Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I am pretty sure that at least some of the Collins will receive LOTE.
Given the time frames it looks all will receive LOTE. While its certainly possible it won't happen, AUKUS and nuclear submarines aren't an easy thing to speed up, or even approve.

I find it odd that people think we will have squadrons of SSN nearly instantly, because I don't see it happening that way. Actual deployable capability is very far into the future. Which means Collins is still important. When the first SSN comes in, the Collins fleet is still important, because one SSN isn't the end of the game. But we may have to adjust the mission they are performing.

Then of course there is the material state of the submarines themselves. There seems to be speculation that the ANZACs are pretty much worn out but we have heard little about the state of the Collins class. I imagine that sort of information would be pretty classified.
Anzacs can be fixed, just a whole lot of money. It may be cheaper to build bigger more capable ships and only operate them for 15 years and throw them in the bin, than to fix or just upgrade the Anzacs. Risk for a new build surface ship is fairly low. Even on terrible projects, the ships float, can perform their mission, etc because margins are usually quite large in everyway.

Subs are different, they are always expensive. Building new subs from scratch isn't something we can easily do. We will most likely refit them and try to get them to last as long as possible. New build subs have huge project risk. Everyone tries to refit subs, even after terrible accidents or damage. Margins are might tighter, and workforce skill levels are extremely high.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Anzacs can be fixed, just a whole lot of money. It may be cheaper to build bigger more capable ships and only operate them for 15 years and throw them in the bin, than to fix or just upgrade the Anzacs. Risk for a new build surface ship is fairly low. Even on terrible projects, the ships float, can perform their mission, etc because margins are usually quite large in everyway.
Pursuing rebuilds, or major mid-life upgrades, are the very definition of short term looking with negative long term impacts. Over and over again, we see cases where penny-pinching to keep something in service has significant costs latter - cost to upgrade, extra cost to sustain, cost to finally replace and opportunity cost in not just buying a proper replacement.

Keeping it naval focused, the Leander upgrade is the classic example where buying new frigates would have cost less and provided modern capabilities, but the M113 debacle offers similar examples. Our FFGUP isn't as bad as those two, but still highlights the issue. Imagine if that cost, workforce and effort had been devoted to a FFG replacement?

We really should focus on the 15-20 year life and replace. Which means that HMAS Hobart's replacement should be being considered now. Likewise M1A2, Boxer, HMAS Supply, EF-18G, etc, etc. It's not good business nor defence practise to keep kit longer
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Submarine Numbers (Approx)

2024/25-Collins SSK (6C)
2026-Collins SSK 1 LOTE (5C)
2027-SRFW begins, Up to 4 Virginias, 1 Astute
2028-Collins SSK 2 LOTE (5C)
2030-Collins SSK 3 LOTE (5C)
2032-Used Block IV Virginia SSN (5C+1V)
2032-Collins SSK 4 LOTE (5C+1V)
2034-Collins SSK 5 LOTE (5C+1V)
2035-Used Block IV Virginia SSN (5C+2V)
2036-Collins SSK 6 LOTE (5C+2V)
2038-New Block VII Virginia SSN-no VPM (5C+3V)
2038-Collins SSK 1 Decommissioned (4C+3V)
2040-Collins SSK 2 Decommissioned (4C+3V)
2041*-Potenial Used Block? or New Block VII Virginia SSN-no VPM (4C+3-4V)
2042-Collins SSK 3 Decommissioned (3C+3-4V)
2042/43-New AUKUS SSN 1 (3C+3-4V+1A)
2044*-Potential Used Block? or New Block VII Virginia SSN-no VPM (3C+3-5V+1A)
2044-Collins SSK 4 Decommissioned (2C+3-5V+1A)
2045/46-New AUKUS SSN 2 (2C+3-5V+2A)
2046-Collins SSK 5 Decommissioned (1C+3-5V+2A)
2048-Collins SSK 6 Decommissioned (3-5V+2A)
2048/49-New AUKUS SSN 3 (3-5V+3A)
2049/50-Virginia SSN Block IV Decommissioned (2-4V+3A)
2051/52-New AUKUS SSN 4 (2-4V+4A)
2052/53-Virginia SSN Block IV Decommissioned (1-3V+4A)
2054/55-New AUKUS SSN 5 (1-3V+5A)
2057/58-Potential AUKUS SSN 6 (1-3V+6A)
2060-Likely successor to SSN AUKUS has begun design(if needed)
2060/61-Potential AUKUS SSN 7 (1-3V+7A)
2063/64-Potential AUKUS SSN 8 (1-3V+8A)
2068-Virginia SSN Block VII Decommissioned (0-2+8A)
2068/76-Any potential Virginia purchases also Decommissioned (8A)
2072/76-First SSN AUKUS Decommisioned (7A) + successor


