Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Morgo

Well-Known Member
My apologies these are my views and mine alone. And therefore am entitled to express them. Do I have proof no I don't. But I'll be more than happy to have this conversation with you in 6 months. Spending heading to levels not seen since the cold war? Please show me some figures because I cant find them. If you mean the spending that the last administration put in place well as far as I know it may sit at 2.2% of GDP but what I do know is that there will be no increases for the next four years so much for strategic urgency. As far as I see it, this DSR has gone backwards its a nothing document written by a couple of hacks whose claim to fame happen to be the worst defence minister in 50 years assisted by the worst CDF in 50 years.
Yep as a % of GDP - it’s heading to 2.3% next year which will be the highest since 1986.

No disputes from me that the trajectory was set by the previous lot - I think Pyne and Dutton both did a bunch of good things - but the current Gov have continued and built upon this spending despite a significant deterioration in the fiscal position.

Also no disputes that the document was very light on detail, but the Land 400 / SPH cuts were the only ones of substance In aware of, and there is a huge amount of ambiguity remaining in how the principles set out in the DSR will be put into practice. Maybe the classified version has all the answers, or maybe it’s a steaming pile of shit, but based on what’s in the public domain I don’t think you can conclude either way.
 

knightrider4

Active Member
Yep as a % of GDP - it’s heading to 2.3% next year which will be the highest since 1986.

No disputes from me that the trajectory was set by the previous lot - I think Pyne and Dutton both did a bunch of good things - but the current Gov have continued and built upon this spending despite a significant deterioration in the fiscal position.

Also no disputes that the document was very light on detail, but the Land 400 / SPH cuts were the only ones of substance In aware of, and there is a huge amount of ambiguity remaining in how the principles set out in the DSR will be put into practice. Maybe the classified version has all the answers, or maybe it’s a steaming pile of shit, but based on what’s in the public domain I don’t think you can conclude either way.
I appreciate the reply, what we know is that it will be stuck at 2.3% of GDP for the next four years. So therefore logically one of two things can happen. You either do nothing for four years because there is no increase in funding or you cut and or cancel existing programs to pay for what you think is a priority which is exactly the intent of this DSR. Its ironic that the two authors of this document presided over the ADF when it was last cut to the bone. You forgot to mention that AIR 6500 has been scrapped as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
At Osborne south, The first Hunter begins construction next month and isn’t due till 2031, and then follow on Hunters are approx every 2 years, 2033, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47 for all nine. Cutting 3 from the order, you’ll have 6 by 2041 with likely a hobart replacement following, The type 83 fits nicely with the timeline as it would enter service post 2043, about 4-5 years after the first of class enters service in the u.k in the late 2030s(much like ssn aukus dates). This path would likely involve getting 3 extra hobarts in the next 8 years built in spain or less likely civmec. A spanish hobart build leaves room for civmec to build smaller tier 2 ships, a civmec Hobart build possibly means tier 2 ships built overseas. A GP frigate instead of the hobarts also a possibility, less capability but much less cost, reduced construction time and less crew.

Another option at Osborne south is an alternating build of type 26, 2 asw hunters and 1 heavily armed awd x 3, eg 2031asw, 33asw, 35awd, 37asw, 39asw, 41awd, 43asw, 45asw, 47awd. This path could see civmec produce tier 2 ships post 2025/26 after the 6th Arafura is complete If the opv build is cut. What they will build is anyone’s guess, unlikely to be hobarts with this path so you can assume GP frigates or corvettes, tier 2 ships. No overseas build.

The third option is all 9 hunters become awd’s And other asw capabilities increased, uuvs, p8s, undee water survellience, aukus subs, usv’s with towed arrays, strix quad coptees off small ships with dipping sonars etc
I think the chance of any destroyers or frigates being built overseas are pretty close to zero. The unions and Australian shipbuilders would go out of their collective minds if that happened. The only short term option I can see is Civmec dropping production of the Arafuras and start building tier two ships. The navy also requires mine countermeasures and hydrographic survey ships so they are going to have to be squeezed in somewhere. Possibly a couple of JSS as well.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There are considerable industrial constraints in shipbuilding, manufacturing and engineering in general throughout the west. There is no longer the diversity or depth there once was. Anyone who thinks Australia can just hook into another nations supply chains is kidding themselves.

The choice we have is upskilling and expanding our own capabilities, or paying someone else to expand theirs.
Personally I would rather my tax dollars go to building Australian capability and giving Australian kids good careers than doing the same for someone else.
 

protoplasm

Active Member
There are considerable industrial constraints in shipbuilding, manufacturing and engineering in general throughout the west. There is no longer the diversity or depth there once was. Anyone who thinks Australia can just hook into another nations supply chains is kidding themselves.

