ADF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

The worry I have is the ADF is some what siloed in its thinking particularly across major high end war fighting platforms, and the lower levels of awareness of the current state of our big and powerful friends. Typically we have always relied on the US to cover holes, and I am not sure that will always be the case. We often focus heavily on future capability, and less about the near future capability.

I think there are solutions, I would just feel more comfortably if they were verbalised by the government and the ADF as measures to be in play.

As I see it, there is no real way for Australia to focus on "near future" capability, as the timeframe to get new/additional examples of capability into service overshoot what could be reasonably described as "near future".

The closest Australia might be able to accomplish is to focus on adding incremental future capabilities. However, that would also require successive future gov'ts to commit to expand both the funding for and size of the ADF so that more kit can be added regularly, as well as the personnel needed to utilize and maintain the additional kit, build and then maintain the additional bases/facilities, etc.

 

[Volkodav]

These are different types of vessels. The LHD has been designed to extended deployment and is capable of being fixed and supported while on mission and for long mission duration. They are big flexible vessels, and it is possible to support ships like that, this way and particularly if not carrying maximum embarked, are designed around higher hotel and stores which can allow them to sustain for longer. I would also point out there have been plenty of issues where our amphibious capability was disrupted by the availability of the vessels and their role was assumed (for regional HDAR) by other ships like Choules and those wacky offshore support ships, the icebreaker Aurora Australis and by New Zealand's converted ferry, Canterbury.

I would gladly point out the fragility of only two LHD's or only two AOR, and the Navy has planned some mixed logistics AOR/amphibious lift ship to address this very proven and well known issue.

The Destroyers are well destroyers.
High performance, highly optimised ships built tightly around their missions with nearly no flexible spaces. An Anzac frigate or a formidable class frigate won't be able to do any of the missions of a Hobart class, it is like asking a Bushmaster PMV to be a M1A2 tank. There is no SM-2 or SM-6 anti air capability. There is no credible antishipping capability. There is no land strike capability with Anzac. Their sensors, while capable, aren't capable of networking into allied fleets, which will be absolutely essential regionally. They are not suitable to lead an air defence for a task group or fleet into less than benign waters.

We will not be able to continue to the type of operations and the tempo of operations we have currently. This may mean ceasing IndoPacific Endeavour operations, perhaps even RIMPAC, and working to a more skeleton selection of home water operations. There is not the crew, not the stores, nor the endurance, to be able to continue the rather hectic pace with 33%+ less assets. Any delay or challenges with the upgrade will also have extremely negative effects on capability.

We have seen the USN drive its destroyer fleet/crew into the ground with being over committed when assets are in short supply possibly contributing to accidents and incidents, equipment failures, crew fatigue etc.


ESSMII and NSM will not enable a Anzac to take on Hobart missions, which by 2028 may not be able to be conducted by older versions of Hobart either. Also its not limited to just Hobarts. Arguably the Collins LOTE is far greater risk and challenge, (new engines, new mast, new weapons, new combat system, new sensors) and we will experience challenges in other areas of the ADF as will our allied partners.

I guess the question is there anything that can be done to help mitigate issues and minimise reduction in capability with our other resources and with our partners.

At this stage, if China openly announced, in public, it would invade Taiwan, in Jan 2028. Would the ADF be in any sort of position to deal with the situation or would we find ourselves very short as one destroyer comes out of refit but not FOC, while another goes onto hard stands, one Collins is in pieces while another again, would be preparing for that, various upgrades of other war fighting equipment such as the F-35, would our sovereign missile capability be established, or deliveries and weapon systems FOC? What would that even mean for sustaining and finishing upgrades of our platforms if things then became very thin on the ground.

The worry I have is the ADF is some what siloed in its thinking particularly across major high end war fighting platforms, and the lower levels of awareness of the current state of our big and powerful friends. Typically we have always relied on the US to cover holes, and I am not sure that will always be the case. We often focus heavily on future capability, and less about the near future capability.

I think there are solutions, I would just feel more comfortably if they were verbalised by the government and the ADF as measures to be in play.

The abortive ANZAC WIP was intended to fit AEGIS and SPY-1F, along with SM-2 to the ANZACs. That is the minimum 2000s fleet was seen to need a minimum of fourteen SM-2 armed frigates (six FFGUP and eight ANZAC WIP).

This compares well to the nine SM-1 and eight to twenty ESSM (ANZAC plus OCV) ships planned earlier. We are currently planning twelve total SM-6 ships (Hobart's plus Hunters).

So this raises the question of why, when we were ordering the AWDs only three were ordered? The requirement existed before and after for about a dozen, where did it disappear to when we were actually placing orders?

I think only ordering three Hobart's will, along with Tiger, MRH, MU90 etc. eventually be seen as just how stuffed up Australia's defence procurement was from the mid 90s to the 2010s.

