Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StevoJH]

How much scope is there to increase the production capacity at Henderson and Osborne anyway?

And I'm not talking about drydocks, build halls and shiplifts.

I'm talking about the fact that pretty much our entire capability to build a decent sized ship (whether civilian or military) is based away from our major population centres where a lot of people who have the appropriate skills want to live.

Nothing against Perth or Adelaide, but they aren't Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. Perth especially is a long and quite expensive flight to go back to the east coast to visit family/friends.

 

[StevoJH]

I hear your concerns
I wish we could turn back the clock
We can’t , therefore the RAN finds itself in a reluctantly challenged position.
Options appear limited
My preference would of been fast tracking the Hunters and some limited enhancement for the 12 OPVs
Neither were judged feasible or worthy
With no second hand destroyer shop to buy from what else could we do to provide maritime capability.
The GPF has merit , but it is ambitious and not without risk for delivery to service, compatibility of systems across the fleet and relevance of lethality going forward.

A project we can only hope delivers on many levels



Cheers S

I think that 9 Hunters was probably never realistic given the projected cost and the long timeline, given the number of treasurers and governments that would have an opportunity to meddle over the life of the program. But there seems to have been no sense of urgency with placing orders and getting ships in the water. Type 26 was selected in June 2018, the order for the first 3 ships has only been placed this month. HMS Glasgow was launched in 2022 with the second Type 26 due to launch this year.

I like the idea of OPV's, I wish they had a hanger, but honestly think all of the Armidale class should have been replaced with OPV's.

Yes they require more crew then the Armidale class, but is that a bad thing when you have a need for more training berths to train the crew for your major units?

 

[Reptilia]

I was working on an 18 month cadence for the GPFs, with the first Aust built ship commissioning 2035 (so a year after the first Hunter).

On that basis you get Jan 35, Jul 36, Jan 38, Jul 39, Jan 41, Jul 42, Jan 44, Jul 45.

Even that is slow in comparison to how fast the Korean and Japanese yards can build them. And as Stevo above says, slower than the ANZAC build.

It means we would have either a Hunter (on an 18 month cadence as well) or GPF coming online every nine months from 2034, which I think is about as fast as the Navy could absorb them.

It will be interesting to see where the remaining 6 ANZAC decommissioning dates align. Will they be one for one from 2029 with the first GPFs and then Hunters, or will they be later from say 2034.

All Anzacs should be decommissioned 2024-2034 with the last just after the first Hunter enters service. (2024 Anzac - 2034 Perth = 28 years each)

An extra overseas built GPF before we see 8 built in Aus would be a good idea I think.
2024- 7 Anzacs, 3 Hobarts. (10)
2027- 6 Anzacs, 3 Hobarts. (9)
2030- 5 Anzacs, 3 Hobarts, 1 GPF. (9)
2033- 2 Anzacs, 3 Hobarts, 3 GPF. (8)
2036- 3 Hobarts, 5 GPF(4+1), 2 Hunters. (10) *
2039- 3 Hobarts, 7 GPF(4+3), 3 Hunters. (13) *
2042- 3 Hobarts, 9 GPF(4+5), 4 Hunters. (16) *
2045- 3 Hobarts, 11 GPF(4+7), 6 Hunters. (20) *
2048- 2 Hobarts, 12 GPF(4+8), 6 Hunters, 1 new DDG. (21) *
2051- 12 GPF(4+8), 6 Hunters, 3 new DDG. (21) *

* minus 1 for current planned fleet.
2033 could be real bad if the Anzacs are struggling and the GPFs are running late.

 

[Todjaeger]

I’m not worried about an overseas build of 3 GPFs, it’s the first one built in Australia that could be a problem. Hopefully if time slips they would allow a 4th to be built overseas.

TBH I am, or rather I am concerned about the entire programme, including any overseas build.

At present it appears as though the current plan for the overseas build is supposed to be that of an essentially MOTS (should this be NOTS for naval off the shelf?) build of an existing ship design by a foreign yard that should already have a hot production line for the selected class. Now if this is an accurate assessment, then I am not particularly worried about the foreign yard and supply chain being able to build whatever ends up getting selected. Rather the problem(s) would likely come in the ability of the RAN to get these vessels commissioned and into service, especially in a reasonable and effective amount of time.

