Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

I think the option was somewhat possible until possibly after the second election in 2010 before it was deader than disco. 2008 was too soon after the election to really been a viable option and there were other priorities with the global economic crisis. Certainly lobbying basically stopped post 2010, Rudd was out and Gillard was in and no only was it late to start sourcing things, it defence was scaled back, and the project was in all sorts of build related issues. The 3 hobarts were then further ruined as a project with steps to delay the project deliberately to save some money short term, but cost money long term. The Hobart design was quite stagnant by that stage, being a minimum refresh of the F-105, which itself was a min refresh of the F-104. It may have been a 4th Hobart was never possible. Which is the problem if you choose a "proven" design that isn't actively in a continuous build. Really any 4th Hobart was really looking more and more light a flight II type not an original configuration.

As it was the 3 ships are having their aegis systems replaced almost immediately, and the last 2 ships were built with helicopter modifications. So really it was never a +1 option, as to fund/make viable the further updates, more needed to be built, or its just another white elephant.

Which is I think part of the platform selection issue. We don't build/operate/support a single platform in a vacuum. The program should have been 6 Hobarts to replace 6 FFGs. Six hulls would give us reliable sustainable capability. The ecosystem for crewing, logistics, SME support would have been far more sustainable and efficient. It would have been cheaper than what we actually did.

If we had 6 hobarts today in the water, decommissioning Anzacs wouldn't be a crisis, we would have a useful fleet, even with the first 3 hobarts coming out of the water for upgrades.

Which is why I actually hope Tier 2 is actually a bigger number than the minimum. Should really be a least 9.

Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. I recall in one of the RAN threads that I had run through the numbers and come up with what I believed would have been the absolute latest cutoff date to getting more destroyers built, after the 4th option expired.

The time to contract for another build run would likely have been one to two years, and a year plus to get the approvals needed to order more Aegis CMS modules as well as SPY array panels. If memory serves, around this time the long lead time for Aegis and SPY was four years or more between ordering and delivery. This would have effectively required that the Rudd gov't start working on getting more destroyers ordered/built, so that orders could have been placed in ~2010

 

[StingrayOZ]

Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. I recall in one of the RAN threads that I had run through the numbers and come up with what I believed would have been the absolute latest cutoff date to getting more destroyers built, after the 4th option expired.

The time to contract for another build run would likely have been one to two years, and a year plus to get the approvals needed to order more Aegis CMS modules as well as SPY array panels. If memory serves, around this time the long lead time for Aegis and SPY was four years or more between ordering and delivery. This would have effectively required that the Rudd gov't start working on getting more destroyers ordered/built, so that orders could have been placed in ~2010

Does anyone know if a book has been published on the Hobarts?

https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/AuditReport_2013-2014_22.pdf

The 3 hobarts contract was signed oct 2007. However that isn't the final story.
The PDR went from dec 2008 to feb 2009
CDR nov-dec 2009

The option in the original oct 2007 provided a 4th option which needed to be exercised by oct 2008. But this was already a delay from the June 2007 second pass approval. P104

Public discussion of a shipbuilding review and of the possibility of acquiring a fourth DDG continued late in 2013; see, for example, John Kerin, ‘Cost fear sets off $8bn warships review’, Australian Financial Review, 7 October 2013, and Ian McPhedran, ‘Shipbuilding companies lobby Government for a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer’, News Limited Network, 8 October 2013. In November 2013, the CEO DMO confirmed that a review of the maritime sector was under way. Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Estimates Hansard, 20 November 2013, pp. 85–6.

So really the 2014 SDR was the killing blow for a 4th from industries perspective.

The original contracts in 2007 provided it only theoretically, as the option closed 12 months after signing the deal for the first ship.
Would you believe it, there was a federal election in 24th November 2007. The ministry was sworn in on 3rd of December.

This election was quite a big deal, as a serving Prime Minister, John Howard, lost his seat and the deputy/treasurer left politics. It was an annihilation followed by full implosion.

The 2008 financial crisis had the federal reserve doing term auctions in 12 dec 2007, 18th January 2008 fell to a yearly low. US economic stimulus act enacted 13th feb 2008.

So in a middle of a massive federal election, a massive economic implosion occurred, and buried in a document signed a month before an election, was a 12 month option of a 4th destroyer arriving more than 10 years later, but with no other planning, funding around it. The 3rd hobart wasn't even laid down until 2015.

While in 2008 the option of a 4th AWD expired, and Rudd was Prime Minister, I don't think its accurate to say Rudd killed the 4th AWD. It really wasn't there to begin with, and was likely ever to be taken up and I don't believe was a coalition promise. Given the historical events, it would have gotten postponed anyway. But at that point, there wasn't even a contracted structure on how a 4th AWD would happen and arguably it would only be worth while to explore 2 or more additional builds for legitimate technical and logistics reasons.