*Possibly later than this.
2x potential Virginias could fill the gap at anytime between 2039-2048.
Think it is Highly unlikely we will have Collins class remain in service into the mid/late 2040s, more likely we buy a further 2 Virginias.
virginias + aukus will go through a maintenance cycle(not sure when or how long)

@Reptilia Sources yet again. RULES; read the rules. You have been on here long enough to know them. You are cruising for a banning. Any posts of yours from 1 Dec 2023 that don't meet the requirements will result in Moderator action. This is your final warning.

Ngatimozart.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AndyinOz

Member
I am merely an interested onlooker for the most part in these forums, and enjoy the back and forth between those that know more than I do in defence matters. This particular discussion on trying to keep systems and platforms going, well past their replacement dates did strike a chord with me within my own experience with IT. Whilst I was involved with network installation and maintenance for SME's we would always make sure the client was aware and throughout the duration of our SLA (Service Life Agreement) with them that the servers, routers, etc etc had a finite lifetime. Whether that be due to the increase likelihood of component failure or simply because it became outdated and no longer current and serviceable technology.

Granted the costs in defence of equipment are magnitudes greater than anything I ever had to deal with but I cannot help but see parallels between former clients I dealt with and various previous governments who would prefer to try and keep systems limping along rather than trying to stay up to date, all for the sake of not having to see money go out the door in a large chunk as they saw it. The situation seems terribly similar with defence trying to keep I would think quite ancient equipment like the M113's or the ANZAC's or Collin's (not forgetting of course the upgrades they have had). There is in my case experience so many upgrades you can apply to the base equipment before you run out of options and the patches you apply to the system no longer make up for the degraded and outdated technology.

In my particular field we suggested 5 year service lives and upgrades paths which did mean you had to plan and be mindful of time frames. Given the magnitude of replacing, subs, frigates, destroyers, tanks etc, planning 15-20 years in advance, as Takao and other have suggested isn't unreasonable at all. Especially with the huge lead times involved in comparison to anything I have dealt with professionally. And that is not even beginning to take into account the changing needs and requirements for equipment and people with different skill sets.
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
I am pretty sure that at least some of the Collins will receive LOTE.

There are other things to consider though.

First of all there is the cost. There are a lot of other programs competing for funding.

Then of course there is the material state of the submarines themselves. There seems to be speculation that the ANZACs are pretty much worn out but we have heard little about the state of the Collins class. I imagine that sort of information would be pretty classified.

Also there is the amount of time it will take to complete a LOTE. The plan is currently one sub every two years. If that drumbeat isn’t achieved then we may see half the submarine fleet sitting on hard stands waiting their turn to undergo refurbishment.

Finally there is the manpower issue. Manning even a single SSN requires more than double the crew of a Collins class.

The priority has got to be getting SSNs in service as soon as possible and hopefully without creating too much of a capability gap in the meantime.
I don’t understand why some contributors to this thread think that, suddenly, we may not need to put all of the Collins through the LOTE. Graphs that have been previously posted on this thread show the timeline for the transition from Collins class to the SSN fleet and it’s obvious that all 6 Collins need to have the 10 year (+ 2 year LOTE work) life extension in order to have an operational fleet throughout the transition. Putting a lesser number of hulls through the LOTE will reduce our operational capability and training capacity.

