Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[vonnoobie]

AH140 is over 50% bigger, which allows it to carry far more. Look at the planned fitout of the Polish Miecznik, & remember that the base model of AH140 is an AAW ship with a SMART-L LRR, APAR, & able to carry 32 SM2 IIA & 24 ESSM simultaneously.

Which is all an evolution of the Absalon class which was commissioned 18 years ago and even back then had low crew requirements, tons of space and ability to adapt from a combat ship to a hospital ship in 24 hours. The design and knowledge has only improved since then.

 

[hauritz]

It occured to me that if the leaked destroyer program eventuates, it will the only time in its history, that the RAN has procured a world class, high end combatant.

Even the battle cruiser HMAS Australia was a cheaper version of the preceding Invincible Class, laid down after the succeeding and vastly superior Lion Class had begun construction.

Every class of ship operated by the RAN, with the exception of the County Class Cruisers, has been a smaller cheaper design than was needed or available at the time.

Even the Tribal, Battle and Daring class destroyers, while large and capable for destroyers, were ordered instead of the cruisers the RAN needed.

The superb Adams Class DDGs, were instead of the DLG our requirements actually indicated was needed. The FFG-07s were instead of the superior DDL design, which in turn, had been designed as a supplement for destroyers but ended up being recast as their replacement.

That trend might be broken. The SSNs will certainly be world class. Even the vessel it is replacing could arguably be regarded as the best conventional submarine of its time. Also the Hunter is probably more in line with a cruiser than a frigate. Even the Arafura is streets ahead of what it is replacing.

 

[Volkodav]

That trend might be broken. The SSNs will certainly be world class. Even the vessel it is replacing could arguably be regarded as the best conventional submarine of its time. Also the Hunter is probably more in line with a cruiser than a frigate. Even the Arafura is streets ahead of what it is replacing.

I should have specified "surface combatant".

As for the hunter being the size of a cruiser, so are the Hobart's.

The issue is they are both individually smaller and less capable than the multirole destroyers operated by a number of other nations.

When you have limited numbers, you need to compensate by increasing individual capability. That isn't just size and power, it's survivability, reliability, availability and maintainability.

Size on its own improves survivability, then there's space to increase redundancy, and facitate upgrades.

 

[Redlands18]

I should have specified "surface combatant".

As for the hunter being the size of a cruiser, so are the Hobart's.

The issue is they are both individually smaller and less capable than the multirole destroyers operated by a number of other nations.

When you have limited numbers, you need to compensate by increasing individual capability. That isn't just size and power, it's survivability, reliability, availability and maintainability.

Size on its own improves survivability, then there's space to increase redundancy, and facitate upgrades.

Submarines we have been getting the best possible, going back to the Oberons, the only other real choices at that time would have been GUPPY rebuilds. The French, Italians and Germans were only building 500-1000t Coastals.

 

[Volkodav]

Submarines we have been getting the best possible, going back to the Oberons, the only other real choices at that time would have been GUPPY rebuilds. The French, Italians and Germans were only building 500-1000t Coastals.

The USN Barbel class were nice. In many ways they were the predecessors to the Dutch and Japanese classes of SSKs.

 

[devo99]

Every class of ship operated by the RAN, with the exception of the County Class Cruisers, has been a smaller cheaper design than was needed or available at the time.

I'd say the 1910 Town-class cruisers are also an exception to this.

 

[Todjaeger]

The USN Barbel class were nice. In many ways they were the predecessors to the Dutch and Japanese classes of SSKs.

Yes, but the Barbel-class had been out of production for nearly a decade by the time the Oberon-class started to enter RAN service. As it was, the RAN did not order a US designed warship until 1962 when the Perth-class DDG was ordered. The last of the USN's Barbel-class subs has been commissioned over two years before that.

Depending on when the RAN ordered the Oberon-class, there might have still been an opportunity to order a conventional sub from the US, but that would have been a break in tradition, like ended up happening anyway when first the Perth-class and then the Adelaide-class vessels were ordered.

 

[Volkodav]

I'd say the 1910 Town-class cruisers are also an exception to this.

Valid point, but we were still building them after they were superceded. They were followed by the Frobishers, which in turn were superceded by the Countys.

 

[Tasman]

I'd say the 1910 Town-class cruisers are also an exception to this.

Agreed.

The first three Towns were leading edge when ordered, but the fourth, the slightly modified HMAS Adelaide, was obsolescent by the time it was delivered 4 years after the completion of WW1 and obsolete when still in service during WW2!