Research

Research

www.aph.gov.au

I quote coalition politicians..

While the idea that Australia should order a fourth AWD remained afloat, by May 2013 the Shadow Minister for Defence, David Johnston, was sounding a cautionary note:

I want to have a look at what Navy wants. I believe it has said that it doesn’t operationally require a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer, that’s pretty persuasive

Doesn't seem to indicate the coalition had much appetite for it at all. David Johnston however, was famous for not liking anything that wasn't Built in WA. There is a lot of internal politics going on within parties at this point.

Regardless of the arguments for and against building a fourth AWD, the Abbott Government has remained cautious about the idea:

…a spokesman said “There are no current contingencies for a fourth AWD and note that neither the Coalition or former government had budgeted plans for a fourth warship included in their respective defence policies”

So I would say neither side had really done any planning/funding of a 4th. Ever. It wasn't a story of a change of government came in, cancelled a whole bunch of projects and spent money on something else.

Industry believed the real possibility of a 4th AWD died in 2013. At that point, it probably no longer possibly to do anything and the defence review had basically killed it off in 2014.

At least that is how I see it. But we are trying to analyze the political workings/tea leaves here, and that is notoriously patchy.

The AWD was a bit of a shit show. Delayed project to start with, selection, build, etc. Most of that was both sides of politics interfering, as that was a sexy thing to do back in defence projects back then.

Also media...

Defence projects: the AWDs and the auditors | The Strategist

Yesterday saw the launch of the ANAO’s 2012–13 Major Projects Report, which takes an auditor’s eye view of the biggest and most complex defence projects. This year it analyses 29 projects—more than previous, and making ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media/pressclp/2472572%22

Who argued for not "wasting the Anzacs" by building too many ships. Hindsight is funny. Also funny is not being able to build more Hobarts, because the Anzac replacements need to be ASW ships, and the Hobarts aren't good ASW platforms, despite that role now basically falling to the tier 2. More dramas. Its hard to tell what is a real truth and a truth based around decisions to make it a truth.

3 decent and useful ships got built. We should have built more, if not of them of something else immediately. If we hadn't built them we wouldn't have a navy. There were lots of issues, challenges, and lessons.

Future builds, well we should contract for the ships that are being built, that we need, not throw in "ëxtra options".

 

[hauritz]

Does anyone know if a book has been published on the Hobarts?

https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/AuditReport_2013-2014_22.pdf

The 3 hobarts contract was signed oct 2007. However that isn't the final story.
The PDR went from dec 2008 to feb 2009
CDR nov-dec 2009

The option in the original oct 2007 provided a 4th option which needed to be exercised by oct 2008. But this was already a delay from the June 2007 second pass approval. P104



So really the 2014 SDR was the killing blow for a 4th from industries perspective.

The original contracts in 2007 provided it only theoretically, as the option closed 12 months after signing the deal for the first ship.
Would you believe it, there was a federal election in 24th November 2007. The ministry was sworn in on 3rd of December.

This election was quite a big deal, as a serving Prime Minister, John Howard, lost his seat and the deputy/treasurer left politics. It was an annihilation followed by full implosion.

The 2008 financial crisis had the federal reserve doing term auctions in 12 dec 2007, 18th January 2008 fell to a yearly low. US economic stimulus act enacted 13th feb 2008.

So in a middle of a massive federal election, a massive economic implosion occurred, and buried in a document signed a month before an election, was a 12 month option of a 4th destroyer arriving more than 10 years later, but with no other planning, funding around it. The 3rd hobart wasn't even laid down until 2015.

While in 2008 the option of a 4th AWD expired, and Rudd was Prime Minister, I don't think its accurate to say Rudd killed the 4th AWD. It really wasn't there to begin with, and was likely ever to be taken up and I don't believe was a coalition promise. Given the historical events, it would have gotten postponed anyway. But at that point, there wasn't even a contracted structure on how a 4th AWD would happen and arguably it would only be worth while to explore 2 or more additional builds for legitimate technical and logistics reasons.

Research

Research

www.aph.gov.au

I quote coalition politicians..


Doesn't seem to indicate the coalition had much appetite for it at all. David Johnston however, was famous for not liking anything that wasn't Built in WA. There is a lot of internal politics going on within parties at this point.



So I would say neither side had really done any planning/funding of a 4th. Ever. It wasn't a story of a change of government came in, cancelled a whole bunch of projects and spent money on something else.