Much of this has at least been mentioned at earlier points, but IMO it bears repeating. A MOTS build would normally mean that the vessels would be fitted out with the same kit and in the same fashion as previous iterations of the class built on a 'hot' build programme. This would likely mean that at least some of the onboard kit would be different from what is in use currently by the RAN. Any such differences would likely create the need for distinct training streams for operators and maintainers for the new/different kit, as well as establishing both a new maintenance regime and parts supply chain. Where things could easily become very tricksy and difficult, especially for long-term ops and service, would be if there were some significant differences in the shipboard electronics fitout like sensors, CMS and interfaces. If anyone has ever had to make different computer systems 'talk' to each other and share/exchange information, whilst being coded differently with inaccurate, poor or even non-existent MAN pages, you might understand what I am getting at.

There are also potential issues with a foreign design built in a foreign yard not meeting Australian maritime and/or naval regulations required for a ship to be in service. Possible issues covering things like firefighting kit as well as fire proofing or fire resistant materials, fire suppression systems, electrical generation and distribution, heating/cooling and air circulation, etc. It is distinctly possible that a foreign yard could complete orders for the RAN and have them delivered, only for it to take a few more years before the RAN could put such vessels to use, because the had to be modified to make them appropriate and/or get changes in Australian laws/maritime regs made or waivers issued.

The fact that there is supposed to be such a rush to get an overseas build selected and started just adds to the likelihood of something being non-compliant or inadequate for Australian service. An example of such a potential oversight would be with shipboard HVAC systems. Imagine trying to serve aboard a RAN vessel transiting the waters of the Java Sea, in a vessel fitted with heating and cooling systems intended for use in the Baltic or North Seas, or the Sea of Japan. A vessel so fitted would likely end up being very draining to serve on.

Unfortunately things do seem to have been let go on too long, but now in the apparent scramble to get things into order, the saying, "haste makes waste," keeps coming to mind.

 

[SammyC]

How much scope is there to increase the production capacity at Henderson and Osborne anyway?

And I'm not talking about drydocks, build halls and shiplifts.

I'm talking about the fact that pretty much our entire capability to build a decent sized ship (whether civilian or military) is based away from our major population centres where a lot of people who have the appropriate skills want to live.

Nothing against Perth or Adelaide, but they aren't Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane. Perth especially is a long and quite expensive flight to go back to the east coast to visit family/friends.

My understanding is that the cadence at either yard can be altered, however the selected rate aligns with the required price and impact on continuous ship building commitments. So it is due to a choice the government made (rightly or wrongly).

Too fast a cadence brings too much cost forward in the budget. The government already has problems balancing the current spend. Any more and there is less for other community services like education and health etc. Or a bigger deficit.

Too fast a cadence also recreates the valley of death situation we just had in the late 30s/early 40s. Finishing mid 40s allows direct continuation into the Hobart, AOR and LHD programs, plus restarting the patrol boat/landing craft in the west.

BAE have said they could do a 12 month cadence at Osbourne, I remember this from some Jan media statements. Their Type 26 build time in the UK is reducing to 60 months (from 96 months), and they will shortly be at the 12 month frequency.

An appropriate new facility in Henderson could release ships on a 12 month or less cadence, once up and running. The Japanese and Koreans can build a full ship within two years and spit them out every six months, and the Europeans can do this too.

So we could have two ships a year if we wanted (1 Hunter, 1 GPF), and this could occur from about 2030 as well. We chose not to because it costs a lot and it wrecks the future.

Build rate and cadence is dependent on:

• The facility: being able to build more than one hull simultaneously, and have protection from the weather.
• The number of shifts: working more than one daily shift (normally 8 hours) per day. A second shift doubles the rate, a third trebles it. 7 day working even more.
• Processes: having modern automated equipment (such as robotic metal cutting and welding) and using global best practices (i.e modular construction).
• Supply chain. Establishing local providers, ensuring long term commitment, ordering in bulk, and ordering early.

All four aspects are or will be available in either Osborne or Henderson. There are enough workers in both locations, the labour squeeze is not that bad.

Just a comment on cities, having lived in Sydney, Adelaide and Perth (and Hobart where I grew up), there are problems with all locations for employment. Sydney has a big population, but the majority of people are way out west and a long way from the waterfront where ships would be built. If you have caught a train from Blacktown to the CBD you will know what I mean. Forget about driving, you will spend more time on the road than at work. The average welder has no hope of affording living in the inner city suburbs.

Perth has a lower population, but is still over 2 million, and just behind Brisbane. I have a 20 minute drive to work without a single traffic jam and I live 20 minutes from the CBD. My house is the same price as an apartment in Sydney. People can comfortably live in the northern suburbs and work at Austal, or down south and do the same. We even have weekend shopping at Coles. As a result, Perth is the fastest growing city in Australia.

