Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[aussienscale]

@ngatimozart

Jeez are you paying for them? No wonder I want our ships built elsewhere. That's the problem and I think that your $5 billion is optimistic. However what figures are you citing and how are they calculated? I cannot do a decent comparison of defence acquisitions costs between Australia and NZ because both governments do their cost calculations differently.

Indirectly via tax yes! But the reason I made that point was the Subs are publicly quoted as $360 billion project which takes in lifetime costs. However the Hunters are stated as $45 billion project in the media. Trying to understand if that’s the on the road … Sail away cost or lifetime costs. Sail away seems high. Life time seems low.

Yes it is lifetime, that is how they are all costed, it is part of the regulatory requirements in reporting. You have to remember, the Hunters will be utilising existing and future planned infrastructure, training and maintenance pipelines etc.

Nuclear submarines is a whole difference ball game, yes incredibly expensive, but you need to place so much more in this first class than for any other type of Defence programme. All new way of doing business, new skills and training, raising a much larger qualified workforce, civil and Defence capabilities, knowledge, safety, new specific facilities to host, and technically a much more complex programme that will run for a much longer period than the Hunters.

Cheers

 

[devo99]

That would potentially be true if they had an MHC role, which they do not. They are to perform the constabulary role.

Ok that wasn't how I understood it to be.

That proposal did not however envision the ships themselves entering mine fields but rather that, as with the new Dutch/Belgian ships, AUVs perform the function while the mothership stood off.

I wasn't suggesting they would be entering mine fields, only that they'd need to be going places before or alongside the amphibs to clear areas with the AUVs that would be launched from them.

 

[Meriv90]

There are some interesting papers coming out of Indo Pacific. I need to wait until I can find public domain copies but the stats on the performance of first of class and major upgrades across more than a dozen navies is an eye opener.

Cost and schedule blowouts, as well as risk issues make the projects we whinge about look good, very good.

This is going to be an interesting lecture if becomes public.

 

[devo99]

There's an interesting USV shown in the latest Naval News video covering IPE2023 supposedly called Oracle-25 with the first to be launched some time next year. Couldn't find anything on it online but managed to track down the logos on the info board with the help of the exhibitor list to Greenroom Robotics and Omega Dev Group, neither of which I'd heard much of before. Seems it's Navy backed so I guess it's just been somewhat under wraps.

 

[devo99]

This is going to be an interesting lecture if becomes public.

They made some of last year's lectures public on YouTube so hopefully it will be the same this year.

 

[Meriv90]

Yes and I would suggest a conversation with Indonesia because they are building the AH140. It would be a good diplomatic move.

Yeah I think getting behind the Indonesian order book is the right way.

At the same time I wonder how much you can save since you will still have to install western supplied equipment and the political cycles in Indonesia give the feeling of being a major hindrance (yet I think they would treat the NZ order with white gloves, if the sentence is correct).

 

[OldTex]

There are 4 projects which comes under Land 8710, thus Army projects.
LMV-M is the LCM-8 replacement. It will be larger with improved range, endurance, crew facilities and sea keeping the priorities.
Land 8710 phase 1A is a LARC-V replacement.
Both of these are currently shortlisted, and winners are due to be announced in the next few months.

LMV-P is the Riverine patrol vessel.
LMV-H is a LST type vessel up to 2000t.
Neither project has commenced beyond planning but as part of the DSR the Albanese Government has announced it plans to accelerate and expand Land 8710.

Logic would suggest that the operaters of the LMV-M and the LARC-V replacement would be Army, specifically RACT, with the LMV-P potentially becoming part of the Infantry battalion(s) or the Cavalry unit or specially established combined units. The break point with RACT involvement would be the LMV-H which should be operated by RAN due to the combination of size and function. It will be a small amphib vessel needed to support Army movement just like the LHDs and the LSD and the former LCHs.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

I read what you wrote.

Let's apply some logic. What would an interim frigate achieve? Nothing because it will take as long as any new design to build and introduce. People need to get real. There is a limited amount of facilities, funding, people and time. Secondly any interim frigate maybe be seen as pollies as a long term solution and you get similar problems to what the RAN have with the current Anzac Class frigate fleet. Something that no longer is what it was intended to be and Guccied up to look big and dangerous. It is still a small sized patrol frigate that has met its weight and displacement limits. Any talk of an interim frigate is crap. You can't afford interim frigates. They are just a distraction.