Industry believed the real possibility of a 4th AWD died in 2013. At that point, it probably no longer possibly to do anything and the defence review had basically killed it off in 2014.

At least that is how I see it. But we are trying to analyze the political workings/tea leaves here, and that is notoriously patchy.

The AWD was a bit of a shit show. Delayed project to start with, selection, build, etc. Most of that was both sides of politics interfering, as that was a sexy thing to do back in defence projects back then.

Also media...

Defence projects: the AWDs and the auditors | The Strategist

Yesterday saw the launch of the ANAO’s 2012–13 Major Projects Report, which takes an auditor’s eye view of the biggest and most complex defence projects. This year it analyses 29 projects—more than previous, and making ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22media/pressclp/2472572%22

Who argued for not "wasting the Anzacs" by building too many ships. Hindsight is funny. Also funny is not being able to build more Hobarts, because the Anzac replacements need to be ASW ships, and the Hobarts aren't good ASW platforms, despite that role now basically falling to the tier 2. More dramas. Its hard to tell what is a real truth and a truth based around decisions to make it a truth.

3 decent and useful ships got built. We should have built more, if not of them of something else immediately. If we hadn't built them we wouldn't have a navy. There were lots of issues, challenges, and lessons.

Future builds, well we should contract for the ships that are being built, that we need, not throw in "ëxtra options".

It is likely that by the mid thirties the surface combatants could be reduced to 3 AWDs, 3 GPFs and 1 or 2 Hunters. Given their slow uptake with the Hunter and Arafura classes it is hard to imagine Australian built GPFs will be ready by then. Perhaps the lead ship but maybe even that is optimistic.

I think we could need up to 6 new overseas built GPFs to cover the shortfall of ships the navy will experience over the next decade.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It is likely that by the mid thirties the surface combatants could be reduced to 3 AWDs, 3 GPFs and 1 or 2 Hunters. Given their slow uptake with the Hunter and Arafura classes it is hard to imagine Australian built GPFs will be ready by then. Perhaps the lead ship but maybe even that is optimistic.

I think we could need up to 6 new overseas built GPFs to cover the shortfall of ships the navy will experience over the next decade.

I think we will very likely be short. I don't think we will be able to acquire overseas builds in the 2030s.

Because everyone will be at war. Or post war. Maybe. Certainly large overseas based procurement of any platform or weapon post 2030 is looking pretty hazy. We are already seeing existing development projects and long off acquisitions being canned, internationally, over the here and now.

Two front runners for the GPF, Korea and Japan, really need ships now too. But there is value to them in having a strong Australia and giving away a ship and helping a build program nets them more gain than cost. Giving/selling away 6 ships gives them nothing substantial back on top of that. Plus they don't even know how many of those they would finish for themselves.

Look at what Japan is doing with MHI Nagasaki and Mitsui Tamano yards. They really want both yards able to churn out ships. Korea wants Hyundai and DSME/Hanwa to churn out ships. They are priming for basically a war economy, and will likely soon abandon commercial projects for just military ones. They are probably curious about Australia supplying ships to them in times of need.

Its realizations like this that highlight that perhaps we need to do what we can with what is near term obtainable. Having one locally built GPF, maybe two overseas and perhaps 2 hunters. But with perhaps more in pipelines bringing more in the future.

From what I hear the Anzacs are pretty knackered and will only get worse going forward. Ignoring their capabilities limitation, just the material state of the things. We have abused them hard. And being a light euro frigate, they weren't really setup for heavy abuse. We cut down on maintenance, to push availability. We loaded them up with equipment to push capability, at the cost of longevity. Engineering margins were all gobbled up for both in availability and capability.

 

[Stampede]

It is likely that by the mid thirties the surface combatants could be reduced to 3 AWDs, 3 GPFs and 1 or 2 Hunters. Given their slow uptake with the Hunter and Arafura classes it is hard to imagine Australian built GPFs will be ready by then. Perhaps the lead ship but maybe even that is optimistic.

I think we could need up to 6 new overseas built GPFs to cover the shortfall of ships the navy will experience over the next decade.

Not unrealistic numbers going forward.
I feel the current maritime build script will evolve considerably over the next 15 years.
Up / Down in numbers and quality...............Gosh who knows!

Too difficult to predict in 2024.

A couple of extra P-8's for the RAAF would be a prudent purchase to help compliment our maritime response this side of 2030.

We are placing a lot of hope in this GPF concept.

Not sure if I'm excited or afraid.

Still haunted by the aspirations and failure of the last decade plus.
Not blaming, just observing.

Cheers S

 

[spoz]

The option for the 4th AWD closed on 4 October 2008. I wrote the ministerial.