I personally live in Perth because my family (whom I love dearly, but like in small doses) live in Sydney and Brisbane. That and the beaches are good.

 

[SammyC]

Once concern I have about the GPF is that by going for the suggested designs will they have the space and generation capacity for directed energy weapons.

None of the short list appear to have the capability today.

Thoughts as to whether this is an issue or not?

Regards,

Massive

Lasers are not my expertise, so this is just my own learnings. I find them interesting and would like to see them become a reality.

It's worth understanding just where lasers are up to. Recently testing of a 150kW laser (one of the American systems) shot a drone down (an old scan eagle). It took 15 seconds and was at a range of about 1.5km.

Lasers are about 50% efficient at best, so a 150kW laser requires in the order of 300kW electricity and 150kW cooling. That's roughly equivalent to 20% of the generating capacity of an ANZAC and a very large portion of its cooling.

Lasers (like any light source) dissipate at the inverse square rate with distance (twice as far, a quarter of the energy). That's before any air attenuation effects. They are very poor long range weapons.

To have something that could shoot down a combat drone at say 3km in a couple of seconds, you are talking a several MW laser. This would make it equivalent to the capability of an existing Phalanx. A flight 3 burke could perhaps support this from a power and cooling perspective.

If you want a laser that can shoot down a hardened missile at 50km (the equivalent of what an ESSM could do), then you are looking at something in the 100MW range. This is nuclear carrier size.

My overarching view is that direct energy weapons have a long way to go to become mainstream fit. I can't see them replacing existing defence systems on the Hunters or GPFs in their lifetime. I think we will start to see 1 MW lasers in the next few years, but these will be too big for our ships.

 

[Armchair]

My understanding is that the cadence at either yard can be altered, however the selected rate aligns with the required price and impact on continuous ship building commitments. So it is due to a choice the government made (rightly or wrongly).

Too fast a cadence brings too much cost forward in the budget. The government already has problems balancing the current spend. Any more and there is less for other community services like education and health etc. Or a bigger deficit.

Too fast a cadence also brings forward the need for trained crews to operate the new ships. The RAN claims it can crew its planned frigate workforce into the 2040s. It will be interesting to see how the shipbuilding plan (when published) turns out (and how far it extends into the future).

Too fast a cadence also recreates the valley of death situation we just had in the late 30s/early 40s. Finishing mid 40s allows direct continuation into the Hobart, AOR and LHD programs, plus restarting the patrol boat/landing craft in the west.

To avoid a valley of death they would need to start building new warships at Henderson to replace the first GPFs from the early 2050s

 

[icelord]

TBH I am, or rather I am concerned about the entire programme, including any overseas build.

At present it appears as though the current plan for the overseas build is supposed to be that of an essentially MOTS (should this be NOTS for naval off the shelf?) build of an existing ship design by a foreign yard that should already have a hot production line for the selected class. Now if this is an accurate assessment, then I am not particularly worried about the foreign yard and supply chain being able to build whatever ends up getting selected. Rather the problem(s) would likely come in the ability of the RAN to get these vessels commissioned and into service, especially in a reasonable and effective amount of time.

Much of this has at least been mentioned at earlier points, but IMO it bears repeating. A MOTS build would normally mean that the vessels would be fitted out with the same kit and in the same fashion as previous iterations of the class built on a 'hot' build programme. This would likely mean that at least some of the onboard kit would be different from what is in use currently by the RAN. Any such differences would likely create the need for distinct training streams for operators and maintainers for the new/different kit, as well as establishing both a new maintenance regime and parts supply chain. Where things could easily become very tricksy and difficult, especially for long-term ops and service, would be if there were some significant differences in the shipboard electronics fitout like sensors, CMS and interfaces. If anyone has ever had to make different computer systems 'talk' to each other and share/exchange information, whilst being coded differently with inaccurate, poor or even non-existent MAN pages, you might understand what I am getting at.

There are also potential issues with a foreign design built in a foreign yard not meeting Australian maritime and/or naval regulations required for a ship to be in service. Possible issues covering things like firefighting kit as well as fire proofing or fire resistant materials, fire suppression systems, electrical generation and distribution, heating/cooling and air circulation, etc. It is distinctly possible that a foreign yard could complete orders for the RAN and have them delivered, only for it to take a few more years before the RAN could put such vessels to use, because the had to be modified to make them appropriate and/or get changes in Australian laws/maritime regs made or waivers issued.

