Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[el Cid]

The only argument I can see in favour of the F-110 as an alternative to some Hunters is cost. Could be cheaper to build & operate. Wouldn't be able to carry everything that's being loaded onto the Hunters, though. Maybe a GP frigate to supplement the grade A ASW Hunters.

Note that I'm not suggesting this. I'm just examining the arguments.

The Hobarts 2.0 should be based in the F110 but increasing the cells to 48, because F110 only has 16, the most important thing for Australia to want 3 Hobarts 2.0 more is not the cost, it is obviously the weaponry and radar, the Spy radar should be superior to Ceafar, everyone knows that, and the array of missiles you can launch for the 48 cells is wider, more complete than Hunter´s, note the Sm2 missile is antiship missile as well with quite a long range, together with Harpoon, then the Tomahawks, the antisatellite and antiballistic. The resistance of the Spy to denied electromagnetic spaces, or the ability to sustain multiple beams of power.

Hobarts 2.0 are going to be smaller than Hunters but maybe more expensive because of the radar, it has 2 hangars and 2 electric motors as well.

 

[Volkodav]

The Hobarts 2.0 should be based in the F110 but increasing the cells to 48, because F110 only has 16, the most important thing for Australia to want 3 Hobarts 2.0 more is not the cost, it is obviously the weaponry and radar, the Spy radar should be superior to Ceafar, everyone knows that, and the array of missiles you can launch for the 48 cells is wider, more complete than Hunter´s, note the Sm2 missile is antiship missile as well with quite a long range, together with Harpoon, then the Tomahawks, the antisatellite and antiballistic. The resistance of the Spy to denied electromagnetic spaces, or the ability to sustain multiple beams of power.

Hobarts 2.0 are going to be smaller than Hunters but maybe more expensive because of the radar, it has 2 hangars and 2 electric motors as well.

Australia doesn't want.

Too small, not capable enough, too expensive and will take longer to deliver than the Hobart's.

 

[Morgo]

Please listen to us mi amigo. What Navantia are selling is not what we need.

The Hobarts 2.0 should be based in the F110 but increasing the cells to 48, because F110 only has 16,

No. They should be based on nothing. A Hunter with 48 cells and an accelerated build is vastly superior.

the Spy radar should be superior to Ceafar, everyone knows that

Do they? I don’t know that. What are you basing that on? By all accounts CEAFAR is world class.

the array of missiles you can launch for the 48 cells is wider, more complete than Hunter´s

Do you know how many cells the Hunter’s will have? Because that’s not public information yet.

Hobarts 2.0 are going to be smaller than Hunters but maybe more expensive because of the radar, it has 2 hangars and 2 electric motors as well.

They’re not going to be anything because I doubt we will buy them, but if they’re more expensive than the Hunters there’s no way we should buy them. The Hunters appear to be a far superior ship in every regard except for cell count, and even that is unclear.

 

[CJR]

F110 looks to be in an inconvenient middle ground... Too capable and expensive for a Tier 2 (AEGIS etc.) but not capable enough for a Tier 1 in it's current design (only 16 VLS...). And the changes to fix it (modifying the design for more VLS etc.) means any Australian production would be getting off the slipway about the same time as the first Hunters (and is, thus, pointless).

If we could somehow get hold of the first three ships of the current batch building in Spain cheap then the class might make sense as an interim replacement for the most decrepit ANZACS and a slight expansion of the fleet but I don't see any reason to think that a realistic prospect.

 

[Brissy1982]

Maybe a question to be asked is do we put time, capital and human resources to crew and build a stop gap class of vessels.
The premise being this addition to the fleet while not perfect, does provide some additional capability and options in the short term.

Again working on the assumption it's a viable proposition.

Excellence is the enemy of good.

Thoughts S

@Stampede I totally agree that excellence is the enemy of the good enough.