Maybe all the lazy, useless public servants they replaced with contractors and consultants weren't so bad after all.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Wondering and hoping that there is some (dare I suggest Australian inspired) momentum for RNZN to adopt some Surface Combat capability, and perhaps even a similar ASW upgrade in lock-step with the RAN, after all, they are on our eastern seaboard and potentially an ally?

Perhaps even a cheap Harpoon upgrade?

Certainly there are things that NZ could help out with. Acquiring LRASM/Harpoon/Mk54 for its P8's perhaps. Or NSM for its Anzac class. Seeing its in service dates sync up with RAN or RAAF out of service dates. Both would be fairly low cost sensible measures anyway. It wouldn't even need to be a large stock, as Australia has additional, just minimum actual munitions and training rounds.

As I see it, there is no real way for Australia to focus on "near future" capability, as the timeframe to get new/additional examples of capability into service overshoot what could be reasonably described as "near future".

The closest Australia might be able to accomplish is to focus on adding incremental future capabilities. However, that would also require successive future gov'ts to commit to expand both the funding for and size of the ADF so that more kit can be added regularly, as well as the personnel needed to utilize and maintain the additional kit, build and then maintain the additional bases/facilities, etc.

I guess I am being oblique. The Spanish have made several generous offers to the Australian government. All really, doable significant options at least on surface. One of these is 3 new destroyers before 2030. Fix price with a fixed dead line. They can do this because the heavy overlap with the F-110 project which is in play. A very generous offer that should be heavily considered. Once in a life time coincidence deal. We will not have any other options like this, any other time.

It is possible because the F-110 is essentially a cutdown, lightly fitted, heavy upgraded, modernised F-105. It is basically possible to turn one into the other while in the early stage of construction.

While 2030 may be too late (first ship delivered in 2027), we might be able to manage our fleet upgrades around that so we can conduct them more efficiently.

While its not a submarine, its the best surface ASW unit we have. It is also the best surface and best air defence platform and the only land strike platform. It could be critically useful. Crews would come from Anzacs, but also as so many ships and boats are undergoing upgrades, crews would actually come from ashore positions, if required, in war time.

Even if we choose not to take this offer up we then need to look at the Collins/Hobart/Hunter/Anzac hole in the ADF, and look at the larger hole in western navy fleets (the type 26/type 45 and the Tico/Buke ftI holes).

I also feel like we should continue to see value in the SH fleet until blk 4 at the very least is implemented fleet wide and F-35 spares and logistics improve.

But I am not saying platform must be had. There are other ways we could possibly considered solutions. But in the void where nothing is communicated, the mind wonders.

Either we are seriously preparing for conflict, or we are openly acknowledging fickle capability in our own planning during critical years.

 

[StingrayOZ]

So this raises the question of why, when we were ordering the AWDs only three were ordered? The requirement existed before and after for about a dozen, where did it disappear to when we were actually placing orders?

Which is also a critical thing. 3 Destroyers is never enough. Particularly as the platform will need frequent and extensive aegis and other systems updates. Going forward we have no depth for sustained deployment, upgrades, losses, accidents, improvements etc.

Of course the unspoken promise was the Hunter was going to be better than Hobart. Well in some ways it is, but in others, its less. But either way its not here now, and it won't be in the RAN in numbers until the mid/late 2030's.

Again, if the ADF only has 3 or less of a unit, it really has nothing of that unit as a reliable, deployable, combat ready entity. Having no air defence for our region isn't really acceptable.

 

[Volkodav]

Which is also a critical thing. 3 Destroyers is never enough. Particularly as the platform will need frequent and extensive aegis and other systems updates. Going forward we have no depth for sustained deployment, upgrades, losses, accidents, improvements etc.

Of course the unspoken promise was the Hunter was going to be better than Hobart. Well in some ways it is, but in others, its less. But either way its not here now, and it won't be in the RAN in numbers until the mid/late 2030's.

Again, if the ADF only has 3 or less of a unit, it really has nothing of that unit as a reliable, deployable, combat ready entity. Having no air defence for our region isn't really acceptable.

I suspect that six Hobart's, plus size Hunters would have actually worked out cheaper than the current plan. It was a no brainer, we needed have needed, still need about a dozen majors. Not all need to be high end ASW ships but all need a decent air defence capability, this has been known for decades.

 

[Todjaeger]

I guess I am being oblique. The Spanish have made several generous offers to the Australian government. All really, doable significant options at least on surface. One of these is 3 new destroyers before 2030. Fix price with a fixed dead line. They can do this because the heavy overlap with the F-110 project which is in play. A very generous offer that should be heavily considered. Once in a life time coincidence deal. We will not have any other options like this, any other time.

It is possible because the F-110 is essentially a cutdown, lightly fitted, heavy upgraded, modernised F-105. It is basically possible to turn one into the other while in the early stage of construction.

While 2030 may be too late (first ship delivered in 2027), we might be able to manage our fleet upgrades around that so we can conduct them more efficiently.

