Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[swerve]

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.

Oh, some Europeans get it. There have been multiple attempts to implement it. Unfortunately, arguing over details by multiple countries (both politicians & armed forces, focused on budgets, industry, or their oh-so-special, utterly unique, requirements) tend to get in the way. So, you get an idea for a helicopter, or a frigate, or whatever. But it turns out to be a family of unique national models, mostly built in small numbers, with local equipment.

And these days, no one European country, or Australia, makes enough of most things for such a common platform to be built in sufficient numbers just for that country.

 

[swerve]

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.

It's probably a matter of following similar accounting & reporting rules.

One country works on lifetime cost, including operations, another on the cost of the development & production programme, a third includes the cost of spares in production, while others put it in operations, & don't count it in the procurement programme. These & other differences make comparisons between costs in different countries very difficult. Thus, if two countries publish similar figures for the cost of similar systems, it probably means they're counting similarly.

 

[Armchair]

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.

Yes we only have pretty minimal info from the defence minister’s announcement but he said they would be crewed in the RAN. That might eliminate the debate about Skynet taking charge of 32 long range warheads and address some other issues.

In the LUSV article posted earlier in the thread it said the USN planned to operate the capability so that the fire order could NOT come from on board the vessel (presumably to address the problem of the uncrewed vessel being captured). In the RAN context it would need on board security (so R2D2 needs the zappy things charged up) and would be escorted.

I am not sure it makes sense for the same LOCSV to be both a sensor platform (at least not an active one) as well as a magazine - but I think of it more like a cheap way to acquire a (limited) SSGN-style capability (discreet, persistent launch platform that does not contribute to fleet defence - other than by blowing up air bases).

in terms of the complexity of the fully AI version of the LOCSV / LUSV It sounds to me like a much easier programming task than Ghost Shark or Ghost Bat.

 

[SammyC]

What has the AUKUS alliance accomplished in the last year?

US Navy’s submarine fleet is too small. Here’s how selling some may help.

The above two news articles provide an interesting overview of the US point of view on AUKUS pillar 1 (what do they get out of it), and where some of the behind the scenes preparations are up to.

The US see a large benefit in an additional home base, maintenance facility and training equipment (simulators) to support their own vessels and people. Additionally, at a peak of upwards of 400 Australian sailors and officers in their system (in the coming few years), we provide them a very useful people resourcing pool (they have their own staffing shortfalls). There will come a point where every US Virginia sub will have in the order of 20 Australian crew members on it. That's massive. We talk of the Pacific Island nations supplementing our Navy, perhaps the Americans see a similar relationship with us on submarines.

Even the transfer of SSNs is seen as beneficial, as it shares the load. I suspect we will assume some patrol responsibilities in our region that their subs currently do, freeing up their remaining subs (and importantly crews) for other duties.

The other article provides some more information on the next stages of SSN training, in particular how they are accelerating the program (basically back to back postings at sea to shorten a 16 year program down to 8 years). I know what just two back to back sea postings feels like (it hurts and I got a frowny face from my wife), so they have their work cut out for them. It does however provide a pathway for an Australian SSN CO and crew to be ready by early 2030's.

Also of interest is the necessary growth in the submarine corp. The SSN program will require the current 800 sub qualified team to expand to 3,000. That's a lot.

 

[John Fedup]

It's probably a matter of following similar accounting & reporting rules.

One country works on lifetime cost, including operations, another on the cost of the development & production programme, a third includes the cost of spares in production, while others put it in operations, & don't count it in the procurement programme. These & other differences make comparisons between costs in different countries very difficult. Thus, if two countries publish similar figures for the cost of similar systems, it probably means they're counting similarly.

One question mark I have with Irving is the amount of money for yard upgrades for the AOPS program versus the CSC. I would have thought one upgrade should be sufficient unless a faster drumbeat for CSC is required…doesn’t seem to be the case.

 

[Redlands18]

Another excellent video from Sub Brief, mainly covering the Patriot PAC3 missile being deployed from ships with the Mk 41 Strike Length VLS and Aegis. They can be quad packed into the Mk 41, which would definitely go some way towards fixing the RANs VLS shortage. Would give the Hobarts a load out capability of
16 SM-2/6
8 TLAM
32 PAC-3
64 ESSM
Or variations off.
Also the US are producing 550 Patriot missiles a year, compared to 100-200 SM missiles.

 

[StingrayOZ]

And these days, no one European country, or Australia, makes enough of most things for such a common platform to be built in sufficient numbers just for that country.

Japan is a good case study in this way.

They tend to be able to plan and execute to fully utilise a production capability. Countries like France, Italy and Spain also tend to try and do this as many of the yards are state owned.

But even the best of us have had projects that were not ideal. The US for example has several naval projects that were very not successful examples of production for a variety of reasons. They build bucket loads. The Chinese too, have unsuccessful programs.

For LOSCV/LUSV, I don't see them replacing manned platforms 1 for 1. We have unmanned platforms and munitions for a long time, and that hasn't happened. Neither China nor the US nor anyone else sees them that way. They are augmenting manned platforms. There are issues too. Because of low/no manning, its then a desirable target, historically taking or shooting at an unmanned machine is not the same as firing at a manned platform. The US and China won't go to war because someone took someones UAV or UUV. So we still need manned platforms, but other platforms can assist and make it less of one single platform has to be battleship, coast guard, missile cruiser, amphibious platform, mine platform, carrier etc.

