Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I assume that the ABF Evolved Capes are replacements for the existing ABF Capes rather than additional capacity. That indicates that the current Capes will not be very old when they are retired.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
2033 is when the first is expected to retire. Even ABF states 20 years of service life.
An additional 11 would mean 19 total in ABF by 2031.
As far as we know RAN will have 10* Evolved Capes, 6 Arafuras + 9? (25 minor vessels)
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The makeup of the Patrol Boat fleet under the DFR is to be
6 Arafura OPV
8 RAN Capes
11 ABF Capes
I can see future Governments continuing to order Capes and whatever next gen design replaces them to keep Austal busy and maintain a continuous build capability. With only 6 Arafura's the Capes are going to cop a harder than expected life, not as bad as the Armidale's.
From pg 10 of ENHANCED LETHALITY SURFACE COMBATANT FLEET review. The 25 includes the ABF vessels, so newbuild Capes appear to be replacements only.
"A total force of 25 minor war vessels, consisting of Navy’s requirement for six Arafura class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) and eight Evolved Cape class patrol boats (ECCPBs), and 11 ECCPBs for Australian Border Force (ABF)."
Redland's...beat me by that much
That does not seem like alot when you combine both the ABF and the RAN. (RAN 6 ACOPV + 8 ECCPB + ABF 11 ECCPB)
RAN from planned 12+8 to 6+8
ABF 8 Capes to 11 Evolved Capes.
Much more unmanned ISR I assume
That's a worry, since the Chinese have so many. Stick a nuclear powered one outside Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, and we're done.
My point was that with 3d printing there is quite a lot less labour involved so there is either A. greater profit or B. lower sale costs but I suspect B will not happen in the defence space.They could if that was scoped into the project, lower cost, high local content, high production capability.
If you want maximum performance out of modern materials, science and technology, then it costs. You definitely want high end capability. But not everything needs to be all high end all the time. Israel, South Korea, France etc all have this kind of high low stuff.
Part of Iron dome was to address these. They were able to do it. With more modern technologies and techniques, it is entirely possibly to make them much cheaper and in much higher volumes with much more local content. Australia can make aluminium, plastics, glass, fuel, explosives.
From Arrow to Iron Dome: The economics of Israel's air defense strategy | CTech
How much did it actually cost Israel to shoot down Iran’s flood of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and suicide drones?www.calcalistech.com
But the problem is to make it cheap, you need to compromise on things like foldable fins, speed, advanced guidance, performance etc. Its still useful, but is no longer a wonder weapon if deployed as a singular system (which it isn't see Davids sling). It has a proximity fuze (not kinetic hit to kill, which is much harder) solid rocket motor, so less range, less speed control, uplinked guided by Fire control radar, with a fairly simple radio seeker (no IR or advanced features). 4-17km range, mach 2, it is a pretty average defence, but if deployed in numbers, can offer low engagement costs for less capable threats.
Iron Dome's - Tamir Missile
Iron Dome Short range Air Defence System has found unprecedented success during its service since 2011 and has been credited with more than 1500 operational intercepts; a success rate of some 90...fullafterburner.weebly.com
However, not sure if Australia by itself is ideal to develop this. Partnering with the Japanese, or Koreans may be an option, and they would really like a reliable ally to partner with with a rock solid supply chain and impressive US alliance history.
Genuine question. We changed the spec on the Hunters and seemed to have doubled the cost. If we had minimal changes instead would the cost to train crew on alternate systems and to maintain another line of systems cost more than the project blow out? Just about every business used to run across multiple systems and make do until the system consolidation wave started in the 70s and 80s and I’m only aware of a few cases where the stated savings at the beginning of the commonality projects were actually achieved. Yes it’s a nirvanna to have only one system and one process but as they say Perfect is the enemy of progress.
Last edited:
From Sub Brief:
USA vs CHINA: Who Has The Deadliest NUCLEAR Submarine? (youtube.com)
An interesting capability comparison...
The Hunters, and to be honest all designs considered, had to have AEGIS, Mk-41, and other systems. The GP frigates are different, they really are the spiritual successors to the enhanced ANZACs.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
We should remember that the PLAN does not yet have a large SSN fleet. Reportedly only 6 to 8 SSNs in the PLAN. (Estimates vary and the Chinese won’t say). And in the past Chinese SSNs are rated greatly inferior to western SSNs.
