I agree Volk.
And to add to that point we need to ba able to sustain our fuel needs, however with the current rhetoric, no political party will go down that road. It's a huge NEED.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
And to add to that point we need to ba able to sustain our fuel needs, however with the current rhetoric, no political party will go down that road. It's a huge NEED.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Almost 180 degrees from correct.
One of the best things for Australian security would be a strong and thriving maritime industry. Naval shipyards that deliver a constant beat of major warship delivery every 18 - 24 months that stretches for decades, additional yards that build patrol boats/OPVs for the RAN/ABF/region every 9 - 12 months. A maritime workforce that is healthy and has many, many members. Australian flagged ships that can, when needed, be taken up to support deployments overseas. Healthy fuel reserves. Subordinate high tech industries for radars, comms and weapons - the first two of which feed into the commercial sector when possible. Unions here are good - the industry bosses naturally falls into the LNP sphere and the unions counter it though the ALP sphere (yes, massive generalisations here) - meaning the maritime industry as a whole is kept consistent and balanced.
I'll go one step further - boost the naval yards to deliver a major combatant every 6 - 12 months - that are then sold to strategic partners like Japan or South Korea, offering them strategic depth and an untouchable industry base to cater for the exposure of their own shipyards.
The fact is that even a MOTS ship is not possible, there needs to be Australianisations to operate here. So your plan would see all our money sent overseas (remember, for every dollar Defence spends in Australian industry, $4-5 comes back in tax eventually) and then some anaemic, half-arsed organisation that adds the needed modifications; some of which require teardowns of pre-built structure (and no, you can't add when building, because you undermine the advantage of a production line). And if you think that everyone else is on budget and only we blow out? You need to look at Zumwalt, Ford, or F-125 among others.
Now, copy that across to Army vehicles and munitions and all of a sudden Australia has some viable industries and a military that is as up-to-date as possible, as well as aiding in our region. Why go to the US or Europe for a ship or vehicle when Australia is local. I'm not saying we design our own necessarily, but having a production industry here offers up so many opportunities. Blue collar and white collar demand would increase. Better opportunities for those who don't want to go to university.
Then - when the worst happens and war breaks out - our mobilisation is easier because our industries and workforces are strong. Our equipment can get repaired by experts. They can be rebombed by Australian made munitions.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
I think this little pile on in response to hauritz's comment is over the top. I don't believe he was saying we should throw away continuous naval shipbuilding, but was commenting in the context that Australia needs a new warship in the water sooner.
I agree it is unlikely to be looked at due to the politics, but the other criticisms don't wash. It would not threaten continuous shipbuilding if it is only done to help replace the Anzacs sooner - with a warship with similar or even greater capabilities. The Hunters can still be built, and it is what succeeds those in construction - building up the fleet while also replacing the Hobarts - that is critical to maintain our shipbuilding capability.
Furthermore, it is possible to have built overseas ships for Australian service; we have quite a history of doing exactly that.
What I think is more unlikely even is your idea of selling warships to Japan and South Korea. Is there any evidence we can do build them in anything approaching a competitive manner? I very much doubt that. And both countries have demonstrated their own shipbuilding capabilities quite well.
Clarity
It was six ASW hunters down from nine , gain six tier two.
At the end of the day my preference is not the above, but rather stick with building the 9 Hunters and provide some modest enhancement to the existing OPVs built in two classes (sizes) for some fleet capability gain ASAP.
To be annoying, Tier one and Tier three
It's a stop gap solution working with what we have.
Cheers
I'd say more likely customers would be the ASEAN countries. Particularly those with aging fleets in need of replacing or that are looking to expand their fleets such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
The shortcoming being that this does not address the reality of the ageing Anzacs or the timeframes in having the Hunters replace them. If the Hunters are commissioned every two years from 2032, then Ballarat will be almost 38 years old by the time she is decommissioned, and we won't even see the fleet increase in size (assuming all nine Hunters are built) until the late 2040s.
We should have had a replacement frigate entering service from, well, even roughly now or at least within the next three years or so, not another nine years down the track. This is the problem that has been caused by past governments. It is why I can see the merit in building an extra class of ... something that provides, at a minimum, similar capability to the Anzacs and allowing those to be retired earlier.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Indonesia is building her own. Not sure about the others, but they'll buy at the lowest possible price and that won't be us. We're not competitive on price and we likely wouldn't be able to deliver in good time either.
Indonesia is building some of it's own but definitely not designing it at this stage.
What he said was:
What we need is a political leader willing to stand up against Australian shipbuilders and unions and make a decision that is in the best interest of Australia’s security. This would involve a risky captain’s choice of a ship, probably built overseas, and probably with minimal Australian industry involvement. It would be a project with a high chance of budget blowouts or even complete failure and a risk of electoral backlash in a number of key seats.
