Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Bob53]

In the scenario being proposed (5 - 6 vessels each from 2 completely different countries and shipbuilders) you end up having to run 2 completely separate supply chains, with corresponding smaller populations of parts. This results in a smaller population of parts over which to distribute the originators profit. Also there is the increased administrative cost from running 2 separate sustainment processes.
Also to migrate to a common supply chain would require each of the shipbuilders as the Design Authority to give their approval of each Australian sourced replacement part. This would not be a quick and easy process dealing with 2 separate entities (it is hard enough even dealing with a single DA).
Then there is the need for 2 separate training streams, plus the separate manning management issues that would arise. All of which have costs that add up over the life of the platforms.

Understand what you mean… I just think 40% might be on the high side given the defence systems…radar, weapons would be the same and from posts here that makes up about 50% of the ship eventual costs.

My thoughts are get 3 each off shore. this solves the critical timing issue where but the early 30s we don’t have enough ships. Build the balance here and to avoid a valley of death keep start to sell them once the final oz build is delivered and keep the building going with future updates as the industry here matures.

 

[SammyC]

Understand what you mean… I just think 40% might be on the high side given the defence systems…radar, weapons would be the same and from posts here that makes up about 50% of the ship eventual costs.

My thoughts are get 3 each off shore. this solves the critical timing issue where but the early 30s we don’t have enough ships. Build the balance here and to avoid a valley of death keep start to sell them once the final oz build is delivered and keep the building going with future updates as the industry here matures.

The Korean FFX and Japanese Mogami series have quite different weapons packages. They both operate their own proprietary combat system, radars and missiles. The only real commonality is the main gun.

I think they are similar for helo equipment, so same RAST and the like to support a seahawk. They also have similar propulsion systems (GT30), however they again will have their own propriety propulsion control systems.

There would be enough differences to drive separate training programs and separate logistics. This is always achieveable, but it comes with additional complexity and inefficiency.

 

[SammyC]

I would argue that the money is there, as is the capacity to increase training berths to expand the number of technical sailors.

There is even the ability to significantly expand the head count of the navy by changes to the recruitment system.

What there is not at a government level, is the willingness to reduce spending in other area(s) of the budget, or to reverse tax cuts in order to pay for it. Most likely because either they think it will cost them the election next year, or they think the threat is far enough in the future that it will be someone else's problem (or a bit of both).

Interesting conundrum. Yes staffing could be resolved through a combination of addional money and recruitment thresholds. I do however work in the chemicals industry, which is in a higher wage band to defence. Even with this advantage, recruitment is still difficult.

I would question if the willingness to spend on the miliary is a government or community issue. I would have a view that if the government raised taxes at the moment to fund the military, or sacrificed cost of living offsets (such as the electricity bill rebate), then they would almost certainly get turfed at the next election. That's a community issue.

Unfortunately expenditure on defence generally requires there to be an active war, not the prospect of a war, for the community to accept. Europe is a classic example, where even with wolves at the door in Ukraine from about 2014, it took until just recently for most euro countries to do something about defence reinvestment.

The reality is that a large portion of the population in Australia is completely oblivious to the deteriorating security situation in SE Asia, or they see it as someone elses problem

 

[Stampede]

Many ideals and concepts get discussed on DT.
Sometimes it gets into the fanciful realm.
The idea of two "winners "for SEA 3000 I feel deviates from what is the governments intent.
That being time to service and simplicity.
The simplicity of one supplier will trump multiple company's / country's being involved.

Unless government or defence suggest otherwise, it maybe prudent to keep this subject on track with what we know for this project.

Apologies for being a kill joy, but I don't see any possibility of two winners for SEA 3000

Cheers S

 

[iambuzzard]

Interesting conundrum. Yes staffing could be resolved through a combination of addional money and recruitment thresholds. I do however work in the chemicals industry, which is in a higher wage band to defence. Even with this advantage, recruitment is still difficult.

I would question if the willingness to spend on the miliary is a government or community issue. I would have a view that if the government raised taxes at the moment to fund the military, or sacrificed cost of living offsets (such as the electricity bill rebate), then they would almost certainly get turfed at the next election. That's a community issue.

