Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
First Hunter now 2032-2033, very much doubt we build more than 6 as the program cost continues to go up, above 45 billion.
6 would seem to be a useful minimum number. Effectively two batch's of the same ship.

The main issue is again, goal posts have moved.

BAE would need to put together a serious detailed proposal on any superhunter destroyer. It would need to be benchmarked and some sort of competitive analysis performed. We don't even really have the minimum requirements, more VLS? But how many? Endurance, range, crew, aviation capabilities going forward. Its not just about more VLS. Heck the US looks to be introducing a new larger VLS do we aim to be able to operate those weapons?

We better get a jiggle on with the Henderson upgrades as well. I see Spain is re-podding the JC1 with new engines/pods. Perhaps looking for speed?

NSW has also seemingly reactivated all the Manly ferries, cruise ships are operational again, the new chinese ferries are no good and not big enough..

Nuyina may need dry docking as well as part of some of its rectifications.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
6 would seem to be a useful minimum number. Effectively two batch's of the same ship.

The main issue is again, goal posts have moved.

BAE would need to put together a serious detailed proposal on any superhunter destroyer. It would need to be benchmarked and some sort of competitive analysis performed. We don't even really have the minimum requirements, more VLS? But how many? Endurance, range, crew, aviation capabilities going forward. Its not just about more VLS. Heck the US looks to be introducing a new larger VLS do we aim to be able to operate those weapons?

We better get a jiggle on with the Henderson upgrades as well. I see Spain is re-podding the JC1 with new engines/pods. Perhaps looking for speed?

NSW has also seemingly reactivated all the Manly ferries, cruise ships are operational again, the new chinese ferries are no good and not big enough..

Nuyina may need dry docking as well as part of some of its rectifications.

With the type 83 coming into play in the late 2030s, once again we will be faced with a difficult decision.
6 Hunters followed by a slightly risky build of the type 83(1 could be in RN service by 2037.)
or 6 Hunters followed by a destroyer variant of The Hunter.

This is the same problem we are having currently, we went the risky option with no first of class in the water, + heavy Modification.
Maybe with the Hunter potentially now entering in 2032/33, one positive is that we may be able to see atleast 1 type 83 in service/tested before we begin a new build of destroyers.
 

Flexson

Active Member
I see Spain is re-podding the JC1 with new engines/pods. Perhaps looking for speed?
Probably trying to solve the extreme cavitation with resulting noise, vibration and erosion issues that we already solved on ours.
Their solution sounds like it will also solve some other issues we are still living with.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
C-Dome appears to be, yes. Israel is so satisfied with it, it is expanding the deployment of the system to other vessels in it’s navy and RAN according to the reports we have from naval news, is interested in it. This particular configuration was announced only 7 days ago. How many navies could acquire in that time?

Like an RBS-70? One is a 20x round VLS firing active radar guided interceptors capable of rapid ripple fire and accordingly capable of engaging multiple threats simultaneously? The other is a VShorad MANPAD firing a single laser guided round, one at a time…

About the only similarities are they are both missiles and both launched from the deck of a ship…

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.
Unlike ESSM perhaps? That is a silly statement to be perfectly honest. If failing to deter a superpower is the threshold for whether a capability should be introduced or not, then disband the entire ADF. Because nothing we have or will have will ever achieve that. China seemingly isn’t deterred by the USA’s 4000 + nuclear weapons. Why would any SAM system change that? What this might do though, is protect our sailors and service people from revised assessed threats. Remember that line about the Arafuras from the RAN itself? I do.

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.
We don’t only buy FOC systems...

But C-Dome itself is, is in-service with another navy and this is simply a different configuration of that system.

We’ll have to wait and see if this even comes to fruition.

RAN selected SIMBAD launchers to fire Mistral SAM’s off ANZAC Class vessels once upon a time too. That never actually panned out…
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
A number of interesting details coming out of the report with regards to shipbuilding as a whole, not just the Hunter-class (or HCF, another TLA).