However, in my view if Australia wanted to build and crew a class of stop-gap vessels to deliver some increase in capability and options compared to our existing Major Fleet Units (particularly the Anzac-class), that was a task that needed to have been started a decade or more ago. Trying to start building a stop-gap class here in Australia now with the resources we have available domestically just wouldn't make sense - it would cost billions and would take too long to deliver the desired increase in capability. The process of choosing which class of ship to build, completing the design, establishing the supply chain, cutting steel, building the first vessel, launching it and fitting it out, conducting trials and commissioning realistically could not be completed before the first Hunter-class FFG enters service, and could well take longer than that, in which case we would have spent billions and diverted resources from other, potentially more valuable options trying to replace an Anzac-class vessel that was scheduled for decommissioning anyway.

I made the suggestion in post #4982 of acquiring three additional Hobart-class DDGs to be built by Navantia in Spain as something of a stop-gap solution, although others have rightly pointed out that there would be obstacles that would need to be overcome. Realistically, although the Hobarts are called DDGs, they're FFGs in terms of capability when you look at what other navies in the Indo-Pacific are deploying as DDGs (e.g. USN Burke-class and their ROK and Japanese derivatives, and the PLAN Type 055); however, they are more capable than the Anzac-class. If the Commonwealth government wanted to look at a progressive increase in the RAN surface fleet's capability in two phases - Phase 1 being now until 2040, and Phase 2 being 2040 and beyond - then acquiring three additional Spanish-built Hobart 2.0s as part of Phase 1 might be an option while proceeding with building at least the first three Hunter-class to the existing design, as it could deliver some increase in both offensive and defensive capability in around 7-10 years' time while enabling the Anzac-class ships to be retired more quickly than is currently planned. But it would be expensive, and it is far from a perfect solution. There is also the political element to consider - politicians want to build ships in Australia, not overseas, because putting shipyards in marginal electorates is a good way to win votes, so realistically I don't think we'll see the Commonwealth government go down the path of building more Hobarts in Spain - I would be very surprised if this was done.

Personally I think we'll see a more conservative approach - the Anzac-class will receive their planned upgrades to keep them in service until the Hunter-class ships begin to be delivered, with the Anzac-class then being retired from the early 2030s as each Hunter-class ship is commissioned. There might be some modification of the second and/or third batch of Hunter-class to increase their AAW and strike capabilities while maintaining and if possible increasing their ASW capabilities. We might also - I fervently hope - see a recommendation in the surface fleet review to commence a project to build a class of 9-12 genuine Tier 1 surface combatants now to begin replacing the Hobarts and increase surface fleet numbers from, say, 2035 onwards - exactly what that Tier 1 capability might be is too difficult to say, although I tend to think of something like an Australianised Flight III Burke-class DDG as representing the minimum that could be considered as a regionally competitive Tier 1 surface combatant by the mid-2030s, although it might be more appropriate to go with a new design such as Type 83 or DDG-X.

The problem with any solution is that it won't deliver the capabilities the RAN needs quickly enough. Designing, building and commissioning warships takes years. Nothing we do now can instantly fix the 30+ years of poor decisions by successive governments that have resulted in the RAN fleet we have today.

 

[swerve]

The Persian Gulf is 241,000 km2. Australia’s EEZ (which is only the start of our area of operations) is 8.2 million km2.

Saudi Arabia’s needs are very different from ours.

Saudi Arabia has another coast, & the Red Sea is 438,000 km2.

But your point still stands. Even with protection of shipping in the NW Indian Ocean (which so far the Saudis don't seem to have tried to do much of), the Saudi area of operations is on a very different scale.

 

[swerve]

Good is producing Hunters as soon as possible. Excellent is following them with proper DDGs or even modern day DLGs.

Something like the planned Italian DDX?
Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery

Note that if press reports are true, it's grown, & is likely to be more like 12-13,000 tons & with 64 or more VLS.

 

[Bob53]

We have a great relationship with South Korea. They have massive ship building capacity (no 2 in the world I think behind China). They have suitable ship designs with American systems and appear to build them economically. Why aren’t we knocking on their door? Build them there. Get them into service. Explain the situation to the public. Forget the ANZAC upgrades. We essentially face the same issues as the USN but worse. There are suitable and cost effective options to build some ships off shore.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/02/asia/japan-south-korea-naval-shipbuilding-intl-hnk-ml-dst/index.html

 

[Stampede]

@Stampede I totally agree that excellence is the enemy of the good enough.

