Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Not quite what it says, we have to be careful before things run away. Its says:
Which is nothing concrete. However, its not the craziest idea that has ever surfaced. We were meant to build 4, to replace 6 FFG (in effect the original DDGs were long gone). We built 3. Now we need to upgrade them, which basically means we don't have deployable DDG capability while this is going on and the project is going to cost $5.4 billion, yet it only costs $6 billion to build 3 new additional ships. Spain has a similar sized navy, it has 5 aegis ships based off this design.
Every non-ASPI explanation claims it would be additional hulls, not affecting Hunter builds at all. They would be replacing Anzacs possibly, but again, we had 6 FFG's, we effectively replaced them with 3 AWDs. Moving towards a navy with 6 + 9 is entirely reasonable and doable. As the existing hobarts need an upgrade in effect we may not need any additional crew for ~5-8 years as the other ships come out of the water for their upgrades. The RAN can probably build crew to crew the additional ships and perhaps decommission a single anzac (as per the plan in 2029). 3 destroyers for one old frigate seems like a nice trade. Plus there Anzacs may get another big upgrade going with ESSM II and NSM, which may free some topweight and provide a nice surprise. There is no reason to build less Hunters, its a much more modern ship. Once we get 6 Hobarts, there is no need to build anymore, they are quite an old and limited design. In 2040 or 2045 a new ship to replace the existing Hobart will be very much welcomed as these ships will be at the end of their lives.
Marcus from ASPI believes they will replace everything, but that is absurd. But no one else is saying that. So best he is ignored in this context. Marcus also believed that the new Hobarts would only replace the Hunters, 1 for 1. So in reality, the RAN doesn't really get any bigger at all. Marcus's proposal is a reduced capability from what others are talking about where the 3 ships would be in addition to the Hunters and we would have more newer ships, earlier.
We keep building them. They are frigates, not destroyers. They are ASW focused. They have flex space, they have ceafar radars, less VLS, different focus and will likely carry different weapons. The Hobarts are destroyers, will likely be armed with Sm-6, Tlam, possibly SM-3, and probably a SPY radar similar to the flight III, keeping a lock step with the Americans, their weapons, their integration, their systems. The hunters are frigates and will be very capable, but aren't designed or fitted out to be lock stepped with the US destroyer fleet. By the time the last hunter is built the first Hobarts will likely be sold off, to a willing 2nd hand market.
The first Type 26 isn't commissioned yet, so it was always unreasonable to expect Australia to over take the UK and build and commission a Type 26 based frigate before the UK who had started building and designing ~5 years earlier. BAE told the minister at the time this would be a problem (Pyne), who announced the timeframe had moved forward, then retired from parliament. This is not a work force problem, or a BAE problem or a design problem or an engineering problem. This is a political problem. The time frames of the type 26 didn't quite meet up with what we needed, so instead of creating a new project and some sort of interim build of Hobart's, the minister just made a wacky timeframe, and an unrealistic public expectation.
The Hobart proposal will have 3 new destroyers, of a type already in-service with the RAN before 2030. At which point a new hunter will joint the fray, but as a single ship won't really represent FOC and sustainable deployment capability. But will be a nice new ship and bring the RAN to 7 Aegis vessels.
IMO this is part of what the defence review will find. That we need 2-3 additional destroyers, and a new immediate start project will be launched.
I think it is possible to be optimistic about this possibility, but understand no decisions have been made, announced or committed to as of yet. However, the time frame for this would be to announce something by the end of this year.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
An increase to 15 hulls should be doable under current planning, which includes an increase of 18000 fulltime ADF positions. While we have no breakdown for the 3 services, it would be reasonable to expect the RAN to get at least 4-5000 of those positions. Of course the Subs will take up around 1500 or so. But that should leave enough to man 3 more surface ships.
Well there is a problem if we do not acquire new ships.
Collins goes into LOTE (80%+ the cost of new builds)
Hobart goes into major upgrades (90% the cost of new builds)
Anzac goes in for minor upgrades (smaller but still pulling them out), with possible LOTE for this if no other ships are acquired.
The biggest issue will be lack of active platform to maintain sailors at sea.
While building more Hobarts isn't the only option, IMO it is a doable one that nets more capability for affordable time/money/crew.
Other options include:
Labor had flagged building additional Hobarts before the election. So the Spanish proposal, while unsolicited, isn't without context.
32:20 Specifically mentions, while not building additional submarines, something like additional hobarts could help assist in meeting gaps and complimenting a capability undergoing change. So they have been quite open about this, before the election.