I will state that I consider the Spanish offers rather suspect. Navantia started construction of the lead F-110 class vessel earlier this year, and from a Spanish Armada document from May of this year, there is anticipation that the lead vessel will be commissioned ~2025 and enter service in 2026, if my Spanish is accurate. According to the current timeline, the fifth/last F-110 frigate should enter service ~2031. Spain and/or Navantia might claim that they could have three frigates or destroyers for Australia in service by 2030 but IMO that is very optimistic at best.

As I see it, the most likely path for that to happen would be if Spain were to 'sell' the F-110 vessels that were already at least part way through the process of getting ordered and built to Australia, and Spain/Navantia would also need to not run into any snags or issues whilst building these vessels.

Given that we are talking about an entirely new vessel class, including lead ship construction, and AFAIK it appears to have been about a decade since the shipyard has built a frigate or destroyer, I feel that a two or three year time frame between the lead ship being laid down and getting launched & commissioned is rather optimistic.

One also needs to look at what the F-110 is intended to be, an ASW frigate with some air defence capabilities provided by 16 VLS cells. In short, it would be a frigate larger and likely as or somewhat more capable than the current ANZAC-class frigates, but not as capable as the planned Hunter-class FFG's, and certainly not in an air defence role.

There would also be the very real issue in that the RAN would need to start operating a Spanish frigate, rather than an Australianized version of a Spanish design. All of the interfaces and data systems that RAN personnel are used to working with or working on would be different.

If the expectation is instead that Navantia could manage a simultaneous build of an Australianized version, IMO that is unrealistic since design work would need to be done to actually fit the kit which Australia would use. Until this was completed, the various pieces of kit could not be ordered, nor could the base vessel be laid down (assuming that the Navantia yard also had the space and/or personnel to actually physically manage a simultaneous build).

What I tend to suspect the Spanish offer is really all about, is that Spain does not actually want/cannot afford both improvements to the shipyard and workforce, as well as the ship design itself, and is looking for someone else to fund redeveloping the yard, re-skilling the workforce, as well as getting the F-110 build programme far enough along to get the inevitable design problems worked out.

 

[CJR]

What 2nd hand Vessels?

You never know... With the poms' current political and economic conditions we might be able to pick up a lightly used Carrier Battle Group cheap.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I will state that I consider the Spanish offers rather suspect. Navantia started construction of the lead F-110 class vessel earlier this year, and from a Spanish Armada document from May of this year, there is anticipation that the lead vessel will be commissioned ~2025 and enter service in 2026, if my Spanish is accurate. According to the current timeline, the fifth/last F-110 frigate should enter service ~2031. Spain and/or Navantia might claim that they could have three frigates or destroyers for Australia in service by 2030 but IMO that is very optimistic at best.

I guess I would want to see any amazing offer concidered and rejected on tangible grounds. As I said, it is not the only way forward, but to say there is clearly no options so we can't do anything is also clearly untrue. Particularly if it was unexamined and ruled out "on principle" or by "captains call".

As I see it, the most likely path for that to happen would be if Spain were to 'sell' the F-110 vessels that were already at least part way through the process of getting ordered and built to Australia, and Spain/Navantia would also need to not run into any snags or issues whilst building these vessels.

There is apparently very high levels of commonality between the F-110 and any proposed new build F-105 "Super-hobarts". Particularly below the hull. Aegis, VLS, sub-systems, machinery, radar, etc are all common. It is apparently more of a reconfiguration between the two than two separate designs. Again heresay and rumor.

Spain is offering capability by pushing its own program around for Australia as a valued customer. However, Spain is going to build those ships, this offer isn't indefinite. The resources aren't continuously available.

Given that we are talking about an entirely new vessel class, including lead ship construction, and AFAIK it appears to have been about a decade since the shipyard has built a frigate or destroyer, I feel that a two or three year time frame between the lead ship being laid down and getting launched & commissioned is rather optimistic.

Perhaps. I appears to be a low risk design, between Spain and Australia's ship yard capabilities, there are very significant capabilities, we are talking the total capabilities of two of the most capable middle power nations. Certainly an aggressive build, but that doesn't rule it out. Atleast its a build program that a government and industry agree can be build, unlike the unreasonably early hunter build strategy that had steel being cut in 2020.

One also needs to look at what the F-110 is intended to be, an ASW frigate with some air defence capabilities provided by 16 VLS cells. In short, it would be a frigate larger and likely as or somewhat more capable than the current ANZAC-class frigates, but not as capable as the planned Hunter-class FFG's, and certainly not in an air defence role.

That is not what would be built if we took up the option. It would be a Hobart. 48 VLS, Aegis, SPY-7. In terms of sewer, mech services, some other sub systems they would be common across both builds. But the offer isn't to build F-110, its to build a "F-105 Destroyer" simular to the Hobart class. It still has the limitations of the Hobart class, only 48 vls, only one CIWS, only one helo, limited growth and upgrade margin. Again, it is to fill out and sustain our destroyer capability, it is not to replace Hunters.