There were also articles that stated that the Collins fleet was examined to confirm that the hulls were suitable for the life extension and all 6 were assessed as being of a standard appropriate for the life extension.

From what is available in the public domain, they will get new technology diesel engines, batteries & electric motors but there’s still no information about the new masts (including photonic) or whether tube launched Tomahawk capability will be included. The sonars are in the process of being upgraded so they are not part of the LOTE.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
I am merely an interested onlooker for the most part in these forums, and enjoy the back and forth between those that know more than I do in defence matters. This particular discussion on trying to keep systems and platforms going, well past their replacement dates did strike a chord with me within my own experience with IT. Whilst I was involved with network installation and maintenance for SME's we would always make sure the client was aware and throughout the duration of our SLA (Service Life Agreement) with them that the servers, routers, etc etc had a finite lifetime. Whether that be due to the increase likelihood of component failure or simply because it became outdated and no longer current and serviceable technology.

In my particular field we suggested 5 year service lives and upgrades paths which did mean you had to plan and be mindful of time frames. Given the magnitude of replacing, subs, frigates, destroyers, tanks etc, planning 15-20 years in advance, as Takao and other have suggested isn't unreasonable at all. Especially with the huge lead times involved in comparison to anything I have dealt with professionally. And that is not even beginning to take into account the changing needs and requirements for equipment and people with different skill sets.
You'll like this then....

Imagine the faces of those who struggle to understand that major platforms need replacement every 15 - 20 years with the concept that communications gear has a tighter turnaround time. That, the radio we buy today in 2024 (I'll give them the free month...) will be obsolete in 2029.

Now - how long does a major acquisition project take? Hell, a minor one? How long has LAND 200 been going for?

Oh my....
 

Armchair

Well-Known Member
Pursuing rebuilds, or major mid-life upgrades, are the very definition of short term looking with negative long term impacts. Over and over again, we see cases where penny-pinching to keep something in service has significant costs latter - cost to upgrade, extra cost to sustain, cost to finally replace and opportunity cost in not just buying a proper replacement.
There is also the cost, that has been mentioned many times, of running down the industrial capacity and rebuilding it.

On submarines though the endless, chiefly political, delays and switches, may have meant Australia came to the right replacement (Virginia plus AUKUS class) but of course that could fall through.

I guess the upgrade path makes more sense if the original ship is designed with adequate space and power for the upgrades. Predicting those upgrades must be tricky. Keeping the ship for 15-20 years and then selling them to friendly countries (if export approved) builds ties, creates a (deferred) export industry, and might even increase interoperability with RAN.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I don’t understand why some contributors to this thread think that, suddenly, we may not need to put all of the Collins through the LOTE. Graphs that have been previously posted on this thread show the timeline for the transition from Collins class to the SSN fleet and it’s obvious that all 6 Collins need to have the 10 year (+ 2 year LOTE work) life extension in order to have an operational fleet throughout the transition. Putting a lesser number of hulls through the LOTE will reduce our operational capability and training capacity.

There were also articles that stated that the Collins fleet was examined to confirm that the hulls were suitable for the life extension and all 6 were assessed as being of a standard appropriate for the life extension.

From what is available in the public domain, they will get new technology diesel engines, batteries & electric motors but there’s still no information about the new masts (including photonic) or whether tube launched Tomahawk capability will be included. The sonars are in the process of being upgraded so they are not part of the LOTE.
That plan depends on them being able to complete a LOTE on one submarine every two years.

I suspect what will more likely happen is there will be delays, budget overruns, changing priorities, yet more reviews, decisions being kicked down the road and so on. The fact that we find the navy in the mess it is currently in is a result of years of procrastination and bad policies. I have seen no evidence in the last 12 months that indicate that anything will change.

