Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Going Boeing]

Spain seems to understand into the regional issue and tension between Osborne and Henderson having a similar internal issue itself. After some poking around they intend to work with Henderson for most of the Australian work, and Henderson is receptive to that idea. Henderson doesn't have the BAE/IP/ASC issue that Osborne has. TBH Spain doesn't care and has experience with Spain has big yards and the government is flexible to try and score work. On top of that the Spanish Navy has shown great interest in Australia and supporting Australia, through the Hobarts, the Canberra's and the Supply classes.

Even ignoring any new build Hobarts. Spain is a strong bidder on some of the amphibious and support ships, and the same sort of local industry issues also pop up with these projects, as does training sailors and other support systems. We need to look alive and act now. Time is critical.

Apart from the desire for short term gain with additional AWD’s, it’s quite possible that Spain is also playing the long game. Establishing a strong working relationship with Henderson (Civmec) would probably assist in getting the Navantia Australia Joint Support Ship design being selected.

Navantia Australia JSS

 

[StingrayOZ]

Apart from the desire for short term gain with additional AWD’s, it’s quite possible that Spain is also playing the long game. Establishing a strong working relationship with Henderson (Civmec) would probably assist in getting the Navantia Australia Joint Support Ship design being selected.

Entirely possible. Although that could change... Change upwards?

There are multiple support, logistics and amphibious projects, as well as 3 x hobarts, 2 x Canberras, 2 x supply class to be supported and upgraded. If 3 new hobarts were acquired, and based in WA, they would be all over that too. Henderson could then continue to push Navantia designs for projects. BAE has quite a hold on ASC and Osborne. No one is going to change that. Anything that basically gets built at ASC has to go through BAE, pretty much. To be fair, Osborne will be flooded with work on Hunters, Collins LOTE, Hobart upgrade, then the nuclear subs.

There is no doubt a commercial aspect. But its linked with other things. WA wants more defence dollars spent in wa particularly if the subs mean mix east/west basing. Civmec needs a design partner and support. Navantia wants a way back into production in Oz. There is a strategic thing too. Basing ships over at WA, well they will need DDG's for that in the near future. Stephen Smith, is a sand groper, I don't think that is a huge factor but there it is.

How does Australia practice ASW with all the subs on one side and all the ASW capability on the west? 3 destroyers isn't enough, particularly if they are all being cutup for refit. With collins refit, yes, a hole develops in capability, while a Hobart isn't a sub, it can do land strike, it can help hunt subs, it is a point of presence. 2030 is a long wait to be getting new hunters, but more than that, 1 isn't a game changer, there would need to be 3. No way is 3 happening by 2030, even if it did this the continuous ship building goes out the window. New hobarts would probably take some of the pressure off trying to make the hunters do everything have bigger VLS counts and speculating about it in the broadsheets.

The JSS/logistics part seems to be coming to a head because the Army Land400 projects are now under pressure to be cut because we can't "move them all around". Also the MH60R buy means perhaps some of the amphibious priority can be moved off the LHD's, and these may pick up more of a ASW role.

There are a lot of people guessing at what may or may not happen with the defence review. Its not really clear what the ADF/RAN/AUSGOV want or need. Navantia are betting they will want something that they have to offer.

November isn't far away. We will likely know then what has legs and what does not. But things are globally falling apart much faster than most expected. As we go forward, opportunities and options will close up quite quickly as time runs out. No amount of money, pressure or media will change that. We are seeing that with subs now.

When the music stops, and the lights go down, Australia better have picked a good plan and have those elements in play. There is no time to wish for new toys.

 

[spoz]

There is no tension between Henderson and Osborne. Civmec‘s yard is fully committed at present building Arafuras while Osborne is completing two Arafuras and building prototype Hunter blocks. The company Civmec they bought in Newcastle was Forgacs, named after its founder Steve Forgacs, who was an interesting bloke to deal with. I haven’t been to that yard for some years but have been told it is now essentially non existent

 

[Stampede]

There is no tension between Henderson and Osborne. Civmec‘s yard is fully committed at present building Arafuras while Osborne is completing two Arafuras and building prototype Hunter blocks. The company Civmec they bought in Newcastle was Forgacs, named after its founder Steve Forgacs, who was an interesting bloke to deal with. I haven’t been to that yard for some years but have been told it is now essentially non existent

I'm open to the "concept" of additional destroyers.
If additional Hobart's are a realistic option and can be completed much quicker than the intended Hunter class its certainly well worth a look into.

Realistically the Hunter Class will not offer a great deal of additional capability to the fleet until at least two or three are in service, which is probably not till the mid 2030's at best.

So yes, additional Hobart's look appealing either as replacements for the oldest ANZAC Class vessels or compliments to the existing fleet of eight.

Again many questions would need to be answered across manufacturing feasibility, political acceptance, crew availability and finances.

