Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Fedup]

Ok, with some uncertainty about our sub sea force, we should do what we can in the mean time to have some sort of counter.
Why is the Hunter class such a slow build?
Or is it a slow build, I don't know, but I would have thought getting ship 1 in the water before 2030 might have been a priority?

Both Canada and Australia had some significant design changes/kit fitout wrt the T-26 that slowed things up. Both countries also had to make big investments in shipyards before production could begin. In Canada's case, our military procurement bureaucracy, moves slower than a residing glacier.

 

[SammyC]

Ok, with some uncertainty about our sub sea force, we should do what we can in the mean time to have some sort of counter.
Why is the Hunter class such a slow build?
Or is it a slow build, I don't know, but I would have thought getting ship 1 in the water before 2030 might have been a priority?

The Brits are quoting 60 months (5 years) construction time for the batch 2 T26s (time required through to acceptance). That's down from the 96 months (8 years) estimated that will be required for Glasgow, Cardif and Belfast.

The first batch of Hunters are all on a 96 month schedule according to the last government update. So at this point the Australian program is not taking advantage of the schedule savings obtained by the Brits.

Now the first batch of the T26 were held up by facilities, COVID, first of type learnings etc. Our facilities have been built, so I can't see that as the restraint. I did read that the T26 build cadence (time between starting construction on the next hull) from 2025 has been reduced to 12 months from 18 months. We have a cadence of 24 months.

The end outcome is that the Brits are building more hulls consecutively, and building each one faster than for the Hunter program

I suspect there are some supply chain issues that are not fully mature for the Hunters, but one has to think there is room to increase the build time and cadence for the Hunters.

I don't have the evidence, but I suspect the slower Hunter program is aligned to ensuring budgetry control over the 10 year forward estimate. I imagine the program can be sped up, but it will cost more in the short term. It will be interesting to see if there is movement on this as we gear up for increased defence spending.

 

[Sandson41]

I suspect there are some supply chain issues that are not fully mature for the Hunters, but one has to think there is room to increase the build time and cadence for the Hunters.

I don't have the evidence, but I suspect the slower Hunter program is aligned to ensuring budgetry control over the 10 year forward estimate. I imagine the program can be sped up, but it will cost more in the short term. It will be interesting to see if there is movement on this as we gear up for increased defence spending.

The Hunter program schedule was certainly intended to avoid a 'valley of death' shipbuilding gap and the resulting loss of skilled workers, etc. WOuldn't know about the senate estimates.

That schedule was drawn up quite some time ago though, and I don't know if it has been, or can be, changed. Certainly the GP frigates change the equation.

Simple timeline per the department (note the Hunter program ends around the point the future destroyer program should be heavily into the cutting and welding phase):
Annex A - NSS Forecast
From:
2024 Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Plan | About | Defence

 

[hauritz]

Ok, with some uncertainty about our sub sea force, we should do what we can in the mean time to have some sort of counter.
Why is the Hunter class such a slow build?
Or is it a slow build, I don't know, but I would have thought getting ship 1 in the water before 2030 might have been a priority?

I must admit the slow build time puzzles me. Going back to the Hobart you had a program that was plagued with problems. It even found itself on the Projects of Concern list at one stage. There were issues with poor drawings, management and building practices and as a result the entire project was behind schedule and over budget.

Despite this Hobart was laid down in 2012, launched in 2015 and commissioned in 2017.

Moving forward to the present day we have seen a meticulous design program with the Hunter that has gone as far as completing a computerised digital twin of the ship. They have constructed one the most advanced ship building facilities on the planet. They have presumably sorted out all of the management issues that existed with the Hobart build. Construction of the Type 26 appears to be proceeding on schedule with five ships currently in various stages of construction.

I appreciate that HMAS Hunter is first of class, and a complex vessel, but you would think that given the current strategic circumstances they would be desperate to shave a couple of years off its construction time and accelerate the delivery of its sister ships.

 

[SammyC]

The Hunter program schedule was certainly intended to avoid a 'valley of death' shipbuilding gap and the resulting loss of skilled workers, etc. WOuldn't know about the senate estimates.

That schedule was drawn up quite some time ago though, and I don't know if it has been, or can be, changed. Certainly the GP frigates change the equation.

Simple timeline per the department (note the Hunter program ends around the point the future destroyer program should be heavily into the cutting and welding phase):
Annex A - NSS Forecast
From:
2024 Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Plan | About | Defence

Agree with the valley of death aspect. The overall shipbuilding program was intended to ensure continuous builds in both Osborne and Henderson. And so it was slow.

Any increase in tempo, would need to be matched with an increased build of some type to avoid closing down production. In regards to the Hunters, then an earlier transition to the AWD variant (and a few more of them) would need to be part of the picture.

It would stand to reason that if we want ships more quickly (which I suspect we shortly will), then we will also want more of them.

 

[hauritz]

The Hunter program schedule was certainly intended to avoid a 'valley of death' shipbuilding gap and the resulting loss of skilled workers, etc. WOuldn't know about the senate estimates.

That schedule was drawn up quite some time ago though, and I don't know if it has been, or can be, changed. Certainly the GP frigates change the equation.