Now if you are talking about a light patrol frigate / corvette that fills the Teir 2 function then yes you are talking sense. These are what are needed long term, by not just the RAN, but many other navies including the USN & RNZN. Look at what the Japanese and South Koreans are building. Bear in mind that what they call frigates, we call light patrol frigates / corvettes and what they call destroyers we generally call frigates. The nomenclature between the navies is different.

No, he was speaking rubbish and most of those that piled in, as you put it, know what they are talking about.

No reason why you can't go overseas for the first iteration. Maybe you can build the following iterations in your own yards later when you have your own yards workflows etc., sorted and what not. The thing about say a SK, Singa, or Japanese build is that it's also defence diplomacy and most likely works out cheaper than building in your own yards. It's great building in your own yards but capacity and economics don't always make for an ideal solution. Do you know why I am really against any RNZN frigates etc., being built in Australia? It's purely because of cost. I say the same for North American and Western European yards. But Australia is just far to expensive for us.

You may have read what I wrote, but I don't think you're really being fair in representing what I was saying through your response.

Your initial response to my post that prompted my question was to talk about crewing when I very specifically outlined how what I was advancing support for was as replacements for the Anzacs. That is, not additional ships, but to allow the Anzacs to be retired earlier than they otherwise would.

My key point was that we will be waiting too long for the Hunters to replace the Anzacs one for one; that we risk having those ships retire without direct replacement.

I was also clear that I was using the term interim frigate loosely; that it only needed to be a warship of similar capability to the Anzacs - a light frigate, large corvette - whatever; what is important is to get them into the water sooner.

I absolutely acknowledged that it would be a challenge to build an extra class of warship quickly, might require offshore construction, and - even if built locally - is politically a tough sell.

In fact, on this last point, I advanced the thinking that this talk of tier 1 and tier 2 is at least partly designed to sell the idea of building an additional class. That is, it's a political argument because it will be hard to convince the media and the general public - when costs are seemingly blowing out on the Hunters and when we're investing big money in nuclear-powered submarines - that we need another warship.

 

[John Fedup]

@ngatimozart

Jeez are you paying for them? No wonder I want our ships built elsewhere. That's the problem and I think that your $5 billion is optimistic. However what figures are you citing and how are they calculated? I cannot do a decent comparison of defence acquisitions costs between Australia and NZ because both governments do their cost calculations differently.

Indirectly via tax yes! But the reason I made that point was the Subs are publicly quoted as $360 billion project which takes in lifetime costs. However the Hunters are stated as $45 billion project in the media. Trying to understand if that’s the on the road … Sail away cost or lifetime costs. Sail away seems high. Life time seems low.

Haven’t see any recent estimates for the CSC but 4.5-5.0 billion per ship is likely which is why I have doubts about 15. Junior or a future government will cut the build number which will result in a 6 billion ship hence no savings. Like cycle cost estimate for a 15 ship fleet was well north of $200 billion.

 

[swerve]

I would say the concept of a high-speed Seaframe is inherently unsuitable for the RAN, we had enough problems with the Armidales and their design concept as high-speed (they weren't) lightweight ships, being too fragile for their operating environment.

On the other hand, modular, transferable, operational payloads is a different matter entirely.

Conceptionaly, they could be platform agnostic. So long as the correct interfaces are provided, platform performance, seaworthiness, durability and survivability are adequate, transferable modules could be a very effective way to go.

Indeed. Unfortunately for the LCS, the USN looked at that idea but instead of adopting it designed platform specific sets of equipment to re-role ships, which required considerable work & time to install.

 

[swerve]

Modular systems/payloads, as implemented by the Danes, is something that I believe Australia should pursue. The US's take (or rather, poor attempt at "improving") on modular systems, not so much.

Exactly.

I note that StanFlex has been followed by a more generic system, the Cube, built around standard shipping container sizes, which could make it of wider interest.

 

[iambuzzard]

I read what you wrote.

Let's apply some logic. What would an interim frigate achieve? Nothing because it will take as long as any new design to build and introduce. People need to get real. There is a limited amount of facilities, funding, people and time. Secondly any interim frigate maybe be seen as pollies as a long term solution and you get similar problems to what the RAN have with the current Anzac Class frigate fleet. Something that no longer is what it was intended to be and Guccied up to look big and dangerous. It is still a small sized patrol frigate that has met its weight and displacement limits. Any talk of an interim frigate is crap. You can't afford interim frigates. They are just a distraction.

