Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

A

Armchair

Well-Known Member
H_K said:
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…
Click to expand...
In terms of getting in trouble with the government the interesting part for me was his argument against a new offshore build.
If he had a classified industry brief of the surface fleet review and it recommended an offshore build and/or a new design then it would be incautious (and pointless) to divulge that by arguing against it (or trying to influence government response) by writing in The Australian over his name (he’s not going to jail but he’s not helping his company).

Shaping public opinion (with government blessing) for Hunter DDGs?
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
MickB said:
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.
Click to expand...
Possibly, or there could be space for additional cells forward and a 48, or 64 cell strike length VLS could be fitted inplace the mission bay.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Redlands18 said:
Naval Group would very much depend on how badly the bridges were burnt with the Subs as well as how much appetite there is right now for French equipment (Thales being the exception). ...
Click to expand...
What French Thales equipment is Australia buying? A lot of Thales gear is designed & made in other countries.
 
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
On another forum, a poster did a weight calculation.

DDG variant
He seemed to think forward 32 max mk41 Aus or 24 mk41 + 24 camm u.k
Sacrificing the mission bay and most of its equipment, mid 32 mk41 aus or mid 24 mk41 + 24 camm u.k
Aus destroyer variant 64 cells (2x32 =64) or u.k 96 cells (2x24=48 + 2x24=48 =96)
 
A

Armchair

Well-Known Member
Milne Bay said:
It really is the only sensible option.
I don't know that it would be necessary to shape public opinion on it however.
What most people want at the moment is to see some direction and some firmness of action.
Just get on with it
MB
Click to expand...
I kind of meant the interested but not necessarily informed public.
Not many people read The Australian but all the (informed and uninformed) backbenchers and staffers and lobbyists and lots of mid to senior public servants do (at least on Newspoll days). The defence advertising in Canberra airport is aimed at the same people.

If the government announces Hunter DDG as a single source selection it will be controversial.

If BAE’s article is speaking to the government then that is a bad sign for your only sensible option (which is mine too) if BAE’s article is speaking for the government it is a good sign.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
While an AWD version of the Hunter may not be ideal there is one big attraction. At least it will be a continuation of an established ship building program.
The alternative might be to end the production of the Hunter program at six vessels and then face another valley of death situation while future governments procrastinate over what design should follow.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
swerve said:
What French Thales equipment is Australia buying? A lot of Thales gear is designed & made in other countries.
Click to expand...
The Hunters are due to get the Thales 2087 Sonar but whether they are French or UK made ones is yet to be announced. Thales has a huge presence in Australia including buying out ADI and building the Bushmaster and Hawkeii vehicles. My comment was mainly about Australia's relationship with France, especially Naval Group but is still good with Thales.
If Australia was to decide to release a project for a Corvette-Light Frigate, would Naval Group respond and if they did, how would it be perceived by the Australian Government/ADF?
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Armchair said:
I kind of meant the interested but not necessarily informed public.
Not many people read The Australian but all the (informed and uninformed) backbenchers and staffers and lobbyists and lots of mid to senior public servants do (at least on Newspoll days). The defence advertising in Canberra airport is aimed at the same people.

If the government announces Hunter DDG as a single source selection it will be controversial.

If BAE’s article is speaking to the government then that is a bad sign for your only sensible option (which is mine too) if BAE’s article is speaking for the government it is a good sign.
Click to expand...
Australia has an agreement with BAE to build 9 ships based on the Type 26, there would be no issues if we gave the last 3 a much larger weapons load. The last 3 were never going to be exact clones of the first 3. Under the Continuous ship building plan released several years ago, the plan was for Australia to design its own DDGs to immediately follow the 9th Hunter and replace the Hobarts.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Redlands18 said:
The Hunters are due to get the Thales 2087 Sonar but whether they are French or UK made ones is yet to be announced. Thales has a huge presence in Australia including buying out ADI and building the Bushmaster and Hawkeii vehicles. My comment was mainly about Australia's relationship with France, especially Naval Group but is still good with Thales.
Click to expand...
With the sub deal we learnt that Thales and Naval, while both "French", don't particularly like each other.

Think like Ford Australia and Holden Australia, or AFL and Australian Rugby league. Yes, from the same country, but they are more competitors than friends. Then add to the fact Naval group has basically no employees in Australia, and Thales, acquired a lot of older Australian companies and has a lot of Australian working in it. Thales is more like a normal multinational, with a fairly strong local arm that basically does what ever they want, with its own strong local leadership, with its own identity over many decades and contributes in many fields and many projects.

hauritz said:
While an AWD version of the Hunter may not be ideal there is one big attraction. At least it will be a continuation of an established ship building program.
The alternative might be to end the production of the Hunter program at six vessels and then face another valley of death situation while future governments procrastinate over what design should follow.
Click to expand...
  • What it doesn't fix is the lack of sustainable ship building in Henderson.
  • It doesn't fix how long it is going to take for the first hunter to hit the water.
  • It doesn't fix the age of the ANZACs
  • It doesn't fix the length of the ANZAC upgrades
  • It doesn't fix the length of the Hobart upgrades
  • It doesn't fix the length of the Collins upgrades.
www.skynews.com.au

Collins class upgrades likely to 'overrun' planned timeframe

The Department of Defence has told Senate estimates there will likely be "a degree of overrun" in the planned timeframe for upgrading Australia's aging Collins class submarine fleet.
www.skynews.com.au www.skynews.com.au

I still think a 90-100m opv/Frigate is going to happen, It is going to be built at Henderson. Its going to have some self protection capability. It is going to be built by CIVMEC.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
With the sub deal we learnt that Thales and Naval, while both "French", don't particularly like each other.

