Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Anthony_B_78 said:
The seven years for planning stage is surely a good example of deliberately stretching something out to avoid having to pay for it. There's no good reason for seven years of planning; that's just bureaucratic inertia likely driven by the fact that it was a low budget priority until it was able to be pushed forward.

I do agree though that acquiring new ships would absolutely take time, and it may well be a case of gaining the capabilities we might need after the next war, rather than for that conflict - whatever and wherever it is.
Click to expand...
There wasn't a pressing need to be in a hurry, the last 4 Adelaide's were getting major MLUs and the new ships were not required until the mid-teens, Sydney and Darwin were less than 20yo and Melbourne and Newcastle about 10yo. Then you had the unique set up for the project with the AWD Alliance which had to be set up first, to run the platform competition.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Anthony_B_78 said:
The seven years for planning stage is surely a good example of deliberately stretching something out to avoid having to pay for it. There's no good reason for seven years of planning; that's just bureaucratic inertia likely driven by the fact that it was a low budget priority until it was able to be pushed forward.

I do agree though that acquiring new ships would absolutely take time, and it may well be a case of gaining the capabilities we might need after the next war, rather than for that conflict - whatever and wherever it is.
Click to expand...
I do not really agree, or at least not sure it is entirely accurate. For example, Australia had already decided that the AWD's were to be fitted with Aegis, even though the actual design was a couple of years away from selection. In fact, Australia pre-ordered Aegis by December, 2005 which incidentally ended up causing some issues IIRC because completed systems and radar arrays were finished, tested and delivered before the hulls were far enough along for installation. Instead, the completed systems (with the warranty periods) were sitting around, waiting to be installed which AFAIK happened in some instances after the warranty period had ended.

One of the things with defence procurement, and this applies to basically any/all defence procurement in modern democracies, not just Austalia, is that procurement takes time. Often one of the first steps which needs to take place is for a need to be identified or anticipated. Once this has occurred, then work can begin to try and determine what would be required to meet said need. Once potential solutions have been determined, gov't or services can then go to defence industry with something like an RFI or RFP, to see who might be able to provide a solution or solutions, and so goes the process.

These are neither naval systems, or an Australian systems, but do very much highlight that the US runs into some very similar issues. The US Army has the Bradley Fighting Vehicle family of armoured fighting vehicles, which entered service in 1981, but the development of which started ~1963. The whole programme took 17 years and cost ~USD$14 bil. before entering service, in part because programme specifications and requirements kept changing due to changed security enviros as well as service experience with other types of armour in conflicts. Another good (or very bad, depending on perspectivce) US example would be the LockMart F-22 Raptor, which entered service in 2005. The design that ended up becoming the F-22 Raptor had its genesis in the USAF's Advanced Tactical Fight (ATF) programme to develop a next gen air superiority fighter starting in 1981. An uncle of mine had worked on the ATF program at one point before he retired and he commented to me that the F-22 Raptor did not bear much resemblance to what he had been working on decades earlier. For that matter, UK shipbuilding for the RN could also be looked at, considering either the development history which led to the Type 45/Daring-class DDG's, or the planning work which now started for the Type 83 destroyers which currently are to be their replacements, starting in the late 2030's i.e. ~15 years from now.

It is unfortunate that, absent a major conflict which can justify the costs and sole source procurement decisions required by things like crash development programmes, normal procurement can take so long. However, IMO it is better to take more time to get things right, whilst keeping everyone honest, rather than rush acquisitions through so that corrupt practices can flourish and/or kit which in not fit for purpose gets selected.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Reptilia said:
Assuming the 96 vls cells would be the destroyer variant of the Hunter?
Click to expand...
What is often missing from the commentary is that the Hunter has been designed to accommodate emerging technologies, or enhance the warfighting effectiveness should there be a greater threat to our strategic environment. Our engineers have already proven that the Hunter can accommodate greater than 96 vertical launch missile cells, if asked to do so.
Click to expand...
The design is capable of taking it.. The onus is actually on the Government/RAN to spec it.

Which raises the question, why don't we. VLS boxes, aren't cheap, but they aren't so expensive as to not spec them. While we don't have 10 years to build bigger ships, we can build ships big enough and have boxes fit to them and them load them when required.

I wonder if people would be much happier with the hunters if they had 96 VLS from the get go. Given the expense, the top notch systems, radars, the crew etc, if it can still organically handle at least 1 MH60r, then go for it.

If the hunters were so armed and we had 9 or say 14 of them, I am not sure people would see the need to massively retrofit and up the existing OPVs.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
Reptilia said:
From the Australian today….


Assuming the 96 vls cells would be the destroyer variant of the Hunter?
Click to expand...
The Type 26 RN variant has a fairly large VLS setup with both Mk.41 and Sea Ceptor tubes.
Here the powers that be are being coy about the final load out on our ships but if this article is anything to go by we may get a pleasant surprise.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Interesting, and as for where the extra cells will fit, look at where they are situated on the Type 31.

I recall speculating some time ago that an additional VLS could be installed in the forward part of the multi-mission deck. In the UK version there are CAAM silos installed there, depending on weight there is sufficient dept for strategic length Mk-41 in that location.