If the expectation is instead that Navantia could manage a simultaneous build of an Australianized version, IMO that is unrealistic since design work would need to be done to actually fit the kit which Australia would use. Until this was completed, the various pieces of kit could not be ordered, nor could the base vessel be laid down (assuming that the Navantia yard also had the space and/or personnel to actually physically manage a simultaneous build).

This would seem to be reasonable and understandable grounds to reject the proposal. Publically. I think it could be done so no ones feelings would be hurt, the F-105 programs are now evolving into seperate programs from their origional base design. But my point is, where is this analysis? Where is the understanding and review? Our PM when asked how he intends to address the Hobart and Hunter issues said, in spain, he would likely have more on that "later this afternoon". Well other than a further restatement of the offer, no further statements good or bad have been made.

What I tend to suspect the Spanish offer is really all about, is that Spain does not actually want/cannot afford both improvements to the shipyard and workforce, as well as the ship design itself, and is looking for someone else to fund redeveloping the yard, re-skilling the workforce, as well as getting the F-110 build programme far enough along to get the inevitable design problems worked out.

OH I definitely think the Spanish have their own motives. Additional work and money are no doubt key to it, although they seem very flexible on both, often the devil can be in contract details. At this point I think they would be looking even for a symbolic win. I even suspect they would like to use this for their own within the EU context.

But again. If WAR is to occur in 2028, should we still not seriously consider and analyse the offer? Either reject it or accept it based on merits like cost, risk, capability etc.

We are currently paying two buffoons, unfamiliar with Naval power, over a million dollars combined for 8 months work, plus their staff and resources (so now tens of millions) to review the current situation.

Again, the solution may not be what the Spanish build are offering. Ok. True, there are options, perhaps other strategies.

What then is the solution to hollowing out our entire navy from 2025-2033? When the public sees every class of vessel on hardstands, and as Volk has pointed out, our stupid obsession's with Patrol boats will become porkbarrelingly obvious. What then?

ASPI Battleship Patrol boat program? Harpoons on Rhibs?

I also worry that the government will loose focus because China is talking again. They are talking because they know they can easily keep Australia distracted and keep ADF out of the fight and completely flaccid, with simple diplomacy and fake assurances, the weakness of a peace loving democracy. We are blind to their actions across its region, to the conflict with India, with the taking of territory from Nepal and Butan, from the clear signs of dominance over Taiwan, to their backing and careful support of the Russians. To the illegal and immoral and non-sensical trade sanctions against Australia.

China has not decreased their naval build up. The US is facing multiple crisis's on multiple fronts. The UK is nearing complete basket case, with serious doubts about its existential existence as a unified entity of its current wealth and power being pretty valid, and many of those concerns could also be filed against the US itself. . Does any analysis find that our strategic circumstances have recently dramatically improved? Even beyond China, there are multiple challenges ahead.

3 Destroyers are not a long term solution, with upgrades we may see just one ship FOC available during this peak period of risk. So what is? If not ships for the RAN, then what ADF capability will fill that role?

Open to suggestions. Perhaps there is some aspect that has been overlooked that will be doing this mission? Australia fell over itself with the "capability gap" left by the F-111's. I would argue the Hobarts are more important to global security than the F-111's ever were. So what is bridging our Hobart capability gap?

 

[Volkodav]

Playing devils advocate here, assuming neither accelerated Hunters, additional Hobart's, nor corvettes for that matter, fit the schedule or capability requirements, what else could we do?

Some are pushing B-21, others UCAVs, or long range missiles.

How about, assuming the need, money and personnel were available, we look outside the square at F-35B and an associated AEW capability?

LHDs are already tri service, and allegedly capable of operating small numbers of F-35Bs, why not invest in this capability meaning they will be able contribute to taskforce defence instead of just relying on it?

While this capability is being grown, source a suitable light carrier design to be a permanent home for an enhanced ASW and strike wing. I'm sure Japan or South Korea would be able to help. Maybe even propose a new generation light fleet carrier for AUKUS, for F-35, helps and UCAVs?

 

[Todjaeger]

If there is a serious proposal being made, that I would certainly be in favour of it being looked at and analyzed in detail. However, I do feel obligated to point out that there are real constraints which exist which would impact any build programme to expand or replace RAN majors. I also feel obligated to point out that at present, absent further detailed information, the offer from Spain does not, at least to me, sound like a serious proposal.

Right now, Navantia is currently working on the first of the F110 ASW frigates, which I believe is also known as a the Bonifaz-class, and the lead ship was laid down in April IIRC. A few of the realities of building a class of vessel gets encountered here. First, much of the design work has to have been already completed by this time, so that materials can be ordered. Relating to this, long-lead items need to have been ordered. In the case of the F110, whilst the lead ship was laid down in April of 2022, the contract ordering Aegis and the SPY-7 radars was signed in April, 2020. What this demonstrates is that Spain has been establishing a production supply chain for their frigate build, and that orders for such a supply chain need to get placed years ahead of first steel getting cut.