Let’s be honest no PM would ever take that risk.
Read in particular the highlighted sections."Standing up against shipbuilders and unions ... In the best interest of Australia's security." And "Built overseas ... Minimal Australian industry involvement".
He literally blames industry and unions, for a situation that was caused by short term, short sighted, cost savings by sussessive governments, against the advice of defence, navy, industry and the unions.
Is the now $45 billion life time cost or just the construction costs as both methods have been quoted for equipment here ( eg AUKIS Subs $360 Billion). If the is 9 ships…$5 billion each over the20+ year life time seems reasonable.Thanks for the description of the options' capabilities.
On the cost though I am very pessimistic that we will build more than 9 Hunters in total, whether ASW or AA variants. At the recent parliamentary accounts committee there were pointed questions from both the Labor and Liberal members to the BAE CEO about Hunter costs. Ironically former Minister Linda Reynolds was one of those asking the questions.
Parliament scrutinises weighty problems on $45 billion warship project
There are growing concerns about whether the fleet of future frigates will meet the navy's requirements.www.abc.net.au
Hunter is already over budget with costs overruns reportedly still not all declared at $45B. There are reasons for that but in the current environment I think Hunter is more likely to face cuts than extensions. Recent interest rate rises have increased the cost of government borrowing. All departments are under pressure to cut costs.
What is the reason there is not a lot of Australian flagged ships now? I am happy to be wrong as it is a 30-40 year old memory, but I recall the AMU and their crewing level ( up to 2.5 times crew numbers) and working condition demands ( around breaks between shifts, time on deck and salaries) a big part of the reason Making Australian flagged commercial vessels uncompetitive.
When we needed a gap filler SH for the airforce it was built over seas.
I
We are in a damned situation.
If I thought a realistic solution was to bring into service a modern ANZAC sized vessel quickly and not at the expense of the Hunters delivery timetable I'd be open to this option.
Japan seems to have an ambitions build schedule for some 24 vessels.
If we could replicate that sort of expectation, brilliant.
Let's build a tier two tomorrow.
We are not Japan
We have concerning talk re the Hunters.
The Arafura Class a a project of concern.
The priority landing craft medium and heavy are going at a glacial pace.
Upgrades for Collins and Hobart's will be complex and challenging for time.
Currently we can't even put phalanx on the LHDs.
So much for concerning times and all.
It's not that we can't do really good stuff in OZ.
We can be world class !
However, somehow we have in the last decade tired ourselves in knots.
Let's consolidate and get what is up and running working to maximum capacity.
The Hunters will be a success.
Let's get them in the water at the fastest rate possibke
The OPVs while not what I believe we should of selected are actually in production and have so much more potential than the patrol boats they succeed.
They can potentially do modest military stuff.
A bastard of a solution, but a realistic solution that will be in service this decade.
Tier two thing?
Show me the costings, time table to service and what we sacrifice to acquire this capability.
Cheers S
I agree with the challenges of the ANZAC class.
We are in a damned situation.
If I thought a realistic solution was to bring into service a modern ANZAC sized vessel quickly and not at the expense of the Hunters delivery timetable I'd be open to this option.
Japan seems to have an ambitions build schedule for some 24 vessels.
If we could replicate that sort of expectation, brilliant.
Let's build a tier two tomorrow.
We are not Japan
We have concerning talk re the Hunters.
The Arafura Class a a project of concern.
The priority landing craft medium and heavy are going at a glacial pace.
Upgrades for Collins and Hobart's will be complex and challenging for time.
Currently we can't even put phalanx on the LHDs.
So much for concerning times and all.
It's not that we can't do really good stuff in OZ.
We can be world class !
However, somehow we have in the last decade tired ourselves in knots.
Let's consolidate and get what is up and running working to maximum capacity.
The Hunters will be a success.
Let's get them in the water at the fastest rate possibke
The OPVs while not what I believe we should of selected are actually in production and have so much more potential than the patrol boats they succeed.
They can potentially do modest military stuff.
A bastard of a solution, but a realistic solution that will be in service this decade.
Tier two thing?
Show me the costings, time table to service and what we sacrifice to acquire this capability.
Cheers S
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Yeah I have no problem with you saying it's not the defence, navy, industry, unions that are at fault, but he's right in saying that the latter two would likely oppose any overseas build (note I'm not advocating an overseas build, but I can see the merit in the argument).