Unfortunately expenditure on defence generally requires there to be an active war, not the prospect of a war, for the community to accept. Europe is a classic example, where even with wolves at the door in Ukraine from about 2014, it took until just recently for most euro countries to do something about defence reinvestment.

The reality is that a large portion of the population in Australia is completely oblivious to the deteriorating security situation in SE Asia, or they see it as someone elses problem

A sad state of affairs with today's generation. Our forefathers would volunteer, even if underage. Todays's generation are too busy looking at Tik Tok to care.

 

[Reptilia]

British sea lord assures Australian officials troubled warship program 'stabilising'

Britain's visiting naval chief has declared Australia will eventually operate the world's best anti-submarine warfare (ASW) frigates because a closely linked shipbuilding project in the UK is now "stabilising" after suffering damaging initial setbacks.

www.abc.net.au

"During an international military conference in Perth last week, Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Chief Vice Admiral Mark Hammond singled out Japan's shipbuilding industry for praise as the Asian nation pushes for its "Upgraded Mogami" frigate to be selected.

Japan has done an exceptional job of leveraging emerging technology to reduce the crew size of their frigates and when you look at all four candidates that are under consideration for SEA 3000 for the General Purpose Frigate program," he said.

"We're looking at base crews of 90 to 100. You throw the helicopter team on board, you're up to about 120. Anzac crew, about 180. Go and put it in the Red Sea, 200-220. You know, we can replace the Anzac ships with 11 general purpose frigates without increasing the crew liability."


Base crew of 90-100 would only leave the Mogami and Alfa 3000 as options. A140 also, but not an exemplar.
Core crew, Chungnam 120, Daegu 140, MEKO A200 120.

 

[iambuzzard]

British sea lord assures Australian officials troubled warship program 'stabilising'

Britain's visiting naval chief has declared Australia will eventually operate the world's best anti-submarine warfare (ASW) frigates because a closely linked shipbuilding project in the UK is now "stabilising" after suffering damaging initial setbacks.

www.abc.net.au

"During an international military conference in Perth last week, Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Chief Vice Admiral Mark Hammond singled out Japan's shipbuilding industry for praise as the Asian nation pushes for its "Upgraded Mogami" frigate to be selected.

Japan has done an exceptional job of leveraging emerging technology to reduce the crew size of their frigates and when you look at all four candidates that are under consideration for SEA 3000 for the General Purpose Frigate program," he said.

"We're looking at base crews of 90 to 100. You throw the helicopter team on board, you're up to about 120. Anzac crew, about 180. Go and put it in the Red Sea, 200-220. You know, we can replace the Anzac ships with 11 general purpose frigates without increasing the crew liability."


Base crew of 90-100 would only leave the Mogami and Alfa 3000 as options. A140 also, but not an exemplar.
Core crew, Chungnam 120, Daegu 140, MEKO A200 120.

Mogami upgrade looks like the one.

 

[76mmGuns]

Out of interest, anyone know how they came up with 11 as a number, given the tendency in peacetime to use "3"s 1 deployed, 1 maintenance 1 training.

Is it like 3 groups of 3, then 2 ships for spares or special long deployments on 1 off missions?

 

[Reptilia]

Out of interest, anyone know how they came up with 11 as a number, given the tendency in peacetime to use "3"s 1 deployed, 1 maintenance 1 training.

Is it like 3 groups of 3, then 2 ships for spares or special long deployments on 1 off missions?

1 would probably be getting upgrades.

 

[SammyC]

Out of interest, anyone know how they came up with 11 as a number, given the tendency in peacetime to use "3"s 1 deployed, 1 maintenance 1 training.

Is it like 3 groups of 3, then 2 ships for spares or special long deployments on 1 off missions?

I have a feeling it was because 3 Hobarts, 6 Hunters and 11 GPFs make a nice round 20.

More seriously, the original strategic review referred to between 7 and 11 GPFs, with the government picking the higher number.

Maybe it is the largest number of ships that could realistically be crewed based projected recruitment and retention. The national defence strategy makes a big point about sustainable staffing, and that the GPF plan does not require more people than the original plan.

