Flight III and Flight IIA destroyers respectively.

But I am not sure where Andrew got that information from (2021).

If we wanted to fire SM-3 or be involved in SM-3 fires I would imagine that is the way to go. In that region, 3 ships isn't enough for SM-3 capability anyway, as we are talking about a single ship being deployable, and BMD requires more than a single ship. Moving forward to a network force, highlight this limitation in the RAN. 3 hobarts isn't enough. Its not enough for and upgrade without creating a capability gap, which is why 3 of anything isn't a real capability. With naval weapon systems of the future requiring more than one ship to perform activities, we have failed to invest enough into high end naval platforms. Its not about (just) VLS. Its about platforms and systems.

Either way, it Spy 1DV are likely to be deep sixed, and new radar mast welded into place with power, cooling, data, access etc issues to be addressed. But it would appear there is enough key long lead equipment for a new build (Combat system, radar, etc. Hunter systems etc are being ordered as well but may end up in storage etc. If we are spending $5b without a radar upgrade, then I question the value of the upgrade, to allow capabilities we will never use with 3 ships and an older generation radar not suitable for newer weapon and high end applications.

IMO building new Hobart's, with the new systems, then upgrading the existing Hobart's would give no capability gap and Spy 1dv while a bit dated is quite usable, and with CEC a fleet mix of old and new could still be intergraded into a singular networked force.

This is what I was thinking when I asked my question earlier.
Makes good sense to me all round
MB

 

[oldsig127]

Which could have grown into something like the F124. Something around 5000-6,000t, room for upto 32 cell vls, 2 helicopters. That would be handy to have.

I guess I look at South Korea, I look at Japan, I look at other nations and what they can do.

They all have an existing naval ship building industry. In this forum we appear to be suggesting everything possible to ensure we can NEVER do waht they do.

The Hobarts is where we are. The only surface combatant we can start production on is a Hobart. We have already built 3 and are committing over $5 billion at least, at least to upgrade just those 3. We should have never stopped building hobart hulls. A 4th Hobart at <$2b and subsequent Hobarts at less than that sound pretty attractive.

We should never have stopped at three, yes, but we can't start production on a new build Hobart, because so much of the existing fitout is simply no longer available, nor the suppliers, nor the trained crafts people, techicians, experienced and able planners etc. They'd need a major redesign, which sets us back to waiting until we have something ready to build. Again.

oldsig

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Can I ask, if what StingrayOZ is suggesting isn't feasible, is there a way to boost the RAN surface force over the next decade?

I know we keep saying Navantia has made an unsolicited offer here, and they have, but it is worth keeping in mind that Labor went into the election saying they would look at surface forces, including potentially acquiring more Hobarts. So it didn't all come out of nowhere.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Hobarts is where we are. The only surface combatant we can start production on is a Hobart. We have already built 3 and are committing over $5 billion at least, at least to upgrade just those 3. We should have never stopped building hobart hulls. A 4th Hobart at <$2b and subsequent hobarts at less than that sound pretty attractive.

I can see the Hobarts limitations, but we seem to be running out of options and these things are coming to slap Australia in the face anyway. We already have the limitations of the hobart and they will be part of the fleet for the next 20-30 years.

As I understand it, production of new Hobart-class cannot be undertaken, by anyone. Again, as I understand it, this is due to some of the systems or subsystems fitted to the RAN DDG's are no longer in production, as well as some of the ships systems no longer being up to current standard and compliance. It is for these reasons (and others) that such an expensive upgrade programme is expected for the three Hobart-class DDG's.

Now it might be possible to take the existing design work for the DDG's and modify them to fit currently available kit that are functional equivalents to what is no longer available, but this would mean that the base design is now different. Such design changes would need to be reviewed and approved prior to placing orders and starting construction, otherwise the RAN could order a ship and end up getting a turtle or "submarine".

All this work could of course be done, but at some point the question of whether it would be worth it has to come up. I personally believe the answer to the question of it being "worth it" is a resounding, "No." I believe this despite recognizing that there is a very real chance that the RAN might need additional DDG's within the next ten years.