 

[iambuzzard]

The option for the 4th AWD closed on 4 October 2008. I wrote the ministerial.

Thanks Spoz. That clarifies it.

 

[SammyC]

It is likely that by the mid thirties the surface combatants could be reduced to 3 AWDs, 3 GPFs and 1 or 2 Hunters. Given their slow uptake with the Hunter and Arafura classes it is hard to imagine Australian built GPFs will be ready by then. Perhaps the lead ship but maybe even that is optimistic.

I think we could need up to 6 new overseas built GPFs to cover the shortfall of ships the navy will experience over the next decade.

I'm thinking the ANZACs would retire one for one with new GPFs and Hunters. So we should always have a minimum nine surface combatants after Arunta retires. The above picture would either have a couple more GPFs or a couple of ANZACs remaining.

Regardless, 3 AWDs, 3 GPFs, 1 Hunter and lets say 2 ANZACs (a reasonable 2034 picture), still represents a substantial fleet upgrade from what it is today (that's 48 additional at sea VLS units). We should also have the first one or two RAN SSNs by that point as well (for another 12-24 VLS), plus the presence of the full USN/UK rotational SSN fleet. It only gets better from there.

As mentioned by others, I suspect our ability to obtain additional overseas GPFs would be unlikely. The current proposed three will already come at the expense of the host country. For instance Japan would be slowing down its own delivery rate to provide us ships, as would S Korea and Germany. They would be expecting us to get our own production sorted and be self sufficient as they will have their own pressures. They may even look to us to help their production in the future.

The program means we have about 5-6 years to get a Henderson GPF yard online, adequately crewed and trained and first steel being cut, such that we transition without interuption. The target would be the first Australian built GPF commissioning in 2035, with build commencing 2029/30.

There is a lot of work to do here, but given we already know how to construct a shipyard with the learnings from Osborne (which from what I've heard this was a successful project and a world class facility) this should be achievable. Other strategic decisions, such as no design changes for hulls 3-6, plus the integration of the successful GPF provider (if it is Mitsubishi, they will have a crack team based in Perth from late this decade) will also assist with keeping this all on track.

It will be interesting to watch the Osborne construction process now that it has commenced. They have done a lot of work to prepare, and hopefully embed the learnings from the T26, Arafura, and AWD programs. My view is that the worst is behind us with the Hunters and news stories should start to be more positive from here on in.

 

[Armchair]

It will be interesting to watch the Osborne construction process now that it has commenced. They have done a lot of work to prepare, and hopefully embed the learnings from the T26, Arafura, and AWD programs. My view is that the worst is behind us with the Hunters and news stories should start to be more positive from here on in.

and even the travails of the Arafura class have hopefully contributed to restoring / establishing skills in two states. That should make littoral craft, Hunter and GPF builds easier.

 

[devo99]

I have returned from a short Exercise Pitch Black related hiatus bearing news from the North!
For starters our visiting Italian friends were very kind in allowing me the unique opportunity as a civilian to go aboard their carrier ITS Cavour for a tour and a coffee in their fancy officers cafe. She is the largest ship to be berthed at the new Kuru Wharf so far.

It seems there has been issues with regards to finishing the new shiplift in Darwin as the construction company apparently went bust. This has meant the old small shiplift at Coonawarra continues to be used for the moment.

HMAS Perth has just deployed for a patrol in assistance of Op Resolute. Luckily FFHs doing EEZ patrols up North should soon be a thing of the past (knock on wood) with the first OPV expected to be in service in just over a months time.

The crew of HMAS Broome give their regards.

 

[Going Boeing]

It will be interesting to watch the Osborne construction process now that it has commenced. They have done a lot of work to prepare, and hopefully embed the learnings from the T26, Arafura, and AWD programs. My view is that the worst is behind us with the Hunters and news stories should start to be more positive from here on in.

The contract for the first 3 Hunters was signed recently with construction officially started. I had hoped that the RAN (or the Government) would make a statement detailing the final configuration of these vessels.

A lot of discussions about the Hunter class have been based on the assumption that they will be fitted with 32 Mk41 VLS - many of us would like to know if that is the correct figure.

 

[Stampede]

I have returned from a short Exercise Pitch Black related hiatus bearing news from the North!
For starters our visiting Italian friends were very kind in allowing me the unique opportunity as a civilian to go aboard their carrier ITS Cavour for a tour and a coffee in their fancy officers cafe. She is the largest ship to be berthed at the new Kuru Wharf so far.

It seems there has been issues with regards to finishing the new shiplift in Darwin as the construction company apparently went bust. This has meant the old small shiplift at Coonawarra continues to be used for the moment.