Now if the idea is for a new RAN destroyer class to be built to augment or replace the Hobart-class destroyers in the air defence role, some design work would need to be done, even if Navantia were to get assigned the build. This design work would be required because none of the existing, related designs (F100, F105, Hobart-class, F310/Fridtjof Nansen-class, or F110) can be built 'as is' and deliver the capabilities of the in service Hobart-class DDG's, never mind what their capabilities should be post-upgrade. As I understand it, one of the objectives of the Hobart-class MLU is to go in and replace some of the systems which are not longer in production.

This would then put Oz in the position of needing to make a decision about any Navantia production in Spain. Either go with the existing Spanish F110 design which already has a supply chain either in place or being established and accept the systems and capabilities which are included in that design, or have something designed with systems and capabilities more to the RAN's liking and/or like will be in the upgraded Hobart-class DDG. Going with the Spanish F110 design 'as is' would likely be the fastest option, but even if a contract for that was signed before the end of the year, it would be unlikely that long-lead items like Aegis and the SPY-7 arrays would be available any time soon, unless Spain were to have an Australian build jump the queue and 'take' the kit Spain ordered for their frigates. To put it another way, if Australia were to have to place orders for all the kit Spain is including in their F110 frigates, it would be unlikely that the lead ship of an Australian F110 order could be laid down before 2025 and that is making a number of assumptions, such as Navantia having both space and a workforce available to work on the Spanish and Australian builds at the same time, as well as no further delays in any long-lead items.

Now if the RAN were to opt for something with greater capabilities than the F110, then the design work would need to be finished prior to orders getting placed and contracts signed. One could not simply take the design for the F110 hull and fit the systems Australia uses in the Hobart-class or will after the upgrade, because the F110 design is a smaller vessel with a lower displacement. Not to mention that much of the fitout for the Hobart-class is more significant then the F110, namely having 48 Mk 41 VLS cells whilst the F110 has 2x8 Mk 41 VLS cells, and so on. From a timeline perspective, a theoretical new design build for the RAN would likely have first steel cut on the lead vessel 2+ years after the contracts are signed and orders placed, and those orders would not get placed until after the detailed design work is finished which would likely take months at a minimum. Even a relatively short detailed design phase of ~seven months would delay orders getting placed until mid-2023, whilst a detailed design phase lasting 18-24 months would delay orders being placed until 2024 or 2025. Again assuming ~two years between orders placed and first steel getting cut, one might not see construction of the lead vessel start until 2027...

 

[Todjaeger]

Playing devils advocate here, assuming neither accelerated Hunters, additional Hobart's, nor corvettes for that matter, fit the schedule or capability requirements, what else could we do?

Some are pushing B-21, others UCAVs, or long range missiles.

How about, assuming the need, money and personnel were available, we look outside the square at F-35B and an associated AEW capability?

LHDs are already tri service, and allegedly capable of operating small numbers of F-35Bs, why not invest in this capability meaning they will be able contribute to taskforce defence instead of just relying on it?

While this capability is being grown, source a suitable light carrier design to be a permanent home for an enhanced ASW and strike wing. I'm sure Japan or South Korea would be able to help. Maybe even propose a new generation light fleet carrier for AUKUS, for F-35, helps and UCAVs?

IMO one of the greatest considerations need to be what sort of timeframe is being considered. If the timeframe is something like five years or less, then IMO the only realistic potential options would be those that either continue or expand on what capabilities are already in ADF service, or those already planned to enter within that time.

I would need to do some digging (and honestly not in the mood to bother right now) to see how long it would likely take for Australia to receive F-35B deliveries based off the current order book and assigned production slots. However, I would not be surprised if the currently planned F-35B production is already spoken for to the point that Australia could not take delivery before 2028.

So not only would the potential threats need to be considered, but also when kit and capabilities would be needed. Hence why it might be wise for Australia to, without pausing current plans, re-examine the security expectations over the next 20+ years.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Some are pushing B-21, others UCAVs, or long range missiles.

I don't see how B21's are in the picture in the timeframe at all. We might as well put in orders for Iowas or starship enterprise.

LHDs are already tri service, and allegedly capable of operating small numbers of F-35Bs, why not invest in this capability meaning they will be able contribute to taskforce defence instead of just relying on it?

The F-35 order book IMO is already filling up. We might be able to push Singapore/UK/US/Japan orders to get into the que and get a small flight to try to get things moving so we can scale ~2028.. Put it in the perhaps theoretically possible. As it is, the Army won't be needed, apparently, and certainly not driving around in M113's fighting in Taiwan. So we may as well scratch amphibious needs. We also have no way to escort or defend them.

If there is a serious proposal being made, that I would certainly be in favour of it being looked at and analyzed in detail.

Its a serious offer. It wasn't just a press release put out by marketing and circulated to the press. It resulted in multiple prime minister-prime minister meetings and Navantia and the Spanish navy sending representatives to Australia articulating exactly what was on the table. They were received and have now met with defence. And this was on the side lines of the NATO summit. So its not nothing.

