Not really military related ... yet.
Just a reminder of the sort of technology navies may have to contend with in the future (minus the mermaids).
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Just a reminder of the sort of technology navies may have to contend with in the future (minus the mermaids).
Australia has a shortage of technical people, not just engineers, but technically competent professionals across multiple specialities. We do not currently have enough technically competent people to fill the project management and contract management roles that require technical competence and literacy.
End result, delays, waste, and failure. Capability is impacted, even lost, and productivity declines.
It's not just defence, look at all our major infrastructure projects, look at housing developments that are build before the required infrastructure is in place. Blind Freddy can see decision makers are making short sighted, piecemeal decisions without any holistic view supported by know-how and technical competence.
It is no coincidence that this is happening now, a decade or so after the automotive industry was killed, after we outsourced manufacturing and innovation to China and other places, after we let, yet another shipbuilding black hole kill sovereign capability.
It takes two decades to grow an experienced, competent technical professional, three to grow a technical leader. When you don't have ongoing work growing these people, you don't have these people.
When you don't have these people you don't have a pool to select your senior project directors, contract managers, and capability managers from. You don't have people who can competently draft requirements, conduct T&E, certify or manage acquisitions, irrespective of where the item is built.
If we don't grow our technical professionalism, we will not even have the capability to workout what to buy.
Then there's the capability side.
Project management and acquisition side, the RANs three Navantia programs couldn't be more different.
The AORs were on time and budget, a shining example of a clean, simple acquisition of a MOTS solution. The LHDs had some issues but still performed better than the destroyer build, with most of the work done in Spain. Then the DDGs, well we have all heard about the delays and issues there.
Just look at the AORs, now, they were completely outsourced and have many more severe issues than the LHDs that were partially outsourced, which in turn have far more issues than the much more complex DDGs that had the highest level of local input. All from the same designer, three very different results.
The DDGs are available and doing what we built them to do, the only issue they have is they are too small and we didn't build enough of them.
The LHDs deliver a very useful capability, when they are not suffering from design and build issues.
The AORs are not delivering the capability they were procured to deliver.
It's not as simple as "local build good", "overseas build bad", it's more a case of workforce experience, depth and range.
There are good people coming up, but if they don't have suitable projects to cut their teeth on.
In the new year I have to deal with an issue with a woefully inadequate project director. They are in one of the senior roles of a critical project and simply do not have the experience or background to do their job properly. The thing is, they are what we have, and until we can grow and develop better people, they are all we have. Why, because we failed to train the next generation of technical leaders and gave all the pivotal roles to non technical, non operator, dunces with MBAs.
The answer isn't sending work overseas, it's bringing it back in, it's growing the technical workforce, and more importantly, bringing the grey hairs out of retirement (Spoz) to coach and mentor them.
Interesting propulsion system. I wonder how far that could swim.
downunderblue
Member
Ok, I clearly missed the below. Normally when Govt release something on 20DEC, it's the equivalent of taking out the trash whilst people aren't looking. I'll try to digest this and see if it all makes sense.
Yes it's a brilliant idea to build sustainable defence industry prior to a major potential peer to peer conflict, but let me digest it all first to see if it actually makes sense and is appropriately budgeted, realistic etc, as my BS meter is predictably suspicious.
The plan is pretty solid, think the Hunter class program should be accelerated though. I’d like to see the first ship in service a couple of years earlier and the last no later than 2040.
A larger workforce at osborne south asap before some move over to the north yard.
A larger workforce at osborne south asap before some move over to the north yard.
Last edited:
There is nothing brand new or different to the IIR in it, however it does consolidate the various public releases in one place. Of note it provides more information on the people and industry development aspect.
There is also a useful long term schedule that enables an overview of the various construction and maintenance programs out past 2050.