Now, my reason for thinking that attempting to order new build "Hobart II" DDG's is not worth it is because I do not believe that such proposed vessels would be able to be delivered and enter service prior to the start of the Hunter-class FFG's entering service. At that point, I would then have to ask whether it would really be sensible for the RAN to acquire more DDG's of a design that is nearly at or at max size, displacement, and power generation capacity, or just increase the FFG drumbeat to get more examples of a larger vessel. This is of course also assuming that the RAN, ADF and AusGov agree that the size of the majors fleet should be increased beyond current plans.

A significant portion of my thinking is influenced by what I would anticipate the timeline for a "Hobart II" build programme to be. I would expect that it would take ~two years to go through the various design changes and requests that would be a part of such an order, as well as then getting contracts actually signed. BTW it could also potentially take quite a bit longer, particularly if there were problems accessing the design IP, or if there was a formatting issue with the design data. IIRC one of the issues that was encountered by various yards doing block work for the Hobart-class found that some of the design drawings they received were not quite accurate or to spec. If such design and contracting work were to commence today, then a contract might be signed and orders placed in mid-2024. Assuming that there was yard space and a workforce available somewhere at the time, initial construction might be able to also start in mid-2024, but more importantly the long-lead items would then be able to get ordered. Again going off my recollections of the SEA 4000 programme Aegis & SPY-1D delivery time frames, orders placed for that kit in mid-2024 might be ready for delivery to the shipyard for fitting aboard ship in mid-2027. Since I have NFI whether or not the global chip shortage is also impacting components used by the Aegis CMS and/or SPY arrays, I could also foresee initial delivery dates of that kit being later than 2027. Once the kit is actually delivered to be fitted during construction, I would expect that to take another year or two for actual construction, and then builders trials and system testing prior to handover to the RAN, which would then also need to do crew work ups before being able to actually deploy the new vessel. Given my rough guestimates, I would not anticipate the RAN having a new, deployable DDG before 2032 and that is assuming that work got underway immediately and that no major issues were encountered.

Looking at some of what I can find of the original SEA 4000 timeline, contracts were signed for the vessels in 2007, with the builders of the ship blocks selected in 2009, and provisional acceptance of Nuship Hobart in 2017, a decade after the contracts ordering the vessels were signed. Now parts of that process might be able to be shortened a little, but since AFAIK there is no existing design available for a build to print order, time would have to get added before a contract could be signed. Either way, I would anticipate around a decade would be required before the first vessel of a new order would be in service.

 

[Todjaeger]

Can I ask, if what StingrayOZ is suggesting isn't feasible, is there a way to boost the RAN surface force over the next decade?

I know we keep saying Navantia has made an unsolicited offer here, and they have, but it is worth keeping in mind that Labor went into the election saying they would look at surface forces, including potentially acquiring more Hobarts. So it didn't all come out of nowhere.

There are potentially a few ways that might (emphasis on MIGHT) be viable to expand the number of major warships in the RAN within the next decade. Whether or not they would really be a good and worthwhile idea or not is another question entirely, as is the question of who and how would the RAN manage to crew additional frigates and/or destroyers.

Basically one would have to look at currently active naval build programmes with 'hot' production lines for frigates and/or destroyers and see what nations' might have the ability and willingness to accommodate a RAN order of whatever they already have in production. However, this would then introduce potential problems for the RAN because of new systems and kit fitted for the original country which would not otherwise be in use by the RAN and might not even have information available in English for RAN crews. Looking at various build programmes for navies of friendly or allied nations, it seems that there are only a few nations with active build programmes for frigates or destroyers and which might have the capability to fit in an order from Australia. The two which seem most likely would be an Italian FREMM order, or orders placed with S. Korea for either Daegu-class FFG's or Sejong the Great-class DDG's. Japan's naval construction does not seem to be currently building frigates or destroyers but might be able to build more examples of the Maya-class DDG which were recently constructed for the JMSDF. Whilst the US does have active programmes to build frigates (again!) and is building more AB destroyers, I have doubts about whether or not US naval ship construction is sufficient to meet expected USN needs, never mind additional orders for the RAN.

The basic gist is that there just are not very many options available to rapidly expand the size of the RAN, and (IMO at least) none of them good options.