The PLAN does have by all reports 48 or more SSKs. However those are both shorter range than Collins and noisier than Russian SSKs (Kilo) which are in turn noisier than Collins. So PLAN SSKs are numerous but not a huge threat to the RAN. Also, in future PLAN SSKs will be subject to all the limitations that are projected for snorkelling Collins in an era of growing satellite surveillance.
So the bottom line is that IMO RAN SSNs built to the standard of current UK and US SSNs will make a difference. They are a great capability and are the one category of warship China has struggled to build in quality and numbers up to now. 6 to 8 RAN SSNs will match or exceed the UK and French SSN forces. The USN has around 50 SSNs but only 1/3 to 1/2 are assigned to the Indo-Pacific. So another 6 to 8 RAN SSNs helps a lot.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Don't forget that the US, UK, Japan & Australia (not to mention other NATO countries) operate significant Fleets of large long ranged MPA's and aerial refuelling tankers.
Do the PLAAF have an equivalent capability at this time?
China is also quite constrained geographically with the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan forming a significant barrier to operations outside their immediate surrounds in any conflict until their ASW Forces are neutralised.
Do the PLAAF have an equivalent capability at this time?
China is also quite constrained geographically with the Philippines, Taiwan and Japan forming a significant barrier to operations outside their immediate surrounds in any conflict until their ASW Forces are neutralised.
Hello everyone. Long time listener, first time caller.
I remembered something when I read these posts about the CFA class and off the shelf purchases.
I found an article by David Shackleton. In it he describes the 5 versions proposed, from Alpha (a stock CFA as operated by the USN) to Echo.
Version Echo was amazing - it involved removing a gun turret; replacing ASROC with Ikara; fitting stabilizers, a hanger and landing pad for up to 2x medium helos; moving the Tartar launcher 55 feet forward; fitting a VDS; reducing the power plant to about half the horsepower; and removing a funnel.
Its interesting evidence that the RAN has always wanted to tamper with foreign designs - nothing readily available seemed able to really satisfy requirements. Sound familiar?
Eerily familiar, I think. What they wanted was a multi-role destroyer with missile defence and top tier ASW abilities. They were prepared to heavily modify a County or CFA to get it. Then the situation deteriorated and what started to matter was cost and the delivery timetable. Does sound a bit like the mid 2020s.
Link to the article. See in particular pages 46(64 in the pdf) and 322 (340).
I remembered something when I read these posts about the CFA class and off the shelf purchases.
I'm not sure this isn't already known around here, but I was interested to read once that there were other proposals to modify for the CFA for RAN service - like adding a helicopter hanger and variable depth sonar.
I found an article by David Shackleton. In it he describes the 5 versions proposed, from Alpha (a stock CFA as operated by the USN) to Echo.
Version Echo was amazing - it involved removing a gun turret; replacing ASROC with Ikara; fitting stabilizers, a hanger and landing pad for up to 2x medium helos; moving the Tartar launcher 55 feet forward; fitting a VDS; reducing the power plant to about half the horsepower; and removing a funnel.
Its interesting evidence that the RAN has always wanted to tamper with foreign designs - nothing readily available seemed able to really satisfy requirements. Sound familiar?
Eerily familiar, I think. What they wanted was a multi-role destroyer with missile defence and top tier ASW abilities. They were prepared to heavily modify a County or CFA to get it. Then the situation deteriorated and what started to matter was cost and the delivery timetable. Does sound a bit like the mid 2020s.
Link to the article. See in particular pages 46(64 in the pdf) and 322 (340).
PLAN also needs its own SSNs to protect its SSBNs to preserve a second strike capability.
Apart from its strategic competition with the US and its allies (that operate quiet submarines in the areas where China seeks to maintain sea control) China also has a rivalry with a nuclear armed India (with long transits for China to the Indian Ocean).
Despite all that, PLAN SSKs with AIP, and eventually SSNs, will be an increasingly serious challenge for the ADF (hopefully mitigated by the planned acquisition of 17 undersea warfare optimised warships).
Hi Sandson, nice to hear from you. I joined this forum about a year ago after watching for a while as well. I find the discussions and exchange of ideas enjoyable, and I hope you will too.
Thanks for the link to Adm Shackleton's book, I will read in slow time. I respect him as a very good Naval fighter, and powerful intelect, however sometimes he can have polarising views.
