This is an interesting interview, but not without some spin.
Interesting he mentions more seahawks....or am I misunderstanding.
Interesting he mentions more seahawks....or am I misunderstanding.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Yep, sure...
The LOSV right now are really just vapourware that IIRC the USN is conducting some technical trials, and is well away from having a deployable capability.
I personally also believe that the gov't plans regarding the new/additional frigate are rather optimistic. Having only a year between design selection and first steel being cut really does not allow much time for the all the additional/extra bits of kit a warship will need to get ordered. Similarly it really does not allow much if any time for the detailed design work to fit Australian compatible systems
Another thing to consider is how early the first Hunter-class frigate could potentially have been brought into service, particularly if the drumbeat had been accelerated. IIRC prior to the release of the naval review, the lead Hunter-class frigate was planned to be in service by 2032 (which is the year the lead-yet-to-be-selected-frigate is now supposed to enter RAN service) after having conducted ships and builders trials following the end of construction which had been anticipated for 2029.
Somehow the RAN is supposed to get newly built modern warships into RAN service in only about eight years. This whilst completing all tasks necessary for selecting a design, getting the contracting to order said design, getting the required systems integrated and ordered, getting the design built and then through the various acceptance trials. Given that acceptance trials, particularly for a new class of vessel can take a couple of years, then one it talking about a build (for the lead ship anyways) which is completed by ~2030. Where this gets really questionable is the expectation that construction could commence in 2026, as it is my belief that there are too many things which would need to be resolved or take place before construction could actually start. This is all also assuming that Australia can find an acceptable overseas yard able to to do the build and within the timeframe expected.
at approx 06:04
I suspect he's referring to the 12 Romeos ordered in 2022 and expected starting 2025.
Australia to acquire more Romeos and Apaches - Australian Defence Magazine
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has detailed plans for an additional 12 new MH-60R Romeo maritime helicopters and 29 new AH-64E Apache Armed Reconnaissance helicopters to join Australia’s Navy and Army.
www.australiandefence.com.au
regards
rb
The drumbeat has been accelerated by about 2 months each, 1st Hunter 2034, 6th 2043. The timeline for delivery of the first Hunter is no guarantee either, they are using the HMS Glasgow build time as a reference. Laid down in 2017, expected service 2027.
GPF selection was set for 2025 (avoiding major Aus modifications), GPF steel cutting 2026, 1st overseas built GPF in service 2029, a further 2 before the first Hunter in 2034 and possibly 1 of the locally built GPFs in the same year.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Why does it take 10 years to build a Type 26, approximately 3 years for a GPF, and the Chinese can pop out a Type 55 cruiser every 2 years?
I think the above is a possible future outcome. While I suspect the platforms to be made through to the late 40s will be locked in this decade (we will be making Hunters, GPs and LOCSVs), the makeup of these three remains fully open to change.
Maybe we make more GPs and less Hunters. I think a lot comes down to the success or otherwise of the LOCSV concept. If it matures (and I agree there is a lot more to do here) then it makes big ships with big magazines largely redundant. If it doesn’t, then we need to be able to pivot back to the traditional platform in a hurry.
I would view the government will wait for clarity on this before deciding on the Hobart DDG replacement. Given we will likely pick the USN LOCSV platform we should get an understanding if it is going to work (or not) this decade.
So it could be we keep the six Hunters and make 14 GPs rather than 11. And we upgrade the GPs to interface with the LOCSVs. And then we make a lot more LOCSVs. All combined with a heap of AI drones. This represents a lower cost, lower crewed and larger missile capacity solution.
Or alternatively LOCSVs turn out to be a dud. We pivot to making 12 Hunters, with 6 in the DDG configuration. This is a higher cost, higher crewed solution, but provides a backup contingency.
My personal reflection is that there is a lot resting on the success of the LOCSV program. It is about the only way we can develop an asymmetric capability in time to offset the expanding Chinese fleet.