I will note that the rule of three is a rough estimate of actual availability. A more accurate way is to map it out, forward projecting maintenance periods, upgrades and planned activities such as exercises and patrols. I can't remember how far out the official publicised fleet activity schedule goes, but theoretically it could be done at high level over decades. Actual needed platform numbers then drop out, plus some fat for when things go wrong or change.

Perhaps 11 came from a long look fas. Maybe from staffing. Possibly a bit of both. There's my stab.

 

[hauritz]

A country the size of Australia would no doubt want more ships than it could possibly afford. I suspect the numbers recommended reflect what the review believes can be afforded. The range specified is between 7 and 11. The final number acquired will likely depend on budget and staffing restraints.

 

[Bob53]

The Korean FFX and Japanese Mogami series have quite different weapons packages. They both operate their own proprietary combat system, radars and missiles. The only real commonality is the main gun.

I think they are similar for helo equipment, so same RAST and the like to support a seahawk. They also have similar propulsion systems (GT30), however they again will have their own propriety propulsion control systems.

There would be enough differences to drive separate training programs and separate logistics. This is always achieveable, but it comes with additional complexity and inefficiency.

Is Australia going to take ships with out its current suite of US weapons systems and sensors now?

 

[Bob53]

Many ideals and concepts get discussed on DT.
Sometimes it gets into the fanciful realm.
The idea of two "winners "for SEA 3000 I feel deviates from what is the governments intent.
That being time to service and simplicity.
The simplicity of one supplier will trump multiple company's / country's being involved.

Unless government or defence suggest otherwise, it maybe prudent to keep this subject on track with what we know for this project.

Apologies for being a kill joy, but I don't see any possibility of two winners for SEA 3000

Cheers S

Neither do I but I still like the idea Of getting 4-6 ships in the water by 2030.

 

[Stampede]

I have a feeling it was because 3 Hobarts, 6 Hunters and 11 GPFs make a nice round 20.

More seriously, the original strategic review referred to between 7 and 11 GPFs, with the government picking the higher number.

Maybe it is the largest number of ships that could realistically be crewed based projected recruitment and retention. The national defence strategy makes a big point about sustainable staffing, and that the GPF plan does not require more people than the original plan.

I will note that the rule of three is a rough estimate of actual availability. A more accurate way is to map it out, forward projecting maintenance periods, upgrades and planned activities such as exercises and patrols. I can't remember how far out the official publicised fleet activity schedule goes, but theoretically it could be done at high level over decades. Actual needed platform numbers then drop out, plus some fat for when things go wrong or change.

Perhaps 11 came from a long look fas. Maybe from staffing. Possibly a bit of both. There's my stab.

I think Volk broke down the numbers and availability for a given fleet.
If I recall, you can put a dent in the rule of threes with eight vessels.
Two in refit with 6 in the water for potentially three deployed.

It's always in a perfect world stuff!
The stars usually don't align as such, so increased numbers certainly give you availability which translates to capability.

Capability also comes from the vessel itself.

The sweet spot for SEA 3000 will be getting that vessel that is also a true contributor to the fleet.
I don't feel that it should be ANZAC sized nor do we want it through mission creep becoming a Hunter in size.

What does that look like?

The Japanese I feel are well placed with their Mogami-class frigate, however my main reservation is there limited history of defence export.
This is an all in project militarily and politically.

Can we do this.
Attributes and challenges.




Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

I

British sea lord assures Australian officials troubled warship program 'stabilising'

Britain's visiting naval chief has declared Australia will eventually operate the world's best anti-submarine warfare (ASW) frigates because a closely linked shipbuilding project in the UK is now "stabilising" after suffering damaging initial setbacks.

www.abc.net.au

"During an international military conference in Perth last week, Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Chief Vice Admiral Mark Hammond singled out Japan's shipbuilding industry for praise as the Asian nation pushes for its "Upgraded Mogami" frigate to be selected.

Japan has done an exceptional job of leveraging emerging technology to reduce the crew size of their frigates and when you look at all four candidates that are under consideration for SEA 3000 for the General Purpose Frigate program," he said.

"We're looking at base crews of 90 to 100. You throw the helicopter team on board, you're up to about 120. Anzac crew, about 180. Go and put it in the Red Sea, 200-220. You know, we can replace the Anzac ships with 11 general purpose frigates without increasing the crew liability."