OPV 1 and 2 remained behind schedule as of March, with their workforce planned for release this December. Further, it appears that the Anzac TRANSCAP project will take place at Henderson whereas the DDG upgrade project will take place at Osborne. There is some indicated concern regarding overlap between the DDG upgrade project and Hunter construction:

At present, BAESMA does not have the scope of work and schedule for the Hobart Class Destroyer Upgrades so the combined resource demand on BAESMA is not yet known and thus far has not been accounted for in their resource demand planning for HCF engineering and production. … we recommend that Defence Leadership ensure that the Resources needed to cope with that overlap are understood and achievable
There is additional detail on surface fleet size as well. Originally it seems the plan was to have twelve surface combatants in service by the time the second Hunter entered service, though this timeline appears to have been pushed back until the end of the program once all Hunters have entered service. Barring the procurement of other escorts beyond the Hunter and Hobart vessels or reduced production timeframes, we will retain an escort force of 11 vessels until the end of the Hunter construction program in the 2040s. This, alongside the future end of the TRANSCAP program for the Anzac-class and Arafura-class in Henderson, may indicate why Government has made a note of countries producing smaller vessels.

In regards to areas of "very high risk," the following emerged from the report:

1) (3.95) The February 2022 Independent Assurance Review (IAR) also reported a very high risk that the nine ship build will ‘not be affordable within the current IIP provision’ and that:

Even if the enhanced prototype blocks are used in the Batch 1 build as planned, the schedule extension inherent in the Interim Arrangement will introduce increased costs. Also, supply chain costs have increased significantly. There is a strong likelihood that Batch 1 will consume a significantly higher proportion of the overall IIP provision than previously anticipated, placing financial pressure on the nature and scale of re-design/configuration changes that can be undertaken or are affordable in Batches 2 and 3.
2) (3.122) Defence records indicate that capability risk for the surface fleet has been drawn to the attention of Defence senior leaders. For example, the February 2022 Independent Assurance Review (IAR) reported that:

There is a Very High risk that the first [Hunter class] ship will not be delivered by the proposed 2031 date; the Board assesses that the risk is almost certain to be realised, and the consequences would be critical, in terms of the implications for the major combatant surface fleet and the transition from the ANZACs
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
6 would seem to be a useful minimum number. Effectively two batch's of the same ship.

The main issue is again, goal posts have moved.

BAE would need to put together a serious detailed proposal on any superhunter destroyer. It would need to be benchmarked and some sort of competitive analysis performed. We don't even really have the minimum requirements, more VLS? But how many? Endurance, range, crew, aviation capabilities going forward. Its not just about more VLS. Heck the US looks to be introducing a new larger VLS do we aim to be able to operate those weapons?

We better get a jiggle on with the Henderson upgrades as well. I see Spain is re-podding the JC1 with new engines/pods. Perhaps looking for speed?

NSW has also seemingly reactivated all the Manly ferries, cruise ships are operational again, the new chinese ferries are no good and not big enough..

Nuyina may need dry docking as well as part of some of its rectifications.
Is it? The amphibious and auxiliary fleets are growing in size whilst the surface fleet is reducing in size. AEGIS is capable, though the number of vessels mean they will need to be concentrated under the cover of the few escorts we have. Its not necessarily even about deterrence - we are an island nation with a massive reliance on sea trade, amidst heightened geopolitical risk.

I am genuinely interested whether a T2 fleet, built out of Henderson, is economical and can be achieved.
 

knightrider4

Active Member
While I can see what you are getting at, have you thought outside of the box on how a Corvette could be used in defence of Australia?
The land based anti ship missile concept? Now think of the Corvettes hiding among the clutter of bays and islands and providing a similar role.
Yes all very well but once it fires it's paltry missile load then what? How will it defend itself? In my opinion it's only an option for a government seeking to do defence on the cheap.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Unlike ESSM perhaps?
Yes.