I think it takes longer than 2 years to build a type 55, they just have a hot production line that is rolling them off every two years (so several in parallel construction). The Type 26 will get to this point where they are finishing each platform at a similar cadence shortly as well. So will our Hunter production line (eventually).
The Chinese (and the Koreans and Japanese) have all recognised that production can be rapidly mass produced if you focus on a few common platforms, don't chop and change all the time, and build them in batches for upgradability. The Americans also understand this (mostly). For some reason the Europeans and Australians are yet to figure this out.
Last edited:
I suspect that the build time for the first Hunter is partly to do with pushing back the ballooning costs of sustaining those ships and the requirement of training (large) crews for them into the future. In the middle of the Hunter program‘s development Australia also decided to acquire SSNs (the first of which is planned to be transferred to RAN service before the first Hunter is finished). That has absorbed funding and effort from a host of other ADF programs.
Interesting conversation re the RANs future.
With so many alterations to plans and outcomes over the previous decades its understandable that we can become sceptical about what is said and what eventuates.
That commissioning bottle braking on the new ship is reality.
The current plans while aspirational are really just a mix of projects at various stages of fulfilment.
Only the Arafura's, Capes and Hunters have a degree of physicality of sorts.
This reality means a lot of the future RAN is all reality an unknown.
If history is a guide, the outcomes of The Naval Review will not eventuate or come even close to the words on the page.
Digest that and you can see some genuine challenges ahead.
We need people welding stuff ASAP and all that that represents, re decisions made, choices implemented and a budget to fund the endeavour.
Cheers S
With so many alterations to plans and outcomes over the previous decades its understandable that we can become sceptical about what is said and what eventuates.
That commissioning bottle braking on the new ship is reality.
The current plans while aspirational are really just a mix of projects at various stages of fulfilment.
Only the Arafura's, Capes and Hunters have a degree of physicality of sorts.
This reality means a lot of the future RAN is all reality an unknown.
If history is a guide, the outcomes of The Naval Review will not eventuate or come even close to the words on the page.
Digest that and you can see some genuine challenges ahead.
We need people welding stuff ASAP and all that that represents, re decisions made, choices implemented and a budget to fund the endeavour.
Cheers S
I love the Hunters and especially the FFG version and would love to see five or six of each going forward but realistically the the new GP frigates are the reconstitution of the Tier 2 concept to replace the OPVs and increase numbers.
HMS Dreadnought was vapourware until she was built, and she kicked off a naval revolution.
Optionally crewed combatants are actually very exciting and potentially game changing. If we don't start somewhere we will never start.
Also they are an addition to the fleet, not an alternative to existing capability.
The GP frigates are a parallel acquisition to the Hunters, an addition not a substitute.
They are the true, improved and expanded replacement for the proven ANZAC capability frigate capability.
The Hunters are the belated replacement for the FFGs, actually they are really the replacement for the Daring Class GP destroyers. The FFGs were initially acquired instead of the cancelled DDL light destroyer, that was meant to be a supplement to the Perth's and Darings.
The Hobart's are still problematic, they are good but they either needed to be bigger, or there needed to be more of them.
I
There will be issues dealing with maintainence and system reliability but I think the big issue will be our ability to effectively communicate with these vessels. A highly secure communication capability will be absolutely crucial. Without that capability you are essentually unleashing AI controlled weapons without any human control.
You would be even have to question whether we could control a rouge AI even if we were able to communicate with it.
I asked a programmer friend of mine his opinion and he gave me an analogy. The first computers designed to play chess were programmed by humans. They simply executed a string of intructions. How well that computer played was limited by the ability of the programmer to play chess.
With AI you simply give it the rules of chess and then start to play it. It will probably play very badly to begin with but it will quickly learn from its mistakes until it becomes unbeatable. There is no programmer involved. The machine essentually is now running without any human in the loop.
When you apply that same principle to AI controlled weapons you had best hope it has a good grasp of the rules. There are already examples of AI ignoring human instructions in order to complete a mission.
taskandpurpose.com
That is the problem with self learning machines. We can't really ever be sure what it is learning or its reaction to real world situations. Better just hope there is a human standing by ready to hit the off button.