Now, again, depending on weight and volume, there may be space forward for say 48 strategic length cells. The RN Type 26 has 24 Mk-41 cells forward of the bridge and most graphics appear to show 32 on the Hunter. The much smaller type 31 is getting 32 cells aft of the forward mast and forward of the hangar.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
Volkodav said:
Interesting, and as for where the extra cells will fit, look at where they are situated on the Type 31.

I recall speculating some time ago that an additional VLS could be installed in the forward part of the multi-mission deck. In the UK version there are CAAM silos installed there, depending on weight there is sufficient dept for strategic length Mk-41 in that location.

Now, again, depending on weight and volume, there may be space forward for say 48 strategic length cells. The RN Type 26 has 24 Mk-41 cells forward of the bridge and most graphics appear to show 32 on the Hunter. The much smaller type 31 is getting 32 cells aft of the forward mast and forward of the hangar.
Click to expand...
Where are the Sea Ceptor cells situated on the RN Type 26?
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
As Craig Lockhart said in his comment in The Australian, the Hunter Class can accommodate greater than 96 VLS tubes. Why not include these in the design from the outset and voila, a new AWD!
Mind you, the final details of the class are a closely guarded secret so we'll just have to wait and see.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
iambuzzard said:
As Craig Lockhart said in his comment in The Australian, the Hunter Class can accommodate greater than 96 VLS tubes. Why not include these in the design from the outset and voila, a new AWD!
Mind you, the final details of the class are a closely guarded secret so we'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Requirements, i.e. what the GotD asked for.

Navantia were very keen to give the Hobarts a 64 cell VLS and a second helicopter and as much as the RAN would have loved to have said yes, the GotD said no.
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger said:
TBH I do not really see a point in Australia ordered a design to be built to Australian specs, by a European shipyard. Firstly Australia would need to decide what it wants, what is needs, what a design absolutely has to have etc. It would then need to select which design best meets Australian requirements and there would need to be negotiations over the terms of the contract. This is something which would essentially have to happen, no matter where RAN warships were to be built. All of this would require time, which would also come before contracts could be signed and orders placed.

Pretty much the only possible exceptions were if Australia were to select a MOTS build, from a shipyard with an already established and active build programme, but there are two (or rather, at least two) important caveats with that. Australia would still have to negotiate the terms of any contract, and Australia would have to accept the ship fitout 'as is' which could mean a RAN vessel fitted with systems the RAN is unfamiliar with, and without any established training, support, maintenance or operational experience with.

Also, for any RAN order other than a MOTS order, detailed design work would need to be done, in order to fit the systems the RAN specifies. Again, this takes time.

As I and others have mentioned, repeatedly, there are reasons why a number of us consider the RAN getting new warships in service quickly as something which cannot happen. There are either a couple of years of work required before any contracts could be signed and then new warships built, or Australia would have to accept ships designed and built to the requirements of other navies (MOTS), fitted with kit the RAN is unfamiliar with. If the RAN did decide on the MOTS option, even with a 'Captains pick' and therefore not a competition between designers/builders, several years would be needed for the RAN to get personnel trained to operate the new kit, get a pool of maintainers trained and experienced to keep the kit operational, as well as time to establish the supply chains needed to keep everything in good working nick.

It is unfortunate, but there really is no way to shorten the process and still have an effective and useable warship brought into service.
Click to expand...
You’re spot on. Only One thing can be done and that’s is get a crack on with the review outcomes and make a decision.
 
S

Sierra Mike

Member
So this all hinges on the Government of the Day defining the need...

Without this clearly articulated (i.e. WTF they want the RAN/ADF to do) we are going to be stuck in this endless merry-go-around of ship X can do everything needed.

The sad thing for Australia is Defence used to be bi-partisan, beyond petty politics where both sides of the house agreed on a solid purpose for our Defence Forces. More recently, and blame can be attributed to both sides, the complexity of Defence Acquistion has been ignored and projects have been dragged through the mud (Collins, Wedgetail, AWD, to name some).

What I would like to see is a return to solid Defence Planning, with true bi-partisan support from the major parties to get us out of this funk...
 
D

devo99

Well-Known Member
In case anyone missed it the new ADV Guidance has arrived at Fleet Base East as of a week ago joining ADV Reliant and ADV Ocean Protector in the fleet of Teekay operated utility vessels. She's outwardly very similar to ADV Reliant as she is a slightly larger model of the same design. Primary role is seemingly diving support and for testing of unmanned systems such as UUVs.
3638562.jpg
 
Last edited:
H

H_K

Member
Milne Bay said:
Well written and timely comment.
Thanks for the link
Click to expand...
Would be even better if he laid out how BAE could deliver more Hunters sooner.

But I guess he might get in trouble with the government if he put that on the table. Or maybe it’s just not possible to accelerate the Hunter build…
 
M

MickB

Well-Known Member
Reptilia said:
From the Australian today….


Assuming the 96 vls cells would be the destroyer variant of the Hunter?
Click to expand...
While it may be possible to get a total of 96 VLS on a Hunter class he did not state what type of VLS.
For all we know this option might include a number of CAMM cells like the Type 26.
As the RAN does not use this missile this may be why the govt has not requested such an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top