To quote Mike Tyson "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
.

According to the AFR Defence Contractors have been told to brace themselves for a slew of defence cuts next year. The government claims that they inherited a $42 billion shortfall in funding frpm the Morrison government. Defence contractors themselves are angry that money and new orders have not been forthcoming.

The Defence Industry Development Statement that was due this year has now been pushed back to next year.

I would like to say I was surprised but really it is SNAFU.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
.

According to the AFR Defence Contractors have been told to brace themselves for a slew of defence cuts next year. The government claims that they inherited a $42 billion shortfall in funding frpm the Morrison government. Defence contractors themselves are angry that money and new orders have not been forthcoming.

The Defence Industry Development Statement that was due this year has now been pushed back to next year.

I would like to say I was surprised but really it is SNAFU.
Could be worse, imagine having a PM in office that has run huge deficits for his entire term in office and has zero knowledge about money other than spending money he doesn’t have. Oh, and his number one option for slightly reducing a deficit….cut defence spending.
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
Could be worse, imagine having a PM in office that has run huge deficits for his entire term in office and has zero knowledge about money other than spending money he doesn’t have. Oh, and his number one option for slightly reducing a deficit….cut defence spending.
I am not making a comment, but it's bleeding obvious!
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Not happy with the naval fleet but we shall see what what happens with the review early next year. Think Labor have done a decent job with Army/Air Force so far. Should be more money if they get a second term.


AIR FORCE
72 F35A > All in service by 2024
24 FA/18F Super Hornet
12 EA/18G Growler
6* E7 Wedgetail
7* A330 Tanker
8 C17 Globemaster
12 P8 Poseidon
10 C27J Spartan
12 C130J Hercules > 20 replacements from 2027
4* MQ4C Triton > From 2024
4 MC55 Peregrine > From 2024
10 MQ28 Ghost Bat > From 2026

ARMY
14 CH47F CHINOOK HLH
15 AS10 AARV > From 2025
29 AH64E APACHE ARH > From 2025
30 AS9 HUNTSMAN SPH > From 2025
40* UH60M BLACKHAWK MLH > Being Delivered currently
42* M142 HIMARS > From 2025
75 M1A2 MBT > From 2024
129* REDBACK IFV > From 2027
211* BOXER CRV > Being delivered currently
800*+ BUSHMASTER PMV > Being delivered currently
1000+ HAWKEI LPMV > Being delivered currently
2000+ GWAGON MPLAV
3,000+ HX TMT
NASAMS > From 2024
LMVP > TBD
18 LMVA > TBD
18 LMVM > From 2026
LMVH > From 2028
-
Strikemasters or more HIMARS
Missile manufacturing brought forward > From 2025


*likely more will be purchased at a later date.
 
Last edited:

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Not happy with the naval fleet but we shall see what what happens with the review early next year. Think Labor have done a decent job with Army/Air Force so far. Should be more money if they get a second term.


AIR FORCE
72 F35A > All in service by 2024
24 FA/18F Super Hornet
12 EA/18G Growler
6* E7 Wedgetail
7* A330 Tanker
8 C17 Globemaster
12 P8 Poseidon
10 C27J Spartan
12 C130J Hercules > 20 replacements from 2027
4* MQ4C Triton > From 2024
4 MC55 Peregrine > From 2024
10 MQ28 Ghost Bat > From 2026

ARMY
14 CH47F CHINOOK HLH
15 AS10 AARV > From 2025
29 AH64E APACHE ARH > From 2025
30 AS9 HUNTSMAN SPH > From 2025
40* UH60M BLACKHAWK MLH > Being Delivered currently
42* M142 HIMARS > From 2025
75 M1A2 MBT > From 2024
129* REDBACK IFV > From 2027
211* BOXER CRV > Being delivered currently
800*+ BUSHMASTER PMV > Being delivered currently
1000+ HAWKEI LPMV > Being delivered currently
2000+ GWAGON MPLAV
3,000+ HX TMT
NASAMS > From 2024
LMVP > TBD
18 LMVA > TBD
18 LMVM > From 2026
LMVH > From 2028
-
Strikemasters or more HIMARS
Missile manufacturing brought forward > From 2025


*likely more will be purchased at a later date.
This is an excellent summary, thank you.