Tas

 

[Redlands18]

Yes, but the Barbel-class had been out of production for nearly a decade by the time the Oberon-class started to enter RAN service. As it was, the RAN did not order a US designed warship until 1962 when the Perth-class DDG was ordered. The last of the USN's Barbel-class subs has been commissioned over two years before that.

Depending on when the RAN ordered the Oberon-class, there might have still been an opportunity to order a conventional sub from the US, but that would have been a break in tradition, like ended up happening anyway when first the Perth-class and then the Adelaide-class vessels were ordered.

Australia was still at that stage where we looked to the UK first in 1960, the Perth class ordering was as much about the County class not being suitable, especially the SeaSlug system, there was even an investigation into fitting Tartar to the County design but ultimately rejected and the Adams class was ordered. That broke the camels back in regards to moving away from the UK. Within a few years we had ordered F-111s, A-4s and S-2s and the UK had to compete and rarely won. We could order Oberons straight off the production line but when it came time for their MLUs in the early 80s we moved to US weapon systems, Mk 48 and Harpoon. By the time we ordered the Adelaide's we had pretty much locked in US systems and the UK was pretty much on the outer.

 

[Volkodav]

Agreed.

The first three Towns were leading edge when ordered, but the fourth, the slightly modified HMAS Adelaide, was obsolescent by the time it was delivered 4 years after the completion of WW1 and obsolete when still in service during WW2!

Tas

Brisbane was built in Australia prior to Adelaide. Unfortunately machinery forgings were lost enroute during the war causing delays, which were compounded by other wartime shortages.

Ironically there had been a number of proposals made that Adelaide be completed to a modified, or even completely new design, but we're rejected due to the delays this would cause and the urgency of getting her completed.

Also, the delays in her construction were used in part, to justify building the county class cruisers for the RAN in the UK. Then to maintain workforce skills, the basically useless Albatross seaplane carrier was ordered to be built at CODOC.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Depending on when the RAN ordered the Oberon-class, there might have still been an opportunity to order a conventional sub from the US, but that would have been a break in tradition, like ended up happening anyway when first the Perth-class and then the Adelaide-class vessels were ordered.

Australia was pretty heavily reliant on the UK for crew training and ops/maintenance at least initially with Oberon. 60's and 70's RAN sailors were paid a huge amount compared to UK sailors, and relocating to Australia was very attractive. Great for starting up a new service.

Oberon were a successful class with 27 being made and operated all over the world, including sources of migration, from UK and Canada. It was a reasonable MOTS purchase from an established supplier, with good strategic links, with a class that had a long future in front of it.

I'm not sure anyone regrets buying Oberon. If anything, the regrets were that we didn't buy 8 of them.

The Canadians had experience with US submarines in WW2, with the Balao and Tench class (the fearsome named HMCS Rainbow) (68-74), and still bought Oberon. There experience with US submarines wasn't exactly overtly happy. The US was getting out of diesels and no one wants to spend money on dead ends. They had wacky 2 stroke opposed motors, and most of the time in the 60's and 70's the US wanted to sell off older WW2 stock, not new building stuff they wanted for themselves. Those old motors, weren't particularly reliable or efficient. There was huge engine development from the 50's to 60's.

Both Japan and the Dutch quickly built their own subs based off the design. Neither operated US built barbels.

Really if we didn't buy off the shelf Oberons, the other option would have been to build Oberons here or build a sub of our own design (based off something else) here. Which we did with Collins After the experience and costs we had with Oberon refits, which kept getting more expensive when the UK got out starting in the early 80s..

Oberon's hull were based off porpoise hull which was heavily inspired by the Germany XXI hull. Ideally what you want was Oberon type systems in a Barbel type hull. Which is what the Japanese and Dutch did.

Barbel as a class is a bit over rated, IMO the credit should really go to the USS Albacore. X plain tail, tear drop, silver battery, 33 kt submerged performance.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Defence industry warns Albanese over shipbuilding uncertainty

The government needs to grapple with finding billions of dollars more for major shipbuilding projects as a review pushes for new warships packed with missiles.

www.afr.com

Not a huge fan of Tillet, but this time has has some tasty quotes.

First from industry.

“We understood the government wanted to do the Defence Strategic Review and industry was tolerant of that,” he said. “But, at what point is the government going to start issuing contracts because industry, particularly local industry, is suffering.”

