Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
That's a surprising gap between the department and the minister on expectations. I would have thought the department were better aligned with the minister prior to going into estimate hearings.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
If anything I think this hurts China.
This becoming public has increased awareness about the possible threat that China poses. This has the potential to result in further increases to defence spending.
Which will (admittedly only slightly) change the risk-reward ratio that China will have to take into account for any future actions.
There maybe a spinoff acceptance for the public that equates to an increase in defence dollars.
Navy may well be the recipient.
Will this hurt China ,well that depends on defence dollar growth which I suspect will be negligible.
This is really about a battle of words.
China also has a domestic audience and can now claim antipodian hysteria and hypocrisy.
Interesting times
cheers S
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Already happened with the Opposition's promise of 28 extra F-35s. If only we could get an increase of GPFs. If we went with Evolved Mogami it would be feasible if we had extra hulls out of Japan during local production.
Mind you, it all depends on manpower.
Manpower seems by far to be the greatest barrier at the moment.
I think there is the potential for a fourth hull out of Japan, and I suspect their offer will come with accelerated timeframes. Unfortunately we will need to wait for the tender details to be announced, as the Government (and rightly so) is letting none of the cats out of the bags.
I would view however that more than this from Japan will cause problems with their own requirements. Remember they are building their Navy as fast as possible and they have two old frigate classes that they need to replace at the same time.
I believe our own on shore construction will be capable of a faster rate of delivery but this will take a while to achieve. It is possible that the 11 current hulls could be expanded to a 15 or even 18 hull program in time, possibly completed in the same timeframe as the current 11. Hunters could be built faster as well. We just chose a slower tempo to control costs.
Unlikely to see anything on additional frigates before the next strategic review (which at a two year cadence is now only 12 months away).
Ordering additional F35s is easy as it is a long term future order (5 yrs plus) and is very simple to execute (FMS). And its red meat to the Americans. I should also note that 28 F35s would be about the same price as 3 GPFs or 1 Hunter.
What gives better bang for buck? I'm thinking the F35s.
Or would Australians prefer more GP bulk billing under medicare?
Last edited:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
If Hunter is sped up, that adds scope for additional ships to be ordered.
Alternatively, if speed is considered more important then commonality, both A200 and FFM could be purchased, with one of them being purely a small number count offshore build to get numbers quickly.
At roughly $6.6 billion per ship for the first batch (according to senate estimates), can’t see us buying more hunters beyond the 6.
Dont think we need more than 9-10 tier 1 ships, just alot more tier 2.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Is that the build cost or the through life cost though?
Also, how much of that are one off costs such as R&D, integration costs and infrastructure upgrades?
A second batch would presumably be significantly less expensive on a per ship basis.
I think we need to be careful with these costings calculated on a per ship basis.
If we do the same maths as for the $6.6B Hunter figure for the GPFs, we know that over the next 10 years (2034) we will get four GPFs (3 overseas, 1 local) at $7-11B. The per ship GPF number (using the same metric as people are for the Hunter) is therefore somewhere between $1.8-2.8B, when we know the current upgraded Mogami is in the order of $1-1.2B for the first Japanese hulls (the most expensive first of class ones).
There are a lot of additional costs that go into the all in number (including sunk costs, support costs and future build infrastructure costs) and we don't have sufficient information to be able to separate it out.
I will set my bets that the second three Hunters will not have the same price tag as the first three (CPI corrected). I would be very surprised if this platform is not rolled forward for the Hobart replacement. A third batch will be even cheaper and the line will be hot.
Likewise the full cycle price tag for the GPFs will be an order of magnitude more than $11B.
If we do the same maths as for the $6.6B Hunter figure for the GPFs, we know that over the next 10 years (2034) we will get four GPFs (3 overseas, 1 local) at $7-11B. The per ship GPF number (using the same metric as people are for the Hunter) is therefore somewhere between $1.8-2.8B, when we know the current upgraded Mogami is in the order of $1-1.2B for the first Japanese hulls (the most expensive first of class ones).
There are a lot of additional costs that go into the all in number (including sunk costs, support costs and future build infrastructure costs) and we don't have sufficient information to be able to separate it out.
I will set my bets that the second three Hunters will not have the same price tag as the first three (CPI corrected). I would be very surprised if this platform is not rolled forward for the Hobart replacement. A third batch will be even cheaper and the line will be hot.
Likewise the full cycle price tag for the GPFs will be an order of magnitude more than $11B.
Last edited:
Continuous builds.
Build batches of three to five, evolve, build another batch.
When after several batches technology has evolved so much you need a new platform, use as many carry over systems as you can.
If you need a revolutionary change build a prototype or a small batch, concurrently with an evolved batch.
Build batches of three to five, evolve, build another batch.
When after several batches technology has evolved so much you need a new platform, use as many carry over systems as you can.
If you need a revolutionary change build a prototype or a small batch, concurrently with an evolved batch.
As you would know far better than me, controlling costs but also controlling crewing.
If the Hunters were built quicker then large crews with many new technical roles need to be ready sooner just as the RAN is massively expanding its submarine workforce.
Whenever people propose accelerating a build. Where does the trained crew come from to make the asset usable?
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
That's why we need reserves. If the situation is looking grim we will need to convince former personnel to re enlist. The GPFs are a better option for upping the drumbeat with lower crewing and higher automation.
The Hunters will be more manpower intensive.
I like this.
Still very concerned here that we help pay for increased production and it doesn’t eventuate. And at this point I don’t believe the current admin can be trusted. It seems Allies are only good with a cheque book but the art of the deal is get the money and work out what will be delivered in return at a later date.
Last edited:
Additional platforms are always welcome and there is a case for additional F35s
The questions are would they be an addition to the air fleet or just a replacement for the early retirement of the S Hornet.
What is the time table for NSM and LRASM on the F35
Are we better off with the money spent on capability for the Navy. ie additional ships.
I can see an additional supply ship in that mix.
Cheers S
I wasn't saying it should or will be, just that it could be. Maybe we use the extra capacity to build some ships for Japan or Indonesia.
Also, small crewed ships are easier to expand the fleet size on. GPFs have this advantage if we so choose.
To your point on submarines, it was raised in the Senate estimates that we now have over 100 people in the Virginia and Astute programs, with this number to be doubled over 2025. There is also 130 ASC personnel in Hawaii learning the maintenance side. That is a substantial achievement.
Agree, I’d also like to see Austal move past the Evolved Capes and build something a bit bigger and more capable, an OCV for duel BF/RAN use.
You could get overseas yards to help out.
Eg
Team Vigilance | Next Generation Naval Vessel
Team Vigilance is a collaboration between Vard Marine, Ontario Shipyards, Thales Canada, SH Defence, and Fincantieri. The Vigilance Next Generation Naval Vessel was launched at CANSEC 2023. It is tailored to the future needs of the Royal Canadian Navy and aims to replace the Kingston Class...
www.teamvigilance.com
Last edited:
Perhaps if we do go ahead with the Mogami, we could use it to develop the LOCSV as it already has low crew requirement and 32 cells. May be easier if we are already building them to follow on with some stripped down versions leaving only what is necessary for the LOCSV, just a thought.