The choice we have is upskilling and expanding our own capabilities, or paying someone else to expand theirs.
Personally I would rather my tax dollars go to building Australian capability and giving Australian kids good careers than doing the same for someone else.
Absolutely, and then the kicker: build the industrial capacity, and then give it enough work to be sustainable long term. Cheaper in the long run, and a sovereign capability that isn't dependent upon another countries political will.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
There are considerable industrial constraints in shipbuilding, manufacturing and engineering in general throughout the west. There is no longer the diversity or depth there once was. Anyone who thinks Australia can just hook into another nations supply chains is kidding themselves.
Well this is part of the whole Western Australian ship building industry viability and sustainability.

They don't have the single unified workforce, as it is split between at least two different employers in competition.
They don't have the holistic supply chain capability.
They don't have ongoing and sustainable work going forward.
They don't have the infrastructure (the heavy ship lift).

I guess we will have to see what happens, but there are commercial, industrial, workforce, infrastructure, work planning and order issues. Government only has control over some of those.

If there is no additional work, then there is no sustainable WA shipbuilding hub. There can't be any investment, there can't be any more or additional ship building. Which means a single Hunter ~2030-3, and what ever hunter tempo comes after that in 24-36 months. If Hunter doesn't meet the firepower requirements then it will have to be cancelled or scaled back. If no ship can be built in time, then perhaps the navy goes forward without Anzac replacements, money and people get redirected, with Missiles just get launched from aircraft and land based platforms.

If there is no SA ship building hub, acquiring American submarines becomes fairly straight forward for the risk adverse leadership.

I would urge tactfulness on commenting on capabilities of WA and SA ship building hubs. Any criticism of one can be levelled against the other. They are both delicate. While osborne is significantly larger and more capable, Osborne is seen as just an assembly hub by some. There is no outcome where there is just one ship building hub in Australia. Both need to be supported, both are strategically important. If we break up into provincialism, we loose both, not just one. Both face challenging futures.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
This article is a little tongue in cheek, but may be more important than we think. PM Albanese and new Chief of Navy Adm Hammond are both long term supporters of South Sydney Rugby League Club. Jokes aside, this won't hurt security of funding for the RAN.

I am fairly optimistic about the naval aspects of the review. I think some of the comments at the press conference launching the DSR are important alongside the corresponding parts of the DSR. If you read the comments of Deputy Minister Conroy about shipbuilding, he is explicit:
"the Federal Government has to lead a conversation about how we consolidate at Henderson so that we have our continuous shipbuilding, where at Osborne in Adelaide, you have large vessels, frigates and destroyers built on a continuous basis to maintain the workforce and the national capacity and minor war vessels, patrol boats and other smaller vessels, built in Henderson with a continuous workforce that is a national asset. And that's what we'll deliver through an updated naval shipbuilding plan that will also canvass the dry dock issue later this year."

To me that means two things:
- if the balance of the OPV contract is replaced by a build of an armed smaller warship (corvette or light frigate) these will be built at Henderson
- Adelaide will continue to to build Hunters (6 or 9?) followed by AWDs or their successor (3 or 6?).

Given that both shipyard workloads are planned to be continuous, the Corvette/Light Frigate build will be separate and additional to whatever happens with destroyers and frigates. I don't see how corvette/light frigates will be instead of frigates/destroyers. They will be instead of OPVs.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
This article is a little tongue in cheek, but may be more important than we think. PM Albanese and new Chief of Navy Adm Hammond are both long term supporters of South Sydney Rugby League Club. Jokes aside, this won't hurt security of funding for the RAN.

I am fairly optimistic about the naval aspects of the review. I think some of the comments at the press conference launching the DSR are important alongside the corresponding parts of the DSR. If you read the comments of Deputy Minister Conroy about shipbuilding, he is explicit:
"the Federal Government has to lead a conversation about how we consolidate at Henderson so that we have our continuous shipbuilding, where at Osborne in Adelaide, you have large vessels, frigates and destroyers built on a continuous basis to maintain the workforce and the national capacity and minor war vessels, patrol boats and other smaller vessels, built in Henderson with a continuous workforce that is a national asset. And that's what we'll deliver through an updated naval shipbuilding plan that will also canvass the dry dock issue later this year."

To me that means two things:
- if the balance of the OPV contract is replaced by a build of an armed smaller warship (corvette or light frigate) these will be built at Henderson
- Adelaide will continue to to build Hunters (6 or 9?) followed by AWDs or their successor (3 or 6?).

Given that both shipyard workloads are planned to be continuous, the Corvette/Light Frigate build will be separate and additional to whatever happens with destroyers and frigates. I don't see how corvette/light frigates will be instead of frigates/destroyers. They will be instead of OPVs.
Also, looks like the LMV-H project is to be brought forward, currently planning has 5-6 vessels of, up to 2000t, so not an insignificant build either, almost certainly at Henderson.
 

devo99

Well-Known Member
I'm really hoping that the government and RAN clearly define Tier 1, 2 and 3 combatants in the upcoming surface fleet review. Without clear definitions for such terms it leaves the door open for future governments to interpret it however they like. That could well end up with us having patrol frigates as the backbone of our fleet again somewhere down the line and I think that should be avoided if at all possible.
An example of what this could be is this
A tier 1 combatant must:
- Have area air defence capability in the form of long ranged missiles, highly capable radar, highly capable CMS and CEC capability.
- Have taskforce command facilities.
- Have adequate range and endurance for region wide deployment (e.g. 5000 NMI minimum range and 40 day minimum endurance both without resupply) .
- Have the capability to detect and lethally engage multiple high end land, sea and subsurface targets.
- Have survivability in a high threat environment through assets such as missile and torpedo decoys, layered self defence armament (ESSM & CIWS).
etc.
 
