Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[hauritz]

To try to get a better idea of the debate over strategic issues motivating AUKUS, I have been reading a new book out by Lowy Institute defence analyst Sam Roggeveen, formerly of the ONA. So far I am finding it well written and acknowledging the reality and seriousness of rising Chinese naval power, and the need to rethink Australian defence in light of it.

Roggeveen is in favour of increased spending on naval defence and mines and submarines specifically. However he criticises the logic behind AUKUS and value in SSNs, and so far as I have read he is arguing for a more self reliant posture for Australia. This review by former FM Gareth Evans gives a useful summary, and there are some podcasts where he sets out his thinking.

A compelling voice for rethinking Australia’s national security | Lowy Institute

Sam Roggeveen’s Echidna Strategy rightly challenges Australia to act as a diplomatic powerhouse, not a military one.

www.lowyinstitute.org

Raises some interesting points. Clearly it is written from a diplomatic perspective. I would argue that we are probably already in too deep with the US to change course now. Pine Gap and other facilities shared with the US have already made us a military target. If a war were to break out between the US and China it would probably just be a matter of time before these facilities were attacked.

I do actually agree that the west might well be misinterpreting China’s motives. Personally I believe China’s real intent isn’t to invade Taiwan but more to drive America out of the region. With America gone that leaves them free to do whatever they like.

The strategy they are using is a simple one. Just build as many ships, aircraft and missiles as possible. At some point the US will just realise they can’t match that capability and just walk away. With America out of the picture China’s neighbours will become far more compliant. Unification with Taiwan and complete control of the region will follow.

I think as we continue to move more into a multipolar world things will become a lot more complex for Australia. Not only do we need to deal with a more powerful China but also a rising Indonesia and India.

Being friends with the world’s only superpower has been extremely beneficial to Australia but we will soon find ourselves as the small kid in a schoolyard full of bullies.

 

[Volkodav]

Raises some interesting points. Clearly it is written from a diplomatic perspective. I would argue that we are probably already in too deep with the US to change course now. Pine Gap and other facilities shared with the US have already made us a military target. If a war were to break out between the US and China it would probably just be a matter of time before these facilities were attacked.

I do actually agree that the west might well be misinterpreting China’s motives. Personally I believe China’s real intent isn’t to invade Taiwan but more to drive America out of the region. With America gone that leaves them free to do whatever they like.

The strategy they are using is a simple one. Just build as many ships, aircraft and missiles as possible. At some point the US will just realise they can’t match that capability and just walk away. With America out of the picture China’s neighbours will become far more compliant. Unification with Taiwan and complete control of the region will follow.

I think as we continue to move more into a multipolar world things will become a lot more complex for Australia. Not only do we need to deal with a more powerful China but also a rising Indonesia and India.

Being friends with the world’s only superpower has been extremely beneficial to Australia but we will soon find ourselves as the small kid in a schoolyard full of bullies.

I would say our geographic location, our resources and the fact we are not a subservient vasel state to China, has made us a military target.

Our existence as a Western democracy in the region, as it does for the other democracies, makes us a target.

I would rather be friends with the Prefect than be left alone with the bullies

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I had another question for the experts... about our existing Anzac Class frigates. An online video by Sub Brief on the Anzacs (generally quite complimentary) pointed out that Anzacs had originally been planned to be upgraded with a 16 cell VLS, rathr than the 8 cell fitted. From photos on the video the space for the extra 8 cells appears to be still available.

I realise that the plan is to replace Anzacs with Hunters, but I have a simple question: with the delay waiting for Hunters, would it still be feasible to fit the Anzacs with the extra 8 VLS cells? This assumes it could be done fairly quickly, and not delay other projects (perhaps in Perth?). Apologies if others have thrashed this out before, but is this possible in a timeframe that would make it worthwhile?