Simple timeline per the department (note the Hunter program ends around the point the future destroyer program should be heavily into the cutting and welding phase):
Annex A - NSS Forecast
From:
2024 Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Plan | About | Defence

I think Mike Tyson put it best when he said "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face"

I seriously doubt that Australian shipbuilders are going to find themselves short of work over the next 20 to 30 years. The original plan was to support production for a navy comprising around a dozen surface combatants. At last count that number increased to around 26. We now have to find the resources to locally build perhaps 8 GPFs and 6 LOSVs.

 

[hauritz]

The Defence Minister seems to be still pushing the idea that at least the lead vessel, HMAS Farncomb will be getting the full LOTE while at the same time conceding it will be very challenging. He seemed to suggest that ensuring availability vs recieving a full LOTE might be a concideration when looking at the rest of the fleet.

MSN

 

[downunderblue]

Commentary on Collins LOTE

Peter Jennings, former A/Sec of AU DoD and ASPI Director has just penned a new article on Collins LOTE.

Below is an excerpt:

"The comfortable continuity so loved by Defence managers is no longer viable. Dramatically new thinking will be needed after the federal election.

Government should start with the realisation that the Collins-class LOTE is not likely to work. The boats have done sterling service but they are old.

Even if the modifications are fully planned out, no one would be surprised if deeper structural problems became clear after work started.

Here’s what the government should do: First, cancel the LOTE. Second, buy three new smaller conventional boats, so-called military off-the-shelf boats built overseas, as a training force designed to keep a navy submarine capability functioning.

Third, put substantial funding into several promising uncrewed submersible vehicles now in design or production. This should have happened a decade ago, but even Defence can see today that underwater drones are the future.

Fourth, a major effort should go into building Virginia-class sub maintenance capabilities out of ASC and our wider defence industry base. We should do this to help the US Navy and industrial base deal with their own capacity limitations".

I've voiced opinion earlier on this (more to address risk of Virginia delay/non-eventuality) but these are compounded by his last point. For many reasons the Govt/ new Govts focus should be:

"Osborne, Osborne, Osborne, all ahead flank"​

 

[downunderblue]

Agree with the valley of death aspect. The overall shipbuilding program was intended to ensure continuous builds in both Osborne and Henderson. And so it was slow.

Any increase in tempo, would need to be matched with an increased build of some type to avoid closing down production. In regards to the Hunters, then an earlier transition to the AWD variant (and a few more of them) would need to be part of the picture.

It would stand to reason that if we want ships more quickly (which I suspect we shortly will), then we will also want more of them.

I didn't know our national shipbuilding strategy had so much commonality with Victoria's big build, ie talk about continuity but with a focus to line the pockets of your Union mates and secure their long term relevance (and resulting donations) in a bloated and slow infrastructure build. It's more about padding than the actual output.

I digress but on a mental note, if Dutton does build a state owned nuclear reactor, we need to be very careful about who is tasked to build it if he wants it on time and budget. My mind goes to Snowy 2.0 meets Hinkley Point C ...

And to think David Johnson thought he couldn't trust ASC to build a canoe ...

Yes I got off topic but these delays are unacceptable and the ANAO should be lighting a fire under it.

 

[Stampede]

Commentary on Collins LOTE

Peter Jennings, former A/Sec of AU DoD and ASPI Director has just penned a new article on Collins LOTE.

Below is an excerpt:

"The comfortable continuity so loved by Defence managers is no longer viable. Dramatically new thinking will be needed after the federal election.

Government should start with the realisation that the Collins-class LOTE is not likely to work. The boats have done sterling service but they are old.

Even if the modifications are fully planned out, no one would be surprised if deeper structural problems became clear after work started.

Here’s what the government should do: First, cancel the LOTE. Second, buy three new smaller conventional boats, so-called military off-the-shelf boats built overseas, as a training force designed to keep a navy submarine capability functioning.

Third, put substantial funding into several promising uncrewed submersible vehicles now in design or production. This should have happened a decade ago, but even Defence can see today that underwater drones are the future.

Fourth, a major effort should go into building Virginia-class sub maintenance capabilities out of ASC and our wider defence industry base. We should do this to help the US Navy and industrial base deal with their own capacity limitations".

I've voiced opinion earlier on this (more to address risk of Virginia delay/non-eventuality) but these are compounded by his last point. For many reasons the Govt/ new Govts focus should be:

"Osborne, Osborne, Osborne, all ahead flank"​

Agree

Plan B is not a LOTE for Collin’s, it an off the shelf conventional sub in what ever numbers deemed fit.

Gives predictable capability
Confidence for crewing (40 year old subs really )
Keeps the US honest with the Virginias that we have some redundancy.
Also hedges our bets with the Brits doing the right thing

Cheers S

 

[downunderblue]

Agree

Plan B is not a LOTE for Collin’s, it an off the shelf conventional sub in what ever numbers deemed fit.

Gives predictable capability
Confidence for crewing (40 year old subs really )
Keeps the US honest with the Virginias that we have some redundancy.
Also hedges our bets with the Brits doing the right thing

Cheers S

Could you imagine the delay and noise whilst the Govt organised another competitive evaluation process for the SSK's?