Last edited:

devo99

Well-Known Member
Also, looks like the LMV-H project is to be brought forward, currently planning has 5-6 vessels of, up to 2000t, so not an insignificant build either, almost certainly at Henderson.
I'm curious what is happening with the LARC-V replacement. The only real competitor for the program was Navantia's Platypus but it seems they've removed the page about it from their website. (Luckily I downloaded the pdf a while ago)
 

Attachments

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I'm curious what is happening with the LARC-V replacement. The only real competitor for the program was Navantia's Platypus but it seems they've removed the page about it from their website. (Luckily I downloaded the pdf a while ago)
Navantia Australia unsuccessful in LAND 8710 bid - Defence Connect
The Navantia bid was dropped in 2021. The LARC-V replacement tenders were due to close in September. So like everything else, we will just have to wait and see.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case. For instance, the deck can't take an F-35 exhaust.
They just need to apply the special coating on the deck to enable that. It's what the USN has done with it's LHDs that the USMC are flying F-35Bs off. I suspect that the JMSDF has done the same on its two DDHs that it's converting to fly the F-35B off. The MV-22 Osprey exhausts are a tad warm as well.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
They just need to apply the special coating on the deck to enable that. It's what the USN has done with it's LHDs that the USMC are flying F-35Bs off. I suspect that the JMSDF has done the same on its two DDHs that it's converting to fly the F-35B off. The MV-22 Osprey exhausts are a tad warm as well.
Japan's JS Kaga Shows Off New Bow - Naval News
The Kaga has a new Bow as well, similar to the US LHD/LHAs. Interesting they didn't think a Ski Ramp is required either. Though at 248m long they are 18m longer than the Spanish design.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case. For instance, the deck can't take an F-35 exhaust.
I'm sure Turkey asked a lot of questions re the capability of the Juan Carlos 1 design in relation to it's ability to carry and operate the F35B.
While politics defeated their Navy acquiring this aircraft, it would be interesting to know what level of structural additions were needed to accommodate this capability.
Obviously Turkey felt the basic design was fit for purpose in operating the F35B and I'd suggest if Spain was not hammered by the GFC a decade ago and taken such a long time to get back on it's feet then there air force would probably now be retiring their Hornets and replacing them with the F35 A and their Armada the F35B.
My understanding is the weight and dimensions of the F35B were known and catered for within the design of the Juan Carlos 1.
After all it was to be their backup carrier platform.
As to the Canberra Class most of what is in the pubic domain is speculative.
The above however does suggest potential.

Most likely the Canberra class's aviation facility's will be explored across all our rotary wing aircraft and down the track various sizes of unmanned platforms.



Cheers S
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I'm sure Turkey asked a lot of questions re the capability of the Juan Carlos 1 design in relation to it's ability to carry and operate the F35B.
While politics defeated their Navy acquiring this aircraft, it would be interesting to know what level of structural additions were needed to accommodate this capability.
Obviously Turkey felt the basic design was fit for purpose in operating the F35B and I'd suggest if Spain was not hammered by the GFC a decade ago and taken such a long time to get back on it's feet then there air force would probably now be retiring their Hornets and replacing them with the F35 A and their Armada the F35B.
My understanding is the weight and dimensions of the F35B were known and catered for within the design of the Juan Carlos 1.
After all it was to be their backup carrier platform.
As to the Canberra Class most of what is in the pubic domain is speculative.
The above however does suggest potential.

Most likely the Canberra class's aviation facility's will be explored across all our rotary wing aircraft and down the track various sizes of unmanned platforms.



Cheers S
Agree, the JC 1 design used by Turkey likely would have been optimised for F-35Bs. Can't recall if construction was started before or during the F-35 cancellation.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Agree, the JC 1 design used by Turkey likely would have been optimised for F-35Bs. Can't recall if construction was started before or during the F-35 cancellation.
It was ordered and construction begun before Turkey's F-35A procurement was cancelled, with the specific intent of acquiring F-35Bs
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case. For instance, the deck can't take an F-35 exhaust.
Lifts, hangar, & IIRC deck strength all designed for F-35B.

What exactly is the problem with the deck? Surface coating? Since she entered service in 2009, that could have been scheduled for improvement in a planned refit before F-35B was taken into service. Turkey has built a JC1 copy & until it was blocked, planned to operate F-35B from it.
 
Top