 

[Todjaeger]

I had another question for the experts... about our existing Anzac Class frigates. An online video by Sub Brief on the Anzacs (generally quite complimentary) pointed out that Anzacs had originally been planned to be upgraded with a 16 cell VLS, rathr than the 8 cell fitted. From photos on the video the space for the extra 8 cells appears to be still available.

I realise that the plan is to replace Anzacs with Hunters, but I have a simple question: with the delay waiting for Hunters, would it still be feasible to fit the Anxacs with the extra 8 VLS cells? This assumes it could be done fairly quickly, and not delay other projects (perhaps in Perth?). Apologies if others have thrsahed this out before, but is this possible in a timeframe that would make it worthwhile?

Realistically, no. The issue has to do with the increase in topweight. AFAIK the original FFBNW plan was for an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS loaded with 8 RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles and then an option to install a 2nd 8-cell VLS for a total missile loadout of 16 RIM-7 Sea Sparrows. However, during or perhaps just after the development of the RIM-162 ESSM, the slightly larger and heavier missile had a quad-packing arrangement developed, so that each VLS cell could hold four missiles that were each individually more capable than the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. However, that quad-packing arrangement also changed the weight/displacement dynamic. IIRC a single 8-cell Mk 41 VLS quad-packed with ESSM has a lower displacement than a pair of 8-cell Mk 41 VLS's loaded with 16 RIM-7 Sea Sparrows. However, if the notion was to add a 2nd VLS and also have that quad-packed, then one is talking about increasing the displacement by ~22.5 tonnes all of which is above the waterline and therefore increases topweight, which the RAN ANZAC-class frigates already struggle with. If the RAN FFH's were modified in a rather drastic fashion, like perhaps removing the Mk 45 gun forward and replacing the gun and below deck magazine then another Mk 41 VLS might be able to be fitted.

 

[Volkodav]

I had another question for the experts... about our existing Anzac Class frigates. An online video by Sub Brief on the Anzacs (generally quite complimentary) pointed out that Anzacs had originally been planned to be upgraded with a 16 cell VLS, rathr than the 8 cell fitted. From photos on the video the space for the extra 8 cells appears to be still available.

I realise that the plan is to replace Anzacs with Hunters, but I have a simple question: with the delay waiting for Hunters, would it still be feasible to fit the Anxacs with the extra 8 VLS cells? This assumes it could be done fairly quickly, and not delay other projects (perhaps in Perth?). Apologies if others have thrsahed this out before, but is this possible in a timeframe that would make it worthwhile?

Weight and stability.

The original for but not with out fit of the ANZACs assumed space and weight for a second eight cell VLS for an additional eight NATO Sea Sparrow Missiles for a total of sixteen.

There was also weight for a second fire control channel, Harpoon to be fitted on the superstructure, and Phalanx to be fitted forward of the bridge (were Harpoon was fitted), and another of the hangar roof.

Instead they received quad packed ESSM, for a total of 32 missiles, and a completely new phased array radar on a new mast, with an active phased array missile guidence function, as well as an IRST. All of this delivers far more capability than first envisaged, but has used up all available margins and has actually required playing in the stern and ballast to maintain stability.

 

[Volkodav]

Realistically, no. The issue has to do with the increase in topweight. AFAIK the original FFBNW plan was for an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS loaded with 8 RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles and then an option to install a 2nd 8-cell VLS for a total missile loadout of 16 RIM-7 Sea Sparrows. However, during or perhaps just after the development of the RIM-162 ESSM, the slightly larger and heavier missile had a quad-packing arrangement developed, so that each VLS cell could hold four missiles that were each individually more capable than the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. However, that quad-packing arrangement also changed the weight/displacement dynamic. IIRC a single 8-cell Mk 41 VLS quad-packed with ESSM has a lower displacement than a pair of 8-cell Mk 41 VLS's loaded with 16 RIM-7 Sea Sparrows. However, if the notion was to add a 2nd VLS and also have that quad-packed, then one is talking about increasing the displacement by ~22.5 tonnes all of which is above the waterline and therefore increases topweight, which the RAN ANZAC-class frigates already struggle with. If the RAN FFH's were modified in a rather drastic fashion, like perhaps removing the Mk 45 gun forward and replacing the gun and below deck magazine then another Mk 41 VLS might be able to be fitted.

