I’m not sure how you get that? The announced plan is clearly aligned to continuous shipbuilding. The 6 Hunters will be followed by SSN AUKUS and Hobart replacement / supplementation. Lots of work for Osborne for the foreseeable future.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Building a submarine and a frigate/destroyer aren't exactly the same, Not to mention it wont allow for consistent work flow, Employment will end up with highs and lows to some extent (small or large) negating the continuous shipbuilding plan.
Small highs and lows are unavoidable aren’t they? Aren’t we concerned with avoiding “Valleys of Death,” which it looks like they will?
My sense is that we are going to end up with something like 12 Tier 1s (6 FFGs, 6 DDGs) constructed at Osborne with one launched every 2 years and 24 year useful lives. That’d give you no gaps.
knightrider4
Active Member
Hearns hobbies?
I do like the JSS concept but feel with the recent Naval Review projections another approach may be found.
I'm guessing the amphibious stuff may rest with the new medium and heavy landing craft.
We have some detail and numbers for the former, but the heavy landing craft is still unclear.
That said , I'm speculating with three littoral lift groups there just maybe at least three of such a vessel , which is still not insignificant.
Will the Heavy landing craft be 2000t or closer to 4000t?
If this is the approach , then another dedicated supply ship for the fleet will be necessary.
A Navy of threes, but for the LHDs.
Cheers S
OldTex
Well-Known Member
I am prepared for calls to be burnt at the stake as a herectic, but given Army is being structured for continental defence and light scale littoral manoeuvre only, is there a need for the LHDs?
Perhaps the JSS/MRSS concept can be used to replace not only the LSD(A) but also the LHDs. This could be done with 4-6 vessels (my preference would be 6 based on the rule of 3s). This would also tie in with the FBE/FBW structure and allow rotational forward basing of a JSS in Darwin.
The only caveat would be that the LHDs and the LSD are not withdrawn before the replacements are actually in the water and ready to be commissioned.
Won't necessarily be small, It depends if the skills used in the sub's can be transferred to FFG's/DDGS and vice versa, or if the work force would be able to carry out the extra work or if it would end up being duplicated.
You are also now imagining another 3 DDG's that neither the review, GoA or RAN has mentioned, hinted at or speculated to make your case. Yes if we go to shorted hull life, skip mid life upgrades a 2 year drum beat for 9 ships could work, May even work out better but let's not start imagining 4 other ships that don't even exist on a napkin yet.
Henderson will be fine for their work load, While initial 3 to be built abroad if all Tier 2's and LOSV's are acquired and in future replaced one for one that is a continuous 17 ship production run.
I'll get the stake!
My commentary was what I feel may happen, not necessarily what should.
I think we need a balance for the amphibious force.
The landing craft medium and heavy are just part of the mix.
Large ocean going ships like the LHDs are still a perfect fit for our geography.
Unlike the landing craft they have a massive aviation capability.
A must going forward.
Which still begs the quest re HMAS Choules.
Sadly it may just morph into a landing craft!
Cheers S
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Agree that this is all "could happen" and not "should happen".
As to a balance for the amphibious force I totally agree, but it is a balance of 3 elements (maritime, land and aviation). As currently 2 of those elements are being reshaped (one more than the other) then the third element may also need to be reshaped. There is no reason a future JSS/MRSS won't be a large(ish) ocean going ship. If a large aviation capability is essential then perhaps a LPH type maybe more suited (I seem to recall that the Canberra class uses the light vehicle deck as hangar space with increased helicopter numbers).
But at this stage there is no budget and no project(s) for any of these vessels, so we will have to wait and wonder.
My point is that there is equally no evidence of a Valley of Death.
You said “Employment will end up with highs and lows to some extent (small or large) negating the continuous shipbuilding plan.” That’s a very definitive statement.
There is absolutely no evidence that I have seen that the planned force structure “negates continuous shipbuilding.”
Do you have some you’d like to share?
iambuzzard
Active Member
diggumsbang
Member
With the Mogami listed as a potential suitor for the General Purpose frigate, I thought I might add that some context that may be of interest to the group.
As a massive Formula One nut, my mind is cast back to 2015 when Honda came back to supply engines to McLaren. McLaren gave some very strict guidelines that the engine had to be “size zero” which was in effect to suit the McLarens chassis and aero package. This was disastrous for both parties for their relationship between 2015-17. Formula One engines are some of the most advanced in the world, and I suspect that there are some similarities to consider in the context of naval shipbuilding. The fundamental issue was Japanese corporate culture.
Based on past and current projects, I get the impression that Australia is quite a demanding customer - they are the McLaren. Not only do we want speed of delivery and therefore capability, we also want that capability to be heavily Australianised (presumably will apply for the GP frigate). If that is the case, there could be a significant risk of selecting Mogami class and we are significantly worse off.
Red Bull Racing ultimately embraced Honda in 2018 and have enjoyed the fruits of McLaren/Hondas labour but there was a significant lag - 3 years in effect.
Whether it’s as simple as Australia moderating its expectations and being less demanding, or being demanding and accepting a possible risk of unacceptable delays will be interesting
Here’s hoping the Japanese naval shipbuilding industry doesn’t have the same issues as Honda!
some food for thought -
The full story of how McLaren steered Honda towards failure - The Race.