However, in my view if Australia wanted to build and crew a class of stop-gap vessels to deliver some increase in capability and options compared to our existing Major Fleet Units (particularly the Anzac-class), that was a task that needed to have been started a decade or more ago. Trying to start building a stop-gap class here in Australia now with the resources we have available domestically just wouldn't make sense - it would cost billions and would take too long to deliver the desired increase in capability. The process of choosing which class of ship to build, completing the design, establishing the supply chain, cutting steel, building the first vessel, launching it and fitting it out, conducting trials and commissioning realistically could not be completed before the first Hunter-class FFG enters service, and could well take longer than that, in which case we would have spent billions and diverted resources from other, potentially more valuable options trying to replace an Anzac-class vessel that was scheduled for decommissioning anyway.

I made the suggestion in post #4982 of acquiring three additional Hobart-class DDGs to be built by Navantia in Spain as something of a stop-gap solution, although others have rightly pointed out that there would be obstacles that would need to be overcome. Realistically, although the Hobarts are called DDGs, they're FFGs in terms of capability when you look at what other navies in the Indo-Pacific are deploying as DDGs (e.g. USN Burke-class and their ROK and Japanese derivatives, and the PLAN Type 055); however, they are more capable than the Anzac-class. If the Commonwealth government wanted to look at a progressive increase in the RAN surface fleet's capability in two phases - Phase 1 being now until 2040, and Phase 2 being 2040 and beyond - then acquiring three additional Spanish-built Hobart 2.0s as part of Phase 1 might be an option while proceeding with building at least the first three Hunter-class to the existing design, as it could deliver some increase in both offensive and defensive capability in around 7-10 years' time while enabling the Anzac-class ships to be retired more quickly than is currently planned. But it would be expensive, and it is far from a perfect solution. There is also the political element to consider - politicians want to build ships in Australia, not overseas, because putting shipyards in marginal electorates is a good way to win votes, so realistically I don't think we'll see the Commonwealth government go down the path of building more Hobarts in Spain - I would be very surprised if this was done.

Personally I think we'll see a more conservative approach - the Anzac-class will receive their planned upgrades to keep them in service until the Hunter-class ships begin to be delivered, with the Anzac-class then being retired from the early 2030s as each Hunter-class ship is commissioned. There might be some modification of the second and/or third batch of Hunter-class to increase their AAW and strike capabilities while maintaining and if possible increasing their ASW capabilities. We might also - I fervently hope - see a recommendation in the surface fleet review to commence a project to build a class of 9-12 genuine Tier 1 surface combatants now to begin replacing the Hobarts and increase surface fleet numbers from, say, 2035 onwards - exactly what that Tier 1 capability might be is too difficult to say, although I tend to think of something like an Australianised Flight III Burke-class DDG as representing the minimum that could be considered as a regionally competitive Tier 1 surface combatant by the mid-2030s, although it might be more appropriate to go with a new design such as Type 83 or DDG-X.

The problem with any solution is that it won't deliver the capabilities the RAN needs quickly enough. Designing, building and commissioning warships takes years. Nothing we do now can instantly fix the 30+ years of poor decisions by successive governments that have resulted in the RAN fleet we have today.

Thanks for the detailed response.

If the review comes with money then we get to build and hopefully crew a larger and more potent fleet.

No cash and we shelve our expectations.

Thanks

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

Something like the planned Italian DDX?
Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery

Note that if press reports are true, it's grown, & is likely to be more like 12-13,000 tons & with 64 or more VLS.

At 175m long, 24m wide and 9m draft they will be every bit of 13,000t, only the Type 055 is longer but not as wide. They do look a touch under-armed SAM wise for their size though.

 

[Tasman]

For those of us who have been waiting anxiously for the outcome of the surface fleet review it looks like the wait will continue into 2024!
At a press conference today with the ABC's Greg Jennett the following was revealed:

GREG JENNETT:All right. Let’s move on to the surface fleet review. Are you still on track to receive that work by, roughly speaking, I think it’s the end of next week?