As I understand it, one of the objectives of the Hobart-class MLU is to go in and replace some of the systems which are not longer in production.

I thought this as well. This is not the case. No changes to services, propulsion, generation, cooling etc is apparently taking place. the $5.2 b+ is just the combat computers and the radar and the consoles. Some one knowledgable her confirmed this, so I assume that is what is happening. While these systems and the whole ship was built was quite dated in concept, they are unlikely to need replacement, Sydney has been in the water? 12 months?

Also as previously mentioned the design was completely refreshed when it was short listed for the Americans. Everything, systems to access panels, electrical, propulsion, to the width and grade of ladders and stairs. Ex-CEO Warren King confirmed the Americans had funded a complete design review. Which is perhaps lucky for Navantia.

Speculation on the new hobarts design

One could not simply take the design for the F110 hull and fit the systems Australia uses in the Hobart-class or will after the upgrade, because the F110 design is a smaller vessel with a lower displacement.

It appears to be ~1 m shorter and ~0.6m narrower. 6,100t compared to the first Cristobal Colon which was 6,391t
Smaller, yes, but for all intensive purposes, basically the same size.

It seems to me basically future F-105 destroyers and F-110 are likely to be extremely similar designs, one design being "de-contented"/"fitted for but not with, down to 16 vls etc. The exterior dimensions are, on paper, extremely similar. It seems as if perhaps the Spanish use the American money to finish the development of their modular F-110.

Wiki specs
F-110 vs F101 vs Hobart
145m vs 146.7m vs 147.2 length
18m vs 18.6m vs 18.6m width
5m vs 8m vs 5.1m draft

I actually suspect that Spain will build replacements for its aging F-101, F102, F103, F104 and F105 on this new modular F-110 hull. I suspect Spain has not been interested in keeping lock step with the Americans on upgrading aegis, particularly because those early build frigates have much older systems and configurations and would require a significant re-work. It may well be cheaper to build newer ship than Mid life refit them and then upgrade aegis, the radar, and all the other systems.

This would also seem to make sense why they are so interested in building new Hobart's. It will make a defence spend easier to approve, and after the 5 F-110 ships, 5 new "destroyers" could be built, with many weapons pulled through from the older ships and put onto a newer spec hull. With 5 F-110, and 3 hobarts, its highly likely that Spain could build 5 new build destroyers for very low sums creating more work for its yards. Even if the 3 destroyers were completely built in Australia, it would be a strong argument to renew the fleet and keep the enterprise going.

The Spanish yards seem to be ticking along, with the Saudi corvette order being completed.

 

[ddxx]

In regards to the F-35 order book, it’s worth remembering that Australia has another 28 ‘Options’ up its sleeve. Options are almost always tied to preferential delivery timelines …

 

[Bob53]

We should request/order 6 x Spanish builds at the fixed price on offer and not proceed with the Hobart upgrades until we have 4 new ships in the water and then sell them off…they would be around 10-14 years old and still have some currency or go ahead at that point with the upgrades then based on how the Hunter program is progressing.

 

[swerve]

The engineering shortage is due in a large part to forcing engineers to become managers and hence, stop being engineers. Some engineers make good managers, some make great ones, others suck. Why not let engineers be engineers, pay them for their knowledge and experience and let suitable people without engineering degrees also work and rise to where their skills best suit.

I've seen this in IT. Bad managers who used to be good programmers, lack of recognition of the value of good technical staff whose talents don't include management so they're either underpaid or there's an up or out approach which loses lots of talented people, etc.

One of the best managers I ever had was a quiet bloke who never seemed to do anything. His projects ran very smoothly. He saw his job as providing the techies with what they needed to do a good job, not bossing anyone around. Very rare, unfortunately. I suspect that if he hadn't been married to the head of HR he would have been severely undervalued, & eclipsed by seagull managers.

 

[hauritz]

If Australia were to get a third tranche of F-35s what would we do with the Rhinos?
A few years ago I am pretty certain they would have been sold off but now I am not so sure. Given the times we live in I would probably want to keep them around even if they were simply relegated to OCU duties.

 

[Todjaeger]

I will offer a couple of final points and then bow out on further speculation of a Navantia frigate or destroyer build for the RAN since I feel it pointless to engage at this point.

My comment;

One could not simply take the design for the F110 hull and fit the systems Australia uses in the Hobart-class or will after the upgrade, because the F110 design is a smaller vessel with a lower displacement.

Your reply;

It appears to be ~1 m shorter and ~0.6m narrower. 6,100t compared to the first Cristobal Colon which was 6,391t Smaller, yes, but for all intensive purposes, basically the same size.

This is conflating the F110 design, an ASW frigate with 16 Mk 41 VLS cells, with the larger F105 air defence frigate with 48 Mk 41 VLS cells, because they are similar in size and displacement, despite their fitouts being significantly different. Unless the F110 design has space & weight reserved to triple the number of Mk 41 VLS cells, there would be a significant amount of redesign work required to get to the same air defence capabilities of an F105 frigate. Further, the F100/F105 design also seems to be getting treated as being the same as the Hobart-class design, despite the Hobart-class being slightly larger dimensions and over 600 tonnes greater displacement than the F105, and ~900 tonnes greater displacement than the F110.