Last edited:
No point in accelerating the shipbuilding program unless you can also accelerate the creation of the human resources to operate the capability. 200 highly trained and specialised sailors would need to be available 2 years earlier to put Hunter to sea. That would need to happen in a service that is simultaneously introducing SSNs and a new class of frigate (and of course there are many other onshore personnel who would need to be trained to operate the capability). The money to operate and sustain the capability two years earlier also needs to come from somewhere. My guess is delaying the expense and finding the crew (basically by replacing ANZACs with GPFs with smaller crews) are factors behind the lengthy Hunter build time.
downunderblue
Member
As an outsider, it does puzzle me why the Hunter is taking so long to actually commision a ship.
Maybe it's an example of how precious and difficult to maintain that industrial capacity is? It's a compounding factor with new in class.
I dealy hope that ANAO is forensically embedded with each new project (GPF @ Henderson, that and yes of course SSN AUKUS) as we can't afford any more delays or shock announcements. Innovation (like war) seems to require trying/ failing/ reflecting / adjusting/ retrying etc and not afraid of making mistakes.
Something tells me we have industry, state and federal government's all ready to make big promises (and press releases) but ready to blame anyone at the first opportunity. I don't mind errors as it's a natural way to learn and grow but we need to have the right attitude, resourcing and maturity here to make it all work, on time and preferably on budget. ANAO has a good BS meter and we need to accept transparency here get this right.
That term "nation building endeavour" is accurate, and we all need to be pulling in the right direction to make this work.
SSN AUKUS has the added complexity of more partners too. The Suffren took NG almost a decade (will need to check that but it's close) to get it right, and we seriously don't need any delays with that program considering how important it is to put deterant/ area denial focus.
12-16 B-21 anyone, or is that just another can of worms ... It would offset risk ...
Too many variables/ not enough time ... but that reflects the nature of conflict/ deteriorated geopolitics, I guess.
Some good reads
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
-Just 70 crew including aircrew and maintainers in wartime…
New FFM double the price of Mogami. (Needs translating)
news.yahoo.co.jp
Mogami frigate – 'fast and stealthy, like a ninja' - APDR
During a visit to Japan a group of journalists were given unprecedented access to one of two contenders for SEA 3000 the Mogami FFM frigate
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
-Just 70 crew including aircrew and maintainers in wartime…
New FFM double the price of Mogami. (Needs translating)
2025年度防衛予算案、海自「新型FFM」3隻の建造費に3148億円 もがみ型護衛艦から2倍以上（高橋浩祐） - エキスパート - Yahoo!ニュース
政府は12月27日、過去最大の8兆7005億円に及ぶ2025年度防衛予算案を閣議決定した。このうち、海上自衛隊のもがみ型護衛艦「FFM」の能力向上型となる新型FFMについては、3隻分の建造費3148億
news.yahoo.co.jp
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
The Brits already have a Type 26 in the water. It's frustrating watching our slow pace with the Hunters.
In focus: delivering the Type 26 Frigates | Navy Lookout
Type 26 frigate construction and shipyard investment – progress update | Navy Lookout
Its worth comparing and understanding the T26 construction program timelines to the Hunter program and I've posted two useful links above for the T26.
HMS Glasgow will have a construction time of about 8 years and a further 2-3 years in trials before commissioning. It started build in 2017, and it is expected in service in 2027 with IOC not until 2028. Cardif and Belfast have similar schedules. So call it 10 years from first steel cut to acceptance.
The batch 2 T26s (Birmingham onwards), are scheduled to be about 2 years faster in construction (6 years v 8 years).
https://www.defence.gov.au/defence-activities/projects/hunter-class-frigate
The Hunter program for the first three hulls is available in the above link. First steel cut in 2024 and accepted in 2032, so HMAS Hunter falls between the batch 1 and 2 T26 timeframe which is reasonable for a first of class. The second and third Hunters have shorter timeframes aligned with the batch 2 T26, both coming in at the 8 year mark (accepted in 2034 and 2036 respectively).
So the Hunters are taking the learnings from the T26, and are being built at about the same speed as the T26.