Collins goes into LOTE (80%+ the cost of new builds)
Hobart goes into major upgrades (90% the cost of new builds)
Anzac goes in for minor upgrades (smaller but still pulling them out), with possible LOTE for this if no other ships are acquired.
The biggest issue will be lack of active platform to maintain sailors at sea.
While building more Hobarts isn't the only option, IMO it is a doable one that nets more capability for affordable time/money/crew.
Other options include:
- Cancelling LOTE for Collins and the Hobart upgrades and plan to decommission Collins around 2030's
- Building more OPV's. At least people can go to sea.
- Acquiring another class of ship (burke, Type 45, etc) creating a long term support headache for the RAN and industry. Like much more expensive and likely to fall out of the time from of pre 2030
- Go as planned, through with the upgrade and then try to rebuild the RAN after shrinking or making it a desk only force, losing deployable Hobart capability, disrupting submarine and surface combatant capabilties and significantly disrupting training/career pipelines.
Labor had flagged building additional Hobarts before the election. So the Spanish proposal, while unsolicited, isn't without context.
32:20 Specifically mentions, while not building additional submarines, something like additional hobarts could help assist in meeting gaps and complimenting a capability undergoing change. So they have been quite open about this, before the election.
One question of course would be whether or not it would be acceptable to build these new ships overseas. As I recall that was the crux of the Navantia proposal. Personally I don’t think that should be a problem since no spare capacity exists at the moment to build these ships in Australia.
In my opinion the only alternative to building extra Hobarts would be to carry out LOTE on the Anzacs or accelerate the Hunter program.
In the case of the Anzacs there is only so much you can do with a smallish hull. Accelerating the Hunter program might also be easier said than done. The first ship won’t be laid down until 2024 and the first of class always takes time. It might not be possible to accelerate production until the 2030s.
On the surface a quick build of 3 Hobarts in an overseas yard does have an appeal. Whether it happens of course is another issue.
In my opinion the only alternative to building extra Hobarts would be to carry out LOTE on the Anzacs or accelerate the Hunter program.
In the case of the Anzacs there is only so much you can do with a smallish hull. Accelerating the Hunter program might also be easier said than done. The first ship won’t be laid down until 2024 and the first of class always takes time. It might not be possible to accelerate production until the 2030s.
On the surface a quick build of 3 Hobarts in an overseas yard does have an appeal. Whether it happens of course is another issue.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
What about cancelling the Hobart upgrade, build 6 new Hobarts and 9 hunters, run the 3 older Hobarts hard and pay them off in the early-mid 30s. Can't be any more expensive then the current plan at $5B. We are not going to get a DDGUP much earlier then a new build. If we can get 3 Hobart flight 2s by 2030, why the hell are we spending $5B on upgrading ships that will be nearly 10yo by then.
Are we stuck with the Hobart class as the only alternative when looking to increase the number of DDG's? IIRC South Korea has shown interest recently as well. From what l can see, their new DDG designs are very impressive. (The Defence Post)
There is nothing wrong with the Hobart. They are a proven design already in Australian service. I don’t see any compelling case for going through yet another convoluted selection process.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Flight 11 Hobarts would basically be the same ships as the DDGUP Hobarts, with some minor changes. A Jeongjo the Great, or a Maya or a Burke Flt 111 would be an all new design and all have around 40% bigger crews. You are starting from scratch again.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but any new Hobart built now will have slim commonality with the exiting ships, unless Navantia build them with the same upgrades as the existing ships. Which will be slower. Otherwise it's basically a matter of "jack up nameplate,insert new ship underneath"
oldsig
I am off to trade mark the name "SuperHobart class"
At least with Hobarts, they will have approximately the same size crew, many similar systems and its already "selected". While not quiet seemless, and the same, they will be broadly similar, in concept. The design did have a lot of work put into it when it went for the US selection for their frigate.
We could look at Burkes (III), Maya or other similar ships. But they operate with much more crew, many more systems and many different design philosophies and sub-systems. As mentioned by Redlands, 40-50% greater crew size. But also more maintenance heavy, double the gas turbines etc.
Navantia and the Spanish have openly pledged support. But this still doesn't make it a project or contract. Even if we say yes, 3 more hobarts needed. What specification, what equipment, who leads the project, built where and with whom, what are we doing with the existing hobarts if this gets up etc.? Which is why IMO any announcement needs to be made this year so things can start rolling. Some systems like Aegis are already on order, but for a new build you need more things. Spain and navantia may have already invested some money and looking at what to do with their 5 ships. Some sort of joint project might make sense here.
But even if there was an announcement of a project to acquire, a lot of details would need to be worked out very quickly in some sort of highspeed process.