The fact that there is supposed to be such a rush to get an overseas build selected and started just adds to the likelihood of something being non-compliant or inadequate for Australian service. An example of such a potential oversight would be with shipboard HVAC systems. Imagine trying to serve aboard a RAN vessel transiting the waters of the Java Sea, in a vessel fitted with heating and cooling systems intended for use in the Baltic or North Seas, or the Sea of Japan. A vessel so fitted would likely end up being very draining to serve on.

Unfortunately things do seem to have been let go on too long, but now in the apparent scramble to get things into order, the saying, "haste makes waste," keeps coming to mind.

You mean like an Anzac class ship where Air cooling is water based. So when the ocean temp is 32 degrees the internal cooling for rec spaces and mess decks is sacraficed for Comms and Ops rooms with heated consoles? Having done a middle east deployment on an Anzac, we are very experienced with that

The "Aus maritime certified" argument is new, especially when you consider ships have been built overseas and put into RAN service. I think its a distraction argument really. Poor examples, but LHD and AOR were built initially in Spain before use here. Sirius, ADV Protecteur meets IMV standards and use in RAN.

Aus maritime industry standards for Damage Control are in line with international standards. Its not some magical change for Australia. The types of techniques and equipment may chance. So whats more important, changing an entire ship configuration to meet RAN training or change training manual on new updated equipment?

 

[MARKMILES77]

Good video released by Navy about life on a Collins Class Submarine.
HMAS Dechaineux.

Question: Why are the periscopes/exhausts/air intakes etc blurred when the submarine is surfaced?
Anyone on Port Philip Bay that day would have been able to photograph them with their Mobile phone.

 

[DDG38]

Good video released by Navy about life on a Collins Class Submarine.
HMAS Dechaineux.
Question: Why are the periscopes/exhausts/air intakes etc blurred when the submarine is surfaced?
Anyone on Port Philip Bay that day would have been able to photograph them with their Mobile phone.

Sure but why make it easy for others to collect IMINT via 4K video as opposed to a shitty phone camera sensor ? Also there may be recent upgrades to their masts that they don't want made readily known.

 

[devo99]

But there seems to have been no sense of urgency with placing orders and getting ships in the water. Type 26 was selected in June 2018, the order for the first 3 ships has only been placed this month.

Much of this can be put down to both large and deep design changes between the base Type 26 and the ships the RAN will be getting as well as BAE wanting some real life data from the first of class before finalising some of the more significant design changes.

 

[old faithful]

I know that GPF has been short-listed, and understand that they want to keep it <4kT, but am curious as to why the type 31 was not considered, with a stated crew of 80-100?

 

[Armchair]

I know that GPF has been short-listed, and understand that they want to keep it <4kT, but am curious as to why the type 31 was not considered, with a stated crew of 80-100?

I think one issue would be the availability of an overseas yard to start overseas construction in 2026. If it needs to be in a third country (not UK) that complicates things.
The need for an in-service design seems a bit more of a stretch (Alfa 3000 does not really exist).

 

[Reptilia]

I know that GPF has been short-listed, and understand that they want to keep it <4kT, but am curious as to why the type 31 was not considered, with a stated crew of 80-100?

With Norway potentially buying 5 Type 26s from the U.K(some from the current planned 8), it might be possible to poach 1 of the 5 Type 31s from the u.k by 2030 and then continue the production run, including 2 more to Aus by 2034.
My assumption is that the ship was too big for planned infrastructure upgrades, probably why they capped frigates at around 3,500-5.000 ton and not much bigger than an Anzac.
The Type 32 that could follow the Type 31 supposably has even less crew with just 50-60.

Babcock plans next-gen frigates with crews as small as 50

"We're doing a crew of about 105 on Type 31, so realistically we should be aiming to half that number for batch two."

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[iambuzzard]

With Norway potentially buying 5 Type 26s from the U.K(some from the current planned 8), it might be possible to poach 1 of the 5 Type 31s from the u.k by 2030 and then continue the production run, including 2 more to Aus by 2034.
My assumption is that the ship was too big for planned infrastructure upgrades, probably why they capped frigates at around 3,500-5.000 ton and not much bigger than an Anzac.
The Type 32 that could follow the Type 31 supposably has even less crew with just 50-60.

Babcock plans next-gen frigates with crews as small as 50

"We're doing a crew of about 105 on Type 31, so realistically we should be aiming to half that number for batch two."

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

The Type 31 also has the small main gun. We use the 127mm.