One edit - I’d add an asterisk to the SPH as well. Lots of things that we’ll soon be manufacturing locally that it’s hard to see us stopping at the end of the run.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
This is an excellent summary, thank you.

One edit - I’d add an asterisk to the SPH as well. Lots of things that we’ll soon be manufacturing locally that it’s hard to see us stopping at the end of the run.
Also we have 14 P-8, not 12, last were ordered in 2019.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The key with the navy is actually building the right things.

Of the current programs actually producing anything, there are the Arafursa and Capes. The Capes sort of do what they are designed to do and more have been ordered, the arafuras have issues and are not really what is needed and may be cut.

If there were any major combatant or submarine builds underway it's pretty certain, so long as the base capability was nearly good enough, or could be adapted/improved, more would be ordered.

The thing is there is not a current build underway. Despite promises and attempts to set up continuous build programs, from successive governments, this has never been achieved.

Switching from ANZAC to a Corvette, to a new destroyer to new FFGs and then a new Corvette or light frigate would have been a no brainer. There didn't need to be dozens of them, just enough to keep the capability ticking over, and new ships entering service.

Keep the workforce active, improving, keep the designers busy, incrementally improving capability. Keep replacing ships before they needed life extensions or potentially even major upgrades.

Greg Tunny, former CEO of ASC did a paper on this years ago. It showed the costs and value for money of warship life cycles over 15, 20, 25, and thirty years, with and without major updates and life extensions.

Basically the longer life was cheaper but the shorter life was better value for money. The upgraded ships were never as good as new ships of the same type and needed for upgrading or replacement earlier than new builds.

This did not factor in selling instead of upgrading ships.
 
Last edited:

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
The key with the navy is actually building the right things.

Of the current programs actually producing anything, there are the Arafursa and Capes. The Capes sort of do what they are designed to do and more have been ordered, the arafuras have issues and are not really what is needed and may be cut.

If there were any major combatant or submarine builds underway it's pretty certain, so long as the base capability was nearly good enough, or could be adapted/improved, more would be ordered.

The thing is there is not a current build underway. Despite promises and attempts to set up continuous build programs, from successive governments, this has never been achieved.

Switching from ANZAC to a Corvette, to a new destroyer to new FFGs and then a new Corvette or light frigate would have been a no brainer. There didn't need to be dozens of them, just enough to keep the capability ticking over, and new ships entering service.

Keep the workforce active, improving, keep the designers busy, incrementally improving capability. Keep replacing ships before they needed life extensions or potentially even major upgrades.

Greg Tunny, former CEO of ASC did a paper on this years ago. It showed the costs and value for money of warship life cycles over 15, 20, 25, and thirty years, with and without major updates and life extensions.

Basically the longer life was cheaper but the shorter life was better value for money. The upgraded ships were never as good as new ships of the same type and needed for upgrading or replacement earlier than new builds.

This did not factor in selling instead of upgrading ships.

Volkadav, If Austal becomes the major build partner in wa. Do you think we may see the return of the ocv program as a tier 2? Or atleast an updated version. (20 were to be built at that time to cover many classes). I think it’s called the Austal MRV 80 now but they also had a 90m variant too with more range.
People may not like it given how wel the LCS program went but it was versatile, was relatively inexpensive when compared to other offerings and had a very low crew requirement of 40-60 with accomodation for around 80. If austal does expands to 1200 people, they could probably produce 2 a year like the Capes in the current shed.
Ceafar, 16 VLS, 2x quad SSM, 1 helicopter, 1 drone, main gun, remote weapons, mass decoys, mission bay underneath flight deck carrying a few vehicles or small containers, 2 rhibs, CIWS or ram etc etc. Had 2 range listings of 4,500nm at 12 knts or 6,000nm at 12knts, max speed 26-28knts or with different propulsion up to 32+ knts. 90m version more range perhaps?