Now if you are talking about a light patrol frigate / corvette that fills the Teir 2 function then yes you are talking sense. These are what are needed long term, by not just the RAN, but many other navies including the USN & RNZN. Look at what the Japanese and South Koreans are building. Bear in mind that what they call frigates, we call light patrol frigates / corvettes and what they call destroyers we generally call frigates. The nomenclature between the navies is different.

No, he was speaking rubbish and most of those that piled in, as you put it, know what they are talking about.

No reason why you can't go overseas for the first iteration. Maybe you can build the following iterations in your own yards later when you have your own yards workflows etc., sorted and what not. The thing about say a SK, Singa, or Japanese build is that it's also defence diplomacy and most likely works out cheaper than building in your own yards. It's great building in your own yards but capacity and economics don't always make for an ideal solution. Do you know why I am really against any RNZN frigates etc., being built in Australia? It's purely because of cost. I say the same for North American and Western European yards. But Australia is just far to expensive for us.

We built the last two Oliver Hazard Perry class FFGs here at Williamstown in Melbourne and they still operate with the Chilean Navy if I'm correct.
The precedent has been set already to build the first of a class overseas and continue the rest here.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I wouldn't touch a RN Type 31 with a barge pole, and I definitely wouldn't want it built in Pomland. To costly and the RN modifications will be expensive and unnecessarily complicated. If there's a hard way to do something, the Poms will find it and make it SOP.

What do you think of the option for the RNZN to buy a couple of Japanese or South Korean ships? They are very cost competitive and their big production runs means they could easily add on 2 or 3 hulls for the RNZN. Would the Mogami class suit NZ? It is a proven, in service design now.

 

[H_K]

What do you think of the option for the RNZN to buy a couple of Japanese or South Korean ships? They are very cost competitive and their big production runs means they could easily add on 2 or 3 hulls for the RNZN. Would the Mogami class suit NZ? It is a proven, in service design now.

Can they rip out their domestic combat management system and sensors? Do English translations for all software and technical documentation? Offer a menu of off-the-shelf foreign sensors & weapons (Thales, MBDA etc)

I suspect the Koreans could as they have some export experience under their belt and use a lot of foreign systems. The Japanese yards? Not so sure.

 

[swerve]

I wouldn't touch a RN Type 31 with a barge pole, and I definitely wouldn't want it built in Pomland. To costly and the RN modifications will be expensive and unnecessarily complicated. If there's a hard way to do something, the Poms will find it and make it SOP.

Well, there's the AH140, Babcock's base version customisable to your requirements & built where you want, as the Poles are doing.

 

[Volkodav]

We built the last two Oliver Hazard Perry class FFGs here at Williamstown in Melbourne and they still operate with the Chilean Navy if I'm correct.
The precedent has been set already to build the first of a class overseas and continue the rest here.

They would have been a great buy for NZ . I'm only half joking too.

Maybe we could cascade Hobart's to them as proper DDGs come on line.

 

[Systems Adict]

Can they rip out their domestic combat management system and sensors? Do English translations for all software and technical documentation? Offer a menu of off-the-shelf foreign sensors & weapons (Thales, MBDA etc)

I suspect the Koreans could as they have some export experience under their belt and use a lot of foreign systems. The Japanese yards? Not so sure.

Hmmm...

While this SOUNDS feasible, the reality is a million miles away.

While some people think that welding up / building a warship is like sticking x2 halves on an airfix model kit together, the materials used, where they are sourced & the individual countries rules of law, never mind global maritime regs, make such an activity extremely difficult for a warship coming from a smaller Asian country to a Western nation.

The reason it works going the other way, is that smaller countries who aren't so westernised, have lesser rules & regulations, & when I say lesser, I am not being derogatory, or racist, it is simply that the major players in NATO / Western countries are heavily regulated, more so than those smaller nations in Asia.

I fully appreciate that each nation can have indigenous regulations that in some very specific aspects can be more onerous than those in Europe, but the reasons the transfer of the likes of the Arrowhead 140 to say Indonesia works, is that they are able to reject some design aspects, ignore specific things as there is no regulatory requirement within their nation & also use material that is sourced locally. Added to the lower workforce / labour costs & an Arrowhead 140 with a 76mm gun, x16 VL Mica missiles / associated launcher & a pair of 25mm or 40mm deck mounted guns & a Chinese command system gives them (cost wise) effectively a pro-rata equivalent of a Type 26. For a small nation protecting its national rights THAT can be a big draw.