I should note this program actually says we will have two Hunters in service (admittedly one in IOC) by 2034 and a third with a crew partially allocated.
If you want to compare it to another build program, the Arleigh Burkes take about 2.5-3 years from keel laying to acceptance, so significantly less than either the T26 or the Hunters. However note this is after having built 75 of them.
Other comparisons. The Hobarts took about 4-5 years and the Spanish F100s took about 3 years.
Last edited:
They have 2 in the water and the cutting of steel for the 5th ship is ahead of schedule.
There is a simple rule, the more you do early on, the cheaper and more efficient it is.
Incorporate a change during design you slip days or weeks, during build its months, after consolidation, or worse launch, it's several months or years.
The best way is actually to set the design, build and commision with minimal change, then design in the changes you want in the next hull.
When you build, stop, build, stop, you can never do this.
The Hunter has AEGIS incorporated into the design, as built the Hunters will be more capable than the Hobart's in every way other than 16 fewer VLS. Factor in that the RAN is getting GPFs and optionally manned vessels that were previously not planned, the cell numbers are no longer important.
These ships will be the centre piece of our surface action groups, they are much much more than the RNs Type 26.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Yes, they will be very capable warships with most of the systems in place for a future AWD variant to replace the Hobarts.
Appreciate you researching through the Japanese news sites Reptilia. There is some information in them that doesn't make its way through to the traditional english websites, and these are hard to find on the standard google search.Some good reads
Mogami frigate – 'fast and stealthy, like a ninja' - APDR
During a visit to Japan a group of journalists were given unprecedented access to one of two contenders for SEA 3000 the Mogami FFM frigate
-Just 70 crew including aircrew and maintainers in wartime…
New FFM double the price of Mogami. (Needs translating)
2025年度防衛予算案、海自「新型FFM」3隻の建造費に3148億円 もがみ型護衛艦から2倍以上（高橋浩祐） - エキスパート - Yahoo!ニュース
政府は12月27日、過去最大の8兆7005億円に及ぶ2025年度防衛予算案を閣議決定した。このうち、海上自衛隊のもがみ型護衛艦「FFM」の能力向上型となる新型FFMについては、3隻分の建造費3148億
From reading of this ships defences I may have missed it but does appear to rely on stealth and being able to shot down incoming missiles in its defence ,would systems like llkara being added be of use ,this article by Navy lookout goes in to what the Royal navy is doing
www.navylookout.com
Royal Navy upgrades its passive decoy launchers | Navy Lookout
www.navylookout.com
What’s that got to do with the RAN? We use different systems to the RN. But we certainly have multiple decoy systems; and in our view, ones that are superior to the RN, such as Nulka. It will be the systems the RAN prefers that are fitted to the Hunters, not whatever it is the RN decide to go with. They could be the same, but it’s not very likely.From reading of this ships defences I may have missed it but does appear to rely on stealth and being able to shot down incoming missiles in its defence ,would systems like llkara being added be of use ,this article by Navy lookout goes in to what the Royal navy is doing
Royal Navy upgrades its passive decoy launchers | Navy Lookout
downunderblue
Member
It's not apples vs apples, but ...
I had a chuckle reading the below from Kym Bergmann about MHI production rate for the Mogami [and referenced earlier in Reptila's post] ...
"As with other FFMs, it takes only 12 months to go from keel laying to launch – a world-competitive speed. During a subsequent shipyard tour it was explained to us that the secret sauce is to QR code all pipes" Mogami frigate – 'fast and stealthy, like a ninja' - APDR
Yes it might not be apples vs apples, but does the Hunter class have any special sauce because as a taxpayer I would like some of that.
As a non engineer or builder in general, I assume the actual logistics and project planning of assembly management are pretty important in ensuring on time/ on budget. I bloody well hope BAe @ Osburne are using smart solutions like this because we need to be better than average given the challenges we face in this theatre.