I just don't have these answers to make a call.

So yes, I agree time is not on our side and we need increased capability sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately it appears we are on a loop until some clarity offered.

Frustrating times.


Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

Any change or addition now is going to cause delays as industry and RAN are running at capacity. Where we are now is the result of decisions made five, fifteen and twenty five years ago, any changes we make now will take years to see the result and will likely impact and delay current plans.

 

[Stampede]

Any change or addition now is going to cause delays as industry and RAN are running at capacity. Where we are now is the result of decisions made five, fifteen and twenty five years ago, any changes we make now will take years to see the result and will likely impact and delay current plans.

Unfortunately I feel that is the reality.

That said, I am mindful of what mountains can be moved when when a nation ramps up to meet a major threat.
Two world wars are an example of such commitment.

So while I don't disagree with our current peace time manufacturing reality; I'm also open to other reality's based on perception of threat and the reality of commitment to meet such a challenge.

What do we see through the looking glass and how do we respond?


Thanks S

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile Birdies on the job in NSW flood response.....
"Ground crew from 816 Squadron replenish a MH-60R Seahawk Helicopter at RAAF Base Williamtown in preparation to support the NSW flood response." Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[ADMk2]

In tomorrow’s ‘The Australian’

DSR / RAN are considering a fleet of small missile armed warships to “boost firepower” rapidly, which sounds like a death-knell for the prospect of additional AWD’s if it were chosen.

Broadly they are looking at 10-12 missile corvettes, similar to K130 but with increased missile capabilities, ala SA’AR 5 etc.

Budget is around $5b…

Pay-walled so I can’t link directly…

I suppose OPV’s -> Border Protection Command to assist with RAN manning, BPC boats retired early to cater for BPC manning, possibly to gift existing BPC to other nations to build presence and support...

 

[Wombat000]

Very interesting.
may I also humbly suggest a serious review into the feasibility in rapidly acquiring a SHIP borne capability to realistically prosecute submarine targets. - eg ASROC or similar ranged weapon.

the requirement didn’t vanish just cos we retired Ilkara.

whilst a helicopter may be optimal, it is a system of millions of moving parts that sometimes ground the aircraft.
There must be a better redundancy for the ship itself to address targets when the helo is unavailable to do it.

as I say, it is MHO, but it’s requirement is as obvious as dog bits!

 

[ADMk2]

Very interesting.
may I also humbly suggest a serious review into the feasibility in rapidly acquiring a SHIP borne capability to realistically prosecute submarine targets. - eg ASROC or similar ranged weapon.

the requirement didn’t vanish just cos we retired Ilkara.

whilst a helicopter may be optimal, it is a system of millions of moving parts that sometimes ground the aircraft.
There must be a better redundancy for the ship itself to address targets when the helo is unavailable to do it.

as I say, it is MHO, but it’s requirement is as obvious as dog bits!

Save your precious vertical launch cells for other missions, I say…

 

[Wombat000]

the pic looks like an example of a solution for ship-borne ranged ASW.
it (I guess) does not require a complex helicopter to prosecute a target once it’s acquired.

if the solution is thinking outside the box, or VLS cell, then it’s still a potential solution.

 

[Redlands18]

I think we will also see Light Weight Torpedoes fitted to surface and subsurface Drones, their loitering ability will be far superior to UAVs.

 

[Wombat000]

Thanks for your summation Redlands.
again, its very encouraging.

I appreciate many of these solutions are probably still only at varying concept stages, but examples such as a ranged TF or convoy ASW screen with more persistence and resilient to environmental and operational circumstance - perhaps such as motherships with drones should be as I commented earlier, a very high priority for the review.

the folly is I think accepting just a helo without an organic Plan B, simply cos that’s how it’s been done.
(thumbs up)

 

[Redlands18]

Thanks for your summation Redlands.
again, its very encouraging.

I appreciate many of these solutions are probably still only at varying concept stages, but examples such as a ranged TF or convoy ASW screen with more persistence and resilient to environmental and operational circumstance - perhaps such as motherships with drones should be as I commented earlier, a very high priority for the review.

the folly is I think accepting just a helo without an organic Plan B, simply cos that’s how it’s been done.
(thumbs up)

I don't see an ASROC type system having a long-term future, the ship is still within Torpedo range of a Sub when firing and it's a one-shot weapon, fit the Torpedo to a surface or subsurface Drone and you are able to recover both if unused.

 

[buffy9]

In tomorrow’s ‘The Australian’

DSR / RAN are considering a fleet of small missile armed warships to “boost firepower” rapidly, which sounds like a death-knell for the prospect of additional AWD’s if it were chosen.

Broadly they are looking at 10-12 missile corvettes, similar to K130 but with increased missile capabilities, ala SA’AR 5 etc.