Pic from another site, taken from an austal pdf, 80m corvette combatant.
 

Attachments

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Volkadav, If Austal becomes the major build partner in wa. Do you think we may see the return of the ocv program as a tier 2? Or atleast an updated version. (20 were to be built at that time to cover many classes). I think it’s called the Austal MRV 80 now but they also had a 90m variant too with more range.
People may not like it given how wel the LCS program went but it was versatile, was relatively inexpensive when compared to other offerings and had a very low crew requirement of 40-60 with accomodation for around 80. If austal does expands to 1200 people, they could probably produce 2 a year like the Capes in the current shed.
Ceafar, 16 VLS, 2x quad SSM, 1 helicopter, 1 drone, main gun, remote weapons, mass decoys, mission bay underneath flight deck carrying a few vehicles or small containers, 2 rhibs, CIWS or ram etc etc. Had 2 range listings of 4,500nm at 12 knts or 6,000nm at 12knts, max speed 26-28knts or with different propulsion up to 32+ knts. 90m version more range perhaps?


Pic from another site, taken from an austal pdf, 80m corvette combatant.
I think nothing, I know nothing.

Well I do have opinions of what should happen as well as what may happen, but they are just that, opinions. If I had any real knowledge of the current surface fleet plans and projects I would not be discussing them in a public forum.

What I can say however, is that everyone I knew, in the know, prior to the announcement of the selection of the F-100 for the AWD project, was expecting the G&C design to win.

You would have to ask Spoz, but I believe the selections of the MEKO for ANZAC and, to a lesser degree, Kockums for Collins were a similar suprise to many in the know.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think nothing, I know nothing.

Well I do have opinions of what should happen as well as what may happen, but they are just that, opinions. If I had any real knowledge of the current surface fleet plans and projects I would not be discussing them in a public forum.

What I can say however, is that everyone I knew, in the know, prior to the announcement of the selection of the F-100 for the AWD project, was expecting the G&C design to win.

You would have to ask Spoz, but I believe the selections of the MEKO for ANZAC and, to a lesser degree, Kockums for Collins were a similar suprise to many in the know.
You’d have to say the T26 selection was a left-field surprise too, with many expecting more Navantia boats to be acquired…

Then of course there was the surprisingly incapable Arafura chosen and the stunning announcement of SSN’s virtually out of the blue and the astonishingly early retirement of MRH-90…

Has there been anything major in the RAN acquisition field that hasn’t been a surprise over the last 35 years or so?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
You’d have to say the T26 selection was a left-field surprise too, with many expecting more Navantia boats to be acquired…

Then of course there was the surprisingly incapable Arafura chosen and the stunning announcement of SSN’s virtually out of the blue and the astonishingly early retirement of MRH-90…

Has there been anything major in the RAN acquisition field that hasn’t been a surprise over the last 35 years or so?
The Spanish for the LHDs and AORs were not major surprises.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You’d have to say the T26 selection was a left-field surprise too, with many expecting more Navantia boats to be acquired…

Then of course there was the surprisingly incapable Arafura chosen and the stunning announcement of SSN’s virtually out of the blue and the astonishingly early retirement of MRH-90…

Has there been anything major in the RAN acquisition field that hasn’t been a surprise over the last 35 years or so?
Those are slightly different. Looking at the actual capability requirement, the base Type 26 is too small and not capable enough, the other contenders were smaller and less capable.

The opvs were a compromise, bigger and more capable than patrol boats, but not the littoral warfare vessels the navy really needed.

The MRH 90 was a problem child for many years and an absolute maintenance HOG. It is a credit to the operators and maintainers that they achieved as much as they did.

The SSN decision was something the data had been indicating was necessary but no-one expected the political hurdles to be overcome.
 
Top