You beat me to it

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Realistically, no. The issue has to do with the increase in topweight. AFAIK the original FFBNW plan was for an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS loaded with 8 RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles and then an option to install a 2nd 8-cell VLS for a total missile loadout of 16 RIM-7 Sea Sparrows. However, during or perhaps just after the development of the RIM-162 ESSM, the slightly larger and heavier missile had a quad-packing arrangement developed, so that each VLS cell could hold four missiles that were each individually more capable than the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. However, that quad-packing arrangement also changed the weight/displacement dynamic. IIRC a single 8-cell Mk 41 VLS quad-packed with ESSM has a lower displacement than a pair of 8-cell Mk 41 VLS's loaded with 16 RIM-7 Sea Sparrows. However, if the notion was to add a 2nd VLS and also have that quad-packed, then one is talking about increasing the displacement by ~22.5 tonnes all of which is above the waterline and therefore increases topweight, which the RAN ANZAC-class frigates already struggle with. If the RAN FFH's were modified in a rather drastic fashion, like perhaps removing the Mk 45 gun forward and replacing the gun and below deck magazine then another Mk 41 VLS might be able to be fitted.

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. So the extra VLS would be too much weight above the centre of gravity of the ship's hull. Pity.

Losing the 5 inch gun and its 500 round magazine seems a large price to pay for more VLS.

 

[old faithful]

Late and overweight frigates worth $45b may face cuts

A naval review is likely to recommend the navy’s Hunter-class frigate program be reduced amid a cost blowout.

www.afr.com

Looks like the review has recommended a cut to the Hunter program by 3 ships.
Wonder what that means.
We can speculate all we want I guess, but I expect an announcement soon. I hope that does not mean 6 Hunters and some corvettes.
I also suppose it means the number of MK 41 cells has become important!

 

[Reptilia]

Late and overweight frigates worth $45b may face cuts

A naval review is likely to recommend the navy’s Hunter-class frigate program be reduced amid a cost blowout.

www.afr.com

Looks like the review has recommended a cut to the Hunter program by 3 ships.
Wonder what that means.
We can speculate all we want I guess, but I expect an announcement soon. I hope that does not mean 6 Hunters and some corvettes.
I also suppose it means the number of MK 41 cells has become important!

if only 6 and 1 every 2 years from 2032, timeline fits nicely with the destroyer replacement in the mid 40s. Type 26 destroyer variant or type 83
Smaller(maybe in tonnage only) tier 2 corvettes or frigates built at a faster rate than tier 1 ships at Henderson. Looking forward to the announcement…

 

[Julian 82]

Late and overweight frigates worth $45b may face cuts

A naval review is likely to recommend the navy’s Hunter-class frigate program be reduced amid a cost blowout.

www.afr.com

Looks like the review has recommended a cut to the Hunter program by 3 ships.
Wonder what that means.
We can speculate all we want I guess, but I expect an announcement soon. I hope that does not mean 6 Hunters and some corvettes.
I also suppose it means the number of MK 41 cells has become important!

What a joke. All this government has done is slash and burn defence. The few capabilities they have announced were already ordered and budgeted for by the previous government e.g HIMARS, NSM, tomahawk. The DSR is just a smokescreen to cut defence so Labor can pay for its social programs. No worries. It’s not like we are facing a deteriorating strategic environment. Everything is awesome

 

[Morgo]

What a joke. All this government has done is slash and burn defence. The few capabilities they have announced were already ordered and budgeted for by the previous government e.g HIMARS, NSM, tomahawk. The DSR is just a smokescreen to cut defence so Labor can pay for its social programs. No worries. It’s not like we are facing a deteriorating strategic environment. Everything is awesome

You don’t have a base of evidence to conclude that.

There is nothing new in this article.