MINISTER CONROY:Yes, we’re on track to receive the report by the end of next week. And then Government will be responding to it. It will be a very significant report, so we’ll take our time working through its recommendations and come forward with a response.

GREG JENNETT:It is a very significant piece of work, because tied up in it is billions – tens of billions of dollars worth of naval ship work. When will you make those decisions? Will it be this calendar year?

MINISTER CONROY:We expect the Government response to be in, at the latest, in the first couple of months of next year – at the latest. But this is very important that we work through it methodically. It is very important. This work, as you said, tens of billions of dollars. It’s about the future structure of the Royal Australian Navy and how it complements the acquisition of nuclear-powered but conventionally armed submarines.

GREG JENNETT:Would public scrutiny and discussion of this be helpful such that you could release a public version of it before the Government’s response?

MINISTER CONROY:No, our intention is that when we release the response that we will publish as much of the report to Government that is appropriate. It’s highly classified in nature and looks at threat environment, threat scenarios and different capabilities. It would be very irresponsible to release that report at all especially in advance of the Government’s response.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2023-09-19/television-interview-greg-jennett-afternoon-agenda-abc

Patience is a virtue but I must confess that mine is running thin!

Tas

 

[OldTex]

For those of us who have been waiting anxiously for the outcome of the surface fleet review it looks like the wait will continue into 2024!
At a press conference today with the ABC's Greg Jennett the following was revealed:

GREG JENNETT:All right. Let’s move on to the surface fleet review. Are you still on track to receive that work by, roughly speaking, I think it’s the end of next week?

MINISTER CONROY:Yes, we’re on track to receive the report by the end of next week. And then Government will be responding to it. It will be a very significant report, so we’ll take our time working through its recommendations and come forward with a response.

GREG JENNETT:It is a very significant piece of work, because tied up in it is billions – tens of billions of dollars worth of naval ship work. When will you make those decisions? Will it be this calendar year?

MINISTER CONROY:We expect the Government response to be in, at the latest, in the first couple of months of next year – at the latest. But this is very important that we work through it methodically. It is very important. This work, as you said, tens of billions of dollars. It’s about the future structure of the Royal Australian Navy and how it complements the acquisition of nuclear-powered but conventionally armed submarines.

GREG JENNETT:Would public scrutiny and discussion of this be helpful such that you could release a public version of it before the Government’s response?

MINISTER CONROY:No, our intention is that when we release the response that we will publish as much of the report to Government that is appropriate. It’s highly classified in nature and looks at threat environment, threat scenarios and different capabilities. It would be very irresponsible to release that report at all especially in advance of the Government’s response.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2023-09-19/television-interview-greg-jennett-afternoon-agenda-abc

Patience is a virtue but I must confess that mine is running thin!

Tas

Kick can further down the road........ go on!!!!

 

[Tasman]

Kick can further down the road........ go on!!!!

Perhaps I should be pleased that the government is going to "methodically" review the review and "take our time" working out which parts will be made public. Maybe I should be thankful that it is unlikely that anyone outside of government or ADF senior sirs are likely to be informed of any recommendations that will not be accepted as that could lead me to have even more sleepless nights worrying about our navy's future. But for some reason I am finding it increasingly difficult to remain positive!

Tas

 

[Stampede]

For those of us who have been waiting anxiously for the outcome of the surface fleet review it looks like the wait will continue into 2024!
At a press conference today with the ABC's Greg Jennett the following was revealed:

GREG JENNETT:All right. Let’s move on to the surface fleet review. Are you still on track to receive that work by, roughly speaking, I think it’s the end of next week?

MINISTER CONROY:Yes, we’re on track to receive the report by the end of next week. And then Government will be responding to it. It will be a very significant report, so we’ll take our time working through its recommendations and come forward with a response.

GREG JENNETT:It is a very significant piece of work, because tied up in it is billions – tens of billions of dollars worth of naval ship work. When will you make those decisions? Will it be this calendar year?

MINISTER CONROY:We expect the Government response to be in, at the latest, in the first couple of months of next year – at the latest. But this is very important that we work through it methodically. It is very important. This work, as you said, tens of billions of dollars. It’s about the future structure of the Royal Australian Navy and how it complements the acquisition of nuclear-powered but conventionally armed submarines.

