Wouldn't the same arguments that have been made against the use of forward deployed land based AShM systems such as Strikemaster also apply in this case?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
The marginal cost is not $5bn. I don’t know what it is but it’s less than that.
And you can’t get any Type 31s in the time it would take to build a Type 26 from where we are.
Time to stop the fantasy fleet posts. Another Moderator has already told people to stop this here. If you continue along that track the Moderators will act and we can, and do when necessary, prevent people from posting on individual threads. If that doesn't work we will apply a forum wide ban on recalcitrant individuals. Don't be that person.
Why not? We already have 9 on order. Leave them as is and progress or speed up production. While they may not be ideal now the plan is underway. Any change now will only delay things further. Anyone who thinks it won’t only need to look at our Naval procurement history over the past 30 years. Any time there has been a change in the procurement plan the following outcome has not been good. Perfect is the enemy of progress.
Takao
The Bunker Group
People really don't grasp how long new designs take. And I'm sure it's easy to blame CASG, some of this stuff takes time - either because of production or genuine safety reasons.
Let's take something slightly larger than an Anzac. HMAS Sydney. The first. Built at what was arguably the peak of RN industrial capability, she was effectively the 11th of her type and still took 2.5 years to build. And that's before WWI throws a spanner in the works. The design only took 8 months-ish, but that was more due to the way the RN designed ships then and the ability to rest upon a very experienced team of naval architects and designers. That knowledge and capability is beyond the RN now, let alone the RAN.
It's also not just the RAN. The USN's last Charles F. Adams (USS Waddell) takes about 2.5 years to build - and the USN ship design and building capability of the mid-late Cold War vastly exceeds anything anyone except maybe PRC has today. As an aside, HMAS Sydney (III), a simpler design than the Charles F Adams, took 3 years to build.
Of particular note is HMAS Adelaide. She took 6.8 years to build, mainly because she was built in Australia and the war impacted critical subsystems. But, she was a good lesson for us, which is why we have had a continual shipbuilding industry/plan since then to prevent repetition........
But HMAS Adelaide provides the other complication we face currently. All the little black boxes that make up modern systems? It's hard to get them. Supply times have ballooned thanks to Ukraine, COVID and military build-ups. Critical materials (looking at you xenon), chips, workforce, even plain cables - it's amazing how hard it is to get stuff. I am aware of a simple system ordered in Aug 21 that just had it's delivery date pushed from Jun to Oct....and RAN systems make this system look a step above pencil and pen. And this is 'stuff' in production. If we need to place a new order, or (re-)start a production line, you could add 6 - 24 months. And ships, let alone warships, are full of these little black boxes.
Compare these build times of 2.5 - 3 years from peak condition shipyard industries to today. HMS Glasgow? At least 9 years if they stay on track. HMS Kent? 3.5 years. HMS Duncan? 6.5 years. USS Indianapolis? 3.5 years - and I'd argue she still was not a warship at delivery, partially due to LCS issues and partially due no mission modules. The other LCS is faster - USS Omaha in 3 years. USS Dewey? 3.5 years. JS Atago? 3 years.
Now, with the exception of HMS Glasgow, they are all late (but in service) production ships, meaning the production lines know everything. Nothing we have now can match that experience.
The final thing, unlike most air and land platforms, there are genuine reasons to Australianise ships. And Australianisations take longer because they require unique design work. We know that European ships need significant rework done to engine and cooling because the water is warmer. Our RAS stuff has to match. We'd prefer common spares and ammunition. We may need different radios. But they all take time.
So, going conservatively, allow 6 months for this stupid review and then allow 1 year to do the selection and prelim design and approval (remember, government approvals are not set to CASG timetables, nor CASG regulations (see PM&C and Treasury...)). 2 years to start assembly the black boxes we need, do detailed design and get the shipyard filled with workers (going to cut some corners here). Now HMAS Silver Bullet is laid down Jan 27. Assuming she isn't a Hunter, she's first of class and hence we are going to make a couple of errors and the like, but she's more complex than an LCS and less than a Type 45 - so we will assume 3.5 years. That puts her maiden sail Jul 30.
And that's if everything goes right. I'll leave it to the actual ship building experts here to dismantle my assumptions on everything going right.
You want more actual warships in the water in 2030? You give direction to FSP20 to speed up Hunter (which we tried but the RAN turned it down...) and restrict the RAN pretty brutally (take the Type 26, do the minimum required for the environment and put a red roo on it) . That might get you HMAS Hunter and HMAS The Names Just Get Stupider in the water by 2030, and at least Hunter in the fleet.
Yeah - I have no faith in the review. The USN may have been a benchmark Navy in the 1980s or 90s, but their recruitment is atrocious (68% targets met last year), their seamanship is bad and getting worse, their kit selections are worse than us (Ford, LCS, Constellation, Zumwalt), their fleet design is bad and they have little demonstrated resilience within the fleet (look at those crazy deployment times). I struggle to see what they can actually bring us. I'm also somewhat cynical about a SSN driver doing the review, especially for a maritime nation that has greater reliance on surface combatants than the US does.