Perhaps it is just me, but I do not consider the over 14% greater displacement of the Hobart-class DDG being indicative of the class being "basically the same size" as the F110 and honestly even the nearly 5% greater displacement of the F105 does not mean that extra kit fitted aboard the F105 could be similarly fitted to an F110, particularly without requiring redesign.

It is also worthwhile to note that the BIW/Navantia entry for the FFG(X) competition produced conceptional designs evolved from Navantia's frigate designs and not detailed designs. In short, the BIW/Navantia entry did not result in a completed design ready to be ordered and built, nor was that stage of the USN competition supposed to produce ready-to-build designs. Going further with this, the fitout for the USN's Constellation-class frigate, what the design concepts would have been aiming for, would not provide an air defence capability to the level of a Hobart-class DDG.

To recap, there are no 'build to print' plans available from Spain or Australia which could be used to build more/another air defence destroyer for the RAN. The existing plans either would not be of an air defence vessel (frigate or destroyer designation is irrelevant at this point) or they could not be used 'as is' because the design and fitout include kit and systems which are no longer in production or available for order.

Now consider the offer, a trio of guided missile warships by the end of 2030 which is seven years away. Does anyone really, realistically believe that Spain could go from having no suitable Aegis air defence vessel design ready to build, to three completed Aegis-equipped warships in just seven years time? Given the time required to get a design completed to the point of orders being placed, plus the time required for kit and materials to be ordered and then delivered, and of course the actual vessel build time, I just do not see it being possible. Either the Spanish offer is not actually for new build Aegis air defence vessels as many seem to assume it is, or it is not really expected to be done by 2030.

 

[Stampede]

In regards to the F-35 order book, it’s worth remembering that Australia has another 28 ‘Options’ up its sleeve. Options are almost always tied to preferential delivery timelines …

I'm confident this one will get a look into.
But what will it look like?
Additional F 35's or unmanned aircraft or a mix of both.
Whatever the answer, I'm guessing the S Hornets will still be part of the fleet going into the mid 2030's.
Do they in turn get a mid life upgrade?

If fast air grows in numbers what impact will that have on the tanker and airborne control fleet and their numbers?

Interesting times

Cheers S

 

[hauritz]

We are at that awkward stage at the moment with unmanned vehicles vs manned vehicles. Something like Australia’s loyal wingman could be a game changer, or a complete flop. Nobody could really tell you with any certainty what this program will look like in 5 or 10 years time.

In the meantime I think Australia needs to play the safe option and continue with its plans of investing in proven technology while at the same time pouring money into next generation programs such as loyal wingman or the navy’s XLUUV programs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is conflating the F110 design, an ASW frigate with 16 Mk 41 VLS cells, with the larger F105 air defence frigate with 48 Mk 41 VLS cells, because they are similar in size and displacement, despite their fitouts being significantly different. Unless the F110 design has space & weight reserved to triple the number of Mk 41 VLS cells, there would be a significant amount of redesign work required to get to the same air defence capabilities of an F105 frigate.

As with many Navantia products, there is a family of related but different products.

I will point out that Navantia also built the Fridtjof Nansen class frigates. 134m/16.8m 5,290t ASW frigates. With 1 x 8 or 2 x 8 VLS, 4 torps, 76mm gun, 8 x nsm, 1 ASW helo. A design based off the F-101 design.

I will point out, more than any other ship builder, Navantia has famously been building scalable designs and this is their primary business model.
I will point out that I am not claiming that the F-110 and any future Hobarts would have exactly the same fitout and exactly the same hull.
Spain (government and industry) isn't claiming that either, they are claiming they know the design and are confident they can build it.
Spains been quite successful as a contract builder for many countries. Their reputation and work history stands openly for anyone to see and comment on.

Yes there certainly would be significant design work to fit 48 VLS around a ship only designed to fit 16 vls. However, there would less work for a ship designed around 48lvs, fitted with 16 vls, then a new build built with the original 48 VLS. The subsystems on a 6,100 t ship (mech services, power, sewerage, plumbing, etc) are likely to be very similar as a ship with 6,300t displacement and the same number of crew.

Further, the F100/F105 design also seems to be getting treated as being the same as the Hobart-class design, despite the Hobart-class being slightly larger dimensions and over 600 tonnes greater displacement than the F105, and ~900 tonnes greater displacement than the F110.

The Hobart was based off the F104 design with the F-105 modifications, with further additional modification and Australian specific equipment and fitout. The Hobart isn't 7,000t. That is its often quoted displacement, but it include its total growth margin.

Perhaps it is just me, but I do not consider the over 14% greater displacement of the Hobart-class DDG being indicative of the class being "basically the same size" as the F110 and honestly even the nearly 5% greater displacement of the F105 does not mean that extra kit fitted aboard the F105 could be similarly fitted to an F110, particularly without requiring redesign.