The LOCSVs themselves will be relatively simple vessels. People might be imagining super sophisticated warships but they will essentually just be missile and sensor barges controlled by an electronic brain not much more sophisticated than what you would find in your average mobile phone. They will be somewhat limited in what they can do but that fits in with the more focused force structure being touted in the DSR.
There will be issues dealing with maintainence and system reliability but I think the big issue will be our ability to effectively communicate with these vessels. A highly secure communication capability will be absolutely crucial. Without that capability you are essentually unleashing AI controlled weapons without any human control.
You would be even have to question whether we could control a rouge AI even if we were able to communicate with it.
I asked a programmer friend of mine his opinion and he gave me an analogy. The first computers designed to play chess were programmed by humans. They simply executed a string of intructions. How well that computer played was limited by the ability of the programmer to play chess.
With AI you simply give it the rules of chess and then start to play it. It will probably play very badly to begin with but it will quickly learn from its mistakes until it becomes unbeatable. There is no programmer involved. The machine essentually is now running without any human in the loop.
When you apply that same principle to AI controlled weapons you had best hope it has a good grasp of the rules. There are already examples of AI ignoring human instructions in order to complete a mission.
Air Force said AI drone killed its human operator in a simulation
An Air Force AI got a little too good at its job, deciding to kill its human overseers to accomplish its mission
taskandpurpose.com
That is the problem with self learning machines. We can't really ever be sure what it is learning or its reaction to real world situations. Better just hope there is a human standing by ready to hit the off button.
Last edited:
Apart of the challenge I suspect for the LOCSV''s concept will be mission creep and cost.I
The LOCSVs themselves will be relatively simple vessels. People might be imagining super sophisticated warships but they will essentually just be missile and sensor barges controlled by and electronic brain not much more sophisticated than what you would find in your average mobile phone. They will be somewhat limited in what they can do but that fits in with the more focused force structure being touted in the DSR.
There will be issues dealing with maintainence and system reliability but I think the big issue will be our ability to effectively communicate with these vessels. A highly secure communication capability will be absolutely crucial. Without that capability you are essentually unleashing AI controlled weapons without any human control.
You would be even have to question whether we could control a rouge AI even if we were able to communicate with it.
I asked a programmer friend of mine his opinion and he gave me an analogy. The first computers designed to play chess were programmed by humans. They simply executed a string of intructions. How well that computer played was limited by the ability of the programmer to play chess.
With AI you simply give it the rules of chess and then start to play it. It will probably play very badly to begin with but it will quickly learn from its mistakes until it becomes unbeatable. There is no programmer involved. The machine essentually is now running without any human in the loop.
When you apply that same principle to AI controlled weapons you had best hope it has a good grasp of the rules. There are already examples of AI ignoring human instructions in order to complete a mission.
Air Force said AI drone killed its human operator in a simulation
An Air Force AI got a little too good at its job, deciding to kill its human overseers to accomplish its mission
That is the problem with self learning machines. We can't really ever be sure what it is learning or its reaction to real world situations. Better just hope there is a human standing by ready to hit the off button.
Vessel will need to be respectable size to accommodate VLS and associated machinery.
Vessel by default becomes a significant asset ( target )
Vessel needs defending ( theory sails under the protective umbrella of the fleet )
What realistically does that look like!
Will it be able to sail independently. Technically I'm sure feasible. real life application I'm concerned it will not need manned escorts.
Therefore dos it have minimum crew.
That crew then grows due to experience.
The LOVSC becomes a small manned vessel.
Small manned vessels prove inadequate.
The LOCSV now evolves to become a major fleet unit..
The unmanned space has a place, just guarded about the concept of a floating optionally unmanned missile barge.
Cheers S
I wouldn't just limit it to LOCSVs. You will have a whole range of UUVs, USVs and AUVs. A lot of these vessels will be expendable and even sacrificial. The whole concept of how to conduct naval warfare may have to be reassessed.