ESSM can pretty much handle any weapon system fired at it and makes a very efficient inner missile guard on the Hobart's and a fair single shell of protection on the anzacs. Its a medium range missile, able of intercepting thing out to 50-75km.

C-Dome doesn't. I would put C-Dome on the level of capabilities of SeaRAM, Mica and C-Dome and regular CAMM in the same category. 70-120kg missile, short range terminal interception as a Close In Weapons System. I would put it in that category with gun systems such as Phalanx and ~35mm millennium guns. Useful range ~<10km for fast moving intercepts and probably < 5km altitude. Slow moving drones might be able to be hit further out. How indeed will we be seeing further away without the embarked drone capability I don't know.

So in that sense, putting C-Dome in Arafura makes as much sense as Searam, or Phalanx. It is not going to be a game changer IMO, not against the Chinese. Against RPG armed pirates, against pirates firing mortars and 40mm old ww2 naval guns, maybe. It may even have a more naval role in the Mediterranean and the Persian gulf. It could maybe even useful as an inner CIWS on a bigger ship. But unlike Arafura, those ships will have other capabilities until a new CIWS is FOC. Arafura would have nothing.

ESSM is like 3 times the size, 3 times the range, 3 times the capability. Larger missiles are probably not able to be intercepted by C-Dome at all, it just doesn't have the hitting power against some of those big old soviet style antishipping missiles.

But I'm not the missile police, I am just trying to cool expectations about any sort of imminent announcement we are fitting C-Dome to Arafura, and what a game changer that would be against China.

Of course if we had built 90-100m (or even a capable 85m OPV) ships in the first place, there would be some room to fit ESSM, C-Dome, 76mm, 35mm gun, NSM, proper radars, torpedos, towed arrays, enough power for the crew, enough speed to be somewhat useful at least for short engagements etc.

Not that we had to, but if we felt we must, you would get a far, far ,far, far more capable platform. Its not C-Dome I dislike per sec, its putting it on Arafura. Its just the wrong ship, and it was widely noted at the time that we would never be able to up gun this platform in any meaningful way. It can't move fast enough to move with major fleet units, it doesn't have enough organic capability to do anything meaningful alone, its not offensive enough to deter and not layered enough to be defender.

Give them to Boarder force and be done with it. I feel we are done with that limited platform from a Navy perspective.

Is it? The amphibious and auxiliary fleets are growing in size whilst the surface fleet is reducing in size. AEGIS is capable, though the number of vessels mean they will need to be concentrated under the cover of the few escorts we have. Its not necessarily even about deterrence - we are an island nation with a massive reliance on sea trade, amidst heightened geopolitical risk.

I am genuinely interested whether a T2 fleet, built out of Henderson, is economical and can be achieved.
AEGIS is no longer tied to massive ships the size of cruisers. At least the combat processing capability. It is now houses in COTS server racks that can fit on many sized military ships. Its also more modular and has libraries that can be left and incorporated depending on the combatant.

The DSR talks about smaller. Smaller than 10,000t. This could still mean 2500-6000t ships, ships half to a quarter the size of Hunter.

We do seem to be able to build ships out of Henderson. CIVMEC and Henderson aren't really the problem. Its government/Defence not acting on the obvious, China.

I'm not sure a corvette is the answer, but small medium frigates, will something Anzac sized but with half or less crewing and brand new with new systems could be a game changer. That is doable. They would likely be more capable and better armed than the Anzacs.

I presume with 6 hunters we would then go off and build ~6 super hunter cruisers. Small ships would be in addition to that. Lose the Arafuras and we could crew potentially 10 light Frigates. So that would still be ~12 major combatants. Then say 10 minor combatants, giving a total of ~22 actually combat capable ships.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Yes.

ESSM can pretty much handle any weapon system fired at it and makes a very efficient inner missile guard on the Hobart's and a fair single shell of protection on the anzacs. Its a medium range missile, able of intercepting thing out to 50-75km.