"Just keep digging, just keep digging". This is getting ugly fast.

 

[BSKS]

I would like to see an evolved Collins back in consideration should AUKUS not be able to deliver. We should not forget that this is an existing sovereign solution that is well understood technically by local industry and operationally by the RAN.

While not gold plated, it still likely offers an effective capability that could be further enhanced via new battery technologies, AIP or via teaming with UUV's.

Sovereign capability means we can build more units, carry out repairs as needed and evolve the design to meet our own requirements even during wartime. It means we are not susceptible to another country's changes in interests or priorities thus avoiding potential unreliability of our partners no matter who they are. With some help from SAAB/Kockums to lightly evolve the design and recommence a build program, it might be credible Plan B.

 

[DDG38]

Interrupting the coulda woulda shoulda speculation to show a great shot of an Anzac fitted with NSM :
"HMAS Toowoomba conducts a live fire gunnery serial while sailing through the Western Australian Exercise Area." Source : ADF Image Library

 

[Reptilia]

I would like to see an evolved Collins back in consideration should AUKUS not be able to deliver. We should not forget that this is an existing sovereign solution that is well understood technically by local industry and operationally by the RAN.

While not gold plated, it still likely offers an effective capability that could be further enhanced via new battery technologies, AIP or via teaming with UUV's.

Sovereign capability means we can build more units, carry out repairs as needed and evolve the design to meet our own requirements even during wartime. It means we are not susceptible to another country's changes in interests or priorities thus avoiding potential unreliability of our partners no matter who they are. With some help from SAAB/Kockums to lightly evolve the design and recommence a build program, it might be credible Plan B.

The evolved collins is the C718, the largest variant of the A26 aimed at Australia, Canada and the Netherlands.
Its expandable so you can add in a VLS module with 18 cells.

Oceanic Extended range | Saab

Oceanic Extended (XR) range submarines enable long-distance operations, suitable for any navy using forward deployment of their submarines on extended missions.

www.saab.com

Saab - Damen Offering C718 Submarine to the Netherlands - Naval News

Sweden’s Saab Kockums and its Dutch partner Damen are proposing the C718 submarine for the Dutch Walrus class replacement program.

www.navalnews.com

This is not really an option because it would take several years to build.

 

[the road runner]

I would like to see an evolved Collins back in consideration should AUKUS not be able to deliver. We should not forget that this is an existing sovereign solution that is well understood technically by local industry and operationally by the RAN.

Sovereign to Kockums not Australia. Sure we may own some tech in the Collins but over all the IP is owned by Kockums

 

[downunderblue]

Interrupting the coulda woulda shoulda speculation to show a great shot of an Anzac fitted with NSM :
"HMAS Toowoomba conducts a live fire gunnery serial while sailing through the Western Australian Exercise Area." Source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 52463

Is she aiming at a red balloon on the horizon and/or did we give sufficient notice of a 'life fire' exercise given the proximity of the PLA-N TF? I think it was meant to be 24-36hrs notice similar to the notice they provided PNG??!

Apologies in advance but I just couldn't not take the bait.

 

[Morgo]

The evolved collins is the C718, the largest variant of the A26 aimed at Australia, Canada and the Netherlands.
Its expandable so you can add in a VLS module with 18 cells.

Oceanic Extended range | Saab

Oceanic Extended (XR) range submarines enable long-distance operations, suitable for any navy using forward deployment of their submarines on extended missions.

www.saab.com

Saab - Damen Offering C718 Submarine to the Netherlands - Naval News

Sweden’s Saab Kockums and its Dutch partner Damen are proposing the C718 submarine for the Dutch Walrus class replacement program.

www.navalnews.com

This is not really an option because it would take several years to build.

What’s the little thing up near the bow? It looks like it’s excited to see you.

Edit: I’d never noticed them before on the Collins’ but they’re there as well. What are they (to the extent people are able to share)?

Edit 2: Apologies mods you can delete this post - did my own research and worked out it’s a housing for a hydrophone. Very interesting.

 

[ADMk2]

Rheinmetall Starts Work On Countermeasures Systems For Australian Navy

Rheinmetall Starts Work On Countermeasures Systems For Australian Navy

www.navyleaders.com

Defence firm Rheinmetall has announced its Australian arm has begun assembly work on six MASS countermeasures systems destined to be installed on Royal Australian Navy (RAN) frigates and destroyers.

As per a recent Rheinmetall Defence Australia press statement, the Multi Ammunition Soft Kill (MASS) systems are scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2027. The €125m contract was secured in May 2023 and the systems will initially be used to equip its Hobart-class destroyers and ANZAC-class frigates.

 

[iambuzzard]

Interrupting the coulda woulda shoulda speculation to show a great shot of an Anzac fitted with NSM :
"HMAS Toowoomba conducts a live fire gunnery serial while sailing through the Western Australian Exercise Area." Source : ADF Image Library
View attachment 52463

What would happen if they did that in the SCS?

 

[Reptilia]

How many Anzacs have NSM fitted now? 3 or 4?