Budget is around $5b…

Pay-walled so I can’t link directly…

I suppose OPV’s -> Border Protection Command to assist with RAN manning, BPC boats retired early to cater for BPC manning, possibly to gift existing BPC to other nations to build presence and support...

ABC has also put out a piece, whether influenced by the Australian or not...

'97 years late': Expensive problems on major defence projects concern federal government

A $4 billion offshore patrol vessel project is included on a list of at least 28 major defence projects considered to be running a cumulative 97 years late.

www.abc.net.au

It seems like the DSR is setting up for a big step-change in overall plans. REDSPICE under the old government, the SSNs, new projects being speculated (corvettes, whether that ends up being true or not). A lot of major additions not necessarily present in the 2020 FSP, whether or not the DSU remains relevant.

Both the ABC and the Australian articles cite an $80 billion figure per year. Will look through the numbers tomorrow when I can, but this seems to be a gross or even malicious oversimplification of what inflation is doing...

On the corvettes (assuming it isn't rumour), it is likely a better alternative than trying to uparm the OPVs. Still, the $5bil is coming from somewhere as cost overruns are being reported on. That, and it is a major addition to the shipbuilding plan...

 

[Stampede]

Any change or addition now is going to cause delays as industry and RAN are running at capacity. Where we are now is the result of decisions made five, fifteen and twenty five years ago, any changes we make now will take years to see the result and will likely impact and delay current plans.

ABC has also put out a piece, whether influenced by the Australian or not...

'97 years late': Expensive problems on major defence projects concern federal government

A $4 billion offshore patrol vessel project is included on a list of at least 28 major defence projects considered to be running a cumulative 97 years late.

www.abc.net.au

It seems like the DSR is setting up for a big step-change in overall plans. REDSPICE under the old government, the SSNs, new projects being speculated (corvettes, whether that ends up being true or not). A lot of major additions not necessarily present in the 2020 FSP, whether or not the DSU remains relevant.

Both the ABC and the Australian articles cite an $80 billion figure per year. Will look through the numbers tomorrow when I can, but this seems to be a gross or even malicious oversimplification of what inflation is doing...

On the corvettes (assuming it isn't rumour), it is likely a better alternative than trying to uparm the OPVs. Still, the $5bil is coming from somewhere as cost overruns are being reported on. That, and it is a major addition to the shipbuilding plan...

A lot to digest and no answers in the public domain.

Next to no info on NUSHIP Arafura and follow on vessels so any updates will be appreciated.
This ABC piece will continue the rumor mill re this project.

Will we get a statement from defence or an update.

Wait and see



Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

ABC has also put out a piece, whether influenced by the Australian or not...

'97 years late': Expensive problems on major defence projects concern federal government

A $4 billion offshore patrol vessel project is included on a list of at least 28 major defence projects considered to be running a cumulative 97 years late.

www.abc.net.au

It seems like the DSR is setting up for a big step-change in overall plans. REDSPICE under the old government, the SSNs, new projects being speculated (corvettes, whether that ends up being true or not). A lot of major additions not necessarily present in the 2020 FSP, whether or not the DSU remains relevant.

Both the ABC and the Australian articles cite an $80 billion figure per year. Will look through the numbers tomorrow when I can, but this seems to be a gross or even malicious oversimplification of what inflation is doing...

On the corvettes (assuming it isn't rumour), it is likely a better alternative than trying to uparm the OPVs. Still, the $5bil is coming from somewhere as cost overruns are being reported on. That, and it is a major addition to the shipbuilding plan...

I suspect the Corvettes would be at the expense of further Arafura's. They have talked about 2 designs for the Corvettes, the K-130 which is the product of an alliance between TKMS, Nordsweewerke and Lurssen and a version of the Lurssen OPV90, so switching up the build from the Arafura should be reasonably straightforward, Lurssen certainly is going to more than happy to re-negotiate a new deal for a larger vessel.

 

[ddxx]

My concern with Corvettes is that you quickly get to a point where crew size and cost of weapon systems mean you'd be better off going with a light/GP Frigate platform. And that's even before we consider the natural endurance, space, weight and flexibility limitations of a smaller platform.

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this.

 

[spoz]

Suspect the person “familiar with Defence Department deliberations” is probably in ASPI or some such, and pushing an agenda. Nobody actually close to the project and future developments is going to background the press, except possibly the Minister. It’s more than their job is worth.

otherwise, typical current government blaming the last. When this one loses office you can bet that projects will be running late, it’s the nature of defence projects that initial schedules are always optimisti.

 

[hauritz]

I was once a corvette fan by now I am thinking full size warships are probably a better option in the modern combat environment. If smaller armed vessels are required I would tend to look more at unmanned vessels.

For peacetime patrol purposes I think OPVs are fine but if the proverbial hit the fan it would be too hot for OPV/corvette sized vessels.