C-Dome doesn't. I would put C-Dome on the level of capabilities of SeaRAM, Mica and C-Dome and regular CAMM in the same category. 70-120kg missile, short range terminal interception as a Close In Weapons System. I would put it in that category with gun systems such as Phalanx and ~35mm millennium guns. Useful range ~<10km for fast moving intercepts and probably < 5km altitude. Slow moving drones might be able to be hit further out. How indeed will we be seeing further away without the embarked drone capability I don't know.

So in that sense, putting C-Dome in Arafura makes as much sense as Searam, or Phalanx. It is not going to be a game changer IMO, not against the Chinese. Against RPG armed pirates, against pirates firing mortars and 40mm old ww2 naval guns, maybe. It may even have a more naval role in the Mediterranean and the Persian gulf. It could maybe even useful as an inner CIWS on a bigger ship. But unlike Arafura, those ships will have other capabilities until a new CIWS is FOC. Arafura would have nothing.

ESSM is like 3 times the size, 3 times the range, 3 times the capability. Larger missiles are probably not able to be intercepted by C-Dome at all, it just doesn't have the hitting power against some of those big old soviet style antishipping missiles.

But I'm not the missile police, I am just trying to cool expectations about any sort of imminent announcement we are fitting C-Dome to Arafura, and what a game changer that would be against China.

Of course if we had built 90-100m (or even a capable 85m OPV) ships in the first place, there would be some room to fit ESSM, C-Dome, 76mm, 35mm gun, NSM, proper radars, torpedos, towed arrays, enough power for the crew, enough speed to be somewhat useful at least for short engagements etc.

Not that we had to, but if we felt we must, you would get a far, far ,far, far more capable platform. Its not C-Dome I dislike per sec, its putting it on Arafura. Its just the wrong ship, and it was widely noted at the time that we would never be able to up gun this platform in any meaningful way. It can't move fast enough to move with major fleet units, it doesn't have enough organic capability to do anything meaningful alone, its not offensive enough to deter and not layered enough to be defender.

Give them to Boarder force and be done with it. I feel we are done with that limited platform from a Navy perspective.



AEGIS is no longer tied to massive ships the size of cruisers. At least the combat processing capability. It is now houses in COTS server racks that can fit on many sized military ships. Its also more modular and has libraries that can be left and incorporated depending on the combatant.

The DSR talks about smaller. Smaller than 10,000t. This could still mean 2500-6000t ships, ships half to a quarter the size of Hunter.

We do seem to be able to build ships out of Henderson. CIVMEC and Henderson aren't really the problem. Its government/Defence not acting on the obvious, China.

I'm not sure a corvette is the answer, but small medium frigates, will something Anzac sized but with half or less crewing and brand new with new systems could be a game changer. That is doable. They would likely be more capable and better armed than the Anzacs.

I presume with 6 hunters we would then go off and build ~6 super hunter cruisers. Small ships would be in addition to that. Lose the Arafuras and we could crew potentially 10 light Frigates. So that would still be ~12 major combatants. Then say 10 minor combatants, giving a total of ~22 actually combat capable ships.
As long as your 10 minor combatants were equivalent to a modernised ANZAC or more in capability (ie like a Type 31) this sounds like it’d be an awesome outcome,

I am not holding my breath however.
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
AEGIS is no longer tied to massive ships the size of cruisers. At least the combat processing capability. It is now houses in COTS server racks that can fit on many sized military ships. Its also more modular and has libraries that can be left and incorporated depending on the combatant.

The DSR talks about smaller. Smaller than 10,000t. This could still mean 2500-6000t ships, ships half to a quarter the size of Hunter.

We do seem to be able to build ships out of Henderson. CIVMEC and Henderson aren't really the problem. Its government/Defence not acting on the obvious, China.

I'm not sure a corvette is the answer, but small medium frigates, will something Anzac sized but with half or less crewing and brand new with new systems could be a game changer. That is doable. They would likely be more capable and better armed than the Anzacs.