The only major program they’ve cut is the IFVs. If they wanted to “slash and burn” they would’ve gone after the SSNs, or a number of other programs. They didn’t.

If they cull the Hunters and don’t replace it with anything, or something woefully inadequate, then fine. But they haven’t done that.

Until the review is complete there is no basis for your conclusion other than partisan bias.

 

[John Fedup]

You don’t have a base of evidence to conclude that.

There is nothing new in this article.

The only major program they’ve cut is the IFVs. If they wanted to “slash and burn” they would’ve gone after the SSNs, or a number of other programs. They didn’t.

If they cull the Hunters and don’t replace it with anything, or something woefully inadequate, then fine. But they haven’t done that.

Until the review is complete there is no basis for your conclusion other than partisan bias.

After the Attack class debacle, trashing the SSNs would be suicidal for the new government so if they want to slash it seems the Hunter class is the most likely target given all the negative press. I expect the same for the CSC, 15 ships will never happen. Not unreasonable to conclude a mixture of T26s along with perceived less expensive alternatives that will end up costing as much or more with less capability for both RAN and RCN. Will take more time as well. Classic pollie MO.

 

[Redlands18]

Why does it really matter how many Hunters they decide on this year? Probably get either a new ALP PM by 2026-27 or the LNP is elected and the new PM will decide to launch Defence Review number 255 and change it all anyway. Long term Defence planning has become a joke, history suggests they will change their mind 3 times before Hunter no6 is laid down.

 

[Gooey]

The only major program they’ve cut is the IFVs.

Also the extra SPGs, extra F-35s, 30 (down to 20) C-130s, and delayed space programs.
Evidence; the above and one word: Smith.

 

[Morgo]

Also the extra SPGs, extra F-35s, 30 (down to 20) C-130s, and delayed space programs.
Evidence; the above and one word: Smith.

None of these are real cuts.

- The SPGs have been substituted for HIMARS. Artillery is significantly strengthened.

- Extra F35s were never announced. We had an option, which neither the current nor previous Governments exercised.

- Aren’t the Hercs going from 12 to 20?

- A delay is not a cancellation.

Now do I agree with all of the decisions they’ve made? No.

Do I think they’re doing a pretty good but not perfect job maximising within broader budget constraints? Yes, pending the outcome of the surface force review.

Is this a continuation of a pretty good but not perfect investment program they inherited? Also yes.

Too many Armchair Economists aren’t taking the broader fiscal and economic environment into consideration.

 

[Aardvark144]

Also the extra SPGs, extra F-35s, 30 (down to 20) C-130s, and delayed space programs.
Evidence; the above and one word: Smith.

Ahhhh - the extra F35s were only ever an option to be considered, they were never considered to be set in stone.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

There have been cuts but there also been extra costs. The new helicopters to replace the grounded MH90s were only ordered by the current government in late 2022. The previous government had cancelled the Taipans and announced a switch to Seahawks, but never actually ordered SH60s before losing office.

RAN orders 12 more MH-60R Seahawks - Australian Defence Magazine

The US Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a contract to produce an additional 12 Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopters for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).

www.australiandefence.com.au

One of the many problems with AUKUS as first announced was that there was no cost estimate and no funding announced in the budget. Cancelling Attack cost Australian shipbuilding $2 billion per annum in SSK build funding. This was due to start in 2022. The saving was immediately used to order the new Abrams tanks, which was odd as they were not a priority in the previous defence plan.

So given that background, whoever won the 2022 election was bound to make cuts somewhere in defence. Either that or cancel AUKUS subs. This is one of the reasons why I personally wish we had switched from the French diesel sub to the French nuclear sub. The SSN design was complete and the Suffren was by then in the water and by all reports performing well. I am not saying the French SSN is as good as an Astute or Virginia. It is smaller and more lightly armed. But it is literally half the cost. Under AUKUS we did not just go from diesel to nuclear. We have gone from regionally superior to world’s best and most expensive. This is leading to cuts in other things.