Mr Clark said given the government was prioritising “speed to capability” – rapidly acquiring new weapons – Defence would have “no choice but to procure from overseas”, to the detriment of local companies.

Jennifer Parker, senior adviser at Australian National University’s National Security College and a former naval officer, said the number of Hunter-class frigates would need to be reduced from the nine planned, unless the government agreed to expand the size of the surface combatant fleet, given the Defence Strategic Review’s “intent for navy to get more missiles”.

While BAE Systems, which is building the Hunter class, and Navantia, which supplies the navy’s three existing Hobart-class destroyers, are the leading choices, Ms Parker said the US also had new destroyer and frigate programs under way that could suit Australia’s needs. It could also involve building ships overseas.

But she said the bigger challenge was moving the debate beyond an “obsession with the number of hulls” to taking a step back and developing a proper maritime strategy.

Ms Parker said the defence budget was in an “absolute mess” which the challenges with updating the navy’s fleet would only compound.

“It’s not possible to accelerate capability by being cost neutral,” she said.

Well at least there are people with names and position on record now.

Pressure will be building from industry to start something and not leave it to the last moment.

I wonder if we were looking at a Burke design, how much of the Hobarts component and logistics and maintenance would carry across? Probably not that much. Hobarts were spec'd quite early in the piece and we never gave any consideration to what the Americans were specing.

Im curious about number of hulls comment. She doesn't like corvettes? or we just have to grow the Navy in real terms?

I can't see the US yard having any spare capacity for a few extra destroyers for Australia. As others have pointed out, Japan and Korea make similar ships, maybe more flexibility. Mitsubishi had some attempt to identify local suppliers for their sub build. Its not the same, but its something. I wonder if its would be possible to cut steel here, and do final fit out of the first ship overseas? Maybe some sort of deal based on maintenance of overseas ships could over the life of the program increase local content and work? It may be advantageous to have some of those ships out of the north asian region, some of the time.

This follows an piece earlier where even tillet admits through Marcus that if the idea is to save money, its not clear how selecting a new ship does that for the hunter.

Ministers face billions in blowouts for new warships

Existing programs for new and upgraded warships are increasing in costs, as the government grapples with a fresh wishlist for the navy.

www.afr.com

New types of ships cost money to select and contract. Additional hulls of the existing ships are much faster and cheaper to just extend existing contracts. So unless a ship can not do a mission, or another ship can do a mission mind blowingly better, I think there will be little appetite, finance and time wise, to select wholly new platforms.

 

[Morgo]

“ We understood the government wanted to do the Defence Strategic Review and industry was tolerant of that,” he said. “But, at what point is the government going to start issuing contracts because industry, particularly local industry, is suffering.”

Tolerant.

Or what? What are you going to do mate?

Who does this bloke think he is, and why does he think anyone has a God given right to the public purse?

 

[Todjaeger]

New types of ships cost money to select and contract. Additional hulls of the existing ships are much faster and cheaper to just extend existing contracts. So unless a ship can not do a mission, or another ship can do a mission mind blowingly better, I think there will be little appetite, finance and time wise, to select wholly new platforms.

One thing which could potentially make some sense (if done correctly, not holding my breath on this...) particularly if the planned number of Hunter-class frigates does get cut, would be to bring the replacement for the Hobart-class destroyers forward. I do recall some mention of an additional build of 3x uber-missile destroyers to 'augment' the Hobart-class BTH that sounds like a dumb idea, if I am being kind. Why build a number of additional small batches of different classes of vessels, particularly if some of the various classes are to have the same or overlapping roles. If there is only appetite in gov't (currently, anyway...) to get six Aegis-kitted ASW frigates, but desired more air defence vessels and/or vessels with a significantly greater potential VLS loadout, bring the destroyer replacement forward with the intent being to order six destroyers and have the Hobart-class destroyers begin decommissioning as the fourth through six replacement destroyers enter service.

Not to keep harping on this, but if gov't were to get started, now, on a new major warship build programme, it would likely be a minimum of three years between start of programme and contract signing with whoever/whatever entity will be providing the design and doing the build. That is also assuming that gov't already has a fairly good idea of what it wants and can therefore shortlist a designs and/or designers. Once the design is selected and main contracts signed, then things can start to actually be done for the build, but it would likely still be at least a few years before first steel would be cut. This in turn means that entry into service for a new warship programme which commenced now would likely not be until the mid-2030's.