I presume with 6 hunters we would then go off and build ~6 super hunter cruisers. Small ships would be in addition to that. Lose the Arafuras and we could crew potentially 10 light Frigates. So that would still be ~12 major combatants. Then say 10 minor combatants, giving a total of ~22 actually combat capable ships.
I'm all for more frigates, whether it is the full nine Hunters or six and something else - as long as they can defend themselves and reach out. If Anzac is the minimum, then we can aim for another Anzac-type, etc.

But we would be aiming to achieve that additional project within the funds saved by cutting three Hunters. I'm not certain that is feasible when a whole other yard is constructing them, different systems are potentially in place, and more crew are necessary (6 of any frigate is going to use the same amount of crew or more than 3 Hunters). This, with the SSN workforce to be determined.

I haven't seen by how much the project is over, maybe it is significant enough for another class of small frigates, though I worry we are dividing workforce and funds when the Hunters can still be highly capable even with cost overruns and delays.

I'm hopeful that part of the recent $19B (inc 40% from other areas, including sustainment) goes into Hunter, or a hybrid option that sees any T2 option remain a projecting asset rather than a coastal one, per below.

The First Assistant Secretary’s annotation on this internal advice was that ‘it appeared that BAE underestimated the combat system design, whole ship design and construction even considering the scope adjusted changes.’ Head Navy Capability’s annotation on the advice was that ‘the cost model continues to be updated, however the scale of the cost estimate from Second Pass is so significant, it is no longer about capability trade at the margins. It is fundamentally now a discussion about increasing the provision held by the IIP through offset of other capability (ie. no new money) or a reduction in the number of vessels to be delivered by the project.’
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can you give sources or an explanation for these claims? Particularly about declining seamanship and how the Fords and Constellations are bad acquisitions.
Read the news.

Don't even search specifically for problems, just do a year by year search of news stories on the USN over the last decade.

The root cause can be argued (sequestration definitely didn't help) but funding and investment, maintenance and deployment have all suffered.

On seamanship, two destroyer and one SSN collision resulting in death injury and severe damage I the last several years.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Read the news.

Don't even search specifically for problems, just do a year by year search of news stories on the USN over the last decade.

The root cause can be argued (sequestration definitely didn't help) but funding and investment, maintenance and deployment have all suffered.

On seamanship, two destroyer and one SSN collision resulting in death injury and severe damage I the last several years.
You could add leadership, the BHR fire loss was partially due to no one figuring out who was in charge.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can you give sources or an explanation for these claims? Particularly about declining seamanship and how the Fords and Constellations are bad acquisitions.
Here are a couple of links that are open source & you can find online...

From LCS to Missing Pay - the Wrong Mindset Remains

Navy’s capacity to wage war hindered by maintenance, shipyard problems, GAO finds


For them that CAN'T be bothered reading the articles, here's a soundbite :


" The sea service’s readiness suffers to a greater degree than the other service branches, the report concluded.

The GAO assigned a “readiness rating” for the domains of air, sea, ground and space based on data from fiscal years 2017 through 2021. Only the sea rating decreased for both resource readiness and mission capability readiness during that period, according to the report,

The Navy was plagued by worsening ship maintenance backlogs over that five-year period for 10 classes of ships reviewed by the GAO.

“The 10 ship classes we reviewed face a litany of maintenance and supply challenges related to the age of the ship, shortages of trained maintenance personnel, and diminished manufacturing sources for parts, among others,” the report states.

“According to program officials, these challenges affect operational availability and the costs required to sustain those ships.”

The most troubled areas were increasing lengths of depot maintenance delays, more frequent “cannibalizations” of working parts for use elsewhere due to shortages, and reports of ships too impaired to conduct their primary missions.

“The average days of depot maintenance delay per ship among the 10 ship classes we examined increased about 5 days to about 19 days per ship in fiscal years 2011 through 2021,” the report states."

Officials from program offices for nine of the 10 ship classes told the GAO that they had a hard time getting needed spare parts, which resulted in an increase in ship maintainers reusing parts.

“With the exception of fiscal year 2017, the average number of cannibalizations per ship increased every year from 2015 to 2021,” the report states
."