Getting back to the comments about ripping things out & re-writing software, that sort of activity takes time, so for instance, looking at the UK's purchase of the TIDE Class tanker from Asia. While the ships are 'simple', where cheaper than if they were built in the UK, the downside is that they had to be 'inspected', then retrofitted in the UK which added time & additional costs.

It is a game of "cheques & balances", which many European nations can cope with within the commercial market, but not when it comes to warships.

SA

 

[76mmGuns]

Getting back to the comments about ripping things out & re-writing software, that sort of activity takes time,

SA

I'm just thinking about the anxiety I have with rewiring my bicycle dynamo hub and front and rear lights with a different brand, and there's only 3 wires. (not being a technical person, I got into so much difficulty connecting mine up). Doing it for a 150m long by 20m wide vessel? .....I can see massive Dunning-Kruger Effect here.

 

[ngatimozart]

You may have read what I wrote, but I don't think you're really being fair in representing what I was saying through your response.

Your initial response to my post that prompted my question was to talk about crewing when I very specifically outlined how what I was advancing support for was as replacements for the Anzacs. That is, not additional ships, but to allow the Anzacs to be retired earlier than they otherwise would.

My key point was that we will be waiting too long for the Hunters to replace the Anzacs one for one; that we risk having those ships retire without direct replacement.

I was also clear that I was using the term interim frigate loosely; that it only needed to be a warship of similar capability to the Anzacs - a light frigate, large corvette - whatever; what is important is to get them into the water sooner.

I absolutely acknowledged that it would be a challenge to build an extra class of warship quickly, might require offshore construction, and - even if built locally - is politically a tough sell.

In fact, on this last point, I advanced the thinking that this talk of tier 1 and tier 2 is at least partly designed to sell the idea of building an additional class. That is, it's a political argument because it will be hard to convince the media and the general public - when costs are seemingly blowing out on the Hunters and when we're investing big money in nuclear-powered submarines - that we need another warship.

Ok, but our discussions does raise a perennial thorn in my side. The lack of a definitive standardised nomenclature for naval warships. It would be nice if the FVEY navies and / or NATO could nail it down.

Well, there's the AH140, Babcock's base version customisable to your requirements & built where you want, as the Poles are doing.

Exactly and it's proposed little sister, the AH120. If the RAN wanted platform standardisation between their Teir 1 frigates and Teir 2 light frigates, then maybe a scaled down variant of the Hunter Class design could work. maybe something around the 4,000 tonne standard displacement mark.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hmmm...

While this SOUNDS feasible, the reality is a million miles away.

While some people think that welding up / building a warship is like sticking x2 halves on an airfix model kit together, the materials used, where they are sourced & the individual countries rules of law, never mind global maritime regs, make such an activity extremely difficult for a warship coming from a smaller Asian country to a Western nation.

The reason it works going the other way, is that smaller countries who aren't so westernised, have lesser rules & regulations, & when I say lesser, I am not being derogatory, or racist, it is simply that the major players in NATO / Western countries are heavily regulated, more so than those smaller nations in Asia.

I fully appreciate that each nation can have indigenous regulations that in some very specific aspects can be more onerous than those in Europe, but the reasons the transfer of the likes of the Arrowhead 140 to say Indonesia works, is that they are able to reject some design aspects, ignore specific things as there is no regulatory requirement within their nation & also use material that is sourced locally. Added to the lower workforce / labour costs & an Arrowhead 140 with a 76mm gun, x16 VL Mica missiles / associated launcher & a pair of 25mm or 40mm deck mounted guns & a Chinese command system gives them (cost wise) effectively a pro-rata equivalent of a Type 26. For a small nation protecting its national rights THAT can be a big draw.

Getting back to the comments about ripping things out & re-writing software, that sort of activity takes time, so for instance, looking at the UK's purchase of the TIDE Class tanker from Asia. While the ships are 'simple', where cheaper than if they were built in the UK, the downside is that they had to be 'inspected', then retrofitted in the UK which added time & additional costs.

It is a game of "cheques & balances", which many European nations can cope with within the commercial market, but not when it comes to warships.

SA

WRT to the Tide Class builds, why didn't UK Plc and the RN have people on site supervising each build.? That's what the NZMOD and RNZN did with the Aotearoa build. We also did it with our NH90 build and procurement, having in this case NZMOD and RNZAF personnel on site in France during the assembly process.