Think like Ford Australia and Holden Australia, or AFL and Australian Rugby league. Yes, from the same country, but they are more competitors than friends. Then add to the fact Naval group has basically no employees in Australia, and Thales, acquired a lot of older Australian companies and has a lot of Australian working in it. Thales is more like a normal multinational, with a fairly strong local arm that basically does what ever they want, with its own strong local leadership, with its own identity over many decades and contributes in many fields and many projects.
  • What it doesn't fix is the lack of sustainable ship building in Henderson.
  • It doesn't fix how long it is going to take for the first hunter to hit the water.
  • It doesn't fix the age of the ANZACs
  • It doesn't fix the length of the ANZAC upgrades
  • It doesn't fix the length of the Hobart upgrades
  • It doesn't fix the length of the Collins upgrades.
www.skynews.com.au

Collins class upgrades likely to 'overrun' planned timeframe

The Department of Defence has told Senate estimates there will likely be "a degree of overrun" in the planned timeframe for upgrading Australia's aging Collins class submarine fleet.
www.skynews.com.au www.skynews.com.au

I still think a 90-100m opv/Frigate is going to happen, It is going to be built at Henderson. Its going to have some self protection capability. It is going to be built by CIVMEC.
Click to expand...
All those years of procrastination have created the almost perfect storm of having to deperately patch up aging equipment to squeeze another few years of life out of them, attempt to accelerate delivery of existing programs and try to find quick fix, off the shelf solutions to maintain at least a semblance of capability.

Not sure there is a solution.

Old equipment is old equipment and patching up ANZAC frigates and Collins subs is akin to putting lipstick on a pig. Sending those things into harms way in the 2030s is simply not acceptable. Building a stretched version of an OPV and calling that a warship is almost criminal.

Radical solution. Forget the updates, Accept we are going to see a reduction in capability with the navy until the Hunters and SSNs enter service in numbers by the late 30s and early 40s and spend the money saved on a dozen B21s.

Seriously I don't see a quick fix for the navy.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Collins is at least a highly capable sub platform. One that would be tough to replace at short notice. I've said before, it should be a TLAM launch platform. Going forward, it would be good for that, not so good at chasing down SSN in the south china sea. With modern engines and modern batteries, and modern sensors, it can have some life.

Anzacs however were a cheap and cheerful platform that have come to the end of their growth and life. Its an old platform, built for a different era. We have operated them very hard, extended their at sea period to cover up the loss of the FFG/DDG and the delay of the Hobarts.

hauritz said:
Radical solution. Forget the updates, Accept we are going to see a reduction in capability with the navy until the Hunters and SSNs enter service in numbers by the late 30s and early 40s and spend the money saved on a dozen B21s.
Click to expand...
The B21 are not going to be ready in time.

In fact we will have a ~10 plane F-35 short fall, as block IV won't be ready in time. We will get them when TR3 and Block IV is operational, so we will have 10 new build F-35's and then we will need to upgrade the F-35s. Which currently can't carry things like LRASM or JSM.

B21's don't really have antisubmarine capability, or EEZ enforcement. They also aren't cheap. And don't yet have an antishipping focus. They aren't able to sustain and persist.

Its possible a Mk70 VLS could be integrated onto a 100m ship.
www.navalnews.com

US Navy LCS Successfully Fires SM-6 from MK 70 Payload Delivery System - Naval News

US Navy Littoral Combat Ship USS Savannah (LCS 28) successfully launched an SM-6 missile from a MK 70 Mod 1 Payload Delivery System.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

So 6-8 smaller ships may help relieve the ship shortage.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
hauritz said:
All those years of procrastination have created the almost perfect storm of having to deperately patch up aging equipment to squeeze another few years of life out of them, attempt to accelerate delivery of existing programs and try to find quick fix, off the shelf solutions to maintain at least a semblance of capability.

Not sure there is a solution.

Old equipment is old equipment and patching up ANZAC frigates and Collins subs is akin to putting lipstick on a pig. Sending those things into harms way in the 2030s is simply not acceptable. Building a stretched version of an OPV and calling that a warship is almost criminal.

Radical solution. Forget the updates, Accept we are going to see a reduction in capability with the navy until the Hunters and SSNs enter service in numbers by the late 30s and early 40s and spend the money saved on a dozen B21s.