GREG JENNETT:Would public scrutiny and discussion of this be helpful such that you could release a public version of it before the Government’s response?

MINISTER CONROY:No, our intention is that when we release the response that we will publish as much of the report to Government that is appropriate. It’s highly classified in nature and looks at threat environment, threat scenarios and different capabilities. It would be very irresponsible to release that report at all especially in advance of the Government’s response.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2023-09-19/television-interview-greg-jennett-afternoon-agenda-abc

Patience is a virtue but I must confess that mine is running thin!

Tas

Thanks for the post.

Wether we have a nuclear or conventional submarine we will continue to have a surface fleet.
It will have major fleet units supported by supply ships, escorting amphibious ships.
We will have vessels to do MCM, survey and constabulary missions.. Plus others.

As to numbers, one would think they would look not dissimilar to the RAN of the last four decades.
Now I get multi mission, so some capabilitys may well be absorbed by ships with flexibility to achieve a particular mission ,but at the end of the day I just don't get how a nuclear powered sub has any bearing on the RAN total force structure.

What are they saying.
We'll send a LHD out to sea protected only by a SSN.
Don't need frigates, therefore don't need supply ships.
Nonsense
Big Island, big coastline, big water around said island.
Requires a certain number of grey floatng things to provide coverage, availability, maintence, and redundancy.

So pushed out to next year.
Insane. That's 2024.

If this review does not come out with some dramatic outcome then is it's a WTDWKBDTKDA!

Select your own interpretation

Cheers S


PS. Got to laugh , what is happening with the Arafura build now.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

A big reason why a French SSN is out of the question is the requirement to refuel in France, which leaves our nuclear submarines at the mercy of the french, not really a sovereign capability that we require

I appreciate that this was the stated reason for the decision but I don’t believe it. I think the real reason was political and this was the excuse. Alan Kuperman of the Lowi Institute checked with France and confirmed that the refuelling could be done. If this reason was true it makes no sense of selecting the Barracuda design for Attack in the first place. The flexibility to shift to the nuclear powered version was a stated advantage of going with DCNS (Naval) Option.

France can help Albanese fix AUKUS | Lowy Institute

Labor faces a dilemma over nuclear-powered subs and the non-proliferation regime. An old partner might offer an answer.

www.lowyinstitute.org

In practice the Suffren design has a special hatch to load new reactor cores and it is not dificult. If Australia ordered “spare” reactor cores from France and stockpiled them here then we could have complete control of the refuelling. Areva Technicatom has already replaced the LEU reactor core at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney. They also supply reactor cores to the French navy. So the expertise is already here.

The real challenge with whichever design is built will be learning how to maintain the reactor. That is a six month job for each design required every deep lift maintenance cycle.

 

[John Fedup]

For those of us who have been waiting anxiously for the outcome of the surface fleet review it looks like the wait will continue into 2024!
At a press conference today with the ABC's Greg Jennett the following was revealed:

GREG JENNETT:All right. Let’s move on to the surface fleet review. Are you still on track to receive that work by, roughly speaking, I think it’s the end of next week?

MINISTER CONROY:Yes, we’re on track to receive the report by the end of next week. And then Government will be responding to it. It will be a very significant report, so we’ll take our time working through its recommendations and come forward with a response.

GREG JENNETT:It is a very significant piece of work, because tied up in it is billions – tens of billions of dollars worth of naval ship work. When will you make those decisions? Will it be this calendar year?

MINISTER CONROY:We expect the Government response to be in, at the latest, in the first couple of months of next year – at the latest. But this is very important that we work through it methodically. It is very important. This work, as you said, tens of billions of dollars. It’s about the future structure of the Royal Australian Navy and how it complements the acquisition of nuclear-powered but conventionally armed submarines.

GREG JENNETT:Would public scrutiny and discussion of this be helpful such that you could release a public version of it before the Government’s response?