As a massive Formula One nut, my mind is cast back to 2015 when Honda came back to supply engines to McLaren. McLaren gave some very strict guidelines that the engine had to be “size zero” which was in effect to suit the McLarens chassis and aero package. This was disastrous for both parties for their relationship between 2015-17. Formula One engines are some of the most advanced in the world, and I suspect that there are some similarities to consider in the context of naval shipbuilding. The fundamental issue was Japanese corporate culture.
Based on past and current projects, I get the impression that Australia is quite a demanding customer - they are the McLaren. Not only do we want speed of delivery and therefore capability, we also want that capability to be heavily Australianised (presumably will apply for the GP frigate). If that is the case, there could be a significant risk of selecting Mogami class and we are significantly worse off.
Red Bull Racing ultimately embraced Honda in 2018 and have enjoyed the fruits of McLaren/Hondas labour but there was a significant lag - 3 years in effect.
Whether it’s as simple as Australia moderating its expectations and being less demanding, or being demanding and accepting a possible risk of unacceptable delays will be interesting
Here’s hoping the Japanese naval shipbuilding industry doesn’t have the same issues as Honda!
some food for thought -
The full story of how McLaren steered Honda towards failure - The Race.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Like Australia, Canada demands lots of Canadianization on selected designs along with gold plating by the RCN on certain selected kit. This is probably a bigger problem in Canada. An unfamiliar language combined with limited export experience wrt military kit likely is going to create difficulties, at least initially.
Aardvark144
Active Member
After all the talk amongst posters of the 'Valley of Death' perhaps we should wait until contracts are signed and firm timelines are published. Majority of us in Defence have gone down this patch with Governments from both sides ad nauseum. All very well to come up with very nice colour booklets, lovely pictures and really nice scale models; however, the majority of what has been published is beyond Forward estimates and amount to nothing more than a promise and in politics a promise amounts to....? Happy to wave the flag and cheer; however, only when signatures start happening.
In terms of the premise
The 1st Division of the Army is being structured for projection in Australia’s region (continental defence is for 2nd Division). There are some very cogent criticisms of that structure (some I agree with) as I know you are well aware (but others reading may not have followed the Australian Army thread where the relevant links are) but I won’t go into them here.
The strategic problem was that RAN does not have the mass to establish localised sea control and safely escort ships carrying (say) an Army battlegroup anywhere in any threatening environment (based on East Timor one DDG and 2-3 FFH available is not enough to protect a task force and escort resupply vessels). Army cannot fulfill its strategic role until the RAN is fixed. The announcements on Tuesday (if implemented) would fix that in the 2030s (hopefully someone remembers to establish usable and reinforceable capability to Army by then).
The time lines look bleak but the other side of the ledger is that these long-term plans show commitment to an unpredictable US. That shores up AUKUS and increases the possibility that the US would help fill the escort and logistics gap (again back to ET 1999)
In terms of your key point it is an interesting idea but I think beyond total volume the LHDs bring large flight decks (3 Bde is to be co located with the entire attack and medium lift helicopter fleets) and command and control capabilities. I am not sure 2 or even 3 JSS could cover those capabilities in one LHD but perhaps a new JSS design could.
There is an announced DDG replacement decision to be made in the 2030s to be built at Osborne. That will be a replacement of a capability that will be retired in the 2040s. We can assume the replacement for the capability will be delivered by a class of ships but there is no stronger basis for speculating that that capability will be replaced by 3 hulls or by 6 hulls (or any other number). The current class of 8 FFH that was to be replaced in 2009 by 8 (then 9) Future Frigates is now planned to be replaced with 23 hulls (17 if you leave out LOCSVs that also supplement DDG). Plans for minor war vessels have had even more dramatic changes.
Isn't this what they were saying before 1999?
And also I see the exact opposite happening with Army structure. IFV orders being notably cut in exchange for amphibious manoeuvre capabilities under the various phases of LAND 8710.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
Its hard to see how such a major fiscal and workforce expansion of the combatant fleet (and the submarine workforce) can occur without some sacrifice, noting the government's statements on fiscal responsibility and prioritisation. That may very well come down on the LHDs and the wider amphibious fleet. That would include the JSS also.
The LHDs combined have a Navy workforce of ~600, with Choules taking this to ~760 (assuming Wiki crew numbers are accurate averages). As it turns out, that is enough for almost nine Mogami-class frigates. Combined with the lack of self-defence overall and USN arguments over building more large amphibs, I suspect they may be lined up or their replacement deemed unnecessary when the time comes. An Army-based amphibious fleet, based on less capable but more dispersed LC-H, seems plausible (though this entails its own massive expansion) and fits with the DMO concept.
I very much hope I am wrong - the phatships have played a major role in the region and aren't halfway done yet, while they continue to provide a rehearsed sealift role that would be essential to moving forces anywhere. That said, their lack of survivability and a need for more combatants may see them stripped - with an assosciated torpedo to any further (major) amphibious vessels in tandem.
The budget/NDS may have more answers, but it is likely something has to give to make this expansion work. Beyond what has already been given.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Active Member
The Meko A210 looks like more bang for buck. 32VLS, 16NSM,127mm and 2 helos. Here's hoping the right decision is made. Can any of the others increase the VLS?