I'm not saying it does. But it does seem Navantia thinks the design and equipment fitout is very similar and the design is, common enough they think they can meet fairly tight timeframes.

Now consider the offer, a trio of guided missile warships by the end of 2030 which is seven years away. Does anyone really, realistically believe that Spain could go from having no suitable Aegis air defence vessel design ready to build, to three completed Aegis-equipped warships in just seven years time?

But they are building 5 Aegis ships anyway, in that timeframe.

Again, I think we should be careful about speaking about absolutes, because there are so few in this discussion. We don't know what exactly the Spanish are offering, we don't know their strategy of how they intend to build it.

If you think the Spanish are committing fraud, then it should be discussed publically that Australia is rejecting their offer because it is completely fraudulent.

The Spanish government and industry have been adamant in their offer. Perhaps Australia could get 3 frigates by 2030 or they are free (!) deal like we got with the tesla battery. We could certainly hit up the US to relocate their Aegis destroyers from Spain, to Australia if progress is not met. Australia has been taken for a ride by many a European defence deal. I would also argue that the US should make its priorities of securing its own planes, ships and territories than that of Western Europe, who constantly fails to meet NATO levels of funding and worse, wastes American allies funds on European projects that don't work.

It is not acceptable to have no capability. It would seem logical to me that:

• We need more than 3 destroyers going forward.
• Hunters aren't destroyers. They are good ships, and must replace Anzacs, which are totally outmatched.
• We need more ships before 2030. Actually ships, not patrol boats.
• Spain and Navantia has built ships and we have partnered before. They are underwriting the deal government to government.
• We already operate several unit types the Spanish navy currently operates. The DDG, the AOR and the LHD. It makes sense to expand on ships already in service, with designs, similar or updates of existing. Crew and training by 2027 are a whole other thing.
• We certainly won't be getting 3 hunter class frigates by 2030.
• We have leased entire ships from the Spanish navy before. We may need to consider that for our destroyers until any new ships arrive.

Recent articles and videos for Australian context.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/prepare-adf-to-fight-our-own-fights-says-richard-marles/news-story/cef9159797e03b7d4361fcf251b48acb

ABC and 60 minutes have recently run several interesting stories that are pushing defence way up to the top of the agenda. Each have had over a million views online in the last few days.

Currently, ordering ships from Spain, that promised they would build them in time, and them failing to build them, is a far more agreeable situation, to not having any ships, any tangible navy, in the water during this period.

Doorstop Interview - Madrid, Spain

PRIME MINISTER, ANTHONY ALBANESE: Good morning. I am very grateful for the opportunity to meet Prime Minister Sanchez today, and I was very honoured to be the first Australian Prime Minister to make a bilateral visit to Spain. Our discussion was very warm and it was productive, reflecting the...

www.pm.gov.au

JOURNALIST: Would you consider buying three more of the Hobart-class destroyers from the Spanish company Navantia? I understand the Prime Minister of Spain will discuss that with you today.

PRIME MINISTER: I would expect that will be one of the topics that will come up today. Australia has a close relationship with Spain. This will be Australia's first bilateral meeting at the leadership level between Australia and Spain. I look forward to constructive discussions. And I'll have more to say about that in about two hours. So, I'll see you all then.

...

So Yes or no.
If no, then what is the governments plan to cover the capability gap of the destroyers, the submarines and the frigates.
The current plan is a plan to failure. To near zero capability, in an area with already very limited capability.

There seems to be some belief that any more Hobart's would some how replace hunters. Hunters don't exist so can't be replaced. This tribalisim must stop. Hobarts don't have room or growth for anything other than what they are fitted with. The Anzacs are too small and lightly armed to be anything other than a light frigate. The real hole we have is with subs. While a surface ship doesn't equal a submarine, it is a tangible object. It must be clear now that there is no last minute leasing/hiring/ of any existing nuclear submarine to Australia.

Marles hints RAAF could buy B-21 Raider bomber

It comes days after US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall surprisingly hinted his country would be willing to sell its most prized in-development aircraft to Australia.

australianaviation.com.au

B21's don't exist.
F-22 for sale, don't exist.
Magical drones, don't exist.
Why on earth would we even be looking at air platforms for this.. Its a water thing.

My questions clearly aren't angled towards any individual here, but to the government. How do you intend to "fight independently" with no air defence?

The public may not be particularly happy with the current plan when people start dying. Heads will roll. Starting with Smith and Gus, and moving on up, along both party lines as there have been plenty bathing in the shower of failure in defence acquisition and materiel. The question will be which public square should these people be strung up in so there can be tangible recompense for poor decisions.

People are half jokingly, half serious wondering what clapped out 2nd hand ship we can buy, when we have an offer for 3 new ones on the table we seem to be actively ignoring, while at the same time, we take 3 of our most capable, off the table.

I feel a FOI coming on...