Which is why platforms are ballooning in costs. We want one ship to do it all. That may not be the cheapest way forward.

 

[Volkodav]

The potential of the LOSCV is we could start churning out addition vessels faster than tier 1 or 2 combatants and crew them with reassigned PB crews.

 

[SMC]

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.

But is not that figure, 7+ Billion per unit, whole of life cost taking into account crewing, consumables, maintenance etc? A quick back of the napkin calculation gives us $230 million over 30 years.

 

[MickB]

The potential of the LOSCV is we could start churning out addition vessels faster than tier 1 or 2 combatants and crew them with reassigned PB crews.

I take it you are implying that the LOSCV then takes over the patrol boat type tasks until shooting breaks out and then is has a warfighting role as additional VLS for the MFUs.

 

[Volkodav]

I take it you are implying that the LOSCV then takes over the patrol boat type tasks until shooting breaks out and then is has a warfighting role as additional VLS for the MFUs.

No actually, they could literally be parked at a naval base and only used on exercises, the crews will stay operating PBs.

 

[iambuzzard]

No actually, they could literally be parked at a naval base and only used on exercises, the crews will stay operating PBs.

Volks, that makes perfect sense. I hope the politicians are listening to you. We need to have attrition vessels available if things turn into a hot war. If the GPFs are upgraded to link into them and we build enough we might have a fighting chance if things get nasty.

 

[Volkodav]

You could even have reserve crews trained up on them. Highly automated the crews would be there for ships husbandry, force protection, and navigation i.e. any legislative or treaty obligations.

 

[protoplasm]

You could even have reserve crews trained up on them. Highly automated the crews would be there for ships husbandry, force protection, and navigation i.e. any legislative or treaty obligations.

This would be a really good model, the reserve crew do enough training to be competent with the systems, and if it goes "hot" they're ready to go and be the expanded VLS for MFUs

 

[Bob53]

Another excellent video from Sub Brief, mainly covering the Patriot PAC3 missile being deployed from ships with the Mk 41 Strike Length VLS and Aegis. They can be quad packed into the Mk 41, which would definitely go some way towards fixing the RANs VLS shortage. Would give the Hobarts a load out capability of
16 SM-2/6
8 TLAM
32 PAC-3
64 ESSM
Or variations off.
Also the US are producing 550 Patriot missiles a year, compared to 100-200 SM missiles.

Pretty sure Patriots can’t be quad packed. They are 5.3 metres long.they are also not much cheaper that SM2 about $1.3m each if I recall.

 

[Bob53]

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.

Is Political PR to sell the justification to cut the numbers.. They plug the all of life costs to a public that would see it as a per unit costs without understanding its all of life. It’s now $45 billion for 6 ships. Assume it’s approx $3 billion each to build and fit out that leaves $27 billion for capital costs, manning, maintenance fuel and logistics over 30 year…..or $150 million per year per ship.

Want to drastically cut the project costs? account for them with 25 or 20 year life span. Do it over 20 years and that $27 billion is reduced to $18 billion and all of a sudden you have saved $9 Billion and you are incredible financial managers.

i don’t ever recall seeing the explanation why the project blew out from $30 billion and crept to $65 billion? It can’t all be due to design work.

 

[Reptilia]

You could even have reserve crews trained up on them. Highly automated the crews would be there for ships husbandry, force protection, and navigation i.e. any legislative or treaty obligations.

Do you think 1 LOSV fast follower will be many per Tier 1 MFU in the future? 4 for example at some distant in every direction.
You would think a big push for a quieter propulsion system for the LOSVs post 2030, Hydrogen/Electric maybe.
A stern ramp or flight deck would also be a necessity.

 

[Going Boeing]

Pretty sure Patriots can’t be quad packed. They are 5.3 metres long.they are also not much cheaper that SM2 about $1.3m each if I recall.

I don’t know if the figures quoted in this article are correct, but it says that SM-2’s cost US$2.53M each. It also indicates that SM-3’s are mega expensive and that NSM’s are the same price as Tomahawks. Would be good to know where the Patriot missiles fit wrt capability versus cost.

What The Navy's Ship-Launched Missiles Actually Cost

 

[John Fedup]

Is Political PR to sell the justification to cut the numbers.. They plug the all of life costs to a public that would see it as a per unit costs without understanding its all of life. It’s now $45 billion for 6 ships. Assume it’s approx $3 billion each to build and fit out that leaves $27 billion for capital costs, manning, maintenance fuel and logistics over 30 year…..or $150 million per year per ship.

Want to drastically cut the project costs? account for them with 25 or 20 year life span. Do it over 20 years and that $27 billion is reduced to $18 billion and all of a sudden you have saved $9 Billion and you are incredible financial managers.

i don’t ever recall seeing the explanation why the project blew out from $30 billion and crept to $65 billion? It can’t all be due to design work.

No, design work isn’t the only factor amongst several, one of which is military inflation , which is at a much higher rate than civilian inflation. Delays feed inflation. This is why so many Canadian programs end up costing way more.

 

[StevoJH]

i don’t ever recall seeing the explanation why the project blew out from $30 billion and crept to $65 billion? It can’t all be due to design work.

Wasn't there a media comment by a senior person from BAe at the time these comments were made by the Minister asking the exact same question because it didn't match their own numbers and projections?