OTOH gov't did order over 200 RGM-109 Tomahawk missiles to be loaded aboard Hobart-class destroyers, which IMO is one of the less sensible decisions given the limited number of VLS cells across the RAN. With only three destroyers tasked with area air defence, and each of those only having 48 VLS cells, I would much rather have those vessels be loaded for the primary role. In order to fit enough LACM to make a strike worthwhile, it would likely take most or all of the VLS cells available aboard one of the destroyers. Judging by some of the BDA, a strike at major facilities would likely need dozens of missiles. I seem to recall that something like 50 cruise missiles were used to target a Syrian airfield in order to shut it down. A strike of that magnitude by the RAN would require basically all the Hobart-class destroyers, since not only would their VLS be needed for the Tomahawks, but some of those vessels would also need air defence to defend themselves and provide escort to other vessels.

“ We understood the government wanted to do the Defence Strategic Review and industry was tolerant of that,” he said. “But, at what point is the government going to start issuing contracts because industry, particularly local industry, is suffering.”

Tolerant.

Or what? What are you going to do mate?

Who does this bloke think he is, and why does he think anyone has a God given right to the public purse?

My take on that, and I could be mis-reading or misunderstanding something, is that if the current gov't is still interested in there being a strategic, national shipbuilding capability, then gov't does need to take actions so that industries which would contribute to national shipbuilding remain viable.

This current uncertainty that we, the forum members have regarding the future of the RAN fleet is likely nothing compared to the uncertainties that industrial partners who would or had been looking to participate have. Just to give one example, if there is a company which produces or provides cabling which could meet specs to be fitted aboard a RAN warship, the contract to provide enough cabling for three to six large destroyers or frigates vs. having those same vessels built and fitted out overseas could be enough to keep a company operating.

With gov't letting things get to were we are now where the future size and composition of the fleet is unknown, and no real idea yet on when we might know, then companies which might have considered expanding to meet RAN industry demands might not see such expansion worthwhile. Similarly, companies which can meet demands might decide to downsize their capabilities to reduce costs is there no longer certainty that the costs of retaining capabilities will eventually be recouped.

 

[Takao]

“ We understood the government wanted to do the Defence Strategic Review and industry was tolerant of that,” he said. “But, at what point is the government going to start issuing contracts because industry, particularly local industry, is suffering.”

Tolerant.

Or what? What are you going to do mate?

Who does this bloke think he is, and why does he think anyone has a God given right to the public purse?

I cannot speak to the ship building industry, but based on my experience dealing with the small and medium businesses that big ones like Thales, BAe, L3Harris, Raytheon, etc rely on for components - there has been increasing restlessness. I'm aware of more than one contract that has been paused or modified awaiting outcomes from the DSR, complicated by the Army moves and Fleet review being delayed.

So in answer to your question, for many of these SME it's go out of business. That's what they are going to do. It's not that they are getting money for nothing, its that a bunch of projects and orders were delayed while the DSR was done, and said pause continued through delays and additional reviews. Our relationship with industry has always been questionable (mainly from our end to be honest) but was improving. Now? I'm sure we have burnt some bridges and gone backwards.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Or what? What are you going to do mate?

Who does this bloke think he is, and why does he think anyone has a God given right to the public purse?

Brent talks for the local and international defence industry.

Excellence in maritime manufacturing - AIDN's Brent Clark on defence/SME engagement - Australian Manufacturing Forum

Today @AuManufacturing’s editorial series Excellence in maritime manufacturing turns to the involvement of Australian owned SMEs in defence contracts. Here Peter Roberts interviews Brent Clark, CEO of our largest SME defence body, the Australian Industry & Defence Network. @AuManufacturing: The...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

While Brent talks about SME, the bigger contractors that are based in Australia, like BAE, Lockheed, Thales, Raytheon etc are also in agreement, because they are also reliant on SME to deliver. BAE may be the main contractor, but they need thousands of SME to actually deliver real stuff, they can't do it all. They don't own a glass factory, a semiconductor factory, a aluminium smelter, a steel works, a cable manufacturer etc.

What would it be like if Australia put things out to tender and nobody responded? Local or internationally. New OPV, nothing. New landing craft. Nothing. New destroyer, nothing. Or put something in on very unfavorable terms, overseas build, 4 times market rate and must accept once completed builder trials, no customer trials or warranty period. Back to buying off the shelf second hand items.