Overall defence spending has not shrunk. We all would wish for an increase in defence funding. But in the short term, with federal interest rates and debt both high, I think the chance of higher defence spending is remote.

 

[Maranoa]

Also the extra SPGs, extra F-35s, 30 (down to 20) C-130s, and delayed space programs.
Evidence; the above and one word: Smith.

You also forgot to mention the MTUAS project cancelled outright, MQ-28A delayed to the point of critical loss of technological lead, reduction of Australian Army combat weight, suspension of many elements of Army small arms lethality program. And, I agree Smith is a key word here. Worst Defence Minister in modern history now the master and commander of our national destiny.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Ahhhh - the extra F35s were only ever an option to be considered, they were never considered to be set in stone.

TBH tho, block III Super hornets today sound much better than maybe getting some TR3 F-35 sometime 2030. At least the superhornets can fire things like LRASM. As a naval strike platform the Superhornet is the goer at the moment. The F-35 is swamped with orders after Ukraine, and you have the block IV delays, and even the TR3 rollout and block IV upgrade will still be going on in the AU fleet probably until 2035+.

But the decision on F-35 or SH would also likely affect any C-130 tanker capability, as the F-35A can't tanker from hercs. But even then, do herc tankers make sense, or should we get more KC30, or are we happy with the capability we have. Does fitting the Blk III conformal tanks make more sense.

While I think we should get more tanks, and more IFV, some of these projects, like Tanks, are off the shelf, you could get them basically at any time. Again Ukraine has made tank acquisition a priority, if Poland needs them more than we do, let them have them. For the capability we have, a tank on tank battle in Australia is pretty unlikely, and the M1A1 isn't exactly unserviceable for Australia. Christ, its one of our newer platforms. They only started entering service in 2007. Its not like they are rusted shut.

In a world where Australia is likely not to have a 30+ year old submarine in the water, a destroyer in the water and half the anzac frigates laid up, living with only 72 F-35's and 32 Super hornets and struggling with M1A1 don't seem to be the most pressing defence concerns for the next war in the pacific.

I'm no fan of Smith. But at this stage the biggest criticism is that no real tangible decisions have been made, not a mega cut into defence. He is a delay fish, that seems to think time is infinite and has no cost.

If they announce another review, I don't think the defence community could take it. And the first ones to tear him apart won't be uniform, it will be industry.

I find Tillets pieces laughable. How would he know? He has been crowing about the hunters from the beginning. Comitting to only build say 6 of them seems like non-news. 6 Hunters gets us basically into the 2040's at this rate. The war will have been fought and over by then, and who knows what, by then.

 

[hauritz]

Speculation about cuts to the Hunter program have been around for a while. Won’t free up any short term funding for tier two warships of course. Actually I could play the role of devil’s advocate and point out that so much has changed since these ships were ordered.

To start with the best ASW vessels in the fleet will probably be the new SSNs. We obviously still need ASW frigates but really we also need to get a better balance between ASW and AWD warships.

If we swap out three of the Hunters for extra AWDs that would probably be a good thing.

Of course this is me being optimistic.

We will know what the plan for the surface fleet in a few weeks and to be honest I am bracing myself for more bad news. When you think about it governments from both sides have made one bad decision after another in regards to the selection of combatants for the navy.

The ANZACs were too small, the regionally superior conventional submarine was cancelled with out a boat being delivered, they decided against building additional Hobarts, the Arafuras are simply the wrong ship and now the Hunter seems to have joined that list.

At this stage we have seen billions of dollars wasted and not a single vessel ordered by the Turnbull government back in 2016 is in service. In the meantime the size of the navy has dropped to just 34 commissioned vessels and most of those are on borrowed time.

The management of the navy over the last few decades has been nothing short of disastrous.

The current government claims to want to fix this but so far I am not hearing anything that fills me with any confidence. The narrative that what we really need are more smaller ships concerns me greatly.

I guess we will know more in the next few weeks.