 

[Reptilia]

The Type 31 also has the small main gun. We use the 127mm.

Alpha 3000 or Tasman has a 57mm-76mm, still made the list.

 

[iambuzzard]

Alpha 3000 or Tasman has a 57mm-76mm, still made the list.

Do we want to go back to the 76mm? That I can understand but to this layman the 57mm is a pop gun (even with smart rounds).

 

[Todjaeger]

You mean like an Anzac class ship where Air cooling is water based. So when the ocean temp is 32 degrees the internal cooling for rec spaces and mess decks is sacraficed for Comms and Ops rooms with heated consoles? Having done a middle east deployment on an Anzac, we are very experienced with that

The "Aus maritime certified" argument is new, especially when you consider ships have been built overseas and put into RAN service. I think its a distraction argument really. Poor examples, but LHD and AOR were built initially in Spain before use here. Sirius, ADV Protecteur meets IMV standards and use in RAN.

Aus maritime industry standards for Damage Control are in line with international standards. Its not some magical change for Australia. The types of techniques and equipment may chance. So whats more important, changing an entire ship configuration to meet RAN training or change training manual on new updated equipment?

I know that Australia has had vessels in service that were built in overseas yards, with some good results and others not so good (Supply-class problems comes to mind...). However, foreign vessels designed/built for Australia in overseas yards is not quite the same as Australia having an overseas yard built warships for the RAN to foreign design specifications and fitout.

In the rush to get orders placed and work started, there is the distinct potential that elements which might be ineffective or otherwise cause problems could get overlooked. I seem to recall reading about the need for a recent RAN vessel built overseas having to use a different paint than the yard normally used because something about the paint made it illegal to use aboard an Australian vessel. A slight detail like this is something which could easily be overlooked, yet end up with Australia receiving vessels that cannot be used without further modification, (or waivers, etc). The devil can very much be in the details, and trying to get the selection made within the next year so that contracts can be signed and first steel cut in/by 2026 could easily lead to details which whilst minor, still matter or have an effect on a build and delivery into service.

 

[Redlands18]

The Type 31 also has the small main gun. We use the 127mm.

I wouldn't rule out Australia going to a smaller gun for the GPF, the Saudi Alpha 3000 only has a Leonardo 76/62mm. Plenty of countries use both 127mm and a smaller gun (57or76mm) on different ship classes. And the smaller guns are much lighter and use up less space and in the case of the 76mm Sovraponte, non deck penetrating.

 

[SammyC]

The Constellation will use a 57mm gun (Mk110, a rebadged Bofors 57 mod3) so it is becomming more common, even on larger ships. I think it fits into the Constellation armament as an inner circle low cost anti boat and drone system. It's good for about 8-10km and leaves the more expensive RIM116 for close in missile threats, and ESSM,SM2/SM6 for the longer distance stuff.

Probably a good option for asymetic or swarm threat environments such as the Red Sea or for general purpose requirements such as piracy, force protection, bording and the like.

I think the USN went the 57mm for the Constellations as it is already in their system, being used on the LCS and across the Coastguard. And for the low end threat (drones, boats etc) it is just as good as the larger 76mm gun. No need to go for the extra expense of the larger calibre.

The 127mm gun is good for about 25 km, and aligns more with strike capability (albeit close in shore bombardment). Good for stuff where a Tomahawk or NSM is overkill as they are a lot cheaper per shell and there is a lot more onboard (in the hundreds of shells). Perhaps useful in cleaning up an island where an NSM had earlier destroyed the anti ship defence and you can get within range. Or support to an amphibious team landing to keep an enemy at distance.

In the late stage of a battle, when missiles have been depleted or in short supply on both sides (a real possibility), then the 127mm gun becomes an anti ship weapon. Eventually gun fights become knife fights if they go on long enough, and the 127mm has a long blade (potentially a confusing metaphore, my apologies).

Aparently it is possible to launch a 127mm shell at an aircraft. Some shells are proximity rather than contact fused. Wanna be a good shot, but would unlikely need a second one. I'm not thinking this is its ideal purpose though and is a bit of a hail Mary option.

An old WEEO friend of mine once let me know that back in the day before ESSM and when the ANZACs only had two fire channels, the 5 inch gun could be used as a sea skimming missile defence by firing into the water in front of it to create a water shield. Never saw it and unsure how useful it would be, but I could well imagine it would put up a big splash.

I still like the inclusion of the 5 incher. Its a usefull baseball bat.

I think it pairs really well with a smaller calibre gun in the 30-57mm range for the best of both worlds.