SA
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
While most of this is true, although the USN seems to have turned the seamanship issue around, what does it have to do with the RAN? Shortage of spares and supplies out of the US does not seem to be an issue, nobody is reporting issues with maintaining LM2500 or GDMS or SPY, and while I would rather our major ally did not have such problems, it still doesn’t impact on the RAN. Overall DOA, yes, the RAN as a Service, no.
 

devo99

Well-Known Member
Read the news.

Don't even search specifically for problems, just do a year by year search of news stories on the USN over the last decade.

The root cause can be argued (sequestration definitely didn't help) but funding and investment, maintenance and deployment have all suffered.

On seamanship, two destroyer and one SSN collision resulting in death injury and severe damage I the last several years.
Nobody has explained why the Ford and Constellations are bad acquisitions yet. The Constellation program in particular has been handled better than any RAN program in recent memory. Also a lot of the USN seamanship problems I'm aware of came as a result of covid slowing everything down and stopping port calls.
 

devo99

Well-Known Member
Here are a couple of links that are open source & you can find online...

From LCS to Missing Pay - the Wrong Mindset Remains

Navy’s capacity to wage war hindered by maintenance, shipyard problems, GAO finds


For them that CAN'T be bothered reading the articles, here's a soundbite :


" The sea service’s readiness suffers to a greater degree than the other service branches, the report concluded.

The GAO assigned a “readiness rating” for the domains of air, sea, ground and space based on data from fiscal years 2017 through 2021. Only the sea rating decreased for both resource readiness and mission capability readiness during that period, according to the report,

The Navy was plagued by worsening ship maintenance backlogs over that five-year period for 10 classes of ships reviewed by the GAO.

“The 10 ship classes we reviewed face a litany of maintenance and supply challenges related to the age of the ship, shortages of trained maintenance personnel, and diminished manufacturing sources for parts, among others,” the report states.

“According to program officials, these challenges affect operational availability and the costs required to sustain those ships.”

The most troubled areas were increasing lengths of depot maintenance delays, more frequent “cannibalizations” of working parts for use elsewhere due to shortages, and reports of ships too impaired to conduct their primary missions.

“The average days of depot maintenance delay per ship among the 10 ship classes we examined increased about 5 days to about 19 days per ship in fiscal years 2011 through 2021,” the report states."

Officials from program offices for nine of the 10 ship classes told the GAO that they had a hard time getting needed spare parts, which resulted in an increase in ship maintainers reusing parts.

“With the exception of fiscal year 2017, the average number of cannibalizations per ship increased every year from 2015 to 2021,” the report states
."


SA
This is not a seamanship problem, this is a supply and maintenance problem.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Nobody has explained why the Ford and Constellations are bad acquisitions yet. The Constellation program in particular has been handled better than any RAN program in recent memory. Also a lot of the USN seamanship problems I'm aware of came as a result of covid slowing everything down and stopping port calls.
The Ford was commissioned in 2017 and has only just started its first deployment, it has a number of new systems fitted that have proved somewhat troublesome to get to full operational status, primarily the EMALS launch system and the new AAG arrestor system.
 

devo99

Well-Known Member
The Ford was commissioned in 2017 and has only just started its first deployment, it has a number of new systems fitted that have proved somewhat troublesome to get to full operational status, primarily the EMALS launch system and the new AAG arrestor system.
I'm aware of the teething issues that G.R.F has run into but I don't see how that makes the Fords a bad acquisition. If anyone can work through those problems it's the USN seeing as they're currently the world leader in those technologies, and at the end of the day they will be an effective and much needed upgrade from the Nimitz.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'm aware of the teething issues that G.R.F has run into but I don't see how that makes the Fords a bad acquisition. If anyone can work through those problems it's the USN seeing as they're currently the world leader in those technologies, and at the end of the day they will be an effective and much needed upgrade from the Nimitz.
If you want to keep discussing this issue please take it to the USN thread.
 
Top