I saw the Perth class (thanks for that correction Redlands) at the very end of their lives. I spent a few days aboard one at sea and got to experience the (somewhat unbearable) heat of the engine room. The ANZACs had much better airconditioning and I was happy to have served during this later era. Maybe I'm soft.
I was unaware of the options for different configurations for the CFAs. Could have been interesting if some of them had come to fruition. I think they were pretty good in their alpha form though.
What I am taking from this is that the build rate of Chinese SSNs is fairly slow compared to the rate of the rest of the Chinese fleet and the US. Also just having the one yard capable of building means they are unlikely to exceed the combined production rate of the US, UK and eventually Australia anytime soon.
That’s obviously good for Australia. It means we have more time to build our own SSN fleet.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Interesting comment by Ben Hudson CEO Of BAE Systems Australia this Week.
He was speaking at the "Defending Australia Summit" in Canberra.
The Commonwealth of Australia has still not placed an order for even a single Hunter Class vessel. He is hopeful on getting a contract soon but effectively the project is in Limbo!
A transcript of the Defence Ministers Q and A Session at the summit is available here:
but I can't find an on-line transcript of Ben Hudson's Q and A session.
He was speaking at the "Defending Australia Summit" in Canberra.
The Commonwealth of Australia has still not placed an order for even a single Hunter Class vessel. He is hopeful on getting a contract soon but effectively the project is in Limbo!
A transcript of the Defence Ministers Q and A Session at the summit is available here:
but I can't find an on-line transcript of Ben Hudson's Q and A session.
Last edited:
Well this is just unbelievable!
All the rhetoric of urgency and re booting the ADF , we NO frigates on order to replace the ANZACs or move forward. No Hunters on order at all? WTF?!
Is there some strategic reason for these delays, or is it a way to delay actually spending on defence until better off financially? Is it a gamble of sorts? Anyone explain why Defence procurement, deemed urgent is bogged down?
They aren't strong in that area, but they aren't nothing either. They have a couple dozen H-6 refullers some dedicated some not. They are building YY-20 refuellers now, which will be much more capable.
Xi'an H-6 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
China expanding YY-20 aerial refueller fleet
The Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is operating more Xi'an Aircraft Company Ltd (XAC) YY-20A air-to-air refuellers than before.
www.janes.com
The Chinese fleet however, have been designed around significant inbuilt range. The J20 is suggested to outrange any western fighter, given most western fighters are designed for Europe, its probably true. Coupled with China's denial weapons, and their moderate ambitions for projecting hard air power, combined with long range weapons (both air to air and air to sea or air air.
They have been practicing, but only very recently, like 2022 for J10 and J20 aircraft.
I imagine many Chinese ships are similar, enough range to do what they want. They don't have to travel 10,000 km just to get to the AoO.. They also have some friendly bases, some island bases, and the carriers. They aren't trying to match the US for like for like capability in all areas, just where they need it.
They will need more capability, eventually if they really want to start owning things out of the second island chain, but for now, its enough. I imagine they aren't looking to comprehensively train and operate a global tanking fleet, but enough to conduct long range missions if required.
Which is why our new ships need more VLS, more capable radars and combat systems, etc. Sometimes people seem unaware that we are in an arms race. The opposition is specifically looking at our designs and trying to counter them. Expect ships to spiral in costs, just like pre WW, where there was a frantic effort to mount bigger guns, more AA guns, more armour.
The US had a clear 20-30 year advantage of production and 20+ years of technology, but to be honest, they have squandered most of that. China technology is probably <5 years in many areas. Which is close enough, as 5 years isn't usually enough to have fielded in numbers, new technologies, and close enough they are start counter development almost immediately.
US also is split globally, while China isn't.
We need aegis on more ships (Hobart + Hunter).. but we also need many more capable ships to replace the Anzacs. Anzacs are the wrong platform to upgun, we have already done that, they are already old ships.
cutting the number of Hunters from 9 to 6 involves renegotiating contracts. The Australian government can’t simply compel BAE to accept a contract and start work. BAE can’t simply walk away from (lucrative) Australian naval construction. As one party (BAE) is carrying out the negotiations in a public forum then there may be some distance between the parties. There will be a resolution but the speed of it is not solely determined by the Australian government.
The government claims there was a substantial unfunded cost blow out of the 9 ship Hunter program but there seems to have been little scrutiny of this in the media or Senate estimates.