Strategically things are very bad.
The Chinese are completely flipping out, firing missiles into Taiwan, the Americans have their own internal problems people are worried that serious civil unrest could occur, there is open talk if the Americans can hold Guam, Abe was killed, the Koreans feel alone, and there is an active peer war in Europe between Russian and a NATO candidate. In the background the northern hemisphere heatwave/drought crop failures are massive and covid is still raging and there is a looming global economic crisis. Countries are failing. This isn't the normal background of troubles from the last 70 years.
If the argument for having a defence force for a rainy day, well its raining hard. I hope the defence review acknowledges the reality of the situation.
Its always good to look on the bright side and hope for the best but the current global reality is unfortunately awash with uncertainty.
The defence review will hopefully provide a road map for the years ahead.
As to more Hobart's, well I just don't know.
Is it actually possible?
Who is the driver for such a decision?
Is this the best solution?
What is a realistic time table for entry into service?
Etc.
Not for or against the suggestion just need some answers.
As is even without their future upgrade, I thought the Hobart Class were a very capable vessel for a Navy of our size.
True or not?????
Cheers S
This make sense to me…keep them in the water while building 6 new at about the same cost and the sale should subsidise the new build to a small degree. …or order the 6 new builds and review to strategic situation at the time ( 2030 onward) and have the option of keeping them also….
Last edited:
Since it would take place over a 15-20 year period, it shouldn't be a problem, right?
Should be easy to get applicants, since may Aussies think an attack by China is likely too:
Aussies 'more scared of Chinese attack than Taiwanese are'
More Australians fear China will attack Australia than Taiwanese believe China will attack Taiwan, the resu...
www.9news.com.au
I raised my eyebrows when I read this. But, as they say, never let a crisis go to waste. Start momentum to get more money for ships, more ship numbers, and crew! Push Spain for those 6 new Hobarts! Then get another 15 Hunters by 2035! We're under attack!
Last edited:
All very nice going on about these fictitious new DDGs, but as other DEFPROS have repeatedly stated:
Where and how are you going build them?
How are you going to fund them?
What capabilities are you going to delete from the ADF to fund them?
Where are you going to find crews for them in a navy that already has crew shortages?
Think very seriously about those four things before you all start rabbiting on about AWD FLT IIs, or other DDGs being acquired. This discussion is going around in circles and it's starting to look like a convention of headless chooks. At the end of the day, a much larger fleet of MFUs is required if we are to meet the objectives of shaping and deterring let alone responding. Modern designs can allow for regular operations with significantly less crew than legacy platforms like the Anzac - especially important for crucial constant presence across our vast region.
There’s many options to achieve this, alongside the Hobart proposal. Each with their own challenges and potential barriers.
Alongside all of this, a rethink of whether up to 12 specialised, fixed-use platforms for MCM/Undersea Support are the best use of finite people, money and industrial capacity must occur when more flexible platforms could perform their tasks.
There’s relatively low cost, flexible, multirole frigate options on the market which have the capacity to not only perform those roles but a multitude of others - and the ability to easily adapt to need, threat, and use.
Flexibility and adaptability is absolutely key IMO.
There’s many options to achieve this, alongside the Hobart proposal. Each with their own challenges and potential barriers.
Alongside all of this, a rethink of whether up to 12 specialised, fixed-use platforms for MCM/Undersea Support are the best use of finite people, money and industrial capacity must occur when more flexible platforms could perform their tasks.
There’s relatively low cost, flexible, multirole frigate options on the market which have the capacity to not only perform those roles but a multitude of others - and the ability to easily adapt to need, threat, and use.
Flexibility and adaptability is absolutely key IMO.
Last edited:
Far too much discussion in this thread at the moment about magically building extra MFUs without any discussion about where the extra ship's company is going to come from. You can't just grow an Ops Room CPO overnight with the requisite class experience, nor a WEEO or MEO. I was speaking to an RAN combat course instructor just this week who told me that the category he belonged to had a 20% exit rate in the junior ranks each year. Recruitment in the current economic climate is incredibly difficult, retention of junior ranks so you can grow them into Senior Sailors is key to expanding your workforce. How about you put forward your solutions to that first before expanding the current fleet by another 3 MFUs ?
The first point is the one that most concerns me. Every substantial western democracy is in the same boat.
All of their shipbuilders are already flat out trying to produce extra hulls for their own navy, except those like Navantia whose yards need work...but also need trained workers after a slack period due to covid...and the likes of Korea whose ships aren't designed for physically larger sailors nor employment at long range for lengthy periods. Bugger that for a career...leads to recruitment issues again
oldsig