 

[spoz]

The simplest way would be to increase the drumbeat of Hunter. It's currently planned to deliver a ship every two years; that could almost certainly be increased to one every 18 months and conceivably one every 12 months. There was 13 months between Hobart and Brisbane; and Sydney would have been 12 months after that but for the mods to take MH-60R. No new build of anything else is likely to be delivered much before the first Hunter anyway; even the Navantia offer with a build in Spain doesn't offer to buy more than a year or two.

 

[ngatimozart]

It's time to take a step back and have a look at this in the cold light of day.

• Who benefits the most from such a proposal?
  • Navantia and Spain, certainly not Australia because they won't be built in Australia.
    • Australian yards aren't in a position to undertake a build program of three new DDGs because of the current build program that is being put into place.
• How risky is such a proposal for the Commonwealth of Australia?
  • Quite because Navantia will be using this project to rebuild its FFG building expertise.
  • The potential for both cost and time overruns will be quite high because the integration will be highly complex, far more complex than usual, especially on the first ship.
• How is the RAN going to crew such vessels, considering it has crewing and recruiting problems now?
  • Where are you going to find the experienced people from, especially the technical people with 10 - 15 years experience? You only need one or two technical rates short and that's a ship prevented from sailing. I kid you not. These are mission critical people and they can be difficult to retain.
• Why would the CoA build new DDGs that would be smaller and potentially less capable than the Hunter Class FFG?
  • Size wise they will be smaller and there's not much room for future upgrades. 48 VLS on a DDG is a Claytons DDG - A DDG when you're not having a DDG. There are FFGs with that number of VLS cells and the Hunter Class would be quite capable of having 48 VLS cells possibly even more. If you want to build more DDG, which BTW you should, use a modified Hunter Class hull. You might be able to fit 64 VLS to it with some modification, like the omission of the mission bays for example.
• Is it in the long term interest of the of the CoA and ADF for such an offer to be accepted?.
  • No, definitely not because there is no advantage to Australia or the ADF. It will lock the RAN into an inferior platform for 20 - 30 years and that is the last thing that both Australia and the ADF require at the moment.
• Where would they fit in the overall ADF / RAN logistical chain?
  • It's another logistical chain that has to b built up and activated. This isn't cheap because it adds extra costs to the organisation in people and storage space. It will also add extra costs in the technical and maintenance chain because it will be new machinery etc., that's being added to the fleet. That's spare parts that have to be accounted for, stored separately etc., and that all costs money and time. Thy can also be easily lost too, especially if they are small.

Just because the proposal features vessels that are similar to the current Hobart Class DDG doesn't mean that they are extra special super duper $hit hot and the best thing since Nelson whipped the Frogs and Spaniards at Trafalgar. That they aren't and there are far better designs capable of performing the role.

This proposal possibly could be seen as a cynical ploy attached to Australia's EU FTA negotiations. Accept this offer and we'll do our best to ensure that your FTA is accepted by all the EU members; don't and we may vote no, which will be the end of your FTA with the EU. That's why I am suspicious of the offer coming via the Spanish PM. Yes I know Navantia is a SOE.

So look at the wider aspects rather than just focussing upon the particular capability / platform because there are always more issue to a capability rather than just the platform itself. You must be able to assess its capabilities in the wider context rather than just of its armament, looks, or how fast it can go. None of that matters if it doesn't meet the wider needs of the navy or has the potential to create significant problems further down the line.

 

[Massive]

The simplest way would be to increase the drumbeat of Hunter. It's currently planned to deliver a ship every two years; that could almost certainly be increased to one every 18 months and conceivably one every 12 months. There was 13 months between Hobart and Brisbane; and Sydney would have been 12 months after that but for the mods to take MH-60R. No new build of anything else is likely to be delivered much before the first Hunter anyway; even the Navantia offer with a build in Spain doesn't offer to buy more than a year or two.

This feels like the viable option.

I feel it would not be unreasonable to go as far as:

1. Look to accelerate the program & increase the drumbeat

2. Batch build in batches of 3/4

3. Can the upgrades to the AWDs

4. Batch 3 an AWD version of Hunter

5. Batch 4 ASW

Or something like that. From the discussion above the Navantia offer isn't realistic. There aren't really alternatives to the Hunter. So surely pushing on is the way to go.

Regards,

Massive