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
So if we cannot build an interim class - tier 2 or whatever we want to call it - in our own shipyards then must we go overseas? Or just accept that we're going to have some very old Anzacs serving deep into the '30s and even '40s, and possibly some of those decommissioning earlier than we might like and the fleet retracting further to fewer than 11 hulls for quite some time? It doesn't sound like a good solution to me; I'm hoping instead we can build an additional class of warships to enter service alongside the Hunters to get those Anzacs out of the water soon.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A bit of an apples to oranges comparison though. Australia does not have a domestic aerospace industry which is large enough to support and sustain jet aircraft production, never mind advanced fast jets. Any fighter aircraft Australia would order would either have to be built overseas, or a manufacturer would need to construct/purchase a facility in Australia to engage in production. If a company was foolish enough to actually setup domestic fighter production in Australia, that facility would only operate until the contracts to meet the Australian order were completed. There just is not enough domestic activity to sustain such a capability.
For naval shipbuilding, there can be enough activity to sustain the industrial base, provided things are properly planned for and managed.
Overseas build is not the solution. It involves many of the same risks as a domestic build but without the control, authority, or economic benefit.
The thing is, we don't ever completely move away from local builds, we buy offshore because poor planning has left us with a capability gap that needs to be filled, or a government decides on a short term cost saving.
The thing is, within a decade we are ordering ships locally again, but the efficiencies have been lost, the work force has contracted and facilities have deteriorated.
These inefficiencies, caused by the lack of orders, while lower quality ships are built overseas, take time and money to rectify, which industry and work force are blamed for. These inefficiencies are then used as justification to order from overseas.
Can we build decent ships in Australia?
Well let's see, Melbourne and Newcastle are now serving in Chile, the ANZACs and Collins are still in service and being life extended. If they were crap, we would not be able to upgrade and life extend them.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH if the concern is about the viability of the ANZAC-class frigates into the future, I think the RAN would be better off pushing to accelerate the Hunter-class build rather than come up with a new/another vessel design to be built and commissioned into the RAN. From my POV, the concerns I would have about this makes no distinction between a 2nd class which is also built in Australia, or an overseas build.
Yes, having a 2nd class built (if it could be done in time, which might be possible by then again might not) could let the current frigates be decommissioned early/earlier, but there are a number of potential issues with doing so.
As currently structured, the RAN is setup to operate and support about a dozen major surface combatants, more or less. If 2nd class of vessel also gets built for the RAN, in addition to the Hunter-class being built and the existing Hobart-class, the RAN is still only going to be large enough to operate and support ~12 combatants. If three or four hypothetical vessels were built in a programme alongside the Hunter-class build programme, then once ~nine vessels between the Hunter-class and 2nd class were built, then the new construction for the RAN would need to stop, otherwise the RAN fleet would get overbuilt and there would be more ships than crews available, likely by three or four frigates.
This would leave the CoA with some unpalatable choices to make. Either cut back the number of Hunter-class frigates to be built down to five or six, thus shortening the build with construction for SEA 5000 likely ending by 2038 if not earlier, or keep the number to be built at nine, and then retire the additional class of vessels quite early in their careers, after spending all the coin to have them built in the first place.
If the number of Hunter-class frigates is cut down to ~six because another class also gets built, that would impact national continuous shipbuilding regardless of where a 2nd class build was done. By current numbers, the current plan was to build through to 2044 which would provide steady work to sustain shipbuilding whilst also have enough RAN personnel to crew vessels being built or otherwise in service. If the RAN were to have the ANZAC-class frigates rapidly replaced, there would be no follow-on shipbuilding for several years because the current RAN needs and capability to operate ships had been met. It might be possible to launch a replacement programme for the Hobart-class early (as in, get it started now to be ready in 10-15 years for production to start) but that would likely only be a three ship build programme which would finish in the mid to late 2040's. This in turn would likely cause a ~decade gap in shipbuilding because the first of the Hunter-class frigates likely would not be due for replacement until in the late 2050's or later.
It is unfortunate that the RAN finds itself in such a situation where there are no real good solutions. Solutions which solve certain problems end up creating other problems. To make matters worse, any potential solution would need to be one which the RAN could apply and sustain for years, likely through several changes in gov't. Given how long Australia has gone so far into the continuous national shipbuilding strategy and following a change in gov't it appears that a current programme which is a key part of the strategy is being looked at by gov't to be possibly significantly changed/cut short, it leaves me less inclined to believe that support for a nationally important strategy is strong enough to make it work.
I mirror your concern.
Many on DT who know alot more than I do about shipbuilding, have spelt out the sort of time tables required to build a new class of vessel.
Working with that limitation, I can see us having to work with what we have.
An enhanced Arafura however maybe the least complicated option.
Again it will still only have a modest weapons fitout.
As for an overseas build ,well that is an option, but I feel it wouldn't pass the political pub test.
We have what we have!
It's a very frustrating situation.
We need more capability today, next year, next decade.
Let's hope some positivity in the Naval Review
Cheers S
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Out of curiosity does anyone know if the hunter program is single shift per day or double/triple? Is that an easy way to respond to increasing tensions is to crash build the existing design rather than work through another simpler design? Realise you would have to be so close to the program you probably cant comment but has it been mentioned somewhere perhaps?