MINISTER CONROY:No, our intention is that when we release the response that we will publish as much of the report to Government that is appropriate. It’s highly classified in nature and looks at threat environment, threat scenarios and different capabilities. It would be very irresponsible to release that report at all especially in advance of the Government’s response.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2023-09-19/television-interview-greg-jennett-afternoon-agenda-abc

Patience is a virtue but I must confess that mine is running thin!

Tas

When a government goes into delay mode over a review they commissioned, it usually means they do not like the recommendations. In event, a delay must be very concerning to contractors.

 

[John Fedup]

I appreciate that this was the stated reason for the decision but I don’t believe it. I think the real reason was political and this was the excuse. Alan Kuperman of the Lowi Institute checked with France and confirmed that the refuelling could be done. If this reason was true it makes no sense of selecting the Barracuda design for Attack in the first place. The flexibility to shift to the nuclear powered version was a stated advantage of going with DCNS (Naval) Option.

France can help Albanese fix AUKUS | Lowy Institute

Labor faces a dilemma over nuclear-powered subs and the non-proliferation regime. An old partner might offer an answer.

www.lowyinstitute.org

In practice the Suffren design has a special hatch to load new reactor cores and it is not dificult. If Australia ordered “spare” reactor cores from France and stockpiled them here then we could have complete control of the refuelling. Areva Technicatom has already replaced the LEU reactor core at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney. They also supply reactor cores to the French navy. So the expertise is already here.

The real challenge with whichever design is built will be learning how to maintain the reactor. That is a six month job for each design required every deep lift maintenance cycle.

Politically impossible at this stage, just my two cents. It would have been a good option years ago instead of the unrealistic Attack class option.

 

[OldTex]

lan Kuperman of the Lowi Institute checked with France and confirmed that the refuelling could be done. If this reason was true it makes no sense of selecting the Barracuda design for Attack in the first place.

Except that the ATTACK class was a SSK version of the BARRACUDA design SSN. At the time the decision was made Australia had no intention of going from conventional to nuclear powered submarines. So whether refuelling could or could not be done was irrelevant.

 

[Todjaeger]

Except that the ATTACK class was a SSK version of the BARRACUDA design SSN. At the time the decision was made Australia had no intention of going from conventional to nuclear powered submarines. So whether refuelling could or could not be done was irrelevant.

To be frank, I was rather dubious about the selection of DCN as the designer in the first place, particularly given the stated desire to have US sub CMS fitted. The US rather naturally would not let France anywhere near the US sub systems, instead requiring an Australian entity to handle systems integration rather than the designers in France.

If people think the issues of getting the RAN and Australia ready to operate a HEU-powered nuke boat are a problem now, consider what the problems would look like if Australia tried to have someone mate a French LEU-nuke design with an American CMS. IMO that would get torpedoed before first steel could ever get ordered, never mind cut.

 

[Todjaeger]

I dont believe things you say, i dont waste our time entering in polemics, but i am sure the Hobarts 2.0 Australia has asked for are based in the F110, it is the frigate of the future for Navantia, not the weaponry because F110 only has 16 cells, but the platform and radar. Now the price given by Navantia, 2 billion australian dollars each, should include the australianased combat system and rest of equipment, not off the shelf from Navantia.

I went back through to check a few things to confirm my understanding of what has been offered or suggested. So far, per reporting by the Australian, SMH and a few other sources, Australia has not asked Navantia for any more/new vessels. What was reported as having happened, is that Navantia made an unsolicited offer to build more warships for Australia, claiming that such builds could be done with varying costs and delivery timeframes depending on what was being built as well as where.

To date, there is nothing I am aware of which would indicate any part of a formal acquisition process is ongoing in response to the unsolicited offer since no formal RFI's were issued, or RFT's, all of which would need to happen before any contracts could be signed.

More importantly, I would also expect Australia to stand up some sort of programme office and issue such an acquisition programme with a Project number. With no programme officer having been stood up, it does not yet appear that Australia is looking at adding three additional destroyers. Once the Naval review is completed and gone through by gov't, that could change.

It also worth noting that other international shipbuilding outfits aside from just Navantia have also started making unsolicited offers, since there is anticipation that the RAN needs more vessels/designs.