Canada nearly got their with their Canada class SSN (pissing off the US and the UK) and recently with the CSC, in which Alion challenged the decision, Odense Maritime (iver hutt/Type31) and Thyssenkrupp (F-125) did not bid. From the process Navantia weren't happy but didn't see the point in reviewing the decision.

It is easy to kill an industry through starvation. If local sovereign capability is unimportant, starve away.

What is the point of having joint facilities like Henderson and Osborne, if there are no companies there because they have all, all been driven head first into the ground, but chaotic, harmful and potentially illegal/immoral government decisions? They either go broke or shut down their military divisions or they are bought out. Sell it off, move people over seas etc. The end result is effectively the same.

• Trying to kill NVL and its local subcontractors by killing the OPV production part way through would put Australia on the euro shit list. We have already burnt the French and the Germans before on Subs.
• The Japanese also feel hurt on subs. Their industry already was highly suspect and tried to undermine their own bid.
• One would imagine, if we went back on the US submarines, we could even make the US shit list. At least on big stuff like subs. People act like AUKUS is a done deal, but more crazy Naval acquisition stuff from Australia could easily push it into the not in the US interest bin. The US has their own problems.

They aren't asking for a hand out, they are asking the government makes good on their promises, which arguably are in the national interests, but unfortunately, cost money and time. Rather than rush a decision last moment cutting out any chance of local contribution, open it up now.

We often get caught up on platforms. But often the specific platform isn't overtly important. Its the network that builds, develops and supports that platform, so it is capable, reliable and efficient. That is industry.

Defence doesn't do that. No industry, no toys for defence. No ships, no tanks, no helicopters, no missiles, no radios, no uniforms.

Unless the government wants to build its own mega corps and go back into having government ship yards, steel works, cable companies. But even socialist/communist countries don't do that anymore, even China/Russia is based around private companies delivering industry capability for defence. Part of what they have been doing is going around buying out Western Defence companies and hollowing them out. They don't have to do that in Australia, our government(s) do it for us.

 

[icelord]

We still need the OPVs they play an important role in Australia's security, we are not allowed to sink foreign fishing vessels with SSMs.

There was a time we couldn't use flares either thanks to 1 sailor being dumb enough to not follow SOP. After he burnt his fuel covered arm while holding the flare, Navy over reacted and declared no flares to be utilised in sinking FFV/SIEV.

Alternative option was ships small arms...i can tell you now, a 50.cal tears through a wooden Indo fishing boat like an 80s action movie with chunks flying everywhere and alot of chest beating from Deck Apes, myself included in this...it made for good fun, shocked the hell out of the Indo crews standing on our boat watching theirs being obliterated

 

[ADMk2]

“ We understood the government wanted to do the Defence Strategic Review and industry was tolerant of that,” he said. “But, at what point is the government going to start issuing contracts because industry, particularly local industry, is suffering.”

Tolerant.

Or what? What are you going to do mate?

Who does this bloke think he is, and why does he think anyone has a God given right to the public purse?

It’s very simple what they are going to do. Quit the defence business and move into other industries leaving Australia in the position that we won’t HAVE a defence industry.

Defence Industry (especially in Australia) is in a unique position. It largely only has one customer - the Australian Government. So what are they to do when that one customer for idiotic political reasons decides to put a moratorium on purchasing anything from said industry?

They have precisely two choices. Seek out other industries or whither on the vine.

I know what I’d be trying to do for my business, my investors and my employees and it’s not “try to hold on til they come knocking”…

 

[Morgo]

It’s very simple what they are going to do. Quit the defence business and move into other industries leaving Australia in the position that we won’t HAVE a defence industry.

Defence Industry (especially in Australia) is in a unique position. It largely only has one customer - the Australian Government. So what are they to do when that one customer for idiotic political reasons decides to put a moratorium on purchasing anything from said industry?

They have precisely two choices. Seek out other industries or whither on the vine.

I know what I’d be trying to do for my business, my investors and my employees and it’s not “try to hold on til they come knocking”…

Oh I completely get the quandary they’re in and agree that it’s unfair what the Government has done to them. And to the extent that this uncertainty compromises valuable sovereign capability this is obviously shortsighted.

But I do resent the attitude of many in the private sector they are owed support from the taxpayer. They’re not.

I have yet to be able to work out exactly what is going on with the c.$15bn p.a. of third party consultant / contractor spend from Defence (which is around 75% of the total for then whole CoA), but I suspect it’s a whole lot of rent seeking behaviour from various private sector businesses. Probably many members of Mr Clark’s lobby group.