Thanks for a good post.
Can we turn back the clock to 2010 and start planning for our future fleet again!
Cheers S
Can you give sources or an explanation for these claims? Particularly about declining seamanship and how the Fords and Constellations are bad acquisitions.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I take it you meant the Adelaide/Perry class Frigate, HMAS Sydney IV, HMAS Sydney III was the Majestic class aircraft carrier. The first 2 Sydney's were Light Cruisers of the Chatham class (I) and Leander class (II).
The first two Mogami-class frigates took 2yrs 6 months & 2y 5m from laying down to commissioning, & they're laying 'em down two at a time. They currently have four building, plus three submarines & a helicopter carrier being turned into an F-35B carrier.
So there are still countries other than China which can do things fairly quickly.
Interestingly, per the budget papers released about 45 mins ago the approved acquisition spend is $6.1bn for the first three ships ie $2bn a pop.
These are obviously the first three to be built, so I’d expect the unit cost for subsequent builds To be much lower as the line ramps up and works the kinks out. So maybe this drops down to a marginal $1.5bn and $1.8bn off a hot line.
Less than what Navantia were promising for additional Hobarts. Great value for money.
I don’t think people really get what sort of arm wrestle we’re in. We’re up against the world champs of mass production.
We will not deter the Chinese by producing tiny little corvettes and OPVs with a few missiles hanging off the back. It won’t happen. They will produce their own little corvettes and OPVs and fishing ships who will overwhelm us.
What we need is (a) SSNs - tick; plus (b) as many Tier 1 combatants produced as economically as possible. Get a line running as efficiently as possible churning out top quality product. It looks like Osborne has been set up to do just this and we have a world class shipyard on our hands. Let’s use it.
More Hunters, more quickly.
Just a note on cost. The budget for Hunters I believe includes sustainment…. Not just hull. It’s that apples and apples thing again. The cost of the platform will come down as the build progresses as there are efficiencies in scale and the whole first of class work will have been done. So the time for follow on ships and batches to go from cut steel to commissioning should reduce. So if we build more Hunters you may see outcomes like Japan where they come off the production line pretty quickly if desired.
45 billion through life for 9 Hunters. atm.
2 yards(Osborne/Henderson) building hunters like they do for the Mogami in Japan?
or just Osborne building one ship every 2-2.5 years from 2031?
Do you think that is an elegant well thought out implementation? Which other navy currently deploys the system like that. What it is equivalent to RBS70 operating off Australian ships in the past.
I do not think such a system will deter major Chinese fleet unit and naval bombers. Nor will they be able to protect the ships from that kind of firepower. We are talking about a country that has the firepower to lay waste to entire US carrier battle groups, possibly entire fleets. As far as deterrents go, I don't think it changes the status quo at all. Yes it is a possible up gunning, but with heavy compromises and very limited capability.
Its a CGI render. Not a FOC system in service. But sure, we could spend time, money and effort developing it. Rafael would indeed think that is awesome.
China can certainly stop trade to China.
China can probably stop trade/SLOC to Taiwan, Korea and Japan. I'm not sure even the US can stop that.
However, Australia exports commodities. Mineral ores, grains etc. China's Australia bans have proved very ineffective, because these can easily be re-routed to other markets. In terms of blocking oil, well our strategic reserves are in the US, we have plenty of coal and gas locally, every day the sun shines in Australia. Australia isn't like normal mid power countries. Its going to be very hard to apply pressure to it. Australia's export industry employ tiny numbers. Mining is mostly automated. If there is a 6-12 month blockage, while annoying, it won't be the end of Australia.
China is not going to engage a 1 on 1 battle with Australia and blockade a continent. It can't. It can't close the Pacific and Indian oceans. Unlike Europe, Australia isn't reliant on Suez, or Malacca, or Panama. Its not Australia worried about cutting of SLOC, its China.
Obvious targets for Australian exports if China/Korea/Japan are out of the picture, would be the US, Indonesia and India and maybe Europe. If China wants to launch attacks on the US, Indonesia and India they are welcomed to try. Personally I think we could probably continue exporting to Japan, as most of our exports come from the East coast, go out further than Guam and could easily be moved a thousand kilometers further across the pacific.
Which is why a Free Trade Agreement with EU is ultra important. As important as destroyers, and submarines.
What Australia could do (with help) is block all trade through Malacca, and reroute it to go around Australia. it could also stop exporting Australian exports to China. The diplomatic equivalent of sticking your thumb up a dragons arse, as China really, really needs those or its people starve, its cities turn dark and cold and industry shuts down.
Again, we aren't taking on China buy ourselves, escorting bulk ore carriers, flagged in Panama, Chinese ships, owned by Chinese companies, operated by Philippine, Indian and Chinese crews, to South Korea and Japan. That isn't what is happening. It is up to Korea and Japan to secure their waters and the oceans between. Australia has basically no merchant marine, certainly that isn't how our trade is conducted.