LOCSVs may eventual evolve into major fleet units. In fact if you look at highly automated vessels such as the Mogami class it isn't hard to imagine them eventually evolving into super sophisticated minimally crewed ships reliant on much of the technology developed for unmanned vessels.
I could imagine a very small command team and some senior maintainers, a cook and a steward.
Comfy arm chairs on the bridge and R2D2 serving drinks.
Logically they will be magazines and stand off sensors for the MFUs. When things go completely pear shaped they will take the hits intended for the MFUs and the crews will bug out.
Comfy arm chairs on the bridge and R2D2 serving drinks.
Logically they will be magazines and stand off sensors for the MFUs. When things go completely pear shaped they will take the hits intended for the MFUs and the crews will bug out.
I
The LOCSVs themselves will be relatively simple vessels. People might be imagining super sophisticated warships but they will essentually just be missile and sensor barges controlled by an electronic brain not much more sophisticated than what you would find in your average mobile phone. They will be somewhat limited in what they can do but that fits in with the more focused force structure being touted in the DSR.
There will be issues dealing with maintainence and system reliability but I think the big issue will be our ability to effectively communicate with these vessels. A highly secure communication capability will be absolutely crucial. Without that capability you are essentually unleashing AI controlled weapons without any human control.
You would be even have to question whether we could control a rouge AI even if we were able to communicate with it.
I asked a programmer friend of mine his opinion and he gave me an analogy. The first computers designed to play chess were programmed by humans. They simply executed a string of intructions. How well that computer played was limited by the ability of the programmer to play chess.
With AI you simply give it the rules of chess and then start to play it. It will probably play very badly to begin with but it will quickly learn from its mistakes until it becomes unbeatable. There is no programmer involved. The machine essentually is now running without any human in the loop.
When you apply that same principle to AI controlled weapons you had best hope it has a good grasp of the rules. There are already examples of AI ignoring human instructions in order to complete a mission.
Air Force said AI drone killed its human operator in a simulation
An Air Force AI got a little too good at its job, deciding to kill its human overseers to accomplish its mission
That is the problem with self learning machines. We can't really ever be sure what it is learning or its reaction to real world situations. Better just hope there is a human standing by ready to hit the off button.
Navy Rapid Capabilities Process Can Now Deploy New Weapons Faster - USNI News
yep agree. There is actually a fair bit of live data on this bit. The above article details a remote SM6 firing from the USN Ranger (an unmanned prototype). The system used was the virtual Aegis plus more importantly the CEC (cooperative engagement capability).
That mouthful is perhaps the most secure comms system the USN has, and it links remote Aegis systems together for a common battle management system across multiple ships. It is however radio wave line of sight though.
Basically provided the mothership and the LOCSV both have Aegis+CEC and are nearby, then the mothership has full control of its weapons and sensors. It is a mature technology that is already in service. The virtual Aegis is a suitcase (maybe a big one) sized system that is not far off plug and play, so can easily be fitted to any platform.
LOCSVs might be AI piloted, but they are intended to be remote person weapons controlled.
You are quoting project cost, that is not unit cost, very different, with different projects taking into account many factors in the overall project cost, like new or upgraded wharf facilities, more complex ships mean more expensive refits and equipment upgrades, crew operating costs etc.
Simply dividing a project cost by the number of vessels does not give you the answer you seek, it is much more complicated than that.
Cheers
Would the Australian navy consider this for a MRSS vessel? Steller Systems unveil ‘Fearless’ Multi Role Support Ship concept | Navy Lookout
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The $65 Billion figure originated from the current government and I do not know if it’s a genuine estimate or something that they plucked out of a dark space to make the previous government look incompetent - I suspect that it’s mainly the latter. It certainly allowed them to reduce the number of Hunters without any scrutiny from the press.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Assuming the same bean counter team isn’t working for both Canada and Australia, the cost arrived at are similar. Canada’s 15 CSC ships have an estimated cost above 80 billion Canadian. Depending on the final kit package for each vessel the differential could change.