Base crew of 90-100 would only leave the Mogami and Alfa 3000 as options. A140 also, but not an exemplar.
Core crew, Chungnam 120, Daegu 140, MEKO A200 120.

Is he saying base crew with helicopter 120 odd but another Hundred crew when the ships sails into a war zone?

 

[DDG38]

I

Is he saying base crew with helicopter 120 odd but another Hundred crew when the ships sails into a war zone?

No he's comparing them to the Anzacs - ""We're looking at base crews of 90 to 100. You throw the helicopter team on board, you're up to about 120. Anzac crew, about 180. Go and put it in the Red Sea, 200-220. You know, we can replace the Anzac ships with 11 general purpose frigates without increasing the crew liability."

 

[SammyC]

The ‘criminal price tag’ for the navy’s new warships is $4b a pop

This article provides the first information that I have seen on the contract price for the first three Hunter builds with BAE. Sorry it is a paywall with the AFR.

It states BAE was awarded $11.15B last month for their component of the work, equivalent to $3.7B per hull. This is in addition to the previous design and yard costs which total $3.5B to BAE. There is a lot of opinion (starting with the title) in the article as to the value of this, which I will set aside. I also can't find any other news or raw information on this, so its limited in detail and unverified. It's written by Andrew Tillett.

There is ambiguity as to what this price includes, and the article says it excludes the main radar (I'm aware the government has a separate contract with CEA for this component), any FMS sales such as the aegis control system, gun and VLS, and other specifics such as with Saab for the 9LV.

I will admit it seems high, and it probably means the Hunters are about the $5B per ship fully fitted total.

In comparison, the article states the equivalent delivered price for the Hobarts, including weapons and sensors was about $3B. Inflation over this time was about 16-20%, suggesting that the Hunters are about $1.5B more than a Hobart in real value terms.

The Hunters certainly will be a step up from the Hobarts in capability (for everything except the VLS capacity). It will be interesting to compare this pricing to the eventual GPF cost per hull.

 

[spoz]

An AWD was about 1.5 - 2 billion in then year dollars for the construction and delivery of the completed ship alone, without any of the ancillary costs such as training, logistic support, weapons procurement and the like. The total project cost at the time was between 8 and 9 billion, which of course works out at about a billion a ship or so more; and that is not including the through life cost either. So such reports of cost need to be treated with considerable scepticism.

 

[John Fedup]

The ‘criminal price tag’ for the navy’s new warships is $4b a pop

This article provides the first information that I have seen on the contract price for the first three Hunter builds with BAE. Sorry it is a paywall with the AFR.

It states BAE was awarded $11.15B last month for their component of the work, equivalent to $3.7B per hull. This is in addition to the previous design and yard costs which total $3.5B to BAE. There is a lot of opinion (starting with the title) in the article as to the value of this, which I will set aside. I also can't find any other news or raw information on this, so its limited in detail and unverified. It's written by Andrew Tillett.

There is ambiguity as to what this price includes, and the article says it excludes the main radar (I'm aware the government has a separate contract with CEA for this component), any FMS sales such as the aegis control system, gun and VLS, and other specifics such as with Saab for the 9LV.

I will admit it seems high, and it probably means the Hunters are about the $5B per ship fully fitted total.

In comparison, the article states the equivalent delivered price for the Hobarts, including weapons and sensors was about $3B. Inflation over this time was about 16-20%, suggesting that the Hunters are about $1.5B more than a Hobart in real value terms.

The Hunters certainly will be a step up from the Hobarts in capability (for everything except the VLS capacity). It will be interesting to compare this pricing to the eventual GPF cost per hull.

A paywall article but the mentioned 4 billion price for a Hunter is in the range of Canada’s River class ships (formerly CSC). This could change if the build number is lowered from the planned 15 ships. I don’t want to see a tier 2 for the RCN, cut the installed kit to lower costs on the River class then add when needed when ships are lost….assuming minimum kit inventory is purchased.

A shame the three T26 players can’t figure out a group production plan after the first block builds.
.

 

[devo99]

Is he saying base crew with helicopter 120 odd but another Hundred crew when the ships sails into a war zone?

Wouldn't be surprised if ships crews increase in war time to better provide for DC.