Seriously I don't see a quick fix for the navy.
Click to expand...
The Hobart's were ordered because of the 2000 DWP, prior to that there was a real chance the fleet was going to be let shrink to just the ANZACs. The only reason we got them an the LHDs was Timor.

The 87 DWP was prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and there was a real apetite on both sides of politics to enjoy the peace dividend. Timor was a wake-up that the current force couldn't be allowed to just degrade to nothing.

9/11 and the war on terror saw an uptick in counter insurgency capabilities, force protection and logistic support, including strategic transport, but no planned improvement in high end capabilities.

When you look how many other nations had their high end capabilities cut, we did of, percentage wise. The issue is, our starting point was much lower.
 
d-ron84

d-ron84

Member
hauritz said:
All those years of procrastination have created the almost perfect storm of having to deperately patch up aging equipment to squeeze another few years of life out of them, attempt to accelerate delivery of existing programs and try to find quick fix, off the shelf solutions to maintain at least a semblance of capability.

Not sure there is a solution.

Old equipment is old equipment and patching up ANZAC frigates and Collins subs is akin to putting lipstick on a pig. Sending those things into harms way in the 2030s is simply not acceptable. Building a stretched version of an OPV and calling that a warship is almost criminal.

Radical solution. Forget the updates, Accept we are going to see a reduction in capability with the navy until the Hunters and SSNs enter service in numbers by the late 30s and early 40s and spend the money saved on a dozen B21s.

Seriously I don't see a quick fix for the navy.
Click to expand...
No LOTE for CCSM = No Virginia SSN
No Virginia SSN = No SSN AUKUS

The Virginia SSN deal hinges on Australia being able to maintain a credible (re: safe and competent) submarine capability.
SSN AUKUS is too far ahead in the future to hold out to if we don't get Virginia's
So if we don't put Collins through LOTE we are out of the Submarine game
 
7

76mmGuns

Active Member
hauritz said:
It isn’t just constructing a new ship that is the time consuming part. It is all the work leading up to it.

Take the Hobart class for example. Planning began in the year 2000, a design was selected in 2007, the contract was issued in 2009, issues with design pushed production back to 2012.

Once construction started it only took 4 or 5 years to build the ship but it took 12 years to get to that point.

At this stage we haven’t even got to the planning stage of any new warship yet. That might happen next year. Even with a captain’s choice I find it hard to believe anything is likely to be delivered before the end of the decade.

If there is something that is likely to be be delivered before the end of the decade it would be something like the C-90 which barely qualifies as a warship in my opinion.

There really aren’t that many options left for Australia now. We ran the clock down. If a war occurs before the end of the decade we will be fighting it with whatever we have now.
Click to expand...
Most of us regular people don't realise how long it takes to get the first finished product. To give an example I recently came across, even though this example is a tank, not a naval vessel, it's still a good example:

Israel's Merkava tank- The tank began development in 1970, and its first generation, the Merkava Mark 1, entered official service in 1979. And this was considered successful, because it came in on time, and under budget (budget $100m, eventual spending, $65m). 9 years. We aren't getting a top of the line naval ship from start to finish in 4 years.
 
Last edited:
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
d-ron84 said:
No LOTE for CCSM = No Virginia SSN
No Virginia SSN = No SSN AUKUS

The Virginia SSN deal hinges on Australia being able to maintain a credible (re: safe and competent) submarine capability.
SSN AUKUS is too far ahead in the future to hold out to if we don't get Virginia's
So if we don't put Collins through LOTE we are out of the Submarine game
Click to expand...
Plan A --Virginia Class
Plan B - Collins LOTE
Plan C - SSN AUKUS.

If your a betting man what are the odds of Plan A and C coming through.

As you pause to ponder that question and acknowledge that both A and C are NOT a given, your also mindful that Plan B is just a reprieve.
Do we even contemplate a Plan D.

It's a serious question.
We live in very uncertain times on many levels.

Let's face it, we are just not going to get
B 21s this decade or even the next.

Plan D is a reluctant conversation we should be having

Cheers S
 
Systems Adict

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
As a Def-Pro, work often gets in the way of thing & prevents me from getting onto this site as often as i'd like, so I have just read thru comments #6621 - #6678. I was fortunate enough to catch the Australian article quoted in #6642 on LinkedIn.

However, i'm perplexed by the comments in post #6652 relating x96 VLS 'tubes'. I've went back & went to the Australian site directly, looked at the article via links on google & other fora / pages I frequent. NO WHERE does it mention the armament / capabilities of the Hunter class design within the statement made by Craig Lockhart / published yesterday (26th).

I am missing something ?

Any chance you can provide a corroborating link, quoting BAE / Craig Lockhart & the '96 VLS tubes' ?

If not, then can I be blunt...

I fully appreciate & understand people wanting to know what the Hunter class are gonna be armed with in the defence of the nation, but as the man from BAE implied, speculation, paraphrasing & mis-quoting are not helping anyone...

SA
 
H

H_K

Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top