When China banned Australian coal, it wasn't Australian's stuck on ships, it wasn't Australian shipping companies that owned those ships, it wasn't Australian industry damaged by having no coal.
If they can't, India is building coal power stations and smelters, and can escort shipping, we will sell to them. Or the US. Or to the middle east. Or Pakistan. Or Europe. Or Iran.
If the US starts carpet bombing Chinese cities, or the Chinese start sinking US carrier groups, I presume Australia won't be exporting much to China in either situation.
Again I think people are missing the strategic situation. Its not that the Chinese military has Australia over a barrel and is going to wipe the continent clean of life. But they can certainly annoy Australia, make the region unstable, and they could muscle on our pacific backyard and SEA.
But that isn't the big thing. Its that there is strategic competition between China and the US, and if that turns hot. A change as big as WW2.
The DSR is moving from 2027 time frame to the 2035 timeframe. The US helps those who help themselves. If Europe, South Korea, Japan or Taiwan expects the US to sweep in and save them while they fain inability, they misunderstand the relationship.
Look at the Nuclear submarines. They already exist, but we aren't getting them until early 2030's.
Possibly this configuration is for trials of the system, as was done with the single CEAFAR panel on one of the ANZACs as a proof of concept prior to award of the ASMD contract.
With potentially only six Arafuras maybe it isn't worth any major reconfiguration and they may just receive provision for a modular, minimal impact, for but not with, arrangement, common with other types.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I’m trying not to speculate but, as Morgo & others have been saying, it’s obvious that the Type 26/Hunter hull is quite advanced in its development for the RAN and thus is the only one that can be brought into service quickly.
The propulsion system is designed to be very quiet to suit its ASW role and the hull is large enough to have flexibility to be used in different roles, as evidenced by BAES proposing an AWD version with a large missile load. When you add in the simplified logistics of using the same hull design for ships in various roles, it appears obvious that all our Tier 1 shipbuilding efforts should focus on this hull to produce them as rapidly as possible.
The quiet propulsion system does come at significant cost (as detailed by the RN‘s decision to limit the Type 26 production to 8 ships and build 5 cheaper (but noisier) Type 31’s. However, operationally, it would be desirable when sending warships into high threat areas, that they are difficult for submarines to detect. Hopefully, if these vessels were acquired in large numbers, economy of scale in day to day operations would help offset the higher acquisition costs.
Last edited:
The price of $6bn for the first 3 ships seems very good, imho. Look at the features, and compare them to the rest of the world. And it's the first 3 ships only. This is actually good news, and I pray it means they'll consider more ships in the future, since in theory, they've built facilities to double the rate and number of ships being consecutively built, from what I remember several years ago
As for those who keep saying the Arafuras need to have more weapons, there's a real limit there.
There's a cgi from the first RAN thread which shows this easily- the sheer difference in size between the Hunter and Arafura:
And the Arafura shown doesn't have extra sensors, electronics, bolt on harpoons/NSM, CDome/SeaRam's, which would easily max it out.
As for those who keep saying the Arafuras need to have more weapons, there's a real limit there.
There's a cgi from the first RAN thread which shows this easily- the sheer difference in size between the Hunter and Arafura:
And the Arafura shown doesn't have extra sensors, electronics, bolt on harpoons/NSM, CDome/SeaRam's, which would easily max it out.
ANAO audit of the Hunter-class program released today.
Navy’s troubled frigate project suffers further cost blowout
The Australian National Audit Office’s damning report raises more questions about whether the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine program can be delivered without significant overruns.
First Hunter now 2032-2033, very much doubt we build more than 6 as the program cost continues to go up, above 45 billion.
Single yard. Osborne is tooled up for it and is a digital shipyard. The digital side is important as there is a digital model of each ship and everything done to it. This is essential for the ongoing maintenance of the ship. It also helps design changes between batches.
Henderson is not as capable at the moment. However, with the large hulled future JSS etc it may get there and I think there will be enough work for them. Osborne has the design capability to sustain a faster drumbeat.
To be fair, when the costings were done defence had decided to build a slightly modified T26 (i.e CEAFAR and 9LV). This was to reduce risk and get ships in the water. However, a decision was taken to accept the risk and build in more capability from the get go. This caused delay and there was considerable design work required. These vessels will be an exception ASW platform but …. Now … will have a very capable AAW combat suite.Navy’s troubled frigate project suffers further cost blowout
The Australian National Audit Office’s damning report raises more questions about whether the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine program can be delivered without significant overruns.www.smh.com.au
First Hunter now 2032-2033, very much doubt we build more than 6 as the program cost continues to go up, above 45 billion.
As noted in previous comments, costs go down with numbers and interactions between each batch. The drum beat can be increased. However, until the ship type review, to supplement the defence review, may give more clarity. Personally, unless we plan to build a ‘super destroyer’ based on the the Hunter we should keep building them until the design of the next ship type is set in stone. This will ensure numbers and avoid another period of no vessels in the pipeline (this is pretty much what the US do with the ABs)_