HMAS Perth has just deployed for a patrol in assistance of Op Resolute. Luckily FFHs doing EEZ patrols up North should soon be a thing of the past (knock on wood) with the first OPV expected to be in service in just over a months time.

The crew of HMAS Broome give their regards.

Well done getting the opportunity to go on board Italy's carrier the ITS Cavour.

Thanks for the update re the OPV's.

Its like the Arafura Class does not exist so certainly looking forward to some info and pics for when HMAS Arafura finally enters service.


Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

I have returned from a short Exercise Pitch Black related hiatus bearing news from the North!
For starters our visiting Italian friends were very kind in allowing me the unique opportunity as a civilian to go aboard their carrier ITS Cavour for a tour and a coffee in their fancy officers cafe. She is the largest ship to be berthed at the new Kuru Wharf so far.

It seems there has been issues with regards to finishing the new shiplift in Darwin as the construction company apparently went bust. This has meant the old small shiplift at Coonawarra continues to be used for the moment.

HMAS Perth has just deployed for a patrol in assistance of Op Resolute. Luckily FFHs doing EEZ patrols up North should soon be a thing of the past (knock on wood) with the first OPV expected to be in service in just over a months time.

The crew of HMAS Broome give their regards.

The Cavour design was, as I understand, a very early candidate for the LHD program, more as a LPH with RORO capability.

Not what we thought we needed at the time but I wonder if it would have been a better fit for our current strategic situation.

 

[Tbone]

It will be interesting to see what the planned mission set for the Arafura class is?
As I believe they are looking into this.. my money will they will offset the evolved cape class boats but would love to see them upgunned and used as regional ships through Stanley base in Fiji, Lombrum base in PNG and Port Hera in Timor. On 6month rotation would certainly be a great presence.

 

[Redlands18]

HMAS Sydney fires first Naval Strike Missile - Australian Defence Magazine

HMAS Sydney fired a Naval Strike Missile for the first time on 18 July as part of Exercise Rim of the Pacific 2024.

www.australiandefence.com.au

HMAS Sydney has completed the first firing of an NSM by a RAN Vessel, in a SINKEX during RIMPAC 2024. The target being the ex-USS Tarawa.

 

[Stampede]

The Cavour design was, as I understand, a very early candidate for the LHD program, more as a LPH with RORO capability.

Not what we thought we needed at the time but I wonder if it would have been a better fit for our current strategic situation.

It’s been interesting watching the evolution of the Cavour and the larger LHD Trieste.
The Canberra class are just fine.
A good choice for what was available at the time

A well dock was a must have.
We just need to capitalise on the ships aviation potential



cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

It’s been interesting watching the evolution of the Cavour and the larger LHD Trieste.
The Canberra class are just fine.
A good choice for what was available at the time

A well dock was a must have.
We just need to capitalise on the ships aviation potential



cheers S

It would be interesting to see the US experience with the USS America has been. The later ones have docks but I'm intrigued to see what the navy and marines think.

 

[Reptilia]

HMAS Sydney fires first Naval Strike Missile - Australian Defence Magazine

HMAS Sydney fired a Naval Strike Missile for the first time on 18 July as part of Exercise Rim of the Pacific 2024.

www.australiandefence.com.au

HMAS Sydney has completed the first firing of an NSM by a RAN Vessel, in a SINKEX during RIMPAC 2024. The target being the ex-USS Tarawa.

 

[Stampede]

It will be interesting to see what the planned mission set for the Arafura class is?
As I believe they are looking into this.. my money will they will offset the evolved cape class boats but would love to see them upgunned and used as regional ships through Stanley base in Fiji, Lombrum base in PNG and Port Hera in Timor. On 6month rotation would certainly be a great presence.

I’d guess the Arafuras will be employed purely as an Off Shore Patrol vessel. OPV
A much smaller fleet of just six with a minimal weapon fit out of a 25mm bushmaster and a pair of 50 mg’s

In time I’m confident they will prove their worth many times over, with questions of why we didn’t get the original number of 12 or alternatively a more military robust class of vessel being asked

Any way, we’ll have six OPVs that will free up our increasingly small number of majors to focus on their primary role.

MCM and Survey

Cheers S

 

[iambuzzard]

It’s been interesting watching the evolution of the Cavour and the larger LHD Trieste.
The Canberra class are just fine.
A good choice for what was available at the time

A well dock was a must have.
We just need to capitalise on the ships aviation potential



cheers S

Yes, take a lead from the Japanese and upgrade the flight deck to be able to operate F-35Bs. Even if we don't get our own aircraft we need the crossdeck capability. If we end up in a hot war our allies are going to need alternative landing platforms.